They’re talking class warfare out in the Golden State, or at least Anthony York is, in his ‘PolitiCal’ blog at the L.A. Times. York spotlights a new ad (see below) from California Working Families entitled “Whitman’s World, which portrays the Republican gubernatorial nominee, not without reason, as a fat-cat jet-setter, who stashes her wealth in an off-shore tax haven. Here’s York’s take:

In the third ad released by California Working Families 2010, the group tries to make the connection between Whitman’s personal penchant for private jets and her economic policies for the state. The ad derisively describes “Whitman’s world,” — a place with “tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, but nothing for the middle class.”

Whitman has net worth in the ballpark of $1.3 billion, according to Forbes magazine. She is said the be the 4th richest woman in CA, coming from a background of “multiple lines of great wealth & great connections,” according to Hannah Bell of Democratic Underground. Here’s the ad:

Read more…

Open Left‘s Mike Lux, always one of the more insightful progressive bloggers on Democratic strategy, has one of his most perceptive posts to date, cross-posted at HuffPo.
Lux. a member of the TDS editorial board, begins by conceding that better polls indicate that the GOP is dominating the framing battle leading up to the November elections, with the meme that “big government,” controlled by Democrats has become “overreaching and ineffective.” He then addresses one oft-proposed remedy, that Dems move to the right, and provides a thorough shredding of the strategy:

This was the path followed by a lot of Democrats in the 1994 and 2002 elections, when the national tide was clearly moving against us. They played defense, started voting with the Republicans a lot, and ran a lot of ads bragging on how much they (a) disagreed with Clinton (in ’94) or (b) agreed with Bush (in ’02). This strategy arguable could have saved a few, but mostly it was a flaming disaster. Of the 52 House members and 8 Senators who lost in 1994, most of them were ones who went with that I’m-a-lot-more-conservative-than-the-national-Dems strategy. And the 2002 candidates who went that direction fared even worse- the only competitive Senate races where Democrats won that year were Landrieu in LA and Tim Johnson in SD. While neither of them ran as flaming liberals, they survived mostly because they put unprecedented amounts of money and effort into turnout out minority communities (Native Americans in SD, African-Americans in LA) in their states.
There are multiple reasons the almost-a-Republican strategy tends not to work. First of all, you tend to depress your base vote even more than it is already depressed. The biggest single factor in 1994, 2002, and the big defeats Democrats have suffered so far this cycle in MA, NJ, and VA was that the electorate has so many fewer of the youth, unmarried women, and minority voters that tend to vote strongly Democrat. They just aren’t coming out to vote. A candidate who moves steadily to the right isn’t likely to motivate those voters to turn out.
Secondly, moving to the right reinforces the negative anti-Democratic dynamic in voters’ minds. If the Democrat sounds like a Republican, and no one is articulating a Democratic frame, it’s a big problem for a Democrat to convince voters- swing or base- why they shouldn’t just go for the real McCoy, a genuine Republican. If no one is making the case why Democratic principles and policies are good, the electorate will keep moving right. Leaving the playing field re the essential framing of the race is never a good idea.
Third, a strategy of walking away from the Democratic Party keeps a Democratic candidate on the defensive for the entire election. The whole narrative of the race becomes “have they walked away enough from Obama/the national party/health care/the stimulus” ad infinitum. I have been volunteering for, working for, or consulting for candidates for about 40 years now, and I have rarely seen a candidate win who was on the defensive for the whole election. I understand how candidates react when they feel besieged and under attack, that you want to pull back the drawbridge and go into a defensive crouch. But if you set up the frame for the entire election in that manner- that even though I’m running on the Democratic line, I’m really not as much of a Democrat as my opponent says I am- you are likely to lose. The candidate, and party, on offense is the one that wins the vast majority of the time.

The better strategy, argues Lux, is to “to go on offense, and to reset the frame in this election” and then he provides this insightful distinction:

…There is genuine anger out there, but it’s not only anger at government or the Democrats; it is anger at the big corporate interests who have messed up our economy and who seem to control our government. The swing voters who are disillusioned with government are in great part disillusioned with the fact that government seems to be in bed with big corporate special interests. And the disappointment with Democrats by both swing and base voters not very interested in showing up to vote is that the Democrats didn’t deliver on the change they promised: the big bankers got bailouts and bonuses while unemployment stayed high; there seemed to be no change in the corruption that allowed BP to drill a faulty well with no decent plan in case of a spill; deficits keep going up while government contractors keep getting rich and regular folks don’t seem to be getting much of the benefit.
I think Democrats should be honest in recognizing those feelings, and not try to pretend the Democratic Party has done everything right in taking on corporate special interests. The frame needs to be about not just taking on big corporations, but taking on corporate corruption of our government…

Lux characterizes the 2010 campaign as “a blame election,” adding,

…Voters are in a foul mood, and they are trying to decide who to blame- or to put it in a somewhat more constructive way, who to hold accountable. Right now, they are leaning heavily toward that being the Democrats, since they control government and government hasn’t delivered jobs or the change that was promised.

It’s a painful truth to accept. But Lux charts a hopeful course:

…To change that inclination in swing voters, and to motivate their own disaffected base, Democrats need to be very aggressive in framing the election about cleaning up the corporate corruption that permeates our government.
It might not work, but it’s got a lot better shot than the I’m-kind-of-a-Republican-even-though-I-am-running-on-the-Democratic-ballot-line strategy that failed so miserably in 1994 and 2002. DC pundits and NYTimes writers like Matt Bai don’t believe a message going after big corporations works in modern America, but I don’t think they talk to enough folks like the ones I grew up with in the working class Midwest. Yes, there is anger at government and the incumbents who people believe have failed them. There is a feeling of bitterness that both parties have failed to deliver, and so we may see a third election in a row where the President’s party gets hammered. But the anger at corporations, and corporation corruption of our government, also runs deep. And if Democrats are brave enough to be aggressive about taking that corruption on, they could reap the benefit.
The Democrats have one chance to get this right. If they stay on defense, or are too tentative in their message, they will get swamped. If they gamble and take on the mantle of cleaning up Washington’s corporate swamp, they have a chance at doing a lot better than anyone thinks.

I think Lux’s prescription is right on time. The BP oil spill is providing vivid, horrific and daily reminders of corporate corruption to an unprecedented extent. Republican office-holders are providing tone-deaf gifts to Democrats in the form of their expressions of sympathy with BP and there is ample documentation of corruption in the Mineral Management Service under President Bush. If Dems don’t make the most of this opportunity to dramatize the connection between Republicans and “Washington’s corporate swamp,” we can expect the worst outcome in November. It’s the difference between riding a wave of discontent and being crushed by it.

The bumper sticker above says it well, Big Oil’s Republican toady in the House of Reps could well become the next chairman of the House Committee charged with preventing horrific oil spills. Rep. Barton’s groveling was disgusting enough, punctuated as it was by his ridiculous retraction, which should indicate to his alert constituents that his principles are somewhat flaccid, to put it charitably. According to OpenSecrets.org, Barton received more dough from Oil and gas companies during the entire 1989-2010 election cycle than all other members of the House of Reps. (For an amusing graphic take on the sorry episode, check out Mike Luckovitch’s cartoon here).
In my decades of watching party politics, I don’t recall a more emblematic moment for the GOP. This is who they too often are — groveling lackeys for Big Oil in particular and Big Business in general, even though it insults the families of the workers who were killed in the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, the thousands who have lost their livelihood and turns a blind eye toward the massive destruction of wildlife and our natural heritage. That they tried to wash it away with a half-assed apology was predictable. Most Republicans are pretty clever about hiding their worst impulses, when corporate abuse becomes a major controversy — we don’t hear much from Dick Cheney, for example, on this topic. But every now and then the cover is inadvertently lifted.
Barton may get re-elected despite his screw-up, and he may or may not be removed from his ranking position as chair-in-waiting of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. But If thoughtful voters, not just in Barton’s district, but in every House district in the U.S., needed a clinching argument to vote Democratic in November, Barton has provided it.

The ‘liberal Dems vs. Obama’ storyline has been getting a lot of play lately in punditland, likened to the neocon-tea party split in the GOP. But it’s a simplistic interpretation of what’s really going on in the relationship between the President and progressives in the Democratic Party. Katrina vanden Heuval, editor of The Nation, has a more nuanced explanation in her weekly column in the Washington Post:

There’s a tension between the Obama administration and the progressive movement, but it’s not the one mainstream media have been describing or that the White House seems to perceive….What’s happening on the left isn’t the equivalent of the anti-incumbent anger on the right. Most progressives support Obama and want his agenda to succeed…
At the same time, progressives have come to a realization. What we see, some 500 days into the Obama administration, is a president obstructed by a partisan Republican opposition, powerful entrenched corporate interests, and a minority of corrupt or conservative Democrats. The thinking is that if progressives organize independently and forge smart coalitions, building a mass movement for reform with a moral compass that can transcend left-right divisions, we may be able to push Obama beyond the limits of his own politics, overcome the timid incrementalism of the establishment Democratic Party and counter the forces of money and power that are true obstacles to change. As Arianna Huffington has said, “Hope is not enough. . . . We need a ‘Hope 2.0’ that depends not on what President Obama or other politicians say or do but on what we as progressives do.”

Vanden Heuval goes on to describe the white house overreaction to progressive groups’ support of Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s primary opponent and she offers this clarification:

Actually, the point of the exercise was that those opposing Obama’s reform agenda will not get a free pass. And there will be more efforts like it…This agitating role isn’t a new one for the progressive movement. Progressives organized a remarkable mass movement seeking to stop the Iraq war before it began. They built a counterweight in the blogosphere to challenge the mainstream media and the right. They created the coalition that beat Bush on Social Security. They gave Democrats their voice on Iraq, energy and health care that helped to take back Congress. And they inspired a junior senator from Illinois to think that something was moving with such strength that he might run and win the presidency.

This is what real progressives do. It’s not about sniping at the white house or whining about the President being too cautious. It’s about shifting the debate fulcrum leftward to give the President and Democratic leaders courage and room to move forward toward a more progressive agenda. Astute progressives understand that the President has to contend with powerful conservative forces and institutions that come with the job, just as an astute president understands that the job of the progressives in his base is, paraphrasing FDR, to “make me do it.”
As vanden Heuval says, “It doesn’t matter whether you think Obama has done the best that he can or that he has compromised too easily. What’s important is to alter the balance of power. And that means recruiting and mobilizing to unleash new energy into the debate.”
It’s much like the “creative tension” Martin Luther King, Jr. said was needed to break through the obstructionist status quo and energize the Civil Rights Movement. As vanden Heuval concludes,

…Progressives can help Democrats find the voice they need to avoid debilitating losses this fall…by challenging limits of the current debate…to show working Americans that Democrats are fighting for them…The tension between Obama and the progressive movement isn’t a threat to the president. Rather, it may be needed to save him.

A renewed commitment to this understanding will strengthen the Democratic Party, help cut losses in November and set the stage for victory in 2012.

The MSM is having quite a gush-fest about the Fiorina and Whitman primary wins in California. Fresh faces, huge amounts of campaign cash, historic wins for GOP women and all that. Dem nominees Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer begin their races dwarfed by a tidal wave of overwhelmingly favorable coverage for their opponents.
If not for Fiorina’s “so yesterday” gaffe about Senator Boxer’s hairdo, she would have gotten the same free ride that the bedazzled media has given Whitman since Tuesday. Boxer and Brown no doubt write it off as a familiar pattern of media coverage. The new kid usually gets the breathless MSM buzz after primaries, especially in a political year that has been roundly designated as a bummer for incumbents.
But it won’t be long before the sobering demographic realities of the California electorate force a reassessment among the punditry. In his WaPo op-ed, “Calif. GOP Primary Winners Look Headed for Defeat,” Harold Meyerson explains,

…California Republican primaries have a nasty habit of rendering their winners unelectable in November, and this year’s contest looks like it will be no exception. To win, Whitman and Fiorina — conventional conservative business Republicans both — had to take positions so far to the right that their chances of winning a state in which Barack Obama commands a 59 percent approval rating are slim. During one debate with her Republican opponents, Fiorina affirmed the right of suspected terrorists on no-fly lists to buy guns, presumably lest the gods of the National Rifle Association strike her dead on the spot. At a campaign event at Los Angeles International Airport on Saturday, Boxer, never one to let a hanging curveball go unswatted, contrasted Fiorina’s guns-to-terrorists stance with her own co-authorship of a law allowing pilots to carry guns in cockpits.

And then there is the thorniest (for Republicans) of issues:

But the issue most damaging for Whitman and Fiorina is immigration. Pressed by their GOP primary opponents and the Republican electorate to endorse Arizona’s draconian new law, Fiorina proclaimed her support for it while Whitman countered the charges from her right that she was soft on immigration by affirming that she was “100 percent against amnesty” and demanding a huge increase in border enforcement. To bolster her credibility, her ads featured former Republican governor Pete Wilson — champion of 1994’s Proposition 187, which would have denied all public services, including the right to attend primary and secondary schools, to illegal immigrants.
Wilson won reelection in 1994 by backing 187, which the courts subsequently struck down. But his victory was probably the most pyrrhic in modern American politics. Threatened and enraged by 187, California’s Latino immigrants began naturalizing, registering and voting in record numbers. Southern California’s Latino-led labor movement — the most energized and strategically savvy labor movement in the nation — became particularly adept at turning out Latino voters for Democratic candidates and causes.
…the California electorate has been transformed — moving the state decisively into the Democratic column. In the 1994 election, according to the nonprofit William C. Velásquez Institute, which seeks to raise minorities’ political and economic participation, Latinos counted for 11.4 percent of California voters. By 2008, they comprised 21.4 percent. And particularly when immigration is an issue, theirs is a heavily Democratic vote. “There’s a whole generation of Latino voters who don’t believe the Republicans look out for them,” Maria Elena Durazo, who heads the Los Angeles County AFL-CIO, told me on Election Day. “We ran against Pete Wilson for years after he was out of office. And, voilà! He’s back — he’s vouching for Whitman!” Labor will make sure the Latino community knows it. Already, the California Nurses Association is running an ad on Spanish-language radio that splices in a clip from a Whitman primary commercial in which she and Wilson discuss cracking down on immigration.

Meyerson concludes,

It’s not just that Republican nativism pushes perhaps a fifth of the electorate into the Democratic column. It’s that the state’s Republicans are simply far to the right of the majority of Californians — so much so that they do not have a majority of registered voters in any one of the state’s 53 congressional districts…In winning their nominations, they [Whitman and Fiorina] said things deeply offensive to a fatally large swath of California voters. Their campaigns may be gold-plated, but they have ears of purest tin.

Add to that the fact that Jerry Brown may be one of the most battle-seasoned candidates in history, having won grueling campaigns for Governor of California, Mayor of Oakland, CA Attorney-General and having won and lost presidential primaries. The media didn’t cover his comments well, but Brown will not be giving Whitman an easy time of it. He has already blasted Whitman for spending $71 million on her primary campaign, and added in his recent press conference,

“She paid herself $120 million, and then EBay had to lay off 10 percent of its workforce. Now, is that waste and abuse? Is that what you want?”

In stark contrast, Brown had an impressive record of budget management and job creation during his stint as governor, while living a life of unprecedented austerity for the chief executive of the nation’s largest state. As Brown noted in his news conference,

When I was governor of California, we built up the largest surplus in history — $4.5 billion. We created 1.9 million jobs. We reduced taxes by billions

Whitman has already gone into handler-imposed seclusion, issuing lame statements about Brown’s website not being up to snuff and bragging about her issues brochure, which Brown derided for being lavishly illustrated with photos, but way short on substance. Californians worried about their job security, pensions and education of their children are not likely to prefer Whitman’s track record to Brown’s.
As for Fiorina, last year the biz rag web site ‘Condé Nast Portfolio’ designated Fiorina as one of “The 20 Worst American CEOs of All Time“, noting also,

A consummate self-promoter, Fiorina was busy pontificating on the lecture circuit and posing for magazine covers while her company floundered. She paid herself handsome bonuses and perks while laying off thousands of employees to cut costs. The merger Fiorina orchestrated with Compaq in 2002 was widely seen as a failure. She was ousted in 2005…HP stock lost half its value during Fiorina’s tenure.

Not a track record to inspire working people to vote for her, either.
If Whitman and Fiorina had been business leaders who had track records of living modestly while keeping concerns for their employees front and center, maybe Brown and Boxer would have more to worry about. As Republicans, however, both Fiorina and Whitman have more in common with Gordon Gekko than Abe Lincoln. The guess here is that the working people of California ain’t having it.

The high-profile primary elections went pretty much as expected, with the exception of the Lincoln-Halter race in Arkansas, which pundits are calling an upset for Sen. Lincoln, who won by 4 percent. The Arkansas race was certain to be a tough experience for many Democrats, regardless of who won. The way it worked out, progressive Dems got a double dose of the pain.
Not only were progressives hugely disappointed by Lt. Governor Halter’s loss — he was an impressive candidate, who many believed could be a rising star in the Democratic party and who had momentum in the polls. In addition, Lincoln’s victory was tainted by unprecedented union-bashing from a Democratic incumbent and her surrogates, including former President Clinton. Whether Lincoln could have won without it will remain a topic for debate. But, if she loses a close race in November because of weak union support, the folly of the strategy will become clear.
There is no doubt, however, about the wisdom of bringing in the Big Dog, whose popularity is squared in Arkansas. President Clinton, whose 8 years in the white house were characterized by peace and a healthy economy, is still Elvis in his home state. Credit Lincoln with good strategy in leveraging his popularity, especially in today’s troubled economic environment.
Whether or not the union-bashing helped Lincoln, there is some potential for long-term damage here, especially if other Democratic candidates embrace it. In the long run, the Democratic Party needs a strong union movement to build a real progressive majority. Victories won with union-bashing are ultimately divisive and may well end up serving GOP candidates, even in a state with relatively low union power, like Arkansas. Alternatively, if we can only win by disparaging an institution that is the first line of defense for working people in their quest for decent living standards, who the hell are we?
For unions, a couple of lessons of Lincoln’s win come into focus. 1. Be ready for union-bashing. There will likely be more of it in other races. 2. Develop stronger media resources — a national labor movement cable channel with local programming capability is long overdue. Regarding the latter, union GOTV efforts are still an invaluable asset for Dems in many races. But the labor movement urgently needs an energetic nation-wide educational campaign, utilizing more than bumper stickers. Unions must do a better job of educating Americans about all that organized labor has done to create the middle class. They must also adapt their organizing strategy to fit the changing work force so they can grow again. With such a twin-pronged strategy, the labor movement can begin to create a climate in which no smart Democrat would dare to win votes by trashing unions.
I have to agree with WaPo columnist Chris Cillizza’s assessment that, despite all of the jabber about “a strong anti-incumbent wind” blowing around the country, “Lincoln’s victory provides — yet more — evidence that candidates and campaigns matter.” I would also agree with Open Left‘s Chris Bowers that Lincoln’s strong position on Wall St. reform helped her.
But the salient lesson of Lincoln’s primary win for Democrats won’t become clear until November 2nd. She has to do what she can to rebuild bridges to Arkansas progressives, especially unions, which won’t be easy. Lincoln can’t afford to write off any pro-Democratic constituency.
Even more important is her campaign’s ability to attack Republican nominee John Boozman, who leads in polls at this point, and inculcate the meme that he is a rubber-stamp for corporate interests, who wants to repeal Social Security and a liability for Arkansas working people. This should be possible, given Boozman’s track record as a garden-variety Republican who routinely votes with his party (97 percent of the time in the current congress) in support of big business and the wealthy against the interests of the middle class.

There is understandable excitement among Republican women this year because they have high-profile women candidates running for state-wide office in CA, NV and SC. Linda Feldman of The Christian Science Monitor even has a feature article entitled “Tuesday primaries: Year of the Republican woman dawning?,” and the hopes of GOP women are high that Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Sharon Angle and Nikki Haley will up the ante when all of the primary votes are counted today.
According to Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), however, the Republicans still have a ways to go before they can make a convincing case that the GOP is the party that speaks to the aspirations of American women. According to CAWP’s most recent tally, for example, here is a breakdown of women office-holders by party:

13 Democratic women U.S. senators, vs. 4 Republicans
56 Democratic women House of Reps. members, vs. 17 Republicans
3 Democratic women Governors, 3 Republican women Governors
4 Democratic women Attorneys General, vs. 0 Republican women A.G.’s
50 Democratic women holding statewide office in the U.S., vs. 21 Republican women
70.5 percent of women state senators are Democrats, vs. 27.2 percent Republicans
70.3 percent of women state legislators are Democrats, vs. 29.4 percent Republicans

It’s an interesting phenomenon. You would think some smart journalist would call out the Republicans and ask them to explain the gap between the two parties. For Dems, however, our goal should be to recruit and elect more women candidates until something resembling gender parity among Democratic office-holders is a reality.

Theo Anderson’s post, “Just Say What You Want: Will Progressives Ever Pass Political Linguistics 101?” at In These Times covers some familiar ground, but in an interesting way. Anderson’s topic is missed framing opportunities on the left, according to the writings of George Lakoff (and touching on the insights of the right’s framing wizard Frank Luntz). It seems right on time, as the 2010 political season kicks into high gear, and Anderson does a good job of keeping it current in his lede:

It’s easy to imagine Frank Luntz–the baby-faced Republican wordsmith and marketing guru–as a kind of outsize trickster in a political fairy tale. When he comes across words and phrases that don’t pack enough punch, or that pose a threat to conservatism, he waves a magic wand and they become rhetorical winners for the GOP. Oil drilling? Poof. Energy exploration! The estate tax? Poof. The death tax! Healthcare reform? Poof. Government takeover of medicine! Global warming? Poof. Climate change! Government eavesdropping? Poof. Electronic intercepts! Riding roughshod over civil liberties? Poof. Tools to combat terrorism!

Ouch. Did he have to remind us? Anderson provides a video clip of Luntz explaining his theories of effective rally signs to Glen Beck. Not to demonize our adversary, but think of it as Satan instructing his younger, dumber brother. Prompting Anderson to ask his readers:

…So the interesting question is, why can’t two play this game? Why are Democrats still so pitiful at framing public-policy debates? Why are progressives still talking about government “regulations” rather than, say, “fair-play guarantees”? In the healthcare debate, why was reforming the widely despised insurance industry such a hard sell? Why did Republicans hammer away at bureaucratic “death panels” while Democrats talked about the sleep-inducing “public option.”

Anderson answers the question by quoting from a UCBerkeleyNews.com interview with George Lakoff, who explains:

…Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say, ‘Here’s several million dollars, do what you need to do.’ And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV. They do all of that. Why? Because the conservative moral system, which I analyzed in “Moral Politics,” has as its highest value preserving and defending the “strict father” system itself. And that means building infrastructure. As businessmen, they know how to do this very well.
Meanwhile, liberals’ conceptual system of the “nurturant parent” has as its highest value helping individuals who need help. The progressive foundations and donors give their money to a variety of grassroots organizations. They say, ‘We’re giving you $25,000, but don’t waste a penny of it. Make sure it all goes to the cause, don’t use it for administration, communication, infrastructure, or career development.’…

Anderson adds “…the fate of Lakoff’s think tank doesn’t bode well for progressives. It folded in 2008 due to–big surprise–a lack of funding. As the Institute’s brief life suggests, progressives haven’t yet gotten the message about the importance of framing.” Anderson sees an upside ahead:

The good news is that there’s plenty of material to work with, if we ever find the money and the will. “Big government” is responsible for so many things that Americans love–parks, libraries, free education through high school, subsidized higher education, roads, Social Security, drinkable water–the list goes on. Why not figure out ways to frame that fact with some political and marketing savvy? It will be difficult after 30 years of aggressive anti-government animus from the right. But it can be done.

Anderson forgets that the progressive left has done a better job of fund-raising in recent years, but his call to invest more in framing resources makes sense. He quotes a challenge from a chapter called “Talking Democracy” in Frances Moore Lappe’s recent book, Getting a Grip 2: Clarity, Creativity and Courage for the World We Really Want :

…”A big piece of the challenge is disciplining ourselves to find and use words that convey a new frame, one that spreads a sense of possibility and helps people see emerging signs of Living Democracy.”…Some of her suggestions for using better words to create this new frame? Empowered citizen instead of activist. Pro-conscience instead of pro-choice. Public protections instead of regulation. Fair-opportunity state instead of welfare state. Corporation-favoring trade instead of free trade. Global corporate control instead of globalization.

Dems do have a lot more to worry about in the months ahead, from the BP spill to high unemployment. But it can’t hurt to give a little more thought to how we project our concerns and the Republicans’ culpability.

In their Politico article “Democrats and National Security,” TDS advisory council member Jeremy Rosner, executive vice president of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and Matt Bennett, co-founder and vice president of Third Way provide critically-important insights for strengthening the party’s image. Bennett and Rosner explain:

Slightly more than 10 days ago, a U.S. airstrike killed Sheikh Said Al-Masri, Al Qaeda’s third in command. He was the highest level Al Qaeda operative to be “removed from the battlefield,” as the military puts it. The Wall Street Journal actually said in its editorial: “another success for the Obama administration.”
The Journal isn’t alone here. A national opinion poll by Democracy Corps and Third Way released Thursday shows that such battlefield successes are broadly popular – when the public knows about them. They serve to raise public trust in the ability of President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party to handle national security.

“When the public knows” is always the prerequisite for successful image-building and improvement in public opinion. It doesn’t matter how much good the Party does, if the achievement is not well-publicized. Moreover, say the authors:

This is also true for the fight against terrorism at home. When Democrats tout the administration’s effective response to the Times Square bombing, for example, a strong majority — 59 percent of likely voters — say they feel more confident about the party on national security.

According to the survey, add Rosner and Bennett,

The public responds strongly when Democrats stress key aspects of their record over the last 18 months and their vision going forward…This even includes areas where the public has historically lacked confidence in Democrats, like leading the U.S. military. This new survey shows that when Democrats speak directly about their efforts for the troops — including increased pay, providing more time between deployments and putting better weapons into the battlefield — more than two-thirds of respondents say they feel more confident about Democrats’ handling of national security.

Even better,

By contrast, the public is relatively cool to a range of messages that Republican leaders are now using on this. The best Democratic national security messages out-score the best GOP messages by a dozen points.
…In particular, we tested comments that House minority leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and minority whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have made recently, and they fared poorly…Boehner’s claim that the Obama administration has been “lucky” that recent terrorist attacks in the United States have failed lags behind the Democratic message on the alleged Times Square bomber by 15 points.
Meanwhile, Cantor’s point that the Obama nuclear policy has “put America at risk” made 52 percent of likely voters less confident in Republicans, compared to only the 41 percent made more confident.

The Dems’ edge in the survey is even more impressive, say the authors, because Republicans still hold an overall lead on national security issues, including “a 13-point lead over Democrats on the question of which party is more trusted on national security,” which the authors believe “underscores the need for Democrats to make their case more effectively.”
In addition to national security concerns, the public is highly anxious about economic security, with only one out of five survey respondents holding positive views of the economy. Interestingly, the lack of confidence in the economy adds to concerns about national security:

…This survey confirms our February finding that a strong majority – now 58 percent – rejects the argument that “America remains the strongest and most influential country.” Instead, they say “America is losing its global leadership” as China and other countries grow economically and hold more of our debt.
The public continues to see U.S. economic strength as the strongest factor pulling down our world standing – well ahead of things the left and right typically cite, like “Obama apologizing for past U.S. policies” or “treatment of prisoners at places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.”
Accordingly, the only Republican message we tested that really lands with the public is on the economy.

Bennett and Rosner go on to note that the Obama Administration “emphasizes the importance of “renewal” at home as an element of national strength,” and they urge Dem candidates to do likewise, “integrating their plans for economic revival into their narrative on national security,” even as they urge “a muscular message about U.S. successes in the fight against terrorism.”
This is an astute and important insight. A strong national security profile includes both a determination to eradicate terrorism, evidenced by concrete achievements, coupled with a credible, uncompromising commitment to widely-shared economic uplift. With such a commitment, the Democratic Party will lay a solid foundation for a growing majority.

Rebecca Lefton has an important post, “BP Disaster Is Cheney’s Katrina” up at the Center for American Progress web pages. Lefton, researcher for Progressive Media at American Progress, provides a timeline, which provides a convincing rebuttal to the GOP meme that the BP spill is “Obama’s Katrina.” Says Lefton:

BP’s oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is without a doubt former Vice President Dick Cheney’s Katrina. President George W. Bush and Cheney consistently catered to Big Oil and other special interests to undercut renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives that would set the United States on a more secure clean energy path.
Oil companies raked in record profits while benefitting from policies they wrote for themselves. These energy policies did nothing for our national security and left consumers to pay the price at the pump and on their energy bills, which rose more than $1,100 during the Bush administration.

Lefton provides a chart indicating that “Big Five” oil company profits, as well as consumer gas prices, doubled during the Bush Administration, and she provides a year-by-year breakdown of Bush-Cheney giveaways to Big Oil, including:

2001 – …President Bush appointed Vice President Cheney–who gave up his title as CEO of oil and gas company Halliburton to take on his new role–with developing a new energy policy swiftly after taking office. But Cheney’s relationship with Halliburton did not end. Cheney was kept on the company’s payroll after retirement and retained around 430,000 shares of Halliburton stock.
The task force report was based on recommendations provided to Cheney from coal, oil, and nuclear companies and related trade groups–many of which were major contributors to Bush’s presidential campaign and to the Republican Party. Oil companies–including BP, the National Mining Association, and the American Petroleum Institute–secretly met with the Cheney and his staff as part of a task force to develop the country’s energy policy.

That was year one. For year two,

Bush released the fiscal year 2002 budget on April 9 that included steep cuts for clean energy research and development: “Solar and renewable energy R&D would drop by more than a third; nuclear energy R&D would be almost halved; and energy conservation R&D would fall by nearly 25 percent.”

R & D funding for biomass, geothermal, and solar energy programs was further reduced by Bush-Cheney for FY 2003 and the Republican -controlled congress provided multi-billion dollar tax breaks for dirty energy, as well as subsidies and loan guarantees. On August 8, 2005, Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which “closely resembled Cheney’s 2001 plan and gave $27 billion to coal, oil and gas, and nuclear, and only $6.4 billion for renewable energy.” Also in that year,

…The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service–the agency responsible for managing oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf and collecting royalties from companies–decided in 2005 that oil companies, rather than the government, were in the best position to determining their operations’ environmental impacts. This meant that there was no longer any need for an environmental impact analysis for deepwater drilling, though an earlier draft stated that such drilling experience was limited. In fact, MMS “repeatedly ignored warnings from government scientists about environmental risks in its push to approve energy exploration activities quickly, according to numerous documents and interviews.” And an interior general analysis even found that between 2005 and 2007 MMS officials let the oil industry to fill out their own inspection reports.

The Bush-Cheney pattern of cuts in funding for renewable energy R & D, coupled with subsidies and tax breaks for Big Oil continued throughout their administration, culminating in their 2008 lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling, including the eastern Gulf of Mexico and offshore of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. As Lefton notes, “Bush then called on Congress to lift its own annual ban on drilling, as John McCain embraced “drill, baby, drill” that year.”
Bush’s Bungling mismanagement of the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort was the critical turning point for public opinion towards his administration. But, affirming observations made by TDS Co-Editor William Galston back in early May, Lefton makes a compelling case that the BP disaster in the Gulf should forevermore be known as “Cheney’s Katrina.”