Why Filibustering the Torture Bill Is Good Politics, Part II


Let's talk Daou's iron triangle for a second. According to Peter Daou, probably the foremost student of how media, blogs and politics work together, for a story to get traction, it needs to close the triangle - all three groups need to be pushing a story out. Of the three the blogs are the least important, but blogs and politicians together can often take a story and push it into the media, closing the triangle and creating something that gets out there. (Path to 9/11 is a good example of what this looks like when it works.)

Now Senate Democrats are scared to filibuster the act that makes torture legal and provides retroactive protection to torturers, because they know Rove will come out with ads featuring 9/11 widows accusing them of being soft on national security. But that's not wise, since it's easy to counter their 9/11 families with pro-Democratic anti-torture 9/11 families - Republicans don't have a monopoly on 9/11 (the fact that Democrats act as if they do is a whole other problem, for another day.)

What is required for us to close our part of the triangle is for Democratic politicians to stand up and condemn torture as anti-American.

I am not convinced the media is pro-torture anymore. I am not convinced a dramatic filibuster threat based on "Torture is UnAmerican" won't get enough positive coverage to allow us to close Daou's iron triangle to jump from blogs and politicians into the media. Americans think of themselves as good. This is a chance to spill contempt on Republicans as UnAmerican and to flatter Americans with positive messages about how we know they will do the right thing. "Do the right thing, Vote Against Torture, Vote for American Values, Vote Democratic". Think that motto can be sold? I sure as hell do.

The Welsh family motto is "an optimist and a damn fool are the same thing", but we have become so pessimistic that we have the equivalent of "learned helplessness" going on.

This is a triangle that can be closed, this is a fight that can be won. This is an opportunity, viewed in the right light.

Finally - this is a chance for Democrats to become the opposition party. It is a chance to take the mantle of principled opposition away from people like McCain. And that is a necessary step, not just for 2006, but to help whoever the candidate is for the Presidency in 2008.


Ian Welsh September 22, 2006 - 10:27am

The problem is this should have started just as soon as the rovians (Bush, McCain et al) began this campaign. The Dems should have called their bluff - joined with McCain in principled opposition and demanded a role in any compromise. Having allowed themselves to be shut out of the process to this point they are going to look, as the rovians will label them, as merely obstructionist. After all the "principled" rovians (the McCain trinity) had already engaged the "real" process and had come to a "real" "compromise."

There will be no acknowledgement from the rovians (either camp) that the compromise was not real and fair. For them this was simply political gamesmanship from the first. The Dems, having no backbone whatsoever, have merely let the game go forward. Although you are right about where this campaign should have gone from the beginning it is too late now. The deal is already in the bank, the media have closure for the story, are already bored with the story and are just waiting for the next rovian distraction.

hvd September 22, 2006 - 1:46pm

A filibuster is a story in itself. Do that at the same time as you launch a national ad campaign, and bang, you've turned, pivoted and changed the battleground.

Ian Welsh September 22, 2006 - 1:50pm

But the filibuster and story is going to get bogged down in details. The McCain rovians, their credentials for being "principled" intact will vouch for the deal as not allowing torture and dems will once again have to explain in excruciating detail why they disagree and even worse, having extolled the McCain rovians principled opposition, why McCain is no longer principled. Too many words. Ho hum. Boring.

hvd September 22, 2006 - 2:17pm

Why Explain? Just say "this bill legalizes torture". Let the Republicans try and explain why waterboarding isn't torture. More than happy to have that debate, because you just turn and call them weasels.

Ian Welsh September 22, 2006 - 2:28pm

But McCain says its a good deal and McCain is an honorable man. Now you are left explaining why it legalizes torture.

Admit it we,ve been outmaneuvered again.

hvd September 22, 2006 - 2:47pm

Dems were outmaneuvered sure. That doesn't mean the tables can't be turned.

And it wasn't "we". I wasn't advocating this idiot policy.

Ian Welsh September 22, 2006 - 3:17pm

LINK



In these times you have to be an optimist to open your eyes when you awake in the morning. ~ Carl Sandburg

Tina September 22, 2006 - 3:04pm

Sorry about the we. I simply think that the news cycle has been lost and consequently it will be virtually impossible to "win" on this issue. However, it is always right to do what is right. And a filibuster and the sort of ads you proposed are essential steps to take to convince the American people that the Democrats stand for something. Remember, however, that this is the party that missed its Roberts and Alito opportunities to stand for something and that thus far has shown a total inability to display moral courage.

hvd September 22, 2006 - 4:16pm

If the bill will legalize torture, then it should be opposed by any means necessary. This isn't politics anymore. It's a straight fight for the soul of what makes democratic politics possible or meaningful. If you lose this to other forces that claim to be on your own side, you've lost everything.

billy68 September 23, 2006 - 4:52am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.