General Election Rep v. Dem and Iraq Influence

[Livingston]

So I ran across these polls today.

Iraq

Here are my thoughts. The Republicans (especially McCain, now the undisputed front runner) have been campaigning with a pro-war platform in order to get the support of the conservative right. With the upopularity of the war even after the surge, how are they going to spin to the general public to get the moderate vote? Judging from these polls and the 2006 midterm election results, I can't see anyone getting elected with a pro-war, bomb Iran stance.

I know people are starting to worry more about the economy than Iraq, but aren't those two intimately related?

-d

[gh]

Berkeley to Marines: You're 'not welcome in our city' - CNN.com

and it starts in berkeley, anyone surprised?

[TakemetotheRiver]

How can the gov't pass a measure denying funding to an organization who is exercising their right to assemble and speak freely? And isn't it the right of the City Council to pass local measures without the interference of federal government? The marines have said they are not going anywhere which means the town is not really blocking the right of the govt. to establish a military. Is this even constitutional?

Originally Posted by gh

Berkeley to Marines: You're 'not welcome in our city' - CNN.com

and it starts in berkeley, anyone surprised?

[Roy]

Originally Posted by TakemetotheRiver

Is this even constitutional?

Yes, because Berkeley doesn't have any sort of "right" to federal funding. That's half the purpose of federal funding--to keep the locals from going too far off-reservation.

You think 55mph is ridiculously slow for the highways in your state? Well you better post it anyway or we'll pull your funding!

Once you've got the localities dependent on the federal teat, you can keep them in line without violating that pesky 10th amendment...

[gh]

Sort of government golden handcuffs, eh? Very interesting. I wonder if Berkeley is rich enough to be the first to say keep your money.

[Livingston]

I don't blame the military or Marines. It their CIC that is F'king things up.
For example, did you know that the "No Child Left Behind" Act requires schools to supply military recruiters names and contact information for every child or risk loosing federal funding?

No Child Unrecruited

That is off subject though.
Will McCain pull a 180 (or at least a 90) on how he presents his views on the war once the nomination is locked up?
Or will he continue to hope that Bush's paying off the insurgents to keep quite will last long enough to get elected?

-d

[Roy]

Originally Posted by Livingston

Will McCain pull a 180 (or at least a 90) on how he presents his views on the war once the nomination is locked up?

No way. McSurge sticks to his guns and ups the occupation to 200 years.

[El Flaco]

If I were betting, I would say that they're going to use the same strategy they've always used (and with undeniable success): Fear.

It's really the only card they can play, although they're almost 'over-played' that card. Since there hasn't been an attack to feed into a visceral patriotic reaction, The GOP is going to have to bide its time until they can find something to work off of (the Iranian gunboat incident and the Al Queda kid training video come to mind) before the general election. That's a real concern for anyone who's anti-Iraq War. All it takes is for Bin Laden to realize what a good thing he's got - high recruitment because of US occupation of a Muslim country- and he'll orchastrate an attack or threaten to. And all the GOP needs to do at that point is to inflate the critical nature of the incident, and next thing you know we've got Bush Part III. It worked before. Check Keith Olbermann's wrap-up here

And yes, the economy & Iraq are related on a marco level (although not to the Bush Administration, who continue to leave its costs out of the budgets). But again- the majority of the population will react first to visceral threats; such as

• "dirty bombs"
• the word "defeatist"
• "gay marriage"
• "Immigrant hordes" (although I'm a bit more conservative on this than my Party)
• "Tax and Spend Libruls"
• "An assault on Christianity"

....inexplicably in contrast to what benefits them from an economic standpoint.

On the up-side, by nominating McCain, I think that the GOP has shot itself in the foot on one of the major scare factors - immigration. They can't go on full-scale attack with his record.

The Equation for a 2008 GOP Win: They really need Hillary to win the Dem nomination + an Al Queda attack / 'Threat Level Orange' incident in Sept/ Oct.


Good reading with regards to these topics:

The One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind

What's The Matter with Kansas by Thomas Frank

[KSC]

Wait a minute:

1) What's the problem with the Berkeley article? Some people in Berkeley are expressing their right to free speech and because you disagree with their message you think something's wrong with the way their city is run? They're protesting Marine -Recruiters- not condemning everybody in the military. Have you not seen how military recruiters operate? They're 100x worse than used car salesmen. They prey on young, uneducated, and desperate people. Then those people end up in Iraq and come home at age 20 missing a leg. Yeah, how dare those bastards try to protect someone.

2) This whole thing with McCain and being in Iraq 100 years is kind of irritating. He screwed up when he brought this whole thing up, but if you listen to the interview, all he said was that we have military stationed all over the world and have had them stationed there for decades. People don't have a problem with that, they have a problem with military getting killed in conflicts in foreign countries and there would be no problem keeping military in Iraq for another 100 years if that's necessary. He's right. He just should have been more careful what he talked about because now he's getting misquoted in every media outlet in the country. This of course doesn't change the fact that he's for continuing the war in Iraq indefinitely and should not be forgotten. I just hate this kind of misinformation that constantly gets disseminated.

3) I think Dr. Livingston is right. The Republicans will lose, and the main reason they will lose is their support for continuing an unpopular war. Why do you think Hillary switched her stance? The Clintons have great pollsters. El Flaco is also right, they will attempt to use the same fear tactics and hot button social issues to garner support that have been working for them since Karl Rove devised the strategy. I don't see it working this time unless there's some major disruption, like another major terrorist attack on our soil, that causes rationality to go out the window again.

Oh, and I don't think there's any way McCain will try to backpedal on his support for the war. He'll just bet that public opinion on the war will change.

[gh]

Didnt say anything bad about the article and was perhaps too brief in my comments. I have personally been waiting for public outcry to start about the war and bush. The grumbling has been very subdued and I thought it would take college kids to kick it up a notch, much like Vietnam. When the outcry finally starts I wasnt suprised it was Berkeley. My statement should have been, "What took them so long?"