How does this change the election?

[theboss]

I've always believed that the election in 2004 is going to be the simplest to analyze in years. There are going to be two issues:

1. What is the situation in Iraq?
2. How is the economy going?

If the answers to both questions are positive, Bush wins easily. If the answers to both questions are negative, Bush likely loses easily. If the answers are split, then it's a horserace.

I frankly don't think the IWR vote is going to mean anything in November 2004. If the violence decreases and it looks like there is move towards stability in Iraq, the voters will reward Bush. (All polls still show support for the war well over 60 percent, and that is only going to increase with the capture of Saddam). If things go bad, Bush will suffer.

But we are less than a year away, and I am not sure things will go so bad in that period of time to hurt Bush. The capture of Saddam gives him a big bump. And the attacks so far have not seemed to upset the American people. I mean, "one death a day" is horrible, but it will still take three years to top 1,000 casualties.

In other words, I am not sure Iraq is an issue that we can win with, unless things take a dramatic turn for the worse. And I'm not sure we want to be in a position where we need bad things in Iraq to win.

So, should our candidates ease back on the Iraq talk (where all they do is tear each other apart anyway), and focus on the economy (where they all agree Bush has done a terrible job)?

[demnan]

1. Yes -

For political reasons you are exactly right. For moral reasons no. I agree with your political assessment, however some of our candidates can't back away from their stances on the issues. It would be preceived incorrectly as "waffling" and the media would jump on it.

The candidates who were against the war must continue to state that it was the wrong decision if asked. In the meantime, they must also focus on the economy and particularly health care and jobs.

[theboss]

3. I'm not saying Dean should change his tune

That would be political suicide.

I do think that he absolutely needs to turn down the anti-war rhetoric (at least for the time being) and focus on economic issues. He may be able to win the nomination by being "anti-war" but I'm not sure that can win in the general election now.

Public sentiment was trickling in his favor. But I think the news this weekend causes a dramatic reversal for a few months.

[demodan]

18. Waffling be bad.

I agree with your political assessment, however some of our candidates can't back away from their stances on the issues. It would be preceived incorrectly as "waffling" and the media would jump on it.

Yes, I believe Dean and Kucinich cannot back away from their stance or they will be hammered hard. I am not sure if it would cause Dean to lose his commanding lead in the polls but it would definitely weaken him in the general campaign.

If the Iraq issue becomes moderately stable by election time I fear Dean, no matter what stance he will ultimately take on Iraq, will have many Iraq Attack adds unleashed upon him.

I bet the Saddam Capture video is being processed as we speak and will be a prominent fixture in the Repukes campaign strategy.

[CMT]

2. time will tell

1) the capture of Saddam may not change much, unless he discloses where WMD are and that vindicates Bush. If not, I think the anti-american violence will just continue as will the instability of the country. Saddam wasn't coordinating all of this.

2) The economy while statistically better is not producing the kinds of jobs (yet) to change the fact that Bush will be the first president since Hoover to have net job losses--probably over 1.5 million during his term. The latest job data shows jobless claims rising and consumer confidence actually took a bit of a decrease as well.

It will be interesting to see how this Christmas retail season is going. I work part time as seasonal help at a major retailer and our sales have been mediocre at best.

[vi5]

4. I think we should continue to beat people over the head...

Lecturing them on how evil this admin is and how stupid the american people are will help. Also once they hear about Black Box Voting (which we should keep harping on ad nauseum) they will be totally convinced that the fix is in and will invevitably revolt because if there's one thing the peoples love it's a computer based conspiracy theory. We should continue to ignore any and every poll that shows Bush as even remotely popular as being "freeped" and we should realize that if we "de-freep" these polls it will actually mean that more people agree with us.

And more so than anything else we need to realize that people respond well to anger and attacks, so that is the approach we should take.





Sarcasm-off

Sorry. I'm just feeling particularly negative and cynical today after reading all these circular firing squad posts on this board since yesterday.

[elfin]

5. Pesssimist checking in

I think we are screwed - totally. They finally have a photo that isn't a fake that they can use, They have Greenspan schookered into propping up a phony "recovery" that looks better on paper and the market than is actully the case. They have the space to issue phony noises making them look more "moderate" about health care, environment etc. without actually doing anything positive in those areas to bring back the swing voters that were tipping toward us - in specifically Clark.

They have a candidate who, for some reason, appeals with his personality (Ugh) to the sheeple and gets them enthusiastically to the polls, unlike his father.

I am glad Saddam is captured, but despair that voters will truly ever understand he has or had nothing that threatened us to the point of all this madness.

[LoneStarLiberal]

6. This Will Eliminate Any Necessity to Find WMD

I think that the capture of Hussein is a huge boon to the administration but not for obvious reasons.

As the days, weeks, and months progress we are going to see a very purposeful shift away from WMD now that we have Hussein in hand. I imagine there is some serious Jekyl-and-Hyde schizophrenia going on right now about whether to rush him to trial or to keep him silent for fear of his detailing American involvement in his regime.

On one hand, the faster Saddam can be put on trial, the faster that his long catalog of criminal and genocidal behavior can be detailed which, if framed properly, will remove what little heat is left under the administration to justify the war on its original purpose, i.e. the disruption and seizure of Iraq's WMD and WMD programs (if you include the first evolution of the purpose as well!). The more pictures, testimony and wailing families that the prosecution (hopefully either an Iraqi prosecution or an international criminal tribunal) can show during the trial then the less and less finding any actual quantities of WMD will be important.

I believe that unless the insurgents and terrorists currently in Iraq really step up their campaign of violence against coalition forces, the capture of Saddam Hussein and the eventual mounds of evidence of his nefarious behavior will be the final piece in letting the administration completely off the hook for this invasion and occupation in the minds of most of the American voting public. I would go so far as to argue that even many people who opposed the war will not hold Bush responsible for it come November 2004 because of the image of the "successful resolution" and the compelling alternative justification which will emerge from this whole scenario.

Today I am very relieved and very happy for the people of Iraq while at the same time I am distressed for the immediate future of our nation.

[Blue_Roses]

15. I echo

your thoughts. And I see you are from Texas, so as someone else who is from Texas, we both know the extremes that this administration will go to to keep them "glowing" in the eyes of the American people.

Time will tell though.

[Sir_Shrek]

7. Here's the stuff that can't be discounted....

1) Hussein is captured

I's not far-fetched that the capture alone will possibly only be a temporary bump for Bush. What worries me is the ramifications of this in terms of our progress now. It's pretty obvious that, beyond being the former dictator, Saddam is probably going to be a fairly valuable source of intelligence. How significant is yet to be seen, but I think it's given that this is a big score. Trying to downplay it isn't going to work.

2) The Economy

One thing that makes me somewhat nervous about how the Left handles stuff like this sometimes plays itself out on the Stock Market Watch thread. I love the thread, but sometimes folks fall into too much of a funk about "I just can't believe these numbers". I don't think this is a good way of addressing the economy. At some point, I think the Left is going to have to acknowledge that the economy is making some progress....that's the first step.

I just see everyone becoming even more disconnected if this kind oif stuff isn't rectified.

[LoneStarLiberal]

9. The Economy

I think you're dead on regarding how many of our talking heads and those of us here at the grassroots discuss the economy.

I believe that we should discuss the fact that the economic numbers are somewhat stable to improving. It's true that there is a fantasy quality to some of them, but it is also true that despite the fantasy assumptions that one has to make to see these as well-grounded and realistic, they simply are either holding their own or improving.

What we need to talk about is that the numbers are stable or improving but that at the same time our increasingly bottomless pool of debt on which all this is floating is swelling. We need to discuss the ramifications of this not only for the sake of having a better-informed discussion on the economy but also for the sake of having a better-informed and more realistic economic policy on our party's platform for our nominee.

[mikehiggins]

8. No, or at least, not really

There are any number of ancilliary issues that makes Iraq a major issue today, and into the future.

First, of course, is the direct cost in American and Iraqi lives, and the billions of AMerican dollars being eaten up by this beast Bush has created.

Second, is the incredible risk Bush has placed us in by so thoroughly deploying and committing our military forces to this illconsidered adventure. It will take years to rebuild our volunteer force to the bare levels needed to be an effective operational force, and as for the reserves? Given second rate treatment both at home and in the field, these "weekend warriors" are likely to reserve their weekends for fishing and coaching little league rather than reenlisting in a force that can be deployed at the whim of a dubious leadership. You can fool some of the people some of the time, etc.

Third, there is the indirect cost on two fronts: A)the incredible loss of international prestige and leadership caused by this President turning his back on 50 years of international engagement to follow a clearly unilateral invasion, accompanied by support purchased on the open market from such military strong holds as the Galapagos Islands. And B) the costs to families left stranded as the tour of duty of their significant others is extended far beyond anything anticipated without a clear declaration of war.

We also have to argue the economy but the fact is much of what is going on in that arena is more directly under the control of the administration and their media cronies. Thus, cutting the total number of jobs loss by 30 thousand becomes a dynamic rise in employment, despite the fact that 270 thousand jobs remain lost, most likely forever. The total number employed is rising, the pundits proclam, while ignoring the fact that these new jobs pay, on the average, $4 less per hour than those they replace AND pay no benefits, which effectively cuts the wage significantly.

Still, a quick flight on AF-One and a half hour speech followed by announcement of new contracts or other arrangements can create momentary impressions of improvement, even though the contracts later are not forthcoming, and the legislation never seems to make it through Bush's captive Congress.

So, from my point of view, focusing on the economy means engaging the foe in an area he can manipulate and we cannot. Conversely, while we cannot manipulate foriegn policy, our opponents ability to do so is also subject to the actions of others. Thus, Carter was unable to bring the hostages home despite his best efforts, a fact which helped Reagan portray him as a hapless, helpless victim of the Iranians.

Bush's foolhardy Arabian Adventure subjects his administration to the same dangers. Successful raids on US interests overseas will continue to reflect poorly on Bush's ability to wage his self proclaimed "War on Terror" and the Democratic candidate should be positioned to make a claim to being able to do better in an arena where American power and influence are being challenged for the whole world to see.

This, IMHO, is why the Bush administration is so frantically making the attempt to toss governance to the hands of the Iraqi council, or at least the temporary appearance of doing so, in order to pull back our troops without being seen to be routed. Going by the French experience in IndoChina I doubt the terrorists are likely to stand quietly by and let that happen unchallenged.

To quickly add a more directly partisan note to any who might have read this far:

Governor Dean can challenge Bush's decisions in this area.

General Clark can challenge Bush's ABILITY to make decisions in this area.

There is a big difference.

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. Doesn't change a damn thing.

Osama's still at large, the REAL economy's still fucked, and Junior's still a lying piece of shit.

[CWebster]

11. It doesn't matter what the situation is, it will be spun

It will be orchestrated no matter what the real story is. The illusion will be managed, the facts will be manipulated, the players will all be on cue, the media will have their scripts, the drums will pound, the eyes will glaze overm the truth won't matter. Easy as pie.

No matter what the truth on the ground is, this is what we are up against, this is what we have to get through.

The only thing that can keep it at bay is a a strong, persistant, unified, relentless counter-attack with the facts that rip through the fabrications.

Where do we go from here?

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Bush consolidates power through war scares

In almost every National election the Democratic Party goes into it with the advantage on domestic issues. Ever since Reagan the Republicans have practiced how to counter that. They do it by presenting themselves as the real Adults in the election. They are the party "to be trusted" when it comes to keeping America strong and safe in a dangerous world. It could be Iraq today, and it might be Pakistan by next Summer. The Republicans are excellent at posing at being strong. They developed the formular when McGovern ran of associating the phrase "anti-war" with anti-National Security in large elements of the public's minds. That's the first of four pillars central to their electoral success.

The second is "values", which we often think of as "wedge issues". They pander to their right wing social crusaders, often through targeted mailings so as not to overly upset their supporters who back them for National Security reasons. Clinton handed them a huge club with his sexual indiscretions, it reenforced their intended perception that Republicans stand for decency, family, morality, and honor.

The third is big business. By pandering to corporate interests they cultivate big money donations from those companies and from the rich individuals at the top of them. They also pick off some moderate votes from those who think free enterprise is the engine of growth and "a rising tide lifts all boats". Republicans use try to contrast themselves as being pro business and pro freedom, against Democrats being pro beurocracy socialist leeches.

The fourth is the cult of personality. The Republicans found a big winner in Ronald Reagan, then they drifted off that theme, culminating in Bob Dole in 1996, a vaguely likable (sort of) non charismatic guy. With George W. they have attempted to return to the Reagan play book. They want the election to be about George Bush the man more so than about the issues Bush is running on because the Republicans have managed to craft for Bush a polarizing persona that leaves him with more people really liking him as a person than there are those who hate him. The Republicans don't mind creating Bush haters as long as they can create more Bush lovers in the process.

Barring a slip back into major Recession, the Democratic Party will not win the next national election just on the strength of our stand on Domestic issues. That falls short, the Republicans have mastered how to peel off just enough of our core voters through token stands. Bush ran as "the Education President" last time as well as being a "compassionate conservative". This time he will use AARP backing his Prescription Drug Plan. It won't be enough for Bush to win on that score, but populist stands on economic issues aren't part of the four pillars the Republicans stand on.

To win next year the Democratic Party candidate has to nuetralize some of the strategic advantages the Republicans count on taking into the election. I am backing Clark because I believe Clark is best positioned to do just that. As the Democrat's candidate the public will understand that Clark inherits the Democratic Party mantle of fighting for the economic well being of average citizens. It is the same as the public perception that a Republican candidate always inherits that party's mantle for guaranteeing "our National Security". However Clark being a retired 4 Star General throws the Republicans a real curve. He also hacks away at their assumed advantages regarding "values" and "personal likability".

[theboss]

13. Your argument is contradictory though

You say that Democrats always have advantages on domestic issues, but we can't win by talking domestic issues.

My concern is that if the argument is Iraq, we lose. We may not lose four years from now, but I can't believe that the American people are going to become that disenchanted in 11 months (I'm using today as the high-water mark for the war). So do we want to push this issue to the forefront?

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Not exactly what I said.

If I wasn't clear enough, what I meant to say is that our natural advantages on Domestic issues isn't enough to secure victory in the fall. Of course we need to talk about domestic issues and exploit them for all they are worth, but I believe that by itself, that is not enough to win in the fall. Gore ran on peace and prosperity afterall.

Starting with Nixon Republicans have always been seen as strongest on National Security, while the Dems retained the edge on Social Security, health care, education, and the like. The Republicans know enough to always poach some votes on "Democratic" issues. I discussed that above. But the Republicans also have relentlessly cultivated "values" driven voters, Republicans posture as "decent patriotic Americans" while painting Democrats as "permissive malcontents". Given that America was prosperous and at peace, Bush "beat" Gore based on the "perception" issues, particularly personal likability.

National Security of course is about much more than Iraq specifically. To the extent that a Democrat running piles too many of his National Security "apples" into an Iraq policy basket, he will be highly vulnerable to possible changes in that situation. But the fact remains, and the public knows it, it is increasingly a dangerous world. Many many Americans will be drawn to the candidate they believe is tough enough and experienced enough to confront that world.

[CWebster]

25. Will any Democrat ever call them on the fact

that Republican mishandling of foreign relations, abandonment of civilized routes for diplomatic strategies through the UN, and other cooperative resolution has made us a rogue state jeopardizing security if not instigating increased threats?

It works to their advantage, as long as they can create and point to a danger out there in the dangerous world, they can create the illusion that they are strong and willing to confront the danger to protect us all
(while they all conveniently profit from the enterprise).It is really a racket.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Agreed

Several of our guys are trying to make just that point. It is critical that our eventual candidate find a way to break through with that message.

[theboss]

28. That's such a hard sell

I don't believe that Americans are such big fans of the UN that they will punish a President for having alienated and humiliated it. (In fact, I fear that Bush could run on a "Fuck The UN" platform and win).

There is a case to be made for alienating our allies, especially this chickenshit contract stuff with Russia and France. But Britain, Japan, and others give the Bushes some cover. And I can't believe that "Bush is rude to the French" is going to get any traction.

My concern is that presidential elections are not sophisticated events to begin with and this year may be the least sophisticated in recent memory. The Adiministration has set up so many land mines in the foreign policy debate that an Democrat who tries a direct assault is going to get clobbered (provided things in Iraq don't get horrifying, then all bets are off).

I mean Lieberman just handed the Republicans the soundbite that will carry them through November: "Would you rather Saddam Hussein still be in power?"

"No, but . . ." and "Yes, but . . . " answers don't play well in modern politics, I'm afraid.

[CWebster]

20. Here is the problem

How can we trust Clark?

His record of supporting the worst of the Right--either by vote or in statements, his corporate alliances and economic policy positions, his fuzzy position on Iraq, his history in the military and the mindset it promotes, his enormous liabilities being fired from the pentagon, along with the accusations of pressing a showdown with the Russians...All this on top of no record as a Democrat. Who is to say his act isn't as contrived as chimp's compassionate conservative angle?

With so much at stake, wouldn't trusting a johny-come-lately be reckless?

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Why must you use overkill?

You have a valid question but in my opinion you damage your credibility by distorting what is known about Clark. Your valid question in my opinion is why trust a johny-come-lately.

You are skillful with words, I will grant you that. "His record of supporting the worst of the Right- either by vote or in statements..." is a great example. A clue to that "support" can be found in another comment you made: "his history in the military and the mindset it promotes". Sounds to me like you have either an anti-military bias or an outright anti-military position. I heard Clark speak about his personal experience upon returning from the Viet Nam War, of finding that a significant minority of the general public held soldiers in very low regard, and that the overwhelming majority of those who did identified themselves with the Democratic Party. Clark said that, as a youthful officer, he did not feel welcome in the Democratic Party. Many of his fellow officers had the same experience. Despite that personal villification, Clark remained an Independent. I care much more about Clark having voted Democratic in the last three Presidential elections than I do about him having voted for Reagan.

I also worry a lot more about who is on the long lists of corporate donars to prior election campaigns of some of our other Candidates than I do about Clark's brief "corporate alliances" as you call them. Regarding many of the debunked accusations against Clark that you cite, may I suggest that you and any other open minded Democrats please visit http://www.ex-deaniacsforclark.com/ where thoughtful non inflamitory arguments are presented, in depth, regarding all of those "concerns". It, by the way, is in no way an anti-Dean site, the people who have launched it still hold Dean in high regard, they just prefer Clark and explain why.

The thing is, it is my opinion (warning subjective commentary alert) that the Republican operatives have already thrown the kitchen sink at Clark, and he is still standing. You know the line in "I shot the Sheriff", which I think goes "he said kill it before it grows"? That has been the Republican strategy regarding Clark.

Rightly or wrongly (and I conceed they might be wrong) the Republicans did not adapt that strategy regarding the current Democratic front runner, Dean. They may well have underestimated him, but the juicy stuff against Dean is starting to be rolled out right about now. Aside from a few Democrats nipping at the edges, there is a host of unexploited contradictions between the "Old Dean" positions, actions, and alliances he had back in his days as a Clinton Democrat Gov, as contrasted with his current stands and backers as the progressive insurgent movement Presidential candidate. Dean has taken a lot of corporate money while running for prior office, and he mostly governed from the center. There is a lot of "flip flop" ammunition that can be used against Dean by the Republicans.

With Clark, one has to decide whether you believe he is inherently who he says he is, or an imposter. Some might believe the latter, but I don't, and I have paid very close attention to Clark because I personally am a life long leftist who cares a great deal about whether my candidate is posing as something he isn't. There are many others like me who approached Clark with some suspician, studied him closely, and now are grateful that our Party has someone of his bredth, ability, and yes, caliber, to carry our banner in the coming election.

[youngred]

14. I don't think this changes anything

this gets him a popularity boost for a couple months, but not enough to last through the election. It does not mean the war is won any more than it was won when he pulled his little made for action figure stunt on the aircraft carrier. American soldiers will still be dying, The power and water will still not be on, the Iraqis will still hates us, the economy will still be bad, Osama is still uncaught (you know that guy who actually attacked us and about whom Bush says " Idon't think about him anymore"), the war was still illegal and immoral, there are still no WMD, and we still alienated relations with our historic allies.

You caught an old powerless man, cheer on! It's a good day for the world and the Iraqis, but it doesn't change a thing

[Zero Gravitas]

16. net negative for *

Getting Saddam will have little effect to a net negative for Our Great Leader. Why? Because the delirious reaction from the corporate media makes the capture look much more significant than it is. They mentioned a poll on NPR this morning with 60,70, 80% thinking that this capture will make a significant differnce in the situation in Iraq. This misconcpetion will give * a short term boost in the polls but in the long term, but when it becomes clear that the problems with Bush's occupation of Iraq are still the same will lead more people to realise that Bush and his PNAC cohorts are in way over their heads.

[SheilaT]

17. The real issues in the next election will be

1. Are you a patriotic American who supports our Glorious Victorious President Bush?

2 Or are you traitorous scum who hates America and votes (shudder) for Democratis?

[Yavin4]

19. We Need To Face Reality

Saddam's capture ensures Bush's election in 2004.

[mac56]

21. That's not reality.

Bush I's victory in Gulf War I was supposed to ensure his election in 1992.

[Zero Gravitas]

24. Disagree

It doesn't fundamentaly change enything in Iraq, the violence will continue and it it will still be a mess and capturing Saddam won't bring back any jobs or fix corporate corruption.

[ozone_man]

22. The economy trumps Iraq.

It did in 1992, when Bush I had huge popularity ratings. But people vote with their pocket books and they are broke now.

So, the strategy has to be keep hammering at the poor economy, joblessness, Bush's failure to create jobs, Bush's massive mishandling of the deficits, etc.

Of course this has to be done in conjunction with a plan toward a successful economic recovery, creation of jobs, education, health care,...

Get the message out there, repeat often, saturate the media with this message. Bush will lose, because the economy is not in a recovery. More than 3 Million jobs lost.