Progressive Movement

Alright, so it happened last week, but it was Thanksgiving, I hosted, and everything went well. Plus I am catching up on the early seasons of the Sopranos, as I did not really start watching until the end of season three. Just finished season 2 tonight.

But, something kind of important happened in the messaging world. Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) charged straight into the Pentagon, claiming that no one should trust the Pentagon since they lie.

Now, this is true, but was as it the right thing to say? I would be interested to hear everyone’s opinion on this. Hear is mine.

Olbermann on Murtha claim the Pentagon lies

Yes, it was the right thing to say. This can of worms was opened with the Petreaus testimony in September and the corresponding MoveOn.org ad. Did Petraeus lie in that testimony? Sure. Did the public want to hear it? Not exactly, but polls showed the public was taking the good general’s claims about success in Iraq with very few grains of salt.

Some members of Congress expressed skepticism over Petraeus’ testimony, but no Congressperson went so far as to say they were lying. No more.

As I mentioned in a post about the Petraeus testimony, there has to be an effort to deflate the untouchable status of the military, particularly in regards to Iraq. If we cannot criticize the military or create doubt about their information or motivations, then when they speak contrary to progressive policies, progressives have no recourse to counter them, and consequently we lose the argument.

Look at what conservatives have done to scientists over the global warming issue. Scientists use to be above the political fray, seen as independent, authoritative sources. However, now everything they say is suspected of political bias because conservatives have attacked their veracity. As a result, a large number of Americans do not trust scientists on global warming, and thus we are still arguing over whether or not it is real, even though that should be a closed debate.

Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It is time to create doubt in the public’s mind about the truthfulness of the military.

Messaging/Weak on Defense Label

Some fear such an assault will play into the ‘weak on defense’ label Democrats carry around with them. Possibly, but that can be countered by (more…)

Messaging, Iraq, military, weak on defense label, Petraeus, MoveOn.org | No Comments »

Now this is pretty sweet.  It is one thing to spend $15 million trying to sell the public on a war that is already in full swing and we are losing.  It is quite another to spend some of that cold, hard cash on shilling another war.  And to do it with direction from the White House, focus groups, and Ari Fleischer!

Now that is dedication to your craft.  We have two wars on, with a bunch of military commitments elsewhere, like Korea, Bosnia, Philippines, etc…, and these crazies want to pick another fight!?  The fervor for war with Iran has always confused me, but stepping up the game by putting serious money into focus groups on how to sell the war is hardcore.

But what I really see here is the kind of organization from the top this is often, in fact almost always lacking with progressives.  When was the last time you heard of the Democrats or progressive organizations setting up front groups to push their agenda through massive advertising and well-honed focus groups over an extended period of time with direction from the party/progressive elites?

Why do liberals not organize in this way?  Where are our back room meetings where the big dogs put up real money on extensive, long-term focus group efforts to hone their messaging around some of their key political agendas?

When I read things like this, I really worry that progressives and their political leaders just do not understand what it takes to get the job done.  Convincing the public that your viewpoint is the best takes resources, coordination, and time.  I do not see that kind of effort from the left just yet.

But all is not lost on the messaging front.  New developments do give me hope we are addressing some of our messaging deficiencies with the Republicans.  More on that soon.

Messaging, Iran | No Comments »

As I predicted, Huckabee is on the move, and the numbers behind the polls point to a solid Huckabee win in Iowa. Why conservatives did not get behind Huckabee in the first place I will never know, but I think a large part of it was the flirtation with Thompson, who has turned out to be a bust.

Now, right now he is a long shot for the nomination, largely because of lack of money and name recognition, but social conservatives are flocking to his side, and they are a huge force in conservative politics, obviously.

Now I am no Republican, but I like Huckabee, and heck, he got endorsed by Rick ‘Nature Boy’ Flair, and once you have been endorsed by Nature Boy, nothing can stop you. But the Huckster is rather progressive on economic issues, and he can work in a bi-partisan fashion, so he would not be terrible as a President.

However, the real reason I want Huckabee to win the Republican nomination is because it would flip a big giant bird to the U.S. political process. Well-heeled insiders and corporations run our system. Vetted, established pundits tell us which pre-packaged candidates are the front-runners even before any polls or votes are taken. Candidates need gazillions of dollars to run for office, eliminating all but the most wealthy and connected from seriously contending.

A Huckabee win would turn the system on its head. Not destroy it mind you, but shake it up enough to give real candidates who talk and listen to the voters a chance to compete. It would give hope to potential candidates with real ideas but not a lot of money that they too can share in the ultimately American dream.

Huckabee also bucks the party line on many issues, including key conservative issues like immigration, and we need more people like him challenging the political status quo.

From a purely sociological/political science perspective, (more…)

Analysis, primaries, Huckabee | No Comments »

Couple of interesting things happened last week before Congress left for Thanksgiving, including not funding the Iraq war, but as I mentioned in my last post, expect that to be temporary.

Analysis

But what of them not caving to Bush on the permanent revision of the FISA law that they capitulated on in August? Back then they gave Bush everything he wanted, included not needing a FISA warrant to monitor calls between foreigners and U.S. citizens. However, it was only temporary. Now Congress is looking at making those changes permanent.

But the House’s version makes Bush get warrants for snooping in on foreign to citizen calls, something Bush opposes, and it does not grant immunity to telecommunications companies who handed over their records to the administration without telling their customers. All telecoms did this, I understand, except Qwest.

Good move by the House (the Senate did not grant immunity either), but how long will it last? Congress caved in to Bush in August when they did not need to, allowing him to eavesdrop without a warrant, so I can only assume they will do so again. Yet, in the aftermath of their August surrender, they likely heard plentiful, vociferous cries of disgust from their base, so hope springs that they will stand firm this time.

Messaging

Still, the propaganda machine of Bush is loud and powerful. Even in this flawed CNN article (that does not quote a single Democrat), the White House’s quote has several great messaging points.

The bill, “fails to give our intelligence community the tools it needs, and it fails to protect companies facing massive lawsuits for allegedly stepping up and answering the nation’s call to help after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”

And it would, “dangerously weaken” national security.

I particularly like the bit about stepping up and answering the nation’s call after 9/11. Somehow it was the telecom’s patriotic duty to steal your inalienable right to privacy. Brilliant. One of the most unpatriotic, un-American things you can do is now patriotic. Where is Orwell when you need him?

The ‘we need to snoop without you having any 4th amendment rights is old news, but it is still a powerful messaging tool, even if it is losing some strength over time.

It would lose more strength if the Democrats would aggressively counter it. But I suspect they will not; instead they will try to brush the issue under the carpet and hope no one notices either way. Republicans will not let them do that, and you would think over time the Dems would have realized this, but alas, they seem to think that this time it will be different.

Democrats will get on the messaging bandwagon when they know the public is strongly behind them, like on Social Security, SCHIP (children’s health care), Katrina, minimum wage, etc… But if there is a whiff of controversy or the sense of an uphill battle, they first try to hold the field without doing anything, and then run if the enemy charges.

Not exactly the way to win wars. But maybe this time it will be different.

Messaging, Bush, Democrats, Analysis, FISA, eavesdropping, privacy | No Comments »

Congress went into the Thanksgiving break with flourish and tension in the air, but with many bills left undone. In fact, the most dramatic thing they did is what they did not do, give Bush his funding for the Iraq war.

Analysis

From a tactical standpoint, I think the Democrats did the right thing by not giving Bush his money without conditions like timetables for withdrawal.

I like the hardball play in the short term, basically trying to make the Republicans sweat a little. Next year is closer to election time, and over the next two months things could get worse in Iraq, putting more pressure on Republicans to support the Dems’ call for withdrawal timetables.

But here is the big ugly truth. Come January, the Dems will fold and give Bush his money without restrictions. There is no way they have the stones to not fund the war. Bush and the Republicans know this, so they have two months to complain about how liberals hate the troops since they will not fund them, and then those so-called liberals will end up funding them. So at the end of the day, the Dems get to be bashed for being weak on defense without getting the benefit of doing anything substantial on Iraq. Now that is bad strategy.

So regarding Iraq: Good tactics, bad strategy (unless the Dems prove me wrong and show up with a backbone next year).

Messaging

Well, not much new here, but again, I think this is the Democrat’s hill to climb, as the Republicans have a built in advantage on messaging since not funding the war looks like you are hurting the troops.

As this AP story shows, there are two main messages the Democrats use now. There were three, but with the slight reduction in violence in Iraq the last couple of months, there are now only two.

1) Holding Bush accountable
2) Only withdrawal will force a political solution in Iraq that will create peace and stability

Not exactly stellar messaging. The temporary drop in violence takes away a great message: we are not winning. And high levels of violence put more pressure on Iraq to find a political solution.

I have not heard too many prominent Democrats claim in recent months that we are losing in Iraq, or that the drop in violence means nothing. As such the public will slowly start to believe that we are actually winning in Iraq. If that happens we will be in Iraq till the cows come home.

Unfortunately, over time the violence will increase because (more…)

Messaging, Iraq, Analysis | No Comments »

Wow, maybe being lefty does pay off after all. As the NYT reported, due to the success of Keith Olbermann and Hardball going more left, MSNBC is looking to put on more liberal hosts in primetime.

Maybe cracks in the center-right MSM are really showing. On some level I have to credit the progressive blogosphere for this. They have consistently attacked the MSM for being right wing, which was not even in the realm of discussion back in 2003, and now it is a commonly held belief. But they have also exposed the hypocrisy, spitefulness, bigotry, and inaccuracies of the garbage spewed by the right wing media.

This speaking truth to power has forced the media, on some levels, to address this fact and be wary of being labeled right-wing, although not quite as much as they fear being labeled liberal. However, there is another factor the blogosphere has helped create. The public, wary of rightwing spin, seeks out liberal voices and alternative news sources. Hence the rise of Keith Olbermann.

Progressive sites started touting Olbermann, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, even Anderson Cooper, as legitimate news sources that liberals should support. And they have, and now that support has resulted in MSNBC deciding to promote their progressive voices and get more of them on the air.

Something else though factors in here, and we have seen this in the recent past. Americans, complacent though they are, love contrary voices. They want those in power to defend their position, and thus want to hear from the opposition. While not always true, and certainly the voices cannot be too extreme, we generally love people speaking truth to power.

Almost as soon as Clinton assumed the Presidency, (more…)

Uncategorized, media, Analysis, Olbermann, MSNBC | No Comments »

I was bewildered by the vote confirming Mukasey as Attorney General. The guy supports torture and basically said that if the government felt it needed to break the law in order to wiretap people illegally, it was okay. So why did the Democratic controlled Senate vote for this guy?

Sure, he would be better that Bush’s previous two AGs, Ashcroft and Gonzales, and yes, he basically has a year in the position, so what is the big deal? But the guy supports torture! In what universe does someone, as the highest attorney in the land, support torture and get confirmed? In what reality does the most powerful prosecutor in America say the government can break the law when it wants get the job of protecting the law?

Does the Democratic leadership really think the public will vote against them a year from now over rejecting 30% Bush’s AG pick who supports torture? If the Dems keep rejecting radical Bush nominees through the end of his term and we go without an AG for one year, is this disaster? Would the public care?

So instead we have another weak-willed Democratic Party capitulating to Bush and the Republicans because they are afraid of controversy and being called bad names by their opponents - or something. All I know is this is not the action of a Party that stands up for human rights and respect for the law. Nor is it one that fights for their beliefs.

That does not inspire confidence that progressives and Democrats can lead the nation.

So why on Earth did they abandon their alleged beliefs of supporting human rights and surrender on Mukasey? Can someone explain this to me? Where is the logic behind this action?

Nominations, Democrats, Civil Rights | 3 Comments »

There were lots of elections Tuesday. What happened you asked? Well, of course that depends on who you ask, but basically the Democrats cleaned up, at least in terms of elected offices. Not so much on propositions.

The Dems took the Governorship of Kentucky. They retook control of the PA Supreme Court and Mississippi Senate. Dems gained seats in the VA House and now control the VA Senate. In Ohio, the tale was even more dramatic, with mayoral slots in major cities dropping like flies in favor of the Democrats.

The biggest prize was obviously Kentucky’s governorship, but by and large there were no huge races. The Republicans lost in KY due to scandal, and the gains in VA were probably due mostly to demographic changes.

The other races, such as gains in Mississippi, point to something larger. First, running a strategy focused on racist, bigoted anti-immigration policies does not work, as witnessed in VA. Second, the public expects their leaders to do something. The Republicans have not, so they got kicked out. I think it is as simple as that.

Combined with this despite the Democrats being in power in some places already, they still made gains. Take VA. The Governor is a D. The public got frustrated with Republican obstinacy so they elected Democrats to help push through Gov. Kaine’s agenda. This should bode well for Democrats going into next year’s presidential election.

This should be a warning to the Democrats to make stuff happen. And honestly, if Democrats can make progress in the states, that will help federal Democrats next year.

But what does this week’s election say about ideology? (more…)

Elections, Democrats, Analysis | No Comments »