We can't watch shows when they air since we spend time with our baby. We use Tivo to catch up on news and other events. On a hunch I set my Tivo to record both CBS and Fox for the "Barack Obama Political Message" to see what would happen. Since Tivo records by show name it couldn't possibly mess up - it does what the network tells the guide to do.
So, my wife and I sat down on the couch around 10pm PST to watch and I gave her the choice of which one she wanted - she picked CBS. We watched the whole 30 minoutes. Ater it was done I said, let me just check the fox recording to see if they actually aired it - it was a joke.
I hit play and all that was recorded was TMZ.com! I kept forwarding thru expecting for maybe a late start...nothing. Then I checked the TiVo info for the recording at it had the program name right but the wrong time - 9pm PST (5pm EST). So I checked "the google" and here is what I found...
KTTVDT (KTTV-DT) (FOX) channel logo KTTVDT (KTTV-DT) (FOX). Barack Obama Political Message Today at 9:00pm PDT.
So did Fox do this on purpose? I can't be the only one that Tivo'd the program to watch later? People who work swing shifts might have done the same. This is either on purpose or incompetence.
You can find this on Biden's senate web site,but like Sen. Obama he was asking the right question. I'll forgive him his vote for two reasons - 1) I take his reasoning seriously 2) the authorization was going to pass anyway.
Debating Iraq By Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Richard G. Lugar July 31, 2002 This op-ed originally appeared in THE NEW YORK TIMES on July 31, 2002. DEBATING IRAQ By Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Richard G. Lugar Through tragedy and pain, Americans have learned a great deal this past year about why foreign policy matters. In recent months, President Bush has made clear his determination to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power -- a goal many of us in Congress share. But to date we've seen only leaked reports of competing military plans. These have reflected deep divisions within the administration about whether and how to proceed. The time has come for a serious discussion of American policy toward Iraq. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will begin in-depth hearings today. While the White House supports the hearings -- which have been coordinated closely by Democrats and Republicans on the committee -- administration officials will not participate at this time lest the president be put in the position of having to make critical decisions prematurely. Without prejudging any particular course of action -- including the possibility of staying with nonmilitary options -- we hope to start a national discussion of some critical questions. First, what threat does Iraq pose to our security? How immediate is the danger? President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. It's true that other regimes hostile to the United States and our allies have, or seek to acquire, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. What makes Mr. Hussein unique is that he has actually used them -- against his own people and against his Iranian neighbors. And for nearly four years, Iraq has blocked the return of United Nations weapons inspectors. We need to explore Mr. Hussein's track record in acquiring, making and using weapons of mass destruction and the likelihood he would share them with terrorists. We also need a clear assessment of his current capabilities, including conventional forces and weapons. Second, what are the possible responses to the Iraqi threat? The containment strategy pursued by the United States since the end of the Persian Gulf war has kept Mr. Hussein boxed in. Continuing the containment strategy, coupled with a tough weapons-inspection program, is one option. But it raises the risk that Mr. Hussein will play cat-and-mouse with inspectors while building more weapons and selling them to those who would use them against us. If we wait for the danger to become clear and present, it may be too late. That is why some believe removing Mr. Hussein from power is the better course. A military response poses other problems. Some argue that by attacking Mr. Hussein, we might precipitate the very thing we are trying to prevent: his use of weapons of mass destruction. There also is concern he might try to spark a regional war. We must determine whether resources can be shifted to a major military undertaking in Iraq without compromising the war on terror elsewhere. We have to ask how much military intervention would cost and consider its likely impact on our economy. And we need to determine what level of support we are likely to get from allies in the Middle East and Europe. Third, when Saddam Hussein is gone, what would be our responsibilities? This question has not been explored but may prove to be the most critical. In Afghanistan, the war was prosecuted successfully, but many of us believe our commitment to security and reconstruction there has fallen short. Given Iraq's strategic location, its large oil reserves and the suffering of the Iraqi people, we cannot afford to replace a despot with chaos. We need to assess what it would take to rebuild Iraq economically and politically. Addressing these questions now would demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we are committed for the long haul. Iraq's neighbors would breathe easier if they knew the future had been thought through in detail. The American people, whose sons and daughters may be put in harm's way, need to have that same sense of assurance. Simply put, we need to know everything possible about the risks of action and of inaction. Ignoring these factors could lead us into something for which the American public is wholly unprepared. ### Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the chairman and Richard Lugar the acting ranking Republic member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The New York Times Home Page: http://www.nyt.com/
By Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Richard G. Lugar
July 31, 2002
This op-ed originally appeared in THE NEW YORK TIMES on July 31, 2002.
DEBATING IRAQ
Through tragedy and pain, Americans have learned a great deal this past year about why foreign policy matters. In recent months, President Bush has made clear his determination to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power -- a goal many of us in Congress share. But to date we've seen only leaked reports of competing military plans. These have reflected deep divisions within the administration about whether and how to proceed. The time has come for a serious discussion of American policy toward Iraq.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will begin in-depth hearings today. While the White House supports the hearings -- which have been coordinated closely by Democrats and Republicans on the committee -- administration officials will not participate at this time lest the president be put in the position of having to make critical decisions prematurely. Without prejudging any particular course of action -- including the possibility of staying with nonmilitary options -- we hope to start a national discussion of some critical questions.
First, what threat does Iraq pose to our security? How immediate is the danger? President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. It's true that other regimes hostile to the United States and our allies have, or seek to acquire, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. What makes Mr. Hussein unique is that he has actually used them -- against his own people and against his Iranian neighbors. And for nearly four years, Iraq has blocked the return of United Nations weapons inspectors. We need to explore Mr. Hussein's track record in acquiring, making and using weapons of mass destruction and the likelihood he would share them with terrorists. We also need a clear assessment of his current capabilities, including conventional forces and weapons.
Second, what are the possible responses to the Iraqi threat? The containment strategy pursued by the United States since the end of the Persian Gulf war has kept Mr. Hussein boxed in. Continuing the containment strategy, coupled with a tough weapons-inspection program, is one option. But it raises the risk that Mr. Hussein will play cat-and-mouse with inspectors while building more weapons and selling them to those who would use them against us. If we wait for the danger to become clear and present, it may be too late. That is why some believe removing Mr. Hussein from power is the better course.
A military response poses other problems. Some argue that by attacking Mr. Hussein, we might precipitate the very thing we are trying to prevent: his use of weapons of mass destruction. There also is concern he might try to spark a regional war. We must determine whether resources can be shifted to a major military undertaking in Iraq without compromising the war on terror elsewhere. We have to ask how much military intervention would cost and consider its likely impact on our economy. And we need to determine what level of support we are likely to get from allies in the Middle East and Europe.
Third, when Saddam Hussein is gone, what would be our responsibilities? This question has not been explored but may prove to be the most critical. In Afghanistan, the war was prosecuted successfully, but many of us believe our commitment to security and reconstruction there has fallen short. Given Iraq's strategic location, its large oil reserves and the suffering of the Iraqi people, we cannot afford to replace a despot with chaos.
We need to assess what it would take to rebuild Iraq economically and politically. Addressing these questions now would demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we are committed for the long haul. Iraq's neighbors would breathe easier if they knew the future had been thought through in detail. The American people, whose sons and daughters may be put in harm's way, need to have that same sense of assurance. Simply put, we need to know everything possible about the risks of action and of inaction. Ignoring these factors could lead us into something for which the American public is wholly unprepared.
###
Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the chairman and Richard Lugar the acting ranking Republic member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The New York Times Home Page:
http://www.nyt.com/
I was looking at the Pollster.com, DailyKos.com & 538 numbers and there are some interesting outliers in the mix. In McCains home turf when they poll with Barr and Nader in the mix, Obama gets within striking distance of 4 points. I don't know what this really means but it should be looked into.
And over at Dkos...
Myers Research (D) & Grove Insight (D). 10/23-24. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines) Likely voters McCain (R) 44 Obama (D) 40 Early voters (34% of the sample) McCain (R) 46 Obama (D) 47 The sample was 40 percent Republican, 33 Democratic, and 26 percent independent. ASU has its own survey coming Monday, and they've hinted at similar results. Makes me wish I would've polled Arizona instead of Tennessee.
Myers Research (D) & Grove Insight (D). 10/23-24. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines)
Likely voters
McCain (R) 44 Obama (D) 40
Early voters (34% of the sample)
McCain (R) 46 Obama (D) 47
The sample was 40 percent Republican, 33 Democratic, and 26 percent independent. ASU has its own survey coming Monday, and they've hinted at similar results. Makes me wish I would've polled Arizona instead of Tennessee.
So this might mean nothing OR it might mean its time to make John McCain defend his front porch! Anyone have any thoughts?
BTW - If you want to be your own Chuck Todd - Click Here
From The Huffinton Post:
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband has refused to testify in the investigation of his wife's alleged abuse of power, and key lawmakers said Thursday that uncooperative witnesses are effectively sidetracking the probe until after Election Day.<snip>In the letter, Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein lists nine objections to the Legislature's investigation into Gov. Palin. Van Flein also argues the subpoena is "unduly burdensome" because Palin has travel plans that require him to be out of the state.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband has refused to testify in the investigation of his wife's alleged abuse of power, and key lawmakers said Thursday that uncooperative witnesses are effectively sidetracking the probe until after Election Day.
<snip>
In the letter, Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein lists nine objections to the Legislature's investigation into Gov. Palin. Van Flein also argues the subpoena is "unduly burdensome" because Palin has travel plans that require him to be out of the state.
So my question is - Is it appropriate for The United States Secret Service to assist Todd Palin in ignoring a subpoena? The Secret Service is, after all, a law enforcement and protective services agency. Since the agents that are protecting Mr. Palin are aware of his intention to violate the subpoena, aren't they violating their duties as well?
In a previous post I wondered aloud where Hillary Clinton was following the announcement of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate. What she has done so far could be politely described as showing up to a rally and talking. The below article by Lisa Gans puts it better than I could have...
In accepting her role as John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, made an unabashed appeal to Hillary Clinton supporters and, in one of the greatest displays of chutzpah in recent political memory, offered to carry the baton that final yard for her to smash the glass ceiling. Women, and people who care about women, should be afraid of this Republican ticket. They should be affronted by the Republican's appeal for support to the very people whom they sees to harm. And they should look to Hillary Clinton to make clear the distinctions between herself and the Sarah Palins of the world. John McCain and Sarah Palin are people who can be counted on to repair any cracks in the glass ceiling made by Hillary and countless others, and roll back progress made by and for women over the past half century. Hillary is in a unique position to point out that this Republican ticket proposes to pack the Supreme Court with radical conservative judges, take away a woman's right to chose, blur the line between Church and State, jeopardize Social Security, and cut social programs whose beneficiaries are primarily women and children.Yet, following the announcement of Palin as the VP nominee, Hillary Clinton released the following tepid statement: "We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin's historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain. While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate."During the debates against Barack Obama, a man with whom she voted approximately 90% of the time in Congress and with whom she shares a basic set of values, beliefs and core political principles, Clinton did not hold back her pointed criticisms of the man she hoped to defeat. It is now time for her to unleash her oratory power and, in this case, well-deserved indignation, against John McCain and his choice for Vice President.John McCain and Sarah Palin are the antithesis of everything that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton stand for, and everything that Hillary Clinton has fought for during her political career. I have been an Obama supporter from the start, but I always knew that, if Hillary turned out to be the nominee, the Supreme Court would be safe from justices who would seek to prevent women from maintaining control over their own bodies and reproductive decisions. I knew that the fight for healthcare, education, social security, and support for our nation's veterans would be in capable and concerned hands. And, I had the comfort of knowing that the unilateralism that has been the hallmark of the Bush foreign policy would come to an end and that we would once again reach out to our allies. These are the common causes that should spur Hillary on to step forward and make the difference she clearly can in shifting the tone and substance of the media coverage of this campaign. As a woman who has become a feminist icon with serious track record on issues relating to women and children, she is needed at the front lines, a place where she told us during the primaries she has always been.Hillary was much praised for her speech at the democratic convention, but her relative silence now can only lead Democratic voters to wonder whether she is in this for the Democrats or for herself. If McCain's reckelss ploy actually works and disaffected Clinton supporters vote to put oldest president and the least qualified vice president in American history in office, Hillary might have succeeded in proving that the Democratic party needed her more than it thought it did. And her legacy might very well end up being the first woman in the White House - just not one who advances the cause of women. Hillary Clinton's silence could very well contribute to the election of John McCain, and to a President Palin who appoints a Supreme Court that overturns Roe v. Wade.Hillary commands an audience when she speaks. And Sarah Palin has given her a veritable invitation to respond to and attack the McCain-Palin ticket for the devastating effect its policies would have on women and children. Hillary has it in her power to draw the cameras of CNN and FOX's. She has the opportunity to use her influence and unique position in this campaign to get the media to run and re-run speeches conveying her outrage over Republican lies and her exhortation to women voters to support the Democratic ticket. If Hillary Clinton was serious when she said that this election is not about her, but about the issues, then she needs to lend her voice, loud and clear, to help pop the Palin balloon with one of the shards of that glass ceiling that she can legitimately claim to have cracked. She needs to take the spotlight away from John McCain and Sarah Palin and focus it back on the issues that matter to her and to the American people.
So Sen. McCain picks Gov. Palin as his running mate and presumptive VP nominee... There is a very small window that the DNC/Obama has to define Mrs. Palin in the eyes of voters or they will believe what ever the GOP tells them. We must act now! So I ask again... WHERE IS HILLARY??? Nationwide ad to start the the indirect definition of her? This ad should have been out already for playback over and over on sunday talk.
We also need female surrogates with talking points.
The Main Stream Media seems not to have noticed this - or is conveniently ignoring it.
Last night on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Sen. McCain appeared to claim that Barry Goldwater's loss was corrected by the assassination of Jack Kennedy in Dallas.
McCain: ...Where I learn is from a town hall meeting. That's where you learn hopes, dreams, aspirations and concerns of Americans who are hurt right now. So if we stood on the stage together, it changes the atmosphere. Many years ago Barry Goldwater and Jack Kennedy had agreed to fly around the country and from one place to another and stand before the American people. I still with Senator Obama would do that.Leno: ...Look what happened to Barry Goldwater.McCain: ...As you know the tragedy of Dallas intervened. But I think it would have been great for the American people to see us stand together.
So John McCain does essentially the same thing as Hillary Clinton, and not a peep from the media???
From Crooks and Liars:
"Cokie Roberts: …going off this week I know his grandmother lives in Hawaii and I know Hawaii is a state, but it has the look of him going off to some sort of foreign, exotic place. He should be at Myrtle Beach and if he’s going to take a vacation at this time. I just think this is not the time to do that."
How about Sen. Obama and the family spend a couple hours visiting the memorial like all the other tourists do to this US state?
I had to reprint some of this blog entry from "Brilliant at Breakfast". I take no credit for the content of this entry.
"The original article cited at Mahablog is by one Steven Calabrese, a Republican hack who is on board the Chatternoodle Choo-Choo and who is also a Federalist Society member (which explains everything. Calabrese argues thusly:Barack Obama is too young to be president. Yes I know he is 46 and the Constitution sets the presidential age qualification at 35 or higher, but Obama has said that we ought not to interpret the Constitution woodenly and formalistically. Perhaps we should look deeper at the presidential age limit. If we do, we will find that Obama really is too young to be president.In 1789, the average life expectancy of a newborn was about 40 years, compared with about 78 today. A lot of this was because of infant mortality, but in 1789, even the average life expectancy of every man who reached age 18 was only about 47. This suggests that at best a 35-year-old age limit in 1789 might have functioned then about the way a 55- or 60-year-old age qualification would function today. On this account Obama may be old enough to drive and buy a glass of white wine, but he has a way to go before he can run for president.Others on the legal left, such as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, argue that in choosing between different interpretations of the Constitution, we should select the one that will produce the best consequences. This method too suggests that Obama should be understood to be constitutionally barred from serving as president by reason of his age. We have had three presidents out of 43 who were younger when they took office than Obama would be on Jan. 20, 2009: Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Theodore Roosevelt. All of them committed serious rookie blunders because they were too young.Funny how Calabrese refuses to make George W. Bush, who was 44 when he took office and made the biggest, hugest, most grievous "rookie mistake" in the history of the presidency. He decided that anything the Clinton Administration warned him about wasn't worth bothering with. Then he ignored a Presidential Daily Briefing that said "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Then he sat in an elementary school classroom while two airplanes hit the World Trade Center and one hit the Pentagon. Then he dropped the ball in Afghanistan because Dick Cheney dangled the shiny bauble of Iraq in front of him.You want to talk rookie mistakes? How about let's talk about George W. Bush, then.If we weren't in a situation in which 55% of Americans find Barack Obama "risky" because he has a funny name, his "pigmentation is unseemly", and he represents something other than more lies and more war, it would be hilarious that John McCain is within striking distance of being able to either win or steal, given this kind of pulling-stuff-out-of-their-collective-posteriors that his campaign is pulling these days. But people like Calabrese are taken seriously in the media cocktail weenie circuit. I fully anticipate he will show up on Morning Joe tomorrow while unseen voices whisper love songs to McCain in Scarborough's ear, for which he will elicit entirely new lyrics from Steven Calabrese."
"The original article cited at Mahablog is by one Steven Calabrese, a Republican hack who is on board the Chatternoodle Choo-Choo and who is also a Federalist Society member (which explains everything. Calabrese argues thusly:Barack Obama is too young to be president. Yes I know he is 46 and the Constitution sets the presidential age qualification at 35 or higher, but Obama has said that we ought not to interpret the Constitution woodenly and formalistically. Perhaps we should look deeper at the presidential age limit. If we do, we will find that Obama really is too young to be president.In 1789, the average life expectancy of a newborn was about 40 years, compared with about 78 today. A lot of this was because of infant mortality, but in 1789, even the average life expectancy of every man who reached age 18 was only about 47. This suggests that at best a 35-year-old age limit in 1789 might have functioned then about the way a 55- or 60-year-old age qualification would function today. On this account Obama may be old enough to drive and buy a glass of white wine, but he has a way to go before he can run for president.Others on the legal left, such as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, argue that in choosing between different interpretations of the Constitution, we should select the one that will produce the best consequences. This method too suggests that Obama should be understood to be constitutionally barred from serving as president by reason of his age. We have had three presidents out of 43 who were younger when they took office than Obama would be on Jan. 20, 2009: Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Theodore Roosevelt. All of them committed serious rookie blunders because they were too young.
Funny how Calabrese refuses to make George W. Bush, who was 44 when he took office and made the biggest, hugest, most grievous "rookie mistake" in the history of the presidency. He decided that anything the Clinton Administration warned him about wasn't worth bothering with. Then he ignored a Presidential Daily Briefing that said "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Then he sat in an elementary school classroom while two airplanes hit the World Trade Center and one hit the Pentagon. Then he dropped the ball in Afghanistan because Dick Cheney dangled the shiny bauble of Iraq in front of him.You want to talk rookie mistakes? How about let's talk about George W. Bush, then.If we weren't in a situation in which 55% of Americans find Barack Obama "risky" because he has a funny name, his "pigmentation is unseemly", and he represents something other than more lies and more war, it would be hilarious that John McCain is within striking distance of being able to either win or steal, given this kind of pulling-stuff-out-of-their-collective-posteriors that his campaign is pulling these days. But people like Calabrese are taken seriously in the media cocktail weenie circuit. I fully anticipate he will show up on Morning Joe tomorrow while unseen voices whisper love songs to McCain in Scarborough's ear, for which he will elicit entirely new lyrics from Steven Calabrese."
Well put!!!
I want to bring up a fact that most people probably are not aware of.
Mitt Romney went on MSNBC and claimed that Sen. McCain authored the philosophy of the surge in Iraq.
In January of 2007 from The Washington Post:
"Mr. Bush's first challenge if he proposes a surge will consequently be to convince the country that the fresh troops would have a vital and achievable mission. Those who have been arguing for the move -- notably, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) -- say the purpose would be to pacify those sectors of Baghdad where sectarian fighting has been most intense. They argue that the main U.S. goal in Iraq, which is to forge a stable and sustainable government, can't be achieved unless there is a minimal level of security in the capital. The Iraqi army isn't yet able to impose order, they say; if the United States doesn't do it, the sectarian warfare will continue to escalate. Without a surge, Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman warn, the war will be lost."
But that is only the McBush/Lieberman side of the story. You see, in 2005 Secretary of State Condi Rice proposed a surge of her own to Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld and was shot down. Don't believe me? It's documented for all to read on The State Department website!
"In short, with the Iraqi Government, our political-military strategy has to be to clear, hold, and build: to clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them securely, and to build durable, national Iraqi institutions."
Yes... Clear, Hold, Build IS a surge because it was not just a change in tactics but required a considerable increase in soldiers and support forces on the ground. The increase in forces was the reason why Cheney and Rumsfeld shot it down BTW.
So why don't we stop letting McCain talk about the surge like it was his idea, or that it was executed properly, or anything else for that matter.
Redstate.com posted this edited video of Reagan as part of their redstate.com 3.0 celebration (or whatever) but I thought the messaging was just about right. Any thoughts???
Just 'cause they are repulican's don't mean they should be ignored :)
From The New York Times:
"A coalition of military groups is planning a nationally televised town-hall-style meeting with the presidential candidates near Fort Hood, Tex., the largest active-duty military installation in the country. But so far, only Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, has agreed to attend.""Senator Obama strongly supports America’s veterans and military families and has worked hard on their behalf in the Senate,” said Phillip Carter, director of Mr. Obama’s veterans effort and an Iraq war veteran. “While we unfortunately had a previously scheduled commitment on the date proposed, Senator Obama looks forward to continuing the dialogue he’s been having throughout the country with veterans on how we can better serve our men and women in uniform as they serve us."“I’m having extreme difficulty getting the Obama campaign to commit to this event, and we do not understand why,” said Ms. Picard, whose husband is deployed in Iraq. “We made it very clear to them that if they would commit to the event, we would work with them on dates.”
"A coalition of military groups is planning a nationally televised town-hall-style meeting with the presidential candidates near Fort Hood, Tex., the largest active-duty military installation in the country. But so far, only Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, has agreed to attend."
"Senator Obama strongly supports America’s veterans and military families and has worked hard on their behalf in the Senate,” said Phillip Carter, director of Mr. Obama’s veterans effort and an Iraq war veteran. “While we unfortunately had a previously scheduled commitment on the date proposed, Senator Obama looks forward to continuing the dialogue he’s been having throughout the country with veterans on how we can better serve our men and women in uniform as they serve us."
“I’m having extreme difficulty getting the Obama campaign to commit to this event, and we do not understand why,” said Ms. Picard, whose husband is deployed in Iraq. “We made it very clear to them that if they would commit to the event, we would work with them on dates.”
This needs to be fixed FAST. Attending this event is a no brainer. Does Mr. Plouffe need some vacation time??? When you have the opportunitty to speak to the military AND debate Sen. McCain at the same time you take it!!! These people want out of Iraq and want to see their potential Comander in Chief in action live!
I found this article on KOS and I thought I would pass it on for everyone to see in the hope that it would start a dialogue and awaken the right people to some hard realities.
THE RULES OF PERCEPTION John Kerry went to Vietnam, saved a man's life and was wounded. Somehow, the voters perceived of John Kerry as a coward who never served his country and would not be tough enough as our commander-in-chief. George W. Bush avoided Vietnam and failed to fulfill his National Guard obligation. Somehow, the people of this country perceived of George W. Bush as a heroic military man and a courageous commander-in-chief. This is called MANAGING PERCEPTION. Not just managing the perception people have of YOUR guy, but more importantly, managing the perception people have of the OTHER guy! In 2004, more people perceived that Kerry was bad and Bush was good. Just enough people for Bush to win the election. Which brings us to a cold hard fact: if the Democrats want to take back Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008, they must become as good as Karl Rove at managing perception. The good news is, it's not some trick only Karl Rove knows the secret to. Managing perception is not even all that difficult once you know the rules. RULE ONE Pick ONE INDIVIDUAL to head up your election team and give this person TOTAL AUTHORITY to manage all advertising messages and perception issues. Whatever he or she says -- goes! And no more discussion. There were 29 people in charge of Kerry, including Kerry himself. The public heard 29 different viewpoints. The Republicans had one person in charge: Rove. The public heard one viewpoint: Rove's. Americans are used to single-minded powerful selling messages, and they like a single-minded powerful point-of-view. Hint! Choose the roughest, toughest person who has ever created wildly successful advertising and PR campaigns. Make damned sure this person is a real marketer, doesn't take any guff from anybody and is NOT a political stooge. Make sure ALL money flows to this one person and all spending is coordinated through this person. (Strong hint: if the DNC drafted Donnie Deutsch, they'd take it all.) RULE TWO Learn how to disseminate simple catchphrases the mainstream media can use. Like Rove when he invented "cut and run" -- which Fox and the mainstream media lapped up like a thirsty dog. You need to do this with the same dexterity and speed. You will never exceed Rove in this, but you can do AS WELL as he does, which would basically neutralize his effectiveness in the media. Just watch Fox News (Official News Channel of the successful invasion of Iraq and media/PR representative for the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth). You may hate them, but they're incredibly effective at spreading the Rovian catchphrase of the day and using it to rally the faithful, while keeping GOP politicians in lockstep and on message! Hint! You do not have a media outlet like Fox, so you must work twice as hard to get the mainstream media to carry your message to ALL voters. Importantly, do not believe the mainstream media is for you and against Republicans. They're not. If you somehow think they'll help you win an election, you've already lost. RULE THREE When the other side hands you a bone, do not bury the bone! USE IT! The best way to negatively affect the perception of the other side is to use their own bone against them! "I voted for it before I voted against it" was a bone Karl Rove shook in our face the entire campaign. It perfectly defined Kerry as a "flip-flopper". When Bush said, "I don't think much about Bin Laden," Kerry should have said, "Bin Laden murdered three thousand Americans and you promised you'd kill him! Why didn't you, you flip-flopping coward?" Hint! Cheer up. You missed your chance, but there'll be more. Rudy blamed the grunts for missing that weapons cache. Ask the Mayor why he's not supporting the troops! RULE FOUR Understand that you are dealing with a target audience that doesn't care enough, or simply refuses to devote the time to learn the real facts regarding the real issues. Instead, their perception has BECOME the facts! The target audience fervently believed Saddam Hussein WAS behind the 9/11 attacks and there WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Just as they believe today that the second in command of Al Qaeda has been killed or captured at least a dozen times -- AND they've conveniently forgotten that Osama Bin Laden is not only still alive, but happily and calmly planning future attacks against our country. Hint! Do not try to change this reality. Work with it. The perception you create IS the reality! Take heart! If they perceive something despite obvious evidence to the contrary, you will be able to make them perceive any number of things! Including your point of view! Rove knows this and uses it -- you must too! RULE FIVE Stop playing by "Marquess of Queensberry" rules. Before you get punched, you punch. Hard. Whenever possible, you punch below the belt. And most importantly, even after they are down, you keep punching. George Bush. Cocaine. Alcohol. The National Guard. Deserter. With 40 days to go before the election, there should have been 40 awful revelations about George Bush -- one each day, each worse than the one before it. Hint! Stop being a candy-ass. If you start lamenting, "I'm becoming just like THEM", you have just guaranteed their victory. They currently OWN the playing field. You either play by their rules or YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE. Your job is to punch hard and neutralize their negative attacks by being just as nasty. IF you make it back into office, THEN you can start working to reform how people get elected. For now, you must get mean! RULE SIX NO MORE NUANCE. The target not only fails to understand even the most obvious nuance, they actually HATE the idea there should be nuance at all (it even sounds French!). Nuance = bad. Black and white = good! "A marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman" -- George Bush. "I'm personally against gay marriage, but I feel the states should decide." -- John Kerry (too nuanced by half!) Hint! Come off your high horse and forget that issues really DO demand nuance, at least until the election is over. Until November, pick a side on each issue and make sure your target audience understands CLEARLY what that side is. And relax! The only people you'll sound like a simpleton to are already voting for you anyway. RULE SEVEN Choose ONE VERY CLEAR LABEL for your candidate and NEVER let go of it. Keep hitting it hard until everyone in America knows it is EXACTLY what your candidate stands for. George Bush was the "unwavering commander-in-chief who won the war on terror." John Kerry was ____. Whatever he was wasn't as bad as you think, but we're still not able to fill in that blank. Hint! Think of a one-word label that your target can quickly grasp. "America, I am the Jobs President!" Don't worry about which label is best. Just choose one and let that be the centerpiece. All other things the candidate talks about should grow out of this one strong position. And remember -- no matter how Rove tries to re-define you (and he will, constantly) -- make sure this one label sticks to you like glue! RULE EIGHT Devote a tremendous amount of time and spend a huge portion of your campaign money finding, recruiting, training and firing up VOLUNTEERS. As odd as it may sound, if you spend $100 million on TV, you MUST spend $200 million creating a massive, incredibly well-coordinated volunteer effort. Karl Rove used pinpoint research to find and motivate volunteers who went where no campaign had gone before -- into parts of Florida where alligators were more likely to vote than people. In Ohio, Rove's volunteers dragged Republicans out of their corporate meetings to make sure they voted! It's why he won and you lost. Hint! Your volunteers MUST BE A MEMBER OF YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE. You need to find volunteers who attend the same church, go to the same stores and like and dislike the same things your target audience does! Remember, you cannot spend TOO MUCH money or do TOO MUCH demographic homework and research making this happen! Just so you know, Republicans do NOT own a patent on this type of research! RULE NINE Do not give Karl Rove any help whatsoever. In other words, do not start with a candidate who puts you in a twenty-foot ditch that Rove will never let you fight your way out of. Make damned sure your candidate has the gumption to come out swinging and immediately counter-punch every Swift Boat move Rove tries. This is no walk in the park, but it is not impossible. Remember, George W. Bush did not have to defeat John Kerry. With Rove calling all the shots, John Kerry defeated John Kerry. Hint! Work hard against the nomination of anybody who cannot remain strong and stay firm on base issues while tacking to the center in a convincing, spirited way. Hint! Hint! Bill Richardson. Mark Warner. And yeah, Al Gore! RULE TEN Stop trying to be ATTAP, or "All Things To All People". You will fail. There is no way in this great country of ours that you will ever be more than 65% of things to 55% of the people. That's your goal, by the way. You reach it and you own Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Karl Rove didn't bother with liberals or most Democrats. He went after his base and the squishy center and didn't waste any time or money on anybody else. He also didn't care what anybody else thought of him or his candidate. Hint! By all means, rally your base. Then go figure out what you can actually say to the squishy center and spend MOST of your time and money winning them over. And for heaven's sake, don't worry about what dyed-in-the-wool Republicans think about what you're saying. They're not voting for you anyway. RULE ELEVEN Start today. Not later today. NOW! Start figuring out now where you're going to find your own Karl Rove and then get this person started. Any time you waste is going to make it tougher for you to win in 2006 and 2008. By the time the Democrats got around to throwing a few punches in 2004, they were defensive punches, and way too late. Today, right now, Karl Rove has already picked his candidate and crafted a strategy he is confident will whomp your stupid Democratic butt. And make no mistake about it: he has ALREADY dug up tons of dirt on the 20 people YOU are most likely to nominate. Hint! Don't put off your homework for tomorrow morning. Collect data on whoever they might nominate. Spend some time NOW figuring out how to effectively deal with anybody and everybody they might nominate.RULE TWELVE Keep a copy of these rules by your pillow and read them every night. When you wake up, make damned sure you follow them every day. If you adhere to these rules, you are going to NEUTRALIZE Rove by making this Rove Versus Rove. That might sound horrible and off-putting, but what it actually means is that the race will NOT come down to perception, but instead, level the playing field, so you might actually have a chance to win!
THE RULES OF PERCEPTION
John Kerry went to Vietnam, saved a man's life and was wounded. Somehow, the voters perceived of John Kerry as a coward who never served his country and would not be tough enough as our commander-in-chief. George W. Bush avoided Vietnam and failed to fulfill his National Guard obligation. Somehow, the people of this country perceived of George W. Bush as a heroic military man and a courageous commander-in-chief.
This is called MANAGING PERCEPTION. Not just managing the perception people have of YOUR guy, but more importantly, managing the perception people have of the OTHER guy! In 2004, more people perceived that Kerry was bad and Bush was good. Just enough people for Bush to win the election. Which brings us to a cold hard fact: if the Democrats want to take back Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008, they must become as good as Karl Rove at managing perception. The good news is, it's not some trick only Karl Rove knows the secret to. Managing perception is not even all that difficult once you know the rules.
RULE ONE Pick ONE INDIVIDUAL to head up your election team and give this person TOTAL AUTHORITY to manage all advertising messages and perception issues. Whatever he or she says -- goes! And no more discussion.
There were 29 people in charge of Kerry, including Kerry himself. The public heard 29 different viewpoints. The Republicans had one person in charge: Rove. The public heard one viewpoint: Rove's. Americans are used to single-minded powerful selling messages, and they like a single-minded powerful point-of-view.
Hint! Choose the roughest, toughest person who has ever created wildly successful advertising and PR campaigns. Make damned sure this person is a real marketer, doesn't take any guff from anybody and is NOT a political stooge. Make sure ALL money flows to this one person and all spending is coordinated through this person. (Strong hint: if the DNC drafted Donnie Deutsch, they'd take it all.)
RULE TWO Learn how to disseminate simple catchphrases the mainstream media can use. Like Rove when he invented "cut and run" -- which Fox and the mainstream media lapped up like a thirsty dog. You need to do this with the same dexterity and speed. You will never exceed Rove in this, but you can do AS WELL as he does, which would basically neutralize his effectiveness in the media.
Just watch Fox News (Official News Channel of the successful invasion of Iraq and media/PR representative for the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth). You may hate them, but they're incredibly effective at spreading the Rovian catchphrase of the day and using it to rally the faithful, while keeping GOP politicians in lockstep and on message!
Hint! You do not have a media outlet like Fox, so you must work twice as hard to get the mainstream media to carry your message to ALL voters. Importantly, do not believe the mainstream media is for you and against Republicans. They're not. If you somehow think they'll help you win an election, you've already lost.
RULE THREE When the other side hands you a bone, do not bury the bone! USE IT! The best way to negatively affect the perception of the other side is to use their own bone against them! "I voted for it before I voted against it" was a bone Karl Rove shook in our face the entire campaign. It perfectly defined Kerry as a "flip-flopper". When Bush said, "I don't think much about Bin Laden," Kerry should have said, "Bin Laden murdered three thousand Americans and you promised you'd kill him! Why didn't you, you flip-flopping coward?"
Hint! Cheer up. You missed your chance, but there'll be more. Rudy blamed the grunts for missing that weapons cache. Ask the Mayor why he's not supporting the troops!
RULE FOUR Understand that you are dealing with a target audience that doesn't care enough, or simply refuses to devote the time to learn the real facts regarding the real issues. Instead, their perception has BECOME the facts!
The target audience fervently believed Saddam Hussein WAS behind the 9/11 attacks and there WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Just as they believe today that the second in command of Al Qaeda has been killed or captured at least a dozen times -- AND they've conveniently forgotten that Osama Bin Laden is not only still alive, but happily and calmly planning future attacks against our country.
Hint! Do not try to change this reality. Work with it. The perception you create IS the reality! Take heart! If they perceive something despite obvious evidence to the contrary, you will be able to make them perceive any number of things! Including your point of view! Rove knows this and uses it -- you must too!
RULE FIVE Stop playing by "Marquess of Queensberry" rules. Before you get punched, you punch. Hard. Whenever possible, you punch below the belt. And most importantly, even after they are down, you keep punching.
George Bush. Cocaine. Alcohol. The National Guard. Deserter. With 40 days to go before the election, there should have been 40 awful revelations about George Bush -- one each day, each worse than the one before it.
Hint! Stop being a candy-ass. If you start lamenting, "I'm becoming just like THEM", you have just guaranteed their victory. They currently OWN the playing field. You either play by their rules or YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE. Your job is to punch hard and neutralize their negative attacks by being just as nasty. IF you make it back into office, THEN you can start working to reform how people get elected. For now, you must get mean!
RULE SIX NO MORE NUANCE. The target not only fails to understand even the most obvious nuance, they actually HATE the idea there should be nuance at all (it even sounds French!). Nuance = bad. Black and white = good!
"A marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman" -- George Bush.
"I'm personally against gay marriage, but I feel the states should decide." -- John Kerry (too nuanced by half!)
Hint! Come off your high horse and forget that issues really DO demand nuance, at least until the election is over. Until November, pick a side on each issue and make sure your target audience understands CLEARLY what that side is. And relax! The only people you'll sound like a simpleton to are already voting for you anyway.
RULE SEVEN Choose ONE VERY CLEAR LABEL for your candidate and NEVER let go of it. Keep hitting it hard until everyone in America knows it is EXACTLY what your candidate stands for. George Bush was the "unwavering commander-in-chief who won the war on terror." John Kerry was ____. Whatever he was wasn't as bad as you think, but we're still not able to fill in that blank.
Hint! Think of a one-word label that your target can quickly grasp. "America, I am the Jobs President!" Don't worry about which label is best. Just choose one and let that be the centerpiece. All other things the candidate talks about should grow out of this one strong position. And remember -- no matter how Rove tries to re-define you (and he will, constantly) -- make sure this one label sticks to you like glue!
RULE EIGHT Devote a tremendous amount of time and spend a huge portion of your campaign money finding, recruiting, training and firing up VOLUNTEERS. As odd as it may sound, if you spend $100 million on TV, you MUST spend $200 million creating a massive, incredibly well-coordinated volunteer effort. Karl Rove used pinpoint research to find and motivate volunteers who went where no campaign had gone before -- into parts of Florida where alligators were more likely to vote than people. In Ohio, Rove's volunteers dragged Republicans out of their corporate meetings to make sure they voted! It's why he won and you lost.
Hint! Your volunteers MUST BE A MEMBER OF YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE. You need to find volunteers who attend the same church, go to the same stores and like and dislike the same things your target audience does! Remember, you cannot spend TOO MUCH money or do TOO MUCH demographic homework and research making this happen! Just so you know, Republicans do NOT own a patent on this type of research!
RULE NINE Do not give Karl Rove any help whatsoever. In other words, do not start with a candidate who puts you in a twenty-foot ditch that Rove will never let you fight your way out of. Make damned sure your candidate has the gumption to come out swinging and immediately counter-punch every Swift Boat move Rove tries.
This is no walk in the park, but it is not impossible. Remember, George W. Bush did not have to defeat John Kerry. With Rove calling all the shots, John Kerry defeated John Kerry.
Hint! Work hard against the nomination of anybody who cannot remain strong and stay firm on base issues while tacking to the center in a convincing, spirited way.
Hint! Hint! Bill Richardson. Mark Warner. And yeah, Al Gore!
RULE TEN Stop trying to be ATTAP, or "All Things To All People". You will fail. There is no way in this great country of ours that you will ever be more than 65% of things to 55% of the people. That's your goal, by the way. You reach it and you own Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Karl Rove didn't bother with liberals or most Democrats. He went after his base and the squishy center and didn't waste any time or money on anybody else. He also didn't care what anybody else thought of him or his candidate.
Hint! By all means, rally your base. Then go figure out what you can actually say to the squishy center and spend MOST of your time and money winning them over. And for heaven's sake, don't worry about what dyed-in-the-wool Republicans think about what you're saying. They're not voting for you anyway.
RULE ELEVEN Start today. Not later today. NOW! Start figuring out now where you're going to find your own Karl Rove and then get this person started. Any time you waste is going to make it tougher for you to win in 2006 and 2008.
By the time the Democrats got around to throwing a few punches in 2004, they were defensive punches, and way too late. Today, right now, Karl Rove has already picked his candidate and crafted a strategy he is confident will whomp your stupid Democratic butt. And make no mistake about it: he has ALREADY dug up tons of dirt on the 20 people YOU are most likely to nominate. Hint! Don't put off your homework for tomorrow morning. Collect data on whoever they might nominate. Spend some time NOW figuring out how to effectively deal with anybody and everybody they might nominate.
Change we can believe in can only happen if Obama wins. We have to play in the game that is being played. That is a change for the democratic party that I can believe in and one that we can win with.
With all the complaining from Obama supporters over the past couple of weeks over Obama move to the center over such issues as FISA, gun control and the death penalty - the silence on the following issues is deadening.Over the weekend Gen. Wesley Clarke was on Face The Nation and said the following:"Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk?"Naturally the McCain campaign, republicans, and the Main Stream Media took immediate offense to this statement."Sending Wesley Clark out as a surrogate for your campaign and attacking John McCain and his war record and his military experience and his service is, I think, just the lowest form of politics." Obama's campaign on Monday issued a response: "As he's said many times before, Sen. Obama honors and respects Sen. McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by Gen. Clark."It would seem that every time anyone doesn't like anything that a Democrat says, all they need to do is whine about it to the press and sure enough Sen. Obama will reject it. This is problematic on sooo many levels.1. Gen. Clark said nothing to disgrace Sen. McCain's service - just question how it applies to being President.2. It allows McCain's service, whatever the accuracy of the record, to be untouchable history that he can use in his general election campaign as a reason to be a superior candidate for President.3. If you keep throwing surrogates under the bus they are less likely to go out and speak for you.4. On a day when you are trumping patriotism, certainly Gen. Clark is a symbol of that.
5. You are letting McCain frame and control the debate.
6. You better believe that if roles had been reversed a similar statement would have been made about Sen. Obama. He's in the process of getting Willie Horton'd right now!
The Obama campaign capitulated to the forces of the MSM and the McCain campaign because they felt that the public does not understand the difference between swift boating and questioning someone's judgment to be President.
WAKE UP!!!
I think we can all agree that immunizing the telecommunication companies for any past or future crimes is reprehensible. It is also likely that the reason for Democratic support of this bill on the hill is that many Senators and Congressmen knowingly allowed the lawbreaking to occur. Passage is a Cover Your Ass measure not just for the Telco's and The White House but also for members of Congress.
Today MoveOn.org distributed a mailing to it's supporters (of which I can be counted) demanding that Sen. Obama filibuster the FISA bill that is now in the Senate if the telecom immunity provisions are not removed.
The problem here is that we all live in the real world - a world where if Sen. Obama is seen to be taking orders from MoveOn.org or DailyKos then he looses credibility. It doesn't really matter what the right thing to do is at that point. The republicans, assisted by the main stream media, will start their engines and proclaim from now until election day how Sen. Obama is not a leader. They will say - what happens if America gets attacked and MoveOn demands that President Obama negotiate with the attacker as cities burn. Tell me it won't get that ridiculous.
But more importantly than that - if the message of the campaign is that it cannot be owned by the special interests, the reason why public financing was bypassed, then MoveOn must be looked at as a special interest as well. It does not matter that they are on our side.
MoveOn.org should know better. In this election climate, when everything a candidate does, when everyone a candidate associates with is judged by thoses voters who are not definiately in your column - This was a blunder. They have forgotten that MoveOn is not exactly the white knight of the undecided voter. They should be working the Senate, working the campaign behind the scenes, educating the public!
They are forgetting that in order for Sen. Obama to show his leadership - he has to be elected!
With friends like these...who needs enemies.
A video tour "MTV style" of the McCain bus. According to the guy presenting - it's the heart and soul of the campaign - not the voters.
Enjoy! (or not)
http://www.johnmccain.com/STETour/
Before anyone gets excited - I'm not unhappy about Patti Solis Doyle joining the team. Here is what I wanted to comment on...
From The Huffington Post:
"The Obama campaign announced today what had long been suspected: Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle was going to work for the Illinois Democrat. What came as a surprise was Solis Doyle's title, "chief of staff to the vice presidential candidate.""
Now, I'm not suggesting that Patti Solis Doyle is incapable of holding this position - she certainly has the credentials but 'm guessing that anyone serious enough to be considered for Vice President just might take offense to this. Maybe it's me but I think it is a little presumptuous for any executive to be told who their chief of staff will be. A chief of staff is a very important position and it should be someone that the person can work with and trusts. This just might end up being a deal breaker for someone. It is also a little cart before the horse.
Certainly Ms. Doyle could serve a much more valuable role starting NOW considering the need for voter outreach?
