The greatest challenge facing Democrats is pack mentality in the press.

Yes, the Dems bring some of it on themselves by being weak-kneed in the face of MSM criticism and by repeating the right’s attacks. In one recent case, a CBS News reporter started her story about Gen. Casey’s planned withdrawal by saying, “It’s not a cut-and-run strategy….”

But even when polls are showing that a majority of Americans are coming around to calling for a withdrawal, the MSM genuflects at the Karl Rove altar. Even when criticizing his dishonest smash-mouth politics they can’t help calling him “brilliant.”

Eric Boehlert, author of Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush, makes a sums it up.

On the same day at least 40 Iraqis were killed by insurgent bombings, USA Today reported a strong majority of Americans (57-39) want a timetable set for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq. Which, of course, means a strong majority of Americans back the Democratic timetable initiative, the same initiative that the mainstream media—across the board—last week labeled a political loser for Dems, while cheering the GOP for winning the war over the war with its ‘cut-and-run’ rhetoric. Now we find out that 57 percent of Americans want to cut-and-run.

The newest findings only add to the insult of last week’s incredibly dishonest news coverage of the Senate debate regarding Iraq, where RNC talking points were billboarded again and again. “GOP leaders took obvious pleasure in the Democrats’ disarray” on Iraq, wrote the Washington Post. CNN reported Republicans were “having a field day” watching Democrats debate resolutions to establish a withdrawal timetable, while conveniently ignoring the fact a majority of Americans supported the Democratic plan (even last week). And Newsweek obediently announced, “Democrats lost the week in the war over the war.”

Folks, we need to pause here and really examine just how derelict the MSM has become, and just how entrenched the entire corporate media enterprise is in terms of allowing the Republican party to dictate coverage on key political issues. The fact that the lapdog press allows it to happen on behalf of a historically unpopular president just boggles the mind. (And yes, the USA Today poll confirmed Bush’s much-anticipated June bounce was non-existent.)

As I noted last week, “Apparently if Karl Rove signs off on a political strategy (hit the Dems hard over Iraq), the press assumes it’s a work of genius and shows little interest in dwelling on the pertinent questions, such as isn’t there an obvious risk Republicans run in making the hugely unpopular war in Iraq, and specifically the notion that U.S. troops should pretty much stay there indefinitely, the centerpiece for their 2006 campaign?” Instead, journalists purposefully ignored clear polling data which obliterated the narrative that the Republicans had the winning had in the Iraq troop debate.

Why can MSNBC talk show host and former GOP Congressman Joe Scarborough easily analyze the American domestic politics of Iraq, but entire bureaus within the Beltway cannot, or more specifically will not? Because let’s not kid ourselves, journalists at this pay grade are not dumb. They can read the polling data just like anyone else and could instantly grasp the political barriers the Republicans were erecting by going all in with Iraq during an election year. But they chose, as a group, to focus on the perils facing Democrats instead. And that’s what makes the media’s complete failure on the issue all the more distressing; it’s being done intentionally. Journalists are afraid of the facts and the consequences of reporting them. My book is filled with the examples —entire chapters— and last week’s Iraq debate is just the latest instance. Reporters and pundits obviously chose to allow their coverage be dictated by the RNC and White House aides. There’s no other explanation.

Indeed, it seems the “Dems are feckless” is such an overwhelming bit of conventional wisdom that even when they show guts, they’re not given any credit.

And I know many think this is all carping, but when you come across examples such as this, you have to question the basic fairness of the MSM press.

In the [Time magazine] issue of December 10, 2005, Joe Klein quoted Howard Dean as follows: “The idea that we are going to win this war … is just plain wrong.” Klein added: “Dean — as always — seemed downright gleeful about the bad news. He seemed to be rooting for defeat.” Wonder what Klein dropped from the Dean quotation in favor of those three little dots? The word was “unfortunately.”

That’s simply irresponsible. I liked Klein’s recent book, but he owes us an explanation. So do a lot of other journalists.

In my media relations work, even though most of it was in the business press, I rarely let a reporter get away with what I thought was unfair reporting. I would call them, ask them how they came to the conclusion they did, and if unsatisfied, I’d tell them exactly what I thought. I tried to be outraged, but I made myself clear. And to the best of my knowledge, there were never any retaliations. In fact, it often had the effect I wanted–fairer coverage.

I’m sure the Democratic press operatives do the same. I know James Carville was famous for it during the Clinton campaigns. But then again, without a Karl Rove coordinating things for the Democrats, are there press folks constantly calling the press when the coverage is unfair? Sometimes I wonder.

Poll: Majority of Americans want withdrawal plan for Iraq

Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter provided some keen insight and encouragement for Democrats by describing FDR’s path to the New Deal. Alter was a panelist at the NDN Conference last week. He said FDR’s victory over Hoover didn’t depend on a neatly laid out plan to get us out of the depression. The entire New Deal was ad hoc or as Alter put it, “bold, persistent experimentation.” And so with the Iraq War, Dems should demand accountability and new initiatives to end it because what’s being done isn’t working. That’s not a weakness, it’s a strength.

So Democrats need to remind themselves that they can’t play Karl Rove’s game.

For more than a quarter century, Karl Rove has employed a simple, brilliant, counterintuitive campaign tactic: instead of attacking his opponents at their weakest point, the conventional approach, he attacks their strength. He neutralizes that strength to the point that it begins to look like weakness. When John McCain was winning in 2000 because of his character, Rove attacked his character. When John Kerry was nominated in 2004 because of his Vietnam combat experience, the Republicans Swift-Boated him. This year’s midterm elections will turn on whether Rove can somehow transform the Democrats’ greatest political asset—the Iraq fiasco—into a liability.

That was always Lee Atwater’s game: attack your opponent’s strength.

…some Senate Democrats got smart for a change. They recognized that the party out of the White House doesn’t need a detailed strategy for ending a war, just a general sense of direction. When Dwight Eisenhower ran for president in 1952, his plan wasn’t any more specific than “I will go to Korea.” When Richard Nixon was asked how he would end the Vietnam War in 1968, he said he had a “secret plan”—and got away with it. So now 80 percent of Senate Democrats are united behind something called the “Levin-Reed Amendment.” The details of it (begin withdrawal without a firm timetable for getting out completely; diplomacy with the Sunnis; purging the Iraqi military and police of bad guys) are less important than that they finally came up with something.

Of course parrying “cut and run” with “Levin-Reed” won’t suffice. But Sen. Joe Biden’s riposte to the GOP’s symbolic roll-call votes—”The Republicans are now totally united in a failed policy”—is a start. This isn’t rocket science. Unless things improve dramatically on the ground in Iraq, Democrats have a powerful argument: If you believe the Iraq war is a success, vote Republican. If you believe it is a failure, vote Democratic.

Alter is spot on. Democrats are not in power, therefore it is not their responsibility to come up with a specific alternate plan absent the critical intelligence they are not privy to. For all its talk of accountability for welfare moms, teenage girls, future retirees, etc. to take responsibility for their actions, this administration does not want to be held accountable for its decisions. And since its strategy is “stay the course,” or “keep going what’s been failing all these years,” it seems the Dems have a right to ask the tough questions Republicans on the Hill won’t.

Newt Gingrich engineered the ’94 takeover of Congress by criticizing Democrats in Congress. It was a “throw the bums out” campaign. The Contract with America didn’t come until six weeks before the election and after polls predicted the Republican take over. SO why should the Dems come up with alternative plans?

“United in a failed strategy” is a good mantra. Don’t let Rove throw us off the message. His strategy counts on weak-kneed Dems afraid of the cut-and-run charge. The percentage of Americans wanting a timetable is increasing, with nearly a majority demanding it. Time is on our side. If the Dems stick to their guns, they will get the same credit Bush has gotten for sticking with his, thereby at least neutralizing the Iraq issue. And if you look at The Post poll, there is little else Bush has to grasp. But to avoid the Iraq War will play into Rove’s strategy.

Is this the way democracy is supposed to work?

The Bush administration argues whether it’s tracking calls or bank accounts, innocent people needn’t worry. They’re only going after terrorists.

Apparently, not so.

Three Kurdish men who transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Middle East in violation of the nation’s anti-terrorism law were spared prison yesterday by a judge in Harrisonburg who concluded that they did not have “evil intent.”

The men, all of whom were granted asylum in the United States, could have been sentenced to up to five years in prison for violating the Patriot Act.

… Although the government did not accuse the men of having terrorist ties, the charges against them were brought under changes adopted after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Under the Patriot Act, those who transfer money can be charged even if they do not know their actions are illegal.

So even if you don’t know you did something illegal and you weren’t involved in terrorism but an innocent transfer of money to relatives abroad, you could be given probation and fined as much $6,600.

Before they can take on issues that really matter, right wingers need to get passed a number of issues: gay marriages, crèches on public property, banning of the saying “Happy Holidays,” and now flag burning.

So those of us in the reality-based world have to make some concessions and attack these issues one at a time. So here’s my draft of a proposed constitutional amendment:

Any woman who has given birth to one son MUST abort all subsequent pregnancies.

This way we get the wingers to accept abortion. I’m sorry, my gay friends, but look at it this way: If we reduce the number of men being born, we reduce the number of homophobes. Just a thought.

Democrats apparently reacted “angrily,” according to The Washington Post, when reports surfaced this weekend that the Pentagon is considering withdrawal of troops in the near future. I didn’t see the Sunday morning talk shows (I rarely watch the frantic spinning and the general failure to listen on the part of the show hosts) upon which the adverb was based. I’ll take the reporters’ word for it.

But the Dems needn’t be angry. “Courage, troops.” The country is coming around to their point of view, and I’m beginning to feel like a minority. (O, wait a minute, I am an minority – a reality-based citizen.) It will apparently be the end of the day before we can look at the data, but more Americans are supporting a timetable for declaring victory and retreating.

The American public is sharply divided over whether to set a deadline for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, as military casualties mount and the insurgency shows little sign of ending its bloody terror campaign, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

There are still more Americans who oppose withdrawal than support it, but the margin is dwindling. And the latest Post-ABC poll continues to show little backing for an immediate exit from Iraq: Nearly eight in 10 say the United States should keep troops in Iraq for at least six months.

The survey found that 47 percent of the country now favors setting a deadline for troops to exit from Iraq, up eight percentage points since December. Opposition to a firm timetable for withdrawal stands at 51 points, down from 60 percent seven months ago.

But if reports are true that a draw-down is likely before the elections, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin has it right.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), one of the two sponsors of the nonbinding resolution, which offered no pace or completion date for a withdrawal, said the report is another sign of what he termed one of the “worst-kept secrets in town” — that the administration intends to pull out troops before the midterm elections in November.

“It shouldn’t be a political decision, but it is going to be with this administration,” Levin said on “Fox News Sunday.” “It’s as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this election, this November, there’s going to be troop reductions in Iraq, and the president will then claim some kind of progress or victory.”

Inoculation against an October surprise is to predict it — loud and often. If Democrats want to minimize what is sure to be a Rove tactic, then predict it, belittle it, and in fact, demand it. Then when it materializes, they look predictable, belittled and crassly political.

When my 19-year old daughter said she wanted to come with me to the NDN Conference held in Washington over the past two days, I got excited about the “bonding” potential for us. Little did I know that she would be the most important person there. Not her personally, but what she represents: the Millennial Generation.

Presidential-year voting among 18- to 29-year-olds grew to 52% in the 2004 presidential election. And in the 10 most contested states, voters in the 18-29-year old bracket (which includes Millennials and a year’s worth of Gen X voters) 64% turned out, according to Pete Leyden of the New Politics Institute in remarks made at the NDN Conference. Leyden said that if the electoral vote of only young Americans were counted, Kerry would have won the 2004 electoral vote by 375 to 163. What makes this so compelling is that the Millennial Generation is as large as the Boomer Generation and represents a quarter of the nation’s people. Its sheer size will make it a player in the politics of the future.

The good news for progressives is that Millennials are more engaged in the political process than Gen Xers and more progressive in outlook, according to a study commissioned by the New Politics Institute, which is affiliated with NDN. The study differentiates among 13-28 year old Millennials (Teens, Transitionals and Cusps) and finds some distinctions. The Teens (13-17-year olds) are less tolerant of gay marriage and abortion than their older peers and more skeptical of the political process. But they share with 18-28-year olds a progressive attitude about the government’s role in leveling the economic playing field, making higher education affordable and environmental protection. The older Millennials more often identify themselves as Democrats or progressives than they do Republicans or even Independents. And today, only 40% of them are even eligible to vote. In a word, they represent potential.

William Strauss of LifeCourse Associates said Millennials are receptive to the notion of “the common good” and that it’s important when developing progressive political strategy to “look at the world through their eyes.” Those eyes increasingly belong to minorities. Thirty-eight percent of Millennials are second generation Americans, mostly Asians and Hispanics.

The importance of the Millennial Generation to the progressive movement then begs the question: How do we harness that potential? With the trends in our favor, we’ll still need to market candidates to them. The good news is it may cost less.

Speakers at the NDN convention said most politicians — especially Democrats — fear innovation and therefore continue to invest in inefficient and expensive ad buys for television spots. Part of the reason is that Democratic consultants get paid through commissions on such buys. “The consultant class of the Democratic Party are no longer interested in winning elections,” said NDN President Simon Rosenberg. “They’re interested in getting rich.” That echoes the thesis of Joe Klein’s book, Politics Lost. “The baby boom generation has proved a fairly significant trough in the history of American political leadership; our greatest gift — our only — contribution to the Republic has been the rise of the political consultancy.”

Instead of consultants, argued former Dean campaign manger Joe Trippi, candidates need to hire “19-year old mentors.” He argued that they know how to get to their peers. In fact, the “user-generated content” that is currently in vogue among internet entrepreneurs should be tested in political campaigns. Millennials don’t’ watch as much television as baby boomers (my 17-year old son is an obvious anomaly). But they surf the net almost continually, and their link to the world is their cell phone.

Cell phone usage is skyrocketing, and according to presentations at the NDN conference, it is highest among minority youth. And according to Congressman Arthur Davis (D-Ala.), black males 18-25 in his state vote 20% less frequently than white youth. Meanwhile, one application of cell phones most popular among younger voters is text messaging.

Only one-third of U.S. cellphone owners use text messages — a practice immensely popular in Europe and Asia. Two-thirds of cellphone owners between ages 18 and 29 send text messages — one of many areas where young adults have a more versatile approach to the devices.

More than half, 55%, of young adults take still pictures with their phones; 47% play games and 28% use the Internet, according to the poll of more than 1,200 cellphone users.

And overall, there were 9.8 billion text messages sent in December 2005, a 109% increase from December 2004. I started out paying for 250 text messages a month for each of my three kids, but soon had to migrate to a plan that offers somewhere around 3 million messages a month. So it seems logical that Democrats need to develop text messaging initiatives to reach these potential voters.

Cell phones offer maybe the most important but certainly not the only avenue to the Millennial vote. Appearances on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, email campaigns, My Space and Facebook initiatives and college meet-ups should be part of the mix.

After the conference, my daughter introduced herself to Rosenbergl asking how she could help. Maybe she should instead offer to be Jim Webb’s 19-year old mentor.

I’ve asked this question before in a similar context, but it bears being asked again, especially in the light of two recent stories. In an AP story yesterday, the reporter seems to think “liberals” want us out of Iraq immediately.

On the issue of Iraq, [Sen. Hillary] Clinton has been buffeted by competing forces within her party. Many elements of the party’s liberal base want an immediate or timed withdrawal of troops from Iraq, while others feel such a position may weaken the party’s electoral chances this year and in 2008.

…Last week, many in the audience of a more liberal group http://home.ourfuture.org/ booed Clinton when she said she opposed setting a fixed date for troop withdrawal.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post’s article yesterday again paints “liberals” as the ones wanting us out of Iraq.

Liberals wanted a firm date for troop withdrawals, but others argued for a more moderate approach that would urge, but not compel, Bush to start a drawdown this year. Efforts to reconcile the two camps failed, resulting in the competing measures that were voted on yesterday.

I consider myself a proud liberal, though I like many others have been using the term “progressive” because I think it’s more accurate: I believe in making progress toward a more cooperative, compassionate society that demands both individual and societal responsibility rather than the “live-and-let-live” idea that the word “liberal” connotes. But I oppose setting a public deadline at which time we pull out troops from Iraq. For all the opposition I had before the war, broadcasting a near-term date for withdrawal is unwise, in my opinion. I think the president should say that he’s given the Iraqis clear goals on troop training, governmental progress, etc. that he’ll adhere to, and publicly say that our commitment in Iraq is not open-ended. Does that make me a “moderate”?

And what’s a conservative on this issue? Conservatives have historically shied away from foreign entanglements. And with the war’s decreasing popularity, at what point do those “staying the course” become “extremists,” defined as someone who takes a position farthest from the center?

Finally, at the NDN conference I attended the past two days (more on that later), virtually everyone used the word “progressive.” Even the group that booed Hillary Clinton for her stance on Iraq, uses “progressives” on its web site, instead of “liberal.”

With the media so willing to use the conservatives’ term “death tax” to describe the inheritance tax., why can’t they use the term “progressive” for our side?

Posting has been light today as I’m at the NDN Annual Meeting. I’ll say hello to Mark Warner for you. He was due to kick off the conference at noon today. We’ll see if he gets a better reception than some gave him at YearlyKos.