Kerry 5, Bush 3

Smackdown, week 8

• New polls show Bush gaining small lead over Kerry, despite weeks of bad news (WaPo, USA Today, CNN)
• Kerry campaign refuses to release military records one day after Kerry says he would (Boston Globe)
• War may require more appropriations before election (WaPo)
• Kerry releases military records (Boston Globe, NYT)
• Senior Republican senator raises possibility of a draft (AFP)
• Blasts in Basra kill many, including over 20 children (AP, NYT)
• Kerry's military records show he was highly praised (AP)
• Kerry's fundraising exceeds Bushes during the 1st quarter of 2004 (Kerry Blog)

This was a difficult week to judge. The situation in Iraq isn't really getting any better, but the Bushies were buoyed in the media by reports that his standing in polls was virtually unaffected by the bad news of the last few weeks (both Iraq and the 9/11 commission). On the other side, the Kerry camps initial stumble with the war records issue turned into a positive when the quick release of the records produced a raft of glowing news stories about his time in Vietnam. My standard in judging each week has been whose shoes would I would prefer to be in each week. Neither candidate really had a good or a bad week. However, when you compare Bush's week to the last few bad weeks he has been having, you'd have to say that his situation improved the most. Thus, the week goes to Bush.

(previous week's smackdown)

Kerry Meetup

I went to my first Kerry meetup last night. The turnout was pretty good (about 50 people in one of SIX meetups in the Portland area). There was a considerable number of Dean people there as well. In fact, some of them were running the meetup.

Two things struck me during the meetup. The Dean meetups were generally heavy on younger people and a healthy sample of senior citizens. The Kerry meetup had a much larger number of people in the 40-50 age group but not many younger people (excepting said Deanizens). 

The other thing that struck me was the video that they showed at the meetup. It was a video that focused almost exclusively on Kerry's time in Vietnam and his time in Vietnam Veterans Against The War. What struck me about the video was that the clips of Kerry back in the early 70s were the first time I have ever found myself responding viscerally to the man. Yet it was the Kerry of 30 years ago, not the Kerry of today, that was making the sale for me!

I have talked before about how Kerry just doesn't do it for me as a candidate. But the Kerry in those old clips really spoke to me. I also suspect that that Kerry will speak well to those Americans who are concerned about our national security.

Which means that this race could come down to running strong with the 1970s Kerry instead of the 2004 Kerry.

Publius of Legal Fiction also has some comments on a related matter: the mistaken belief that a presidential election comes down to a choice between two individuals.

The belief that a presidential election is a choice between two individuals is probably the biggest fallacy in American politics. What you are actually voting for is an entire Executive branch of government, along with the judges or Justices it appoints. Unfortunately, too many people conceptualize the presidential election as a one-on-one contest between individuals, rather than between two potential Executive branches. When you think about it, reducing everything to an individual level is actually a common cognitive error in American thought. For example, terrorism is not a systematic phenomenon, but something caused by Osama (and which can be fixed by killing Osama) – which is the wrong way to think about it. Or, people think that capturing al-Sadr will end the uprising, which is an equally wrong way to understand the situation. Similarly, I think it’s somewhat irrational to base your vote primarily upon a candidate’s personal characteristics – which of course is always the main focus of our media (i.e., the way they look, or smirk, or talk).

The lazy press

To me the most astonishing thing about the release of the Dover photos yesterday is the fact that it took a private citizen filing an FOIA request to do it. What happened to the press?

Executives at news organizations, many of whom have protested the policy, said last night that they had not known that the Defense Department itself was taking photographs of the coffins arriving home, a fact that came to light only when Russ Kick, the operator of The Memory Hole, filed his request.

"We were not aware at all that these photos were being taken," said Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times.

Have the establishment press become so used to being locked out of information that they don't even bother trying to get this stuff?

John Kerry is a douche bag...

...but I'm voting for him anyway!

I'm not all that enthusiastic about Kerry (Just for the record: I don't think he is a douche bag), but I'm certainly going to vote for him. The problem is, how do I convince others to vote for a guy that I'm not particularly enamored of? Alan Blevins, the creator of the site above, appears to be struggling with the same problem and this appears to be his attempt to deal with the problem.

Things I learned from the Randi Rhodes show

In 1796 the United States signed a treaty with Tripoli (modern day Libya) that specifically stated that the United States was not a Christian nation. Apparently this was necessary because Tripoli, being Muslim, balked at signing a treaty with a Christian nation.

Here's the relevent article:

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This treaty was submitted by John Adams and ratified by the U.S. Senate, thus making it the law of the land.

More info here.

Learn something new every day!

Want Shiny!

The Silmarillion in one thousand words

AINULINDALE:

ILUVATAR: Ahem.
AINUR: Wow! Existence!
ILUVATAR: *blows pitch pipe* LA!
AINUR: LA LA LA!
ILUVATAR: LA LA!
AINUR: LA LA!
MELKOR: This sucks. BUM BUM BA DUM!
AINUR: Um. . . la?
ILUVATAR: Ahem. LA!
MELKOR: Boop bop-a-doo-bop!
ILUVATAR: LA, dammit.
MELKOR: Bwam bardle ningle boom.
AINUR: . . .
ILUVATAR: Right, you're out of the band.
MELKOR: Fine, I was leaving anyway.
AINUR: . . .
ILUVATAR: What are you waiting for?
AINUR: Oh. Right. Newly created world. Sorry. Great jam session, big guy!
ILUVATAR: Yeesh.

Keeping information free

The woman who took this photo

has been fired.

Fortunately, some enterprising individual filed a FOIA for photos of coffins coming home and has posted all of them here (mirror here)

Just one sample

I repeat, Tom Toles is a national treasure

(link)

Feeling a draft

With all this talk of bringing back the draft, Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias provides some interesting perspective from those who would be most directly affected by the proposal: men of draft age. They both state that, while they don't want to be drafted, they wouldn't object to it either if it came down to that. My wife tells me that her draft-age nephew has said similar things.

Oliver Willis appears to be on the opposite side of the fence.

I feel conflicted over this. I am no longer of the draft age and, when I was (in the 1980s), the prospect of the draft seemed pretty remote so I just didn't think about it that much. However, I did have a general "I don't want to do it" attitude.

But now, as I get older, I have to wonder if that was the correct position to take. I sometimes thing this country could stand a little bit of compulsory service (whether it be in the military or in some other non-combat role) in order to instill a stronger sense of citizenship. But the libertarian side of me quails a little at the idea of forced servitude to the state.

There is also the concern that an all-volunteer army will eventually produce a military service that is overwhelmingly gung-ho and reactionary (since those are the types that would be most likely to volunteer). That's the kind of situation that could eventually lead to the military being led by types who lose an appreciation for the idea of a citizen led army. A draft could dilute this attitude within the military ranks and reduce the risk of some future military coup (don't think it can't happen here).

I think, for now, I come down on the side of Ezra and Matthew. I don't want there to be a draft. But I don't necessarily consider proposals for such to be beyond the pale.

Oh, that difference

The shorter Bush/Kerry comparison courtesy Kos

Death by a thousand paper cuts

Ruy Teixeira comments on the phenomena of Bush's poll numbers improving, despite bad news in Iraq, because any news on the foreign policy front will tend to improve his numbers because it is considered his strong suite:

Several people have noted in the comments section for yesterday's post that Bush has been benefiting from a continued focus on his strong suit, even if that suit is weakening. I agree. My fixation yesterday was on explaining the very recent bump up in his horse race performance, which I do think is consistent with a rally effect tied to the press conference. But the two points are not inconsistent: the focus on his strong suit set the stage for the rally effect.

And the key implicaton of the two points is the same: as the mix of issues in play becomes more evenly-balanced, the reduction in Bush's huge advantage in the national security/foreign policy area fundametally weakens his political position, He can't assume, as was formely the case, that his national security advantage will drown out everything else no matter what the mix of issues. He's no longer strong enough in that area for that to be a reasonable assumption.

These approval numbers are a dynamic system (one variable feeds into one function which produces a new variable which feeds back into the function that produced the first variable) and anyone familiar with dynamic systems should recognize this kind of behavior. Dynamic systems can produce results that seem oddly out of tune with what has just gone on before. That's why its called "Chaos Theory".

But, as Ruy seems to be alluding to, Bush can rely on this effect only to the extent that people continue to believe that national security and foreign policy are his strong suite. As each new scandal erupts over his handling of foreign policy, his approval numbers in those areas continue to be pulled down. Eventually they will reach the point where they will no longer provide a boost to his overall ratings when things go bad overseas. In fact, when they cross that magic line where people no longer automatically see Bush as strong on national security, they will actually magnify his overall problems.

In other words, we could, sometime in the future, see a dramatic down turn in Bush's overall approval levels once enough people come to the conclusion that he really isn't all that good at foreign policy (the tipping point, jumping the shark, what have you).

There is no magic bullet here folks. There is simply a series of small hits that, if repeatedly landed over an extended period of time, will bring down this particular giant. The worse thing the Democrats could do now would be to back off at the first sign that the "turtle in a boiling pot" strategy may not be working. That would only result in improved ratings for Bush on his strong suite which will produce more results like we saw this week.

Keep hammering!

Kudos

By the way, I'd just like to take a moment and applaud the Kerry team for the fast response to the military records brou-ha-ha. I was and remain a Dean fan but his campaign was sometimes a bit slow in responding to potential media firestorms (if he and his wife had given that post-scream interview two days earlier history might have been re-written).

How to frame a story

The headline on this AP story ("Kerry's Military Records Show a Highly Praised Officer") sounds great. The story, with one exception, provides a stark contrast with Bush's military record. The one exception is the first paragraph:

Records of John Kerry's Vietnam War service released Wednesday show a highly praised naval officer with an Ivy League education who spoke fluent French and had raced sailboats -- the fruits of a privileged upbringing that set him apart from the typical seaman.

One positive description ("highly praised") combined with 1...2...3...4...5 phrases that could have come right from an RNC talking points memo.

Just a suggestion

Hillary Clinton is apparently the most popular NY politician in NY and thus is considered safe for re-election.

Tom Daschle has been criticized by many as a bad choice for Minority Leader because he comes from an unsafe seat.

Am I the only one who doesn't see the obvious solution to this problem?

Colorado paper won't run Doonesbury because it is too violent

No joke.

The Journal-Advocate has chosen not to publish this week's Doonesbury in the paper because of the graphic, violent battlefield depictions of Iraq in this week's installment.

We will resume printing Doonesbury in the paper when the content is deemed suitable for publication in the Journal-Advocate.

Shocking!

B.D loses his helmet!

NEWS FLASH!!!

Dick Morris doesn't like Hillary Clinton

Whoa!

In a sign of the growing power of bloggers in the public dialog comes word from Atrios that he received a message from Daniel Okrent, Public Editor for the New York Times "categorically" denying a report that they ever submit questions in advance during a press conference. It is not completely clear from Atrios' post, but it sounds like this was not in response to a message he sent to Mr. Okrent. In other words, the Public Editor of the New York Times was concerned enough about a report in a blog that he went out of his way to send a message to said blogger denying an allegation.

They are paying attention to us folks!

Time to declare victory and go home

First we have coordinated bombings in Basra.

Then coordinated bombings in Riyadh.

And now coordinated bombings in Najaf?

Yep, we've really got al-Qaeda on the run, ya-betcha!

Things fall apart

Just awful.

Joe Drymala of Change for America makes the point:

Incredible violence, horrific slaughter of children, and the occupying forces are being blamed. Not the terrorists, but the troops. If that is the case, if the Iraqi populace-at-large has more sympathy for the bombers who burned their own schoolchildren alive inside a bus, then I don't see how we can ever win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq.

It is not yet clear to me that the Iraqi's are blaming the Americans more than the terrorists, but if even a significant minority of the populous is doing just that then we have already lost the "hearts and minds" battle.

This reminds me of the bombing that occurred prior to the Good Friday accord in North Ireland that killed several children. The universal outrage over that act helped push through that accord and led to a more peaceful future for Ireland.

The bombings today, as horrifying as they are, could be used to unify Iraqis and Americans against the monsters who perpetrate this kind of attack. But that requires leadership that is capable of making that point with the Iraqis. You'll forgive me if I have my doubts that our current leaders have any clue how to do it.

Bobby not happy?

When it comes to defending the constitutional prerogatives of Congress you can be sure that Robert Byrd will be the first to the podium:

WASHINGTON, April 20 — Senator Robert C. Byrd, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said Tuesday that the administration might have broken the law by failing to inform Congressional leaders in mid-2002 of its use of emergency antiterror dollars to begin preparations for an invasion of Iraq.

Fast response

Well, this is a positive sign. At least the Kerry campaign recognized quickly that this was something they had to get behind them as quickly as possible. Hopefully their quick response will minimize the damage.

You should listen to me

Did I not say during the primary season that we should ignore the media reports that trumpeted Bush's fundraising in comparison with the Democratic contenders? Did I not say that the total of all Democratic fundraising was exceeding Bush's but the media was presenting it otherwise by simply comparing only individual candidate takes? Did I not say that, once the Democrats were down to one candidate, that that candidates fundraising might surprise people?

I was right.

The fundamental paradox of our time

One last thought before I head off to lunch:

1. The more the focus of the news turns to Iraq and 9/11 the more the issues of national security and the war on terror come to pre-occupy the minds of the voters.
2. Republicans in general and Bush in particular poll higher in the public opinion on issues of national security and the war on terror.
3. Therefore, the more the news turns to Iraq and 9/11 the more the voters approve of Bush's handling of his job and the more likely they are to re-elect him..

Yes, we can scream all we want about how the news focus on Iraq and 9/11 show Bush to be incompetent. But that just isn't the connection the casual political observer makes. We have to make it for them.

More importantly, Kerry needs to make it for them. And he needs to show that he can do it better than Bush.

Tough road ahead.

Social dynamics in politics

Power Line draws attention to the penultimate paragraph of the WaPo story on the latest polls:

Nearly eight in 10 said Bush "takes a position and sticks with it." Four in 10 had that view of Kerry, who is being portrayed by Republicans as a flip-flopper on key issues such as the war in Iraq.

That could be the story of this election right there if Kerry doesn't do something to change the dynamic. The crazy thing about human psychology is that many of us tend to view a decisive decision maker as superior even if we judge the decisions they make to be the wrong ones. Basic insecurity leaves us wondering if we really have the ability to judge what is and is not right.

Bush is an abusive husband. However, like the wife of said abused husband, we may not like him, but leaving him may seem even more frightening.

The truth about John Kerry

Check out the comments section of the DailyKOS post on the brou-ha-ha over Kerry's military records. Now, admittedly, Kos's blog was a popular gathering place for Dean democrats and has a history of negativity towards Kerry (lord knows I am not innocent in that area either), but the level of frustration expressed by the posters there points towards Kerry's Achilles' heal: he doesn't have much in the way of passionate support amongst Democrats.

The truth is that Kerry is the "Anybody" who won the "Anybody-But-Bush" sweepstakes. But he did so by essentially being less overwhelming then the other candidates who vied for that title. The other leading contenders (Dean and Clark) each had their strong partisans and their strong detractors and the fights between those forces essentially wounded both candidates enough that the mass of Democratic voters who aren't obsessed with politics were scared into falling back on the safe candidacy of John Kerry.

The truth is that Kerry may end up being a great president, but not many people are that turned on by him. That is probably the single greatest reason why Bush is still holding a slight lead over him in the polls despite all the bad press Dubya has been receiving.

The truth is I don't know anyone who is excited by the prospect of a Kerry presidency, let along a Kerry candidacy. Yet he is the only weapon we have to bring down Bush. If he is to be a good weapon he will have to do more than just be the defacto alternative.

Kerry has to turn us on and, so far, he isn't doing it.

Politics 101

You don't go out out and say you will release your records and then, one day later, get some campaign flunky to say you won't.

Kerry better correct this situation quick or he is going to get burned badly by this.

Yes, I know that there is rampant hypocrisy in Republicans screaming about this while shrugging with Bush was so reluctant to release his records. But people have got to realize that John Kerry is to politics today what Jackie Robinson was to baseball. Being just as good as everyone else is not enough. He has to be exceptional if he is to be judged on an equal basis with Bush.

It sucks, but that's the world we live in today.

Assessing polls

I've been thinking about the polls (CNN/USAToday Bush 50%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%. WaPo/ABCNews Bush 48%, Kerry 43%, Nader 6%.) that came out yesterday showing Bush pulling ahead, slightly, of Kerry in spite of the weeks of bad news Bush has been suffering. I was reminded immediately, on hearing these numbers, of the summer of 2000 when, after a couple of weeks of generally bad political coverage for Bush, when a new Gallup poll came out showing a 10 point swing in Bush's favor almost over night.

The natural reaction at first is to say, "What the f*ck!?", when things like this happen. But I agree with Kos' caution that those who applaud flucuating polls when they go in your direction don't have much room to complain when they swing in the other direction. I also generally agree with Josh Marshall's assessment of pollster Charlie Cook's take on these polls:

Cook gives a rather downcast view of the state of the Kerry campaign and suggests that the massive Bush ad campaign against Kerry is finally bearing fruit. Nevertheless, measures of public opinion on Iraq keep heading south, as does the all-important 'is the country headed in the right direction/wrong direction' question. He concludes by saying that "Kerry's rising negative ratings and an increase in Bush's own problems create a wash -- a race that remains a dead heat in this evenly divided country."

I think the basic problem right now is that, while the country is ripe for hearing the case for an alternative to Bush, Kerry has yet to make that case convincingly. Furthermore, the longer he takes to do so, the more the country will swing back to the default position of sticking with the devil they know. Those of us in the Anybody-But-Bush category have got remember that that is not a sufficient qualification in the minds of a significant number of voters.

Death by a thousand paper-cuts is a strategy that will only take Bush down so far and, barring some major scandalous revelation, he's probably down about as far as he is going to go. Kerry has got to make the sale. He has shown signs that he has the ability to do so. But so far it has only come out in fits and starts. Putting the nail in Bush's coffin will eventually require a sustained campaign presenting a viable alternative.

I just hope that his campaign is primarily based on the idea of coasting into victory. In a time of war that simply won't work.