Dems need to avoid blame for Iraq

ILLUSTRATED: Political solution = Oil money distribution + security. Oil money distribution is nowhere to be found, thus there is absolutely no political progress. The GOP lost Iraq.

In 2008, the Democrats will be blamed for pulling the rug from under General Petraeus just as he was starting to succeed. It is a total lie, and we need to go on offense now.

In sum say: "The name of the game is the Iraqi government. Yes Petraeus has made it safer, but he won't have enough troops long enough. Also, there is no deal on oil distribution to all parts of Iraq. Thus, Iraq is failing under Bush." If asked about why are the Democrats cutting resources simply say: "OK, do you want a war tax, and possibly a draft?"

Longer version:
It's pretty basic that a viable political state needs a functioning economy and security (internal and external). The name of the game in Iraq is a political solution from the parliament which, at this writing, is on vacation. A political solution will not happen unless the Sunnis get oil revenue. The Sunnis live in the west without oil.
As was predicted earlier on this blog, General Petraeus' strategy is bringing results. It's just that he will not have the resources or the time to completely pacify Iraq. He now has 160,000 troops, and probably needs 200,000 for several years. It ain't happening.

Thus there will never possibly be a political solution beyond creating a federal government that is basically an oil trust that has guards on its borders with Iran, Turkey, and Syria.

Lastly, Democratic politicians are scared of Iraq going horribly wrong next year (I predict it will next spring) and being blamed for cutting resources. First, there aren't enough troops in the active military. Secondly, just suggest a war tax.

Football metaphors

ILLUSTRATED: some metaphors to communicate the importance of the grassroots

"A good ground game opens up an air attack, a good air attack allows for a good ground game." Politics is like a really bad reality soap opera with strange people. The American people don't like it much. By knocking on doors, you humanize your candidate, it is far more effective than a t.v. ad. As long as you are using the same narrative as the t.v. commercials, you can finish the sale.

"Games are won on the line of scrimmage". Football pre-game shows are like most political media and scholarship. It focuses on strategy and colorful personalities. If a football game is close going into the fourth quarter, the game will be won or last on the line of scrimmage. It's BORING, if t.v. shows talked about it too much, viewers would change the channel, but it's the truth. But that's when games are won. If the polls are tied a week before an election, the election will be won doing the back-office grunt work, phone calling, and door knocking.

Speak softly, but carry a big stick (or vice versa)

ILLUSTRATED: Depending on the power of your office, you have to know your audience, and calibrate your words.

Yesterday, there was a Democratic Forum hosted by the AFL-CIO. A running theme was that the "volume" of your speech is inverse to the size of your stick. For example, most commentators say that John Edwards' thunder was stolen by Dennis Kucinich on his left flank. Kucinich can make strong, clear statements since he knows he will never be responsible for the fate of these policies, as he will not become president. He can speak loudly since his "stick" is small.

At the other end of the power spectrum, Hillary Clinton made a classic elitist argument that a president cannot always say everything you think since words have consequences. As President Theodore Roosevelt knew. In fact anyone who has risen up to a position of power and authority knows that you need to tell the truth to be trusted. But a leader is responsible for morale, and telling the whole truth can be quite demoralizing. [Mastering that skill is what separates the Churchills, Lincolns, and Iaccocas from the vast majority of people with the title CEO. It's why I write this blog.]

On another level of analysis, there is the issue of speaking to the right audience. Clinton and Barack Obama were debating how strident his words about attacking al-Queda in Pakistan ought to be. Commentators made the point that Obama was playing to the stadium crowd, and Clinton, who got booed in the stadium, was playing to the television audience, and the media, and the Pakistanis.

Time will tell who was right. But my point for candidates is that if you are speaking to a crowd, make sure you know who the key audience is and tailor your answer to them. Is there a reporter in the crowd? An influential community leader? A tv camera? If so how many people will see the clip? etc.

Gary Hart sums up the issue in this last paragraph here.

What a pro-business environment is

ILLUSTRATED: Democrats believe a pro-business environment means an educated local population and a large health care risk pool.

The unreconstructed conservative domestic policy is to cut taxes and accountability on the 3% of Americans who control capital, and that will spur so much economic growth, all problems will be solved. The unreconstructed liberal domestic policy is to increase the budget and authority of the 3% who control our public institutions, and they will solve all of society's problems. Both theories have been debunked in the eyes of the American people.

Last night I was at a dinner party with the theme of discussing the infamous Prop 13 here in California. [Digressing, dinner parties are great to discuss ballot issues and candidates with friends. They are a fun and informative way to connect people to politics] Reflecting, it reiterates that commerce needs a sound, functioning government.

Conservatives talk about "business friendly environments" basically meaning no taxes, little regulation, and making it hard for employees and consumers to sue them. A modern Democrat needs to counter that what businesses need are a smart talent pool and a cheap health insurance pool. Lastly, small businesses, without the economic leverage of large companies, need access to the legal system when they get shafted.

This means that we need good schools, access to higher education, a real health insurance plan, and access to civil justice.

It's all in the meta theme of strength through community, as opposed to isolation.