Lieberman: Reporting for duty – yuk, yuk, yuk.
Reid: Howard?
The muffled sound of Dean's voice coming from a TV in the background comes over the line: And then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeaaarrrrrggggllll!
Reid: God damn it, Howard, are you watching that scream of yours again?
Dean: You know, it really wasn't such a crazy scream, Harry.
Reid: I know that, Howard. But once the press decides on their script -- in that case it was “crazy, out-of-control Howie” -- they'll recite it over and over like chattering monkeys. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. And that's why I'm calling. By fighting publicly over Iraq right now, you guys are giving the press exactly the script they want to read from: “Democrats in Disarray.” When Republicans disagree, the script is “Big tent GOP.” Democratic infighting, though, is always “disarray.” So we need to give them a new script on Iraq -- now.
Lieberman and Dean: What is it?
Reid: It's gonna be, “Democrats are the party of debate, discussion, and problem solving, and Republicans are the party of denial.”
Lieberman: Not the snappiest thing I've ever heard. Besides, Democrats are the party of denial! Don't they know they won't be taken seriously until --
Dean: We won't be taken seriously as an opposition party until our position on the biggest foreign policy fiasco of our generation is indistinguishable from that of Bush? Great idea, Joe.
Reid: Take it easy, guys. We're all at fault here. Joe, let's start with you. You and your pundit allies, like Marshall Wittman at the DLC, have done a good job of spinning things so that it looks like the left wing of the party is playing into the hands of the GOP. The reality is that you so-called “hawks” are playing into the hands of the GOP, too.
Lieberman: If you guys pick on me, I'll ... I'll ... quit the party!
Reid: Let me finish. If you were really serious about helping the Democratic Party, you wouldn't be attacking Howard and Nancy Pelosi for their call for an Iraq withdrawal. Instead, you'd be defending them -- even if you disagree with them completely.
Lieberman: But --
Reid: Let me explain. When you and Wittman and others paint Dean and Pelosi as off-the-reservation lefties on Iraq, you are accomplishing two things. First, you are giving the press the “Dems in disarray” script they so crave. Second, and more important, you are legitimizing the GOP's attacks on them. Right now, the last thing the GOP wants is to have a discussion about withdrawal from Iraq. The GOP is stuck between a rock and a hard place: They can't call for withdrawal of any sort, because that would mean acknowledging to the American people that Dems are right and that George and Dick's excellent Iraq adventure was an unequivocal failure. So their only choice is to stay the course, or slowly draw the troops down themselves -- while painting Dems calling for withdrawal as anti-troops and anti-American in hopes it will distract just enough voters from reality to get the GOP through the midterms without too much damage. It is imperative for Dems that these attacks be seen as nothing more than desperate partisanship. But when you and the DLC say the same things as the GOP, all you're doing is giving these despicable attacks bipartisan legitimacy! Why the heck do you think Cheney's out there pimping for you, Joe? I mean, do you have to read Rove's strategy memos to understand how this works?
Lieberman: But, but --
Reid: I'm not done. There's something bigger at stake here. If Democrats are ever going to salvage our image on national security, we need to pull off a major paradigm shift. The GOP, with the help of dimwitted and in some cases corrupt pundits, has successfully persuaded Americans that opposition to the Iraq war automatically makes you a dove. Doesn't matter if you supported the Afghanistan war. If you opposed Iraq, or want withdrawal, you're a peacenik. This makes it impossible for Dems to stake out a position different from Bush's without being tagged as weak. Rather than this being about dove versus hawk, it needs to be about what works and what doesn't, who can solve problems and who can't. But you, Joe, and your allies are keeping this about dove versus hawk by legitimizing the same “if you're for withdrawal, you're a dove” paradigm. You're ceding the GOP the rhetorical framework that guarantees them a win every time. It's time you stopped it.
Lieberman: But I'm entitled to my opinion.
Reid: Indeed you are. In fact, you can voice your opinion as much as you want -- and prove that you really have the best interests of Dems in mind at the same time! Here's how. You and the DLC types should repeatedly use your so-called hawk credentials to de-legitimize the GOP's attacks on Dean and defend the left wing of the party -- even if you disagree with them. To his credit, Wittman has started doing this a bit. But we need to be out there yelling this every day. Say, “I completely disagree with Dean's call for a withdrawal. But he's entitled to his opinion -- and the GOP's attacks on him as unpatriotic are disgusting.” Then you continue with the more important point: “Even if I disagree with Dean, the diversity of opinions in the Democratic Party is a good thing. At least Dems are trying to debate and discuss the Iraq problem and figure out what to do about it. The GOP, on the other hand, is in denial -- so how can they solve it?” See, that way, you can still trangulate and come across as tough, but you're no longer bolstering the GOP's main argument that any position short of Bush's means you're a draft-card-burning McGovernite. And you're furthering our larger message: We're the party of debate and problem solving on Iraq, and the GOP's the party of denial.
Lieberman: Fine. But if we're the party of debate, why haven't you told the left to stop attacking me?
Reid: Come on, Joe. Let's cut the self-indulgent crap. As much as your allies try to make you sound like a pathetic victim, we all know that you really want the left to attack you so you can be the tough guy and get more attention in the process.
Dean: Amen.
Reid: You're helping create the problem too, Howard, by reliving your presidential campaign in public. Save it for your shrink's couch. You, too, are entitled to your opinion. But, Christ, you and Nancy are the worst possible messengers for a withdrawal message. When you get out front like that, you're giving the pundits the script they want: “It's crazy anti-war Howie again, off the reservation as always.” Look at what happened when the Republicans tried to paint Jack Murtha as a traitor: There was an enormous backlash. The voters, for a split second, understood the GOP game plan, because in that case it was exposed in the raw. Why do you think Murtha drives the Republicans nuts? Because he is an enormous threat to their cherished withdrawal-equals-dovishness paradigm. But when it's you or Nancy, the voters are easily distracted and lose sight of what the GOP is really up to.
Dean: So what do you want me to do?
Reid: Say, “Senator Lieberman is entitled to his opinion, although I disagree with him. I agree with Jack Murtha. But let's be clear: The diversity of opinions in the Democratic Party is a good thing. At least we're discussing the Iraq problem. The GOP is in denial. They won't talk seriously about it.”
Reid: Everybody on board? Alright, then. Let's win in 2006. By the way Howard, do you have Hillary's number handy?
Silence.
Reid: Howard?
The background sound of a TV blaring Dean's voice comes over the line again: And then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeaaarrrrrggggllll!
Reid: Oh, Jesus. We're toast.
Greg Sargent, a contributing editor for New York magazine, writes bi-weekly for The American Prospect Online. He can be reached at Greg_Sargent@newyorkmag.com.
