Cleland
It's not the biggest deal in the world, per se, but continuing liberal obsession with Max Cleland strikes me as a bit odd. Josh Marshall hails a witty Cleland line at a campaign event for John Tester and remarks: "If the Dems take Congress, that image will bookend the era of Bush mendacity for me, along with the attack ad the GOP ran against the triple-amputee Cleland in the 2002 election, questioning his courage during the run-up to the Iraq War."
The infamous anti-Cleland ad was legitimately scummy, presenting a seriously distorted and underhanded view of the issues at hand. That said, what does Cleland's triple-amputee status have to do with it? Saxby Chambliss wasn't attacking Cleland's personal bravery, he was attacking Cleland's policies. Democrats over and over again seem to think that biographical qualities either are or out to somehow immunize nominees from political attacks based on national security issues and they keep getting burned. They need to get over it -- the world doesn't work that way and the world shouldn't work that way. This is on a par with whining that Republicans are politicizing national security. Well, guess what, national security is a political issue. The Democratic Party is full of politicians. They need to learn to do politics -- the whining just looks weak and pathetic.
Meanwhile, there's a real lesson to be learned from the Cleland campaign. If you read Tom Ricks' Fiasco, Cleland more-or-less admits that he thought authorizing the use of military force against Iraq was a bad idea, but he voted to do it anyway because he thought it would inoculate him against GOP attacks. Cleland, sure, was not alone in this. But it didn't work. He couldn't take national security off the table, and he lost anyway. Had he acted more courageously and stood up for his beliefs, he almost certainly would have lost the election anyway. But had Democrats as a whole voted against the war, they'd be far better-positioned to take advantage of the sorry state of Iraq today than they actually are. In a pinch, it actually helps in politics to be right -- undue cynicism has fairly minimal benefits. That's the real lesson here.
Comments
ObNitpick: that's Josh's guestblogger DK, not Josh.
Re: Democrats over and over again seem to think that biographical qualities either are or out to somehow immunize nominees from political attacks based on national security issues and they keep getting burned.
Why is it then that the GOP can get away with this in other matters? Sen Frist for example has presented his MD credentials as making him authoratative on abortion, stem cells, Terri Schiavo and healthcare reform. And every Republican who once ran a business (even if he ran it into the ground) is always saying "I actually have made a payroll" whenever financial matters or workplace regulations are under debate. What's wrong with a decorated veteran claiming similar bona fides on matters of war and peace?
It's worse than that. Not only do Democrats foolishly think that biographical qualities may immunize their nominees from political attacks based on national security issues but also the actual biographical qualities of Democrat nominees (drawn from the rich, officer class or draft-avoiding establishment demographics) in fact makes them profoundly prone to looking to straddle/immunise/Iran-is-the-real-danger strategies on national security rather than the full-throated 'Invading Iraq is Crazy', 'Bombing Iran would be mad' etc alternatives.
I agree that the Democrats need to be better at politics. And voting for a war you don't believe in gives me the creeps.
But I reserve the right to complain about the way Cleland was treated. While it may be true that a person's biography shouldn't immunize them from being told how wrong they might be that's not the only thing that happened with Cleland. As Matthew pointed out, the GOP distorted the issue. But they didn't stop there; they ran pictures of Cleland next to Osama Bin Laden. Should leaving 3 limbs in Vietnam inoculate you from being falsely accused of giving aid and comfort to terrorists and sworn enemies of America? The answer is YES.
It's true that the world doesn't work that way, but I'm not sure what to make of Matthew's claim that it shouldn't work that way. Why shouldn't it? After all, Cleland wasn't just criticized for his opinion. No, after they distorted the issue, they implicitly compared him to terrorists. Now that should almost never happen, but it should literally never be the case that a person loses 3 limbs fighting for their country, only to have someone distort their views so they can run pictures of them next to America's enemies. That's what happened with Cleland.
The GOP has been playing the flag waving, tough on defense, patriotic party for the last quarter of a century. That means they ought not disgrace veterans like Max Cleland, at least if without me calling them a bunch of demagogues and hypocrites. If they simply wish to point out why they disagree, fine, but the hyperbole, (combined with their self-righteousness), makes it unacceptable.
Maybe the professional politicians should stop whining, be tougher, and start doing a better job of defending themselves, but if the Dems become as willing and able as the GOP to do stuff like the Swift Boat Veteran tactics, or the Cleland ads, or the tactics pulled on McCain in South Carolina, then I won't be a Democrat anymore. It may be naïve, but I think we can be politically shrewd and efficient without being as nasty as the GOP.
If the Democrats had voted en bloc against the Iraq war, the neocons wouldn't have had carte blanche and the conduct of the war might have been very different.
Matt makes a good point. It is not about bio or how many medals you have it is about how you project yourself.
If you are perceived as defensive or wimpy no "chest full of medals" will protect you from GOP attacks.
The answer isn't bio. Its the will to fight back. Not to be afraid to get in the gutter and splash some dirt in your opponent's face.
Newt is a draft dodger and yet the public does not see him as "weak on defense". It has to do with the fact that he is always on the attack. The public may not like Newt but they don't see him as a wimp.
Since Bush/Cheney stole the 2000 election, Unemployment went up from 4% to over 6%. During President Clinton's term, unemployment went down from 7% to 4%. Americans living under the Federal Poverty Level went up by almost 7 million from 2000 to 2006, while during President Clinton's term the number of impoverished Americans went down by 7.7 million.
Since Bush/Cheney stole the election in 2000, the share of income going to our poorest has gone down to all-time record levels and the percentage of income going to the richest 15% of Americans rose to all-time record levels. The average amount by which Americans fell below the poverty level also hit a record of $2,707. Experts don’t expect the trend to change unless Republican policys are reversed.
Over 1.5 million jobs were lost from early 2001 to late 2002. During President Clinton's term, more than 22 million jobs were gained. More than 2 million people were laid off in 2001 by Republican-owned companies such as Enron and Worldcom, and another 2 million layoffs occured in 2002, according to the U.S. Labor Department.
The percentage of MBA graduates in the top 30 U.S. business schools finding a job within 3 months of graduation went down from 97% in 2000 to 80% percent in 2002, according to Business Week.
Since Bush/Cheney stole the election in 2000, our American Budget Deficit has topped 6 Trillion dollars, after a Surplus of over 400 Billion dollars was generated by President Clinton.
Since Bush/Cheney stole the election in 2000, their disregard for international diplomacy and their go-it-alone invasion of Iraq has caused Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear wepons, yet Bush has repeatedly and entirely failed to link Hussein with the WTC attack on 911. Bush, Cheney, and dozens of other Republican leaders were willing to sacrifice 655,000 American, Iraqi, and many other nationals lives for their own personal business and political gain.
Since Bush/Cheney stole the election in 2000, Bush, Cheney and the Republicans created ill-will among many of our former allies overseas by breaking nuclear treaties and refusing to sign environmental pacts like the Kyoto Accords. How can we expect other countries to support us when we don’t support important global issues our international neighbors care about?
Since Bush/Cheney stole the elections in 2000, the Federal Government has desecrated our treasured National Parks for all time by putting oil wells in such places as Utah’s Arches Park.
Since Bush/Cheney stole the elections in 2000, the total number of Americans without health care increased to over 46 million, the largest increase in over 10 years, according to groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. Bush/Cheney have done nothing to address the increase in the uninsured except to continually suggest that private faith-based groups should pick up their slack, and that the government should invest American's Social Security funds in the roller-coaster stock market.
Crimes besides those of the twice-unelected Bush/Cheney Republicans increased by 2% in 2001, according to the FBI, the first increase in more than a decade. Republicans care more about school children saying the Pledge of Allegiance than significantly increasing funding for education, especially lowering tuition and fees for Higher Education, which will do more to further our pledge "Liberty And Justice For All" than simply saying that pledge.
Since Bush/Cheney stole the elections in 2000, Republicans have cut and run from several dozen critical domestic programs to pay for an endless war against a concept to support their friends who own the oil and weapons corporations, causing the number of homeless Americans to continue to rise, and since Bush/Cheney stole the elections in 2000, our American Constitution, Civil Liberties, and the Great Writ of Habeus Corpus; the foundation of civilized Law itself, has been shredded as sheepishly intimidated Republican legislators push to create an American Police State in order to appease their criminal unelected GOP leaders.
Since Bush/Cheney stole the 2000 election in our Supreme Court itself, even more radical far-right wing judges who will stop our elections to tell us who won and make other undemocratic and unamerican decisions have been appointed to our Federal Courts. Dozens of Republican officials embroiled in scandal after scandal, many involving despicable sexual crimes against children, continue to blame President Clinton for everything that has gone wrong under this despotic GOP tyranny, making a total mockery of Republican claims to their exclusive notions of "morality" and "responsibility." Most government Republicans are liars or worse.
Nothing has been done to fix the "problems", fraud, and outright theft perpetrated by Diebold and other electronic machines instituted by Bush, Cheney, and the Republicans in 2000. Bush has taken more days of vacation than any American president in history, including the entire month of August 2001, when he had early warning of an impending terrorist attack. Bush then remained on vacation for the entire month, doing nothing about the warning he had.
I generally agree. However, while it is true that Democrats can be expected to be opposed by Republicans no matter what, and that if they should expect on the basis of policy proposals, it also true that almost the main Republican method of political attack is the personal smear. Nobody had to vote for Kerry because of his war record, but what they did was falsely smear his war record.
What the Democrats should have realized is that none of the smears really should ever have been taken seriously, and that anyone can be smeared. It's not that character really is an issue for Republicans -- it's that character assassination is a tactic.
"Democrats over and over again seem to think that biographical qualities either are or out to somehow immunize nominees from political attacks based on national security issues and they keep getting burned."
That's right.
Just be glad you can't get troll-rated at your own blog.
Well, because they have a loyal, uncritical customer base that will buy anything they sell, while that same GOP base assumes that all Dems are liars and rank-and-file Dems are critical of even our own side. They have an easy job and we don't.
"It's not that character really is an issue for Republicans -- it's that character assassination is a tactic."
I have made the same point.
I laugh when I hear Democrats say they don't want Al Gore or Hillary Clinton or John Kerry as 2008 nominee because they have "baggage" and Dems should nominate a candidate without controversy. This is such idiotic thinking. Democrats could nominate Jesus Christ and after $100 million in GOP attack ads and FOX/Rush/WSJ character assassination he will be damanged goods.
Democrats should stop obsessing about finding the perfect candidate with the perfect bio and instead develop strategies to defend themselves. And the best defense is an offense. Unfortunately in today's media world offense costs money. It helps to have your own FOX/Rush/WSJ as well as a warchest for attack ads.
"Why is it then that the GOP can get away with this in other matters? "
GOP owns the Right Wing Noise Machine, aka FOX/Rush/WSJ...............hundreds of radio stations etc.
It gives them a huge advantage to get talking points into the MSM bloodstream, smear their opponents, defend their own kind.
Matt put his finger right on the real problem and the real tragedy. if the Democrats had had spine for the last 6 years and consistently said what they thought about tax cuts for the rich and the Iraq War etc, they would be utterly destroying the Republicans now. Instead, they will make comparatively marginal gains (which even though marginal may allow them to take 1 or both chambers of Congress), mostly unearned, the simple product of the total and complete failure of Republican governance.
I don't see why the Dems can't do both at the same time.
On one hand, yes, you can't expect to be treated fairly by the GOP. In fact, you have to expect them to be dirty at every turn, and come up with ways to overcome those tactics rather than complaining to the refs.
On the other hand, it can be helpful to keep complaining about it to one another. Keep nursing that grudge deep within. Fires up the base, helps everyone stay motivated.
Ann Coulter would be proud of you for this post, Matt.
And as the saying goes: If a frog had wings...
You are exactly right. But since I'm not One of You, the fact that I think you're exactly right might trouble you a bit. (DK, for his part, thinks you're "naive.")
Bob Dole's name keeps coming to mind in connection with this.
*
"Democrats over and over again seem to think that biographical qualities either are or out to somehow immunize nominees from political attacks"
That was, in a nutshell, Kerry/Edwards 2004. The Vietnam Vet and the son of a mill worker - what's not to like?
Reading this stuff I'm costantl reminded why the Dems lose. They just dont play down and dirty, nasty, unscrupulous hardball like The Republicans. They need to all learn the lessons of the last 6 years, and get in the mud with a lot more vim and vigor.
Republicans lie and distort in ridiculous proportions constantly.
Dems rarely do it, and the results speak for themselves.
Foley and his "protectors" in Congress and the Whitehouse are a perfect example. Few dems are mean enough to distort it in thoroughly unfair (and effective ways) to beat up the Republican candidates in races across the whole country.
I think I'm in agreement with JP. A standard Democratic response could begin 'In typically Republican fashion, my opponent has been spreading false and baseless slanders about me' and quickly, and I mean quickly, move on to something like 'because he needs to distract attention from his own record and that of his party, a record of deceit and failure that cannot withstand a moment's examination'--with a long list of devastating TRUTHS about Republican misrule next, which readers of this site will have no trouble supplying.
The problem with the things that the Republicans say about their opponents isn't, as the Democrats seem to think, that the tone isn't sufficiently elevated, but that they are lies and lies under the cover of which the Republicans have been pursuing policies that are a disaster for everyone except the plutocrats and religious fruitcakes who make up their base and may even, if things get bad enough, affect them.
The ridiculous spectacle of Democrats saying, in effect, 'my good man I am obliged to call a foul; may I remind you that there are certain standards of civilized discourse to which a gentleman adheres and that we are, after all, in the presence of the fair sex' has got to stop. There may be such standards, but the Republicans are not violating them because they 'forget themselves'. The habitual resort to lies and slander which has become second nature to most Republicans tells us something important about them, something Democrats ought to make damn sure the public gets.
"Democrats over and over again seem to think that biographical qualities either are or out to somehow immunize nominees from political attacks"
That was, in a nutshell, Kerry/Edwards 2004. The Vietnam Vet and the son of a mill worker - what's not to like?
There was a lot to like about Edwards. The trouble was at the top of the ticket -- Kerry was easy to paint with the elitist brush, given his background, where he went to college (yes, Bush was a Yalie too, but he's shrewd enough to never pass himself off as one), whom he married and how wealthy she was, and above all where he was from: Massachusetts, home of those effete liberals. No wonder he looked like Mike Dukakis II and couldn't beat a vulnerable incumbent. (It's also why Mitt Romney realistically doesn't stand a chance of winning the GOP nomination in 2008.)
Democrats can't afford to fall into this trap again, as they will if the bosses shove Hillary down the party's throat. They need someone who has genuine populist appeal to "flyover" country, and Edwards is it. No Ivy League lawyers, please (and sorry, Obama, this means you, too).
The sad misfortune of politics in the present era is we need to respond immediately to what is essentially crap and then try to move on from there (unfortunately wasting prescious time and effort on nonsense instead of doing the people's business). They've made it infinitely easier to counter the BS but it's still a sad state of affairs. That said, one can only hope that taking over at least the house will not engender the same retributive/majoritarian politics that the republicans foisted on the american public for the last dozen years. Assuming all goes well, there will be two years to show America that democrats know how to govern in the publics best interest despite what will undoubtedly be an obstructionist republican minority. Assuming an underwhelming majority and no control of the senate, the best course will be legislating common sense initiatives (minimum wage, some effort towards universal healthcare and the like) knowing full well that the worst president in my lifetime (I'm 50) will utilize his veto a little more frequently than we've seen previously, particularly if he is not presented w/ legislation that can be manipulated by a signing statement.
You know, if you've had three fucking limbs blown off in Vietnam, you deserve to not have those injuries mocked by a bunch of moronic brownshirt fucks who were too scared to go then or are to scared to go now. If that makes me some kind of "elitist," that's just too fucking bad.
Cleland was pretty much toast, no matter what commercials they ran against him or how he fought back. Georgians were voting Republican and were endorsing Bush in 2002. Let's not delude ourselves that if Cleland had only adopted our tactics, he could have beat back the Republicans.
Except for his Vietnam record, explain why John McCain is even in the Senate, non the less a viable candidate for the presidency.
The way to beat the kind of attack that Cleland endured is to fight back on an emotional basis. For example, can you imagine what the reaction might have been in Cleland had cut an ad that had him looking into the camera and holding up his hand with the missing three fingers and saying something like "They didn't question my courage in Vietnam back in the 1960s, why is a person who avoided combat questioning it now?" You don't beat emotional ads with facts, you beat them with emotion.
I agree with DK and Dave. That ad was in no way an attack based on the issues - Cleland was smeared and his personal courage attacked in a way that should be out of bounds, period. Outrage at that fact isn't whining; it's entirely appropriate. Determining the most effective response to such despicable tactics is an entirely separate issue.
Mr. Yglesias,
As a draft dodging coward like Saxby might say, let me set the record straight: Bullshit.
The entire point of the ad is to take Cleland's courage AWAY! It could not be allowed to stay in the debate as Mr. Shameless had nothing to counter it with but DRAFT DEFERMENTS. So what’s a GOP tough guy to do?
1. Call Rove
2. Define problem as GOP coward running against Dem hero.
3. Refer to Atwater’s textbook and project your cowardice on the hero and question the
hero’s courage.
4.Continue the shtick, use Coulter (remember the beer), Use Osama and Saddam to plant the subliminal message that you are not like THEM.
5.I think I am going to puke.
You’re young Matt and certainly have no first hand impression of the time in question, the Vietnam era, but I do not have that disadvantage. The war, contrary to what most pundits say, was never popular. By the late 60's it was unpopular. Those that opted out did so on moral grounds stemming from that unpopularity, (Clinton, Ali) or just flat chickened out, (Bush, Saxby et al.)
That is how it was Matt. Those that went (I did) put their objections behind them and their patriotism in font of them and got on the damn plane.
It was that simple Matt. Your country needed you and you heeded the call. Or you took deferments and stayed home with Jody (look it up).
2002 in Georgia was never anything but Courage vs. Whatever and Sackby was a whatever man. I hope you don't think I am whining Matt but I do feel robust outrage an appropriate response to what happened to Max
Sorry, Matt, but the only thing the Dems need to take home from the Cleland situation is that they must attack the attackers frequently, virulently, and often. In essence, Make them eat their words.
If you want to see this succesful process in action, take a look at Brown's campaign to unseat Dewine in the Ohio race for U.S. Senate. DeWine started out with "pasty-faced liberal pansy" from the start and the Brown campaign has shoved it right back while keeping the message on point.
"Reading this stuff I'm costantl reminded why the Dems lose. They just dont play down and dirty, nasty, unscrupulous hardball like The Republicans."
That may be one reason.
There are others.
'You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun.' Elections are street fights there are no refs and no Marquis de Quennsbury rules.
Republicans and Democrats are opposites. Dems are reality based therefore they are good a running the government but generally poor campaigners. Reps are all emmotion and bullshit theories (supply-side) therefore they are good at campaigning and absolutely incompetent at governance.
Best tactic: Smile while they smear you and when they're done... Laugh in their face and ask, "Is that all you've got and does you're mother approve of that message?" And then clearly and quickly explain to the voters what you are going to attempt to do to best represent their interests when elected.
Maybe Dems should take a page from Jon Tester, who so happens to have opened an 11 point lead over Abramoff's best buddy from Montana, Senator Conrad Burns.
And here's how the people in Great Falls saw this last debate between the two last Friday:
And for a better take at what the issues of the debate were ... the reader will have to wait for the election outcome. There is absolutely no report in the Tribune about the issues.
So much for issues!
~OGD~
I think Josh Marshall's point about Cleland's disability was to highlight the audacity of the Republican attempt to question the patriotism of a man who literally gave so much of himself for his country. Because Cleland lost his limbs fighting for America, that biographical quality is particularly pertinent. Marshall has made this point more eloquently before, although I don't have a link.
Maybe if a Dem was to kick the crutches out from a Repub running for office, or pull someone out of their wheelchair it would exhibit just how much a hard a$$ one really is when it comes to gutter-style politics ....
~OGD~
ps: Too bad they did away with dueling...
"Republicans and Democrats are opposites."
Not so. Like men and women, the allegedly "opposite" sexes, we're more similar to each other than to anything else.
"Dems are reality based ... Reps are all emmotion and bullshit theories"
Getting a little musty inside the big tent.
Hard working hamsters (living on minimum wage) are kept up all night running the beauty in front of your eyes. They slave away powering Wordpress on the shiney new grid-server platform from the kind and loving people at MediaTemple. So if your considering stealing some content, please think of the hamsters. If that doesnt stop you, think about how far my lawyer can shove his foot up your ass.
sohbet, chat, arkadaş
Thansks
Sevgi Ve Aşk Platformu SanaSevdam.Net
sağol
trhankss
Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar
porno
sex
hikaye
sex
sex
mirc
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sohbet
thank you
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
sohbet
thanx mucu mucux
muhbabbet,islami sohbet,chat
Teşekkurler ( Thanks You!)
muhabbet,islami sohbet,chat
muhabbet,islami sohbet,chat
Thanks for you sites.
Thanks Your Four Sites..
Thanks Your Four Sites..
hikaye
porno
sex
sex
hikaye
sex
porno
porno
videohikaye.com
sex
porno
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
thanks
thanks
rhanks
thnkas
thanks
thanks
Post A Comment