Manners at the political dinner table.
The 2004 campaign was a referendum on the war in Iraq and the Republicans waged the war -- err, campaign -- magnificently. So when the polls showed declining support for the war, and for President Bush, I wondered what strategy the Republicans would use in '06. If you're really interested in politics -- and if there's nothing good on TV (and, yes, I think men's figure skating qualifies in that category) -- you can actually get excited about figuring out how a bunch of candidates who defined themselves with an "I'm-like-him" strategy can, two years later, adopt a "Bush? Never heard of him" approach.
[image]
And now we know. They won't. (Sound of palm slapping against forehead). The test marketing of the TV commercial (latest | first ) building support for war by Progress for America would suggest -- at least to me -- that a referendum on Iraq is a logical strategy if support for the war can be restored first; especially if "we got steroids out of baseball" seems like one of the only other alternatives.
And the DFL walked right into the trap yesterday, getting itself involved in a flap between Progress for America and KSTP, which refused to air the first ad, because it started out criticizing TV news coverage of the war. And organizing a campaign to phone other TV stations to pressure them to pull the ads.
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
So after getting plenty of mileage for the ad, courtesy -- to some degree -- of the news conferences decrying it (stop me when this sounds familiar), Progress for America then pulled out a second ad that KSTP probably can't turn down.
So, and subtleties and logic aside because they don't matter in these sorts of things, the DFL raised awareness of an ad they hoped to muzzle, and allowed its opponents to portray the party as not supporting soldiers in Iraq (and, again, the fact the party wasn't withdrawing support of the soldiers in criticizing the ad, gets lost in the argument)
The decision to call attention to an ad they wanted muzzled could mean one of two things (1) the DFL is confident the poll numbers are solid on opposition to the war no matter what ads are thrown out there or (2) they didn't learn anything from 2004.
I think a rule of thumb in '06 might have been: Don't put yourself in any position of being painted as not supporting soldiers in Iraq -- especially dead ones.
And why do I put the subtleties of the DFL message aside? Because the next round of ads will. And that's what makes people vote the way they do.
The DFL didn't put the release on their Web page, but they did put it on their blog and then went home before posting the video of the news conference with this note:
Check back tomorrow, we might have some video clips up.
So the DFL gave opponents 24 hours to package what their message was before they'd presented it in an online form. The voice of the curmudgeonly political strategist "Bruno" (Ron Silver) when he was counseling a stumbling Jed Bartlett campaign on West Wing begins to ring in my ears (Specifically the episode in which the news coverage of a negative ad got it broadcast on every network.... for free).
There's more. One point person yesterday was 1st District candidate Tim Walz, a battle vet with sterling patriotic credentials; just the type of guy the Democrats have pined for. But while putting a picture of Walz up on the blog, his comments were nowhere to be found.
That left the blogging world to frame them for consumption, which they did. Happily.
Minnesota Democrats Exposed picked up this nugget and ran with it:
"Freedom of speech has its limitations on this, and that that is one of them, that is you cannot just say whatever you think."
So the Democrats, who currently seemed to have an issue to run with in Washington -- spying and alleged abuse of constitutional authority by the government -- open the door for this comment on the DFL blog.
What is the matter with you people?!? Here I am writing Congress, trying to get them not to let the Bush Administration completely destroy the Constitution, and you guys are back here trying to rip up the First Amendment by muzzling the Repubs' TV ads.
By the wording of the next paragraph, one might even conclude the post came from an opponent of the DFL who posted the comment. Maybe. Maybe not. If so, it shows they were ready to throw a little alkaline on the acid. And they didn't go home before their work was done.
Either way, the Republicans played with their food yesterday.
Making it a good day for the folks who couldn't find anything good on TV.
Miscellany
>>>Gary Miller at Kennedy v. the Machine takes me to task this morning for posting only Kennedy's contributions in the blog entry last night, that linked to the complete AP story.
No one can entirely escape the bias they bring to a story