No apologies, please, for showing the truth about war

There is something really bothersome about this whole business of Democrats using pictures of flag-draped coffins, followed by outrage by either the Republican opponent or a member of the military for using the pictures “for political advantage,” followed by the Democrat sheepishly apologizing and pulling the material.

Since when is running for public office something of insufficient gravity to justify showing important information to the public? This is supposed to be serious business, not a game. Sending the country to war is serious business, and deciding who will get to vote on matters of such importance is serious business. A candidate has the right as well as an obligation not only to inform the public, but to force it to ponder the implications of what is going on now. There is nothing “un-civil” about doing that. It is one thing to expect a level of civility that minimizes personal attacks to those necessary for the voters to make an informed judgment, another to insist that a candidate for public office not force the other candidate to face up to the terrible results of his or her position.

What really is bothersome, though, is the lack of anticipation and preparation on the part of the Democratic candidates and their staffs. Perhaps it is Monday morning quarterbacking, but we have seen how the current Republican Party operates. It seems obvious that such emotion-laden information would induce a counter-attack, and that they would have their offensive ready for immediate deployment. So why don’t the Democrats have their response – and counter-response, and counter-counter-response – ready? There should be an entire game-plan anticipating every possible avenue of attack in place and ready for immediate use before the material is ever launched. That amateurism in advertising and communications permeating the Democratic Party allows the business-backed Republicans to gain a communications advantages they do not deserve from their actual beliefs.

So how should these Democratic candidates respond? Either (1) do not do it if you do not have the resources in place to follow the game plan, but if you do, (2) be ready with something like this. Whether it is perfect or not, I don’t know, but I am certain it is better than distancing yourself from the people running your campaign -- i.e., demonstrating you are a weak leader -- and apologizing with your tail between your legs (i.e., a wimp who can't even defend himself, much less you):

No, I am not going to stop the ad. This is supposed to be serious business, not a game. My opponent can denigrate doing something “for political advantage” all he/she wants, but remember, we are running for public office. It’s an important public office that can influence the future of the country. In saying that Americans should not be allowed to see and think about what is really happening due to the dead-end policies he/she supports, my opponent is suggesting this is just a game. Sending the country to war is serious business, and deciding who will get to vote on matters of such importance is serious business. Americans need to think about all the death this war has caused and will continue to cause without any end in sight, all because this administration refuses to admit it has made a terrible mistake. They need to think about the fact that only some Americans are paying the ultimate price, too.

The response is a bit more delicate when a military surrogate does the attacking, as apparently happened to Jim Webb in the Virginia Senate race. Still, the answer is essentially the same. If it is a member of the military decrying a picture of his or her comrades who have been killed (presumably on some new form of sensitivity that apparently did not exist among American soldiers who fought in World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War), even if in fact the soldier is actually a surrogate for the other candidate (which I would think is usually the case, but for which proof usually will not be handy), you need to avoid attacking the messenger:

No, I am not going to stop the ad. This is supposed to be serious business, not a game. It is common today to denigrate running for public office and doing something “for political advantage,” but the fact is that “politics” means running for public office and helping to determine the future of the country. Saying that Americans should not be allowed to see and think about what is really happening due to the dead-end policies my opponent supports is suggesting this is just a game – a game of politics. Sending the country to war is serious business, and deciding who will get to vote on matters of such importance is serious business. Americans need to think about all the death this war has caused and will continue to cause without any end in sight. They need to think about the fact that only some Americans are paying the ultimate price, too.

Not much different. This version could work when it’s the candidate or the candidate’s acknowledged spokesperson who is doing the attacking. The main theme is seven (7) ordinary words long: “This is serious business, not a game.”