Luntz's op-ed in today's LA Times is worth a perusal. Readers familiar with the critique of Darcy "I'm running against George Bush" Burner will catch this passage in particular:
In every focus group I have conducted in the last two years, I've heard the same conclusion again and again: "Don't tell us what George W. Bush did wrong. Tell us what you will do right. Don't talk about the past. Tell us about the future."
One of Luntz's favorite target groups is the "mad as hell" voter, a la Perot supporters in '92. Those are exactly the voters Burner didn't win last year as she lost while Maria Cantwell and Democratic legislative candidates rolled in the 8th CD. Based on recent events it doesn't look like the message has sunk in yet.
Luntz also poses an interesting formula for the Presidential race that is tough to argue with:
The simple answer is that it doesn't look good for the Republicans. A GOP victory is not absolutely out of the question, of course, but getting there would take a forward-looking agenda, unparalleled message discipline, a strict focus on the millions of independent voters, an innovative candidate and campaign and a lot of luck.
Accordingly, here's a challenge to Sound Politics readers and your rhetorical skills. Please explain in the comments why your preferred candidate does and/or can fit the formula above. Ideally, the focus of such a debate should be on Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson since they seem to be the odds on favorites at this point, but have at it either way.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 15, 2007 11:57 PM | Email ThisGiuliani is going to face a swiftboating from firefighters and other first responders in New York and his unorthodox lifestyle might start to hurt him once his security credentials decline.
Thompson is undisciplined on the national stage and has a lot of the personal life issues that Guiliani does. He might be able to attract traditional(Reagan) conservatives better than any other candidate. He still has to convince the general public that he is not just an old actor and he has to do so while lacking Reagan's oratory skills. At the end of the day though he is still not Jack McCoy.
Romney has a habit of saying what will get him elected. That can work, if enough time passes between swings. He certainly has the Charisma and speaking ability, but he may have too much. There's a fine line between being smooth and being slick. There is also the Mormon thing and given that if an R wins its likely to be close, even 10 or 20% of say evangelicals not voting for a Mormon could hurt him.
Really though until we have candidates on both sides its to early to say with any real confidence who's going to win. People have a habit of ignoring party when it comes to electing presidents.
Posted by: Giffy on July 16, 2007 07:50 AMOh, and BTW I voted for Perot in 92. So much for that Luntz theory.
Posted by: Daniel K on July 16, 2007 08:03 AMI'm looking at the new Burner campaign ad on Youtube and the first point out of some guy's mouth is how Reichert gave Bush a blank check. The third point is that he's towing the Republican line on everything. That pretty much tells me the "I'm running against George Bush" theme IS very much part of the campaign.
Posted by: Mike H on July 16, 2007 08:25 AMAs such, they are not competing with the Democrats -- who are irrelevent -- but their former selves and the baggage of the past twenty years.
A Republican can succeed if he embraces the Republican party of Goldwater, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Fiorello LaGuardia and Abe Lincoln.
I think Giuliani fits the bill perfectly.
It's going to be impossible for Romney to meet that requirement as well as the requirement to stay on message. He's going to have to flip-flop again and again to go after the independent voters if he continues to kowtow to the conservative base.
Thompson still has the ability to meet all those requirements simply because no one knows what his message is yet, so he can frame it. If he stays out of the fray and lets the others self-destruct then when he enters he can aim at the independents instead of worrying about the conservative base. I don't see that happening.
Giuliani is obviously the only one that is trying to get the independent vote right now, so much so that he stays on message and chooses not to flip-flop when he should.
As for a 'forward looking message', none of the candidates have that and need to develop it. I would guess they could wait until Hillary is nominated, then it would be easy to compare them to the backward in time Clinton admin.
Which would you say would be an 'innovative candidate': Cross-dressing, non-anti-abortion Rudy, an actor, or slick politician that can turn on a dime? How about instead look at their campaigns. Thompson hasn't entered the race yet, could be an innovative approach. Romney who is behind in the polls is spending a fortune trying to win the first two states - not innovative, just usual. Giuliani isn't spending in the first two states, instead going after the larger states building up support for the general election rather than the primaries - maybe foolish but still a high risk, high reward scenario.
Posted by: Doug on July 16, 2007 09:08 AM
First- all 3 candidates are more articulate with a mouth full of caramels than Bush. That has nothing to do with substance, but it is needed right now.
Second specifically with Rudy and Mitt- they have a track record of making unpopular decisions that have good outcomes. The lesson here is that if you can't cook a spectacular omelet, don't break the eggs.
They haven't made the claim yet- but what needs to be said---and said with conviction and over and over again like a broken record is that the next president will in the next 4 years bring the troops home and leave a stable and self governing Iraq that is allied with us in fighting terror. A bold but necessary promise. All the Democrats can promise is a speedy surrender and right now given the choices more than 51% of Americans will choose surrender over a 12+ year war (not my choice-I'd have every iraqi male drafted into the military and showing up for bootcamp tomorrow if it were my call). If you can't make that promise, don't show up to the race.
All 3 give us clear and concise action plans on the border.
All 3 give us clear and concise messaging on tax cuts and the economy.
All 3 have spoken to core fiscal conservative issues very well.
All 3 have proven themselves adept at handling attacks and dumber than dumb questions from MSM that have nothing to do with the real issues at hand.
Mitt in particular has spoken the issue of the break down of family, though not crisply--- on the opposite side of the fence so has Obama. Obama's plan is to give more money to the State agencies that have done most of the damage (see Glenn Sacks latest run down)- aka pay DSHS to get bigger by collecting more child support. I think Mitt could drive a nail into that message by taking it the opposite direction, meaning states get funding yanked if they don't focus and provide metrics on keeping both parents involved with their kids.
In other words Obama thinks a black father can easily be replaced with $100 a month.
One thing that I think is lacking is what will be done besides Iraq. Clearly Pakistan is not doing what is necessary to put the screws to terrorists. Also the message with Iran is ???? fill in the blank because I can't tell.
Posted by: Andy on July 16, 2007 09:48 AM...
....
.....
......
whew that's a tough one!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 16, 2007 10:14 AMSpeaking of Wing-nuts do you stand by the Quote on Firedoglake's Blog with Darcy that YOU participated in that said "In the last few days of the campaign Rove operatives were calling EVERY household in the district telling voters that Darcy was about to be indicted as a felon, that Darcy was suppressing minority voters and Darcy was an investor in Big Oil. It was all smears and lies; typical Rovian tactics."
Proof? Charges? PDC Investigation? How about total fabrication. I live in the 8th, I know hundreds of people in the 8th. If they were calling every household we probably would have heard about it before this, right?
Posted by: Huh? on July 16, 2007 10:18 AMhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/wbush114.xml
America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.
Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.
WHEN THE HELL IS AMERICA GOING TO WAKE UP AND END THIS DEMOCRAT/LIBERAL DISASTER THAT IS SENDING OUR COUNTRY ON THE WAY TO CULTURAL-MORAL-HISTORICAL OBLIVION????
And look at his picture: that is one ANGRY Mus... liberal
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 16, 2007 10:27 AMhttp://takeastandagainstliberals.blogspot.com/2007/07/america-haters.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/startpropaganda/page12/
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 16, 2007 10:36 AMHmmm... I thought until last November, the Republican's were fully in charge of all branches of the Government. How is it that we are so far down this road to "cultural-moral-historical oblivion" when your party has been in clear control for 6 years?
Posted by: Splinter on July 16, 2007 10:42 AMWe ARE making changes in that young people are overwhelmingly rejecting abortion, with rejecting the 'free love' of free condoms and anything goes sex education, with states voting down homosexual "marriage", with a Supreme Court that uses it's brains rather than its feelings, with women realizing that a career is not as important as their child (except of course little darcy who uses henry as a prop in her melodrama), with parents turning agains public school indoctrination, with the increased attendance at churchs across the nation (even in this self proclaimed Godless state)
The problems of the culture can't be solved by one man or 6 years of right thinking when those of you desperate to destroy it are working so hard with
vile comments,
mainstreaming hate,
promoting the popularity of little girls looking like 'ho's',
victimization of anything and everything,
the phony propogation of class envy,
the latent racism of abortion, fatherless families, no-fault divorce and forced public education,
divisions of a once united citizens by the spoon fed mandatory diversity,
the glorification of drug use,
the in-your-face homosexual agenda,
the ACLU attacking Boy Scouts and defending pedophiles,
rewarding and encouraging mothers for out-of wedlock children,
"Christ in Piss",
honoring and ignoring bigotry by honoring rappers and comedians and
the mainstreaming of body defacement, to name just a few.
All those can be laid at the feet of LIBERALS: each and everyone of you is responsible for the degradation of our morality, our culture, our country.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 16, 2007 11:07 AMSo I hope (R) primary voters will wake up and smell the roses (or, rather, the gunpowder), and realize that whoever the (R) nominee is, Luntz is correct about starting out as the underdog this year. Anyone who thinks we (R)s are on the inside track in 2008 is I would respectfully suggest failing to separate what they wish and hope is true from what logic and rational analysis tells us IS true.
In that light, let's take the Luntz formula one factor at a time:
[1] ... A forward-looking agenda:
IMO Romney is doing the best job on this one; and Thompson the worst (or perhaps ''least best'').
Giuliani is somewhere in the middle.... But I keep thinking that if Giuliani had not been mayor of NYC on 9-11, he would not be anywhere close to where he is today in the race for the nomination. He needs more than just ''I was America's Mayor 6 years ago'' (not suggesting that is all that he has; just that it won't sell in the General as the ONLY qualification). And just like the Swift Boaters went after Kerry on his supposed ''strength'', a considerable number of NY Firefighters are going to be a continuing thorn in Giuliani's side; that (rightly or wrongly) keep pointing out what they will present as very negative things about Giuliani's past strength. If the focus stay's primarily on Giuliani's past (including his personal life), IMO on balance that is not good for him.
[2] ... Unparalleled message discipline:
For THIS campaign (leaving aside comparisons with perceptions of prior campaign positions), Romney again seems to have the edge; especially if you include avoiding things in this campaign that detract from the candidate being able to stay ''on message''; i.e.: Problems that have cropped up with Giuliani's associates (Sen. Vitter, etc.).
WRT Thompson: While his message to the base is pretty straightforward and attractive; i.e.: ''I'm one of you'', confess I'm not sure yet what his message is for the General. Does he have one that will compete effectively against Clinton-Obama ??.. I don't see it, at least not yet.
[3] ... A strict focus on the millions of independent voters:
Both Romney and Giuliani seem to have a pretty good shot on this one; right now I don't see either one having a clear advantage. What I DO see is Thompson having a clear and distinct DISadvantage. How does Fred successfully sell himself to a majority of (I) voters in CA, NY, IL, MI, PA, MN, OH, WA, OR, and several etcetera ?? Quite frankly, right now I don't see that he can. And if he can't and he's the (R) nominee, we lose the General.
[4] ... An innovative candidate and campaign:
Realizing that he has some negatives for some people, and without trying to explain what comes down to a gut-feel: IMO Romney has the edge right now.
[5] ... A lot of luck:
There's always that.... And, I would add:
One way or the orther, Iraq better get perceptively better soon, or the rest might not matter.
SUMMARY:
I'm still somewhat in the uncommitted column. I can and will happily and strongly support any one of the (R) Top-3 against any conceivable (D) ticket. But after listening to my own above arguments, I find myself tilting more and more toward Romney.
Trying to follow my own advice and separate my personal leanings from objective analysis:
IF trends continue AND Mitt can win convincing victories in both IA and NH, then I think Romney has a real shot at being able to use clear victories in those openers to catapult himself into serious contention for the lead on national primary day in February. I considerably discount the fact that Mitt is still not well known by the general voting population: It's still VERY early; and remember that Kerry was barely a blip on the radar at this point in 2003, and he ALMOST won.
FOOTNOTE:
I respectfully but strongly disagree with Doug @ # 5 that it's ''impossible for Romney'': IMO the overwhelming majority of general-election voters are NOT going to take that view.
And Andy @ # 7 made some good points.
"WHEN THE HELL IS AMERICA GOING TO WAKE UP AND END THIS DEMOCRAT/LIBERAL DISASTER THAT IS SENDING OUR COUNTRY ON THE WAY TO CULTURAL-MORAL-HISTORICAL OBLIVION?"
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 16, 2007 11:14 AMNice little rant, but care to back up any of your claims?
Here is the latest from Pew Research on the trend of our future voters (age 18-25):
"In their political outlook, they are the most tolerant of any generation on social issues such as immigration, race and homosexuality. They are also much more likely to identify with the Democratic Party than was the preceding generation of young people, which could reshape politics in the years ahead."
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/278/a-portrait-of-generation-next
Youth are for the most part against making abortion available "on demand" (as am I by the way), but they clearly are also not the Rove Republicans that you would like them to be.
Posted by: Splinter on July 16, 2007 11:36 AMUC Berkeley political science professors Merrill Shanks and Henry Brady were the lead researchers, along with Indiana University professor Edward Carmines. Douglas Strand of the Survey Research Center was the study's project director. Topics and results include:
* School prayer. Fifty-nine percent of adults ages 27 to 59 want public schools to allow prayer at official school activities, such as commencements. Among teenagers, 69 percent support school prayer.
* Federal aid to faith-based charities. Forty percent of adults ages 27 to 59 support such funding. But support reaches 59 percent among the college-aged and 67 percent among younger teens.
* Religious conservatives. Young Americans show somewhat more warmth towards religious conservatives than older adults. Individuals ranked their feelings for these groups on a scale from zero for "cold" to 50-100 for varying degrees of "warmth." Although no age group showed much warmth to Christian fundamentalists, 33 percent of youths ages 15 to 26 gave them a rating over 50; 26 percent of Americans over age 26 gave a similar score.
* Abortion. Government restrictions on abortion are supported by 34 percent of adults over 26, while about 44 percent of youths ages 15 to 22 support such restrictions.
"We were surprised by the greater support among young Americans for some aspects of the conservative cultural agenda," said Shanks. "Young Americans show more conservatism on religious politics and abortion even though youths, as a group, appear to be less likely than their elders to attend religious services regularly or consider religion a guide in their daily life.
"If the youth of today maintain these positions on religious politics and abortion as the years go by, then the American public as a whole could become more conservative on these issues."
In the case of social security and education, if there is a generation gap in opinions, it is the elderly who stand out, not the youth. Youth are just as supportive as their parents and grandparents when it comes to government spending on health care for seniors. However, older Americans don't show a corresponding supportiveness for the education programs that benefit youth. While 70 percent of young and middle-aged Americans support more spending on elementary and secondary education, only 52 percent of those over 60 favor increased school funding.
Some traditional political differences between young and older Americans continue to prevail. Youths are more inclined to want the federal government to do more to protect women and racial minorities from job discrimination. They also are more likely to consider job discrimination against gays and lesbians to be a serious problem. And they want more federal programs to assist the poor and protect the environment.
Differences between the young and old are most dramatic when it comes to sex and violence on television. Among Americans ages 27-59, 67 percent think "the amount of sexual content on television" is a serious problem, while just 47 percent of teens and the college-aged feel that way.
And while an overwhelming majority of the adults ages 27 to 59 - 74 percent - thinks TV violence is a serious problem, the majority of teens and young adults - 55 percent - disagree.
On many other issues, however, there was no generation gap. The study found no dramatic differences between younger and older Americans on such issues as military defense, gun control, tax policy, criminal punishment, and government support for health care in general.
"The next step for us and other scholars is to solve the puzzles in our overall picture of the generation gaps in political opinions," said Strand. "We need to explore why youths seem to be more conservative than their elders when it comes to religious politics and abortion politics, but not other issues."
Strand speculated that messages criticizing abortion and supporting school prayer and government aid to religious charities may have been more prominent in the media while the youngest generation was developing political views. He noted that older generations developed their basic positions on these issues before religious conservatives began mobilizing politically in the late 1970s.
PS: Google "Roe Effect"
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 16, 2007 11:48 AM"If the youth of today maintain these positions on religious politics and abortion as the years go by, then the American public as a whole could become more conservative on these issues."
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 16, 2007 11:51 AMThe Republican leadership has done such a fabulous job representing itself as the "do as I say, not as I do" Party, that the more recent statistics I linked to are not surprising.
But here you go:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200707050010
http://bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2007/07/study-sees-turnaround-in-young-adults.html
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Study Sees 'Turnaround' in Young Adults' Positions on Abortion
(CNSNews.com) - Younger voters, especially women, are embracing a pro-life position in surprising numbers and in sharp contrast to attitudes that held sway 15 years ago, according to a new study.
Over 30,000 survey interviews were conducted in the state between 1992 and 2006. Participants were asked: "On the debate over abortion policy, do you consider yourself to be pro-life, pro-choice or somewhere in between?" Those who gave a definitive answer were then asked how strongly they held their view.
Results in 1992 were largely in step with what study authors Christopher Blunt and Fred Steeper call the "self-interest hypothesis." Women and men under 30 were the most ardently "pro-choice" (39 percent) and the least likely to be strongly "pro-life"( 23 percent).
Today, by contrast, among the current generation of 18- to 29-year-olds, 36 percent say they are strongly "pro-life," while just 18 percent say they are strongly "pro-choice," the study authors said.
The trend was particularly evident among women in that age bracket. Forty 40 percent identify themselves as strongly "pro-life" and only 20 percent as strongly "pro-choice."
Blunt, who is president of Overbrook Research, told Cybercast News Service in an interview that "Generation Y" voters have a very different frame of reference on abortion now than was evident in 1992.
"The most surprising and compelling findings we have are on young people," he said. "They've grown up with high-quality ultrasound images of unborn babies, and their passage into adulthood coincides with the ascendance of partial-birth abortion as the issue's dominant frame."
I remember when I was a kid, one of the things that I was unsure of was the true nature of the unborn child. I hadn't seen any ultrasounds. When I got to college and look at obstetric textbooks of unborn babies, it became clear to me that those who supported abortion either were ignorant of the unborn child, lied, or didn't care about what happened to this voiceless human being.
"As grisly details of partial birth abortion procedures replaced confrontational and often violent clinic protests on the evening news, voters seemed to have changed their minds about who the 'abortion extremists' were," they wrote in their analysis.
I do think that the end of the abortion clinic confrontations was very providential to our cause.
Repeated attempts to get reaction to the study from major abortion-rights groups were unsuccessful.
Ann Stone, chairperson of Republicans for Choice, was dismissive of the poll results, saying in an interview that the public's fundamental support for "the right to choose" has not changed.
I don't believe that for one minute. I think that in the Blue States, support for legal abortion is strong, but for most of America, most of them want it majorly restricted.
"What has shifted is the public's perception of the pro-life label," she said. "So you have a lot of people who are really pro-choice saying they are pro-life. But you can be pro-choice and be personally opposed to abortion. It's about allowing individuals to decide for themselves instead of the government, which is a Republican position."
There is some truth to that. I do think these public opinion polls should have a question on fetal rights. While it's true that it may result in less favourable poll results, I think the pro-life movement has to be honest with itself. If we can convince people that unborn children have rights, that would show that people have a deeper commitment to the unborn.
I believe that opinion based on life vs abortion is the one that sets the stage for the rest.
So tell me splinter... which, in particular on my list are you defending? why are they good for America?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 16, 2007 12:26 PMI don't think I am likely to "defend" any of the issues on your list, but let's go through them one by one and see:
1) "promoting the popularity of little girls looking like 'ho's'": I can confidently state that I am against little girls looking like ho's and would not defend it. Although, I am also against giving the Government the power to tell people how they should dress and behave. Less Government is a "conservative" principal in my opinion.
2) "victimization of anything and everything": God I hate that too! See, we can agree on something. :-)
3) "the phony propogation of class envy": You will have to explain this... sorry. If you mean the dangerous decline of American manufacturing and the resulting loss of decent paying jobs, then I might have something to say.
4) "the latent racism of abortion, fatherless families, no-fault divorce and forced public education": If by latent you mean, "they do it to themselves", I would agree. And I think there is a lot we can do as society to reduce the number of abortions and prevent unwanted pregnancies.
5) "divisions of a once united citizens by the spoon fed mandatory diversity": Don't understand this one at all.
6) "the glorification of drug use": I am against glorification of drug use, including alcohol and cigarettes. At the same time, see #1 about small government conservatism and not wanting to give the Government the power to decide what we can see or hear.
7) "the in-your-face homosexual agenda": Well, I'm a gay man in a committed relationship for a bit over 12 years now... and a bit ticked off that I am not allowed the same legal rights and protections of any regular married couple. If you want to call this an "agenda", I don't really care, but it's really just a desire to live quietly with the same rights as every other tax paying American citizen.
8) "the ACLU attacking Boy Scouts and defending pedophiles": I didn't hear about this one. Can you link to the story of what Boy Scout Pedophile the ACLU is defending? That's just sick!
9) "rewarding and encouraging mothers for out-of wedlock children": We passed what I think is a good first step at welfare reform under Clinton, but have a long way to go. I agree with you on this one too.
10) "Christ in Piss": I would certainly not pay to see it, but again, I don't really want some Government agency deciding what is and is not art. Do you?
11) "honoring and ignoring bigotry by honoring rappers and comedians": I think the tide is turning on this, but I guess the jury is still out. Do you favor some sort of censorship legislation? Just curious.
12) "and the mainstreaming of body defacement, to name just a few": It's just a fad... one that I am happy to not be part of. No piercings or tatoos at all here. Those crazy kids!
Does this answer your question?
Posted by: Splinter on July 16, 2007 01:03 PM
What a slap in the face to those voters in the 8th. Does she think they can't read or something? Do they only vote based on what they see?
It was interesting reading what she had to say. It was truly a nice little "hug" fest. They made plans to share smoked salmon, meet up when in town, and the usual stuff she does I guess. Very little discussion of the ISSUES, other than Democrat Talking Points. Oh, and GWB was mentioned a few times too!!!
Posted by: Chris on July 16, 2007 01:34 PMHowever, I would like to see LIBERALS stand up and criticize out of wedlock children, single parents, a culture that glofies the "ho" look (hello madonna, abercrombie, lindsey, eminem, MTV...)
I would have liked to see them criticize the defaming "art" and wonder why tax dollars are supporting something so offensive to so many.
I would like to see them stop with phoney poverty tours and telling one race that the other is subjugating them.
I don't care if you are gay or black or purple or an atheist, but please let the liberal commununity stop telling me I must condone it or be labeled a bigot.
I'm sick of hearing the ACLU fighting to keep Boy Scouts, a good and honorable organizatioon with a long history of beeing such off public lands when they defend NAMBLA.
I'm sick of their war on icons that have stood since the beginning of our country. Condemn them for it! But liberals won't.
I'm sick of the Constitution and the the words of the Founding Fathers being subject to relativism of the moment. That jerk Goldstein had the audacity to tell his listeners that the Founding Fathers DID NOT want a Christian nation that they were escaping religion! Hello! Does the left KNOW history at all?? The were escaping religious PROSECUTION, go God sake. They came for the freedom to celebrate their beliefs. When are the leftys going to stand up to this rewriting of History. FACTS are facts!
Re, the diversity: I mean be a damned AMERICAN first. I am Austrian, I am Italian, I am female, I am Catholic, I am type 0+, I am married for 28 years, I am the mother of 3 sons but NONE of those DEFINE me: I AM AMERICAN. Stop encouraging discrimination by putting AMERICANS in special groups. We are diverse, but we are HERE, our ancestors came HERE, people are breaking the laws to come HERE to be AMERICANS.
I participate in a lot of polling: Harris, Ipsos, Gallup, etc and one of them, in every single political poll asks something like this 'Do you consider your self to be a citizen of your town, your state, the world or America?
The answer must be AMERICA.
I mean really, they KNOW killing viable babies with scissors through thier little brains is deplorable. The KNOW dung on the Virgin Mary is disgusting. And yet, they mangae to defend them both.
Luckily thos on the nuttier left are getting louder and more strident. Mainstream, down home, middle, heart and soul of America is taking notice and turning their backs.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 16, 2007 01:53 PMOf course, any GOP candidate should really buckle down and take the fight to the Dems. Oh, and WA GOP candidates really need to step up! Let's not give WA away so easily.
Posted by: Mikey on July 16, 2007 03:23 PMMike H. @ 3 - Last I looked Reichert had given Bush a blank check on many issues, not the least of which is Iraq, and last I looked he is a Republican. You can't not talk about Reichert without lamenting his party affiliation or his blind support of Bush's Iraq policies.
Huh? @ 9 - I didn't receive such calls myself, so I can't say I know much about that. However, it fits with tactics reported during the 2006 election. Either way, I think we can both agree such tactics are despicable.
Chris @ 22 - That's not what was said. What was said was that Reichert's looks distract some voters, and that "looking like a Congressman isn’t the same as doing the job". While, there was some idle chatter, there were also some very serious questions and very serious answers.
Posted by: Daniel K on July 16, 2007 07:25 PMGuilliani, Thompson and Romney all have their weakenesses. The Dems are trying to "Swift Boat" Guilliani with the FDNY campaigning against him over 9-11 - similar strategy as with Kerry. The MSM is saving up ammo for when Fred Thompson throws his hat in the ring and Romney has never really had momentum. I know this is not what conservatives want to hear. In WA politics, similar story - Repubs look weak-kneed and need to take the fight to the left and separate themselves from Bush.
Posted by: KS on July 16, 2007 09:55 PMShe is typical of my generation. I want it, so I should get it because I want it...I don't need to be qualified, I don't have to show up, I don't have to actually do anything (like graduate from law school...) I should just get what I want.
The 8th is a moderate district and she is 100% party line. She has no moderation in her. She can kick out the talking points, but when asked about real plans, she had nothing (except get rid of Bush's tax cuts and be an isolationist in the world...)
It is nice that her brother is in the military and that her dad did so, as well....she hasn't done jack.
As for Rodney Tom, there is no bigger flip-flopper or political opportunist than him...he jumped from conservative republican to liberal democrat in a week...his speaches and votes in Olympia as a Republican are 180 degrees different from what he is doing and saying now.
Dave Reichert is out campaigning hard...hitting all of the parades and picnics...kissing hands and shaking babies.
People love him. Darcy is shrill.
Posted by: Apollo on July 16, 2007 10:48 PM"Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, ah, er, um -- you'll never fool me again!"
-- George W. Bush
Posted by: zappini on July 17, 2007 08:07 AMI am happy that we can agree that when Howie Klien holds a Blogfest at Firedoglake for Darcy and repeatedly makes an inflamitory false statement about what happened in the 2006 Election, that Darcy not only did not correct the record, but she agreed with the statement.
Another example of why she should never be in Congress. If she will not correct her own supporters from spreading falsehoods, why would we expect her to tell the truth about anything? How would she ever muster the guts to disagree with leadership? Would she ever disagree? Would she vote 97% of the time with leadership? She stated in the FDL blog that no US bases would remain in Iraq, Period end of story. HRC says she could see US bases and a limited presence for years to come. Will Darcy cave if HRC is queeen? Or will she hold all night pout fests on the floor to try and get her way.
Posted by: Huh? on July 17, 2007 05:24 PM