Neither of the two Democratic victors in the South ran against the war. Mr. Cazayoux's view, set forth on his Web site, is markedly ambiguous compared to Mr. Obama's, whose plan involves beginning a phased troop withdrawal immediately. Mr. Cazayoux's Web site only pledges to support bringing the troops home "responsibly and with honor."Something tells me the Childers website is about as deep our as editor ever made it with his research. Childers opposed the war and made it very clear, if you ever heard him speak, or read the newspapers.
Mr. Childers has said the war is not working, but Iraq appears nowhere on his Web site. Apparently, support for the war is still strong enough in Mississippi to prevent an anti-war Democrat from emphasizing that position.
It seems that what these victories teach is to be wary of conflating the strength of the Republican brand with that of conservative ideas. The former has clearly lost some of its power, but the latter are as strong as ever.Who wrote this, Baghdad Bob? Wow, where to start. If by conservative you mean, ending the war, expanded health care, fair trade as opposed to free trade, and fiscal responsibility (sorry my Republican friends, we own this one now, see Bill Clinton v. George W. Bush), then I am a new found conservative.
The real deal here is that by removing the social wedge issues from the table, the Democrats have been able to tap into a persistent, but rarely tapped strain of economic populism in the Mississippi body politic. With the bread and butter GOP wedge issues like guns and abortion off the table the Republicans have been unable to counter the Democratic proposals on kitchen table issues like health care, jobs, and education.
So far the GOP has stood firm in its wedge issue based attack mode that has been so successful in the last 15 years, and has paid the price for its hesitance to adapt. Right now the Democrats have the advantage of the issues and until the powers that be in the Republican party are willing to have a come to Jesus moment and rethink some basic party principles, they can prepare to bleed in their supposed ideological stronghold of the Deep South.
Greetings from Northern Iraq;
ReplyDeleteI thought that editorial was right on! The only place I saw that Mr Childers expressed his anti War on Terror views was in a Q & A with the Tupelo DJ. You folks can wish and hope that Mississippians are like the rest of the polled nation concerning the war; but, I like to believe that we are better than that. Most of the folks I live and work with in NE MS want our nation to succeed in Iraq. Our military exists to provide for national security. Part of that is fighting our nation's wars when required. The volunteer force is doing a superb job and we are succeeding. To really find out what is happening Iraq you have to go beyond CNN and the mainstream media. In summary, it would have been a loosing strategy for Mr Childers to have gone around NE MS and aligning his war views with those of Senators Obama and Clinton. My dos centavos.
In all fairness, while Childers certainly didn't hide his opposition to the war, I didn't see his campaign as being centered on the Iraq War at all (its absence from his web site is, IMHO, significant in that regard). I don't think opposing the war is still socially unacceptable in Mississippi, but I doubt it would have scored points for him either. The war's on, regardless, so the issue is basically whether we're talking about 2010 or later than 2010 for a withdrawal. I favor 2010 myself, but I can appreciate the views held by many--particularly those who have served--that a few more years could lead to a more stable government in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteFrom here in MS-3, it looked like he was concerned mainly with the economy and health care--two issues that have sustained the Democratic Party since at least 1932--and I'm sure they, plus Greg Davis' challenges as a candidate, ultimately brought home the election for him. Two other issues that can bring home the bacon for Democrats in Mississippi, in my view, are education and veterans' issues. Not as much has been done with the latter in recent years as could be--Democrats remain the stronger party on veterans' issues, and I think even a MS-3 candidate could be competitive if s/he focused primarily on that issue.
Bill, thanks for doing what you're doing.
Another crucial point here is that we are still being stigmatized by people who aren't down here on the ground rooted in these races. We all know our differences among each other as Democrats, and between the state party and the national party. But, relying on candidates websites to create an editorial piece does not cut it.
ReplyDeleteBut, if you check the top three issues of all the websites, Republican or Democrat, it proves one thing: What's going on now, is not working.
I went to the Childers fundraiser at Schimmel's here in Jackson, and Travis made it extra clear that we need to "end this mess of a war".
ReplyDeleteHe also stated his opposition at an even I attended in Oxford. I think he was pretty clear. This editorial writer should have made at least one phone call.
ReplyDelete"The volunteer force is doing a superb job and we are succeeding."
ReplyDelete"In summary, it would have been a loosing strategy for Mr Childers to have gone around NE MS and aligning his war views with those of Senators Obama and Clinton."
I believe you're dead wrong on both of those points.
The New York Sun piece is wrong and not based on any knowledge about the campaign. I heard Childers speak twice, and heard him talking to voters more times than that. His message went like this:
ReplyDelete1) Lunchbox issues
2) We have to have a plan to bring the troops home, quickly, because the war isn't working. We have to give them everything needed to support them, and bring them home.
3) education
4) healthcare.
That was consistently his message every time I heard him.
northern is correct
ReplyDelete