Tuesday, August 21, 2007
"You may not be interested in strategy, but strategy is interested in you."
I think grub worms have more strategic insight than the Louisiana Democratic Party.
These
new attack ads on Jindal's religious essays are so disgracefully awful and stupid, I don't know where to begin. The main thing is they will fail because they are false, and by being false they will hurt the other Democratic candidates, and thereby play right into the Jindal campaign's hands.
Referring to Jindal quotes like this one
One of the most consequential, and yet neglected, Reformation beliefs is the view that utterly depraved man is incapable of meaningful sanctification.
the LA Dems derive
this attack:
Most Americans believe we should respect one another's religion. But not Bobby Jindal. He wrote articles that insulted thousands of Louisiana Protestants. He has referred to Protestant religions as scandalous, depraved, selfish and heretical.
You have to be a real hack to think what Jindal wrote could be fairly characterized as an insult to Louisiana Protestants.
The Dems are taking words totally out of context and trying to scare people. I deplore and reject this effort, and call on them to immediately stop.
The ads have a textbook structure. There's the female person/voice to "soften" the attacks, and the corresponding black and white pictures of Jindal (on the
web site ), so you know he's a
"bad" guy. Some outfit got paid big bucks for this childish crapola.
It really irritates me when I have to agree with political analysis provided by someone like
Cap'n Feathersword. And
Professor Sadow will no doubt claim his earlier predictions were justified, and that's an even greater irritation. There was a veritable treasure trove of stuff in Jindal's religious essays to work with, but it had to be handled carefully and precisely. This ham-handed effort by the LA Dems will surely backfire, and deservedly so.
And by the way, if you think that all my criticism of Jindal means I've ruled out voting for him-- think again.
===
Which brings us to... Mayor Nagin's gubernatorial ambitions.
T-P columnist Stephanie Grace quoted and analyzed the "ever-unpredictable" Nagin discussing his political "options":
"I have talked to a lot of people about options, and particularly the people in the Democratic Party. Because what people are concerned about is (that) the party is so fragile right now that if the Republicans go in and are not challenged, and they get a candidate to win in the first primary and not go to a runoff, then they can turn their attention to all of the other seats that are out there, take control of the House, take control of the Senate, potentially, and then in '08 the last Democratic Senator that's up there could have a tough time."
That's a mouthful, but the bottom line is that Nagin wants to keep Democrats competitive in the fall legislative elections, if not the governor's race, and put U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu in a stronger position to defend her seat next year.
The question is, where did this fealty come from? Nagin has made it clear he doesn't think outgoing Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco has done enough to help spur New Orleans' recovery.
And while New Orleans has gotten a more positive reception from Congress since Democrats took over, Nagin and Landrieu aren't exactly best of friends either. In fact, in his reelection campaign against her brother Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, Nagin tapped into Republican support from voters whose goal was to weaken her.
And more importantly, why is he worrying about all this just now, when he's got so much else on his plate -- and when the next gubernatorial administration he'll go to for help may well be run by Republicans?
Grace asks all the right questions here. It's ludicrous to think Nagin wants to run for Governor so he can help other state Dems this year, and Mary Landrieu in '08. Is he being a
"useful idiot", again, for the GOP? Or does he honestly view a Gubernatorial campaign as good preparation to jump into Rep William Jefferson's seat (assuming he eventually resigns or is convicted)?
As soon as Nagin jumps in the Governor's race with some idiotic "strategic rationale", here's what I would do if I were Democratic candidates Boasso or Campbell:
run hard against Nagin (as well as Jindal, and if possible connect the two). The press likes a fight, but since Jindal's refusing to really engage or debate, I would start saying things like "Louisiana doesn't need Nagin for Governor, Louisiana needs Nagin to be a better Mayor of New Orleans". The press will pick that up, and Boasso or Campbell could profit from the contrast. Of course, I'd advise all Democratic candidates to disavow the recent LA Dem attack ads, too.
===
Update: Kos selects some quotes from Jindal's essay and tries to justify the attack ad's claims. I'm still totally unpersuaded.
---
Update #2: The Jindal campaign has freaked out over the ads, and their lawyers have demanded that tv stations withdraw them. The l
etter from their
Patton Boggs attorneys (natch) says "The ad is defamatory, intended to make Jindal appear to make disrespectful and insulting statments towards all Protestants".
---
* title quote is Leon Trotsky'sLabels: Boasso, Dems, Elections and Campaigns, Jindal, Nagin
7 Comments:
Here's how stupid I am. I was so excited to see the Democrats finally start attacking Jindal for his nutty Jesus writings that I didn't even take the time to examine the actual angle they decided to employ in these attacks.
I actually assumed the Louisiana Democratic party was capable of executing a simple attack strategy such as using a candidate's actual crazy words against him. I, of all people, should know better than assume LA Democrats will conduct themselves with anything approaching competence. I will not do so again.
And yes, Jindal's actual words are damning enough. It is not.. in my opinion.. anything close to an "attack on Jindal's faith" to present his "exorcism" story to voters and say simply, This means that Jindal is either a) a phony, b) a nutcase, or c) both. It's that easy. And if he pretends to have his feelings hurt and cries "owie" the way he already is.. then that's all the better.
Edwin Edwards would have had a field day with this punk. Today's Democrats are freaking hopeless.
OK, I only skimmed the article, and your point re: what Jindal did or didn't say is valid; however, I doubt the Louisiana Democratic Party really expects or even cares if anyone actually reads it--I think the strategy is, well, throw something and see if it sticks. Judging from the reaction, it looks like something did.
Now, is that fair? Hmmm...I guess that depends on how "fair" is defined. I mean, sheez: is it "fair" that elections which determine public policy for two, four, or six years, for example, boil down to thirty-second soundbites on TV, or hack pundits dispensing "wisdom?"
My own take on the ad, by the way, is that this could be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, no pun intended. The ad certainly won't air in south-central Louisiana, but I wonder if the publicity might drive up Jindal's support in the region, especially since there's no candidate that can claim Cajun country as a home base. IF the ad works up north (emphasis on IF), you're still potentially ceding the south. I also think Jindal has the Florida Parishes locked up (despite the Protestant leanings here), leaving Orleans and the suburbs as the battleground--the Gret Unknown this election.
Um, there's also a more cynical interpretation, albeit still in the "throw something and see if it sticks" category: hand folks up north an excuse to vote against Jindal, and it gives them cover for what might be the REAL reason they'd vote against him (hint: the real reason rhymes with cover). Again, is that fair? Well, probably not--but I could find examples of unfair tactics going back over two centuries in this country...and probably even further elsewhere. I guess what's fair or unfair might ultimately be a matter of how soundly a particular person sleeps.
Instead of inviting a discussion about all the weird sounding episodes in Jindal's "Spiritual War" story, which would play into umpteen storylines, they select a few words, take them out of context, and fashion an attack out of basically nothing.
Nothing will stick because the "controversy" is phony. The Dems will get soundly thwacked with this move, and will be lucky to avoid a harsh backlash.
When you are presented with a treasure trove of potential political attack material, you treat it like gold. You don't throw it against the wall and hope for the best.
For example, why not follow Jeffrey's advice and air the exorcism episode? That's something that people couldn't help but talk about. Who is this guy anyway, and what does he really believe? The point is, by handling this competently and strategically, the Dems don't have to be "unfair". In fact, treating this material with extreme fairness actually is the more effective play in terms of media and voter response.
It's not like I'll defend the Dems, who never pass up the opportunity to pass up an opportunity, but again, the Team Jindal response has a problem when it comes to the smell test--if it didn't hit a nerve, why the shrill reaction? Laughing it off, or at the very least, doing a 2007 version of Reagan's "there you go again" would be the appropriate move.
As far as exposing Bobby the Exorcist, sure, why not? And I dunno--maybe the Dems plan to...on the other hand, you don't serve the entree as appetizer, although knowing what I know about the Democratic Party, especially on the State level, there's the distinct possibility that dinner won't ever make it to the table
Again, though, I'm not defending the Democrats or the ad itself, I'm just pointing to possible motivations--and, just to be even more cynical and point to yet another motivation, there's always the chance that they're engaging in the ultimate hedge, playing politics but holding back in the hopes that Team Jindal will at least provide a bit of backsheesh in exchange for not having fired the really big guns. It's not like that would be unprecedented, as any reader of The Earl of Louisiana can tell you.
Even if the ads were poorly done, I think it's important for people to know the sort of person that's standing for election. If a candidate quietly goes to church, practices their religion, and doesn't beat others over the head with it, fine. But if a candidate thinks their religion is better, the danger is that they'll govern as though they've got some sort of mandate. This results in stupid shit (cf. George W. Bush).
"The question is, where did this fealty come from? Nagin has made it clear he doesn't think outgoing Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco has done enough to help spur New Orleans' recovery."
why cant a person support the party but not individual members, even if they are in positions of power? there are always a limited number of dollars to go around and it stands to reason that each interested party wants all the money. Somebody, or more likely everybody, is going to get shortchanged and complain. Why complain? so you can pass the buck, its not my fault we didnt get enough $$ Perhaps if one yells loud enough then the $$ will come to them next time. However one can complain about members of the party and still be loyal to the party
The easiest way to defeat Jindal, it would seem, would be for Democrats to remind people that he's been a government bureaucrat or congressman for almost all of his career and that he received his education at an east coast Ivy League institution. True enough, he does seem to have some odd views on religion. In any case let's hope whatever tack to defeat this guy works. I can't imagine that he'd possibly be much of an effective governor.
