Lieberman Nailed It

You've got to hand it to Joe Lieberman. He has totally absorbed the "How to Be a Republican" training. For one thing, he seems to have learned a core GOP insight of which most Democrats remain ignorant: that for the overwhelming majority of voters, a candidate's character is far more important than their issue stances. And so, he best articulated what will be John McCain's argument heading into the fall.

You may not agree with John McCain on every issue. But you can always count on him to be straight with you about where he stands, and to stand for what he thinks is right regardless of politics.

This was also Bush's core argument in 2004:

"Whether you agree with me or not, you know where I stand, what I believe, and where I am going to lead."

After the 2004 election, Bush Communications Director (and current McCain spokesflack) Nicolle Devenish Wallace cited that single line as "the most important words we uttered in the campaign" in a forum held by the Annenberg School.

From 2000 to present, Democratic policy positions on almost every issue were and are more popular than Republican ones. But Republicans know something Democrats don't: voters don't vote on the issues, so you might as well do what you believe and portray yourself as a strong leader - and try and actually translate your values into law.

Indeed, for a statistical analysis for my book, Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party, I teamed up with Wharton professor Gregory P. Nini to analyze more than 20 years of exit polls from the National Election Survey and found that candidate issue positions account for only six percent of election outcome.

In comparison, economic conditions account for 15 percent of a voter's decision; a voter's perception of a candidate's personal qualities (particularly whether or not the candidate is considered a "strong leader"), 16 percent; and a candidate's party a whopping 33 percent (Republicans tend to vote for Republicans and Democrats for Democrats).

Many Democrats don't understand this most basic political science. As a result, they obsess over the latest opinion swings when coming up with their platform, rather than fighting for what they believe. Even though their policies are popular, they come off as untrustworthy hacks.

This is especially true when facing John McCain. For all Lieberman's talk about his Straight Talk Express, the reality is that it's become more of a Zig Zag Local. His desperate attempts to appease the Bush establishment have caused his policy positions to swing far more widely than even the most craven of Democrats. To attack him for his unhinged, random, and reckless decision making, Democrats need to offer a steadfast contrast. Obama has certainly started. Keeping in mind Joe Lieberman's message will make sure we finish that way too.

Comments

[RGKahn]

"...that for the overwhelming majority of voters, a candidate's character is far more important than their issue stances." YES! YES! YES! Character plays a very important role for a Presidential Candidate. Lets look as John McCain's character. Over the past eight years John McCain has said and will say anything, has done and will do anything and has become and will become almost anything to become the next President of the United States of America. He has taken a very important period of his life, that of a POW during the Viet Nam War and turned it into an excuse for everything. He did something because he was a POW. He didn't do something because he was a POW. He sentences consist of a noun a verb and POW. He had affairs during his first marriage because he was a POW. He divorced his first wife because he was a POW. His voting record is the worst in this Congress and probably any Congress in history, with the number of NONE Votes. In the past three years, for example, there were app 71 bill brought to a vote on the floor of the Senate dealing with Budget, Taxes and Spending. Of the 71 bill, Sen. McCain had NONE VOTE 53 times. That is a percentage of 75% of total votes on this one subject that he could not be bothered to return to Washington for a vote. He can't run or hide from it. It is not pretty.

[MPeter]

Did McCain's Pick Attend the 1994 AIP Convention?
by georgia10
Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 10:34:38 AM PDT
As we discussed earlier this morning, the McCain campaign has admitted that Sarah Palin attended the AIP's 2000 Convention , but denies that she attended the group's 1994 Convention.

The distinction, from their perspective, is important. The McCain campaign claims that as mayor of Wasilla at the time, she attended the AIP's Convention in Wasilla in 2000. Under this theory, Palin's presence at the convention of a group whose goal is to have a vote on whether Alaska should secede from the Union can be brushed away as a menial formality, of no more importance than, say, a ribbon-cutting ceremony. But Palin's attendance at the 1994 Convention? That would prove much more problematic because in 1994, Palin wasn't the mayor of Wasilla.

No, Palin's presence at the 1994 convention is much more troubling, and could suggest a long-term affiliation with the AIP's philosophy.

So, the McCain campaign flat out denies that she attended the 1994 Convention. Lynette and Dexter Clark of the AIP maintain that she was there. And yesterday, we also received confirmation from Mark Chryson, a former AIP official:

"Palin was at the convention in 1994. She was there."

[timm0]

I can't wait to get a copy of that book.

[piquet]

You're using a dated philosophy. Obviously you didn't "get" the tone in Barrack's speech at the DNC.
The sole reason why Republicans were/are successful is because of this country's lack of identity.
Religion is a foundation...NOT a calling.
Sexuality is liberating and mature...NOT a clumsy necessity in order to create seeds for "the movement".
It's ok to be a man...Not some self labeling "redneck" always having to puff up and display your "manhood". Because of your own insecurities.

Let's face it in terms of history alone this country is a beer drinking gluttonous frat boy compared to Europe and Asia. That"s why they hold their nose when we come over there. No humility, confidence or grace. Just entitlement, aggression and over indulgence.

[timm0]

That's a pretty oblique description of the current condition of communication/marketing/campaigning. Do you have a blog or posting somewhere that goes into more detail? I'm curious about where you're coming from.