Framing Lieberman/Lamont as being about the war
Everytime a Republican comments on the Liebermen/Lamont primary, they always frame the race as solely about the war. Why?
The Republicans desperately want this race framed around Lieberman's war support because in the short term that message can be used to amplify the idea that Democrats are still split on the Iraq war, that they don't have a unified message. This idea of Democrats without a plan is essential if the Republican strategy is to continue to cleave to the President's current "stand and bleed" policy.
In the longer term, framing Lieberman/Lamont as solely about the war puts more pressure on those Democrats who voted for the war, complicating their future politics on a key issue. (Senators, Hillary '08.) "I was for the war before I was against it."
Lastly, if the race is solely about the war and not about a broader question of Lieberman's "closeness" to the president, a Lamont victory is merely a squabble between those hippie Democrats having very little reach into the mainstream.
If a Lamont win represents a repudiation of Bush, that conversation starts now, and the narrative of Bush dragging down the Republicans moves into every race at this critical point three months before the election.
(These are just a few quick thoughts. All are open to revision if you've got a better argument. I've just been amazed watching the Republicans trying to get involved in this one Democratic primary.)
Later: As example on the question of narrative. (NYTimes) Clinton dodges political peril for war vote.
That's the headline, rather than noting that at the RNC strategy meeting the theme was 'Defining the difference,' where the RNC advised candidates not to try to defend the last six years of the presidency or congress.
Or maybe the WaPo's framing, GOP Candidates Claim Degrees Of Separation From President. Narrative.
The Republicans desperately want this race framed around Lieberman's war support because in the short term that message can be used to amplify the idea that Democrats are still split on the Iraq war, that they don't have a unified message. This idea of Democrats without a plan is essential if the Republican strategy is to continue to cleave to the President's current "stand and bleed" policy.
In the longer term, framing Lieberman/Lamont as solely about the war puts more pressure on those Democrats who voted for the war, complicating their future politics on a key issue. (Senators, Hillary '08.) "I was for the war before I was against it."
Lastly, if the race is solely about the war and not about a broader question of Lieberman's "closeness" to the president, a Lamont victory is merely a squabble between those hippie Democrats having very little reach into the mainstream.
If a Lamont win represents a repudiation of Bush, that conversation starts now, and the narrative of Bush dragging down the Republicans moves into every race at this critical point three months before the election.
(These are just a few quick thoughts. All are open to revision if you've got a better argument. I've just been amazed watching the Republicans trying to get involved in this one Democratic primary.)
Later: As example on the question of narrative. (NYTimes) Clinton dodges political peril for war vote.
That's the headline, rather than noting that at the RNC strategy meeting the theme was 'Defining the difference,' where the RNC advised candidates not to try to defend the last six years of the presidency or congress.
Or maybe the WaPo's framing, GOP Candidates Claim Degrees Of Separation From President. Narrative.
posted by mikevotes at
6:37 AM
2 Comments:
Face it, the kiss with Bush was the kiss of death for Lieberman.
I also like that the RNC is advising candidates not defend the record of the Republican congress and presidency. Must not be too proud of what they've accomplished.
By
Lew Scannon, at 8:23 AM
Amazing isn't it? That just shows that the Repubs no longer even hope to improve Bsuh's numbers.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 12:50 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home