Can Dems Go Rove on Repubs over War?

[babylonsister]

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2009/06/can-dems-go-rove-on-repubs-ove.html

Can Dems Go Rove on Repubs over War?

By David Corn | June 26, 2009


The Democrats are planning something other than cook-outs for the Fourth of July. From Politico:

Democrats plan a July 4th ad campaign to punish House Republicans who voted against the $100-plus billion Iraq and Afghanistan war supplemental - emulating GOP attacks against John Kerry and other Dems who voted against Bush war bills.

A series of 60-second radio ads will run during drive time from July 1 through July 8, according to a script provided to POLITICO -- and they have the support-our-troops ring of GOP spots.

They'll target seven Republicans seen as vulnerable in '10, including Reps. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Charlie Dent (R-Penn.), Jim Gerlach (R-Penn.), Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), Mike McCaul (R-TX), Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Joe Wilson (R-SC).

This will be an interesting test case, for one important political question these days is, does anyone give a damn about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

At the presidential news conference earlier this week, not a single reporter asked President Barack Obama about either war. This week there's been a series of deadly bombings in Iraq, killing about 200 people--as US forces prepare to withdraw from Iraqi cities. This horrific violence has received little media attention in the United States. And when was the last time you saw a full report on the war in Afghanistan on television? There's an important presidential campaign under way in Afghanistan. Its outcome could have a big impact on the US war effort there. Yet, it registers barely a blip on the US media landscape. (At Mother Jones, we post a daily "We're Still at War Photo of the Day.")

So can Democrats score points by whacking Republicans in Rove-ian fashion for "not supporting the troops"? Unfortunately, I don't have much time to ponder this; a report on Michael Jackson's autopsy is coming up after the next commercial.

[mike_c]

1. so the democrats have unabashedly embraced the neocon agenda...

...of permanent war in the middle east? Or am I missing something here? :wtf:

[babylonsister]

3. No, in less than 48 hours many of our troops will be out of

Iraq. That's a change. As for Afghanistan, I don't know what to think, though I've been happy to hear the Afghanis and Pakistanis have taken up arms to defend themselves against the Taliban. That's a good thing and quite a change from the situation in Iraq.

Yes, I know, it all stinks and if I had my druthers, everyone would be sent immediately back to their respective homes. But I've also read quite a few reports from soldiers who don't think it'd be a good idea to abandon Afghanistan.

[timeforpeace]

6. Do you happen to know how many? Where will they be going, Afghanistan?

[mike_c]

8. did I miss that much....

WHAT!? U.S. troops will be gone from Iraq in less than a week?! Babylonsister, I apologize in advance if I'm misunderstanding even more than I thought, but it's my impression that there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 134,000 U.S. troops in Iraq today and they'll all still be there next week, as will some 75 U.S. military bases.

Source: http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

The "combat mission" is due to end on Aug. 31, 2010, but there 35,000-50,000 U.S. troops will STILL remain in Iraq afterward.

Source: http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/ObamaIraqEnd_2.htm

on edit: Oops, I misread your response, and missed the word "many." Still, the end of June only marks withdrawal from "towns and cities"-- I'm not sure what that really means, in a tactical sense-- but there will still be 130,000 U.S. troops doing SOMETHING imperialistic in Iraq come July!

[MADem]

2. It's an artful strategy for a number of reasons. One sticks out to my mind.

When it is very hot, or very cold, violence tends to abate. The "best times to terrorize" are fall and spring. Getting the idea in GOP and independent voting heads (soft supporters or otherwise) that their representatives are bastards who will leave the troops to die is probably a good idea from the standpoint of potential future actions against US troops and ciilian populations in those cooler months. After all, elections are held in the fall.

If they repeat this theme periodically--the 4th, Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day, etc.--the idea will sink in and by the time it is ballot-casting time, well, it could flip the vote.

[babylonsister]

4. I also think it points out the hypocrisy of the rethugs who

used that 'support the troops' meme for years, yet have now completely abandoned it. Sadly, I'm not sure how many people are even paying an iota of attention.

[MADem]

5. Certainly And people aren't paying attention, now, that's the truth.

This effort is directed towards red areas, though, who have been talking the talk for eight years -- but when they don't control the purse strings, their representatives no longer want to walk that walk. There is a bit of a disconnect there.

It depends on how good the commercials are, too, I think. If they have a catchy tune, an arresting voice doing the voiceover, or they manage to tug on those heartstrings like a little kitten with a big ball of yarn, well, they might have something. If they can make that "emotional connection" with people who prioritize this issue, they'll flip a few votes.

[zbdent]

7. Whenever a Dem goes on an interview, he (or she) should have the iphone set

with the videos of all the stuff said about the war ... when a reporter tries to say they're lying ... just pop up the vids ... right in the middle of the interviews ...