Dem. Congressional Challengers Strategy Memo - OVERSIGHT BEATS WITHDRAWAL

[Pirate Smile]

Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy Memo

By Chris Bowers, Rick Jacobs, Matt Stoller and Joel Wright

To: Democratic Congressional Challengers
Re: CA-50 Post-Special Election (Busby-Bilbray) Polling Memo

(They polled on the CA-50 Busby-Bilbray to see why she lost and to learn the lessons for this November. Those lessons are detailed in this Strategy Memo.)

-snip-
While the country is open to the idea of partial or total troop withdrawal, according to our data in CA-50 existing withdrawal messaging loses badly to Republican `cut and run' counter-attack messaging. This suggests that voters are seeking a set of actors in Congress who will tell the truth about the war and hold Bush accountable for mistakes. This is in contrast to an immediate end to the conflict and /or yet another withdrawal plan that Congress cannot enact. Voters intuitively understand that Congress doesn't run the military, and that regardless of the outcome of the 2006 election, Bush will be in charge of the military until 2009. As such, framing the election as a choice between rival Congressional military plans sacrifices the credibility of Democratic candidates who can only legitimately promise to hold hearings, restore congressional oversight of military matters, locate and identify blame, and serve as a check on a widely disliked and distrusted President.

Recommendations

Candidates should run aggressively on accountability and the war in Iraq. Here are six specific `rules of thumb' we recommend you use for planning purposes.

1. Iraq must be central in your campaign and you must blame Republicans for it. Ignoring Iraq, downplaying its significance, or accepting Bush's framework by not blaming leaders is a sign to voters that you are weak, unlikely to bring change, and not addressing the main issue of the day. Regardless of how you approach the policy going forward in Iraq, the key trait that voters seek is a willingness to hold failed leaders accountable for the debacle. Be willing to uncover the truth, place blame, and demand consequences.


2. The debate on whether Bush is a competent, trustworthy President is over. He is considered among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents a leader who makes mistakes and then won't tell the truth about those mistakes. This is not about competence. This is about massive failure of leadership with no end in sight.


3. Republicans cannot run against Bush and Iraq. Voters do not think that Republicans are willing to hold Bush or other administration figures accountable for those mistakes, so Republican Congressional dissent on the war is unlikely to help Republicans. But dissent will, in fact, work to Democratic candidates' advantage. It shows strength and, most importantly, principle and personal values.


4. `Terrorism' scares only work in the absence of strong accountability messaging, since Republicans are no longer trustworthy on issues of war and peace. Voters know Republicans will let mistakes slide and they want accountability in the face of that.


5. Oversight beats withdrawal. Journalists or other messengers who frame politics in terms of a need to have an alternative plan in contrast to Bush are insulting voters, and should be taken to task aggressively for framing false choices and misrepresenting the role of Congress. Congress primarily serves as military oversight, not military policy. Voters know that.


6. Pick a fight, any fight. Voters need to be convinced that Democrats can credibly challenge Bush. Whether the fight is over de-funding Cheney's personal staff, attacking John Bolton's confirmation, impeachment hearings, or stopping war profiteering with a new `Truman Commission', Democratic candidates must demonstrate strength through aggressive confrontation where the term "accountability" is more than just an abstraction or corporate lingo. It must be made real through a fight you plan to pick.

When presented with squeals from journalists and Republicans over your fight, a resolute willingness to not back off in the face of criticism is key. Your willingness to hold Bush accountable must be made real. For example, demand that the president and the party in power come to account for having squandered lives, security and treasure while enriching CEOs of major corporations such as Halliburton.

Here's a real-world example of this dynamic from US history: Harry Truman became vice president because as a US Senator, he had the backbone to demand that major figures in the American economy either give back money stolen in the provision of shoddy materiel for World War II, or go to jail for treason.

In sum, whatever fights you pick, whether specific local issues or national ones, our poll shows that accountability regarding Bush, Congressional Republicans and your opponent is crucial to building the credibility you need in order to break through with a majority vote in November. Democrats, Independents and even many Republicans want this to occur. Do it.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/17/16551/9414

[Stinky The Clown]

1. The pearl: "Pick a Fight .... Any Fight"

Amen to that!

[Pirate Smile]

5. I also think the focus on oversight instead of withdrawal is extremely

important.

The only thing the Democrats can honestly promise if they take over Congress is oversight - investigations and hearings.

The Bush Crony contractors have used the treasury as their own personal slush fund with the approval of or, at the very least, acquiescence of Congress.

Pledging to begin Truman Investigations and Hearings should be a Main platform for all Dems run on.

It should be something everyone, everywhere in the Country knows that the Democrats will do immediately upon taking control of Congress.

It should be a national campaign message - tying it back to Truman under a Democratic President pledging to get the War Profiteers.

Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II, "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster"

We need to hammer the sh@# out of that message. It is a disgrace how so many have gotten so rich off of the Iraq War - and that has been perfectly OK with the WH and Republican Congress.

I think this is a huge Republican weakness just sitting there for the Democrats to exploit. Plus it is just the right thing to do and everybody knows it.

[EST]

2. Very cool, accurate and echos my own sentiments.

Wanna bet on who and how many dem incumbents will take this to heart to retain their offices?

[OwnedByFerrets]

3. This, on the surface.,

is the most reasoned well thought out plan that I have yet to see. How do we help it to be implemented?

[Pirate Smile]

7. You could recommend the thread so we can get this more widely seen.

:)

At the link it states "Data for this polling memo was commissioned by the Courage Campaign, a non-partisan, progressive 527 based in Los Angeles, and MyDD.com, a progressive political blog. Wright Consulting Services conducted all polling. More information is available at www.couragecampaigns.org."


I agree with you. I want all Democrats running to see this and implement it, along with the DNC, DCCC, DSCC, all the Dem. pundits, progressive radio shows, etc.

We could all be running from the same playbook, helping with the echo-chamber effect that is needed.

We can help with the echo-chamber ourselves on TV, newspapers, talk radio, etc.

[Nite Owl]

4. I like this part best

When presented with squeals from journalists and Republicans over your fight, a resolute willingness to not back off in the face of criticism is key.


Hope we see some spines growing. This should be fun!

[EST]

6. This needs to be on the front page!

Three more "Rs" and it's there.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Hereyago!

[drfresh]

9. Sounds good. Very good. -nt

[ginnyinWI]

10. excellent advice. n/t

[Bluestar]

11. HOORAY!!!! Kick this!!! n/t

[eridani]

12. Proposing any kind of military strategy is a big loser

It just opens you to nitpicking. Ignore withdrawal details and insist on a commitment to no permanent occupation.

[bvar22]

13. Who could argue with this?

K&R

[Peace Patriot]

14. CA-50 is a very Repub district with military bases. That's the wrong

demographic to base a general strategy on. Busby wasn't "beaten badly"--she almost won against huge odds INCLUDING the use of extremely insider hackable, Bushite-corporate controlled electronic voting machines, run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code. The very corrupt San Diego political establishment had furthermore just introduced Diebold touchscreens, the worst of the election theft machines, as the result of the 'swiftboating' of our good Democratic CA Sec of State Kevin Shelley--who had sued Diebold and decertified these machines prior to the 2004 election, and demanded to see their source code--and the installation of Schwarzenegger appointee and Dieobld shill Bruce McPherson, who ILLEGALLY RE-CERTIFIED these machines.

You must not base a strategy on the results of a Diebold election, especially in what was touted by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies as a "bellweather" on Bush and the war. It's playing the Bush junta's game.

I'm not against smart strategy, and I certainly think the point about accountability is vitally important. This is the most egregiously unaccountable administration in our history, and maybe in anybody's history--the Tsars of Russia come to mind. BUT THAT ISN'T ALL. And that ISN'T the chief thing on peoples' minds in all other polling, now and over the last several years. Opposition to the Iraq war has steadily risen from a MAJORITY of 56% BEFORE the invasion (Feb. '03), to a whopping 70% today. The will of the American people has been ignored ALL ALONG. Some Americans have felt that, despite how the war started, we can't just instantly pull out and leave the Iraqi government we set up stranded. But a recent poll showed 55% for IMMEDIATE withdrawal. In other words, they consider the situation so deteriorated that even the goal of a stable government has to be abandoned.

However, the chief thing on peoples' minds right now is the Bush junta's intent to EXPAND the Mideast war. Not to withdraw, not even to pull back, but to EXPAND the warfare beyond Iraq and Lebanon, to Syria and Iran. According to one poll, that was posted here at DU, last week, EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT of the American people oppose any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war.

To TEMPER our message in these circumstances is a huge mistake. And to actually tailor it to BUSH's nefarious plans in the Middle East--by stressing oversight over withdrawal--is tantamount to endorsing those plans. Here is the message I'm getting from this memo: "We really like this war, despite its horror and lack of justification and illegality, and despite the overwhelming opposition of the American people, but we're going to shove it down your throats in a different way. We're going to let Bush get away with this HORROR, and even EXPAND this horror, but with more financial efficiency and accountability. No war profiteers! Isn't that great? "

It sounds NO DIFFERENT than Kerry's message during the election: Americans DO NOT GET THE CHOICE OF NO WAR. We only get the choice of a MORE EFFICIENT WAR.

Not good enough.

It's okay for the message to be REALISTIC, as to what a Democratic Congressional majority containing many Diebold-(s)elected (pro-war, pro-corporate) Democrats might be able to DO. But to pander to the MINORITY rightwing and the MINORITY war profiteering corporate news monopoly TRUMPET of rightwing views, with a message of mere "oversight", and NOT address the illegality and immorality of this regime's SLAUGHTER of over 100,000 innocent people, and torture, and spying, and egregious assault on the Constitution, and the on-going deaths of U.S. soldiers stuck over there in an UNTENABLE position, is a bad mis-reading of the mood of the country, and IRRESPONSIBLE. Leaders must LEAD, for godssakes! They must not bend and waiver and namby-pampy around in this situation. They must SAY WHAT IS RIGHT and pursue it as best they can.

Our country is HORRIBLE TROUBLE! Everything we ever held sacred about it is under assault. The rule of law. The balance of power. Honest, transparent elections--the heart of our democracy--vote counting in public view. Fairness, tolerance, rational debate. These people OUTED a CIA agent! They committed TREASON. They tortured a 15 year old boy!* They've broken the law--time and again--and refuse to stop doing it! It's not a time for "messaging." It's a time for standing up and speaking the truth.

But the chief failure of this sort of thinking--as reflected in this memo ("messaging"--thinking of what will "sell")--is that it does not address the matter of the war in the context of the BLATANTLY NON-TRANSPARENT election system, which was quite deliberately designed by the biggest crooks in Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney, to perpetuate Bushite power and to conduct a war that NOBODY WANTED.

The people of this country--and the Democrats running for office--need GUIDANCE about this. PRACTICAL guidance. What do you do about the votes being counted inside a "black box" that nobody can see, controlled by corporations with very close ties to the Bush junta? What, practically, do you do? Promote Absentee Ballot voting--and enlist hundreds of hard-nosed vote counting monitors to make sure the AB votes get counted? (I favor this--I think we should revolt against these election theft machines, and FLOOD election officials with MOUNTAINS of paper AB votes.) Or, how to analyze the election system in a given situation? Who's in control? How bad is the non-transparency? No paper trail, for instance. (Get your legal team ready!).

If you base your analysis of the political landscape on very riggable elections, you are going to be WRONG. You are going to mis-read the public. And then the unfair advantage that these riggable machines give to Bushites and warmongers is going to beat you. Because you CAN'T INSPIRE SUFFICIENT TURNOUT TO OVERCOME THAT ADVANTAGE with a half-assed message!

[Peace Patriot]

16. Note on the Truman example: THAT was a JUST war! This is NOT!

Big difference! THIS war was rigged up FOR THE PURPOSE OF WAR PROFITEERING. From Day One, Halliburton was in there with no-bid contracts! That's the problem with this memo. It's so skewed toward "messaging" and what will "sell" that it misses the MASSIVE illegality and immorality of what the Bush junta has done.

It also misses the SCALE of the thievery. These assholes have bankrupted the country! Their malfeasance is UNBELIEVABLE!

The Truman commission is of course a good example to use. It's a precedent for accountability during war-time. But we NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THIS WAR. It is NOT a just war. It was and is incredibly WRONG. And no doubt we could trace the current war profiteers right back to the bad actors that Truman was dealing with, only now the bad actors are IN CHARGE and trumping up wars IN ORDER TO profiteer. Things are backasswards and upside down. We're living in "Alice in Wonderland." In BushWorld.

Accountability IS NOT ENOUGH.

[Recursion]

15. IMO, this is why Lieberman lost but HRC probably won't

People saw it as pro-war vs. anti-war which, I think, was not the issue: Lamont was willing to hold the administration accountable, and HRC is less fawning towards W than Lieberman.

I've heard more than a few non-political types see something on the news and ask rhetorically, "what the hell do you have to do to get fired in this administration?" Seriously, has any administration before had this many catastrophes with, to date, almost nobody fired? Heads should have rolled after 9/11. Heads should have rolled after no WMDs were found. Heads should have rolled after we lost the 1st battle of Fallujah. Heads should have rolled after Katrina. As far as I've seen, he's fired Goss and McClelland, and that's it. He kind of fired Wolfie and Bolton (in all our furor over his appointment, we forgot that he was essentially being 'promoted out' as a sop to State), but the notion that a Secretary of Defense, for instance, could preside over a fiasco this horrid and keep his job is, I think, a new notion in American politics, if not politics in general.

[Peace Patriot]

17. I agree. The malfeasance is STAGGERING. And we really have to ask:

How did that lack of accountability COME ABOUT? What makes them feel so immune to public opinion that they could rush into the Iraq war with 56% of the American people against it?

I have a smart old friend who said to me, way back in May 2004--when the Abu Ghraib photos came out--that Bush and Cheney were acting like their re-election was assured. He was really spooked by their arrogance.

And, lo and behold, we find out that, during the 2002-2004 period, our election system was taken over by electronic voting corporations with very close ties to the Bush regime--one of them (Diebold) headed by a Bush-Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser (!), and the other, a spin-off of Diebold (ES&S) initially funded by rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon Foundation (which touts the death penalty for homosexuals, among other things). These were the people who "counted" 80% of the nation's votes in 2004 under a veil of corporate secrecy!

Is it any wonder that Bush and Cheney felt immune to public opinion? They had a slam-dunk coming. And if the revolt against them was too big even for the Diebold/ES&S insider hackers to deal with, they could count on Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio to bend the last needed state to their will.

Here's my election fraud speech: You only have to LOOK AT WHAT THEY'RE DOING to know that they weren't elected. How could an American president get away with torture, massive domestic spying and "signing statements" exempting his regime from Congressional laws? It's flabbergasting. How can they get away with multiple tax cuts for the super-rich while bankrupting the country with illegal war? How could they get away with NORAD standard operating procedures all failing on 9/11, and on that day only, with no investigation and no consequences? (Think what Harry Truman would have done with THAT!)

The BASIC MECHANISM OF ACCOUNTABILITY--the people voting in transparent elections--IS GONE!

And how can our Democratic politicians achieve accountability on their own, without that basic mechanism of the people's will behind them?

They can't.

So they might as well not even talk about accountability. They need to talk about NON-TRANSPARENT VOTE COUNTING, and how that happened, and who's accountable for THAT, and WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT!

[EST]

19. Excellent point.

Excellent, excellent point! Maybe it's because I agree with you ar because you speak the truth. (Actually, it's both.)

Either way, expand on this and open it up a little and start a thread with it. Well said.

[elehhhhna]

22. Investigate, audit, and prosecute. Run on that & we'll have a win.

[Peace Patriot]

18. A further thought on this memo: It's not so bad. Accountability is a good

theme. But our candidates' analysis of the accountability issue, and their message to the public, needs to be DEEPER. It needs to address the vast uneasiness in the country about stolen elections. In one recent poll, FORTY PERCENT of the public thinks our elections are rigged. That's huge! --especially given the utter black-hole into which the war profiteering corporate news monopolies have cast this issue.

Another uneasiness: The Democratic Party leadership's MIND-BOGGLING SILENCE about the Bushite corporate takeover of our election system and the TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY vote tabulation (with, in addition, virtually no audit/recount controls). What does this silence MEAN? Fear? Corruption? Collusion on the war?

Another friend of mine--after I explained who was now counting all our votes, and how--said to me: "But the Democrats wouldn't let happen, would they?"

Well, it's not a matter of "Would they let it happen?" It's a matter of, they DID let it happen. So what are we to make of it? Almost all of our representatives are now beholden to Diebold and ES&S, and not to us--and are also beholden to corrupt state/local election officials who have bought into this culture of corporate secrecy and privatized elections, often as the result of lavish lobbying. Just last summer, Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia (another electronic voting corporation with ties to the Republican Party) feted election officials from around the country with a week of fun, sun and high-end shopping at the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles. Advertised as a seminar on electronic voting. Right. Lavish dinners, a dance; little "graduation" awards to our public servants. To the people charged with the MOST IMPORTANT public service in our democracy: guarding our right to vote. Totally, totally corrupt.

Honest people running for office are facing a BYZANTINE world of private, corporate vote counting, in which some of our election officials have even done sales brochures for Diebold. (Connie McCormack--Los Angeles; Cathy Cox--Georgia.) (If anybody was wondering why Absentee Ballot voting is up to 50% in Los Angeles, THIS is why. They DON'T TRUST Connie McCormack and her close ties to Diebold, and they are rightfully suspicious of electronic voting.)

We had a nice big fat debacle here in California about Diebold. The good guy lost (Kevin Shelley). A very bad guy got appointed to replace him (Bruce McPherson). Shocking as it all was, it no longer should shock anyone how filthy dirty Republicans are. But it's still shocking what happened among the state Democrats when all this went down. They caved to a "swiftboating" campaign, basically--and abandoned the integrity of our elections, in favor of the games they were playing with Schwarzenegger. (And they're still playing games--for instance, with this global warming initiative that, along with Diebold touchscreens, is going to get Schwarz "re-elected" but isn't going to mean dick, in reality. Schwarz is going to come down on energy corporations? Give me a break.)

We now have what looks like a genuine election reformer, Debra Bowen, running for Sec of State against McPherson (who now has to actually get "elected"-now that he has Diebold touchscreens in place). But why didn't the Democrats support the election reformer that we HAD--the one we ELECTED--Kevin Shelley? The charges against him were bogus (--in fact turned out to be utter crap!). The person who LED the campaign against him was none other than Diebold shill Connie McCormack.

Byzantine. Back-stabbing assassins. Poisonous. A maze of treachery. That's what our election system has become. That's what global corporate predators DO to good government. They kill it. And this is the CONTEXT for the WAR THAT NOBODY WANTED. You can't have a war that nobody wants, in a democracy, unless you "fix" the elections.

And we need some blazing populist truthtellers--some Harry Trumans, some Hiram Johnsons--to TELL IT LIKE IT IS. Our democracy is sick unto death. Strong medicine is needed.

[OzarkDem]

20. Agree, its shallow

Doesn't demonstrate much to voters about Dem leadership, or whether they even capable of it.

When did showing leadership become a radical thing?

On edit: I'm referring to the dodgy wording on their strategy for challenging the Iraq War...that voters understand Congress has no control over the war, so its not necessary for Dems to have a detailed policy....that's not accurate. Voters do expect Congress to do something and the last time I checked, the Constitution is in agreement.

[mmonk]

25. Shallow has been the dem strategy for the last few years.

It's the best we can expect except from people like Lamont who aren't scared, timid, or too politically calculated to be the opposition.

[elehhhhna]

21. STop the presses! They need to be TOLD to be the OPPOSITION PARTY?

God what a buch of dingdings.

[mmonk]

23. You can't fight a wrong war right. But I agree.

I agree that accountability is the issue and the party should run on it.

[Pirate Smile]

24. kick

[tgnyc]

26. I'm not sure voters really understand that Congress doesn't control

the military. In this context, at least, I think most Americans believe that if the Democrats take over Congress, that will lead directly to the withdrawal of troops. I feel Democrats should play on that belief. I think talking about how you are going to provide oversight of the Iraqi disaster without any talk of how YOU ARE GOING TO END IT will not impress the average voter.

[lyonn]

29. Agree, the word "oversight" will cause comments like,

so, what do the dems plan to do, same-o, same-o, yep, weak. Name a Dem that lost due to disagreeing with the war other than Hackett, and he just barely lost in a red area. If anything disagreeing with this war has brought their expected count up.

The female that lost in San Diego made that comment about the illegals voting and boy did the repubs jump on that. I assume she mis-spoke?

[Pirate Smile]

27. kick

[sandnsea]

28. Polled a bunch of Republicans???

To decide how Democrats should win? Oh my, that sounds so... Liebermanish.

And we DON'T want a withdrawal plan now... after beating up our own 2004 candidate over it for 2 years??

I agree with some of this, but people want accountability AND solutions. What Dems would do better on Iraq and terrorism is critical to winning, not picking inane fights just to prove you're a better bully. Republicans might like that shit, but thank god they're only 35% of the voting public.