By my count there are three times (including the sub-title) Commando Kelly uses the phrase "slow bleed" to characterize the Democrat's strategy. Here's an example:
So the Democrats may adopt what's been called the "slow bleed" strategy.While other members of the so-called liberal media have actively attributed the phrase to the Democrats, Kelly does not. Though carefully he doesn't actually say where the term comes from. It started here in an article at politico.com.
Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.
The writer of that article, John Bresnahan, wrote in a subsequent article at the politico:
The Democratic plan was characterized in The Politico as the “slow-bleed strategy,” which was not a term used by any Democrats or the anti-war groups supporting their efforts.
The RNC, however, attributed the phrase to Democrats, and it was used in their e-mail alert.
And thus according to mediamatters.org, it then found its way onto GOP.com:
[The Democrats] call it their 'slow-bleed' plan.Say it ain't so! The GOP lying about something the Democrats (in this case did not) do?
Needless to say, the phrase "slow bleed" is in itself contentious. Especially when discussing soldiers and marines on the battlefield. Especially when it's been pumped up by the GOP (something, again Commando Kelly neglected to metion) The inclusion of the phrase is meant to spark disgust - and that's Kelly's point.
Nice rhetoric, Jack.
Then there's this:
Public Opinion Strategies of Alexandria, Va. surveyed 800 registered voters Feb. 5-7. By identical margins of 57-41 percent, those polled said Iraq was a key part of the war on terror and that U.S. troops should remain until "the job is done." By 56-43 percent, respondents said Americans should stand behind the president in Iraq because we are at war, and by 53-46 percent they said Democrats were going too far, too fast in pressing the president to withdraw troops.Luckily, we've already blogged on this "poll." Another pollster (a Republican, by the way) has gone on record saying that the questions in that poll were designed to elicit a specific response. In this case, "support dubya's war."
In any case, Public Opinion Strategies is hardly neutral. Take a look at what this polling company released the day after the GOP took a thumping in November. A good indication is the headline:
PUBLIC OPINION STRATEGIES MOURNS REPUBLICAN LOSSES, CONGRATULATES MANY INDIVIDUAL WINNERS IN TOUGH RACESNice going, Jack. Another great column.