Not having served in the military and never having found myself in a gun battle, I have never heard these lines delivered in any context other than films and tv shows of the kind mentioned above. I have however, just heard the functional equivalent of said lines delivered by a lieutenant of sorts, by a hired gun really, but in a political context. That this would happen should not seem odd, however, since war is, as the late Prussian General and military strategist Clausewitz said, " the continuation politics by other means."

In this political drama the man in the position of authority, who speaks with authority, is Thomas Riehle, a partner in the bipartisan polling firm RT Strategies and a longtime leading Democratic pollster in Washington. Since his is a persuasive rather than coercive art he has give suggestions rather than saddle orders to his troops, democratic party activists. The target at which he directs them to stop shooting is Wal-Mart, the so-called Bully of Bentonville. The reason why the activists are asked to stand down is not that they can't hit such a big, easy, target: this much they clearly can do. Rather, it's because the folks back home, the folks on whose behalf the activists claim to be fighting, don't support the war. As such, the attacks are at best a waste of ammunition and at worst, a suicide mission. The facts and figures that Riehle marshals in his RCP column today to support his claim are impressive:

Democratic candidates hoping to gain politically by attacking Wal-Mart in this election cycle might want to rethink their strategy. In fact, results from a recent RT Strategies poll indicate such a campaign strategy would be counterproductive. By a 3-to-1 margin, 62% disapprove and only 21% approve of "Democratic candidates making Wal-Mart an issue in November's elections," in the RT Strategies poll conducted June 1-5 with a representative sample of 1,209 adults nationwide. The margin of error is + 2.7.

Almost half of each of the key Democratic subgroups disapprove of this type of anti-Wal-Mart campaign, including 49% of Democrats, 48% of non-whites, 51% of union households (!) , 51% of those who want Democrats to win control of Congress in 2006, and even 50% of 2004 Kerry voters all disapprove.

RT Strategies oversampled African-Americans and Hispanics in order to be sure we had enough adults from these base Democratic groups to draw statistically sound inferences about their reaction to a Democratic candidate who made Wal-Mart the issue in the campaign. On that basis alone, 29% of African-Americans and 30% of Hispanics would vote against that Democratic candidate. Democratic candidates face different constituencies in different geographic areas, but it is hard to imagine any Democratic candidates in diverse districts winning with the defection of 3-in-10 African-Americans and Hispanics. Overall, 40% of registered voters would vote against an anti- Wal-Mart Democratic candidate, while just 18% would vote for such a candidate--a 2-to-1 margin that would be hard to overcome among the balance who say the candidate's anti- Wal-Mart stance would make no difference.

The further one reads into his article, the more quickly one realizes that Riehle has the anti-Walmart activists in his party in his crosshairs- and they do not escape intact. In short he calls them out as elitist, snobs, out of touch with the party faithful and average Americans, the majority of whom shop at Wal-Mart, who like the merchandise they get there, and who don't see working there as a bad thing.

The temptation to "stand up to Wal-Mart" as a campaign ploy reflects the sometimes cocooning and self-deceptive nature of Democratic Party activists. Indeed, in RT Strategies polls we consistently find that the most vociferously anti- Wal-Mart groups are Northeast and West Coast liberals who themselves rarely or never shop at Wal-Mart, shunning the retailer as not worthy of their patronage. They cannot understand how others fail to reach the same conclusion. At the extreme, such a person as a Democratic candidate for office might even want to suggest a few new laws or regulatory interpretations to help those who cannot help but dally in the devil's workshop.

As Riehle must know, it is in no way clear that the party activists and professional Wal-Mart haters are going to heed his final line of advice: "For the Democratic candidate who has the idea of making Wal-Mart the issue, ding! No Sale!". Should they not, I can see already what will be the political outcome. It will be much like scene 81 in Full Metal Jacket. (Apologies for the profanity.)

But you already know what happens next, right? It is a Hollywood movie about Vietnam. In short, the guy who disobeyed orders, who went on a suicide mission to save someone it was too late to save, makes it out okay. The person who gave the orders to "hold your fire" and to "stand down", the orders that were not followed, got shot to pieces. I think there's a lesson there for left wing activists and candidates in the upcoming elections.

Tags: walmart | wal-mart | nicolas cage | stanley kubrick |

See also: The Business of America is Business Wal-Mart Series I Pissing Off Your Voters | Democrats Attack Wal-Mart at Their Peril | Democrats on fool's errand with Wal-Mart issue The wisdom (or lack of) of bashing Wal-Mart | A losing political agenda | Poll Suggests Wal*Mart Not A Viable Political Topic This November | Wal-Mart as a Campaign Issue? No Sale, Says Respected Dem Pollster | Paloustics: Democrats Make Wal-Mart an Issue at Their Peril | Dem Pollster -- Targeting Wal-Mart is a political loser | Economic rationality... | Don't Run Against Wal-Mart |

Links: Conservative Cat | Freedom Watch | Adam's Blog |