Friday, March 12, 2004

It's only a small detail Mr. President

You know, when things start to go wrong, they really start to go wrong.

Bush praises man in speech on women's rights
 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush has marked International Women's Week by paying tribute to women reformers -- but one of those he cited is really a man.

"Earlier today, the Libyan government released Fathi Jahmi. She's a local government official who was imprisoned in 2002 for advocating free speech and democracy," the president said in a speech at the White House on Friday.

The only problem was that, by all other accounts, "she" is in fact "he".

"Definitely male," said Alistair Hodgett, spokesman for the human rights advocacy group Amnesty International, whose representatives tried to see Jahmi in prison during a recent visit to Libya.

"Never Mind" - Emily Latila

Bastards

AP: Rumsfeld, FBI Official Kept 9-11 Items

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department (news - web sites) investigation that criticized FBI (news - web sites) agents for taking souvenirs from the World Trade Center site also found that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and a high-ranking FBI official kept items from the Sept. 11 attack scenes.

The final investigatory report said the Justice Department inspector general confirmed Rumsfeld "has a piece of the airplane that flew into the Pentagon (news - web sites)." The Associated Press obtained a copy of the report Friday.

Actually, I've never really thought the stories of fireman taking souverniers of 9/11 all that shocking. But I know a lot of other people expressed shock at it and hey, if that can be directed in these guys directions then I'm all for it.

Kerry 2, Bush 0

Week 2 of Election 2004 smackdown:

  • Kerry scares Bush in Florida polls (KOS)
  • Kerry Flip-Flop accusations backfire on Bush (KOS)
  • McCain entertains idea of being Kerry's running mate (AP)
  • Allegations of Bush using Lincoln Bedroom as reward to campaign donors (AP)
  • The Log Cabin Republicans launch an ad campaign critical of Bush (the left coaster)
  • Bush "flip-flops" on how much time he will talk with the 9/11 commission after Kerry criticizes Bush for spending more time visiting the rodeo (TPM)
  • Kerry tied with Bush in Tennessee (AP)
  • Kerry criticized for calling Republican critics "crooks" and "liars" (Me)
  • Terrorist attacks in Spain remind people of what the war on terror is about (AP)
  • Bush's nominee for "Manufacturing Czar" turns out to have outsourced one of his factories to China. Nomination "withdrawn" after Kerry inspired criticism. (KOS)
  • Kerry says, "I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing for my remarks" in response to controversy over "crooks" and "liars" comment (AP)
  • New Bush anti-Kerry ad uses image of "dark skinned terrorist" to frighten Americans (TNR)
  • Kerry's proposed $1.5 billion cut was less than the $3.8 billion cut eventually passed by a Republican Congress (WP via Atrios)
  • Consumer sentiment slips unexpectedly (Reuters)
  • Allegations that administration intimidated Medicare official to hide higher costs of prescription-drug benefit plan from Congress, including Republicans (Miami Herald)

All-in-all I'd have to call this as another week for Kerry, but not quite the blowout that last week was. The "crooks" and "liars" comment was unfortunate for its non-specificity and thus allowing Kerry critics to paint him as irrational. But his recovery the next day was about as good as could be hoped for. (Yes, I know I am still in the minority on this). I also think the bombings in Spain will, over-all, be beneficial to Bush. Yes, it could be argued that they demonstrate the failure of Bush policies ("The terrorists are still out there!") but they also allow Bush to put on his unflinching-defender-against-the-evil-dewers suit that is about the only thing he has going for him. At best, it was a neutral factor.

But Kerry comes out ahead of Bush on matters like the McCain VP story (a knock against Bush no matter how you paint it), the continued criticism of his flip-flops with respect to the 9/11 comission and the manufacturing czar, and embarassing stories like the use of the Lincoln bedroom and allegations of intimidation against a Medicare official.

Topping it all off was the extremism of the first anti-Kerry ads from the Bush camp.

On to round 3!

Interesting data point

I was at my local comic shop picking up my weekly fix (for those who care, Alan Moore's Promethea was the only thing on my shelf this week). The shop owner had the radio turned on when a commercial came on that openly decried the Bush administrations attempts to censor Howard Stern. It included an appeal to listeners to get out there and stop them before they stopped Howard.

This advertisement was NOT during the Stern show itself.

So, the word is not only getting out to Howard's ~15 million listeners but also to a significant chunk of people who happen to listen to some of the radio stations that broadcast Stern (unfortunately, I didn't catch which station the owner was listening to).

Just thought you'd like to know.

New Bush/Cheney slogan

There's a priceless exchange over at The American Street. First, Tom Burka posted the following:

Seniors Should Be Given Expiration Dates To Pay For Tax Cuts, Says Greenspan

Alan Greenspan acknowledged recently that George W. Bush's almost fetishistic tax cuts could, indeed, make it impossible to fund Social Security, but said that it should not be a problem as long as senior citizens were given expiration dates upon which they were required to expire.

To which Darryl Pearce responded:

Bush/Cheney '04: Soylent Greed

Pass it on.

Time for a Kerry bat?

Speaking of the Dean model, one of the most effective fundraising strategies the Dean campaign developed was to start a fundraising drive in response to attacks (e.g., the "latte-drinking" ad from Campaign For Growth or the "Dean = bin Laden" ad from <censored for the sake of Democratic unity>).

So will the Kerry campaign do something similar in response to the Muhammed Horton ad?

Kerry Republicans

The latest ARG poll not only has Kerry over Bush 50-43 but it also shows Kerry pulling 11% of Republicans while Bush is only pulling 5% of Democrats.

I wonder how that trends with past crossover numbers?

Can the Dean model work?

Matthew Yglesias expresses skepticism that the Dean model for campaign fundraising can be an answer to the Republican's past dominance in this area, all this in regard to the allegations of selling out the Lincoln bedroom to campaign donors:

Clinton's behavior in this regard is illustrative of a general Democratic party problem. The basic dilemma is that a party needs to raise a lot of money to win elections. The Republicans do this by having positions that well suit the interests of large business lobbies that give them a lot of money. Clinton tried to overcome this by using the personal perquisites of the presidency. On the merits, this is really better than selling off substantive policy decisions. And yet, it's sleazy as all hell. Moreover, it didn't really work. Alternatives are needed.

The Dean campaign thought it had an answer -- the internet. The hope here is that the weblog can become a tool of class domination for the Democratic-leaning and relatively prosperous professionals. So far, the jury's still out on this. It shows some promise, but I have my doubts.

Unfortunately, Matt doesn't list his specific doubts. But I really have to wonder why anyone would be skeptical that the Dean model couldn't work. After all, Dean raised nearly $50 million dollars as a non-name politician in a competitive field of Democrats. He easly broke Clinton's single quarter fundraising record even though Clinton did it in a non-competitive field as a sitting president! If Dean could do that then imagine what a single Democrat using the same model could do once they have the nomination sewn up.

Besides, it is my understanding (don't have a link handy) that the Democrats combined have raised more money than Bush has this season. Which just goes to prove that Democrats can be competitive with Republicans in financing campaigns without having to compromise their principles.

What's there to be skeptical about?

Look Kids! Real Reporting!

Bush Exaggerates Kerry's Position on Intelligence Budget

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, March 12, 2004; Page A04

President Bush, in his first major assault on Sen. John F. Kerry's legislative record, said this week that his Democratic opponent proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget, a proposal that would "gut the intelligence services," and one that had no co-sponsors because it was "deeply irresponsible."

In terms of accuracy, the parry by the president is about half right. Bush is correct that Kerry on Sept. 29, 1995, proposed a five-year, $1.5 billion cut to the intelligence budget. But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut -- about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years -- would have "gutted" intelligence. In fact, the Republican-led Congress that year approved legislation that resulted in $3.8 billion being cut over five years from the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office -- the same program Kerry said he was targeting.

The thing that has amazed me the most about the Bushies is not that the lie repeatedly and not that they do it in such a brazen manner that it would be easy to demonstrate their lies (Bush critics have been doing so for years online). No, what is most amazing is that the mainstream media has been to lazy to hold their feet to the fire on these matters.

The headline of this Post article alone is a sign that this is changing. If the press actually starts to hold the Bushies to account for their obvious lies then maybe they will actually have to start being more cautious in their statements. However, since the only reasons these guys remain in power is because of their lies, not being able to lie will make it that much harder to stay in power.

Amazing how that works isn't it?

Update: Here's a video of Dana Milbank talking about this story as well as Bush's new ads (btw, the title on the screen while talking about the latter was "ad offensive". Was that a subtle dig against Bush?)

National "I'm Embarassed by My President" Day

Sponsored by DemocracyMeansYou.com

Thursday, March 11, 2004

Good!

Dean will apparently not be turning over his supporter list to Kerry or the DNC. This news demonstrates that Dean understands a few basic facts:

  1. The people on that list signed on to it to support Dean, not Kerry or the DNC.
  2. If he were to just hand it over then he would have a lot less leverage with the Kerry campaign.
  3. By coordinating fundraising and other efforts on Kerry's behalf he can keep the support of Deanizens visibly separate from the rest of the party and highlight how influential we still can be.

Glad to hear it.

(Link courtesy Dean Independents)

Boo!

Bushies go for the scare tactics already?

Kos relays this Ryan Lizza story about the 2nd round of Bush ads which Kos nicknames the "Muhammad Horton ad" (in honor of the famous Willie Horton ad of the 1988 campaign). Why? Because it flashes an image of a "dark-skinned man who is obviously meant to be a terrorist" while talking about John Kerry's alleged plan to weaken America from terrorist attacks.

I wonder what the Arab-American voters in Michigan will think of this?

The Bush campaign held a conference call for the press this afternoon to unveil the ads, and one reporter asked whether it was appropriate to use an Arab-American to depict a terrorist. Campaign aides said the actor in "100 Days" wasn't Arab-American. One official on the call insisted it was just a "very generic" image.

Yeah! That's the ticket!

Update: Here's a link to the actual ad, courtesy USA Today. It's actually not as ominous sounding as the description makes it out to be. For one thing, the use of a staccato female narrator softens the blow and the image in question flashes by pretty damn quick. It could have been made a lot worse with a deep baritone narrator, ominous music and a slow motion shot of Muhammed Horton (tee hee).

But hey, if they can be made to squirm over this one as well then all the better!

Update 2: You know, I agree with the comments over at Kos. Not only is this ad borderline racists, it just sucks on its message. I mean, really, who but the most rabid right-winger would buy the idea that Kerry deliberately wants to weaken America in the fight against terrorism? Yet that is precisely the message this ad attempts to convey.

Another worker Bushed

Hesiod is on the trail of the interesting tail of the lone John Kerry boat-mate who has been critical of the would-be president. It turns out that the man, named Gardner, is speaking only from his experience with Kerry in the first month of Kerry's service in Vietnam when the latter was still green around the gills. Also, in an ironic twist of fait, or not (depending on one's political leanings), Gardner lost his job the day after his comments about Kerry were published by Time Online. The company he worked for says Gardner's layoff was planned for weeks and had nothing to do with the article (others were laid off at the same time) and everything to do with the poor state of the economy. As Hesiod put it:

Ironically, Gardner was laid off due to the Bush economy, and is now blaming John Kerry for it.

Pretty sad, actually.

Check it out.

Kerry's Truth Squad

John Kerry launches his own personal truth squad:

Are you ready? George Bush launched a new negative ad today attacking John Kerry. But we're fighting right back. Today we launched the "D-Bunker," a new feature on our web site where we take on the Republicans' fictions and butt them up against the facts- it's not pretty!

I hope to see this as the inside-the-campaign equivalent of the Dean Rapid Response Network. If there is one thing that could be said about the Dean campaign, it's media response operation was a bit lacking. The DRRN filled a useful gap, but maybe its existence gave the campaign to much of a crutch and they didn't realize, until it was to late, that they needed an equivalent operation themselves.

Eight months of mud ahead

As I said previously, this contest may well come down to who can drive the other guys negatives through the roof. Bush today is releasing his first attack ads against Kerry eight months before the general election! As Kos notes, Rove wouldn't be doing this if he didn't understand the stark reality hidden in the polls: Bush can't win on a positive message. The only hope he has is to get people to think that, as bad as he is, Kerry would be even worse.

Falling!

Hoffmania spots something I missed myself: Bush's personal approval ratings are slipping! This is even more significant than his drop in job approval because Bush's #1 asset is his character (or, at least, the illusion of character his handlers have created in the minds of the public).

Kerrying it far enough

Well, at least Kerry is trying his best to avoid the clarification trap I talked about in my last post.

"I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing for my remarks. I think the Republicans need to start talking about the real issues before the country," Kerry said.

Kerry actually does go on to clarify his comment by citing examples of Republican smear tactics against McCain and Cleland. But by leading with a "no apologies" stance there is hope that he can appear tough without appearing loonie. In a way, the "I was right and here are some examples of how I was right" approach fulfills the need to clarify without appearing to backtrack.

I still think it would have been better for Kerry not to have made the comment in the first place and I hope his criticism in the future is more focused. But this is a positive sign that he can recover from stumbles when they happen.

Kerrying it to far II

I suspect I am a minority on this point but I stand by my previous assertion that Kerry's comment about his critics being "crooks" and "liars" was a tactical mistake. It was a mistake for two related reasons:

  1. By being to general in his criticism, Kerry sounds like he is labeling all Republicans as crooks and liars. His comments, in context, were obviously in reference to some of the more seamy members of the Bush cabal (David Bossie anyone?), but by not being specific enough in his criticism he comes off sounding a bit like a raving loonie.
  2. Furthermore, when you make a blanket comment about a non-specific group of individuals, the casual observer will judge the comment in terms of a member of that group who they don't think matches the description. When Kerry makes a blanket comment that can be interpreted as criticizing all Republicans as crooks and liars (I've already seen headlines on MSNBC that paint his comment in that light) then the fence-sitter whose kindly old grandfather happens to be a Republican will be offended. It's even worse if the fence-sitter happens to be a Republican.

The same is true with respect to Bush. By his comments, Kerry has compelled some fence-sitters to come to Bush's defense. That is not the result you want.

When you criticize someone you need to do it in a way that sounds reasonable. Then people will consider your criticism on the merits. Kerry has done a good job up till now (for example, his comment about Bush devoting more time to visiting a rodeo than he was willing to give to the 9/11 commission were spot on). This is his first serious stumble.

I know it makes a lot of us feel good to see a Democrat taking Bush to the mat. But we don't just need a fighter. We need a smart fighter.

Kerry's comment was not smart.

Update: A commenter to my previous post compared Kerry's casual comment to Bush's "major league asshole" incident from 2000. I think there is one significant difference: Bush's comment was about a specific individual (Adam Clymer) while Kerry's can easily be (mis-)interpreted as a comment about all Republicans. Not many people felt the need to defend Clymer while many will feel the need to defend Republican friends and family.

The fact that, in context, Kerry's comment wasn't about all Republicans is irrelevant. Kerry will probably have to waste time clarifying his comment. When you have to clarify a comment you look weak. It gets you off your game and gives your opponent a chance to regain their composure.

Fortunately, the campaign is only just beginning. If something like this had happened in the final weeks it could have been disastrous. I'm just hoping that Kerry doesn't become gun-shy because of this. He needs to remain feisty. Just smart feisty.

Lowered Expectations

CosmoPolity has some good comments on the appearance by Ed Gillespie on The Daily Show (courtesy BOP). The following is especially important:

1. The GOP is lowering expectations. They refer to the divided country, the money raised by the Democrats and the tough race ahead. This is what Team W has always done so well -- by lowering expectations, they set up a world in which it's easier for him to succeed. Even his recent ads fit the theme of emphasizing that he was dropped into a losing proposition.

The problem with this: by letting Gillespie amiably lower expectations, we let him defuse the truly salient critiques of an administration that is failing, day in and day out. The race will be close not because all races are close, but because Bush's policies are chasing more and more Americans out of his camp.

That's the follow-up point that Stewart, and all of us, need to keep hammering home.

This was a frustrating feature of the analysis of the 2000 debates. The GOP had so successfully lowered expectations about Dubya's performance that, if he managed not to drool on camera, he was given a passing grade.

Proposed talking points: "you don't grade the president on a curve" or "beating the spread does not qualify one to be president".

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

Gore, Bush, Kerry and Chaos Theory

Brad Peachy has some good advice for John Kerry on how to debate George W. Bush, based on lessons learned from the Gore/Bush debates in 2000:

On October 3, 2000, Vice-President Gore stepped up to the podium for a debate against then Governor George Bush. If ever the American people could see a razor-sharp intellect with a deep grasp of fact and policy contrasted with a frat boy who majored in beer drinking, this would be it.

Bush was already notorious for using words such as "misunderestimate" and phrases such as "is our children learning." His stump speeches were a hodgepodge of one sentence bumper stickers that actually included "don't mess with Texas," whatever the heck that means.

Gore on the other hand had already proven his dead-on debating skills. The Vice-President elect had reduced the normally combative and fast-talking Ross Perot to humiliating outbursts of "can I talk . . . can I finish?" in the NAFTA debate on "Larry King Live." In the 1996 campaign, Gore sacked former pro quarterback Jack Kemp in the Vice Presidential debates, neutralizing Dole's most effective ally to take the White House.

Yet, somehow, Bush "beat" Gore in the debates (at least according to the way the media judged these things). Peachy gives several good examples from the debate why Gore failed against Bush and then concludes with this:

So Bush beat Gore because Bush ran on his record - and Gore let him get away with it, acting as if Bush's record in Texas had nothing worthy of criticism and the man was a bipartisan statesman. In fact, the one comment Mr. Gore did make about Bush's tenure was to commend him on his quick response to fires and floods in the state. On the other hand, Gore, instead of running on his and Bill Clinton's stellar record, couldn't stop talking about future plans, proposals, and provisions, as if he hadn't held the second highest office in the land for the last eight years.

If we could have seen a little bit more of that "lethal debater" and a little less of Mr. Policy Wonk, our beloved country might not be facing another four years of welfare for the rich and wars without end. Perhaps it is a lesson that John Kerry, the current Democratic candidate will not forget.

Anyone who followed the election closely that year may recall several stories about political scientists who developed statistical models that predicted that Gore would easily win the 2000 election. Yet the race was much closer than any of them predicted. Were they simply wrong? Not quite. They were right, as long as you take into account one of their fundamental mistakes: how they assigned roles for the players in the contest.

These models were premised on measuring the positive and negative factors influencing the victory or defeat of "the incumbent" or "the challenger". Since the natural incumbent, Bill Clinton, was not running last time, the scientists plugged Gore into the model as his surrogate. George W. Bush as the presumed challenger.

The problem was this: Bush ran on a platform that implied that it was the natural place of the Republicans, and a Bush Republican in particular, to be the president. Gore, in the meantime, ran away from Bill Clinton's record in order to avoid being associated with Clinton's seamier side. This required Gore to run as if his previous eight years as vice president had never happened. In other words, Bush ran his campaign as if he were the incumbent and Gore ran his as if he were the challenger.

This skewed the models terribly. The voting public knew in their minds that Gore was the incumbent, so that gave him a plus. But he ran as if he were the challenger which gave him a minus (for Bush the effects were reversed).

The result was one of the closest elections in American history.

Obviously, these models are failures as predictors. However, they can be a valuable source material for campaign managers. If the models say "the incumbent" is favored to win, then run as if your guy is the incumbent even if he isn't. And if the models say "the challenger" is favored to win, then run as if your guy is the challenger even if he isn't.

And that's how you use Chaos Theory to win elections!

The plan is coming together

The Republicans are challenging the ability of Democratic leaning organizations like MoveOn and Media Fund to run ads attacking Bush. It is possible that they may ultimately prevail in their attempts to shut these organizations down (I don't know campaign finance law enough to render an opinion on this). But by then it may not matter:

Attack ads against President Bush paid for by unregulated liberal organizations could help cash-strapped John Kerry maintain a media presence until he can raise his own money this summer.

These organizations – Moveon.org, Media Fund – are already being challenged in court by the Bush-Cheney campaign. But even if the courts rule with the President, the ads will have served Kerry in March, April and May when he is cash poor.

That last point is key. MoveOn and others may provide the kind of cover Kerry will need during the next few months when he will be least capable of defending himself against the Bush/Rove smear machine. If MoveOn, Media Fund and others can keep Bush on the defense through the end of May then Kerry can step in by that point and take the lead in the assault (money-wise).

“My own view on this is that the Democrats have mistakenly inflated this to say that if they don’t have these 527s and their large contributors they lose the election,” [Trevor Potter, a former Chairman of the FEC] said. “The Democratic candidates raised a $177 million, the president has only raised $150 million, and what did they do with that money, they basically campaigned against George Bush.”

I've pointed this out as well. The media liked to push the fact that Bush was outstripping all his Democratic rivals individually, but they conveniently forgot to compare the totals. And Potter is right that a large portion of that money was spent attacking Bush and may go part of the way towards explaining why Bush is feeling the heat now.

Dean, Clark, Kerry and Edwards did the job through Q1 2004. MoveOn and others can do it through the end of Q2. Then Kerry can finish the job in the Summer and Fall.

Sounds like a plan.

Kerrying it to far?

As much as I applaud the new, more feisty style that John Kerry is demonstrating, I have to wonder if he might be overdoing it a little with his latest comments (AP):

Earlier Wednesday in Chicago, Kerry toughened his comments about his GOP critics after a supporter urged him to take on Bush. "Let me tell you, we've just begun to fight," Kerry said. "We're going to keep pounding. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary."

(Caveat: I  leave open the possibility that Kerry is being badly misquoted.)

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but as much as I want Democrats to show some fighting spirit that does not mean I want them to fall into the trap of looking like raving loonies.

I've made the mistake in the past of going overboard in my criticism of Republicans. I once got into a shouting match with a couple of people because I called Bush the worst president ever. These people weren't necessarily big fans of Bush, but my comment pushed them into the position of having to defend him. Thus, by letting my hyperbole get the best of me, I may have simply pushed them into being even stronger supporters of Bush (and I may have even pushed away a few of the bystanders who witnessed this fight).

The lesson here is that you need to fight but you have to fight strategically and not just throw wild punches. Maybe part of Kerry's problem is that he's not used to that backbone that Dean has given him and thus doesn't quite know how far is to far.

I really hesitate to criticize on this point because I don't want Kerry to back down. But, I don't want him to go so overboard as to become a joke. I think Dean got burned in the end partly because he got to personal in his attacks on his rivals. I don't want that to happen to Kerry. Nor do I want him to get burned and then quickly retreat back into the hidey-hole that the pink-tutu Dems have occupied for the last few years.

Just to be clear on this, I am not disputing the essence of Kerry's comments. Yes, some of his critic's are "the most crooked .. lying group I've ever seen". But just because it is true does not mean it is politically wise to shout it from the rooftops.

No one said politics was easy.

Ambitious?

Nico Pitney has some scoops on the coming "unity dinner" involving Dean, Kerry and several others. It sounds like the Democrats are working to put together a concerted effort to hit the Republicans on multiple fronts.

Could the Dems be considering a serious drive to take back both the White House, the Senate and Congress in the same year?

Bush's personal approval in danger?

Yuval Rubinstein (of the left coaster) makes a couple of cogent point about Bush's recent attacks on Kerry: (1) they are a sign that the Bush campaign has run out of ammunition to run on (economy, foreign policy, etc.) and has to rely on a character debate and (2) by attacking Kerry directly Bush risks hurting his own personal approval ratings.

This is similar to the point I made in my previous post about how an ugly fight between Kerry and Bush will almost certainly drive down both candidates personal approval ratings. What I hadn't considered in that analysis was that Bush's personal approval rating is all that Bush really has going for him. Kerry, at least, has the advantage of being "a change" and, when things turn ugly, people are more open to the idea of voting for "a change".

Haiti

Confession time: I know virtually nothing about what has been going on in Haiti. The whole story really came out of no where, as far as I can tell. However, reading this Salon article on what went wrong, I was struck by the thought that the fact that this story came out of no where is indicative of how the Bush administration failed in Haiti.

The news media generally leaps on a story for two reasons: it either bites it on the ass (as happened here) or some major newsmaker points out the story to them before it reaches a crisis level (such as a president playing the drumbeats for war in Iraq). That the story in Haiti developed to this bad a point with so little notice by the national media suggests that the Bush administration either didn't care enough about it to make news by doing something about it or they themselves were caught equally by surprise.

I'm not sure which is worse.

When the Bush administration quickly caved to the opposition's intransigence and made it clear that it was not prepared to mobilize an international force to guarantee democracy until after the democratically elected president left office, it undermined its own peace proposal and made the president's position untenable. Rather than seeking a solution within the framework of Haitian democracy, the Bush administration rapidly concluded that Aristide was the principal problem, naively assuming that ushering a democratically elected president out of Port au Prince would usher in a better day for Haiti. "I am happy he is gone. He'd worn out his welcome with the Haitian people," proclaimed Vice President Dick Cheney.

Why does it always come down to personalities to these guys?

Kerry and Dean

Kerry is "stealing" more material from Dean, but that's okay:

Borrowing from Dean's rhetoric, Kerry argued that there really was no middle class tax cut under Bush. When the president's economic policies were added up then the burden on the middle class was effectively increased by a "Bush tax."

Frankly, right now I don't care if Kerry's backbone is stolen or not, just so long as it works (and so far it is).

This report suggests that Dean probably won't be endorsing Kerry after this meeting but that are discussing strategies for how Dean and Kerry can work together to beat Bush. The distinction is still important, I think, because a lot of Dean's supporters don't want to feel like they are just another cog in the Kerry machine. They want to be viewed as independent players who are partnering with Kerry out of necessity.

There is also the feeling in the Dean circles I travel that getting to close to Kerry would allow Kerry and the Democratic leadership to fall back into the mode of taking the grassroots for granted. By staying one step outside the inner-circle, Dean can become the defacto leader of the opposition within the opposition party.

Salon jumping back into the fire?

Salon has opened a new Washington D.C. bureau headed by Sidney Blumenthal. The first story of this new effort is "The New Pentagon Papers". Despite the obvious hype quotient in a title like that, here's hoping that this new effort puts Salon back on the map as far as investigative reporting goes. Back in 1998 they lead the way in questioning the media-riot during the Lewinsky scandal. Since then, due to lack of resources and perhaps feeling a bit burned by some of the criticism they received, Salon has been much more reserved in its political reporting.

The choice of Blumenthal is, of course, provocative considering his well known reputation as a Clinton booster. By picking him it appears that Salon has decided to become the Washington Times equivalent for the Democrats.

Fine with me. But who is their Rev. Moon?

Update: Forgot to mention that Salon is also partnering with Air America, the new "liberal" talk radio network featuring Al Frank (I think this is their web site), and Rolling Stone.

McCain disses Bush

I think the idea of McCain as Kerry's running mate (AP) is a pipe dream at best (almost as crazy as Kos's idea of a Kerry/Brokaw ticket). But the fact that McCain would even publicly entertain the idea has got to be a big blow to Bush. McCain is probably one of the most respected politicians in America today (quite possibly the most respected after Giulianni). When the voters hear that one of the biggest Republicans around is publicly dissing his party leader (and it is most certainly a big diss) it will give a lot of the fence-sitters pause.

And its a big vote of confidence for Kerry.

Turnabout

You know, if I were in a forgiving mood I might give the Bushies a pass for something like this by saying something like, "At least Bush didn't sell overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom like Clinton allegedly did."

Screw it! Make these bastards squirm! We need to do more than just rapidly respond to attacks and defuse positive agendas of the Bushies (as Kerry and others have been doing remarkably well over the last week). We need to take the attack right at them and never let up!

Hold them to their own standards and see if they can take the heat. I have a feeling they can't.

Rapid Response Lives

One of the better by-products of the Dean campaign was the coordinated efforts by some Dean supporters to deal with the problem of media distortions and attacks on their candidate. The epitomy of this effort was the Dean Rapid Response Network. The DRRN provided daily alerts on media atrocities and semi-atrocities and supplied suggested actions that supporters could take to counter those stories. It didn't always succeed (the propagation of the Dean Scream was so fast that they simply couldn't keep up), but they managed to get at least a few journalists and editors to think twice before going with the press releases of Dean opponents. But, as they say:

The problem with the media, however, didn't develop in one election cycle nor, it seems, will it be solved in one either. So, Rapid Response is staying put. We are determined to keep this force of ordinary citizens alive as one enduring legacy of the Dean campaign. And we are determined to work toward the goals Governor Dean will outline on March 18.

Fortunately, it looks like the DRRN is planning to continue their efforts even though Dean is no longer in the race.

Rapid Response will not go away after the Democratic Convention in Boston or the Republican Convention in New York. We will not go away after November's election or January's swearing in. We will not go away in 2004 or 2008. We're here until the Fourth Estate re-learns how to do its job.

I urge everyone to support their efforts, regardless of who you originally supported in this campaign.

Democrats play hardball

Kos gives us the back story, via the Louisiana Fax Weekly, of Rep. Rodney Alexander's flirtation last week with the idea of switching parties. The short and simple of it is that the Democratic leadership threatened him with a big stick while holding out a nice carrot and Alexander took the carrot. The encouraging thing about this story is that it demonstrates that Democrats are learning that they can play hardball when they need to.

Also, Kos has the story on how Pelosi and the DSCC are planning to run against moderate Republicans by painting them with the extremism of Tom DeLay. I agree with Kos' question why it took them so long to figure this out. Better late than never of course.

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

Steady Leadership In Times Of Change

The Big Picture gives us this other enlightening graph:

employment_index_term_beginning.bmp
Source: The Dismal Scientist

What I find amazing is the obvious fact that Clinton not only provided job growth throughout his term but that it was a consistently steady job growth! Some have tried to argue that Clinton benefited from the tech boom of the late 90s. But he was making hay even before the internet boom started.

TBP also gives us this money quote from The Economist:

"According to Gallup, every incumbent since Truman has been ahead of his eventual challenger at this point in the cycle -- all except Gerald Ford, who lost."

Woops!

That old Bush magic wearing off?

Interesting...

Funny man Artie Lange returned to the [Howard Stern] show today after a week off to attend the Aspen Comedy Festival, saying that there were plenty of people at the gathering voicing their support for Stern, including Drew Carey and Joe Rogan.

Drew Carey is supporting Stern against the Bushies?

Hmm...

Top Clinton strategist and CNN "Crossfire" cohost James Carville appeared visibly angry Saturday night when comedian Drew Carey entertained the crowd at the annual White House Correspondents Dinner by poking fun at the Democrats' 2000 presidential election loss

[...]

Carey seemed to take notice of Carville's reaction and began to rub it in:

"He won. They lost. That's what happened. There was no theft or rigging or none of that crap. He won! You lost!"

Evidence the backbone transplant is sticking?

What a difference a few months and a near political extinction can make:

Kerry promises vigilance at polls

WEST PALM BEACH -- John Kerry said Monday he is ready to go to court -- even before the November election -- to ensure that he does not lose Florida's 27 electoral votes because of ballot problems.

Access South Florida and national election news, analysis, cartoons and more. ? Key dates | Delegate count ? Photo galleries, more

And he directly accused Republicans of stealing the 2000 election for George W. Bush in a contest that was finally settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, giving the president a 537-vote victory.

"What can you do to prevent them from stealing the election again?" Kerry asked a crowd of hundreds at the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center in Hollywood, his first stop in a three-city Florida campaign swing Monday.

"We're going to pre-check it, we're going to have the legal team in place," said Kerry, who expected to easily win today's Florida presidential primary. "We're going to take injunctions where necessary ahead of time. We'll pre-challenge if necessary."

Flashback to July, 2003:

[John Kerry] is impatient with Democratic oratory about the "stolen" election. "Stop crying in your teacups," he told one audience. "It isn't going to change. Get over it."

Many were outraged at Kerry's comment at the time, including myself. The statement was indicative of just how out of touch the Democratic establishment was with the party they were supposed to be leading. Was it any wonder that Kerry was in such sad shape last year as a candidate?

I don't know what changed between then and now but if it is real then maybe, just maybe, Kerry has a chance of winning.

'ellifino

I was thinking about this Washington Post story by Dana Milbank about the fact that Bush has referred to his opponent by name much earlier then has occurred in past presidential re-election contests (Reagan didn't even talk about Mondale, unbidden, until October) and how this indicates that Bush is much more on the defensive then he expected to be. What I was thinking is that this is going to be a long and ugly campaign season in which the negatives for both candidates will probably be driven through the stratosphere and the eventual winner may come down to which side can best get their people out to vote despite the ugliness.

The fence-sitters may end up staying on the fence this year, decline to participate and curse Kerry and Bush with a pox on both their houses. This year could see a record low for participation of independent voters along with an historically high partisan turnout.

What I wonder is how some in the Democratic party will react once this possibility becomes more real. Will they balk at the ugliness and call on Kerry to soften the attacks in order to win back the disgusted middle? Or will they understand that Kerry really has little choice in the matter considering the assured ugliness of the attacks that will come from the Bush camp and how the failure to respond to them appropriately will convince voters that Kerry is just another in a long line of milquetoast Democrats?

I confess: I haven't a clue what is going to happen.

Interesting times indeed!

Move over Jane Fonda...

... John Kerry is taking over your spot as the real traitor in Vietnam!

"[John Kerry] knew as an officer that those were lies. It never happened," said Vietnam veteran Carlton Sherwood. "He was principally responsible for cementing the image of Vietnam veterans (search) as drugged-out psychopaths who were totally unrestrained and who were a murderous hoard."

Who knew that Kerry had so much influence over the cultural zeitgeist of the time?

We are in the "defining the opposition" stage of this contest. The Republicans are trying to cement in the public's mind the image of John Kerry as a traitor who sold out his fellow soldiers for political influence and then went on to adopt whatever stand was most convenient at the time for advancing his position in the Democratic power structure. Will this image take? That will depend in great part on how well Kerry and company counter-act it.

Fortunately, they are attempting to plant their own "opposition definition" in the minds of the public with respect to Bush and, so far, they are doing a better job of it than the Republicans. But that may primarily be because people have more direct experience with Bush (and the fact that much of that image is based on the truth).

Eight months to go!

Questions. I've got questions.

With regard to the latest GOP attack point on Kerry with regard to his support of a reduction of $1.5 billion in the intelligence budge (in 1995) over five years...

Why is it that Republicans are more than willing to decry those who want to "throw money" at social problems. But any attempt to more efficiently allocate resources for intelligence (or national defense in general) is automatically characterized as being "soft" on defense?

That's a rhetorical question of course. It's all about scoring hits on political opponents. It has nothing to do with actual concern about the strength of our intelligence services.

(Thanks to Hesiod for inspiring this question).

Kerry 1, Bush 0

Kevin Drum summarizes the first week of the general election season and boy was it a doozy!

I'm biased here, of course, but I think, over all, Kerry has to be declared the winner of the first round. Bush has been on the defensive nearly from the beginning (even before if you count the previous attacks on AWOL, etc.) and his counter-punches (both direct and indirect) have been only marginally effective.

Eight months is a long time, but if Kerry is to put this thing away and do so in a decisive fashion (a goal we should strive for even if we don't make it) then he needs to keep Bush on the ropes as much as he can.

Absolutism

This graph comes from Paul Krugman's latest column for the NY Times in which he takes apart, once and for all, the utter lack of objective reality in the Bush administration's ability to forecast job growth.

Economic forecasting isn't an exact science, but wishful thinking on this scale is unprecedented. Nor can the administration use its all-purpose excuse: all of these forecasts date from after 9/11. What you see in this chart is the signature of a corrupted policy process, in which political propaganda takes the place of professional analysis.  

Anyone besides me notice that the slop of each of those gray lines are almost identical? This is yet another indicator of the absolutism of the Bush administration. Object reality no longer matters. What matters is that their theory says jobs will grow at a certain rate and by god that is what they are going to do!

Managing Expectations

Read the headline on this story from CNN:

Kerry leads Bush in new poll: But most voters think president will be re-elected

The significance of this should not be dismissed. Expectations can have a substantial influence on final results and, as long as a large number of people think that a Bush re-election is "inevitable" the more likely it will become so.

Kerry is in a good position right now, but he has to make it clear to those fence-sitters that Bush can be beaten.

Monday, March 08, 2004

The trouble with Kerry

I know several people who find John Kerry to be a finger-in-the-wind politician who never takes a stand unless he thinks it will be the politically popular thing to do.

And those are the people who are planning to vote for him!

The simple truth of the matter is I don't know many people who like Kerry, yet many of them intend to vote for him because they simply don't have any choice. Getting rid of Bush is paramount. Given that level of "support", I have to tell you I am extremely worried about Kerry's ability to win over the fence-sitters. The people who are uncomfortable with Bush but have not, as of yet, entered the Anybody-But-Bush camp cannot be one by an appeal that says that anybody is better than Bush. As it stands, Kerry's best hope for beating Bush depends on Bush continuing to face the kind of tough news cycles he has had to deal with lately. That's not much of a confidence building strategy.

Andrew Sullivan, no fan of Kerry of course but a man increasingly hostile to Bush, details the essence of the "both-sides-of-the-issues" theme. I don't know enough about the Senator's record to refute any of Sullivan's comments. But I know enough to know that the attacks will have an impact on Kerry's standing unless he finds an effective way to respond to them. He dismisses articles like the one from Sully at his (and our) peril.

Bush's recent comment about Kerry having been in Washington long enough to be on both sides of every issue is a warning of what is to come. It's an attack that may not be fair, but it is an attack that will work if the Democrats don't find a way to counter it.

I stand by my prediction that the winner of this contest will most likely come down to which of the two candidates screws up the least. Sullivan agrees:

The question this year, I suspect, is not ultimately who is going to win this election. The question to be answered between Kerry and Bush is rather who will be more effective in losing it.

How did it come to this?