How to Lose and Look Bad Losing
by matt at 3:50 am on August 12th, 2005 in Best Of: Matt, Congressional Man Date, Supreme CourtIn case you haven’t been paying attention for the past few days, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been running an ad opposing John Roberts‘ nomination. The ad targets pro-choice Republican Senators in Rhode Island (Lincoln Chaffe) and Maine (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe) in an effort to create pressure from their mostly pro-choice constituents. The ad focuses on Roberts’ work as Principal Deputy Solicitor General under George H. W. Bush, specifically briefs he filed which argued that federal law did not prohibit violent protests around clinics where abortions are performed. Critics have focused on the fact that the NARAL ad is misleading in that it mentions a clinic bombing but not that Roberts’ brief was filed years earlier and that it accuses him of supporting violent groups and the clinic bomber.
On Thursday, NARAL buckled under pressure from pro-life groups and pro-choice Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter:
“We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts’ record,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
“Unfortunately, the debate over that advertisement has become a distraction from the serious discussion we hoped to have with the American public,” she said in a letter Thursday to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who had urged the group to withdraw the ad.
Specter, himself an abortion-rights supporter as well as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will question Roberts next month, earlier Thursday had called the ad “blatantly untrue and unfair.”
This is bad policy, bad politics, betrays a critical lack of foresight on NARAL’s part, and is emblematic of exactly what is wrong with the Democratic party and Democratic-leaning issue groups. We will simply never win like this.
Was the NARAL ad misleading? I think it was, and worse, there wasn’t much need for it to be. Kevin Drum did a rewrite of the ad that made it both better and less misleading by focusing on the implications of Roberts’ brief rather than linking him to violent groups. The link isn’t important, the consequences are. But the last few years have seen political ads forsake any claim to reality in favor of polarizing the electorate and demonizing the opponent. That’s the game we’re all in right now, and Republicans and their allied groups have been firing away with abandon. Recent examples aren’t hard to remember: Morphing Max Cleland with Osama bin Laden in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, accusing the AARP of being anti-military and pro-gay marriage, the Swift Boat Liars’ attacks on John Kerry which cost him the Presidency, and even a Specter ad that distorted the record of his 2004 Senate opponent Joe Hoeffel.
NARAL apparently calculated (if they even bothered to calculate) that a more incendiary ad would get greater attention and have a better chance of provoking calls from Maine and Rhode Island residents to what NARAL considers to be “swing votes” in the Senate. And it worked, at least in terms of raising the issue; besides being a big blog topic this week, it made significant inroads into the media. What started as an ad buy in two small northeastern states crossed over to the national news. Even taking into account the criticism from nearly all Republicans and some Democrats, this result was the best NARAL could have hoped to achieve. Anti-choice groups would have cried foul and attacked NARAL no matter the message in the ad, but with two-thirds of Americans opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade, you weather the storm and keep fighting.
But not NARAL. By ending the campaign, they are weakening themselves and their cause while handing their opponents a victory and added power. The right isn’t going to issue a statement praising NARAL for pulling the ad, and they won’t hesitate to battle the next ad NARAL runs:
The replacement campaign, which Naral officials said would begin on Monday, will examine Judge Roberts’s records on several points, the officials said, including an argument he made as a government lawyer in 1991 that Roe v. Wade was “wrongly decided.”
On the other side, NARAL supporters will look at the capitulation and wonder if their donations and volunteer efforts are really worth it.
Making matters worse is the timing of the fold. Responding to Specter’s call to halt the ad proves the futility of NARAL’s support of pro-choice Republicans:
“The NARAL advertisement is not helpful to the pro-choice cause which I support,” Specter said in a letter to Keenan.
Specter’s letter should be tossed in the coffin when the pro-choice movement is dead and buried, an outcome I have little doubt Roberts wishes to hasten. Specter supports the pro-choice cause so much that not only is there a 0% chance of his voting against confirmation, there’s less of a chance that he will exercise his power as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to stall the nomination entirely. In fact, after vowing to oppose nominees who oppose abortion, Specter had to beg and promise to help confirm the President’s judges just to ensure his committee chairmanship. Wonder how NARAL feels about their endorsement of Specter now?
There’s a saying in AA that Democrats in general and NARAL specifically need to come to terms with right now: “simple not easy.” Given the pressure from the media and right wing groups, it’s not easy to stand up for what we believe in, but it’s simple to figure out that it must be done. We’re fighting against an opponent who will never stop, will never give us credit for being “decent,” and will never, ever play by the same rules they demand we follow. It takes force of will, a strong stomach, and thick skin to win this game, and almost no one on our side is displaying any of these qualities. The result is a string of losses that shows no signs of abating. The rank-and-file right see their proxies contest every minute detail on every issue important to them, while our rank-and-file see the leading pro-choice group fold a playable hand on the issue most Democrats point to as their top priority. Is it any wonder the other side has almost unlimited funding and we have to hold bake sales?
I hold out little hope that Roberts will be denied a seat on the Supreme Court despite many reasons that he shouldn’t even see a vote in the Senate. In politics there are four general outcomes: looking good while winning, looking bad while winning, looking good while losing, and looking bad while losing. NARAL looks about as bad in this loss as is humanly possible. Barbara Boxer has promised to hold up Senate business until she gets answers from Roberts and documents from the White House. She looks about as good losing as can be expected. Boxer is one woman who has to face statewide elections; NARAL isn’t answerable to anyone except women who want abortions, and you can bet your last dollar that they would have wanted NARAL to see this battle to completion.
As I have said over and over again, it’s time to start playing the game by the rules in place, not the rules we wish were in place:
There are no deals to be made with this crop of Republican power-brokers. Did they think that Grover Norquist was kidding when he compared Democrats to neutered farm animals? Do they think that Stephen Moore is just messing around when he funds primary challenges against moderate [Specter himself] Republicans? Any rational look at the last decade will reveal that these men and others like them will never deviate from their mission. Compromise? Maybe on what brand of cigar to have after dinner. Maybe.
With about six weeks left until a final vote on Roberts, NARAL needs to get back in this game. Their relevance is on the line along with an issue central to our side. Stand up or step off.
Matthew Tobey wrote:
With all due respect, you’ve gone straight-up retard.
You’re suggesting that pulling the ad handed the opposition a win, when NARAL handed them a win right off the bat by running such a blatantly bullshit ad. Fucking up and then fucking up more to cover it up only gets things off track and takes away from the real arguments against Roberts, of which there are plenty (I heard he worked pro-boner for some fags. Gross!).
I know a President who’s awfully fond of your philosophy of not looking like a pussy even if it means being wrong. Maybe you two should meet. I think you’d like him.
I also know some juiced-up ball-players who would like to borrow, “it’s time to start playing the game by the rules in place, not the rules we wish were in place.”
Posted 12 Aug 2005 at 8:15 am ¶
matt wrote:
naral did make a mistake in the content of the ad, and that betrays either inexperience or that emotion got the better of them. running that ad for two weeks as planed would have been better than ending it and running the new one. why? because the ad, while misleading, wasn’t an outright lie. the republican groups could have protested every day, and not changed one mind. people who are pro-choice wouldn’t have been swayed and the longer the ad ran, the less likely the media would have been to repeat the same spin from the right. with a new ad, there will be a whole new round of spin for the right to attack and the media to report.
there are other arguments to make against roberts, and other groups to make them. there’s no discussion about abortion, just trench warfare between political and ideological opponents. the side that blinks (right or wrong) loses. it’s that simple.
how’s the president’s record on winning elections and majorities in congress?
“I also know some juiced-up ball-players who would like to borrow, “it’s time to start playing the game by the rules in place, not the rules we wish were in place.””
the rules of baseball are hard and fast, written into the collective bargaining agreement and known to every player. the rules of politics are not written anywhere (not even the constitution.) there’s no fair, only winning.
Posted 12 Aug 2005 at 8:28 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Strike the baseball thing from the record. It’s me trying to be clever at the cost of getting off-track.
The Swift Boat ads weren’t complete lies either. Just because they worked doesn’t mean it was right. Drowning a baby in the bathtub will make it stop crying, but sometimes the means don’t justify the ends.
NARAL fucked up huge, and they brought the pro-choice movement, the democratic party, and the entire opposition to Roberts down with them. Pulling the ad doesn’t fix that completely, but letting the ad continue to run gives the impression that there aren’t any real arguments against Roberts, let alone real arguments on the topic of abortion against Roberts. It gives the impression that our side has to resort to deception to sway the public against Roberts.
It comes down to this: I can’t, under any circumstances, support lies and deception. Even if the NARAL ad wasn’t completely untrue, it was still bullshit. And bullshit that “helps” the causes I believe in is still bullshit. Call me naive.
Posted 12 Aug 2005 at 8:45 am ¶
matt wrote:
“The Swift Boat ads weren’t complete lies either.”
they said he lied to get his medals. navy records show otherwise. lie.
“Just because they worked doesn’t mean it was right. Drowning a baby in the bathtub will make it stop crying, but sometimes the means don’t justify the ends.”
hard to argue for baby drowning, but that’s not what we’re talking about. we’re talking about influencing people, and different people respond to different stimuli.
“NARAL fucked up huge, and they brought the pro-choice movement, the democratic party, and the entire opposition to Roberts down with them.”
nobody’s down until the polls say less people favor choice. if we’re down at all, it’s because we’re perceived as weak. strength can only be met with strength.
“Pulling the ad doesn’t fix that completely, but letting the ad continue to run gives the impression that there aren’t any real arguments against Roberts, let alone real arguments on the topic of abortion against Roberts. It gives the impression that our side has to resort to deception to sway the public against Roberts.”
that’s a bit inside really. normal people don’t react to ads by saying “they could have gone at him this way.” they decide whether or not that person shares their point of view or values and they move along.
“It comes down to this: I can’t, under any circumstances, support lies and deception. Even if the NARAL ad wasn’t completely untrue, it was still bullshit. And bullshit that “helps” the causes I believe in is still bullshit. Call me naive.”
yeah, this is an excellent way to stay in the minority. how frustrated were you when kerry was getting slimed and didn’t fight back? would it have made a difference to you how he fought back? he ran tons of ads explaining how bush was wrong, but none getting down and dirty. it might have made the difference, and now we have four more years to wonder.
Posted 12 Aug 2005 at 9:06 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
“they said he lied to get his medals. navy records show otherwise. lie.”
Of course they were mostly lies, but they weren’t complete lies. You missed my point. There’s proof Kerry actually did serve on a Swift Boat and that his first name is actually John, so there’s some truth. The NARAL ad wasn’t as bad as the swift boat ads, not by a long-shot, but a punch in the nose isn’t as bad as a punch in the nuts either.
“hard to argue for baby drowning, but that’s not what we’re talking about. we’re talking about influencing people, and different people respond to different stimuli.”
You call it “stimuli,” I call it bullshit. Sure people will respond to lies, but that doesn’t make lying right.
“nobody’s down until the polls say less people favor choice. if we’re down at all, it’s because we’re perceived as weak. strength can only be met with strength.”
How is what you’re suggesting “strong”? You’re suggesting knowingly deceiving people. That’s not the kind of strong I want my party to be. Skeletor was strong too, but I still wanted him to lose.
“yeah, this is an excellent way to stay in the minority. how frustrated were you when kerry was getting slimed and didn’t fight back? would it have made a difference to you how he fought back? he ran tons of ads explaining how bush was wrong, but none getting down and dirty. it might have made the difference, and now we have four more years to wonder.”
Only an asshole would want his candidate to use lies and deception to win. Kerry could’ve fought back way harder, he could’ve hit below the belt, and he could’ve done all that without lying.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against getting down in the trenches and fighting hard. I’m very much in favor of it. But this NARAL thing was a big gaffe that we need to try to get past, not embrace. It’s possible for us to fight our battles honestly and still win, because we’re on the correct side.
What’s the use of winning if all you’re doing is becoming as bad as the bad guys? Isn’t your whole post about “losing and looking good doing it”? If all I wanted to do was win, I’d become a Republican.
Posted 12 Aug 2005 at 9:26 am ¶
matt wrote:
your point about “mostly lies” etc is simply wrong. it doesn’t matter if they got his name rank and serial number right, they lied about him, and in a verifiable manner.
i think we’re bumping up against the definitions of “lying,” “hitting below the belt,” and “fighting dirty.”
the NARAL ad didn’t lie. i’d be uncomfortable with it had it done that. Roberts’ brief did support the very same people who attacked clinics. NARAL is guilty of a distortion of time. weigh the two sides.
“But this NARAL thing was a big gaffe that we need to try to get past, not embrace. It’s possible for us to fight our battles honestly and still win, because we’re on the correct side.”
i’m certainly not embracing the ad, i expressly criticized it, and continue to do so. but backing down because republicans complained will come back to haunt us. what happens on monday when the next ad runs?
“What’s the use of winning if all you’re doing is becoming as bad as the bad guys?”
the difference between campaigning and governing.
“Isn’t your whole post about “losing and looking good doing it”?”
yeah, in this case after the ad already ran, looking good=not backing down.
my point remains, we can’t continue to play by different rules that restrict what we can say or do and expect to win.
Posted 12 Aug 2005 at 9:41 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Lest anyone think I’ve conceded:
We talked about this over AIM too and I think it’s clear that we’re never going to truly see eye to eye.
Hopefully NARAL will make wiser ads next time, so we can avoid disagreements like this in the future, because when it comes down to it, we’re on the same side.
Posted 12 Aug 2005 at 11:30 am ¶
Matt wrote:
here is another interpretation…
Posted 12 Aug 2005 at 8:43 pm ¶