Rove 1, Markos 0

I read Markos Moulitsas' piece at Newsweek well before reading Karl Rove's. Read them both and see what you think. But I was pleased to see my feelings about Markos' piece confirmed by a bit of wisdom in Rove's.

Every presidential election is about change and the future, not the past.

Contrast that with the gist of Markos' piece, which you can get from the title:

Make the Bush Record the Issue Absent amnesia—which only happens on soaps—Democrats will be fine.

Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS, plays well within the Left blogosphere, as does a certain amount of biased wonkishness; not so much when it comes to elections. Fred Thompson and Barack Obama, arguably, are already trying to have more nuanced discussions about policy and positions, neither candidacy is resonating nationally as it might.

In 2008, Americans are not going to go to the polls to elect a candidate interested in talking about George Bush. Last time I checked, he won't be on the ballot. Indirectly, America's future will. Politics aside, that's why I give the advantage to Rove in his and Markos' initial items in their new roles at Newsweek.

Comments

[Ydobon]

Newsweek is desperate.

Adweek, NOVEMBER 05, 2007
http://www.adweek.com/mw/news/print/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003667426

"Newsweek...is now planning to cut its rate base. The planned 16 percent cut, confirmed by a media buyer, would take the 3.1 million guaranteed circulation down to 2.6 million."

But,

"A Newsweek representative would not confirm that it was cutting its rate base."

Still,

"Year to date through its Nov. 5 issue, Newsweek’s ad pages declined 15 percent, to 1,384, per the Mediaweek Monitor."

[JoeCitizen]

I thought Kos's piece was clearly better - more substantive and meatier, and more focused on real issues.

The charge that it is looking backwards is misguided, I think. Kos makes the obvious point that Bush is not some aberation - he is a Republican, and the failures of his administration are deeply rooted in the Republican ideology - and that is what we can expect from any future Republican administration.

Campaigns are always about the future, and the past. Rove certainly made Bill Clinton and his escapades a central issue in the 2000 election, and used them as a pivot to explain how Bush would be different.

The Democrats have no problem offering visions for the future - the Republicans know that perfectly well, given how much time they spend trying to scare Americans about that future. Kos is advising that they give form and definition to those visions by highlighting the contrasts with the disastrous administration that we have. It is a smart approach.

Rove's piece seemed to be a rather unimaginative rehash of standard campaign boilerplate.

Btw - your "scoring" of this is downright silly. You are obviously a partisan of one side, so your effort to declare a winner is pretty lame and transparant.

[Dan Riehl]

your effort to declare a winner is pretty lame and transparant(sic)

Transparent because I posted it and linked both pieces. There is nothing in Kos' piece to inspire voters, but if Dems want to stick to negative campaign themes, be my guest. They always lose to positve, forwarding looking rhetoric.

[bnelson44]

"Are you better or worse then you were 4 years ago" worked for Reagan

[JoeCitizen]

"There is nothing in Kos' piece to inspire voters"

It wasn't a campaign speech. It was advice as to the context in which the Democratic vision should be wrapped.

"They always lose to positve, forwarding looking rhetoric."

Unfortunatly for the Republicans, the American people have figured out that the GOP has nothing more than rhetoric to offer.

[Math_Mage]

For better or for worse, the tone is set. Democrats (or at least Markos) will focus on Bush, Bush, Bush and hope the 60% of Americans who disapprove of him will vote for them in the election. They will dismiss Iraq as a quagmire and focus on the supposed domestic failures of the administration, as well as its supposedly tarnished reputation abroad. They will call the people who say the situation in Iraq is improving "the fringe voters" who the Republicans must appease and the Democrats ignore. One hopes they won't all talk about small-government ideology = broken government and Democrats wanting to promote the common good and governing fairly like Markos did, but some things can't be stopped. But since Bush's approval has been rising lately along with Iraq's situation, this may be a flawed strategy...anyway, after talking about how bad Bush is, they might get around to talking about how they'll be different. I haven't seen it yet, but it might show up.

The Republicans face a different situation, one I'm not sure is better. Instead of being locked into a single campaign strategy, they have several to choose from. However, this could be a sign of the Republicans keeping their options open or a symptom of indecisiveness. At least the Dems can now hammer away at the same nail for a year - unless the GOP gets its act together at some point, they won't generate the clean and consistent ideology needed to draw out the voters. The main thing they've got now is bashing the Democratic candidates, especially Hillary since she looks like the nominee at this point, but the other Dems are taking care of that so the red candidates should use this time to develop their campaign messages. Hopefully they'll be better than "Bush, Bush, Bush."

As for who wins the article war...well, here I think both of them lose. Markos basically delivered a speech straight from the heart of Daily Kos, while Rove gave some mealy-mouthed platitudes about showing how the Republicans stand for the American Dream (anyone who claims that only one party stands for the Dream is deluding himself), being "authentic" (or rather "being seen as authentic" - seriously, he uses those exact words), and staying strong in Iraq (without significant analysis, Markos' view will be accepted over his). What was Newsweek thinking, bringing these two in? They're both polarizing figures, and I'm not confident that Americans want to listen to either one.

[BobInStamford]

This is a HUGE victurry for the patriots! Almost as big as Macaca 06!

[Fred Beloit]

These two pieces are very different in substance and objective.

Rove's piece is that of a professional and successful campaign adviser giving advice to any Repulican running for POTUS.

Moulitsas, who did well as a fund-raiser for Dean, failed as a king-maker for Connecticut. He got someone elected alright, but it was the someone he opposed. Like one of the trolls here, Moulitsas is spewing the usual Bush is an evil genius/dimwit who ruined this country, the same old list of false charges, with one modification. Whereas he would once have said Bush is failing to win the war, now he says in effect Bush is failing to govern Iraq properly, as if it were part of our military or the 51st state..

Yep, Rove one (positive message), kos zero (same old crap anyone could read for free, but not be allowed to disagree with, on his blog).