Carville/Greenberg strategists and national security

Thursday, Mar 11, 2010

By Glenn Greenwald

Earlier this week, a new poll and accompanying "strategic analysis" was released by Democracy Corps (the Democratic firm founded by James Carville, Stan Greenberg and Bob Shrum), co-sponsored by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner ("GQR") and the "centrist" Third Way. It spat out decades-old, warmed-over, fear-driven conventional wisdom: Democrats were in danger of being seen as Weak on National Security and Terrorism, etc. etc., and specifically warned of the dangers from abandoning Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies (while suggesting ways for Democrats to appear Strong). In response, Andrew Sullivan rightly urged caution about taking seriously any such analysis from this inside-Washington, "centrist"-Democratic faction, because -- as he put it -- "they always, always reeked of fear"; have been dominated by a "refusal to stand up against the Cheneyite right on critical matters such as national security and American values"; and "very few represent that kind of politics more than Jim Carville, Stan Greenberg and, yes, Rahm Emanuel, still traumatized after all these years."

Today, Jeremy Rosner of GQR wrote an email strenuously objecting to Sullivan's claims ("I have never, ever believed or advised that Democrats should 'cede national security' to the Republicans, and neither has my partner Stan Greenberg, or my friends James Carville and Rahm Emanuel"). He quotes from several memos issued by that faction -- mostly from 2006-2009 -- urging Democrats to exploit various national security weaknesses of Bush and the GOP, along with one from late 2003. Obviously -- as support for the Iraq War collapsed and the public began hating the GOP 's national security approach -- these strategists advised Democrats to exploit that change in public opinion (November, 2007: "For the first time in decades, national security has become a potentially winning issue for Democrats"). A child would have known to do that; that oh-so-bold advice proves nothing.


But when it actually mattered -- back in 2002, as Bush was pushing for the invasion of Iraq -- James Carville and Stan Greenberg (along with chronic loser Bob Shrum), as part of Democracy Corps, did exactly what Sullivan described (and what Rosner denied they ever did). Contrary to Rosner's claim that Democracy Corps' memos are available online, all memos prior to 2007 are archived on a site that appears to be not publicly accessible, but no matter: for years, Digby has been chronicling the central (and quite effective) role played by Carville/Greenberg in urging Democrats to capitulate to Republicans on national security. In 2002, shortly before the Congressional vote on Iraq, Carville/Greenberg/Shrum distributed a memo to Democrats advising them that the most politically productive course would be to support the AUMF so that Iraq was off the table for the midterm elections, and the focus would instead be on domestic issues, where Democrats were stronger -- exactly the fear-driven, profoundly immoral and excruciatingly stupid advice which Congressional Democrats followed. From their 2002 memo:


This decision will take place in a setting where voters, by 10 points, prefer to vote for a Member who supports a resolution to authorize force (50 to 40 percent).2 In addition, we found that a Democrat supporting a resolution runs stronger than one opposing it. For half the respondents, we presented a Democratic candidate supporting the resolution. Among these voters, the generic congressional vote remained stable, with the Democrats still ahead by 2 points at the end of the survey. In the other half of the sample, we presented a Democrat opposed to the resolution. In this group, the Democratic congressional advantage slipped by 6 points at the end of the survey.

remainder here: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/democratic_party/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/03/11/democrats