Chickens Came Home To Roost
With pressure mounting daily against their ad showing flag-draped coffins in a fundraising ploy, Democrats took that ad down, choosing instead to run something on the minimum wage in its stead.
I'd be interested in hearing from people who watched the video (a) what they thought the theme of the video was and (b) if they thought the video cast Democrats in a positive light. Frankly, I was unimpressed but that's just my impression.
The differences between this year's Democratic 'agenda' and 1994's GOP agenda are pretty stark. When the Contract with America was unveiled, there were 10 items on the checklist of legislation that the House promised it would vote on in the first 100 days. The list was long on reforms of the House's operations and loaded with belt-tightening for the federal government and tax-cutting for the people. And it didn't mention Democrats.
Simply put, Republicans emphatically stated what they were for, something that's foreign to Democrats since the end of the Clinton administration.
What we've seen thus far from Democrats is that their 'agenda' is thin but their list of complaints with Republicans seems endless.
The biggest thing that Republicans had going for them in 1994 was a team led by a visionary named Newt and supported by men like Dick Armey, Tom DeLay and John Kasich. That's a pretty talented team. The current Democratic Party is lacking visionaries and a strong support staff. In other words, they're missing every key component of the winning equation from 1994.
Posted Saturday, July 15, 2006 1:39 AM
June 2006 Posts
Comment 1 by Michael at 15-Jul-06 10:46 AM
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-Jul-06 11:02 AM
The ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called for a "new direction" and displayed a staccato of images, including war scenes, pollution and breached levees as well as a photograph of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay doctored to look like a police mug shot.The truth is that this ad was so heavy-handed that it was failing to change voters' minds. As people learned about it, they expressed their dislike of it more and more. Just from an advertising standpoint, the advertisement was shoddy. The images didn't pull things together. There wasn't a message that appealed to people, either, which is an important component of the initial ads of a campaign season.
I'd be interested in hearing from people who watched the video (a) what they thought the theme of the video was and (b) if they thought the video cast Democrats in a positive light. Frankly, I was unimpressed but that's just my impression.
The campaign committee replaced the ad with a radio commercial that targets Rep. John Hostetler, (R-IN), for opposing an increase in the minimum wage.If Democrats think that highlighting the minimum wage issue is a big winner, then they're likely to be the big losers this November. There just won't be a big rallying cry around that issue to carry an election for Democrats.
---------------
"We're moving to another major effort that we're highlighting on our Web site," DCCC spokesman Bill Burton said.
The differences between this year's Democratic 'agenda' and 1994's GOP agenda are pretty stark. When the Contract with America was unveiled, there were 10 items on the checklist of legislation that the House promised it would vote on in the first 100 days. The list was long on reforms of the House's operations and loaded with belt-tightening for the federal government and tax-cutting for the people. And it didn't mention Democrats.
Simply put, Republicans emphatically stated what they were for, something that's foreign to Democrats since the end of the Clinton administration.
What we've seen thus far from Democrats is that their 'agenda' is thin but their list of complaints with Republicans seems endless.
The biggest thing that Republicans had going for them in 1994 was a team led by a visionary named Newt and supported by men like Dick Armey, Tom DeLay and John Kasich. That's a pretty talented team. The current Democratic Party is lacking visionaries and a strong support staff. In other words, they're missing every key component of the winning equation from 1994.
Posted Saturday, July 15, 2006 1:39 AM
June 2006 Posts
Comment 1 by Michael at 15-Jul-06 10:46 AM
I posted on this subject at my blog Curiouser & Curiouser.
If the images of the dead troops showing up in a political ad do not outrage you, then I suspect you're a youngster. I am a Viet Nam vet and even though we had to deal with 58,000 dead and a disgraceful retreat from the war orchestrated by a Republican administration, we never had to deal with images like that.
In World War II, they would have been considered to be giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I may be wrong about your youthfulness, but this tacit acceptance of using images of troops' coffins for political points is truly despicable and indicates a societal evolution that is personified in our modern youth - much to our own detriment.
But there still must be enough people like me who DO think it wrong that the heat forced the Democrats to pull the ad - one they probably spent a lot of money to produce and now its so much wasted effort. Worse, it likely drove away the few in the middle who might have voted for them but now see them as too radical.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-Jul-06 11:02 AM
Michael, I turned 50 on the 4th of July so I remember Vietnam well. I lost a cousin in Vietnam.
Let me clarify what I meant:
1. I was disgusted seeing the pictures of the flag-draped coffins. It was totally offensive imagery that should've been, and was, criticized.
2. While I was disgusted with the pictures, I recognize the constitutional right of people to use such disgusting pictures because of the First Amendment.
Michael, Thanks for stopping past & offering your opinion on this. More importantly, thank you for serving the cause of freedom. Stop back often.
