Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Dynamics of Senate race changes next week…

By

…and it will help Capuano.  When Obama announces 35,000 more troops for Afghanistan, this will suck up a big part of air in the Senate race and Cap has already staked out his “out today” stance.  His stock will rise.  To bad the market will only be open for a week and he’ll still fall short.  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. …by Friday or Monday at the latest (TV traffic departments may not be working Friday)

  2. that I don’t see Coakley’s position being much different than Capuano’s on Afghanistan. So I’m not sure why it will give him the most traction.

    • …of an issue that as a House member has already come across his desk, whereas the others had to formulate opinions specifically for this race.

    • Yes, they all have mimicked each other on the Afghanistan issue in debates and forums, but the mass of voters only know the positions based on TV ads.  And Cap driving home that he’s already voted no on Iraq, that he’s already leading the anti-Afghanistan fight in Congress let’s him stand out against the other “me to” answers from candidates that have no foreign policy creed.  

      <

      p>The problem for Capuano is the same problem he, Khazie and Pags have had all along: Time.

      • I would like to suggest that the problem is the electoral process that puts the best qualified candidate(s) at a disadvantage with the brief campaign season to fill an enormously important US Senate seat.  If the best candidate(s) vs. the best pre-meditated campaigner are not able to reach sufficient voters, due to the restrictions of the timetable, to become the Democratic nominee, then there is a failure in the system.

        <

        p>One party rule and incumbency will petrify the results of a too brief campaign period.  

        • With Presidential and statewide campaigns often stretching over a 22 month period.   Not sure how you can avoid the short time period in the rare case of a special election.  

    • until next Tuesday when Obama’s surge is announced on national tv and makes a compelling case that includes an objective that is critical to our national security, and an exit plan. We’ll see how they play off that.  Will Capuano, as a member of the House, get a copy of the speech Monday or Tuesday morning?

  3. Or maybe healthcare.

    <

    p>I am not sure how many people will vote for/against any of them because of Afghanistan. I think most voters are concerned about the economy and/or healthcare.

  4. Roll back tape please; Kennedy Library (first) Forum: Capuano and Coakley had same position…no vote to approve any troop increases without a defined mission and exit strategy. Merrimac College, Andover Forum: Capuano and Coakley have the same position: no vote to approve any troop increases without a defined mission and exit strategy.  Did anyone change their position? Can’t find any evidence of that.

    • …do they have one?  

      <

      p>As I pointed out above, sure they all have the same positions and us political nerds who follow every piece of minutia understand that.  But only one candidate has a strong anti-Afghanistan TV commercial.  So for the bulk of the voters, only one candidate has a position on this issue.  Do you really want Cap to own this issue for the next 12 days–during which the President will address the nation about increasing troops and most of the news outlets will be prominently covering the story?  

  5. The president and his top military and national security advisers have held 10 meetings to discuss America’s future steps in Afghanistan. Though the top general in Afghanistan has asked the president for about 40,000 troops, military officials expect the president will deploy about 35,000, starting next year.

    The president says the American people will support his strategy once they understand the perils of losing the war.

    He will announce his plans Tuesday “for expanding the Afghan conflict – and then ultimately ending America’s military role.”

    <

    p>

    Neither he nor his advisers has detailed an exit plan, but the strategy he is expected to describe next week would include specific dates that deployments could be slowed or stopped if necessary, a senior military official said.

    […]
    “I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we’re doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive,” he said…

    “I can tell you, as I’ve said before, that it is in our strategic interest, in our national security interest to make sure that al-Qaida and its extremist allies cannot operate effectively” in the area, he said. “We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks. And Afghanistan’s stability is important to that process.”
    […]

    McChrystal is expected to tell Congress next week that this lesser addition {- 32,000 to 35,000 instead of 40,000 -} still gives him the tools to better combat insurgents in the south and east of Afghanistan.
    […]

    Among others likely to take part in congressional hearings are Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry. All were among about 20 officials and advisers participating in the president’s final deliberations Monday night – one of the biggest groups gathered for these sessions.

    The administration figures will have a tough sell among some congressional Democrats, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., who has questioned the value of adding forces and pointed to the war’s rising cost.

    The Afghan war bill hit $43 billion annually this summer, with the addition of 21,000 forces Obama has already added to the fight this year. { will go to $75 billion annually if Congress appropriates for Obama’s escalation plan }
    link

Archives