This morning I had a chance to speak for a few minutes with former California Governor Pete 
Wilson (pictured left), and with Captain Pete Hegseth, retired, a former combat soldier in Iraq. Both are veterans, both are leaders in a 401(c)4 organization, Veterans for Freedom. Hegseth is the group’s Chairman, and Wilson – well he describes his involvement in the group as, “a supporter, a volunteer and someone eager to see all of the efforts being made by these 30,000 combat veterans to educate the American people successful.”
Today Veterans for Freedom begins a saturation-level $2.2 million dollar, week-long media buy in all of California’s major media markets, featuring this ad…
Governor Wilson was quite stern in his comments about Senator Obama this morning, really taking the Illinois Senator to task for his failure to support our U.S. Troops, his denial of the success of the surge, and support of pulling out troops from the region on an arbitrary date.
The donors to this, the largest single media buy in the California market this election cycle, are not disclosed, nor are they required to be under federal law, as technically this is what they call an “issue advocacy ad” designed to promote an issue, not a candidate. Of course, conveniently, the ad really focuses on U.S. Senator Barack Obama, who also just happens to be the Democrat candidate for President…
This ad features at the end California veteran Brian Bowers of Hesperia – apparently there are a great many California veterans in Veterans for Freedom, which is a nation-wide organization with chapters in all 50 states.
(P.S. Members of the media looking for more info on this buy should drop an e-mail here.)
October 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Focusing on Iraq is a mistake in this election. People care more about the financial and economic world potentially collapsing around them, and NOT on Iraq, which is happening over there and doesn’t seem to be much trouble at present due to the surge working.
What we see is Obama claiming that Bush is a conservative (and Conservatives defending him) and that since this economic problem happened on his watch, it is a failure of the free-market economy that conservatives support — and that it can only be cured by more government.
If the GOP doesn’t turn its energy towards explaining how this economic problem is the big-government Democrats fault and really try to convince people, the GOP will lose — lose big time — and probably not claw its way back for a while.
People right now are in an anti-GOP mood. They see it as a choice of a big-government party that is incompetent and now for fat cats, and a party that, while still is big-government, promises competency.
And the GOP just repeating about the surge, Iraq, &c., will only HELP Obama and his leftist hordes.
This election will not end well.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Mr. Rego:
Your arguments today are identical to those made in 2004, about
“Swiftboat Veterans for the Truth” revealing the real John Kerry.
That was supposed to backfire too. It didn’t.
Every poll I’ve seen in 2008 shows the public is concerned about
BOTH National Security and the Economy.
Don’t undersetimate Voters… they are capable of thinking about
Two issues at once.
That’s an important fact I learned in walking some 300 precincts in
my political career: American Voters are smart!
October 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Mr. Sills:
My arguments today are identical to those made in 2006. National security didn’t help then and it won’t help now.
What may have been gained in Iraq will result in Iraq, as a success, will mean it isn’t as big of a concern — and this allows people to focus in on the economic debacle standing before us. People already know where McCain stands on Iraq…and talking about Iraq just keeps us from focusing in on other areas that we REALLY need to talk about unless we want to concede the argument to the socialist Dems.
And I will outright say that Iraq is NOT the most important issue. After November, and Obama win would mean its a moot point anyway. What good talking points will conservatives in that case?
At least then conservative won’t feel they have to defend Bush’s big-government presidency.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
This is a Presidential election, not an off-year congressional cycle like 2006.
Naturally every poll shows voters pay close attention to National Security
when they choose the Commander of all U.S. Armed forces.
You are also underestimating the ability of Americans to walk and chew gum
at the same time. They can think about economics and security simoltaneously.
The best part of my job as political professional is talking to rank-and-file voters.
They are genuinely public-spirited and can process lots of data.
Every poll shows Senator McCain has the edge when voters compare he and
Sen. Obama as prospective military Commander in Chief.
So given that…Why wouldn’t Republicans lead with their strongest suit of cards?
October 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Iraq is NOT their strongest suite of cards. Even if it was, it would be folly to concede the economy, which most people consider to be far more important then Iraq.
The GOP has dragged conservatism through the mud and generally turned off a lot of people who used to support them. They want something different…ANYTHING different. Iraq does NOT trump that.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
You are focused almost exclusively on Iraq, but National Security covers a lot more:
including Homeland Defense, NATO, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, and the care
of military families and of our wounded warriors, etc.
Because of his stirring life story, John McCain has the edge on all of these.
To make these concerns a large part of the GOP message, however, does
not mean conceding the economy to the other party.
I’m trying to present some good news here: American voters can deal with
both of these issues when they decide whom to choose as President.