Progressive Movement

Following in the footsteps of their Senate counterparts, the House voted to condemn MoveOn.org’s Betray Us ad. Well, so much for a backbone. Of course, this got little press, as I think we are finally past this distraction. But I still cannot fathom why the House of all places felt the need to even bring this up.

It must be one of two things. First, they are afraid of being weak on defense, and think censuring MoveOn will convince the public Democrats love the troops. Or second, they just wanted to get the Republicans to shut up so the passed the resolution and can now focus on real issues. I hope it was the latter, but like I said in my previous post on the Senate passing its anti-MoveOn bill, the vote simply splits the party, making it look like Dems cannot govern, still do not like the military, and that they have no backbone. That is what will be remembered, not whatever esoteric political gamesmanship the Dems think they may have performed on the Republcians.

Why have we had so many Republican Presidents since the Civil War? Except the the Roosevelt/Truman anomaly, ever since the Civil War Republicans have dominated the White House. In recent years at least, Republicans (falsely or not) demonstrate strength and leadership. People do not want nuance in the Commander in Chief. They want decisive action and they want to know where you stand. The Dems’ recent capitulations on MoveOn due to Republican hissy fits shows the exact opposite. Nuance and open-mindedness is for legislators, not the President, at least as far as public opinion goes.

I do think Hillary held up though, much to her credit. She is at least demonstrating some executive qualities.

The Senate also caved on Iran language this week too, passing a very stringent bill against Iran to coincide with the Iranian President’s U.S. visit. Just cannot let a good opportunity slide to make yourselves look weak can you Sen. Reid? With all this surrender, I can only guess what will happen over the Iraq issue - more of the same.

Iraq, Iran, Democrats, weak on defense label, MoveOn.org | No Comments »

Now this is how you message.

Wow, he does a few key things in this ad.

1) Given that many consider Romney a Repub in name only (RINO), he needs to create the impression he is a bona fide Republican. By attacking Republicans for not being true to their principles, he establishes himself as a ‘real’ Republican.

2) He distances himself from the unpopular Bush Administration, whom many see as betraying core conservative values.

3) In so doing, Romney casts himself as an agent of ‘change’, a key moniker when people are fed up with the status quo. And he does this while being a Republican replacing a Republican!

4) He deceptively lumps other Republican candidates, especially those in Washington, into the ‘not a real Republican’ boat, and thus guilty of creating the mess the Republican Party is in right now.

5) Lastly, he projects (inaccurately) all the failures of the modern Republican Party onto the Democrats, like unethical behavior and deficit spending. So he gets to attack the Democrats on top of everything.

Genius, and all in 30 seconds. That is great messaging.

This ad should wake up Democrats to the fact that they are still seen by many to be the party of deficit spending and immoral behavior. They need to hit back and show that Republicans have traditionally busted the budget, not Democrats. At least Democrats can pay for what they spend. Deficit spending is a huge issue for conservatives. The more Democrats can hang that albatross around the Republicans’ necks the better. It will keep conservatives from the polls and might swing many fiscal independents into the Democrat’s camp.

Messaging, deficit, Mitt Romney | No Comments »

Wow, what a bad week for the Democrats. First, they lose the debate regarding Sen. Webb’s proposal to demand that troops have as much time at home as they do in Iraq. Simple enough. This builds troop morale and helps their emotional well-being. It reduces the strain on the military and improves readiness.

Only Democrats could lose this debate. They had their opponent in a corner ready for the killing blow, and they ending up getting smacked down, running to your mama like a baby.

Kudos to the Repubs. In typical, Rovian fashion, they took their opponent’s strength and turned it against them. The Dems had a great bill that made intuitive sense and people could see would really support our troops. The result?

The conservatives claimed the bill would hurt the troops! How is being home with your family hurting the troops?! It is an absurd notion, but that did not stop the neocons from making the claim, forcing all their Pavlovian automatons to follow suit. That included the allegedly stalwart Sen. John Warner (R-VA), who initially supported the bill, claimed we need to start removing troops from Iraq, and basically stated that if things do not change soon there we are screwed.

Yeah, that guy. He co-sponsored the bill and then backed away, claiming it would hurt the troops. Now how does this happen? Because the Democrats were not creating enough public pressure on the Republicans by claiming that:

Anyone who opposes this measure has no respect for the military and does not care for the troops’ well-being.

How often did you hear the Democrats echo this refrain? If you had that talking point pounding in your head until you screamed, then so would have everyone else, and the Republicans, (more…)

Messaging, Iraq, Jim Webb, Troop withdrawal, Petraeus, John Warner, MoveOn.org | 3 Comments »

So much for progress. But notice the little add in there about Iran supplying the rocket. Very slick. Their involvement is simply a matter of fact for the media. If that attitude continues we will be in Iran by the middle of next year. Hope the Dems stand firm on not attacking Iran.

Iraq, Iran | No Comments »

Looks like MoveOn.org may get the last laugh, as media outlets like MSNBC and CNN cover more stories about how Petraeus’ numbers do not add up to reality. It is a rare day when the media actually does its job and contradicts the Administration’s fabrications. But the MoveOn.org ad may have been the spark that made this happen.

Much of what gets covered in the media is based on what others do. The media does not decide what they think is newsworthy and cover it, they cover what the public reacts to. In the case of MoveOn, their ad sparked controversy not because the media decided it was controversial, it got covered because Republicans flipped out. If they had just shut their mouth…

There is no better case for this than Gulliani criticizing Sen. Clinton for not disavowing the ad. Clinton, to her credit, supported the allegations of the ad and even questioned the veracity of Petraeus’ presentation when he testified. Nice! For once she gets messaging points. While other Dems were tripping over each other to distance themselves from the MoveOn.org ad, Clinton took the lead in tacitly accepting what MoveOn was saying, i.e., that Petraeus cooked the intelligence.

Now you see the media actually taking up the narrative MoveOn was trying to establish, which is that things in Iraq are not as rosy as Petraeus and Bush want us to believe. Even the conservative Bob Schieffer of CBS took exception to the White House claims, going so far as to say that we are “not winning”.

If the Dems had held their ground (more…)

Messaging, Iraq, media, Petraeus, MoveOn.org | No Comments »

Bush gave a big speech on Iraq today. More of the same - fear mongering. And it will likely not have any effect persuading anyone to his cause. But I do not have too much time to analyze the speech and how the Democrats responded, so instead, tell me what your thoughts are about the speech, the media coverage of it, and the Democratic/progressive response?

Or aything else on your mind for that matter.

Iraq, open thread | 1 Comment »

So by now you have heard some of the apoplectic outbursts from conservatives and liberals over the MoveOn.org NYT ad that ran yesterday. The problem is not so much with the evidence backing up MoveOn’s claim that Petraeus has manipulated the facts to support his escalation strategy (Gee, since when has a member of this Administration cooked the intelligence to promote a policy? Never have heard that one before. And yes, Gen. Petraeus, for all intents and purposes, is a member of the Administration).

The issue is with the headline, “General Petraeus, or General Betray Us?”

Here is my question? Is this good messaging?

This one is tough. The headline brings up the specter of the anti-military attitudes that many people had in the 60s and 70s during Vietnam, although those attitudes were blown way out of proportion by the right. Given the hammering the left has taken over the years as being anti-military, many liberals and progressives are wary of criticizing the military or the people in it. In fact, one could persuasively argue that part of the rise of Republicanism in the 80s and 90s was largely due to patriotic Americans thinking Democrats hated America and the military. A large segment of the population still holds this outdated opinion about liberals even to this day.

Fair or not, any messaging needs to take this into account. In the short term, I think MoveOn’s messaging does a disservice to what they are ultimately trying to say, which is that the escalation has not worked and we should view Petraeus’ testimony with skepticism.

It also detracts from that message since the issue turns from Petraeus’ whitewashing of the facts to ‘are liberals anti-American traitors?’ Now the likes of Sen. Kerry have to attack MoveOn when they should be attacking Petraeus’ testimony.

On the other hand, there is a practically unassailable attitude in the U.S. that all military members are heroes, morally pure, and utterly beyond reproach. That is why it is always so scandalous and controversial when members of our armed forces are investigated for war crimes and atrocities. Very few American can believe our soldiers would commit heinous acts. Check out the story at the end of this post for a great example of this.

And God forbid if you suggest a general alter testimony, facts, or (more…)

Messaging, Iraq, weak on defense label, Petraeus, MoveOn.org | 2 Comments »

One of my favorite Republicans, Sen. Chuck Hagel, is retiring after his current term ends. Where have all the good Republicans gone? One of the few anti-war Repubs out there, his voice will be missed. The irony is that this opens his Nebraska seat to former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D) who might reenter politics. But Kerrey is rather hawkish on defense issues and Iraq. I worked on arms control/peace issues for years and he was always a thorn in our sides. True, Kerrey, who stands a good chance of getting his seat back, is much more progressive on social issues than Hagel, but he could be another Lieberman on Iraq. Let us hope he sees the light and embraces a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by the time he gets into office (assuming he does of course). Either way, at least a Kerrey victory would help pad what looks to be a sizable Democrat Senate majority after the ‘08 elections.

Iraq, Elections, Hagel, Bob Kerrey | No Comments »