Hullabaloo

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

 
Dumb As As Swing Voter

Irony is indeed dead. In fact, it's been cremated. Unless it's George Bush making a Beavis and Butthead joke, every utterance is now taken literally no matter how obviously absurd or satirical.

For instance, everyone from Adam Nagourney to Chris Suellentrop is all atwitter at how stupid John Kerry was for betraying that he cannot make up his mind at a restaurant."Oh my God, doesn't he realize that it makes him sound indecisive? Somebody tell Teresa!"

Now, I know that Kerry is no Chris Rock, but really, it is clear to any twelve year old that he was speaking with his tongue firmly in his cheek when he said this:

Kerry decided it would be a good idea in Pennsylvania to talk about how he has difficulty deciding what to eat at restaurants. "You know when they give you the menu, I'm always struggling, what do you want?" he said. A cook at a local restaurant, though, solves Kerry's dilemma by serving "whatever he's cooked up that day. I think that's the way it ought to work for confused people like me who can't make up our minds what we're going to eat."

It's not particularly funny, but it is also not an earnest admission of Kerry's flip-flopping dining habits fergawdssake. He was making fun of himself.






digby 9/07/2004 10:07:00 PM |

 
Today's The Day

Freewayblogger Plans 100 Sign Protest in LA

I'm about to hit the 10, the 405 and the 101. I'll let you know what I see.




digby 9/07/2004 10:32:00 AM |

 
Isn't It Time To Ask

One Simple Question?

"How many times have you been arrested, Mr. President?"

There's money in it to the first one who asks it. You can also contribute to up the bounty.




digby 9/07/2004 09:48:00 AM |

 
They Can't All Be Democratic Liars

George W. Bush: AWOL in Alabama

Texans for Truth, established by the 20,000-member Texas online activist group, DriveDemocracy.org, has produced a 0:30 second television advertisement, "AWOL." The ad features Robert Mintz, one of many who served in Alabama's 187th Air National Guard -- when Bush claims to have been there -- who have no memory of Bush on the base. In other words, Bush failed to fulfill his military duty while others were dying in Vietnam.

Click here to see the ad

and contribute to the Texans For Truth.





digby 9/07/2004 09:18:00 AM |

 
Pssst

Just a little word about whisper campaigns. In a gossipy whisper campaign, the evidence, by its very nature, will not hold up in a court of law. It fact, that is the point of whispering it.

The point is to make nasty personal gossip take on a life of its own and have people thinking "where there's smoke there's fire." Whether something is logical or truthful is largely beside the point. It just has to be believable.

So, if you find over these next few weeks that you are hearing whispers about Bush's drinking, drug use or anything else, keep in mind that it's useful to let the Republicans do the debunking. It keeps their minds off of world domination and forces them to defend against a moving and vague target, which isn't easy. Ask Bill Clinton.




digby 9/07/2004 08:40:00 AM |

 
Bad Advice

Brazile said Kerry is right to go on the offensive, but that he's got to be careful when he does it. "It has to be a precision hit," she said, because Bush is the president and because large numbers of Americans bonded with him the moment those planes hit the twin towers. Brazile offered the beginnings of one theme that could work: "On Sept. 11, he led us. On Sept. 12, he misled us."

Precision? This is as precise as "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." Terrible.

First of all, we have it documented on film that Goat Boy couldn't lead anybody out of a paper bag on September 11th. Second, this statement is deeply offensive to the base who knows better. Third, it is unbelievably stupid to utter the other side's talking points. In a close race, the Republicans would NEVER say the words "he led us" about the opposition. Never.

Kerry's biggest problem right now is too many cooks throwing fetid garbage into the soup. (If I were of any influence instead of a kibbitzer, I'd include myself as one of them.) For all that the Republicans are myopic, simplistic and overly controlled, we are the opposite. Democrats are embarrassingly undisciplined about this stuff and can't keep our mouths shut, so this all plays itself out publicly.

At this point, it's all about Kerry's political instincts. There is no consensus on the right approach going into the stretch. The race is a nail biter and he's got people all around him telling him different things. He has to sort out for himself what he thinks will work. It's up to him.




digby 9/07/2004 08:14:00 AM |

Monday, September 06, 2004

 
Malapropractice

"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many good OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love, with women all across this country," he said.

He's right. If we could just get rid of all those malpractice suits, the OB/GYNs could spread love all over the place with no fear of reprisals. Of course, if women would just relax and stop suing these fine doctors for practising their love on them, this country would be a much better place in so many ways.




digby 9/06/2004 10:23:00 PM |

 



Alcoholics Don't Drink Fake Beer

Count the glasses on the table. Eight glasses for the G8. Sitting next to Junior is (I think) EU president Romano Prodi. There's a glass of white wine directly in front of him and another in front of Gerhardt Schroeder. Schroeder has a glass in his hand. Next to Schroeder is Jose Maria Aznar, who would be the owner of the glass in front of Schroeder. Next is Koizumi with an empty beer glass. Putin has the full one. Then at the end of the table are two unknowns with a glass of red wine and what appears to be a coke. I assume that would be Chirac and Blair, but it's impossible to know. However, one thing is clear. At the end of the table, directly in front of Junior is a brewski.

Here's a link to a bigger version of the picture.

Now, I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but with what we already know about the president's cocaine use at Camp David, his septum problems in the early 90's, his bizarre and unexplained falls in which he is unable to keep himself from scraping his face and the common knowledge and now photographic proof that he has been drinking as president, isn't it time that somebody asked the question?

When it the president going to come clean about his drinking and drug use in the White House?

Correction: The man with the full glass sitting next to Koizumi is Chirac. Which means that Putin is drinking either the red wine or the coke. According to this website, Putin is a teetotaler, so I'm thinking he's the coke. Of course, Bush is allegedly a teetotaler as well.

 
digby 9/06/2004 10:01:00 PM |

 
"Hates To Drink. Only In America Could A Guy Like Him Even Find Work"

This wedding video of George W. Bush in 1992, has been widely circulated. But, in light of what we now know about his cocaine use long after he claimed that he had quit drinking, shouldn't we take another look at it?

I realize that this doesn't prove anything in and of itself, but knowing what we know about his illegal use of drugs on government property well into the 90's and his inadequately explained facial scrapes and bruises during the past three years, it's long past time that somebody asked the question:

Shouldn't the president came clean with the American people about his ongoing drinking problem?




digby 9/06/2004 06:35:00 PM |

 
The Nose Knows

I had seen this video before, but until now I didn't realize how significant it was. Nose "issues" are a common problem for those who snort a lot of cocaine. This video was taken while Bush was owner of the Texas Rangers which means that Bush would have been in his mid-forties.

I realize that this is not proof that Bush was using cocaine well into the 90's. But, it does raise serious questions in light of what we already know.

Isn't it time for the president to come clean and tell the American people if he is still using illegal drugs?



digby 9/06/2004 06:05:00 PM |

 
He said he would bring honor and integrity to the White House

...he never said anything about Camp David.

Sometime between 1988 and 1992 --- when Junior was a young and irresponsible 42 to 46 years of age, it is alleged by a member of his family that he used cocaine at the presidential retreat.

It's sad that all of these allegations from long ago are being brought up once again. But, now that they are "out there" I think it's incumbent upon the president to put these rumors to rest once and for all and tell the American people exactly when he stopped using drugs. It appears that he may have still been snorting cocaine well into the 90's. This is reason for concern, particularly with his acknowledged problem with addiction to alcohol. Indeed, it is said to be an open secret that he has been drinking again, as president.

These pictures, two of several from different incidents over just the last three years, show a very alarming and unusual propensity to fall flat on his face.

It's long past time someone raised the question:

Do we have an addict in the White House? Isn't it time that Mr. Bush came clean with the American people?




digby 9/06/2004 03:43:00 PM |

 
Red Meanies

Angry Bear points out that there is some actual evidence that smear politics are winning politics this election cycle. He notes that Bush has benefitted so far from staging the most relentless negative presidential campaign in history and that his handpicked candidate in Florida won by eviscerating his Republican opponent in the primary. Anybody who thinks that this campiagn is going to be waged on issues is terribly misunderstanding the public mood. This election is about how far you are willing to go:

Voters' high-minded claims notwithstanding, negative attacks work. Witness the just-completed Republican Senate primary in Florida, which pitted the very conservative Bill McCollum against the previously somewhat conservative Mel Martinez. The winner would move on to compete against Betty Castor for the Senate slot opened by Bob Graham's impending retirement. Let's watch:

... a political storm is roiling Florida's U.S. Senate race, fueled by hard-hitting accusations that Republican nominee Mel R. Martinez leveled against his chief rival in the closing days of this past Tuesday's GOP primary.

The attacks infuriated some prominent Republicans, and Democrats hope the discord will help their nominee, Betty Castor, win the closely watched contest to succeed retiring Sen. Bob Graham (D).

President Bush handpicked Martinez ... considered more centrist than early GOP front-runner Bill McCollum. McCollum, a solidly conservative former House member, lost the 2000 Senate race to Democrat Bill Nelson, and many Republicans felt they needed a more moderate nominee this year.

But Martinez's campaign was hardly moderate in its homestretch assault on McCollum. First, it arranged a conference call by conservative religious leaders who challenged McCollum's integrity because of his support of embryonic stem cell research and a hate crimes bill. Enraged, former Republican senator Connie Mack wrote to more than 15,000 state GOP activists, saying Martinez's campaign "sunk to a new low in Florida politics" by launching a "mean-spirited, desperate and personal attack" that would "only hurt our party and doom us in November."

A few days later, the Martinez campaign labeled McCollum "the new darling of the extreme homosexuals" because he had supported including protections for gays in a failed federal hate-crimes bill. Editorial pages condemned the comment, and the St. Petersburg Times withdrew its endorsement of Martinez.

Did it work? Yes:

Martinez, who had trailed in several polls, won the primary with 45 percent of the vote to McCollum's 31 percent. Martinez and his allies in the GOP establishment immediately tried to heal the hurts.

Of course it did. The "moderate" Martinez proved he had balls. Read the rest of the post. Aside from the fact that it agrees with my thesis (which obviously means that it is brilliant) AB comes up with some excellent ideas for attack ads. I particularly like this one:

Start with this quote from The Dallas Morning News, Feb. 25, 1990:

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

Then cut to Lt. Colonel Bill Burkett alleging that he witnessed Bush's National Guard records being scrubbed, and point out that Bush has never accounted for his whereabouts during 1972 and 1973, nor why he stopped flying.

Then end with Linda Allison:

Before there was Karl Rove, Lee Atwater or even James Baker, the Bush family's political guru was a gregarious newspaper owner and campaign consultant from Midland, Texas, named Jimmy Allison. In the spring of 1972, George H.W. Bush phoned his friend and asked a favor: Could Allison find a place on the Senate campaign he was managing in Alabama for his troublesome eldest son, the 25-year-old George W. Bush?

"The impression I had was that Georgie was raising a lot of hell in Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family, and they just really wanted to get him out of Houston and under Jimmy's wing," Allison's widow, Linda, told me. "And Jimmy said, 'Sure.' He was so loyal."

... Asked if she'd ever seen Bush in a uniform, Allison said: "Good lord, no. I had no idea that the National Guard was involved in his life in any way."

AB notes that neither Kerry or the DNC or even MoveOn can do this sort of thing:

Democrats will need some truly Shadowy groups, brand new 527s that spring up, launch ads and push polls in key states, and then fade away. I'm not sure who would pay for them, but there is an ever-growing number of angry Democrats out there, so the money is surely out there.

We disagree when he says that we should wait until after they launch their next smear. I think we should just go ahead. We get nothing by playing by any kind of rules. After the Swift Boat liars, I see no reason to wait. They set the terms of this campaign.




digby 9/06/2004 02:58:00 PM |

 
The Skinny


James Wolcott gets a sneak preview at Kitty Kelley's shocking new expose of the Bush Dynasty. Frankly, I'm disappointed. The thing about Bush's national Guard bunkmate and the "special" rubdowns was thoroughly vetted in his 1994 run for Governor and the story was dropped when Karen Hughes produced an affidavit from a chiropractor showing that Bush had a serious problem with carpal tunnel syndrome during the 70's. There's nothing there.

I thought this book would reveal things we didn't already know. Well, there is this:

The Elvis White Panty Parties that the teenage Bush twins would reenact for the sordid entertainment of Prince Bandhar on "Saudi Night" at the Crawford ranch.

That I hadn't heard about.




digby 9/06/2004 10:12:00 AM |

Sunday, September 05, 2004

 
Misoverinterpretation


Ferchristsake. Apparently, I've caused something of a stir over on Kos and unfortunately, I'm not registered there (although gawd knows I read it obsessively) so I cannot respond properly in the comments section.

First, my comment in the "Diving Into the Mud" post about "girly-men" was an ironic play on Arnold's little tag line. I certainly was not referring to any individual posters on Kos. I don't usually use childish euphemisms in my own voice. I would have used the grown-up word if I meant it.

The fact is that I was mock lecturing generic handwringers whom I assumed were about to launch into a full fledged freak-out about the "spineless" Kerry campaign and how they didn't "fight back" a fact which is evident by my statement "the Republicans do not respond to adversity by turning on their candidate and neither should we. Take a deep breath and then get mad --- not at Kerry. At Bush."

All I knew at the time, yesterday morning, was that Time, Newsweek and a coming Gallup poll were reporting an 11 to 14 point bounce for Bush. When three polls report a bounce, I generally figure there was, you know, a bounce. I didn't say it meant that Kerry was toast or that Bush was coasting toward victory. My characterization of this bounce was that it was a "good" bounce which evidently makes me Wolf Blitzer. (And btw, doesn't two years of hardball lefty blogging get me Olberman? Paula Zahn, at least? Geez.)

Shockingly, it seems I failed to thoroughly peruse Kos before I wrote (which I will never fail to do again) so I didn't realize when I posted my piece that the Time and Newsweek polls were a subject of huge contention. I have since been informed that the methodology of weighting the party ID has been called into question and I greatly look forward to seeing those polls blown out of the water in the next few days. Believe me, when it happens I will not only say it is "good" I will say it is "fabulous!" (which probably makes me George Bush.) However, at this point, I think it's still fair to assume that Bush did, in fact, get some kind of bounce. At least, that's what MYDD's analysis suggests.

Since the polling was such a small part of my post, when I was informed of this new information I did not think it necessary to clarify my words. Please consider this to be that clarification. The post should read, "Bush may have gotten a bounce, but I don't say it's neccessarily good because it may not be. However, assuming that he may be ahead for now...."

And all of the fine Kossaks who are offended by my alleged disrespect please rest assured that I was speaking of handwringing, 20/20 hindsight types not those who were calling the polls into question. Believe me, no one will be happier than I if all the new polls show Bush is clinging by his fingernails.

My post was not meant as anything more than a call to arms and an analysis of why the public didn't seem to reject the smears and the ugliness of the Republican convention as I think many of us anticipated they would. My contention is that the zeitgeist of this race is "toughness" and a willingness to "do what it takes" and the one who convinces the public they will be and do those things will win.

It remains more likely than not that it will be close because most people have long ago cast their lot with one or the other. Bush's alleged lead is highly unlikely to break beyond a few points and I fully expect it to dissipate back to within the margin of error (if indeed it ever went outside of it.) But, if I had to peg the undecideds who will ultimately tilt this election, I think they'll go with the guy they think has "the right stuff." And in this era, that means a guy who is willing to go for the jugular.

I have also concluded that hitting below the belt would only help our turn-out. The base is hungering for a show of force and while I have resisted it up to now, I think it may be called for. This feeling of impotence is going to take its toll. If turnout is key, the Kerry campaign has to be willing to feed its beast a little red meat from time to time. Clearly, the Republicans understand this and so should we.

Donkey Rising says that this is a panic reaction, but I really don't see it that way. The polls, bounce or not, only show me that Bush's over-the-top mud slinging isn't hurting him and may very well be helping him. And, it's not going to stop. Certainly, the tracking polls during the convention don't show that people were turned off by the likes of Zell and Cheney. The numbers went up. I saw Bush out there on the stump today extolling Zells virtues and saying it proved that the GOP welcomed Democrats. While those of us in blogland recoil at such naked aggression, I think plenty of people think it's the sign of a fighter, even if they disagree with their policies. Ask Richard Cohen. He finds their "amoral wildness" to be "beautiful."

We are in the midst of a national security crisis that is the sub-text of everything going on in this campaign. The campaign is a proxy for handling that crisis and Bush is showing that he will do anything to win. I think that tips it to him if we don't hit back hard. John Judis draws a comparison to 1980 and says Reagan won by only occasionally responding to attacks and directing attention to the underlying failures of the Carter administration. Perhaps that's how he won, but I also remember a relentlessly negative press corps and a deeply divided Democratic establishment ripping at Carter day in and day out over the economy and the Iran hostage crisis while Carter used a Rose Garden Strategy and barely campaigned. People were very skeptical of Reagan, but at the end of the day, Reagan won because he was able to show the nation that he was not a scary madman while persuading them that Carter was a wimp. It's a different set of problems for Kerry. Reagan laying back and responding to Carter like he was landing fly swats made him seem reasonable. Kerry laying back makes him seem weak. Republicans and Democrats labor under different assumptions and must meet different thresholds on national security.

And, then there is the fact that our political discourse, thanks to the Mighty Wurlitzer and cable infotainment, has become a sewer. We need to fix that. But, we can't do it between now and November so we have to work within the parameters that exist. To get the mediawhores' attention we have to do something dramatic and it has to put Bush on the defensive --- the place he functions worst.

That's all I'm saying.




digby 9/05/2004 04:00:00 PM |

Saturday, September 04, 2004

 
Wild Thing

Richard Cohen, liberal pundit, admires the Republicans for being so manly:

The GOP convention was successful because it was part of the overall Republican campaign. It was a loathsome affair, suffused with lies and anger, but also beautiful to watch, like a nature show about some wild animal, amoral and intent only on survival. Speaker after speaker stomped on Kerry because, really, he had made himself the entirety of the Democratic campaign. It's a variation of what I learned in high school: When the man is the message, trash the man.

Is that hot or what?

Liberal pundit Cohen just successfully secured himself invitations to all the right parties where he will be allowed to sycophantically admire the wild and amoral beauty of his Republican masters in person. Yum yum. If you'll recall he's always found Junior to be a distinctly attractive man at any given moment in history. He lobbied hard for Gore, another un-manly man like Kerry, to concede immediately because the nation needed a compassionate uniter not a divider. George W. Bush is a man for all seasons. Understanding that is why liberal pundit Richard Cohen makes the big bucks.




digby 9/04/2004 10:45:00 PM |

 
It Will Never End

...until we cause them enough pain to make them stop.

Michael Froomkin tells us that it looks like Bush's navy may be investigating Kerry's medals in the middle of the presidential campaign:

Among other records to be examined is a citation of Mr Kerry for bravery that was apparently signed by the former Navy Secretary, John Lehman, and contributed to the award of his silver star. The glowing citation states: “By his brave actions, bold initiative and unwavering devotion to duty, Lt Kerry reflected great credit on himself.” But Mr Lehman denies all knowledge of the commendation. “It’s a total mystery to me,” he said last week. “I never saw it, I never signed it and I never approved it.” The inquiry will also investigate other reports and citations leading to the award of Mr Kerry’s medals.

On Friday, Mr Lehman endorsed the investigation of Mr Kerry’s awards, saying that the relevant navy records needed to be “thoroughly researched and the facts established”. Mr Fitton said: “We hope this is the beginning of an actual investigation of the legitimacy of Sen Kerry’s awards by the navy and the Pentagon.”

Update: This is coming too. Note the severity of the charges. Apparently, Kerry said something happened on a Saturday and it may have been a Sunday so he's unfit to be commander in chief.

Update II: here's another. Via Myblahg and pandagon




digby 9/04/2004 07:10:00 PM |

 
Diving Into The Mud

Ok, Democratic girly-men and manly-girls, now is the time to show what we are made of. No 20/20 hindsight, nervous-nellie self loathing is acceptable. Nobody likes whiners. Bush got a good bounce and he's got momentum, but we have two months to go and worrying about spilled milk is worthless self-flagellation. The Republicans do not respond to adversity by turning on their candidate and neither should we. Take a deep breath and then get mad --- not at Kerry. At Bush. That's where the focus has to be. If we lose, we'll help Chris Matthews sort out where it all went wrong later. It's showtime.

First of all, the conventional wisdom about bounces is true. What goes up must come down. That's why they call it a bounce not a trend. Bush's double digit lead is very unlikely to stay double digit for very long. But, he is ahead, no doubt about it.

So let's see if we can figure out the state of the electorate, what it was they liked so much about Bush's convention and what we can do to combat it.

First, I think it's pretty clear that many of us misread the allure of the red-meat, in-your-face macho rhetoric that emanated from the speakers and the delegates. The convention was unrelentingly negative toward the Democrats --- even the so-called moderates called us out. There is no escaping the fact that people seem to like what they were selling. Bashing Democrats is a very satisfying pastime that the whole American family can love. (Perhaps we Democrats could try to change that by not indulging in it with such relish ourselves, but that's another topic.)

After thinking about it for a bit, I realize that the Republicans have their finger on the pulse in a way I didn't understand. Right now, Americans are in the throes of a macho feeding frenzy. Combat, competition and manly virtues are being sold as the product everyone wants to own. One of the biggest shows on TV even features beautiful female models proving their manhood by eating bugs and allowing themselves to be near drowned in some sort of NavySeal hazing ritual. Popular culture is awash in masculine images.

And the 2004 version of heroic manliness isn't an honorable gentleman fighting a duel with elaborate rules and rituals. Today's hero is a guy who will stop at nothing, even scheming, backstabbing and cheating if necessary because winning is the only thing that brings manly respect.

Frank Rich gets to the essence of this political season in his column today called "How Kerry Became a Girlie-Man":

Only in an election year ruled by fiction could a sissy who used Daddy's connections to escape Vietnam turn an actual war hero into a girlie-man.

As we leave the scripted conventions behind us, that is the uber-scenario that has locked into place, brilliantly engineered by the president of the United States, with more than a little unwitting assistance from his opponent. It's a marvel, really. Even a $10,000 reward offered this year by Garry Trudeau couldn't smoke out a credible eyewitness to support George W. Bush's contention that he showed up to defend Alabama against the Viet Cong in 1972. Yet John F. Kerry, who without doubt shed his own blood and others' in the vicinity of the Mekong, not the Mississippi, is now the deserter and the wimp.

Don't believe anyone who says that this will soon fade, and that the election will henceforth turn on health-care policy or other wonkish debate. Any voter who's undecided by now in this polarized election isn't sitting around studying the fine points. In a time of fear, the only battle that matters is the broad-stroked cultural mano a mano over who's most macho.

[...]

But with the high stakes of an election at hand, it's not enough to stuff socks in the president's flight suit. Mr. Kerry must be turned into a girl. Such castration warfare has been a Republican staple ever since Michael Dukakis provided the opening by dressing up like Snoopy to ride a tank. We've had Bill Clinton vilified as the stooge of a harridan wife and Al Gore as the puppet of the makeover artist Naomi Wolf. But given his actual history on the field of battle, this year's Democratic standard bearer would, seemingly, be immune to such attacks, especially from the camp of a candidate whose most daring feat of physical courage was tearing down the Princeton goalposts.

[...]

The truth is that Mr. Kerry was a man's man not just when he volunteered to fight in a losing war but when he came home and forthrightly fought against it, on grounds that history has upheld. Unless he's man enough to stand up for that past, he's doomed to keep competing with Mr. Bush to see who can best play an action figure on TV. Mr. Kerry doesn't seem to understand that it takes a certain kind of talent to play dress-up and deliver lines like "Bring it on." In that race, it's not necessarily the best man but the best actor who will win.

This last, I think, is very astute. Bush and the Republicans understand that the public actually prefers someone who plays the role in a way that brings them emotional satisfaction, than someone who actually embodies that role but plays the part imperfectly. In the media age, people care more about the way a president seems, than what he really does. They know that Bush is no manly man, but they appreciate the fact that he is good at pretending to be one. It's a form of respect.

Moreover, this pageant has been played out in one form or another in every election since 1968. It has a nice familiarity to it, kind of like watching "It's A Wonderful Life" at Christmas. (Democrats are pussies,Zuzu. Can we open our presents now?) It's not all that hard to squeeze the players into their designated roles when it is exactly what people expect. Let's face it, even we Democrats expect it. Why else are we always loudly complaining that Democrats have no spine even when they have just hurled themselves into the moshpit of bloodthirsty Republican thuggery? It's a narrative as comfortable as a well loved bedtime story.

The zeitgeist now, more than ever before, is all about testosterone. As much as people care about issues, and most people do, they are even more seduced by the pageant of The Politics Show. The 2004 season of The Politics Show isn't in the genre of Oprah, or Jerry or even the Sopranos with it's prozac and family problems. It's Survivor.

It's time to recognize and put to use the ugly truth that not only do people respond to smears and dirty tricks --- they actually enjoy and respect them. "By any means necessary" is no longer a revolutionary concept. To many people, it is an All American ideal. It means that you believe that winning is the only option and you will do anything to achieve that. Apply that belief to terrorism and you can see why people respond to talk radio eliminationist rants and George W. Bush's Rambo rhetoric.

People did not recoil at the Republican convention's ugliness as they did in 1992 because that rhetoric was aimed at parochial culture war issues alone. This is about a much bigger, nationalist grievance at the entire world. People believe that it's us against them, good against evil and they want our leaders to sound like movie heroes, not politicians, because in the movies the good guys always win.

So, where do we go from here? Via Suburban Guerilla I would draw your attention to a column today by Susan Estrich, liberal law professor and craven FoxNews enabler:

My Democratic friends are mad as hell, and they aren't going to take it any more.

They are worried, having watched as another August smear campaign, full of lies and half-truths, takes its toll in the polls.

[...]

As one who lived through an August like this, 16 years ago -- replete with rumors that were lies, which the Bush campaign claimed they had nothing to do with and later admitted they had planted -- I'm angry, too. I've been to this movie. I know how it works. Lies move numbers.

[...]

Never again, we said then.

Not again, Democrats are saying now.

What do you do, Democrats keep asking each other.

The answer is not pretty, but everyone knows what it is.

In 1988, in the days before the so-called independent groups, the candidate called the shots. To Michael Dukakis' credit, depending on how you look at it, he absolutely refused to get into the gutter, even to answer the charges. His theory, like that of some on the Kerry staff, was that answering such charges would only elevate them, give them more attention than they deserved. He thought the American people wanted to hear about issues, not watch a mud-wrestling match. In theory, he was right. In practice, the sad truth is that smears work -- that if you throw enough mud, some of it is bound to stick.

You can't just answer the charges. You can't just say it ain't so.

You have to fight fire with fire, mud with mud, dirt with dirt.

The trouble with Democrats, traditionally, is that we're not mean enough. Dukakis wasn't. I wasn't. I don't particularly like destroying people. I got into politics because of issues, not anger. But too much is at stake to play by Dukakis rules, and lose again.

That is the conclusion Democrats have reached. So watch out. Millions of dollars will be on the table. And there are plenty of choices for what to spend it on.

I'm not promising pretty.

[...]

Perhaps with money on the table, or investigators on their trail, we will learn just what kind of wild and crazy things the president was doing while Kerry was saving a man's life, facing enemy fire and serving his country.

[...]

The arrogant little Republican boys who have been strutting around New York this week, claiming that they have this one won, would do well to take a step back. It could be a long and ugly road to November.

Throughout the Swift Boat Liar controversy, I have been posting and exchanging e-mails and talking with various people who believe that Kerry should have been prepared and "fought back" sooner. But, we've mostly concluded that "fighting back" would have come down to more effective responses to the charges, a good rapid response team, better more pithy retorts, well prepared surrogates, more righteous indignation on the stump. And, my feeling is that none of that would have made a bit of difference. The whole point of smears is to raise doubts and get them out there however you can. And with the Mighty Wurlitzer and the cable networks being what they are, even if the major papers had debunked them on the first day --- with sheaves of refutations and rebuttals from the Kerry campaign, it still would gotten out there. It was an entertaining segment of The Politics Show and there was no stopping it.

I reluctantly concluded that the only effective response was probably to engage in the same kind of smear and hope it becomes a zero sum game. And, in the process, we would be forced to drive our politics further and further into a fetid sewer. I find the prospect of that deeply depressing which is what distinguishes me from a Republican. They do not have that emotional reaction. Indeed, they are energized by the prospect. It's a problem.

Still, the stakes are so high that we have no choice but to try to win today by any means necessary and begin the hard work of repairing our politics --- and honestly, our culture --- after we have wrested power from those who have brought us to this place.

Dirty, hate filled, testosterone fueled, phony political spectacle is what the public wants to buy. They are not going to turn off their car radios and TVs and suddenly reject the entertaining pageant they are enjoying so much. They will continue to assure pollsters that they hate all this negativity, but they will tune in to absorb the bloodlust and feel vicariously empowered by this show of masculine prowess. They want action. They will vote for the one who gives it to them.

As God-fearing, all-American winners in the game of politics and life, we have no choice but to give them what they want. It's time to dive into the mud. It's the only hope we have of saving the country.


I'm probably going to take a couple of days off from blogging although I may check in from time to time. I need to clear my head. Next Tuesday, everyone should fasten their seatbelts and get ready for the political fight of our lives. The next couple of months are going to be unprecedentedly turbulent. But we must win and we will.




digby 9/04/2004 01:41:00 PM |

 
Picture If You Will

It's September of the year 2000. The election is heating up. And it is revealed:

FBI counterintelligence investigators have in recent weeks questioned current and former U.S. officials about whether a small group of Iran specialists at the Pentagon and in the Vice President's office may have been involved in passing classified information to an Iraqi politician or a U.S. lobbying group allied with Israel, according to sources familiar with or involved in the case.

Do the Malebranche in The Inferno come to mind? Yeah, me too.






digby 9/04/2004 01:01:00 AM |

Friday, September 03, 2004

 
Here's A Shocker

They Still Don't Know Who They'll Vote For


...because they are from another planet.


Dear God:

In Las Cruces, N.M., government professor Jose Z. Garcia, 59, said of his dilemma, "Bush lost me when we went into Iraq, and Kerry has never really grabbed me." He thinks come Election Day that he will choose between Democratic challenger John F. Kerry and third-party candidate Ralph Nader.

digby 9/03/2004 11:29:00 PM |

 
Fear Sells

Months ago, Kevin Drum wrote a post that I have thought about quite a bit recently. He said:

It's true that doom-and-gloom messages by themselves don't sell, but something similarly negative does: fear. And it sells big.

[...]

You buy deodorant because you're afraid of the social ostracism of BO. You buy Wisk because you're afraid your husband's colleagues will think you're a poor homemaker if they notice his ring around the collar. You drive your kids to school because you're afraid of kidnappers and child molesters.

Of course you need a positive program too, but before anyone will listen to it you have to make them afraid of the opposition. So the fundamental problem for liberals is this: figuring out how to convince the middle third of voters that they should be afraid of what extreme conservatives are doing. When they are more afraid of them than they are of extreme liberals, then the real work can start.

That's not a very inspiring message, is it? But it's the reality of politics today, and liberals need to learn it. Fast.

Interesting stuff.

Kevin wrote a piece earlier today about how to make the case against Bush in what has become a ruthlessly negative campaign:

...Bush plans to run an intensely negative campaign. And guess what? For all the whining we do every four years about negative campaigning, it works pretty well.

[...]

So: what's the best way to make Bush seem either scary, unlikable, or untrustworthy? Forget about trying to turn his charges around and painting him as a waffler or a weakling. It won't work. His branding in those areas is just too strong.

But Bush does have a couple of core negatives that can probably be exploited:


He's a reckless warmonger who's going to get a lot of people killed. This doesn't apply just to Bush, of course, but to all the people around him. It shouldn't be too hard to find a few video clips that make Bush and his supporters look like slavering warmongers --- Zell Miller provided a good start Wednesday night --- and there's enough truth in the charge to turn doubts about Bush's judgment into genuine fears. Basically, Kerry should do to Bush what LBJ did to Goldwater: convince the middle of the country that he can hardly wait to get his finger on the button.


He operates in secret and doesn't tell the truth. Again, there's enough truth to this that it shouldn't be too hard to convince people that Bush and his administration are fundamentally secretive and manipulative. Maybe a few clips of John Dean talking about how they remind him of Nixon would work well.

I'm not convinced that you can sell people on the idea that Bush is a Nixonian madman. But I certainly agree that we should probably go hard negative on Bush. Bush threw down the gauntlet. Kerry had to introduce himself to the public and could not be too harsh until he had at least set out the parameters of his positive image. Now, he must concentrate on tearing down Bush. The question is how should he do it.

This evening Kevin is very discouraged because Kerry's new ad campaign focuses on economic issues when it's all about 9/11, stupid.

It's fine to hammer away on domestic issues with specific target groups. It's fine for John Edwards to focus on the two Americas. But anyone who thinks the primary message of Kerry's campaign should be anything other than national security is just deluding themselves. To paraphrase James Carville, "It's 9/11, stupid."

In fact, it's a no-brainer: somehow Kerry has to convince people that he can be trusted with national security and Bush can't and if he doesn't, he's going to lose. But I guess he still doesn't get that.

I'm finally beginning to think Mickey Kaus might be right: Kerry has spent too much time inside the liberal cocoon. It's going to cost him the election if he keeps it up.

I think that's a bit premature since nobody's seen the ads yet. It may be 9/11, stupid, but in my view, there is no reason that a harshly negative fear campaign cannot be waged using economic issues as one of the symbols of Bush's frightening recklessness.(If the ads are bunch of namby-pamby,kumbaya nonsense with Kerry and adorable children, then I'm discouraged too.)

The fact is that war (not 9/11 particularly, although Bush would like that) is the subtext of the entire campaign no matter what we actually say. All criticism, all negative ads all harsh rhetoric plays to insecurity about Bush's leadership --- and leadership is defined at this moment in history as wartime leadership.

This is more about an aggressive attitude and tone and the general way Bush is portrayed than it is about any ad's literal message, at this point. It's about making people see that Bush is frightening, because as Kevin said lo those many months ago, --- fear sells. And, at this point all fear is wrapped up with Iraq and 9/11 and economic instability and the gnawing in your gut that things are going terribly wrong because Bush is at the helm.

As Kevin said, if we are going to wage a campaign of fear, it's got to be believable and Bush as some kind of scheming warmonger who wants to blow up the world is not believable. What is believable is Bush driving the ship of state into an iceberg because he's reckless and out of control.

To make that case, I think it's perfectly reasonable to use economic issues as well as national security issues to illustrate that point. At the end of the day, if the message is that Bush is a dangerous man for the health of this nation, it doesn't really matter what the subject is. People will make the association with national security all by themselves.





digby 9/03/2004 09:22:00 PM |

 
*Sigh*

CNN is implying that Clinton must have covered up his health problems while he was in office.

Now, passing out eating pretzels and falling flat on your face several times while in office certainly doesn't merit such scrutiny. I'm awfully glad they aren't doing that.


On other hand, Tweety just said the race is over, so I'm going down to the beach.



digby 9/03/2004 03:56:00 PM |

 
Big Scoop

Why is the AP just reporting this now? Some of us had it weeks ago, but more importantly, the Kerry campaign sent it out in its press release at the same time:

PARTISAN: Bush Administration Ties
He is a member of a Bush administration advisory panel on veterans’ issues.

[“VA Announces Membership of POW Advisory Committee,” PR Newswire, 4/17/02;

Better late than never, I guess.







digby 9/03/2004 03:31:00 PM |

 
Heartbreak and Joy

It's a bittersweet day in blogland.

It is with a heavy heart that I share the news that Neal Pollack has shuffled off his mortal coil. Farewell, sweet teabag prince.

But, do not despair. James Wolcott --- writer, gentleman and all around bon vivant (and occasional commenter on this blog, even) has decided to throw in with us lowly bloggers. It must be all the glamour and the money.

Welcome to our little obsession. I hope you don't have a life or anything.


Via TBOGG and Atrios (as if you didn't already know that.)




digby 9/03/2004 01:30:00 PM |

 
The Big One

Charles Pierce:

At a loose moment on radio row in the Garden, I saw Bob Barr, off in a corner, hosting a talk-show. This set me to wondering about the other great Unmentionable -- other than that bin Laden chap -- at the Republican Zellapalooza this week.

Six years ago, the Republicans, for reasons of high principle and in defense of the rule of law and the Constitution, brought forth the only impeachment ever of an elected president of the United States. Remember the soaring rhetoric, the agonized lawmakers talking over their epochal decision with their dogs and their children. (I guess Cokie Roberts's kids came through the Clinton years unscathed after all.) I particularly liked that one guy from California who went surfing, and the great power of the sea convinced him that, sadly, Bill Clinton had to go. It was a bold and brave moment for these young conservatives. Remember how proudly they bore themselves on the talk shows? Remember how nobly they suffered their betrayal at the hands of their Senate brethren? Remember how they attached themselves to the uncompromising Thomas More created by Robert Bolt in "A Man For All Seasons"? (They quoted that movie the way some sportswriter pals of mine quote "Caddyshack.")

My question, then, is this: Where in hell's the video tribute?

Where's the 15-minute package honoring these selfless solons, some of whom got the boot shortly thereafter? Where's the stirring music, the NFL Films narration? Where's the appreciation from the Republican Party for what these courageous men of honor did? They fearlessly dragged out what Thomas Jefferson -- a Democrat, and wouldn't you know it? -- famously called a "scarecrow," and they used it on behalf of the laws to which we all must be subject.

Where's the movie, y'all?

A couple of more conventions without one, and I might think the whole impeachment thing was a prolonged dirty-trick aimed at hamstringing a moderate Democratic president that you couldn't beat at the polls, and rammed through because of some aggravated nutbaggery from the extremists in the House of Representatives. This would be very disappointing to me, and to Thomas More, I'm sure.

I was struck by this as well. The great battle of the blowjob was not even mentioned despite the grave danger to the nation it once presented. I fear that, like Vietnam, the wounds will never heal until we openly honor the brave fighters who served our nation in the great Clinton cockhunt. If we don't, years from now a fine young Republican may wish to run for president and Democrats will mockingly wear condoms on their heads at their nominating convention. I'd hate to see that happen.

On the other hand, if these brave men and women were able to stop even one grown man from enjoying fellatio, then they can take pride that they did their duty. But sadly, like Vietnam, I'm afraid this may be another example of the "best and the brightest" sending our boys and girls out to fight an unwinnable war for the hearts and minds (and penises) of the nation. I could be wrong.




digby 9/03/2004 11:26:00 AM |

 
Tin Foil Soldier

Is it possible that they are incapable of doing anything that doesn't smack of propaganda and self serving bullshit? Do they do this stuff just because it's fun to get away with it time after time, even if they don't have to?

Sigh. Remember the stirring letter from a soldier in Iraq that Bush quoted so dramatically last night?

It turns out that the guy is a soldier all right, but he's also a "scholar" at one of the Scaife funded, right wing foundations.

I don't suppose they could have found any letters of support from members of the military who aren't employed as operatives in the VRWC.

Actually, now that I think about it, they probably couldn't.



Via The Progress Report



digby 9/03/2004 11:02:00 AM |

 
Clinton To Undergo Emergency Heart Surgery

Taken To Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital In New York City
Sen. Hillary Clinton Was At An Event In Syracuse
Sep 3, 2004 11:52 am US/Central

CBS News has learned that former President Clinton was hospitalized on Friday in New York City after complaining of chest pains.

A source close to Mr. Clinton tells CBS News that Mr. Clinton complained of chest pains Thursday night and was taken to a hospital near his home in Chappaqua, N.Y.

Doctors, according to our source, found a blockage. Mr. Clinton is now in the New York Presbyterian hospital in Manhattan.

The New York Times reports on its Web site that Mr. Clinton had a heart attack. CBS News has not independently confirmed that.

Mr. Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., was attending an event in Syracuse, N.Y., when the news of her husband's condition broke.

Clinton, who is 58, struggled with his weight during his presidency but has slimmed down since leaving office.

In July, the former president addressed the Democratic convention in Boston.

"We Democrats want to build a world and an America of shared responsibilities and shared benefits. We want a world with more global cooperation where we act alone only when we absolutely have to," he said. "We think the role of government should be to give people the tools to create the conditions to make the most of their own lives. And we think everybody should have that chance."

He appeared on the "Late Show with David Letterman" in August to promote his biography, but much of his talk was about the 2004 presidential race.

"Of all the people I dealt with in Congress," Mr. Clinton said of Democratic nominee John Kerry, "he cared the most about trying to find programs that would keep young, inner-city minority kids out of trouble and out of jail and in school."

Update (thanks to Fiat Lux)

Send Get Well cards to:

The William J. Clinton Foundation
55 West 125th St.
New York, NY 10027




digby 9/03/2004 09:59:00 AM |

 
Child Abuse

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said yesterday that President Bush views America as a ''10-year-old child" in need of the sort of protection provided by a parent.

Card's remark, criticized later by Democrat John F. Kerry's campaign as ''condescending," came in a speech to Republican delegates from Maine and Massachusetts that was threaded with references to Bush's role as protector of the country. Republicans have sounded that theme repeatedly at the GOP convention as they discuss the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq.

''It struck me as I was speaking to people in Bangor, Maine, that this president sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child," Card said. ''I know as a parent I would sacrifice all for my children."

I don't know about you, but there is something very discordant about that statement. Perhaps because having Bush for president then means a sixteen year old delinquent is in charge of the family. (Please don't kill me, please don't kill me.) And the "sacrifice all" is a bit much considering the fact that he's never sacrificed anything in his entire life except getting drunk every night.


Or maybe it's because adults --- voters--- usually don't care to think of themselves as ten year old children. In any case, if this is true, I think his line about "people should be able to keep their own money" is a bit of a problem. As is all the imperial goosestepping. A country of ten year olds should concentrate on their reading and comprehension skills. But then, if they did that they'd probably vote big brother off the island.




digby 9/03/2004 09:09:00 AM |

Thursday, September 02, 2004

 
Spurned Lover

And another party leaves him. Maybe it's time he took a look in the mirror and asked himself what he might be doing to constantly alienate the ones he loves.

GOP backs away from Miller’s blast
Democrat ‘speaking for himself,’ Bush aide says

After gauging the harsh reaction from Democrats and Republicans alike to Sen. Zell Miller’s keynote address at the Republican National Convention, the Bush campaign — led by the first lady — backed away Thursday from Miller’s savage attack on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, insisting that the estranged Democrat was speaking only for himself.

Late Thursday, Miller and his wife were removed from the list of dignitaries who would be sitting in the first family’s box during the president’s acceptance speech later in the evening. Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said Miller was not in the box because the campaign had scheduled him to do too many television interviews.

There was no explanation, however, for why Miller would be giving multiple interviews during Bush’s acceptance speech, or what channels would snub the president in favor of Miller. Nor was it made clear why Miller’s wife also was not allowed to take her place in the president’s box 24 hours after his deeply personal denunciation of his own party’s nominee.

The change was made only a few hours after Laura Bush, asked about Miller’s speech, said in an interview with NBC News that “I don’t know that we share that point of view.” Aides to President Bush and his campaign said Miller was not speaking for all Republicans.

[...]

The Bush campaign stepped backed from Miller’s comments Thursday after it was received with almost immediate criticism, including complaints from prominent Republicans like Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

“Well, Zell Miller is a very experienced politician,” McCain, who spoke earlier at the convention, told NBC News on Wednesday night.

“I’m sure he knew exactly what he was talking about. [But] I just don’t agree with the fact that the Democrats are unpatriotic or the assertion that the Democrats are unpatriotic,” he said. “I don’t think they are.”

In an interview Thursday, Laura Bush told NBC News’ Tom Brokaw: “I don’t know that we share that point of view. I mean, I think Zell Miller has a very interesting viewpoint, just like I had the personal viewpoint to talk about the president when I spoke on Tuesday night. ...

“But, I mean, his voice is one with a lot,” the first lady said. “You also heard Senator McCain. You also heard Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Governor [Arnold] Schwarzenegger.”

A senior White House official, speaking to reporters before Bush’s address Thursday night, said, “Senator Miller was speaking on behalf of himself and obviously on behalf of himself.

Boy, those Republicans sure aren't very steadfast and loyal, are they? But then, turncoat Zell couldn't have expecting much on that score, now could he? As ye sow....

I imagine that overnight polling has shown that the frothing at the mouth wasn't a big hit. I heard one of the pundits on CNN say earlier that polls showed Bush strengthening his support the red states and remaining static in the battle ground states. I haven't seen any numbers, but that wouldn't surprise me. If that's true then their strategy may have failed. The speculation is that they were trying to cement their bond with white males in the mid-west with all the tough talk. It's possible that they may have done that and lost an equal number of women and minorities.

We'll see soon enough. But, clearly Zell was not a big hit, despite Maureen Dowd's bizarre assertion that the convention was a masterpiece. (And she was acting so oddly that I was downright uncomfortable watching her. She is much too shy to be on TV, obviously.)




digby 9/02/2004 09:18:00 PM |

 
Demonstrators Were Held Illegally, Judge Rules

This was harsh. Two days in a holding pen is a long damned time. And, naturally, the police lied about it.

NEW YORK, Sept. 2 -- A criminal court judge ordered the release of hundreds of anti-Bush protesters Thursday, ruling that police held them illegally without charges for more than 40 hours. As the protesters began trickling out of jail, they spoke of being held without access to lawyers, initially in a holding cell that had oil and grease spread across the floor.

Several dozen of those detained said that they had not taken part in protests. Police apparently swept up the CEO of a puppet theater as he and a friend walked out of the subway to celebrate his birthday; handcuffed two middle-aged women who had been shopping at the Gap, and arrested a young woman as she returned from her job at a New York publishing house.

[...]

Throughout this week, Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne had insisted that just a few dozen protesters had spent more than six hours behind bars without being charged or released. On Thursday, Browne acknowledged for the first time that large numbers of demonstrators had endured long detentions. But he blamed them for overwhelming the police department.

"It's a new entitled, pampered class of demonstrators who want to engage in civil disobedience but don't want to be inconvenienced by arrest processing," Brown said. "There's a lot of reasons for a holdup. If you were in a group this morning you are going to go through the process very quickly; if you were arrested with 200 people it's going to take longer."

[...]

Michael Sladek, who owns a film production company in Brooklyn, was arrested in Midtown two evenings ago as he photographed the police and demonstrators. He spent 48 hours in custody without access to a phone before he was charged with obstructing a pedestrian -- an administrative violation -- and released.

"For us, it was very clear this was a detention to keep people off the street," Sladek said outside the jail. "And the saddest thing was that so many people had nothing to with protesting the convention."

This is terrible, but I must say that I'm proud of the people who are willing to engage in acts of civil disobedience to preserve their right to free speech. Use it or lose it.

The innocent bystanders who were swept up and held for more than two days should sue the City of New York. There is no excuse for keeping people that long without charging them. None.






digby 9/02/2004 07:30:00 PM |

 
He'll Fight That Sucker In A Phone Booth

On Monday morning I wrote a post called Cold-Cock Him saying that I hoped the Kerry campaign would metaphorically stalk across the ring and slam Bush right in the nose on the day after the convention and change that storyline immediately.

It looks like they are going to do just that. Atrios has the link to the prepared remarks and they are very tough. As TAPPED notes, Kerry announcing this speech on the day of Bush's speech seems to have knocked them off their game a little bit:

CNN, 8:42 P.M.: The Kerry campaign has begun to make an impact with the press conference they've announced tonight. At midnight, John Kerry will begin returning fire with a surprise press conference, for which they've already released excerpted remarks. It's all over the cable shows; Karen Hughes is on the defensive on CNN right now, and the first question that set her back was on the press conference. They're late to the party, but it is possible that they brought punch.

Even more intriguing, Ryan Lizza at TNR says:

...tomorrow there will be a significant announcement from the Kerry campaign about a new media buy that will be far tougher than anything Kerry has done this year.

I've been hoping for "My Pet Goat", but whatever it is, I'm looking forward to it. I think timing is important and perhaps laying out a bit and then stepping hard on Bush's night was smart. The press corpse is slavering over the notion of a knock down drag out fight and Kerry is making a big show of it.




digby 9/02/2004 06:32:00 PM |

 
Tough Guy

Fuck this little right wing prick. I think I understand why the smirking codpiece likes him so much:

Porter Goss, tapped as the next CIA director, says the Senate lacked "balance" in its public hearings investigating the Iraqi prison scandal and should not have plucked military commanders from the field to question them about the abuse.

Goss took a hard line on interrogations in interviews with The Associated Press earlier this year, saying "Gee you're breaking my heart" to complaints that Arab men found it abusive to have women guards at the Guantanamo Bay terror camp _ statements that could draw scrutiny during his Senate confirmation hearing, possibly next week.

During one interview in May, the eight-term House Republican from Florida said he couldn't count the number of ongoing prison abuse investigations, but "we've got the circus in the Senate, which is always the likely place to look for the circus."

"Even though I say that lightheartedly, I do honestly question whether or not they have balance over there on this issue," said Goss, who has declined interviews since President Bush nominated him last month.

Let's let Porter spend a little time having Lyndie walk him around on a leash and see if he still thinks the Senate is "unbalanced" by asking the military to answer a couple of tepid questions about its immoral torture policy. He's a smart ass wingnut who has absolutely no business being anywhere near real power.

If he wants to see a circus, he should take a look at this sickening medieval sideshow:

The Bush administration is ignoring, if not defying outright, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that all terror suspects must be able to challenge their imprisonment. The opening round of detainee military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay last week resembled something between a Mel Brooks farce and the kangaroo courts of former Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. Maybe Captain Kangaroo courts. The proceedings didn't look anything like justice, military or otherwise. Meanwhile, two U.S. citizens still sit in military brigs, isolated from their lawyers and months if not years away from the hearings the high court says they deserve.

The U.S. criminal justice system, including its military stepchild, is supposed to stand for due process, impartiality and openness. These are the same principles, after all, that U.S. troops are fighting — and dying — to seed in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the slapdash preliminary hearings for the first four of some 600 Guantanamo detainees violated basic tenets of fairness.

The tribunals are an ad hoc invention, authorized by President Bush three years ago when he rejected the established military court-martial system and the federal criminal courts, either of which would have worked more smoothly. As a result, military officials have few precedents to follow and last week seemed confused about which rules or legal procedures applied.

Members of these tribunals — the jury, in effect — are military professionals appointed by the Pentagon. The tribunal's chief officer is a retired Army judge, the only member of the panel with legal training. He is both the judge and a jury member, ruling on motions and voting with the five other commissioners.

In a criminal court, the lay jury decides the facts and the judge rules on questions of law. Here, however, tribunal members decide on both. Yet the five nonlawyers were clearly befuddled last week when asked to define concepts such as due process and reasonable doubt.

The cards are stacked against detainees in other ways too. Government prosecutors got spacious quarters and their own staff to prepare for the hearings. Military defense lawyers were crowded into one room. Midway through the week, the conference table they all shared was removed. The Arab interpreters were so incompetent that the proceedings resembled a game of "telephone," in which the message veered closer to gibberish with each repetition. Yet this game is about men's futures.

Given the confusion, officials must feel justified in limiting reporters to pen and paper, which might as well be quill and parchment. No photographic, video or audio recordings of the hearings will ever be released. From the government's perspective, perhaps the less that Americans know of these bumbling proceedings, the less they'll care.

The two U.S. citizens that Bush has labeled as enemy combatants, Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla, haven't gotten even this much. Years after their arrests, each remains in a military brig, often in solitary confinement. Even after the Supreme Court's declaration that they have a right to a hearing, government lawyers outrageously are fighting every lower court petition filed by lawyers retained by the men's families. And still the government has filed no charges against Hamdi or Padilla.

The Supreme Court made itself clear in its June rulings: Terror suspects are entitled to at least bare-bones due process. For government lawyers to insist otherwise is unprecedented. Their assertion probably doesn't scare terrorists, but it throws a pall on the lush praise for U.S. freedoms that decorate the Republican National Convention.

The rank dishonesty and hypocrisy of the Republicans turns my stomach. Freedom and democracy, my ass. We simply have to defeat these people.




digby 9/02/2004 03:17:00 PM |

 
Bad Omen, George

2.5 Million Told to Flee Fla. Hurricane

Residents and tourists in cars, trucks and campers clogged highways Thursday in the biggest evacuation ever ordered in Florida, fleeing inland as mighty Hurricane Frances threatened the state with its second battering in three weeks.

About 2.5 million residents were told to clear out ahead of what could be the most powerful storm to hit Florida in a decade.

digby 9/02/2004 02:34:00 PM |

 
A Moving Tribute To The Man They Call Junior

Via Atrios and One Good Move, If you aren't going to be home in time to see the Bush campaign video tonight, Jon Stewart was lucky enough to get a sneak preview:

George W. Bush: Because He Says So

digby 9/02/2004 02:02:00 PM |

 
Women Trouble

Matt Stoller has a fascinating post up in which he describes a Republican training seminar for women. They laid out the strategy for getting to their target group in this election --- "married women with high religiosity, women who voted for Bush in 2000 and value their family's safety." This explains the bizarre babble I heard the other night on Matthews after Laura Bush's speech. They were, unsurprisingly, parroting GOP talking points (which are pretty insulting if you ask me.)

However, they seem to have targeted a very specific group whom they evidently don't feel they are insulting by characterizing them as something like nineteenth century farmwives with no knowledge of the world beyond their homestead. I guess the Republicans know their constituency.

What's interesting to me about the data Matt compiles is the focus group comments from independent Republican-leaning women, 30% of whom are undecided:

*"I don't believe anything anymore"
* "I don't like slinging mud and they all do it..."
* "I can't hear anything from a government and trust it."
* "I don't believe anything anymore and we can't make a difference because we don't have any truth..."
* "I don't really know aht's happening but I know someone knows what's happening."
* "I absolutely believe they have no clue."
* "They tell us to keep doing what I've always done, but watch out for something. If there's something I'm supposed to worry about why am I supposed to do what I've always done?"
* "Kerry hasn't won my trust yet, I don't feel safe with him. I'm waiting to see, I think we are vulnerable."
* "If Kerry did win the change of hands of government would lessen the protection of the country."
* "We're putting money into the college funds every month and it seems like it stays at the same level."
* "What's going to be there when our kids are ready."
* "What's going on with the economy. I'm not happy with my job."
* "Turning the corner - I didn't get that one. I want to find that corner and stand on that corner."

These are Republican leaning married women. And they do not sound as if they are very happy with the way our politics are being waged and they are very cynical. They don't sound like nineteenth century farmwives to me, they sound like some severely irritated twenty first century citizens.

This issue of rabid partisanship is a difficult problem to engage right now because just as these women, and I suspect many others, are getting sick and tired of the yelling and screaming --- the white male contingent is kicking it up a notch. And, if you don't properly fight back you risk looking weak, which neither men or women want, but if you do fight back, these exasperated women see you as part of the problem, not the solution. It's the old, "I don't care who started it, you're both grounded" routine. Not that I blame them. It is exhausting and you have to wonder sometimes if there will ever be an end to it.

But, I have to say that if those comments are representative of this group then the Zellfire and brimstone attack of the last couple of days probably has gone over like a lead balloon with these women. From Matt's post it appears the GOP believes they are looking for someone to "protect" them and will respond to male strength. That sounds like wingnut wishful thinking to me. Those comments sound like some people who are sick of the bullshit and would like their leaders to shut the hell up and start dealing with reality. I don't think many of them would have been impressed by this cock-of-the-walk chest thumping that's been going on this week in NYC.

There's a reason why the gender gap continues to widen. The GOP remains an old fashioned boys club that welcomes rich trophy wives and fundamentalist believers in female subservience. Until they figure out that those two categories are rapidly dwindling groups in this culture and that most women reasonably don't see politics as a particularly heroic endeavor, all this strutting around with codpieces is pretty much playing to the locker room crowd. Women are their own heroes these days.

Read Matt's post all the way through if you're interested in this topic. He brings up one thing that is crucial and that is the the Democrats don't do this kind of grassroots seminar teaching which is a big mistake. People on the ground want the talking points and the rationale, they just don't know where to get it. If the Dems aren't doing this they damned sure should be.


Update: John Edwards knows how to make this appeal for our side and it's not because he's so darned cute. It's because he knows how to subtly aim the message.

"If you got up and went to the refrigerator to get a Diet Coke, you would have missed any discussion of what they’re going to do about health care, what they’re going to do about jobs, what they plan to do about this mess in Iraq."

Diet coke, see? He's not talking to some hairy mook.

Update II:

Here's a little bit of the premiere wingnut talk radio harpy, Dr Laura's, new book:

I believe [women's self-centeredness] is a result of the women's movement, with its condemnation of just about everything male as evil, stupid, and oppressive, and the denigration of female and male roles in families, as well as the loss of family functioning as a result of divorce, day care, dual careers, and the glorification of shacking up and unwed motherhood by choice. These are the core destructive influences that result in women not appreciating that they are perfected when they are bonded in wedlock and have obligations to family.

I think that says it all.




digby 9/02/2004 01:32:00 PM |

 
Coalition Of The ... Never Mind

Kos tells me that Blair and his socialist comrades are showing their true colors:

That does it! Time for Republicans in Congress to adopt the metric system! We'll eat Freedom Muffins. And we'll rename our language "Freedomish".

And long overdue it is, my friends. Why we ever trusted those limey bastards is beyond me. There's that little Norman Conquest thing that nobody wants to talk about, but there's more than one Frenchman in the woodpile over there, if you know what I mean.




digby 9/02/2004 12:28:00 PM |

 
Now This Is Just Sad


Don't look now, but Karl Rove is the Republican Party's newest sex symbol.

The bespectacled, wispyhaired political guru - known in some circles as "Bush's brain" - had to be physically protected Tuesday night from a flock of lady admirers during a cocktail party at Gotham Hall.

"As soon as he got off the stage, he was mobbed by a group of women," party volunteer Warren Seubel told Lowdown.

"Women were fawning over him. They were swooning," said Seubel. "I've never seen someone so gnarly get so much attention from so many women."

Things got a tad ugly when Rove's handlers tried to separate the man from his fans.

"It was unbelieeeeevable. I had to start throwing elbows at senators and congressmen," said Seubel. "But the real problem was the congressional wives."

Maybe it was the 53-year-old Rove's toast that had the gals excited. Addressing the crowd - which included human Uzi Ann Coulter, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, G. Gordon Liddy and Interior Secretary Gale Norton - Rove yelled, "We're right, and they're wrong! On the economy, we're right, and they're wrong! On the war on terror, we're right, and they're wrong! On marriage, we're right, and they're wrong!"

Yesterday, a Rove associate tried to knock down the sex-symbol scenario. "He's like a rock star, and people want to shake his hand, take pictures with him, say hello, etc." the associate E-mailed. "I've been here all week and it is crazy, but I don't seriously think it is because he's a babe magnet. He's just the man!"

Having taken a good look at the men on the floor at Madison Square Garden this week, I can see that the GOP women are pretty hard up. But, there's really no excuse for this. First it was Ari, now this. For Gawd's sake, ladies, have some dignity.








digby 9/02/2004 11:54:00 AM |

 
Mark Your Calendars

Via Suburban Guerilla, I see that we have something very powerful and important happening on September 13th:

In Chain of Command, Hersh takes an unflinching look behind the public story of President Bush's "war on terror" and into the lies and obsessions that led America into Iraq. He reveals the connections between early missteps in the hunt for Al Qaeda and disasters on the ground in Iraq. The book includes a new account of Hersh's pursuit of the Abu Ghraib story and of where, he believes, responsibility for the scandal ultimately lies. Hersh draws on sources at the highest levels of the American government and intelligence community, in foreign capitals, and on the battlefield for an unparalleled view of a crucial chapter in America's recent history. With an introduction by The New Yorker's editor, David Remnick, Chain of Command is a devastating portrait of an Administration blinded by ideology and of a President whose decisions have made the world a more dangerous place for America.

And something powerful and trivial will be happening on September 14th:

Foes of the president are salivating over a description of Kitty Kelley’s forthcoming tell-all about George Bush and his kin. “The Family: the Real Story of the Bush Dynasty” goes on sale Sept. 14, and the description on Amazon.com promises that Kelley — who made international headlines with her scathing Nancy Reagan bio — will reveal “the matriarchs, the mistresses, the marriages, the divorces, the jealousies, the hypocrisies, the golden children, and the black sheep” of the first family.

I hope that operatives are preparing to milk this situation. Here we will have two book tours, one featuring a scathing indictment of the administration's terrible (and immoral) decisions in fighting the war on islamic fundamentalism and the other a deliciously gossipy screed that will entice the tabloid appetite of the press corpse. In today's media climate it isn't about a specific fire, it's the accumulating smoke that puts the other guys off his game. The timing here is no accident.




digby 9/02/2004 10:52:00 AM |

 
You Noticed

It's gratifying to see that the aristocratic Lord Saletan has seen the light and is now in favor of democracy. This piece certainly hits the nail on the head:

The election is becoming a referendum on democracy.

In a democracy, the commander in chief works for you. You hire him when you elect him. You watch him do the job. If he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he doesn't, you fire him by voting for his opponent in the next election.

Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he's making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you're accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power—the very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush's critics.

Are you prepared to become one of those countries?

This is quite interesting (and gratifying) but I'm puzzled. At the beginning of the week Saletan wrote:

6:33 p.m. PT—This will be an interesting convention for me. Five years ago, when I moved out of the District of Columbia—a one-party state, minus the statehood—I had to think seriously about which party to register with. I was sick of the liberal dogmatism of my college and post-college friends. I'd come to the conclusion, through personal and political experience, that while Democrats had the right values, Republicans had a better operating theory of human nature: People behave more virtuously and wisely when they bear the consequences of their actions.

I also agreed fundamentally with something Newt Gingrich said a lot when he was speaker of the House: If we leave the money in Washington, the liberals will spend it. So, when George W. Bush got elected, I wasn't terribly disturbed. I thought he was dumb and unqualified, but with a fat surplus accumulating in Washington, sending the money back to taxpayers before Congress spent it struck me as prudent.

I didn't agree with the conservative urge to legislate on abortion, homosexuality, or other moral issues. But in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, I found a Republican who shared my libertarian instincts on those questions: Rep. Connie Morella. On many spending issues, Morella was to my left. But I was happy to find a sensible representative who didn't have to follow the Democratic Party's line of bribing approved constituencies and equating virtue with spending.

The Maryland Democratic Party refused to let me vote in its primaries if I registered as an independent. The Maryland Republican Party, in need of converts, demanded no such loyalty oath. So, I registered as an independent and voted in Maryland's Republican presidential primary for John McCain, whom I admired even when I disagreed with him. Then I voted for Morella in a tight general election contest, and she won. I was beginning to feel comfortable thinking of myself as a liberal Republican, even if this was one of just a few pockets in the country where people like me could find a place in this party.

Four years later, I come to this convention stripped of that feeling. The past four years have alienated me from this party. I'm here, among other things, to find out why.

He seems to have figured it out in the last three days. The modern Republican party is hostile to democracy.

But, dear God, what on earth did he think was going on for the last fifteen years when Bob Dole went on the floor of the senate and declared that Clinton won with only a plurality so he wasn't legitimate? What was Saletan thinking when the Republicans insistently employed their investigative power and relentlessly mau-maued the media into pressuring the admnistration to appoint special prosecutor after special prosecutor over insignificant issues? What in the world did he think was happening when they impeached a twice duly elected president over a trivial sexual matter?

And what did he think was happening when they played an unprecedented form of hardball in seizing the presidency and then governing as if they had a huge mandate for radical change?

Did any of those actions speak of a party that gave a damn about the spirit of democracy?

It has been clear for quite some time to anyone who is paying attention that the modern Republican party is actively undermining the democratic process. Look at the Republican funded recall in California or the strong-arm redistricting all over the country, not to mention the more subtle forms of anti-democratic rule like bald-faced lying about government statistics and holding secret meetings and creating entirely new forms of executive privilege.

Yes, standing up before the nation and saying that speaking out against the president during a presidential campaign is putting our troops at risk is a very shocking charge. But, this is hardly the first time they've said that. I simply don't understand how people who are paid money to watch politics for a living have missed what seems to me to be an obvious development over more than a decade. Every election since 1992 has been dicier and dicier. With each cycle, they have gotten more and more aggressive in breaking the rules and challenging accepted norms. The only real question at this point is if they have been successful in rigging enough voting machines to swing this election if it's close enough. I'm hoping that they just haven't had the time to get it done because if they have there is absolutely no reason to believe they won't do it. They do not have any limits.

So yes, this election is a referendum on American democracy. At this point, they all are --- and they have been for quite some time. I'm glad some members of the media are noticing. Maybe this time they won't be so willing to smugly tell us to "get over it" if things go wrong.

But, I doubt it. Until elections are actually cancelled (which we -- shockingly -- even discussed openly for a while)or journalists are jailed for sedition or some other heinous suspension of the constitution (for ordinary white people, mind you) is employed, the media will continue to support the slow erosion of our political system until it will be too late to get it back.

After all, Lord Saletan still believed the Republicans held the abstract philosophy that "people behave more virtuously and wisely when they bear the consequences of their actions" in 1999, after the Republican congress had weakened the constitution and impeached Clinton over a blowjob. If he was that slow on the uptake, then I'm not anticipating that he will figure out the rest of the story until everything is already lost.




digby 9/02/2004 08:44:00 AM |

 
Damn That Al Gore

Does everyone remember when Jeff Jacoby got nailed for passing on that stupid chain letter about the heroes of the revolutionary war all ending up broke? Or when Pierre Salinger fell for a photo shopped picture on the internet of flight 800 being shot down?

After his speech last night, Zell was waving around a sheaf of papers claiming that it proved his claims about Kerry were true. I wonder if anybody actually got a look at it because both pandagon and Martini Republic have found some shocking similarities between Zell's lies and a couple of bogus chain e-mails that have been going around for months.

You don't suppose that Zell actually fell for that crap, do you?

On the other hand, baldfaced lying is no longer seen as political death, so why not? Perhaps we should have Kerry start doing speches about Bush's long term affair with Osama bin Laden's third wife. Somebody sent me an e-mail that said it was true so it must be.




digby 9/02/2004 08:30:00 AM |

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

 
What About The Flying Monkeys?

THE MILLER GAMBLE [Jonah Goldberg]

I think the Miller speech was fantastic, as I said. But I do think that if it had been delivered by a Republican it would be seen as a major liability for Bush -- largely because the press would but that spin. I think the Bush campaign believes that the counter-spin that Miller's a Democrat will defuse that sort of thing; "the Republicans weren't mean. Zell Miller's a Democrat."

I think the gamble will pay off. But expect a blizzard of spin from those who want to Buchananify the speech.

The speech made Buchanan sound like the other Jenna. But the problem, Jonah, is that you can pretend that the GOP has some distance from the speech all you want because Miller calls himself a Democrat. But, how are you going to explain the shrill, shrieking freaks in the audience whose eyes were veritably rolling back in their heads in ecstasy every time old Zell let fly. Are they Democrats too?

It's kind of hard to distance yourself from your own convention delegates, know what I mean?




digby 9/01/2004 10:17:00 PM |

 
We haven't lost PA

I can't tell you how important it is to read Donkey Rising every day from now on if you want to know what's going on with the horse race. Today, Ruy has a very informative piece on likely voters vs. registered voters --- and reports that the doom and gloom about Pennsylvania is bullshit.

This is not some "Pollyanna let's all cross our fingers and hope as hard as we can that the poll numbers are wrong" nonsense. Polling is actually fairly accurate, particularly showing trend lines over time. And, we are not behind. In fact, as Ruy points out, when they poll registered voters we are quite a bit ahead. This is where the scenario of the new and motivated Democrats comes in. If it is true that we are more intense than the other side then these numbers reflect that if we get a good turnout, we win handily. When they all switch to a more reliable likely voter model closer to the election, we'll have a little better idea if the Dems really are as motivated as we think. I'd bet we are.

Read his posts on the details of political polling and what it all means. You'll feel better. We are doing fine.




digby 9/01/2004 09:15:00 PM |

 
Woah

Blitzer, Greenfield and Woodruff are interviewing Zell Miller directly after Cheney's speech. (After Edwards, the very first words out of anybody's mouth came from Ralph Reed.)

The good news is that they are challenging his lies. I'm beginning to think, watching him, that I was closer to the truth than I realized when I said he had a mental problem. He sounds ridiculous trying to defend his crazy talk.

Blitzer is accusing him of sounding so angry that "some are saying" his speech may have backfired. Now he's babbling incoherently. I almost feel sorry for him.

Cheney's speech was simultaneously dull and nasty, which isn't an easy feat. Tad Devine is doing just fine framing the difference between the two parties as between hope and fear. After tonight that claim has even more salience. The whole thing was discordant and ugly --- and the crowd was way over the top with the cheering at the Democrat bashing. It's not a pretty picture.

Clearly, Rove has given up on tacking to the middle. He is totally playing to the base. This election is trench warfare --- get out the vote.

BTW: Nice of them to make Mary stay off the stage, don't you think? How do they sleep at night?

Update: Someone should have put a little drop of laudenum in Ziggy's Starbucks this evening. He apparently challenged Chris Matthews to a duel. For real.




digby 9/01/2004 07:59:00 PM |

 
Rebel Yell!

The GOPers in the hall are so excited by the blood dripping from Zell's mouth that I think I fear they will soon be speaking in tongues. I'm getting worried for their health. This much hate can cause strokes and heart attacks if not controlled.

But don't you think Zell's speech and speaking style would be greatly enhanced by a little moustache and a snappy uniform? I mean, it goes so well with the Riefenstahlesque stage set.



I have to wonder if we might not have seen a Buchanan moment there.






digby 9/01/2004 07:08:00 PM |

 
Bench Them

With friends like this...

On the heels of Marshall's post from this morning, via Media Matters I see this exchange between Eleanor Clift and Charles Krauthammer:

KRAUTHAMMER: Of course people remember, as Eleanor [Clift] indicated, that Vietnam was a tragedy. But they have to also to be reminded of what people like John Kerry did at the time of that tragedy, and that is, they betrayed the comrades who they left behind. They betrayed them by telling the world that these soldiers left behind were committing atrocities, as Kerry has said on a daily basis. It was a disgraceful act on his part to indict the soldiers, the veterans whom he had served with, and I think that the people who served with him and who have run the ads have the perfect right to remind people of a true history, a history of what this man had done 30 years ago.

CLIFT: I think these ads have taken a toll, but a greater toll has been the fact that Senator Kerry has been so almost passive in responding. I mean, he [Kerry] should stand up and say, "Look, I served in Vietnam. I have medals. Have you no shame?"

[...]

KRAUTHAMMER: The question is, "Have you no shame?" People ought to ask Senator Kerry, "Have you no shame?" To pretend to be a hero of the veterans after how you treated them 30 years ago and disgraced them?

Does everybody see the problem here? No matter how you slice it, Kerry's either an asshole or a sissy. Are those really the only two possibilities in this scenario, considering that the polls are dead even just as they have been for six frigging months? And who was the favorite to win this election big for the last three years? Hmmm?

Maybe Eleanor "I've got conventional wisdom tatooed on my ass" Clift is booked as the "liberal" on the show, but like so many liberals she reflexively call forth the tired and repetitive RNC talking point that Democrats are passive no matter what the actual circumstance. "Well, if there's one thing we can all agree upon it's that Democrats are losers. Let's have lunch."

She also seems to be laboring under a common and unfortunate illusion that if Kerry just screamed louder --- maybe held his breath until he turned blue --- that the country would wake up and he'd be heading for a landslide. It would be pretty to think so, but evidence suggests that just calling somebody a liar in a loud voice isn't very effective.

The game is much more subtle and much more tactical than this "at long last sir have you no shame" fantasy. This is a presidential campaign and unless we want Kerry to turn into Adlai Stevenson Redux, any prosey calls for decency will not be on the menu. And there are also smarter and more effective ways to fight than flailing in all directions screaming your head off.

Kerry has done just fine so far, (although I think his weakness is his press operation and they're bringing in an All Star to remedy that -- Joe Lockhart.) But, this overwrought reaction (without evidence, I might add) on the part of the liberal pundits is really unappealing and counterproductive to our cause. I can see why people don't want to identify with us if this is who they have to associate themselves with. What a bunch of nervous nellies. No wonder half the country thinks we're too soft to handle national security. Liberal pundits are the first to agree with the Republicans that we are "passive" and "refuse to fight" even though it isn't true.

I suppose they don't want anyone to think they aren't being fair and balanced. And as we all know, being fair and balanced means agreeing with Republican talking points. Frankly, I wish they'd just shut up. We'd do better without them. Right now we need some strong, faithbased, political loyalty to show the country that we are behind our guy, not second guess him to death. It's hurting the ballclub.

Update: August 19, 2004:

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam...

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: “Bring it on.”

Is that macho enough for Eleanor or should Kerry have whipped it out and peed all over the stage to mark his territory?

Clift made her comment on August 30th. As Sommerby says, these people are simply unprepared. It's so much easier to simply spout the conventional wisdom you heard at a party last night, but it's not journalism or even punditry to continuously spread RNC propaganda rather than than do your homework and figure out what is really going on.


Thanks to commenter Here's Kitty for the reminder.




digby 9/01/2004 04:26:00 PM |

 
It's A Medical Condition

The Howler features a small passage from Ziggy Zell's Dem bashing tome. Holy Moley:

[M]y conscience travels with me everywhere I go, like some unwelcome inner companion. I cannot escape him and is he tough. He is on steroids, has a Black Belt and long fingernails, and stomps around inside of me, sometimes in hobnailed boots. He’s been there as long as I can remember. Although it’s getting tougher and tougher for me to blow out all the candles on my birthday cake, he just grows stronger—and louder.

Keep it in mind tonight that Zell is really talking to the voice in his head --- like the guy who hangs out in front of Starbucks screaming at invisible enemies.

They have medication for this problem and unlike most of his constituents, whom he purports to love, he has health insurance to pay for it. Maybe Dr. Feelfrist can write him a scrip. I hear Rush has some contacts too.




digby 9/01/2004 04:12:00 PM |

 
Battle Of The Bulge

Via Susie, I see that Republicans are taking this "girly-man" thing to a new level:

ALBANY NY - Government cutbacks are hitting a continental soldier below the belt.

The statue of Copper John, a continental soldier that sits atop the state's Auburn Correctional Facility, was removed earlier this summer for renovation.

The beloved figure is set to return to his perch this fall, albeit a lesser man.

Workers sprucing up the 156-year-old statue were told to reduce the size of Copper John's crotch.

They may have called them minutemen, but they didn't wear codpieces. Republicans don't like to be reminded of that, what with their Chippendales dancer prez and his puritan AG. It's all very confusing.

Susie also points out in another post, "one of the classic side effects of steroid abuse is... underdeveloped testes." This is especially interesting in the context of Sidney Blumenthal's very interesting and highly entertaining deconstruction of the Arnold-GOP love affair:

Schwarzenegger has an aesthetic sense that passes above the heads of the Republicans. To them, it seems he's appealing to simplicity, strength and old-fashioned patriotism.

But he puts a strange emphasis on the body politic Kultur. The puritanical delegates responded to him with an emotional intensity to themes they can't fully grasp. No matter how scripted Schwarzenegger may be, he remains pure in his underlying message. He makes the case for the narcissism of power through the power of narcissism.

No one is more narcissistic than a bodybuilder. He builds his reputation standing before mirrors and panels of older men, flexing his muscles to see who has the largest.

Schwarzenegger offered the Republican Convention totemic worship of virility borne out of fear of its fading. It was an act he has been perfecting for decades. In its essence, he offered a sexual identity panic speech.

Bulging muscles on a Hollywood caricature is reassuring. Bulging manhood on the statue of an American patriot is scary.

It's going to take a boatload of shrinks to sort this shit out.





digby 9/01/2004 03:22:00 PM |

 
Blogging For Bush And Bataille

Many people are upset by Michael Bérubé's instant conversion from liberal college professor to red-meat Republican imperialist in one night. It does, I admit, seem a bit precipitous to toss off your entire political philosophy at the mere sight of a roomfull of doughy whitebread manliness, but that is the power of Republicanism. All it takes is one speech by Denny Hastert and many a fine Democrat is hooked. (I don't even want to think about the effect Dick Cheney is going to have tonight. Lock up the womenfolk.)

You simply must read today's dispatch, however, to understand what a dangerous defection this really is. Here is where an effete east coast literature professor can make a serious contribution to the GOP. As a testament to the diversity and tolerance of the new Republican Party, he has found a way to reach out to all the disillusioned Republicans like Monsieurs DeLay and Racicot who may be having a hard time coming to grips with the self-hating Frenchman syndrome so prevalent in the party:

Next up were the twins, Barbara and Jenna. And here, I think, is where my new party revealed a genius I didn't know it had. For years, progressive-left literary types like me used to taunt Republicans: "nyah nyah, nyah nyah," we suggested, "you don't know anything about surrealism, nyah nyah, never heard of the European avant-garde, la la la la la la." We thought we were the last word in urbane sophistication, and that Republicans could not begin to comprehend– or even catch– our allusions to figures like Bréton and Bataille. But then along come the Bush twins, and ooh la la, surrealism is born anew! "My Dad already had a chief of staff– and his name is Andy!" said Jenna. It is beyond humor, it is beyond your petty-ironic Democrat understanding. "Our parents' favorite term of endearment for each other is Bushy," they said, following this with "we had a hamster too, but our hamster didn't make it." What does this mean? you ask. Foolish liberal Democrats, fretting about "what does this mean, this strange talk of bushes and lost hamsters." It is not about meaning. It is about the irruption of the unconscious into the very fabric of everyday life, where the eye becomes an egg and the hamster disappears into the bushy undergrowth, there to be transformed into the heart and soul of America. Hah! Now we find that Republican diversity is even more diverse than Michael Steele and Arnold Schwarzenegger– it extends even to the domain of live performance art, where Barbara and Jenna Bush evoke Bréton and Bataille and Beavis and Butthead in an intertextual performance that leaves you girlie-men cultural-studies Democrats gasping for air. I especially liked the bit about how their parents taught them to respect everyone. Except the people we run against-- them we slime! Heh. Heh heh. Heh.

I told you Rove was a sneaky pomo bastard.

It's somewhat alarming to see someone like Bérubé, who was just 48 hours ago filled with liberal goodness and righteousness, turn so quickly. But I'm beginning to understand how it can happen. I myself felt a little stirring in my upper colon last night at the sight of an accented cartoon cyborg being féted as a visionary and a couple of young ladies proving in front of the entire world that, just like their father, one need never intellectually progress beyond the seventh grade if one is rich enough. I just wanted to go out and get myself some of those purple heart band-aids and paste them on every liberal girly-man I know. Forget all that sacrifice, courage and hard work crapola. Being a wealthy empty shell is what the new America is all about.


By the way, the French word for irony is "ironie." That's a little too close for comfort in this day and age. From now on I'm using the term "honor 'n integrity" in its place. Just so's you know.



digby 9/01/2004 12:49:00 PM |

 
Who's Your Daddy?

For some time now, there have been rumblings in the business community about being the victims of "shakedowns" by Republican politicians. Certainly, Tom DeLay's K Street project has intimidated the lobbying firms into only hiring those of whom he approves.

Now, however, they are throwing down the gauntlet and turning their dirty tricks operation on business leaders who don't toe the line. This thing with Soros is a sea change. If the Republicans think they can intimidate billionaires who don't share their political point of view, the CEO's should really begin to wonder just who is running the show, here.

If the Speaker of the House can accuse Soros of making his money from the illegal drug trade (which doesn't make any sense since he's in favor of legalization) then they can say anything about any of those guys too if they don't follow the party line.

What an interesting dilemma for the masters of the universe. Is Monsieur DeLay their bitch or are they his?

Update:

Hesiod (welcome back to the jungle, dude) finds the genesis of this Hastert (and Gingrich) smear against Soros. It's none other than Lyndon LaRouche. Figures.

Now, what's all this I hear about Scaife and his sister?

Let's party.




digby 9/01/2004 10:37:00 AM |

 
Dreier Cleaning

So, this is the first I've heard that Dave Dreier is gay but it does explain something to me that I've wondered about for a long time --- why he didn't run for higher office. He's very articulate, attractive and media friendly --- way more than some loser like Bill Jones, who's running against Barbara Boxer. He always seemed to travel in the power circles of the party and recently served as a high level advisor to Arnold. I've scratched my head more than once as to why this guy hadn't achieved a much higher profile.

This is one of the most potent arguments against bigotry. Here you have someone who is obviously a talented politican (if playing for the wrong team --- the GOP, that is) and he can't be allowed to run for higher office because of the prejudices of a bunch of medieval lamebrains. This happens all the time in all walks of life and it's so patently unamerican. This is, after all, the country where anyone is supposed to be able to make it on the merits. As Clinton used to say, we don't have a person to waste. (Like arabic translators...)

Then again, I have to ask myself why any self respecting gay person would be a Republican when most of his comrades believe he is a repellant deviant (unless he's a Catholic priest in which case it should be overlooked.) To me, it's like a black man joining the KKK. Don't get it.



Update: To be clear, I am not making a comparison between gays and pedophiles. My meaning was that the right seems to be remarkably forgiving of the fact that the priesthood has a fair number of gay members --- a status which they perceive as deviant and repellant -- and that is something that would be the cause of a general condemnation of any other institution. (Think Boy Scouts.) The pedophilia issue is something else altogether --- although it is quite telling that they don't hold the church accountable for real crimes either. Apparently, if the institution in question is a church, there is nothing the right will find worthy of the condemnation they extend across every where else in society.

If the entire priesthood is gay it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Likewise, if priests have affairs with their female parishoners, which I understand is not exactly unheard of, it's none of anyone elses business in my book. I'm not a catholic, so I don't really feel that I have a right to judge their moral requirements for adults. (Obviously pedophilia, which is most often heterosexual, is a crime and should be prosecuted wherever it happens.) But, surprisingly, I don't hear much of an outcry from the sanctimonious Republican party that a two thousand year old religious institution is a hotbed of what they deem to be the kind of sexual immorality that led them to a non-stop orgy of absolutism just six short years ago in the impeachment of the president. Indeed, they are going out of their way to court the leaders of that very institution. Strikes me as a little bit self-serving, that's all.




digby 9/01/2004 08:34:00 AM |

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

 
Back In The Saddle

This is driving me nuts. All night long, on all the cable networks, the whores were going on and on about how the polls are terrible news for Kerry. On Matthews they were studiously trying to figure out what moment it was exactly when Kerry lost the election. Nobody questioned GOP shill Dave Drier when he said he was ecstatic that the polls have done a 180 and Bush now has a good chance to take California. Shake ups in the Kerry camp are afoot. Fineman points out that Kerry may have been a fighter but he's never had to face Karl Rove before. That explains his ignominious defeat. These Republicans are just too good.

Except for one thing. This is all bullshit. Here's the latest from polling report. It's a goddamned dead heat. And the question nobody asks is how a Republican incumbent who stood at a 90% approval rating for more than a year is now below 50% and can't seem to put away the pussy Democrats in the middle of a war.

There's your story, press corpse.

I guess it's just so comfy cozy for them to be back in the loving arms of the GOP where they nestled so sweetly for more than two years suckling on the mother's milk of wartime propaganda. Extolling the manly heroism of George W.Bush is something that comes so naturally they don't even realize they're doing it. Why bother with the real story? This one just feels so right.

Never listen to the pundits. They are living in an alternate universe and they are almost always wrong about everything. Just look at the last four years of punditry if you doubt me.




digby 8/31/2004 09:32:00 PM |

 
Nick Kristoff, Comedian

A related lesson for Mr. Bush, if he has time to read Shakespeare, is the inevitability of intelligence failures.

Whew. Let me catch my breath here. That was a good one.




digby 8/31/2004 09:28:00 PM |

 
They're Kind Of Simple

Listening to these idiots on Matthews talk about "what women want" is truly unbelievable. Apparently, women will vote for Bush because the war in Iraq means that their children will come home safely from school. Also because his wife met him at a bar-b-que. You see, women need the wife to vouch for her husband because they have to vote for men all the time and it's icky.

This is Matthews, Mitchell, Meachum and Scarborough who are saying this. The elite SCLM.

I'd like to see Hillary march up to the platform and slap the shit out of all of them.





digby 8/31/2004 08:08:00 PM |

 
The Dynasty Collapses

THE STRATEGY [KJL]
The poor job they did with the twins humanizes the Bushes. That Rove mind at work...!

Yeah. That Rove is sneaky.





digby 8/31/2004 07:54:00 PM |

 
Men, Men, Men

Just as Andrew Sullivan was coming over to the side of goodness and light, he sees the macho performance of the hairy and manly real men of the GOP last night and hurries back into his rightful place as their favorite gay mascot who shall be explicitly denied his rights under the US Constitution. Some things are even more primal than the desire to marry and settle down, I guess.

I can't say that I'm surprised. Bush worship --- in the George W. sense, anyway --- is very hard to shake. I think you have to hire one of those deprogrammers.

What's more upsetting, though is that Michael Bérubé, bleeding heart liberal professor hockey playing Bush hater, was taken in as well. If they've got Bérubé, I'm afraid it's all over:

And then McCain. What is there to say about McCain? McCain is McCain. The quintessential maverick, quintessentially mavericking all those other sucker-quintessential pseudo-mavericks who try to bring that weak shit to the hole. When he called Michael Moore a "disingenuous filmmaker," I realized that my own piddling critiques of Moore were so much dust in the wind. As McCain explained in his post-game interview with CNBC, Michael Moore's film suggested that Iraq under Saddam was some kind of Biblical paradise, and that's so wrong it's just . . . just . . . disingenuous, is what it is. Isn't it weird that Democrats won't say anything bad about Saddam? Rock on, John. The disingenuous must die!! Die, disingenuous Democrats, die!!

And then, listening to the testimonies and watching the montages after McCain's speech, I began to think about my own prejudices as a liberal-left blogger. Seriously, the last time I had a substantial debate with one of my liberal-leftist colleagues about the Bush presidency, it was at an American Studies panel at Tiny Elite Liberal University titled, "Republicans-- Do They Merely Give Voice to the Vilest Elements of American Society, or Are They Themselves the Vilest Elements of American Society?" At the time, I argued strenuously in favor of either the former or latter position, but now that I've finally seen some actual Republicans up close on TV, I've had to reconsider. These people really seem very nice, once you get to meet them. They're not wild-eyed ideologues-- they're just ordinary folks, sitting there in Madison Square Garden, trying to have a good time. They're as sensible as you or your grandmother, and all they want is for people to love one another, inclusively, in a big tent that is inclusive. They love their country, and you should too.

And then . . . Rudy G.

Read on if you dare. Rudy G is more than just a manly man filled with macho manliness and male machismo. He's the man.

But hold on to your codpieces, fellas. The Terminator, a man so masculine he isn't even human, is on deck. It's a manly night to end all manly nights. I sense you'd better have cigarettes and tequila at the ready --- and tell the women folk to put on something frilly and make a few sandwiches. GOP don't need no silver star. They've got a movie star, mothafuckah!






digby 8/31/2004 04:03:00 PM |

 
No Glory

One of the hazards of democracy is that if we endorse our government's willingness to use torture, others will feel justified in holding we the people as responsible for it as our leaders. It's unlikely that the billion Muslims on this planet will continue to see a distinction between themselves and the Islamic radicals if the people of America validate the illegal actions of this government and extend this administration's power for four more years.

This is going to haunt our country forever. We unleashed the beast and I fear we will all pay a heavy price if we do not hold our leaders accountable.




digby 8/31/2004 12:25:00 PM |

 
Political Hate Speech

A GOP delegate handed out bandages with purple hearts on them Monday night at the Republican National Convention in a swipe at Democratic nominee John Kerry's war record, but national GOP officials have asked him to stop.

The bandages were handed out by Morton Blackwell, a longtime GOP activist from Virginia, with the message: ''It was just a self-inflicted scratch, but you see I got a Purple Heart for it.''

Kerry won three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star for his service in the Vietnam War. A group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking Kerry as a liar through campaign ads and media interviews, but Kerry's wartime experiences have been backed by crewmates and official records.

''It is inexcusable for a delegate to mock anyone who has ever put on a soldier's uniform,'' said Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe. ''It is inexcusable to mock service and sacrifice.''

Blackwell, who gave out almost 250 of the bandages, said veterans have every right to be angry about anti-war comments Kerry made after returning to this country.

Party Chairman Ed Gillespie spoke to Blackwell, and they agreed that he would not distribute the bandages tonight, said GOP spokesman Jim Dyke.

This is where the talking heads come in. Don't let this go. They need to repeat their shock and dismay at this disgusting little "joke" that dishonors the troops over and over again until everybody is sick of hearing it. And when the other side says that it wasn't the RNC who did it and that Gillespie asked them to stop, they need to say "yes, you people claim that you are never responsible for any of these smears against veterans. But they just keep coming, even at your own convention."

This is a rather silly issue on its face, but it's an easy to understand symbol of the GOP's willingness to devalue a veteran's service if he doesn't agree with their politics. Even the press corpse gets it. And, according to the polls, this isn't going down very well with the electorate.

The underlying issue here isn't dishonoring the troops. It's dirty campaigning. It's smart politics to scream bloody murder every time Bush or his shock troops do it, particularly when it involves military matters. The idea is taking hold --- people believe he is behind it. (The AWOL thing is the sub-text.) Having to feel some pain for it will make Rove more cautious and put him off his game.

If we really want to fuck with Gillsepie's head the Dems should call it "political hate speech."





digby 8/31/2004 11:02:00 AM |

 
Swingers

Tom Tomorrow had a great strip a week or so ago about undecided swing voters in which he noted with his usual subtlety that swing voters are idiots.

This article in the LA Times confirms it. They say they want specifics. They always say they want specifics, but they don't understand the specifics when they hear them so they just pretend that they didn't hear any and piss and moan again about the candidate not addressing "the issues."

Undecided Voters Want Bush to Offer Specifics

When he steps on stage at Madison Square Garden on Thursday night to accept the Republican Party's presidential nomination, swing voters say, they want to know how he plans to lower gas prices, make healthcare more affordable and create jobs.

America's shrinking cadre of crucial undecided voters say they want to hear Bush promise that he won't touch Social Security funds to pay for something else. They want him to describe how he'll get rid of the national debt. But most of all, they say, they want to know how he plans to extricate U.S. forces from ongoing combat in Iraq.

"We have soldiers dying every day. One thing I learned in the military is you have to have an exit plan," said Terry Eaton, 50, a paramedic training officer in San Antonio. "One of the things George Bush didn't have was a way to get out. I want to hear what his goals are for Iraq."

[...]

On the plus side for Bush, most of those interviewed said they think he has done a relatively good job in his first four years. And they take into account the Sept. 11 attacks when looking at the president's progress on improving the economy.

You can see why they need to hear more from him on where he stands. They've only had four years and he's done a relatively good job except for the jobs, gas prices, health care, social security, running up the deficit and Iraq. He just needs to lay out his agenda so they know what to expect.

Charlotte Stone, a nurse's aide and registered Republican from the central Missouri town of Crocker, said she was worse off than when she voted for Bush in 2000. She had $3,000 in the bank back then. Today, her savings have dwindled to $300.

She'd like to go back to school and become a nurse or a massage therapist. But she can't afford to quit her job to pursue her studies.

Kerry has yet to win her over, but Bush, she complained, doesn't understand how Americans are struggling.

"I had money saved, but the price of gas went up," said Stone, 50, who grosses about $14,000 per year. "People here live on $10,000 a year, and we have to drive. We're trying to afford health insurance and 401(k) plans. We want to pay our way. But we can't do it much longer, the way things are going."

Stone said she'll tune in to the convention in New York City, listening for a Republican plan to ease gas prices and a job-training program for older workers.

"I think he's been an excellent president," Stone said of Bush. "But with the economy and the gas prices, there are people out there who can't afford him."

Yes, he's been an excellent president except for the living hand to mouth and affording her 401(k)! on 14,000 a year and no savings. You can see why she'd be wanting to hear about his plan for job training for older people. Those Republicans are big on that kind of thing.

Even those who voted for Bush in 2000 said their biggest fear was that the war in Iraq would develop into another Vietnam.

Eaton, the paramedic training officer, said Bush "talks about bringing troops home, but I have friends who are being called up to the National Guard for two years."

Bush did a lot to make the nation safer by creating the Department of Homeland Security after the 2001 terrorist attacks, said Eaton, but that progress could be squandered if troops remain in the Middle East.

"It'll add more fuel to the fire for Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas," he said. "They'll be more angered about the Western presence. In some ways, I'd say, no, we don't have a right to be there."

But he might vote for Bush anyway.

Before the Republicans turned radical, there was a decent case to be made that you could split tickets or swing from one election to the other. Government was largely by consensus so it was possible that you could find a place in the middle of either party to be comfortable if you were a moderate. Small differences in terms of specific issues were relevant. Those days are no more and the much smaller numbers of swing voters (as opposed to independents who vote with one party or another) is a reflection of that change. Swing voters today are simply ideologically incoherent.

I recall focus groups in the last couple of weeks before election 2000, after the debates, when these swing voters were being féted like visiting potentates by the networks. To the last person, they all said they still couldn't make up their minds because they needed even more specifics. This after hearing hours of discussions of prescription drug plans and patient's bill of rights and privatising social security and lockboxes and Dingell-Norwood until I thought I was going to kick in the TV.

The truth is that the issues really have little to do with this. These people cannot connect their own lives to the actions of the government in any coherent fashion. And they either love being seen as "above partisan politics" or they simply don't get the warring philosophies of the two parties. Their decision making process is incomprehensible and I'm not sure how you can fashion a message for them that makes any sense. They don't make any sense.

As Tom Tommorrow pointed out, it's frightening that the fate of the nation and perhaps the world relies on these people. They literally don't know their own minds.




digby 8/31/2004 10:32:00 AM |

 
Codpiece Convention

Via Catch, I see that in case there's any doubt about the "Triumph of the Will" narrative that's building in Madison Square Garden this week, Kate O'Beirne is there to gushingly spell it all out for us:

Tonight's Message: Republicans fight back. Democrats light candles. It is so striking that the Democrats' Boston tribute to 9/11 was a remembrance of helpless victims who lost their lives that day. Those gutsy women reminded us of the stakes in this election by seeing a call to arms as the fitting tribute to their loved ones. Such a stirring reminder of the selfless heroes who walk among us would be an impossible display for the modern Democratic party.

Will it be effective? Who knows? I might point out that the last time old Kate got all moist like this was when Bush strapped on his codpiece and strutted around like Jim Dandy on that aircraft carrier. That one didn't work out so well and this might not either. Republicans seem to think that America wants to see itself as a warrior nation kicking ass and taking names. There is absolutely nothing in our history to suggest this. We don't see ourselves as a corps of chest thumping soldiers looking for a fight. We see ourselves as individualist cowboys, fighting only as a last resort. Both myths assume that America will prevail but they are very different images. These modern GOPers can't seem to resist stepping over that line, though, and it might backfire on them again. The cultlike devotion to the warrior chief is vaguely ... unamerican.

However, I imagine that the America Uber Alles theme is going to continue and probably get worse over the next few days. Last night featured, after all, the gay-loving, pro-death sissy wing of the party. By the time Cheney comes on, I'm expecting precision marches up and down the aisle to the tune of "We Are The Champions."

I'm especially looking forward to hearing my own Austrian Governor give his speech. Why do I have a feeling that this Republican message is going to sound so much more compelling in his voice than any of the others?




digby 8/31/2004 09:23:00 AM |

 
And They're Off

Texeira has a major new polling analysis of the state of the race on the eve of the RNC.

The Myth: The SBVT controversy seriously harmed the Kerry campaign. Bush comes into his convention in much better political shape than he has been for quite a while.

The Reality: The race has changed little since the start of the SBVT controversy. Bush enters his convention with basically the same political vulnerabilities he had previously.

Let's go to the numbers. The poll that best provides a before-SBVT damage and after-SBVT damage picture of the horse race is the Gallup poll. That's because Gallup polled both on August 9-11--about a week before media coverage of SBVT really heated up--and on August 23-25, right after the coverage peaked and just as the Kerry campaign began its push-back.

What do the Gallup numbers show? As Gallup's release on their latest poll succinctly puts it: "No Change in Presidential Race Despite Attack Ads". Just so.

I urge you to read the entire post because at this point the horse race really starts to matter and these are the numbers going out of the gate. It is a tie among "likely voters" and Kerry is slightly ahead among registered voters.




digby 8/31/2004 12:27:00 AM |

Monday, August 30, 2004

 
Sleeping Better

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." Albert Einstein

We are Americans first, Americans last, Americans always.

Let us argue our differences.

But remember we are not enemies, but comrades in a war against a real enemy, and take courage from the knowledge that our military superiority is matched only by the superiority of our ideals, and our unconquerable love for them.

Our adversaries are weaker than us in arms and men, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity.

We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible. Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong.

Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight.

We're Americans.

We're Americans, and we'll never surrender.

They will.

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them". George Orwell

It was here in 2001 in lower Manhattan that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center and said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, "They will hear from us."

They have heard from us! They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban. They heard from us in Iraq and we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.

They heard from us in Libya and without firing a shot Gadhafi abandoned weapons of mass destruction.

They are hearing from us in nations that are now more reluctant to sponsor terrorists.

So long as George Bush is President, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us until we defeat global terrorism.

[...]

And I say it again tonight, "Thank God George Bush is our President."

On September 11, George W. Bush had been President less than eight months. This new president, vice president, and new administration were faced with the worst crisis in our history.

President Bush's response in keeping us unified and in turning the ship of state around from being solely on defense against terrorism to being on offense as well and for his holding us together.

For that and then his determined effort to defeat global terrorism, no matter what happens in this election, President George W. Bush already has earned a place in our history as a great American president.

But let's not wait for history to present the correct view of our president. Let us write our own history. We need George Bush now more than ever.

[...]

Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of the world much like our observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate ourselves to peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union through mutually assured destruction.

President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism but we must also be on offense.

On September 20, 2001, President Bush stood before a joint session of Congress, a still grieving and shocked nation and a confused world and he did change the direction of our ship of state.

He dedicated America under his leadership to destroying global terrorism.

The president announced the Bush Doctrine when he said: "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there.

It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

[...]

When it catches hold there is nothing more powerful than freedom. Give it some hope, and it will overwhelm dictators, and even defeat terrorists. That is what we have done and must continue to do in Iraq.

That is what the Republican Party does best -- when we are at our best, we extend freedom.

It's our mission. And it's the long-term answer to ending global terrorism. Governments that are free and accountable.

We have won many battles -- at home and abroad -- but as President Bush told us on September 20, 2001, it will take a long-term determined effort to prevail.

The war on terrorism will not be won in a single battle. There will be no dramatic surrender. There will be no crumbling of a massive wall.

But we will know it. We'll know it as accountable governments continue to develop in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

We'll know it as terrorist attacks throughout the world decrease and then end.

"How you can win the population for war: At first, the statesman will invent cheap lying, that impute the guilt of the attacked nation, and each person will be happy over this deceit, that calm the conscience. It will study it detailed and refuse to test arguments of the other opinion. So he will convince step for step even therefrom that the war is just and thank God, that he, after this process of grotesque even deceit, can sleep better." Mark Twain




digby 8/30/2004 11:01:00 PM |

 

It will always be only a part of the Nation which will consist of really active fighters, and more of them will be asked than the millions of other citizens. For them, the mere pledge "I believe" is not enough; instead, they will swear to the oath "I will fight."

The Party will for all time to come represent the elite of the political leadership of the people. It will be unchangeable in its doctrine, hard as steel in its organizational tactics, supple and adaptable; in its entity however, it will be like a Holy Order!

And this was "moderate" night.




digby 8/30/2004 08:01:00 PM |

 
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise

Does anyone else think that Lindsay Graham sounds like Gomer Pyle? I wonder if he can sing?




digby 8/30/2004 07:00:00 PM |

 
Active Duty Republicans

Eric Alterman has a tip for a story for those of you who are covering the convention with actual credentials:

Possible Actual News Alert: Is the Republican Party in violation of the US military’s rules on the participation in party politics by active duty military?

It sure looks that way. The RNC convention week is boasting that it has 144 active duty military delegates at the convention or three percent of the total. That information can be found here.

Meanwhile, according to DOD Directive 1344.10, which can be found here this is a violation of the code of military conduct. It explicitly says:

A member on active duty shall not
...
Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions (unless attending a convention as a spectator when not in uniform).

But the Republican Party itself is claiming that the active duty personnel are not spectators but delegates. What’s going on here? Why are the Republicans encouraging our soldiers to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and its stated rules of political engagement? And why for goodness sakes, aren’t these rules being enforced? Hey MSNBC.com, can we put a reporter or two on this story please?

I doubt that MSNBC has time to follow up what with all the primping and the ass kissing they are having to do. But, perhaps one of those writers for liberal magazines who are wandering around aimlessly looking for internet access could just do the story and then file it from their hotel room. It sounds like a good one to me.




digby 8/30/2004 04:13:00 PM |

 
Miscalculator In Chief

It looks as if the Kerry campaign and I are on the same wavelength regarding Bush's statement that he "miscalculated" the conditions ensuring from the "catastrophic success" of the invasion of Iraq. I wrote a couple of days ago:

I think Junior just made a tactical error. Kerry and every other Democrat appearing in the media should wrap that statement around his neck. This is a trap if they want to spring it...he's now simultaneously admitted that he screwed up big time on the single most important issue a president ever faces, while also saying that he has no intention of trying to figure out what went wrong. That is the worst of all possible worlds. It's best not to have to admit screwing up something as important as war planning but if you do you simply have to make the case that learned from the experience and you won't do it again. He didn't do that. Iraq is a massive failure and the president has just opened the door to his own culpability on that.

From various press information I've received today, it looks like we can expect to hear the word "miscalulate" about 763,000 times in the next few weeks.

As I wrote in the earlier piece, one of the nice side effects of this particular claim is that somebody told Bush that he needed to admit to making a mistake -- I think because they knew that his bumbling inability to think of anything he could have done better was going to be used against him. If Kerry succeeds in wrapping Bush's admission that he screwed up the iraq war around his neck, then somebody in Junior's inner circle is going to pay. I'm betting it was Karen.




digby 8/30/2004 02:57:00 PM |

 
Clean And Sober

Shhh. Don't tell anybody, but apparently they weren't serving kool-aid at Andrew Sullivan's vacation spot this last month and he's come back to work detoxed and rehabbed.

If you read all of his posts for today, you'll see that he has had an epiphany on a range of issues surrounding George W. Bush and the ascendent fundamentalist wing in the GOP and he is saying some things that moderate Republicans might just listen to. Perhaps it just that Bush finally went too far with the FMA, but I think it's more than that. I think he's speaking for a number of Republicans who have awakened from their trauma after 9/11 and are seeing that their leader is a fraud. I don't know if any of them will vote for Kerry, but I think there's a chance that at least some of them will find that they "forgot" to vote this fall. To non Limbaugh cultists of all political stripes who have been paying attention, Bush's leadership is alarmingly bad. So bad that even one who was previously dazzled by Bush's warrior image have realized that he's incompetent. Sullivan says:

Waging war requires both determination and effectiveness. Bush has a lot more of the former than the latter. And, if we want to avoid more Abu Ghraibs, that counts.

Well, that's if you think we should avoid "catastrophic success" such as that which has unfolded in Iraq. It appears that Sullivan agrees. Regardless of his past political errors, he's a wonderfully talented writer and as far as I'm concerned if he's belatedly realized that the GOP is in the hands of incompetents and radical fundamentalist extremists, it's better late than never. He's one of the right's sharpest tacks and they will have lost a valuable commodity if he finally rejects them. His posts today on everything from Rumsfeld to the Swift Boat Liars aren't going to get him any love at the RNC, I can tell you that.




digby 8/30/2004 12:44:00 PM |

 
Shit Disturbance

Here's the latest from Donkey Rising on the Swift Boat Smear numbers:

Aug 23-26th Poll by the Annenberg Center for Public Policy shows a plurality of Americans - 46% - believe President Bush was behind the ads attacking John Kerry's military record while only 37% believe the Bush campaign's denials.

Day by day tracking of the percentage of voters who were influenced by the accusations and came to doubt that Kerry deserved his medals showed that from August 10-15 the percentage of doubters hovered in the low 20's, then rose between August 16-22 (reaching almost 30% on August 18th) and then returned back down to the low 20's between August 20-25.

It appears that the smear itself didn't take. But, of course, you have to take into account the time and effort spent refuting it was time and effort that could have been better spent elsewhere, so it's not a simple case of no harm no foul.

The most important thing is that Kerry survived a near death experience and the old saying "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is more true than ever. This is what we will have to look forward to for the next four years after he's elected. We might as well get used to it.




digby 8/30/2004 11:34:00 AM |

 
You Never Wonk Alone

I guess I'm not really understanding one particular beef some have with the protests in New York. Both Yglesias and Klein are disturbed by the inchoate nature of the march yesterday, what with the different agendas being present and nobody looking quite alike and focused. And, they are right, of course. The different groups protesting have many different issues that motivate them. But, it seems to me that in this case particularly, there is one thing they they all agree upon and it is the reason they are protesting when and where they are protesting. They all agree that George W Bush should not be reelected, which I think is a pretty damned good common cause.

I realize that protests are to some degree an act of self-expression but it's a big mistake to discount that as an important part of the political process. Human beings are not all motivated by wonkish intellectual policy discussion. For a lot of people politics is an emotional and social committment. Walking down the street with 100,000 other people who believe in the same goal (if not the reasons behind it) can provide a powerful and exciting feeling of shared purpose.

We liberals need more of that sort of thing. The right has its anger and its sense of victimization to motivate it on that emotional level. Protests like that in NYC signify for liberals a sense of shared belief and goals with people with whom you might never cross paths. For many of us, that's the motivating passion behind our politics. Inclusion, equality, free speech etc. We need to demonstrate that once in a while in order to sustain our committment to the process. Otherwise it's all dry, cerebral talk talk talk --- which I may love and those of you who read this blog may love --- but simply doesn't animate the human social part of politics for many people.

Are they meaningful as policy statements or effective organizing tools? Probably not. But as a motivating tool for grassroots politics I think they are invaluable. For a lot of people around this country yesterday, seeing the streets lined with people protesting the presidency of George W. Bush on the eve of his convention at the site of 9/11 was an inspiring moment of solidarity. That's a good thing.



Update: For a most thorough and enjoyable first person report on the protest check out Roy Edroso at Alicublog:

The participants provided lively footage. A ring of Philadelphians clad in black and pink led some anti-Bush cheers. One of them wore a shirt that read, "When I say Gender, you say Fuck." That remains my favorite shirt of the day (though the plaintive "I Still Hate George W. Bush" is up there, too). Even a few of the park bums got in on the act; "Bush gotta go, Bush gotta go," repeated a scrawny man shuffling around with a framed Saturday Evening Post cover under his arm.

[...]

The crowd was getting bunched up round 25th Street and some of the organizers sprang into action to regulate the flow -- young, mostly female, red bandanas tied on their arms, they linked hands across the avenue and held the pace. Very neatly done. If you want to know why moderates march with fringe groups, it's because the fringe groups know their shit.

Now, that's interesting. For even more fun, read his rundown of the right wing blogospheric apoplexy at the protests. These brave, macho wingnuts sound suspiciously like my grandmother --- "those ruffian protesters are so disheveled and unkempt!" The freepers do not disappoint, either. Read the whole thing.


digby 8/30/2004 10:13:00 AM |

 
Shill

Has anyone ever trashed his reputation as a journalist more thoroughly than Robert Novak? It turns out that his son is the publicist for Regnery, publisher of Unfit For Command, but that was information Novak didn't find relevant enough to mention when he scored an exclusive interview with the ghostly Admiral Schachte --- you know, the guy who nobody remembers being the fourth guy in a three man crew on the day Kerry got wounded?

Novak's son is the publicist for the publisher of a controversial book and Novak writes a fawning and unskeptical interview with one of the prime sources and Novak relies on his sterling reputation as a journalist to cover himself. Except, of course, his reputation as a journalist is in tatters.

But, Al Hunt seemed to think that there was even more to the story. He pretty much called Novak an outright liar on CNN over the week-end and it's pretty clear he is right. The two guys besides Kerry on that skimmer, Zaladonis and Runyan, have told everyone the exact same story. They don't remember Schachte ever being on that boat and they remember being under fire. It is only to Bob Novak that they are supposed to have said that there was no fire.

NOVAK: I interviewed Admiral Schachte this week. He is a former deputy judge advocate general of the Navy, a very distinguished man. He said he was definitely in the boat that night. John Kerry says he wasn't in the boat. I believe Admiral Schachte. I checked with a couple of other officers who were there at that time. They say it is inconceivable that on his maiden mission, Lieutenant Kerry would have been sent off in that boat alone, that this -- using this Boston whaler or skimmer was Lieutenant Schachte's own idea. He was in all the missions on the Boston whaler, and I -- and he is -- and the idea that Kerry said nobody who was ever on a boat on him was ever critical of him is wrong because I believe Schachte was there.

SHIELDS: Yet the enlisted man who was on the boat, and everybody agrees was on the boat, says he wasn't on the boat.

Al Hunt?

HUNT: Well, Mark, let's leave John Kerry and let's leave Schachte aside for a minute. I talked to those two enlisted men today. I talked to Pat Runyon and Bill Zaladonis. They both were on that boat December 2, 1968. They say there is no way that the admiral could have been on that boat. And they describe in vivid detail that night. They say it was a small, 14-foot boat with an outboard motor, that, in fact, with their weapons and other material, that four people would have been a really, really tight fit. They took orders from John Kerry. They remember -- Zaladonis remembers Kerry saying, Shoot over here, rather than over here, when they were in a firefight. And Runyon remembers him telling him to, Start the boat. Let's get the hell out of here. Zaladonis remembers when Kerry was hit, and they just say it's absolutely impossible to -- you wouldn't have had two officers on a little boat like that on that kind of a mission.

Moreover, Schachte has changed his story. A year ago, he talked to Michael Kranish of "The Boston Globe," and he said that there was a firefight. He didn't say he was in the boat. He said Kerry was hit -- quote, "hit" -- though it wasn't very serious. Now he says there wasn't a firefight and it was a self-inflicted wound. Moreover, he went and he said that he -- when he saw Kerry 20 years later in Washington, he was with a top aide with -- of Fritz (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Ashley Thripp (ph). Ashley Thripp I talked to today and said, No way. I wasn't there.

So I think that -- I think the admiral is either mistaken or he's lying.

[...]

NOVAK: Let me stick to this -- this Schachte thing for just -- just a moment. In the first place, I also interviewed those two guys, Runyon and Zaladoris (SIC), and they both said they both doubted there was any enemy fire. I don't know if you didn't ask them that question. But they told me they didn't believe there was any enemy fire. That -- that's just a factual thing.

No. 2, I really do believe that -- I've talked to other officers, and they say that this Boston whaler, this skimmer, usually had -- almost always had two officers in it. Only has room for three, right. They usually had two officers and an enlisted man in the back. So there was a -- I think these two men are probably good men. I think they're the ones that are confused.

[...]

HUNT: Bob invoked my name and said I -- you know, didn't know if I asked them -- I did ask them the question. They both very clearly say there was a firefight. They describe it in detail. They describe firing at people that night. And Zaladonis -- by the way, you have his name wrong. His name is Zaladonis, Bob. You know, if you called him, you ought to get his name right -- describes when Kerry was hit. They both say that, Mark, and I challenge anyone to call them, and they'll tell him.

NOVAK: They both -- they both told me they didn't believe there was any fire coming from the enemy on that boat.

HUNT: And they also told...

NOVAK: Now, maybe they've changed their story!

Novak, like so many Republicans in this era, has completely lost his honor both as a journalist and a citizen. This man is not a journalist, he is a GOP propagandist and should not be afforded the same kind of shield offered to real journalists in protecting their sources. The profession should shun this guy. By allowing him to evoke that shield in the Plame case, they are likely to lose it all together.




digby 8/30/2004 08:57:00 AM |

 
Cold Cock Him

Atrios points out that the GOP theme is "Bush's Leadership" and wonders if a 500k ad buy of "My Pet Goat" would garner three solid weeks of cable blather.

I think it would gather some and I honestly thing it would be a smart thing to do. The Republicans would go nuts --- and that is what would fuel the controversy --- but it's him in that video and there's no denying it. It is a devastating answer to his claims of being a brave man of action in a crisis and would deflate his convention bubble right quick.

Whatever they do, I'm hoping that the Kerry campaign is prepared to metaphorically stalk across the ring and slam Bush right in the nose on the day after the convention and change that storyline immediately.




digby 8/30/2004 08:44:00 AM |

Saturday, August 28, 2004

 
Rogue Element

The long awaited first installment of the Washington Monthly article by Marshall, Rozen and Glastris is online. It is looking more and more as if we have another rogue element that's been working out of DOD and I have to assume, some part of the White House. The many interconnecting webs seem to lead to and through the forged Niger documents, Chalabi, "Clean Break" and Valerie Plame. It's got the earmarks of a John LeCarre novel and if it weren't so incredibly dangerous it would be amusing.

The article is entitled "Iran Contra II" and that is apt for more reasons than the recurring roles of Mr Ghorbanifar and Mr Ledeen. Once again we see a marked "impatience" with the unfortunately cumbersome working of democratic government. That this may have happened for the second time in twenty years featuring many of the same people is a pretty clear indication that letting bygones be bygones will not do when dealing with this sort of traitorous, undemocratic behavior. The stakes are a hell of a lot higher now that they ae crashing airplanes into NYC skyscrapers. If there is an immediate lesson to be gleaned by the people, perhaps the simplest is that when you have a stupid and easily manipulated man at the head of the government, his minions and courtiers spend all their time jockeying for position and finding shortcuts to get their way. If Kerry happens to win he really must bite the bullet and see that this is investigated and people are brought up on charges. It's completely unbelievable that these same players came back into government and ran their game all over again. Unbelievable.

If anyone is unfamiliar with the braintrust that is at the center of this little scheme, Michael Ledeen, here's a little taste of the man's brilliance. I'm sure you'll agree that he is just the sort of guy you want running a secret back channel foreign policy in the middle of a national security crisis:

From March 10,2003:

Assume, for a moment, that the French and the Germans aren't thwarting us out of pique, but by design, long-term design. Then look at the world again, and see if there's evidence of such a design.

Like everyone else, the French and the Germans saw that the defeat of the Soviet Empire projected the United States into the rare, almost unique position of a global hyperpower, a country so strong in every measurable element that no other nation could possibly resist its will. The "new Europe" had been designed to carve out a limited autonomy for the old continent, a balance-point between the Americans and the Soviets. But once the Soviets were gone, and the Red Army melted down, the European Union was reduced to a combination theme park and free-trade zone. Some foolish American professors and doltish politicians might say — and even believe — that henceforth "power" would be defined in economic terms, and that military power would no longer count. But cynical Europeans know better.

They dreaded the establishment of an American empire, and they sought for a way to bring it down.

If you were the French president or the German chancellor, you might well have done the same.

How could it be done? No military operation could possibly defeat the United States, and no direct economic challenge could hope to succeed. That left politics and culture. And here there was a chance to turn America's vaunted openness at home and toleration abroad against the United States. So the French and the Germans struck a deal with radical Islam and with radical Arabs: You go after the United States, and we'll do everything we can to protect you, and we will do everything we can to weaken the Americans.

The Franco-German strategy was based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States.

It makes me feel all cozy knowing that a guy like this and his compatriots have been meddling in mid-east policy apparently in concert with a rogue element in the Pentagon for the last three years.




digby 8/28/2004 09:52:00 PM |

 
Waddaya Gonna Do?

ONLY A FEW years ago, it seemed the slightest suggestion of malfea- sance by a presidential administration -- allegations of tampering with a minor administrative office, say, or indications that a cabinet secretary might have understated the amount of money given to a former girlfriend -- could trigger a formidable response from the other two branches of government: grand juries, special prosecutors, endless congressional hearings, even impeachment proceedings. Some of that auditing, especially during the Clinton administration, went too far. Yet now the country faces a frightening inversion of the problem. Though there is strong evidence of faulty and even criminal behavior by senior military commanders and members of President Bush's cabinet in the handling of foreign detainees, neither Congress nor the justice system is taking adequate steps to hold those officials accountable.

[...]

When the prisoner abuse allegations first became public in May, many members of Congress, including several senior Republicans, vowed to pursue the evidence up the chain of command and not to allow low-ranking reservists to be prosecuted while more senior officials escaped sanction. Yet, as matters now stand, Mr. Rumsfeld, Gen. Sanchez and other senior officials are poised to execute just such an escape. When the scandal began, these leaders told Congress they were prepared to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing. As it turns out, they didn't mean that in any substantive respect. Their dodge shames not only them but the legal and legislative bodies charged with enforcing accountability.

Whoda thunk? And after they've been so zealous in investigating all the other crimes and scandals of the George W. Bush administration. Why, I'd almost think that Republicans (and their accomplices in the press) used their power to harrass and intimidate Clinton with phony, partisan scandalmongering and are now using it to cover for their Republican president's criminal malfeasance and massive policy failures. No, that can't be. That travel office scandal was a threat to the republic. This torturing of muslim prisoners in an age of islamic radicalism and terrorism is nothing by comparison --- not to mention all the espionage, intelligence failures and negligent military planning. My mistake.

While it's gratifying that the Washington Post may coming down from it's self administered three year acid trip, it continues to amaze me that the paper of Ben Bradlee has concluded that it is a powerless little institution that has no influence on the way that politics are conducted in this country. It certainly appears that they have come to believe that investigative reporting means regurgitating partisan smears and reporting the results of official government investigations. Jesus, if these guys were in charge during Watergate we'd be dedicating the Nixon Memorial on the mall right now.

Is it reasonable to believe that nobody in the entire military establishment understands that this whitewash is seriously counterproductive to the security interests of the United States considering the pesky little issue we have with Muslim hearts and minds and people blowing up buildings and all? I just bet some enterprising reporter could find a few people who might think these bogus "investigations" are a mistake. After all, the guys most likely to suffer from this total disregard for international law regarding the treatment of prisoners are those in the military.




digby 8/28/2004 09:02:00 PM |

 
Blowback

I'm think it may be time to give Kerry a little r-e-s-p-e-c-t. Donkey Rising analyzes the LA Times poll and all the others that have recently been released in the wake of the swift boat smear:

In short, the four major polls conducted since August 20th do not reveal any consistent or substantial pro-Bush swing such as would be expected from a successful attack on John Kerry's war record and character during the week and a half before. Instead, the only generalization that can be made from looking at a broader group of over 20 polls of registered and likely voters since the beginning of August is of a slight and gradual shrinkage of about 3 or 4% in Kerry's lead.

If August had been a slow news month, this trend would almost certainly have been ascribed to an inevitable "coming back down to earth" following the run of positive news coverage Kerry had enjoyed for several months during the spring (the remarkable fundraising success, the popular choice of Edwards, the united, energized Democratic convention). Instead, because the attacks on Kerry’s medals and military service were intensely dramatic and widely covered, many commentators simply assumed that any changes in the opinion polls had to be due to their influence.

[...]

...there was never any realistic possibility that Kerry would hold onto the support of many of these voters [who remain angry at the anti-war movement] even after his quite effective performance at the Democratic convention. All the Bush campaign needed to do was to make sure that these voters were made aware of Kerry's significant role in the anti-war movement of the early 1970's.

This is what the LA Times poll essentially found. In July, 32% agreed that "By protesting the war in Vietnam, John Kerry demonstrated a judgment and belief that is inappropriate in a president". By late August, this had risen to 37%. Similarly, 26% of the sample (and 31% of the men) agreed that Kerry's anti-war protests made them less likely to vote for him. The voters among whom the LA Times survey found Kerry loosing ground in August were married, less educated, self-described conservatives, owning a gun and living in a rural area -- a demographic profile that also describes the cultural environment of many U.S. veterans.

Had the Bush campaign been satisfied with simply harvesting these sympathetic voters, they probably could have done so with even a relatively honest and low-key series of commercials. Instead, however, they hoped that, with the help of their surrogates, they could achieve an even more ambitious goal - to impugn Kerry's valor, honesty and character through attacks on his wartime record of bravery and heroism.

The essence of this strategy was not only to directly damage Kerry's image and reputation, but to trap him into choosing between "taking the high road" and not responding to the attacks (which could then be spun to make him look weak and indecisive) or to provoke him into an ill-tempered, aggressive response (for which he could then be criticized as negative, partisan, bitter and shrill).

But the Bush campaign made a profound miscalculation. In the L.A. Times survey, only 18% of the voters had been convinced that "Kerry misrepresented his war record and does not deserve his war medals" while 58% said Kerry "fought honorably and does deserve" them. Independent voters sided with Kerry 5 to 1. Even men and self-described conservatives - groups that are normally quite pro-Bush - strongly supported Kerry, by 59 to 19 for men and 42 to 29 for conservatives. Other polls, such as the Fox/Opinion Dynamics and Annenberg Center for Public Policy survey found similar attitudes. In the Fox poll, even most veterans held, by 50% to 21% that Kerry deserved his purple hearts.

Moreover, Americans did not buy Bush's transparent attempts to pretend his campaign was not involved with the smear. The Gallup poll showed that more Americans think Bush is responsible for the commercials (50%) then do not (44%) and 56% think he should specifically denounce them while only 32% think he should not. An August 26 Annenberg Center survey found very similar attitudes.

It was this failure to convince the American people of the charges against Kerry that set the stage for the growing backlash against the Bush campaign - the investigative reports and editorial statements in newspapers across the country, the resignations of two Bush officials when their links to the smear campaign were exposed, and then Bush's disingenuous and finally humiliating series of statements and clarifications.

From the Bush campaign's point of view, the magnitude of the swift-boat fiasco becomes clear when it is recognized that a major goal of the August campaign was to put John Kerry on the defensive - to have him stumbling over his words, being pilloried in the press and firing his advisors. Instead (although the issue will now be muted by the theatrics of the Republican convention) it was Bush who was forced onto the defensive by the end of last week while Kerry weathered the attacks with an extraordinarily small decline in the level of his popular support.

I agree with this and am coming very close to calling this one a win for Kerry. I'd like to see a couple more polls before the RNC gets started and the dynamic becomes too muddy to know what the hell went on, but it sure looks to me as if Kerry may have survived a very serious atack and actually inflicted some damage on Bush. The narrative now has Bush as a dirty campaigner in the election and it's going to much harder for him to launch another filthy smear. That's big.

The "swift boat smear" is now in the annals of all time low down character assassination attempts. If Kerry really has prevailed then I am going to feel much more sanguine about this election and perhaps even more importantly, his chances of actually getting something done. Political instincts are the key and he's showing me he's got some.




digby 8/28/2004 06:02:00 PM |

 
Projection Politics

This theory about Karl Rove's wily and bold strategy of going after rivals' strengths instead of their weaknesses is Rove's own self-serving analysis and frankly, I think it's bullshit:

"Look, I don't attack people on their weaknesses," he once told reporters in Texas during a campaign. "That usually doesn't get the job done. Voters already perceive weaknesses. You've got to go after the other guy's strengths. That's how you win."

That's not what he does at all. In fact, it's something quite different all together. Rove has developed a campaign of projection in which he tars his opponents with his own candidates' weaknesses and then attacks them.

He attacks Kerry for phony heroism thirty years ago when just last year his own candidate had himself filmed in a little costume prancing around on an aircraft carrier pretending he'd won a war that had only begun. But, by tarring Kerry with using war as a PR stunt for his own personal gain, people can process the uncomfortable feelings they are experiencing about Iraq as not really being caused by Junior, but by his rival who is the real shallow opportunist who only pretends to be a man of proven leadership and experience.

He spent 70 million to get people to call Kerry a flip flopper when the truth is that the compassionate-conservative-uniter-not-divider has a very recent proven record of unprecedented ugly partisanship and ruthless bloodlust. He's mananged to convince a large number of Americans that Kerry is unprincipled when the fiscal conservative Bush has just spent the entire surplus and run up the deficit beyond our wildest imaginings just three years ago. That's a pretty good trick.

He's projected Bush's weaknesses on to Kerry and then gone after them ruthlessly. It makes it very difficult to then turn the attack back on Bush because it's been co-opted. It's another example of the Republican epistomological relativism that's driving everybody up the wall.

Now, it is also true that Kerry bears some structural weakness on national security that makes it easier for this absurd notion to be accepted even though he has a box full of medals. (That anyone thinks attacking a Democratic candidate on national security is attacking his strength is kind of funny.) The fact is that any Democrat's heroic war record functions mostly as superficial innoculation against charges of sissiness during campaigns, and it's the reason you see so many more Republican chickenhawks than anti-war Dems in public office these days. To make it up the ladder in Democratic circles, a sterling war record was a huge asset while it was obviously irrelevant to the Republicans. It's pretty clear why that is.

It's kind of related to that old saying of David Halberstam's about Nixon being able to go to China because only Nixon wouldn't be red baited by Nixon. Ever since the 60's only Republicans are considered worthy of wartime leadership because only Republicans won't be called pussies by Republicans. That is the reality of our current political state. As we've seen, no matter how brave and heroic, no matter the extent of the sacrifice, you can be tarred as unworthy of the office of commander in chief if you are a Democrat. Going after Kerry's credibility as a wartime leader is a no brainer. Rove isn't showing any special tactical genius just by doing that --- any GOP strategist would have found a way to take advantage of that existing CW.

What is interesting about Rove is that his way of dealing with his own candidates' even more glaring deficiencies is to build a Kerry straw man in Bush's exact image and then set it afire. I don't know if it will work, or even if he's aware that he's doing it, projection being epidemic in GOP circles. But, it's disarming and confusing and it makes it difficult to effectively counter attack. You end up with some defensive version of "I know you are but what am I" which doesn't really advance your position.




digby 8/28/2004 01:31:00 PM |

 
Peaked Too Early

Americans increasingly believe President Bush's re-election campaign is behind the ads attacking Democrat John Kerry's Vietnam experience, a poll found.

Almost half in a poll taken this week say they think the president's campaign is behind the ads that try to undercut Kerry's medals for heroism while just over a third think the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is an independent group, the National Annenberg Election Survey found.

The Swift boat ads, which ran in three swing states earlier this month, challenged Kerry's wartime service in Vietnam for which he received five medals.

The public's belief that Kerry did not earn his medals grew to 30 percent when the attack ads got widespread publicity on cable news networks. But that number has dropped to 24 percent now.

It was a good story to fill the dog days but it would have been much more effective to hit later, giving Kerry little time to build a response.

The coup de gras:

On Monday and Tuesday when the Kerry campaign was making the accusation Bush was involved, 42 percent said the Bush campaign was behind them and 41 percent said they were truly independent.

After Ginsberg resigned from the campaign on Wednesday, 50 percent said in polling the next two nights that the Bush campaign was connected to the ads and 34 percent said it was not.

digby 8/28/2004 02:04:00 AM |

 
Misundercalculated

I've been out of the loop for a couple of days so I didn't get a chance to read this until now. Has there ever been a bigger case of burying the lead than to breathlessly repeat the stale spin that Bush doesn't think Kerry lied about his war record and he's against 527's for four paragraphs, until finally telling us that Bush "acknowledged for the first time that he made a 'miscalculation of what the conditions would be' in postwar Iraq?"

Uh, the Preznit acknowledging that he fucked up Iraq is called actual news in case they've forgotten what that looks like.

But he insisted that the 17-month-long insurgency that has upended the administration's plans for the country was the unintended by-product of a "swift victory'' against Saddam Hussein's military, which fled and then disappeared into the cities, enabling them to mount a rebellion against the American forces far faster than Mr. Bush and his aides had anticipated.

He insisted that his strategy had been "flexible enough'' to respond, and said that even now "we're adjusting to our conditions'' in places like Najaf, where American forces have been battling one of the most militant of the Shiite groups opposing the American-installed government.

Mr. Bush deflected efforts to inquire further into what went wrong with the occupation, suggesting that such questions should be left to historians, and insisting, as his father used to, that he would resist going "on the couch'' to rethink decisions.

I think Junior just made a tactical error. Kerry and every other Democrat appearing in the media should wrap that statement around his neck. This is a trap if they want to spring it.

The fact that they had him admit his error in judgment for the first time suggests to me that they've decided he may need some cover on Iraq. But, I think Bush hates to admit he made a mistake and he will hate even more being reminded that he did it. It's just not in character for him at all. I would bet money that he fought saying it and having the Democrats and the press throw it in his face could make him question whoever gave him that advice --- Karen or Karl most likely. It is good to sow discontent in that little circle.

But, the bigger advantage is that he's now simultaneously admitted that he screwed up big time on the single most important issue a president ever faces, while also saying that he has no intention of trying to figure out what went wrong. That is the worst of all possible worlds. It's best not to have to admit screwing up something as important as war planning but if you do you simply have to make the case that learned from the experience and you won't do it again. He didn't do that. Iraq is a massive failure and the president has just opened the door to his own culpability on that.

Kerry should go for the jugular --- this argument is on his turf. Bush isn't talking about the decision to go to war anymore, he's talking about his execution of that war and the decisions he made all by his lonesome. These mistakes are at the heart of Kerry's criticism of Bush on the war.

The contrast is stark. John Kerry believes in planning for contingencies and evaluating what works and what doesn't. George Bush admits he is a poor planner and wants to leave it to historians to figure out where he went wrong. But it will be too late by then. People are dying today. We need new leadership.




digby 8/28/2004 12:21:00 AM |

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

 
Nick of Time

Ron Brownstein analyzes the new LA Times poll as saying that Kerry has been "nicked" by the swiftboat controversy and now leads Kerry 49-46:

But with the controversy attracting intense media attention, especially on talk radio and cable television, the ads have achieved extraordinary visibility among voters. Forty-eight percent of those polled said they had seen the ad accusing Kerry of lying to win his medals; an additional 20 percent said they had heard about it. Similarly, 44 percent said they had seen the ad criticizing Kerry's Senate testimony; another 17 percent said they had heard about it.

At the same time, just 18 percent of those surveyed said they "believe that Kerry misrepresented his war record and does not deserve his war medals," while 58 percent said Kerry "fought honorably and does deserve" the medals.

Attitudes on that question divided sharply along party lines. As many Republicans said they believed Kerry was lying as believe he fought honorably. By nearly 10-1, Democrats said Kerry served honorably.Independents sided with Kerry in the dispute by more than 5-1.

When voters were asked whether Kerry's protest against the war when he returned from Vietnam would influence their vote, 20 percent said it made them more likely to support him, while 26 percent said it reduced the chance they would back him and 52 percent said it made no difference.But if Kerry showed relatively few bruises on these questions directly measuring reactions to the veterans' charges against him, indirect measures suggested he has suffered more damage.

Asked how Kerry's overall military experience would affect their vote, just 23 percent said it made them more likely to vote for him, while 21 percent said it made them less likely; the remaining 53 percent said it would make no difference. That has to be a disappointment for the Kerry camp after a Democratic convention last month that placed Kerry's Vietnam service at the top of the marquee.

I'm not sure how those figures add up to the fact that Kerry's slight slippage is attributable to the Swiftboat liars, but I'll take Brownstein's word for it.

Where he's definitely wrong, I think, is in thinking that Kerry's camp is disappointed that voters feel his Vietnam service makes no difference after he placed it at the top of the convention marquee. I don't think they ever expected it to be a decisive factor in the election. I'm quite sure that it was calculated to inoculate him as much as possible against this swiftboat attack. Imagine if the swiftees had come out with this and the public hadn't been given the full star spangled banner routine with the stolid shipmates and Cleland and Rassman standing up there with him and proclaiming him a hero. If people didn't have that clearly in their minds, the swiftboat smear would have taken hold much better than it has.

If this is all the damage two full weeks of smearing has done, then I'd say they've been as successful at fending it off as you could hope for in this closely divided electorate. Smears can be deadly. Nicks heal quickly.

Frankly, I think the $70 million spent convincing the public that Kerry is a flip-flopping frenchman is what's really sunk into the subconscious of the electorate. In every one of these polls (and every political conversation I have) this comes up. "He's all over the place"--- "he doesn't stand for anything." I think it's become a pretty solid perception and it would be helpful to counter it more effectively.

They have half heartedly come out with the "stubborn" line, but I don't think that's the right word. There is a positive spin to stubborn -- "dogged determination" or "resolute" --- that makes it a bad attack line. I think better phrase is "refuses to admit his mistakes," or "the buck stops nowhere." Play the footage from the press conference showing him unable to think of any errors he might have made. The neanderthals will go nuts,of course, and say it's dirty politics to show the man speaking his own words, but when people see him bobble that question they see a very weak man who cannot admit that presidents sometimes need to change course. According to that poll, most people believe that a course change is required, even many of those who want to vote for him.




digby 8/25/2004 09:59:00 PM |

 
Hah!

I just heard CNN frame "Inside Politics" as "Is Kerry getting mileage out of the controversy?"

Update: I am enjoying watching the Republicans argue among themselves about the platform on gay marriage, particularly the Log Cabin guy calling the Family Research Council guy insulting. That Bush sure is a uniter not a divider.

BTW: How did I miss all these ads that said Bush was poisoning pregnant women? I don't know what they are babbling about, but I've heard it several times today. Why do you suppose the cable news networks failed to give those who were accusing him of this crime hundreds of hours of free media? How odd.

I have to say this is kind of risky. I didn't know that Bush was poisoning pregnant women until today. Geez, he really is low, isn't he?




digby 8/25/2004 01:02:00 PM |

 
That's What I'm Talking About

This is creative and the press loves it. Max Cleland, disabled veteran and former US Senator is greeted by some lowly functionary in Crawford because Bush is too much of a pussy to talk to him himself.

Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton would have used the moment to show himself as a regular guy with respect and humor.

Bush hid. As usual.




digby 8/25/2004 12:50:00 PM |

 
He's Not Just A Pretty Face

...he's got great taste, too.

As the lines between showbiz and politics keep getting blurrier and blurrier, even Turner Classic Movies is weighing in, signing Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards to tape an introduction to a screening of "Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."

Because TCM is a cable network, it didn't have to give equal time to Sen. Edwards' rival Vice President Dick Cheney .

The Edwards-hosted presentation of "Dr. Strangelove" (1964), directed by Stanley Kubrick, lands on TCM at 10 p.m . Oct. 7. It's the first of four specials called "Party, Politics & the Movies," an umbrella series encompassing movies introduced by politicians at 10 every Thursday night during the rest of October.

On Oct. 14, Sen. John McCain makes some pointed remarks about contemporary America in his intro to another Kubrick movie "Paths of Glory" (1957). The "lesson" McCain takes from the movie is that a country like the U.S. has "an incredible obligation" to protect the lives of American soldiers. "The cause has to be just," he said. "The end has to be in sight. And there has to be a clear-cut strategy for that victory."

An unabashed Robin Williams fan, Sen. Joe Biden will host the Oct. 21 showing of "Dead Poets Society" (1989). The movie's celebration of independent thinkers is to Biden a metaphor for what's best in America.

On Oct. 28, Sen. Orrin Hatch takes on "To Kill a Mockingbird" (1962), calling it "a mobilizing film" against racial prejudice and injustice.

Edwards likes the apocalyptic black comedy "Dr. Strangelove" because it drives home the thesis that, as his intro puts it, putting nuclear power and "this potential holocaust in the hands of human beings, no matter who they are, is an extraordinarily dangerous thing."

And Joe Biden proves once again that he is a lightweight.





digby 8/25/2004 12:40:00 PM |

 
Story Lines

Amy Sullivan on Political Animal writes:

An article that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer just two weeks ago included this bit about Ginsberg: "Ben Ginsberg, a legal adviser to the Bush campaign, specifically condemned the dual roles played by Democrats Harold Ickes and Bill Richardson, who had official roles at the convention and also within prominent friendly 527s. 'They're over the coordination line,' Ginsberg said of Ickes and Richardson. 'The whole notion of cutting off links between public officeholders and soft-money groups just got exploded.'"

Ginsberg is a made man and Ginsberg has now resigned from the Bush campaign. The fact that he resigned makes me think that the Bushies are getting a little bit spooked at the furious revelations coming out day by day on the Not-So-Swift lies and their campaign ties.

The convention is getting very close. I'm not sure they anticipated that the Liars were lying quite so baldy and that the press would make anything of the web of connections. (Ginsberg on the record just two weeks ago leads me to believe they thought their flank was covered on this.) The positive message they need to convey at the convention could be stepped on badly if the mediawhores decide to flog this angle while they are sitting there in madison Square Garden with every prominent Republican in the country.

I don't think Bush wants to leave his convention over the labor day week-end still talking about 527's.

Which leads me to Rick Perlstein's latest article in the Village Voice in which he says:

History never truly repeats itself. Prognostication is inherently unreliable. But what history can provide is a set of guidelines to wisdom—guidelines many protesters refuse even to consider. Not all protesters. But enough protesters. All it takes is a few people to begin a chain reaction that could lead to disaster.

Like many, Lew Koch suspects the spark might come from someone working for the Republicans.

The Republicans have already shown that they are willing to engage in unprecedented smears and dirty tricks in this cycle. I think it is highly likely that they have some french looking infiltrators --- provocateurs --- ready to help Bush get out his story line about being "mainstream" while Kerry and the Democrats are all a bunch of smelly hippie radicals who want to tear down the state. This is the '68 Retro Tour election, after all.

It would be really nice if people on our side could think strategically about this instead of looking at politics as some sort of emotional outlet, but I'm not holding my breath. As Perlstein notes:

Rae Valentine is even right, in a cosmic sense, when she says that "people understand that the so-called chaos of streets being shut down by protesters or even a window being broken is nothing compared to the day-to-day chaos and destruction of people being able to afford housing, or health care. That's where the real violence—in the system—lies."

But she is not right in the sense that matters: the political sense. "I think people understand," she says. Linger on that formulation. It is only inane arrogance that gives someone the confidence to pronounce that, magically, "people will understand." They might not understand at all. Instead, what they might understand is: "Bush is better than anarchy in the streets." It ain't fair. But if it all goes down as unplanned, there'll be a whole lot more unfairness coming down the pike in the next four years.

One of the unfortunate things about some of the most passionate and idealistic people on the left is that they aren't really interested in politics --- they are on a sort of spiritual mission that actually conflicts with politics. I admire their committment, but if it is irrational, it helps the worst elements of the political system thrive.

I'm all for protesting as a tactic if it's organized to make a political point. As emotional catharsis or an exercise of tribal identity it only hurts the ball club. I'm hoping that the NYC protest story is one entertaining and pointed "Billionaires For Bush" style political theatre, not anarchy in the streets.

If the worst happens, it should be noted, however, that one of the reasons that the 1968 convention anarchy was helpful to Nixon was that there had been a succession of real riots in various cities. There had been huge protests in the streets and on campus. There was tangible social upheaval in the country that made the confrontation with police at a political convention all the more dramatic. Nothing like that kind of civil unrest exists today (yet) so the backdrop that made the convention protests such a powerful image for Nixon to exploit as the "law and order" candidate isn't there.

The best Bush can hope for is to make it a matter of "values." I don't know how much punch that really has, but it is true that the media loves to go all Claude Rains on us whenever there's the tiniest hint of resistance to the bourgeois values that everybody pretends to hold (while they watch porn and pop prescription drugs.) If violence breaks out or someone does something too edgy you can bet that we'll be treated to another huge dose of phony sanctimony from the millionaire celebrity press corpse.




digby 8/25/2004 10:36:00 AM |

 
They Just Lie.

Message to the media. Read this from Seeing The Forest. "They just lie" is the assumption from which you must begin when one of these "stories" starts to percolate. And you will find that by making that correct assumption you can have a good story, too. Lying on tape is a good story. If you think really hard you may remember that a few years back that you got quite a bit of mileage out of several along that line.

John O'Neil's dirty trick against John Kerry has been exposed by one of the White House tapes featuring him talking to Richard Nixon. These are the same tapes that brought down Richard Nixon for dirty tricks thirty years ago.

Press Corpse --- this is delicious, in case you haven't noticed. It is beautiful symbolism. It is perfect symmetry. It is to make you believe in God.

If you can't run with this, you have no business being scandal mongers. Remember, it's all about you, It's all about your ratings, your Q, your salary. Run little mediawhores, run. This one is just sitting there like a big juicy fig waiting for you to bite into it.




digby 8/25/2004 09:22:00 AM |

 
Group puts final blame on top Defense officials, but its chairman says 'America's enemies' would benefit if Rumsfeld resigned.

The panel said the failures generally were caused by officers' deciding to adopt interrogation practices used at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and taking them much further than they should have, especially at overcrowded Abu Ghraib, where the Army was never fully in control.

"There was chaos at Abu Ghraib," Schlesinger said at a news conference at the Pentagon that was called to release the report, one of several investigations launched after photographs of prisoner abuse surfaced last spring, stunning the world.

Though Schlesinger said the interrogators and prison guards were "directly responsible" for the abuse, the report, for the first time, directly blames senior Defense Department management for problems at Abu Ghraib.

The panel faulted top generals, including Sanchez, for misinterpreting higher orders and issuing a series of contradictory and confusing interrogation policies. And it criticized Rumsfeld for failing to adequately assemble legal and military experts to set interrogation parameters early in the Iraq occupation.

It also traced confusion over interrogation policies to a 2002 memo issued by President Bush that said Geneva Convention protections did not apply to Taliban and Al Qaeda suspects in custody. The panel said the memo led Sanchez to believe that "additional, tougher measures were warranted" in Iraq.

In addition, the investigators criticized senior military leaders for failing to anticipate the insurgency in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was toppled. When the resistance accelerated in the summer of 2003 and the prison population soared, commanders did little to adequately train or beef up security and intelligence operations at Abu Ghraib.

Rather, Schlesinger said, senior civilian and military leaders based their planning on what happened after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when Kuwait was liberated from Iraq and no prolonged resistance followed.

"They did look at history books," Schlesinger said. "Unfortunately, it was the wrong history."

The abuse scandal, Schlesinger noted, has had a "chilling effect on interrogation operations." U.S. agencies are getting far less intelligence because interrogators are fearful about the consequences of pushing detainees to talk, he said.

But he stopped well short of calling for Rumsfeld's removal, saying it "would be a boon to all of America's enemies, and consequently I think it would be a misfortune if it were to take place." Schlesinger said that although commanders were not "focused" on detention operations, "we do not think it was a sufficient error to call for senior resignations."

That's an interesting interpretation of the old "we don't give in to terrorists" trope. In this case we can't fire an obviously incompetent official because our enemies would supposedly be pleased.

Meanwhile all this blather is seen by a billion Muslims as total crap:

Bush said the United States will move forward as other democracies have when mistakes are made. "Those mistakes will be investigated, and people will be brought to justice," he said. "We're an open society. We're a society that is willing to investigate, fully investigate, in this case, what took place in that prison."

The president said that the United States will punish those found guilty of abuse. "That stands in stark contrast to life under Saddam Hussein," he said. "His trained torturers were never brought to justice under his regime. There were no investigations about mistreatment of people. There will be investigations. People will be brought to justice."

All crap.




digby 8/25/2004 12:35:00 AM |

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

 
Jacuzzi Cases

Man, Junior must be fuming that yet another one of those hated 527's is coming online with $10 million for more of those ads he'd really like to see stopped:

Group plans anti-Edwards ads

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- A business-backed group plans to join the campaign fray in coming weeks by running ads in key swing states that are expected to attack Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards for his pre-Senate career as a trial lawyer.

The new group, called "The November Fund," is co-chaired by Craig Fuller, who served as chief of staff to the president's father, George H.W. Bush, when he was vice president, and Bill Brock, a former Republican senator.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a key sponsor of The November Fund, which is organized as a so-called 527 group. Such groups are prohibited by law from coordinating activities with presidential campaign staffs or political parties.

The New York Times reported the Chamber and other groups plan to spend $10 million on ads attacking trial lawyers, including Edwards.

John Kerry's selection of Edwards as his running mate on the Democratic ticket enraged some business leaders who have identified abusive lawsuits as a top priority for legislative reform.

"The impact of the trial bar's influence on the legal, legislative, regulatory and economic decisions of an administration is impossible to calculate," said Chamber President Tom Donohue, in a written statement announcing the formation of The November Fund.

Edwards has never disavowed the battles with businesses that were hallmarks of career as a trial lawyer in North Carolina. The candidate, who proudly describes himself as the "son of a mill worker," says he became a lawyer in order to stand up for ordinary people against powerful interests -- a theme that has echoed through his campaigns for public office.

Yes, the Chamber is non-partisan in the same the way the swift boat liars are independent. I'm sure Bush will be right out there condemning all vague "shadowy groups" again while Karl pulls all ten million dollars worth of strings from behind the curtain.

Maybe the trial lawyers need to get a little 527 of their own up and run a few ads featuring some of Edwards' clients -- the ones in the wheelchairs or missing body parts due to corporate cravenness.




digby 8/24/2004 11:52:00 PM |

 
Tricky Timing

I urge everyone to read this Liberal Oasis piece on smears. Smears are the most difficult tactic to combat in any campaign and it has been made even harder by the scandal junkies of cable TV and talk radio. There is no formula.

Fighting Smears

Maureen Dowd, like many backseat campaign managers, has never had to defend against a smear campaign.

Addressing a smear is one of the hardest, trickiest, most delicate things in politics.

Condemn it too early, you raise its profile and spread it places where it hadn't been heard yet, and may never had been heard.

Wait too long, and it becomes perceived truth.

And there's no textbook timeframe how long to wait, because every smear's trajectory and potency is different.

Managing the timing is art, not science.

Those like Maureen Dowd -- who said on Sunday that Kerry seemed to be "caught off guard" by the Swift Boat Liar attack, because he waited to respond -- don't know what they're talking about.

Kerry surely knew this was coming.

Similar attacks began in February of this year. And he has successfully fought off such attacks in past campaigns, with the help of fellow vets.

Kerry was on guard. He simply was patient, trying to sense if the smear was gaining traction.

And he wanted to stick to his post-convention plan, touring battleground states, driving his messages from his acceptance speech, completing his introduction to the public.

Read the rest, it's great.

I would just add that I think the "Kerry waitied too long" CW that's forming is a media driven excuse that lets them off the hook. They know that they are responsible for allowing these assholes to be taken seriously at all and instead of taking responsibility for failing at their job they are blaming the victim. It's an old story with these guys. "Oh he should have fought back a week earlier." Well, if the press were in the business of journalism instead of bloodsport entertainment, they would have investigated these guys before they gave them hours and hours of airtime to spread their filthy little psychodrama all of over airwaves. The people who waited too long were the journalists.

Don't fall for the hype. I heard all these talking heads today going on and on about how this has hurt Kerry and yet they have no evidence to back that up, other than their own guilt.

It reminds me of an earlier time when every single pundit idiot in washington predicted for month after month after month that Clinton was going down. They were just positive of it. "Any day now," they said, "the American people are going to reject this deplorable behavior." The screeched at the highest decibels on every cable show 24/7. Each new revelation was the smoking gun that was going to end his presidency. The 1998 election was supposed to be a deathblow.

And month after month after month more than 60% of the American people continued to support Clinton and the '98 election was a blow out for the Democrats.

Don't believe anything these people say about what "the American people" think. They are celebrities who have as much contact and understanding of everyday Americans as Madonna does. Wait for real data. We'll know soon enough.








digby 8/24/2004 10:32:00 PM |

 
Profiles In Courage

If anyone is wondering why Tweety has turned back into Bush's bitch, here's why:

You might notice something missing from Hardball With Chris Matthews soon: Republicans. " Hardball may seem more like badminton during the Republican National Convention," threatens a GOP insider. What's up? The GOP thinks Matthews has gone over to Sen. John Kerry 's side and is too critical of the Bush campaign's editing of a Hardball interview with Kerry posted on the party's negative site, www.kerryoniraq.com. As payback, they've stopped urging Republicans to appear on the show. Hardball executive producer Tammy Haddad dismisses charges Matthews is biased: "We beat everybody up." So far, nobody from the White House has told her of the show's being blackballed.

Yeah. Uh huh. That must be why he's claiming now that Kerry said "all Americans are Lt. Calley's" in his Senate testimony in '72 and it would explain why tonight he suddenly feels that Kerry should follow the president's lead and condemn all the 527 ads. He got manly for a minute or two and challenged little LuLu but then he got a spanking and turned into a good boy again.




digby 8/24/2004 09:31:00 PM |

 
Everybody Look What's Goin' Down

The clash between Vietnam veterans over Sen. John Kerry and critics of his war record heated up several degrees Monday as a group of vets called on a Clackamas County deputy prosecutor to resign.

"He's hurt a lot, a lot of people," Don Stewart, one of the organizers of a rally on the Main Street steps of the county courthouse, said of Alfred French. "It opens up a lot of wounds. . . . This is personal."

Stewart of Oregon City and Don Kirsch of Canby drew about 45 people to a rally to criticize French, a senior deputy district attorney who said in an affidavit that Kerry lied about his service record. French later admitted his sworn statements were based on the accounts of others.

French's comments have been used in anti-Kerry ads by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of Vietnam veterans who have said the Democratic presidential candidate lied about or exaggerated his actions during Swift boat river duty in 1969.

[...]

During the rally, Stewart read a letter he and Kirsch wrote in which they tell French he should resign because he has lost the trust of county residents.

"We question your fitness to serve as an enforcer of the law after swearing to facts in a legal affidavit that you do not know to be true," they wrote.

[...]

Kirsch said French has a right to criticize Kerry "as a concerned veteran" but should not have signed a sworn statement based on secondhand information. "He's told lies and hearsay evidence," Kirsch said.

French did not return a telephone message asking for comment.

Thanks to Hesiod for keeping us informed and enlightened even from self-imposed exile.




digby 8/24/2004 12:00:00 PM |

 

I haven't completely absorbed the implications of this article yet (thanks to Davis X Machina for the tip) but it is fascinating and everyone should read it. This guy has the most original view of the Republican mystique I've ever read and something about it tells me he is right on the money. Frank Wilhoit, if you're out there, this one's for you:

This is America, not Denmark. In this country, tens of millions of people choose to watch FoxNews not simply because Americans are credulous idiots or at the behest of some right-wing corporate cabal, but because average Americans respect viciousness. They are attracted to viciousness for a lot of reasons. In part, it reminds them of their bosses, whom they secretly adore. Americans hate themselves for the way they behave in public, always smiling and nodding their heads with accompanying really's and uh-huhs to show that they're listening to the other person, never having the guts to say what they really feel. So they vicariously scream and bully others into submission through right-wing surrogate-brutes. Spending time watching Sean Hannity is enough for your average American white male to feel less cowardly than he really is.

The left won't accept this awful truth about the American soul, a beast that they believe they can fix "if only the people knew the Truth."

But what if the Truth is that Americans don't want to know the Truth? What if Americans consciously choose lies over truth when given the chance—and not even very interesting lies, but rather the blandest, dumbest and meanest lies? What if Americans are not a likeable people? The left's wires short-circuit when confronted with this terrible possibility; the right, on the other hand, warmly embraces Middle America's rank soul and exploits it to their full advantage. The Republicans know Americans better than the left. They know that it's not so much Goering's famous "bigger lie" that works here, but the dumber the lie, the more they want to hear it repeated.

And this leads to another truth that the left still has trouble understanding: Millions of Americans, particularly white males, don't vote for what's in their so-called best interests. Thomas Frank recently attacked this riddle in his new book What's the Matter with Kansas? but he fails to answer his own question. He can't, in fact, because his is a flawed premise. Frank, who is at his best when he's just vicious, still clings to the comforting theory that Middle Americans are being duped by an evil corporate-political machine that subtly but masterfully manipulates the psychological levers of cultural backlash, implying that if average Americans were left to their own devices, they would somehow make entirely rational, enlightened choices and elect sensible New Deal Democrats every time. This puts Frank in a bind he never quite gets out of. Like all lefties, he is incapable of taking his ruthless analysis beyond a certain point.

The reason is simple. The underlying major premise of humanist-leftist ideology states that people are intrinsically sympathetic. If people are defiantly mean and craven, the humanist-left structure falters. "Why the fuck should I bother fighting for Middle Americans," they ask, "if they're just as loathsome, in their own petty way, as their exploiters, with whom they actively collaborate?"

Rather than grapple with that dilemma, the left pretends it doesn't exist. This is why they will forever struggle to understand the one overriding mystery of why so many working- and middle-class white males vote against their own best interests.

I CAN TELL YOU WHY. They do so out of spite.

I urge you to read the whole thing. It is the most entertaining piece of political analysis I've read in quite a long time. And, really, what other explanation can there be for Rush Limbaugh?




digby 8/24/2004 11:14:00 AM |

 
Why It Matters

I keep hearing that John Kerry has has brought the character assassination on himself by playing up Vietnam in his campaign. The assessment seems to be that if he hadn't made a big deal out of it the Swift boat Borgias wouldn't have felt the need to come forward. This is, of course, nonsense. If he hadn't brought up his service they would have said he was trying to hide it. This was always in the cards. The Swift Boat Borgias hate John Kerry because he said that Americans committed atrocities in Vietnam and they have never been able to forgive him for agitating against a war they felt proud to have fought.

This is an understandable human reaction. They have never been able to come to terms with that war and what it meant and as a result they have projected all of their emotional confusion about their own actions, their government's perfidy and their country's ambigious relationship to the troops into a single focus on the anti-war protestors as the symbol of all that hurt them. It's beyond my ken to try to convince a bunch of 60ish year old men that they are wrong on this. This issue will dog my generation to our graves.

However, the media isn't really talking about any of that when it says that John Kerry asked for it. It is saying that Vietnam is irrelevant and that by bringing it up he brought all this distraction upon himself. This could not be more wrong. Because of Bush's Big Adventure in Iraq, all of this has become much more than a point of symbolism. It has become crucial to our understanding of what is happening right now.

Although the details differ, essentially we are once again engaged in a misbegotten war in which the goal is amorphous and for which the public feels ambigious. It is the result of a foolish grand geopolitical strategy not self defense and it has American troops embroiled in a complicated foreign battlefield in which we are viewed by all sides with suspicion if not outright hatred. People are dying everyday and nobody quite understands why. The pressure is building.

That at the hands of the Vietnam generation itself, we have found ourselves in this situation again is mind-boggling. And it is a testament to the "suspended in amber" nature of the hawkish mindset that it has happened.

The baby boom generation is incapable of governing if we don't choose among them people who have grappled honestly with the crucible of their lives. And that crucible was Vietnam. George W. Bush and his cronies have never done this. Neither have the Swift Boaters. These people have not faced up to what our country did in that war and as a result we are looking at another war based upon similarly bad assumptions and we are in the process of repeating many of the same mistakes.

Here is a sad case in point. I think most of us have heard that Joseph Darby, the man who blew the whistle on the Abu Ghraib torture, is now in protective custody. Back in his hometown his family was shunned while they held parades for those who committed the torture. He received death threats.

But, I don't know how many people know that this is a sad sequel to the story of Hugh C. Thompson, a helicopter pilot in 1968 who rescued a group of civilians during the My lai massacre and was fired on by his own countrymen. Then as now, right wing politicians were "outraged at the outrage."

He was a 24-year-old pilot flying over the Vietnamese jungle on March 16, 1968. The crew's objective: draw Viet Cong fire from My Lai, so helicopter gunships could swoop in and take out the enemy gunners.

Thompson spotted gunfire but found no enemy fighters. He saw only American troops, who were forcing Vietnamese civilians into a ditch, then opening fire.

Thompson landed his helicopter to block the Americans, then instructed his gunner to open fire on the soldiers if they tried to harm any more villagers. Thompson and two other chopper pilots airlifted villagers to safety, and he reported the slaughter to superiors.

"We saw something going wrong, so we did the right thing and we reported it right then," Thompson said.

The Vietnamese government estimated that more than 500 were killed.

Army Lt. William Calley Jr. was convicted in a 1971 court-martial and received a life sentence for the My Lai massacre. President Nixon reduced the sentence, and Calley served three years of house arrest.

Thompson received the prestigious Soldier's Medal -- 30 years after the fact.

His acts are now considered heroic. But for years Thompson suffered snubs and worse from those in and out of the military who considered his actions unpatriotic.

Fellow servicemen refused to speak with him. He received death threats, and walked out his door to find animal carcasses on his porch. He recalled a congressman angrily saying that Thompson himself was the only serviceman who should be punished because of My Lai.

Today, West Point considers Thompson and his story essential to educating its cadets.

"Hugh Thompson is a great example of individual responsibility," said Col. Tom Kolditz, head of the Army academy's behavioral sciences and leadership department. "He took initiative, he took action, to establish institutional values in a situation where they were not operating."

36 years later we have what is being called another "breakdown in discipline" at Abu Ghraib. As with My Lai, the upper chain of command will not be held liable. Once again there is documentary evidence of war crimes. And, here in the USA, once again, you have the hawks defending the war criminals against those who stand up to it.

This is unfolding before our very eyes in Iraq. It isn't some abstract argument about war stories and faux heroism and who admitted to war crimes a generation ago. This is now.

If there was ever a time that a decorated Vietnam veteran who came home with the knowlege that the war was wrong and fought to end it, was called for to lead this country, it is now. This is not a distraction and it is not beside the point. It is the very essence of the debate in this election.

John Kerry may be the single most qualified man in the entire nation to be president at this moment in history.




digby 8/24/2004 10:44:00 AM |

 
Send Me

I just want to let everyone know that I am volunteering today as the public relations rep for the Drunken Stateside Sons of Privilege for Plausible Deniability. I understand them, I believe in their cause and I want to help them in any way I can. I wasn't there on those nights so long ago but I know many who would like to have been and I believe them.

I am an independent who has never had any interest in politics before so I come forward today purely out of patriotism. I have no connection whatsoever to the Kerry Campaign despite the fact that my blog is listed on their site. For now. I will not remember it ever having been there ---- unless you refresh my memory.

God bless America.



digby 8/24/2004 09:04:00 AM |

 
These Charges Are False

Compare the following to the bucket of warm spit that chickenshit Fred Hiatt published today in which he remains "troubled" (thanks Karen Hughes, that's just the word I was looking for!) by the fact that Kerry has been imprecise about the exact longitude and latitude of his trek across the Cambodian border on the Mekong River around Christmas 1968. (Psssst. I hear Vince Foster was there too.)

Here you have what is fast becoming the best editorial page in the country, run by Michael Kinsley. This is what editorials are for:

These Charges Are False ...

It's one thing for the presidential campaign to get nasty but quite another for it to engage in fabrication.

August 24, 2004

The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, though its roots go back at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128 times"; "there are [pick a number] Communists in the State Department." But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation.

Then sit back and let the media do your work for you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from thinking about real issues (like the war going on now) by these laboratory concoctions.

It must be infuriating to the victims of this process to be given conflicting advice about how to deal with it from the same campaign press corps that keeps it going. The press has been telling Kerry: (a) Don't let charges sit around unanswered; and (b) stick to your issues: Don't let the other guy choose the turf.

At the moment, Kerry is being punished by the media for taking advice (b) and failing to take advice (a). There was plenty of talk on TV about what Kerry's failure to strike back said about whether he had the backbone for the job of president — and even when he did strike back, he was accused of not doing it soon enough. But what does Bush's acquiescence in the use of this issue say about whether he has the simple decency for the job of president?

Whether the Bush campaign is tied to the Swift boat campaign in the technical, legal sense that triggers the wrath of the campaign-spending reform law is not a very interesting question. The ridiculously named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is being funded by conservative groups that interlock with Bush's world in various ways, just as MoveOn.org, which is running nasty ads about Bush's avoidance of service in Vietnam, is part of Kerry's general milieu.

More important, either man could shut down the groups working on his behalf if he wanted to. Kerry has denounced the MoveOn ads, with what degree of sincerity we can't know. Bush on Monday — finally — called for all ads by independent groups on both sides to be halted. He also said Kerry had "served admirably" in Vietnam. But he declined an invitation to condemn the Swift boat effort.

In both cases, the candidates are the reason the groups are in business. There is an important difference, though, between the side campaign being run for Kerry and the one for Bush. The pro-Kerry campaign is nasty and personal. The pro-Bush campaign is nasty, personal and false.

No informed person can seriously believe that Kerry fabricated evidence to win his military medals in Vietnam. His main accuser has been exposed as having said the opposite at the time, 35 years ago. Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation. His accusers have no evidence except their own dubious word.

Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false. Or at least, there is no good evidence that they are true. George Bush, if he were a man of principle, would say the same thing.

Yep. There's negative campaigning and then there is character assassination, smears and dirty tricks. That the press is having such a difficult time sorting out the difference is one of the central problems with our country today. Indeed, it's killing us.




digby 8/24/2004 09:04:00 AM |

 
No Connection

An Army investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal has found that military police dogs were used to frighten detained Iraqi teenagers as part of a sadistic game, one of many details in the forthcoming report that were provoking expressions of concern and disgust among Army officers briefed on the findings.

Earlier reports and photographs from the prison have indicated that unmuzzled military police dogs were used to intimidate detainees at Abu Ghraib, something the dog handlers have told investigators was sanctioned by top military intelligence officers there. But the new report, according to Pentagon sources, will show that MPs were using their animals to make juveniles -- as young as 15 years old -- urinate on themselves as part of a competition.

"There were two MP dog handlers who did use dogs to threaten kids detained at Abu Ghraib," said an Army officer familiar with the report, one of two investigations on detainee abuse scheduled for release this week. "It has nothing to do with interrogation. It was just them on their own being weird."

Bad apples rolling around all over the place. Nothing to do with interrogaton. It was just a couple of guys being weird:

Abu Ghraib memo says 'gloves are coming off'

In the months before the scandal broke over photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, an intelligence supervisor at Abu Ghraib prison sent a memo to interrogators telling them "the gloves are coming off," regarding the treatment of detainees, a lawyer for one of the accused soldiers said yesterday.

Paul Bergrin, a lawyer for Javal S. Davis, who is scheduled to appear in court here today, said he received a copy of the memo from "clandestine sources" in the intelligence community and planned to introduce it into evidence today. Its authenticity could not be independently confirmed.

The memo appears to be the first known document to support contentions by several soldiers charged in the case that they were merely following directions from intelligence officers bent on "softening up" detainees for interrogation.

I keep hearing that John Kerry erroneously claimed that some soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam under orders from superiors. That's impossible. This is America. We don't do that sort of thing.




digby 8/24/2004 12:19:00 AM |

Monday, August 23, 2004

 
Off Message

President Bush said on Monday that political advertisements run by a broad swath of independent groups should be stopped, including a television advertisement attacking Senator John Kerry's war record. But the White House quickly moved to insist that Mr. Bush had not meant in any way to single out the advertisement run by veterans opposed to Mr. Kerry.

I wrote earlier that the press doesn't understand what Bush is doing. He is supposed to simply condemn the ad with a wink and a nod because the CW is that the 527's give both campaigns a freebie on deniability. They can hardly bear it that he isn't following their script, so today they jumped on it when he went off his own message and they practically shoved the words in his mouth.

But, Bush does not want to condemn this ad and for good reason. If he did some of his staunchest supporters would think he was a pussy --- and that's the essence of what is going on here. Bush has to tear down veterans because he isn't one, but he can't do it himself. Bush just cracked under mildly difficult questioning and blurted out something he didn't mean to say.

Lawrence O'Donnell had an interesting analysis of this dynamic on Olberman last Friday that I think is interesting:

OLBERMANN: Let‘s talk response tactics, first. One of his crew mates from Vietnam said today that Kerry had been way too much of a gentleman and should have come out swinging earlier. Should he have?

O‘DONNELL: He could not tactically, in the presidential campaign, do it that way, Keith. I actually think both campaigns have handled this perfectly in their ways. What Kerry had to wait for is he had to wait for a linkage to President Bush. It would be unworthy of the nominee, the candidate, to be attacking somebody named John O‘Neill or someone involved in the Swift Boat controversy who no one in the country had ever heard of. John Kerry can only mount attacks against his opponent, George Bush, so what he needed was John McCain to come out and condemn the ads, which John McCain did, and then he needed John McCain to ask the president to condemn the ads, and then he needed, very much needed, the president not to condemn the ads, which the president did not do. Which by the way, parenthetically was a wise tactic for the president and his campaign.

Once that had occurred, Kerry needed one more thing. He needed to condemn an ad himself. And so, MoveOn.org provided that opportunity by doing an ad that was negative on President Bush‘s Vietnam non-military service in the National Guard. John Kerry, the nominee, then immediately condemns the Bush ad. That gives him an opportunity, within 48 hours of that, to call on President Bush to denounce the ad against John Kerry.

He could not have done that until he had all those ducks in a row. And then he also needed the investigative journalism that the “New York Times” and the “L.A. Times” and others have done to create a sensation, at least, of linkage to the Bush world and then blame the ad on President Bush.

John Kerry needed every one of those elements to be in place before he could level his attack and have it aimed specifically at one person, George Bush, his opponent.

OLBERMANN: And as the Kerry camp obviously tries to make this debate less about his service, what strategically does the president do next, A, to prevent that, B, to not look like he wrote the commercial and somebody‘s just been laundering the attack for him?

O‘DONNELL: It‘s very, very difficult to get a president to respond to anything. You see tonight, are footages of the president‘s spokesman responding to what Senator Kerry said. That‘s why the Kerry language now is getting more and more intense. They are trying to smoke out President Bush. They are trying to force it to the point where the traveling White House press corps must ask President Bush to respond to this.

President Bush really doesn‘t want to tactically, and tactically really should not, because the question to President Bush now that the Kerry campaign is trying to frame is, why don‘t you condemn the ads? President Bush doesn‘t want to condemn the ads because he then is, in effect, condemning a certain group of Vietnam veterans. He‘s not one of them, himself a Vietnam veteran, so it‘s difficult for him to do. He‘s also now doing better with veterans in polling in the current situation.

So, the best thing for President Bush to do is simply to say “I don‘t criticize John Kerry‘s record” and leave it at that and he‘s going to be forced on this question of “are you going to condemn it” and he‘s just going to have to continue to say no.

O'Donnell doesn't comment on one of the elements of the counterattack --- Bush's history of dirty campaigning beginning to come back to haunt him. That's the other side of the story. The NY Times story continues:

The president spoke on a day when Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, in another indication of its web of ties to the Republican Party, acknowledged that a woman who helped set it up and works for it is an officer of the Majority Leader's Fund, a political action committee affiliated with the former House majority leader Dick Armey of Texas.

The name of the woman, Susan Arceneaux, is given as the contact person on the post office box that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth lists as its address. She is treasurer of the Majority Leader's Fund. Records show that like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group receives significant financing from Bob Perry, a Texan who has long supported Mr. Bush, and his company, as well as Sam and Charles Wyly, prominent Texas Republican donors. Sam Wyly, under the name "Republicans for Clean Air,'' took out advertisements in 2000 criticizing the environmental record of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona.

Mr. Perry has donated $200,000 to the Swift boat group, records show, and Merrie Spaeth, a Republican strategist who has been advising the Swift boat group, was a spokeswoman for Sam Wyly's advertising campaign in 2000.

Every day of the tit for tat is risky for both sides. But, I tend to think that Kerry losing the veterans is a lot less fatal than Bush losing the independents who don't like dirty campaigning. We'll see.




digby 8/23/2004 11:16:00 PM |

 
Huh?

Great moments in headlines written with a straight face ... or, the never ending decline of CNN. Right now -- 5:59 PM -- CNN headline: "Bush urges Kerry to condemn attack ads."

Can you believe it? Not only is that completely ridiculous, but Bush didn't really even condemn the ad himself. He went off message for a second under the extremely unusual experience of the press putting the tiniest bit of pressure on him. Please. Does this really sound like he's condemning that ad?

QUESTION: But why won't you denounce the charges that your supporters are making against Kerry?

BUSH: I'm denouncing all the stuff being on TV, all the 527s. That's what I've said.

I said this kind of unregulated soft money is wrong for the process. And I asked Senator Kerry to join me in getting rid of all that kind of soft money, not only on TV, but to use for other purposes as well.

I, frankly, thought we'd gotten rid of that when I signed the McCain-Feingold bill. I thought we were going to once and for all get rid of a system where people could just pour tons of money in and not be held to account for the advertising.

And so, I'm disappointed with all those kinds of ads.

QUESTION: This doesn't have anything to do with other 527 ads. You've been accused of mounting a smear campaign.

Do you think Senator Kerry lied about his war record?

BUSH: I think Senator Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record.

But the question is who best to lead the country in the war on terror? Who can handle the responsibilities of the commander in chief? Who's got a clear vision of the risks that the country faces?

QUESTION: Some Republicans such as Bob Dole and some Republican donors such as Bob Perry have contributed and endorsed the message of those 527 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads.

QUESTION: When you say that you want to stop all...

BUSH: All of them.

QUESTION: So, I mean...

BUSH: That means that ad, every other ad.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527s.

I can't be more plain about it. And I wish -- I hope my opponent joins me in saying -- condemning these activities of the 527s. It's -- I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold.

I've been disappointed that for the first, you know, six months of this year, 527s were just pouring tons of money -- billionaires writing checks. And, you know, I spoke out against them early. I tried to get others to speak out against them as well. And I just don't -- I think they're bad for the system.

Note to press corpse: If you would have tried to get Bush off his robotic message on real issues with even a smidgen of this energy these last three years, we might not have large numbers of people being blown up in Iraq as we speak. Sleep well tonight.




digby 8/23/2004 06:08:00 PM |

 
Un Danseur de Chippendales

Christopher Hitchens thinks that John Kerry shouldn't have released that picture of himself and William Rood in Vietnam because the fact that he is carrying a rocket launcher makes him look like a "complete poseur." That's french for phony.

If that was phony, what then could possibly be the french word for this:







digby 8/23/2004 03:30:00 PM |

 
Overstimulated

Pierce:

To embroider a phrase from Mr. J, I weep for my profession when I see that God is just.

It has been made abundantly clear -- most recently, by Mr. Rood of the Chicago Tribune and by the invaluable Joe Galloway of Knight-Ridder -- that these Swift Boat characters are dealing in public lies. The day before, it was the NYT. The day before that, the Washington Post. We've had people outed as Republican operatives, disparaging war wounds they never saw, asserting as fact things they never witnessed, and ultimately calumnizing their own heroism. By all standard measures, this story should be over, and these people consigned to that same Phantom Zone where was dispatched that poor guy who wrote "Fortunate Son" in 2000. Can any fair person maintain that John O'Neill and the rest of the Chuck Colson Flotilla have any more credibility at this point than poor Hatfield had?

However, they live.

Why?

Television.

The print media, God love it, has done so thorough a debunking of these guys that you'd expect to hear a couple of them on Art Bell's program late one night. But because the "issue" and the "controversy" make good television theater, they must be kept alive. Which is why, the next time you see, say, Norah O'Donnell, down by the phony barn on the phony ranch, and she tells you how remarkable it is that the ads are "having an effect" despite the fact that the actual buy was so low, you should feel free to excuse yourself and go vomit in the corner. The original ad contained substantially less truth than the Hitler Diaries, but it was run anyway, over and over again, in news pieces about the "issue" and on argument shows dealing with the "controversy." In other words, television news gave up a substantial portion of its "news hole" this week to information that the people running the news operations had to know were demonstrable lies.

This is what you get. This is what you get when you get bullied by Mr. Murdoch's toy network into running an interview in which a woman makes unsubstantiated charges of rape against a sitting president, and this is what you get when you get played like a tin piano by a decades-long dirty-tricks campaign that culminated in an impeachment, and you couldn't report on the former because you were in the tank to the people bringing the latter. This is what you get when you loan your hard-won credibility to hacks and charlatans. This is what happens when you sell your craft out to celebrity, when being good on television is more important than being good at your job, when unconscionable slander is reckoned as genius because it moves the Nielsen needle. This is what happens when sneering schoolyard invective is reckoned to be actual talent because it comes with a Q rating. (Have a nice day, Tucker.) This is what happens when you run scared. Truth, literally, comes to matter not at all.

And, come Friday, with the Swift Boat ad in tatters in most major newspapers, what did HARDBALL do? It ran a segment attempting to rehabilitate the credibility of Michelle Malkin, a complete fake whose new book on the internment of Japanese-Americans has been stomped into a mudhole by the scholars who have done the real work on her topic, and who had come on the very same program the night before and made an idiot of herself. And who was adjudged to be worthy of being on national television to defend her?

John Fund.

It is to weep.

I don't know about the print guys either, Charles, but maybe they just act this way when they go on TV:

DANA MILBANK, WASHINGTON POST: Oh, sure. I mean, I think we've been completely used in this by both sides. Just a few dollars, really, being spent in terms of the overall campaign war. In one of these cases, we're talking about an ad that hasn't even run yet, and then we're also talking about a response ad that Kerry put out on the Internet, which they basically spent nothing for, but it's getting attention on all the networks.

So we're completely allowing this whole issue to dominate the news. I mean, part of that's just that it's being August and there's not a lot else going on before the convention.

Yes. The Kerry people are ruthlessly using the poor media to get out their message rebutting the attacks that the poor media was so willing to shill for the Bush administration.

You know, I think this may not actually be a matter of lack of character or conscience. I think it may be more like a medical problem. They can't help themselves. They jones for action and the Repubicans know how to give it to them. Blood in the water makes them high. They aren't journalists, they just pretend to be. They are junkies, hooked on trivia, stimulation and scandal. They enable these tabloid smear tactics because the corporations provide them with their works and the Republicans give them their fix. They cover for their addiction to GOP nasty by finding false comparisons between the two parties so that the public won't cut them off from their source.

The press desperately needs an intervention.





digby 8/23/2004 01:42:00 PM |

 
It's Self-defense

The swift boat veterans who hate John Kerry have all come forward to tell the story of his Machiavelian ability to fraudulently, and in concert with large numbers of naval officers all the way up the chain of command, gain for himself a spotless record of heroism and valor during Vietnam.

John Kerry claims that this is a dirty trick on behalf of the Bush administration. But, what he fails to mention is that this was merely justifiable retaliation for a sickening smear set forth by some very ugly undercover Democrat operatives who some months ago went on the shadowy National Public Radio to call into question president Bush's heroism in Operation Blount during his valorous stint in the National Guard.

Those days were frought with stress and pain for all concerned. Who knew who was the enemy and who was not? People had taken to the streets in Washington DC, while the battle raged in far flug locales. It was men like Lt. George W Bush who manned the front lines, taking the heat to protect democracy. Why should his supreme sacrifice for his country be fair game for those who would stoop to destroy the reputation of an American hero for mere political gain? Is nothing sacred?


Via Brad DeLong

This campaign season, there have been questions about whether George W. Bush fulfilled his obligations to the National Guard as a young lieutenant in the early 1970s. For weeks, reporters scoured Alabama in search of pilots or anyone who might have remembered seeing Mr. Bush at the time he was serving in the National Guard there. There is one place in Alabama where Mr. Bush was present nearly every day: the headquarters in Montgomery of US Senate candidate Winton "Red" Blount. President Bush has always said that working for Blount was the reason he transferred to the Alabama Air National Guard. NPR's Wade Goodwyn has this report about Mr. Bush's time on that campaign.

WADE GOODWYN reporting:

In 1972, Baba Groom was a smart, funny young woman smack-dab in the middle of an exciting US Senate campaign. Groom was Republican Red Blount's scheduler, and in that job, she was the hub in the campaign wheel. Ask her about the handsome young man from Texas, and she remembers him 32 years later like it was yesterday.

Ms. BABA GROOM (Former Campaign Worker): He would wear khaki trousers and some old jacket. He was always ready to go out on the road. On the phone, you could hear his accent. It was a Texas accent. But he just melded with everybody.

GOODWYN: The candidate Mr. Bush was working for, Red Blount, had gotten rich in Alabama in the construction business. Prominent Southern Republicans were something of a rare breed in those days. Blount's support of the party led him to be appointed Richard Nixon's postmaster general. In Washington, Blount became friends and tennis partners with Mr. Bush's father, then Congressman Bush. That was how 26-year-old Lieutenant Bush came to Montgomery, at his father's urging . . . It was Mr. Bush's job to organize the Republican county chairpersons in the 67 Alabama counties. Back in 1972 in the Deep South, many rural counties didn't have much in the way of official Republican Party apparatus. But throughout Alabama, there were Republicans and Democrats who wanted to help Red Blount. It was the young Texan's job to find out what each county leader needed in the way of campaign supplies and get those supplies to them. Groom says this job helped Mr. Bush understand how even in a statewide Senate campaign, politics are local.

. . . Murph Archibald is Red Blount's nephew by marriage, and in 1972, he was coming off a 15-month tour in Vietnam in the infantry. Archibald says that in a campaign full of dedicated workers, Mr. Bush was not one of them.

Mr. MURPH ARCHIBALD (Nephew of Red Blount): Well, I was coming in early in the morning and leaving in mid-evenings. Ordinarily, George would come in around noon; he would ordinarily leave around 5:30 or 6:00 in the evening.

GOODWYN: Archibald says that two months before the election, in September of '72, Red Blount's campaign manager came to him and asked that he quietly take over Mr. Bush's job because the campaign materials were not getting out to the counties.

Mr. ARCHIBALD: George certainly didn't seem to have any concerns about my taking over this work with the campaign workers there. My overall impression was that he didn't seem as interested in the campaign as the other people who were working at the state headquarters.

GOODWYN: Murph Archibald says that at first, he didn't know that Mr. Bush was serving in the Air National Guard. After he found out from somebody else, Archibald attempted to talk to Mr. Bush about it. The president was a lieutenant and Archibald had been a lieutenant, too; he figured they had something to talk about.

Mr. ARCHIBALD: George didn't have any interest at all in talking about the military. In fact, when I broached the subject with him, he simply changed the subject. He wasn't unpleasant about it, but he just changed the subject and wouldn't talk about it.

GOODWYN: Far from Texas and Washington, DC, Mr. Bush enjoyed his freedom. He dated a beautiful young woman working on the campaign. He went out in the evenings and had a good time. In fact, he left the house he rented in such disrepair--with damage to the walls and a chandelier destroyed--that the Montgomery family who owned it still grumble about the unpaid repair bill. Archibald says Mr. Bush would come into the office and, in a friendly way, offer up stories about the drinking he'd done the night before, kind of as a conversation starter.

Mr. ARCHIBALD: People have different ways of starting the days in any office. They're going to talk about their kids, they're going to talk about football, they're going to talk about the weather. And this was simply his opening gambit; he would start talking about that he had been out late the night before drinking.

GOODWYN: Archibald says the frequency with which Mr. Bush discussed the subject was off-putting to him.

Mr. ARCHIBALD: I mean, at that time, I was 28; George would have been 25 or 26. And I thought it was really unusual that someone in their mid-20s would initiate conversations, particularly in the context of something as serious as a US senatorial campaign, by talking about their drinking the night before. I thought it unusual and, frankly, inappropriate.

GOODWYN: According to Archibald, Mr. Bush would also sometimes tell stories about his days at Yale in New Haven, and how whenever he got pulled over for erratic driving, he was let go after the officers discovered he was the grandson of a Connecticut US senator. Archibald, a middle-class Alabama boy--who, by the way, is now a registered Democrat--didn't like that story.

Mr. ARCHIBALD: He told us whenever he was stopped, as soon as the law enforcement found out that he was the grandson of Prescott Bush, they would let him go. And he would always laugh about that. "

digby 8/23/2004 12:32:00 PM |

Sunday, August 22, 2004

 
The Action Is The Juice

Lambert's got a barn burning post up today that's well worth reading. But I take issue with one of the central points of his thesis which basically comes down to the a belief that the Democrats only have themsleves to blame for the political situation we are now in. I disagree. It's not because of self-inflicted wounds --- it's because we are dealing with a particular brand of thuggish assassin that is difficult to reconcile with democracy.

Clinton was being hounded about all kinds of trumped up garbage long before Monica came into the picture. He would have been tarred as the corrupt whitewater, chinese espionage, lincoln bedroom hippie whether he gave himself that "self-inflicted" blowjob or not. And he fought back like a champ but it doesn't matter when you are dealing with people who have no use for truth or reality. You don't have to actually do anything with these people. They'll just make shit up. Smear tactics, which are by definition untrue, are the most lethal tool in the character assassins' arsenal and the Republicans are worse than the Borgias when it comes to using them.

I don't mean to be too critical, but I think it is a serious misreading of the challenge we face to put the blame for the state of our politics on the alleged shortcomings of our own leaders. We are at a big disadvantage in this game because we have at least a modicum of decency and while I agree that we very likely are going to have to give that up, I don't think it's a failure of nerve to at least have tried to keep our political system from totally turning into a sewer. The path on which we are now forced to go is one that is bound to taint all of us. I'm not sorry we have taken it reluctantly.

But, I am very nervous that if this attitude remains, and it is quite widespread, we are going to see Democrats once again making the Republican case for them when Kerry gets in office by joining the chorus and calling him "french" for trying to govern in an extremely hostile environment.

This is where we go wrong. If Bush has proven anything, it's that we are in an era in which actual ideology and policy, even power --- even winning --- isn't the point to the Republicans. They are about the fight. It's the game, the argument, the battle. They get off on the political combat. For them, the action is the juice, win or lose. (And one of the reasons they've been so successful at co-opting the media is because the media thrives on the same juice.)

Just fighting back isn't going to solve that problem. Indeed, over the long haul, it's likely to result in failure if that's all we do. They love fighting a lot more than we do. And losing doesn't dull their bloodlust, it engages it. We need to think of a more sophisticated battle plan.

Off the top of my head, the first one to come to mind is divide and conquer. Perhaps it's time we formed a religious group that is anti-abortion and for school prayer, but is adamantly against corporate materialism. Or a libertarian GOP front group that wants to purge the party of the religious right. Perhaps if we could set off a civil war among the Republicans we could cure them of their love of political battle. Civil wars often do. But, that's just an idea. Whatever we do, I think hand to hand combat and bomb throwing is a loser for us over time. It just feeds them.

I don't dispute that appeals to reason have been exhausted. And I don't say that Kerry shouldn't fight by any means necessary in this election. It's vitally important that we get institutional power out of their hands. (Indeed, many may secretly want us to. The fight is not as satisfying when you hold all the power and we have become quite adept at cleaning up their messes.)

But, blaming ourselves for the state of play or deluding ourselves into thinking it's just a matter of "being tough" is to misunderstand what we are facing. It's a primitive force with post-modern tools in its hands and we'd better start looking at this thing for what it is instead of seeing ourselves as simply inept. Winning won't change anything. As long as the fight continues, they are getting exactly what they want.




digby 8/22/2004 01:23:00 PM |

 
Good Day

Everybody should feel a tiny bit better about the swift boat smear --- for this morning, at least. Here are the headlines as of this morning on the Google News site.

Bush campaign fires adviser on veterans issues

Bush Campaign Aide Resigns Amid Controversy Over Campaign Ads

Kerry returns fire over Vietnam

Bush drops adviser tied to group

Swift Boat member skips rally over fliers at Bush campaign office

Kerry Camp Tries to Thwart Negative Swift Boat Ads

Kerry, Dodging Charges Over Vietnam, Returns Fire

Veteran backs Kerry on Vietnam

First-Hand Account Backs Up Kerry on Vietnam War Controversy

Vietnam vet backs Kerry's war deeds

Hatred drives anti-Kerry claims

Big Backing For Kerry In Ad Wars

Kerry: Slo-Mo on Swifties

Ad Fight Bogs Down White House Race

Tribune editor says critics got it wrong

Kerry calls on Bush to stop personal attacks

Swift boat vet goes public to back Kerry

Another war veteran backs Kerry's story

Kerry fires back over Vietnam charges

Bush Campaign Drops Swift Boat Ad Figure

Witness confirms that Kerry rescued soldier under fire

Participant in mission, documents support Kerry's war claim

Vietnam veteran comes to Kerry's defence

Bronze Star battle stokes hot tempers

Anti-Kerry ads have GOP links


For today at least, it's advantage Kerry. But, it's just a tiny skirmish in a bigger battle.

It is possible that we are seeing a little ropa-a-dope here in which Kerry takes some blows throughout the dog days of August when he has little money to spend on his own. He appears to be building a case against Bush's dirty campaign tactics. Over and over again for the next week heading into the convention, I suspect he will step up the calls for Bush to stop the madness. They'll refuse. The bored and predictable media will hopefully be asking all these GOP conventioneers if they disavow the ads, so the issue of dirty tricks and Republican funding stays on the front burner. Then on September 1st as they head out of their NYC lovefest,and the country is really paying attention, Kerry hits them right between the eyes.

He explains to the press that he tried and tried to be reasonable. He asked them politely to stop the smears and the dirty tricks. They wouldn't listen. The Bush campaign has no one to blame but themselves. He had no choice.

It's a metaphor for mature leadership.

But who the hell knows? A presidential campaign is a seat of the pants operation that has to be able to change from day to day as circumstances require. They calibrate this stuff carefully according to polling and focus groups in important regions. They may find that Bush is falling behind in which case there is no reason to nuclear. If, however, this smear operation really erodes Kery's support among undecideds (the base is with him no matter what) then I think we'll see some ads directly attacking Bush on his leadership.

I would love to see that, but only if it helps the cause. Emotional satisfaction is nice but ultimately irrelevant. Fighting back does not mean flailing about aimlessly, it means landing blows. And sometimes that means waiting for the right opening.

But, if it comes down to showing Junior reading "My Pet Goat" then I say let-er-rip. That's the essense of the choice in this election and it's at the bottom of Rove's plan to tear down Kerry's war record and his senate career and the snotty asides about "frenchness." This election is really about the underlying discomfort many people feel with Bush's leadership. If it ends up that Kerry has to spell this out to the idiot swing voters in Ohio in no uncertain terms then that's what he'll do.

Combatting smears is very, very difficult. It is almost impossible, as a matter of fact, when you have a compliant media that wants to be "fair and balanced" to the point where they would give Hitler equal time to make his case against the jews.

Everybody acts like there is some magic formula and there just isn't. You slog through it by the the force of your own strength and talent like Clinton did, you try to change the subject or you go completely nuclear on the other guy. That's it. All three strategies have big risks attached. There is no easy way out and even if it works, people rarely appreciate you for it.

When Howard Dean said to a shocked and appalled Candy Crowley at the Democratic convention that this wa going to be the dirtiest campaign in history, he was right. But, there's more to fighting a smear than simply fighting dirty. You have to fight better and smarter. That's the challenge. Over these next two months we're going to see if Kerry has the right stuff. This is where the game really begins.

One More Thing:

There are two sites that are tracking the swift boat story very thoroughly and in different ways:

Bookmark eriposte and Daily Beast for the full compendium. And I think we can continue to help by sending this stuff to the media and getting it disseminated through the big message boards like DU, Smirking Chimp, Bartcop etc.





digby 8/22/2004 11:58:00 AM |

 
Dole-ful Loser

That despicable old fuck Bob Dole is on Blitzer complaining about Kerry's purple hearts and backing up the Swift Boat liars.

What gall:

IMAGINE IF supporters of Bill Clinton had tried in 1996 to besmirch the military record of his opponent, Bob Dole. After all, Dole was given a Purple Heart for a leg scratch probably caused, according to one biographer, when a hand grenade thrown by one of his own men bounced off a tree. And while the serious injuries Dole sustained later surely came from German fire, did the episode demonstrate heroism on Dole's part or a reckless move that ended up killing his radioman and endangering the sergeant who dragged Dole off the field?

I had developed a ittle fondness for the scumbag over the past few years because he seemed kind of a doddering anachronism that reminded me of the old school Republican assholes. But, I stupidly forgot that he was one of the original hatchet men, the Prince of Fucking Darkness during the 70's and he's still in form today.

Damn, every single time I get the least bit sentimental and let down my guard on one of these wingnuts they remind me that none of them have any goddamned shame.




digby 8/22/2004 10:08:00 AM |

 
Drop A Dime On LuLu

Can Michele Malkin be any more stupid? I don't actually think it's possible:

Blogger Rusty Shackleford highlights American hackers who took down a website apparently owned and operated by Abu al Zarqawi.

Rusty comments:

The CIA/FBI are making a major mistake allowing these sites to be kept up. The reason? This is war. In a war you take away propaganda outlets from the enemy. Yes, they may help us track down al Qaeda elements, but that is just the point. Tracking down and arresting al Qaeda is a police function. Treating the War on Terror as a police matter is Clintonesque and is what got us 9/11. We need to shut all these sites down. They are valuable tools for the enemy...

He adds that the hackers, who identified themselves as "TeaMz UsA," missed a page on Zarqawi's site:

Unfortunately the crew at 'TeaMz UsA' missed a page. I have the URL and am more than glad to share it with any hacker who thinks they can take down the page. Just e-mail me anonymously at mypetjawa-at-yahoo-dot-com. Calling all hackers with a little free time this Sunday afternoon...

Yeah. I want to trust Malkin and the 101st keyboarders to take charge of counter terrorism.

I don't suppose it occurred to any of these morons that the CIA and the FBI may have had a reason for leaving these web sites up and running? I think they might expect a little visit. Malkin should get one too. You are supposed to report terrorist activities to the authorities, not take the law in your own hands. In fact, it's a crime and a big one.

Via Catch






digby 8/22/2004 10:04:00 AM |

 
Compelled To Speak Out

As with Mr. Rood yesterday, via Susie, I see we have another eyewitness coming forward and disputing the swift boat lies.

Dear Editor,

This letter is in response to the new attacks on John Kerry's war record by a group calling itself the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." As for most veterans of any war and as people who know me will testify, it is not easy for me to talk about my experiences in Vietnam. However, because of these new ads and, I understand, a new book recently published by an old Charles Colson "Enemies List" hit man, I feel compelled to speak out. Unfortunately, the veterans featured in these attacks are being used by extreme right wing Bush supporters to spread their lies and malign John Kerry.

I feel that most of these veterans who are joining this attack are against Kerry for what he did after he was home from the war than for what he did in the war. If they are against him for his stance against the Vietnam War, that certainly is their right, but to spread lies and malicious innuendos about his time on the rivers of Vietnam is not morally right and does a disservice not only to Kerry, but to all those who served and were wounded or died in that war. The people who are using these veterans for their own means obviously do not care about that. They did the same thing to Senator John McCain and Congressman Max Cleland in 2000 with no remorse or care for the consequences.

To me what is worse is that by their silence, the current administration has not, with any real meaning, disavowed itself or distanced itself in anyway from any of these scurrilous attacks, past or present. I feel that this truly shows the Bush administration for what they really are and ultimately, who is truly responsible for these attacks.

Since I happened to be along on one of the "excursions" where the boats that we were on were attacked and after which Lt. Kerry was cited for valor, I thought it appropriate to give my recollection of that event. This happened on March 13, 1969. I was assigned as Psychological Operation Officer for the Swift Boat group out of An Thoi, Vietnam, from January 1969 to October 1969. As such, I was on No. 43 boat, skippered by Don Droz who was later that year killed by enemy fire. We were second in line while exiting the river and going through the opening in a fish trap when a mine blew up under the No. 3 boat directly in front of us and we started taking small arms fire from the beach. Almost immediately, another mine went off somewhere behind us. All boats, except the one hit, immediately wheeled toward the beach that most of the fire came from (a tactic devised by Lt. Kerry, I later learned) and commenced showering the beaches with so much lead, that it could probably be now mined there. The noise was of course, deafening.

Three things that are forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago are: (1) The No. 3, 50-foot long, Swift boat getting huge, huge air; John Kerry thought it was about two feet. (He was farther away from it than I). I think it was at least four feet and probably closer to six feet; (2) All the boats turning left and letting loose at the same time like a deadly, choreographed dance and; (3) A few minutes later, John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river.

The picture I have in my mind of Kerry bending over from his boat picking some hapless guy out of the river while all hell was breaking loose around us, is a picture based on fact and it cannot be disputed or changed. It's a piece of history drawn in my mind that cannot be redrawn. Sorry, "Swift Boats Veterans for the Truth"- that is the truth.

To say that John Kerry or any of us were on that river to intentionally collect Purple Hearts really does every soldier and sailor, past and present, a disservice. We were going up those rivers (with an ongoing casualty rate of 86 percent at the time) on the orders of the same people who approved of Kerry's medals and who are now joining in the attacks against Kerry. Unbelievable.

I would hope that the American public sees these evil extreme right wing attacks for what they really are and also pray that the veterans being used by these unpatriotic right wing extremist political operatives will divorce themselves immediately from them and speak to the real issues as to why they oppose John Kerry. I just don't understand how anyone can align themselves with those who intentionally and gleefully painted a decorated triple amputee (Max Cleland) from Vietnam as unpatriotic. I think that this is the most disastrous, un-American thing that can be done to our servicemen and women, especially now with another unending war going on. Your ends cannot possibly justify these means. Come on!

Jim Russell

Vietnam veteran,

USN (1966-71)

I forwarded this to the usual suspects in the media and Michael Dodd at the Washington Post.

The thing about this testimony, and that of Rood yesterday, is that these people were on the scene. One of the most underreported aspect of this whole slime has been that the only "eye witnesses" have been discredited by their own past statements and every piece of the record. All the other testimony is "I believe my buddies" hearsay.




digby 8/22/2004 09:49:00 AM |

 
Shifting the Debate

Blitzer led with the Cordier resignation (whom he calls an "advisor") this morning on Late Edition which means that the controversy seems to have shifted a bit to Bush's dirty tricks and the FEC complaint and away from Kerry's alleged Machiavellian ability to get the Navy to corrupt itself at every level. Russert was all over the dirty campaigning angle this morning.

If Kerry can get the debate on to that turf he will have accomplished what he needed to do. So far today, it's working. I'm not seeing the POW ad and I'm hearing an awful lot about rich Texas donors and McCain in 2000 and patterns of deceit.

One day at a time.




digby 8/22/2004 09:11:00 AM |

Saturday, August 21, 2004

 
Friendly Reminder on a Saturday Night (thank you too, Julia)

This is why the Swift Boat Liars have been mobilized:

Bush on Bush

"I'm saying to myself, 'What do I want to do?' I think I don't want to be an infantry guy as a private in Vietnam. What I do decide to want to do is learn to fly."

Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 1989

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

Dallas Morning News, Feb. 25, 1990

"I don't want to play like I was somebody out there marching when I wasn't. It was either Canada or the service. ... Somebody said the Guard was looking for pilots. All I know is, there weren't that many people trying to be pilots."

Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 29, 1998

The Few, the Proud, the Chickenhawk




digby 8/21/2004 10:01:00 PM |

 
Who Us?

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - A Vietnam veteran who worked with President Bush (news - web sites)'s campaign has left over his appearance in a commercial by a group challenging Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites)'s war record, a campaign spokesman said on Saturday.

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Ken Cordier was a Bush supporter during the 2000 election and served as a member of his a steering committee to help reach out to veterans during this election.

"Col. Cordier did not inform the campaign of his involvement in the advertisement being run by (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth)," Schmidt said. "Because of his involvement with this 527 (group), Col. Cordier will no longer participate" in the steering committee.

The disclosure of Cordier's involvement came one day after White House spokesman Scott McClellan and Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot denied the campaign coordinated with the group on the ads, which claim that Kerry lied about his Vietnam War service.

Kerry has called the ads inaccurate and accused the group of being a front for the Bush campaign. On Friday the Kerry campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) seeking to force the ads' withdrawal.

New advertisements by the group are set to debut next week in states where Kerry has touted his military service. Kerry won several medals and his record is often contrasted with Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during the war.

McClellan has refused to specifically condemn the ads and instead has urged Kerry to join Bush in calling for an end to all commercials funded by unrestricted donations.

U.S. advocacy groups can collect vast sums of money to run their own political advertisements but are barred from coordinating their activities with campaigns or political parties.

"There seems to be an increasing amount of evidence that the Bush campaign is behind this," Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer said. "So it's no surprise that the president refuses to condemn these scurrilous ads."

No kidding.

Update:

I like CNN's headline better:

Bush adviser quits after appearing in swift boat ad

Kerry has accused group of illegally working with campaign

Saturday, August 21, 2004 Posted: 11:43 PM EDT (0343 GMT)


ROANOKE, Virginia (CNN) -- A volunteer adviser has quit President Bush's re-election campaign after appearing in a veterans group's television commercial blasting Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's involvement in the Vietnam-era antiwar movement.

A Bush campaign statement said it did not know that retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier had appeared in an ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The Kerry campaign has accused the group of illegally working with the Bush campaign.

digby 8/21/2004 08:00:00 PM |

 
Shhhhh

The RNC lawyers seem to have forgotten to tell their local patriots to ixnay on the wift-boat-say on their official sites,too:

Patriotboy has a screenshot of the Collier County Republican Central Committee soliciting funds for the Swift Boat Liars.

Uh, and it's still on their web site right now at 3:45 PDT on August 21, 2004. Check it out.

The last google cache they have is for August 10th, but they were featuring the book "Unfit For Command" and the Swift Boat ad ready for viewing right up front then, too.




digby 8/21/2004 03:52:00 PM |

 
Twisted

In the post below, I highlighted something that I haven't seen anyone comment upon. This ex-POW, Kenneth Cordier, a man who has held other POW's to account for accepting early release from the North Vietnamese as traitors, is the subject of a letter to the editor in the Dallas Morning News as follows:

"Last month, a lone bagpiper marched to the tune of "Amazing Grace" as silence fell over the distinguished guests, choir, color guard and the veterans and families who came to dedicate the Irving Veteran's Memorial Park honoring those who gave "the last full measure of devotion" to their nation.

Unfortunately, one of the invested [sic] guests, retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier, a decorated former Vietnam POW and experienced speaker, chose to politicize this solemn event. In an attempt at levity, he defended the pulling of ladies' panties over the faces of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. interrogators at Abu Ghraib as preferable to beheading. His inappropriate, Limbaughistic comments detracted from the reverence and purpose of this event.

Richard A. Widener, Irving”

[THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 6/13/04]

Of all the people to make mock of the depravity visited upon those prisoners at Abu Ghraib, a former POW is the last one I'd expect to see doing it. I wonder if he will find it so amusing when our guys are imprisoned and sexually humiliated in the future. I suppose he will counsel the prisoners and their families to comfort themselves with the fact that "at least it wasn't a beheading."

30 year old bitterness and rage is a very ugly thing and I think we are seeing how it can warp some people into a twisted version of their former selves. In some ways these guys are to be pitied. That war messed them up so badly they apparently lost their humanity.




digby 8/21/2004 11:54:00 AM |

Friday, August 20, 2004

 
Update 8/21:

The cache has now updated to today. Here's a link to the screen capture of the August 19 page. Thousands of others have archived it as well. In fact, I'm reliably told that Olberman showed it on his show this evening. As Cokie Roberts memorably said "It's out there."

Nothing To See Here

I wonder if its appropriate for Ken Cordier, a member of the Veterans For Bush-Cheney '04 steering committee to appear in the new "unaffiliated" "independent" 527 Swift Boat Liars For Bush ad?

Of course you will only see his name if you google the cached version (linked above) of the page on the Bush-Cheney web site. Oddly, the current page doesn't list his name.

Now I'm certain this fine gentleman who has chosen to sell out his good name and reputation by joining a filthy smear operaton like Scumbag Liars For Bush would never coordinate with the campaign just because he also served as one of the Vice-Chairs Of Veterans For Bush-Cheney National Coalition in the 2000 camapign (pdf) and then was named to Bush's VA-POW advisory committee.

But some might think it doesn't look quite kosher. In fact, some might think it looks downright illegal.

Update:

The campaign is already on to this and has sent out the following press release. What they didn't have, however, was this Google cache which shows that Cordier was listed as a member of the Bush-Cheney campaign until August 19th. (And, by the way, in case it's escaped anyone's notice, Mr Cordier has a Frenchman in the woodpile.)

Public records reveal that two of the people in the new "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" television ad are Republican activists, as the fact sheet below shows. This is just more proof that Bush's Republican allies are the ones behind this disgraceful smear of John Kerry's military record. It's pretty clear what's going on here. It's no wonder the Bush campaign refuses to condemn this smear.

KENNETH CORDIER

PARTISAN: Another Texas Republican Donor


CORDIER, KENNETH
DALLAS,TX 75208
US AIR FORCE/RETIRED COLONEL
3/2/2001
$1,000
Republican Party of Dallas County

CORDIER, KENNETHW MR
DALLAS,TX 75225
SELF EMPLOYED
2/27/2002
$238
RNC/Repub National State Elections Cmte

CORDIER, KENT
DALLAS,TX 75206
RETIRED
6/30/2000
$1,000
Hutchison, Kay Bailey




2001-06-05
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS
CORDIER, KEN

1
$100
[followthemoney.org]



PARTISAN: “Despised” LBJ
“The procession ended just before the 1968 presidential election when the United States stopped its bombing campaign. ‘I remember that was the worst day of my life’ because the POWs' treatment worsened and they felt forgotten by their government, Col. Cordier said. He "despised" Lyndon Johnson for his war policies.” [Dallas Morning News, 11/10/03]


PARTISAN: Bush Administration Ties
He is a member of a Bush administration advisory panel on veterans’ issues.

[“VA Announces Membership of POW Advisory Committee,” PR Newswire, 4/17/02;


PARTISAN: Open About His Conservative Political Views
“Col. Cordier (pronounced core-dee-AY) still wears his conservatism on his sleeve and doesn't hold back in his appraisals of more liberal approaches “[Dallas Morning News, 11/10/03]

JUDGEMENT: Defending Abu Gharib Abuses?
” Inappropriate remarks: Last month, a lone bagpiper marched to the tune of "Amazing Grace" as silence fell over the distinguished guests, choir, color guard and the veterans and families who came to dedicate the Irving Veteran's Memorial Park honoring those who gave "the last full measure of devotion" to their nation. Unfortunately, one of the invested guests, retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier, a decorated former Vietnam POW and experienced speaker, chose to politicize this solemn event. In an attempt at levity, he defended the pulling of ladies' panties over the faces of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. interrogators at Abu Ghraib as preferable to beheading. His inappropriate, Limbaughistic comments detracted from the reverence and purpose of this event. Richard A. Widener, Irving” [THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 6/13/04]



JUDGEMENT: Said Fellow POW Was “A Traitor”
Talking about POWs who were released early: “According to Cordier, Low ‘is a traitor to the other prisoners of war" for accepting premature release on July 18, 1968.’” [Air Force Times, 11/3/03]


INCONSISTENCY: Doesn’t Remember Kerry Being Invoked In Vietnam
“Cordier, now living in Texas, doesn't recall Kerry's name specifically being used in interrogations, propaganda broadcasts by Hanoi Hannah (Radio Vietnam) or during "attitude checks" -- political indoctrination sessions -- since Kerry was then not a household name. But he said he does remember the North Vietnamese using the so-called Winter Soldier investigations and photographs of war veterans, both real and imposters, throwing military medals over the White House fence.” [UPI, 8/3/04]


PARTISAN: Questioned Normalization Under Clinton And Wished Bush Would Win
“Said he questioned the president's motives and the appropriateness of the visit at this time. He predicts that the next administration, which he presumes will be headed by Texas Gov. George W. Bush, will engage more in "carrot and stick diplomacy" with the Vietnamese government, offering "generous rewards" for concessions” [Dallas Morning News, 11/19/00]

PAUL GALANTI

JUDGEMENT: Wanted To Ban Draft Dodgers From Public Colleges
“A House of Delegates committee yesterday killed a bill sponsored by Del. Warren E. Barry (R-Fairfax) that would have directed Virginia's state colleges not to admit any young man who failed to register for the draft. Barry appeared before the Education Committee along with a former Navy flier, Paul Galanti of Richmond, who had spent seven years as a North Vietnamese prisoner of war, but the panel nonetheless killed his idea for the second year in a row, this time by a vote of 12 to 8.” [Washington Post, 2/5/83]



JUDGEMENT: Called Conservative Christians “Sheep”
"They probably called their little followers. They vote on that one issue. They call them sheep. That's exactly what they are." -Paul Galanti, McCain's Virginia campaign co-chairman, on the backlash by Virginia's conservative Christian voters after McCain's attacks Monday on the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson. AP, 2/29/00



JUDGEMENT: Insulting Disabled Vets?
“Life has a way of throwing curve balls and John [Hager] got beaned by one when he acquired polio as an adult and lost the use of his legs. He would have been forgiven for tossing in the towel, drifting over to the VA hospital and spending the rest of his life feeling sorry for himself.” [Richmond Times Dispatch, 6/2/01]



JUDGEMENT: On Critics Of The Vietnam War: “Communist Sympathizers”
“It caused me to question anything I hear from Communists or their many sympathizers or copycats or dupes in America who tended then - and still tend - to distort the truth for their personal gain, or even (gasp) to lie if that will achieve the desired end.” [Richmond Times Dispatch, 6/17/01]



PARTISAN: Carter-Basher
“I had a great final three years in the Navy despite the devastation Carter's policies had wrought on the military. My last Navy year was under one of the finest-ever Commanders-in-Chief, who led the country out of Jimmy Carter's unlamented and self-caused "malaise."” [Richmond Times Dispatch, 6/17/01]

digby 8/20/2004 08:31:00 PM |

 
TBOGG

It just doesn't get any better than this:

Well it was a meeting of the minds (loosely speaking) on Rush today when the drug-addled, tripled divorced, didn't-go-to-Vietnam-because-of-a-pimple-on-his-fat-ass Rush Limbaugh had Michelle "If I wanted to be publicly humiliated I would have signed on for a bukkake video instead of going on Hardball" Malkin on.

Jesus, I'm cryin' here.




digby 8/20/2004 07:14:00 PM |

 
Where Do They Come Up With This Stuff?

After Malkin's little meltdown on Hardball last night, we all ought to forward old Chris this exchange from August 13th.

Q On behalf of Vietnam veterans -- and I served six tours over there -- we do support the President. I only have one concern, and that's on the Purple Heart, and that is, is that there are over 200,000 Vietnam vets that died from Agent Orange and were never -- no Purple Heart has ever been awarded to a Vietnam veteran because of Agent Orange because it's never been changed in the regulations. Yet, we've got a candidate for President out here with two self-inflicted scratches, and I take that as an insult. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you for your service. Six tours? Whew. That's a lot of tours. Let's see, who've we got here? You got a question?

If Chris wonders where the smear about self inflicted wounds is coming from he should probably ask the people who pre-screen the questions at the GOP only "Ask Bush" events. Obviously, they will have the names.

Funny, the president doesn't seem too concerned about this toxic swill being bandied about in his presence. In fact, he says "he appreciates it."





digby 8/20/2004 03:08:00 PM |

 
Another One Down (and one more)

Via Pacific Views:

A Clackamas County prosecutor and decorated Vietnam veteran who appears in an ad attacking Democratic presidential contender John F. Kerry's war record said he did not witness the events in question and is relying on the accounts of his friends who served with the senator.

The 60-second ad, which aired for seven days this month in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, features 13 Vietnam veterans, including Alfred French, 58, a senior deputy district attorney in Clackamas County.

In the ad, French says: "I served with John Kerry. . . . He is lying about his record."

[...]

French, in an interview Thursday, said Kerry lied about the circumstances that led to one of his Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star. Kerry received a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts commanding a Swift boat in Vietnam.

French said he is relying on the accounts of three other veterans who were friends of his at the time. A fourth veteran with whom French was acquainted corroborated their accounts.

"I was not a witness to these events but my friends were," said French, who was awarded two Bronze Stars during the war. "I believe these people. These are people I served with."

One of the men is Larry Thurlow, a leader of the veterans group and one of Kerry's most vocal critics. Thurlow, who served alongside Kerry, has disputed Kerry's claim that the senator's boat was under fire in March 1969 when he pulled Lt. Jim Rassmann out of the water.

But according to Thurlow's military records, obtained this week by The Washington Post, the five-boat flotilla was under enemy fire that day.

French -- relying on friends' accounts -- said Rassmann would have been picked up by another boat if Kerry had not helped. And French said any shots that were fired came from U.S. soldiers providing cover as Rassmann and two others were rescued.

"It's not like he wouldn't have been saved if Kerry had not been there," French said. "I don't believe they were under any fire when that happened. None of the other boats were damaged."

He said Rassmann's rescue did not merit a special honor.

"Somebody fell off your boat and you go back and pick him up," French said. "It's not worthy of a Bronze Star in my opinion."

Rassmann, who lives in Florence and is campaigning for Kerry, said the ad is motivated in part by some veterans' anger over Kerry's antiwar stance upon returning home -- a charge French acknowledges. Rassmann said the group's claims are completely false.

"To come back 35 years later and conjure up fabricated stories is the lowest form of politics," said Rassmann, who said he does not know French.

"I honor these guys for their service," Rassmann said. "I know they were very courageous, along with John Kerry, and it saddens me that they are all at one another's throats."

French, a registered Republican, said he was reluctant at first to take part in the ad but ultimately "decided it was something I needed to do."

French said his one-year tour of duty in Vietnam overlapped Kerry's by two months. He said they served together in the same unit in January and February 1969. He said he did not know Kerry well during that time.

This scumbag not only lied about "serving" with John Kerry, he wasn't even anywhere around and is just repeating his friends lies.

And, I'm hoping that somebody is working hard to verify where that asshole William Schachte really was on the day he claimed he was on Kerry's skimmer and nobody on the boat remembers him being there. It's probable that we'll later find out that he was actually on R&R in Bangkok on that day but he later heard from a friend of a friend who channeled a Vietnamese fisherman that Kerry cynically launched a grenade in his skivvies so he could run for president in 30 years.

This has now entered the realm of the absurd. These guys have thrown themselves into the sewer for that petulant little cheerleader. Jesus.




digby 8/20/2004 02:31:00 PM |

 
He Volunteered For Combat

Here's a little anecdote on a Friday morning from the neighborhood Starbucks that I think illustrates a little bit of the Scumbags For Truth dilemma.

Overheard argument (and I swear it isn't one of those taxicab confessions.)

Why would those guys lie about Kerry?

Because he said that soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam.

Well he did and it was a shitty thing to do.

Yeah, well at least he fought instead of having his rich daddy get him into the guard.

The argument developed into a back and forth about Bush going AWOL, Kerry running from enemy fire etc, until it ended up with "Who the hell does Bush think he is?" Say what you want about Kerry, but he volunteered for combat and Bush didn't, end of story" and the other guy blathering on for a while about Jane Fonda.

According to the Annenberg Center Survey (pdf) released today the ad's effect seems to track pretty closely along the partisan divide, so I'm not sure whether we've seen any erosion in support (despite what people are saying):

Respondents who saw or heard about the ad are split about its believability. Forty-six percent find the ad very or somewhat believable and 49 percent find the ad very or somewhat un-believable. Beliefs about the believability of the advertisement are strongly associated with partisan inclinations. Seventy percent of those with favorable opinions ofBush find the advertisement somewhat or very believable while 19 percent of those with favorable opinions of Kerry find it believable. Independent voters are nearly evenly split over whether they find the ad believable; 44 percent find the ad somewhat or very believable while 49 percent find the ad somewhat or very unbelievable.

But, there's another side to this and one that wasn't addressed in this survey. It's the other side of that argument I heard in Starbucks this morning. As David Gergen said on Hardball last night, it's a bit inexplicable that Bush would want Kerry's service back on the front page of the news in any capacity because it inevitably highlights the contrast between his own actions and Kerry's. You have to wonder if Lee Atwater were alive if he wouldn't have proposed this smear as a whisper campaign instead of a Willie Horton style feed-the-mediawhores special. Bush Sr wasn't vulnerable on the crime issue like Dukakis was so he could afford to go nuclear. Over the long haul, keeping Vietnam on the front burner is not necessarily a winner for Junior. When Kerry said yesterday, "Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on," that's what he was talking about.

That "he volunteered for combat" argument is hard for Bush to rebut. It's simple and appeals to the common sense of average Americans. (And believe me, there isn't a person in the country who doesn't associate Bush with the attack. Most people believe in their gut that the campaigns are behind the ads whether they are or not.)

I'm not suggesting that this smear is good for Kerry, but I am suggesting that it doesn't necessarily help Bush all that much with undecideds and may end up hurting him a little. (The GOP talk radio neanderthals will believe anything they're told, so they are not worth worrying about at the moment.)

Rove probably feels he has no choice but to tear down Kerry's heroism because Junior is extremely weak on every issue but terrorism so he has to run on his alleged cojones to grab the undecideds. (The "compassionate, uniter divider" side of his agenda is a total joke and everybody knows it.) But, it's a dicey proposition. Regardless of whether people know the details of Bush going AWOL in the Guard, or even if they've heard about it, it is indisputable that he went in the Guard instead of volunteering for combat as Kerry did. That is the bottom line contrast and it doesn't reflect well on him to attack Kerry's war record because of it.

Kerry and his surrogates continuing to tie the attack to big Texas Republican money closely associated with Bush is an important element because Bush is doing something here that doesn't make sense. One of the perverse advantages of the 527's is to be able to claim that they are independent and don't represent your view while they stick it to your opponent. It makes the media very suspicious when you don't follow the pre-ordained script and Bush is not following the script on this. That makes the media skeptical.

It's very interesting that Rove has adopted this odd hedging routine instead of taking the high road freebie offered by the 527 "independence." The best explanation is that he's worried about offending his base or his Texas contributors if he explicitly condemns the ad. And that is a sign of weakness. If that is right then Kerry is correct to hammer on Bush having these people do his dirty work for him. It puts him in a box.

I'll repeat what I've said here too many times before. The operative motivation in a smear is not to convince people. It's to "get it out there" and raise doubts. There's almost nothing you can do when people are determined to smear you like this to completely contain the damage. Once it's out there it's out there. And in that sense, they have succeeded very well.

However, there is an interesting example of how a smear can be fought to a standstill (although with your reputation forever shredded.) That is the method by which Clinton fought the Monica frenzy. He turned it into an attack on Ken Starr. And it largely worked because people instinctively recoil at the idea of nosy creeps like Starr rifling through other people's underwear drawers.

There are elements of the same thing here if the Democrats can correctly keep the frame where they want it to be. A man who maneuvered his way out of Vietnam is now ruthlessly tearing down the war record of one who volunteered for combat. That just doesn't sit well --- it breaks the unwritten rules we have about military service. Just as with the Starr counter attack, the rabid GOP base will become even more agitated and wild. But, the majority of the country will likely begin to see through the smokescreen to what is really going on. And it could end up hurting Bush more than Kerry.

It's probably also why the Scumbags are now pushing this idea that Kerry "planned" to go to Nam and shoot himself three times and phony up his medals for political purposes. This absurd notion will be pushed to contrast with the all-American Bush, who honestly served in the Guard rather than do something so dishonest. Apparently, this idea has been out in the ether for some time. I quoted a Navy wife a couple of weeks ago saying it: "He was just planning to run for president, right from the beginning, that's what I think," said Margaret Leonie Dent, the wife of a Navy retiree. "They say his wounds were paper cuts. Just look at the man. He looks French for God's sake."

The sad thing, of course, is that Kerry will never have his reputation back and at a time when Vietnam veterans were finally beginning to receive their due for their service a bunch of self righteous, petty old men stepped in to cast doubts on them all over again. Nice bunch of patriots selling out their brothers toward the end of their lives to protest a man they claim sold them out when they were young. By any means necessary I guess.

I am e-mailing the following quote to members of the press today. And, I think that all talking heads should have it on a 3x5 card and repeat it everytime they face a swift boat liar or one of their mouthpieces. Everybody needs to be reminded of what the real contrast is here. It's not between Kerry the hero vs Kerry the alleged liar, but rather, the combat volunteer vs the chickenhawk smear artist.

“I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." George W. Bush on why he joined the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, 1990.

digby 8/20/2004 09:36:00 AM |

Thursday, August 19, 2004

 
I Won't Be Ignored, John

Predictably, Judicial Watch gets in on the Scumbags for Truth action. I think there's an excellent chance that the Navy is going to implicate itself in a massive, systemwide fraud, don't you?

The only question I have about all this is when the charges of Kerry fucking Vietnamese child hookers comes in? No ginned up GOP smear campaign is worth its salt unless it features some juicy, voyeuristic tittilation so that Ann Coulter and Lucianne Goldberg can cackle and drool, screeching "pervert, pervert" over and over again. C'mon, there just have to be some faded tapes or fuzzy pictures of something somewhere. A bastard child he abandoned in a rice paddy? A non-stop orgy on his swift boat with the band of brothers? Let's get with it people.




digby 8/19/2004 10:50:00 PM |

 
Man With A Past

Kevin Drum says, in regard to the catholic advisor who resigned from Bush's campaign today when it was revealed that he had a little problem in his past with drinking and screwing underage girls:

"It sure sounds like an awful lot of people have known about Hudson's background for a long time."

As it happens, one of the commenters to my post on this subject from earlier today had this to say:

I could NOT BE HAPPIER to learn that Deal Hudson has finally been hoist up on the petard of his shady past. He was a visiting professor at NYU while he was at Fordham, and I was one of his students there. He regularly invited his female students out for after-class margaritas. He would get very drunk and sloppy. It was clear to me then that he would have been open for any sexual turn the evening might have taken (although I failed to provide that turn signal). He was irresponsible in the ways that alcoholics are irresponsible: missing deadlines for recommendations, blowing off independent study projects, borrowing things and continually forgetting to return them despite numerous reminders. I heard about the Fordham incident and wasn't surprised, but boy was I shocked when I saw his elevation to presidential adviser. I figured it would blow up in his face, and I shed no tears to see that it has.

This guy was in charge of Catholic outreach for the Bush campaign. It appears he had quite a history of reaching out ... and grabbing young girls.




digby 8/19/2004 09:07:00 PM |

 
Razzie Winner 2004

The next salvo in the cinematic campaign war of 2004 is "The Big Picture," a documentary film attacking John Kerry sponsored by David Bossie's Citizens United, the right-wing group that unsuccessfully sued to stop national advertising of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."

[...]

An outline of the "The Big Picture" obtained by Salon suggests that the Citizens United documentary will offer not only a staunch defense of Bush but also an aggressive attack on Kerry, including a recitation of various smears having to do with his medal-winning military history put forward lately by the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The outline portrays the Democratic nominee as the preferred candidate of such "foreign leaders" as Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and the Nicaraguan Sandinista Party, and as an "appeaser" of European powers deemed corrupt and hostile to U.S. interests -- especially France. Virtually all the world's other nations are solidly behind Bush and the war in Iraq, according to the outline, which labors to disprove allegations that Bush "lied" about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaida.

This (undoubtedly hilarious) piece of shit is directed by Lionel Chetwynd, the D List director who did that Showtime 9/11 movie starting Timothy Bottoms featuring that unforgettable line: "I'm not gonna let some tinhorn terrorist chase me outta town. Now get me back to Washington!"

Hints of the Citizens United film project first emerged in early July, when Bossie warned what he and his organization would do if the Federal Election Commission dismissed their "Fahrenheit 9/11" complaint. "Citizens United becomes a documentary factory," he told the New York Post. "We'll make documentaries and we'll show ads for them. I'm in the production business ... I can put together a documentary very, very quickly."

The structure of the film, assuming that it follows the outline obtained by Salon, will be a methodical and ham-handed refutation of the "Anybody but Bush" arguments attributed to Moore, from the issue of the "stolen" 2000 election to the debate over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks. The true villains in all those controversies, it claims, are Democrats Bill Clinton, Al Gore and, of course, John Kerry.

Among the familiar personalities mentioned as possibly appearing in the film are Solicitor General Ted Olson and his late wife Barbara; actor and former Sen. Fred Thompson, who has appeared in a previous Citizens United ad; syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer; former CIA director James Woolsey; and Florida Rep. Porter Goss, recently nominated as the next CIA director. (A less familiar interview subject, apparently named Ivan Pedanski, is cited as a source on Iraq's disappearing weapons of mass destruction; he would say that the "stuff [is] buried in the ground in Syria.")

An earlier version of the script outline, titled "Initial Notes," promised a more vicious and possibly more comical film. Among the anti-Bush canards mentioned there but omitted from the later outline is that "Bush is a moron." It argues that the president cannot be both a moron and a "devious mastermind attempting to spread US hegemony worldwide" -- and claims that "Bush did well at Yale."

That version of the script indicated the film's second half would be devoted to "deconstructing John Kerry" -- beginning with the character assault mounted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and mocking him as the "Knight of the Woeful Countenance." It also makes the false assertion that Kerry "never went on to post-grad work" after Yale. (Researchers hired by Bossie presumably will discover that Kerry graduated from Boston College law school in 1976.)

This makes me feel happy. Aside from all the possible legal problems that Conason mentions in the piece, this is simply pathetic. Say what you will about Michael Moore, but he is a professional documentary filmmaker with a very unique and very succesful directorial style. His film has done extremely well, not just because it's a liberal polemic, but because it's extremely entertaining and well structured.

Bossie's good at low life bottom feeding, but Oscar level filmmaking may just be a bit above his touch. (It certainly is above Chetwynd's touch.) I have a feeling that this is going to be hilariously embarrassing.




digby 8/19/2004 08:13:00 PM |

 
Docs At The Hazing

It is a sick culture that would think nothing of medical personnel who would design, implement and enable torture, especially in a country we were ostensibly liberating from exactly that kind of treatment. That not one came forward to report any of it says something very troubling about how we define morality and ethics in this country. Let's not forget that these people are from the same nation that spent more than a year and tens of millions of dollars in the pursuit of a leader who allegedly lied about an extramarital affair.

I don't want to hear another word from the religious zealots on the right, including their mascot, our God anointed president, about good and evil until they stand up and explain why they aren't screaming bloody murder about American doctors reviving prisoners who've been beaten unconscious so that they can be beaten again.

I have a good idea what Jesus would think of such a disguisting act, but I'm not so sure about our self-appointed morality police here in the US of A.

Doctors working for the U.S. military in Iraq collaborated with interrogators in the abuse of detainees at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, profoundly breaching medical ethics and human rights, a bioethicist charges in The Lancet medical journal.

In a scathing analysis of the behavior of military doctors, nurses and medics, University of Minnesota professor Steven Miles calls for a reform of military medicine and an official investigation into the role played by physicians and other medical staff in the torture scandal.

He cites evidence that doctors or medics falsified death certificates to cover up homicides, hid evidence of beatings and revived a prisoner so he could be further tortured. No reports of abuses were initiated by medical personnel until the official investigation into Abu Ghraib began, he found.

"The medical system collaborated with designing and implementing psychologically and physically coercive interrogations," Miles said in this week's edition of Lancet. "Army officials stated that a physician and a psychiatrist helped design, approve and monitor interrogations at Abu Ghraib."

The analysis does not shed light on how many doctors were involved or how widespread the problem of medical complicity was, aspects that Miles said he is now investigating.

A U.S. military spokesman said the incidents recounted by Miles came primarily from the Pentagon's own investigation of the abuses.

It's clear that nobody but the grunts in the pictures will suffer any consequences, not even for the systematic depraved indifference to the suffering of those prisoners. We're giving a fine lesson in western justice to the Iraqis. No wonder they are so happy to have us there.




digby 8/19/2004 04:59:00 PM |

 
Frame Up

I like this. Kerry's campaign is going after Regnery, saying that they should withdraw the book because it is a hoax.

The Kerry campaign has told Salon that the publisher of "Unfit for Command," the book that is at the center of the attack on Kerry's military record by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is retailing a hoax and should consider withdrawing it from bookstores. "No publisher should want to be selling a book with proven falsehoods in them, especially falsehoods that are meant to smear the military service of an American veteran," said Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton. "If I were them, I'd be ducking under my desk wondering what to do. This is a serious problem."

Now, Regnery will do no such thing, of course. But, the frame is obvious.

Bush supporters insisted that James Hatfield's book Fortunate Son, be pulled because of what they claimed were false assertions of George W. Bush's alleged cocaine use. The editor in chief of St. Martin's Press, Robert B. Wallace, resigned over the controversy. Surely, this swift boat book, based upon one proven lie after another, should be dealt with the same way.

Some on the other side will point out that Hatfield's book was eventually withdrawn not because of its allegations that George W. Bush had used cocaine but because the author had been convicted of hiring a hit man on his boss. But if the character of the author is the prevailing question, then it cannot be ignored that one of the authors of Unfit For Duty has recently admitted to writing a long litany of noxious swill including references to the pope and little boys, Islam as a satanic religion and Katie Couric as "Little Katie Communist of the NBC Today Show" Indeed, it seems that this author believes that many in the media are communists. Is that the kind of author a publisher should stand behind when the facts in the book are called into question?

St. Martin's Press withdrew their controversial book when the character of its author was revealed to be suspect and the charges of George W. Bush's cocaine use in 1972 were refuted by a man in Texas. Now, we have a similar situation in which the character of the author of Unfit For Duty has been called into question and numerous facts contained within the book have been fully exposed as false, most recently in an article today in the Washington Post. Regnery Publishing, despite its Republican ties, should do the right thing and withdraw this book.

(And while they're at it they should condemn William Regnery's new all white dating service. (Thanks Oliver.)






digby 8/19/2004 01:18:00 PM |

 
Zig Zag

First, Susie reminds me that it's the mighty Clenis's birthday --- so happy birthday to the Big Dog. You're looking better every day.

She also alerted me to the fact that Zell Miller is going to nominate Bush at the convention.

Isn't this gilding the lily just a little bit? I'm not sure that those elusive swing voters are going to be all that impressed with a guy who is openly and obviously stabbing his own party in the back with singular relish. It's not the way stand up guys behave. You quit your party before you go this far.

I think they just overplayed the "Zell" card, but it depends on how the media play it. I'm fairly sure they'll present it some sort of metaphor for the deep discontent within the Democratic party and the "loss" of the south. Demo talking heads had better be prepared with some zippy zingers about good ole Zig Zag Zell.




digby 8/19/2004 11:48:00 AM |

 
Good Job

I know that bashing the Democratic establishment is good fun, but I think today we should show them some love. Their hardball approach to the Nader problem has been excellent. They are working on the ground in all these states making it tremendously difficult for the Republicans to get Nader on the ballot.

It isn't pretty and I'm sorry it came to this, but the stakes are too high and it had to be done. The Democratic party deserves some praise for learning from the past and getting people all over the country to do the tiresome, nitty gritty work involved in fighting this covert GOP operation.




digby 8/19/2004 09:37:00 AM |

 
Another One Bites The Dust

May I just say how comforting it is to know that this man has been advising George W. Bush on how to court Catholic voters. Who says that having ever more religion in public life won't improve the moral climate?






digby 8/19/2004 09:13:00 AM |

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

 
Making Her Bones

I love Dahlia Lithwick (really) and I'm greatly looking forward to her next column in which she takes the right wing to task for calling Kerry a delicate, effete "frenchman" who isn't a Real Man. I imagine she'll agree that's bad because it makes them look like crude barbarians who think that all Democrats who might vote for him are cowardly and effeminate. I'm sure it will be excellent.



Update: I think Yglesias has the right of it. Just because it might not be a good strategy to run against Bush the moron, doesn't mean that Bush is not a moron. (Stirling Newberry also has an interesting riff on pundits dumbing down arguments.)

John Kerry is not running his campaign saying that Bush is too stupid to be president. But that does not make it wrong that vast hoardes of average Americans know that what they are seeing on their television screens is a dullard of the highest order. It is simple reality. The man speaks in gibberish. He behaves with emotional immaturity. He betrays a sophomoric insensitivity ("please don't kill me") and a lack of gravitas that is frightening ("History? Who knows, we'll all be dead.")

Lithwick seems to be tut-tutting the regular folks like those who sent ads to MoveOn or fans of Michael Moore who have the bad manners to point out the turd in the punchbowl --- or bloggers like me. But, what she is really doing is speaking out in favor of the sort of cognitive dissonence that has become the hallmark of the other side. "You can believe me or you can believe your lying eyes."

Perhaps Bush isn't really a puerile dumbshit but merely a great actor. But, what I see is what I see. And standing before me as president of the United States appears to be an intellectually deficient and childish man by any standard, much less that which we would normally hold for a president.

Maybe John Kerry can't say it because some idiot swing voter thinks voting means he gets to drink beer with president and he'd prefer to be towel snapped by Bush than Kerry. I understand that. But, that doesn't mean it isn't true.




digby 8/18/2004 10:50:00 PM |

 
Falling On His Tiny Little Sword

You've got to hand it to the Scumbags for Truth. They smear Kerry's war record because they don't like his VVAW activity, then they smear the navy because it's the only explanation as to how all these glowing fitness reports and commendations could be given to a coward and now they are even smearing themselves. These guys will do anything, even sully their own war records, in their quest to get Kerry.

And, like the good Republicans they are, they then sniffle like little girls about how unfair it is that they are getting the same treatment they so enthusiastically mete out to to others.

Last month, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."

"I never heard a shot," Thurlow said in his affidavit, which was released by Swift Boats Veterans for Truth. The group claims the backing of more than 250 Vietnam veterans, including a majority of Kerry's fellow boat commanders.

A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units in the flotilla also came under fire.

"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."

Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.

In a telephone interview Tuesday evening after he attended a Swift Boat Veterans strategy session in an Arlington hotel, Thurlow said he lost his Bronze Star citation more than 20 years ago. He said he was unwilling to authorize release of his military records because he feared attempts by the Kerry campaign to discredit him and other anti-Kerry veterans.

The Post filed an independent request for the documents with the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, which is the central repository for veterans' records. The documents were faxed to The Post by officials at the records center.

So this idiot is actually saying now that his own bronze star for the same action that Kerry received his, unbeknownst to him, was given to him fraudulently and Kerry is probably the guy who perpetrated the fraud. This guy is one step away from the mentality of a suicide bomber --- right down to the whining victimhood.

Let's add up the discredited Scumbags, shall we?

Nixon hatchetman O'Neill gets caught in serveral lies about his recent Republican ties --- makes complete fool of himself trying to claim that half of the money he gave to the GOP was actually given by someone with a similar name.

Jerome Corsi is revealed as an insane Freeper bigot.

George Elliott can't decide from day to day which affidavit about Kerry's silver star is correct and makes the strong point that his own documentary evidence of 30 years ago was likely wrong because he can't think of a reason why these guys would lie 30 years later.

Now we have Thurlow.

These guys are a joke and the mainstream press needs to do its job and hammer on this. The campaigns are caught in a he said/she said that cannot properly put this to bed. Good for the Post for following up this story.



One little note about the Deborah Orin's New York Post story today about the success of the Scumbags for Truth ad. This "study" she and the mediatools like Scarborough are crowing about was a national on-line poll. It did not survey the voters in the 3 battleground states who saw the ad, but rather asked a group of pre-selected voters to view the ad and register their response. If you go to the web-site it appears to be part of an on-line political survey experiment.

According to Orin:

The Swift Vets study used 1,275 participants, including 371 independents, who watched ads and registered their reaction at every second using technology normally used to rate product ads. Half viewed the Swift Vets ad and the other half saw a pro-Kerry ad based on his convention speech, which was rated less persuasive.

[...]

The ad planted doubts in the minds of 27 percent of independent voters who planned to vote for Kerry or leaned pro-Kerry. After seeing it, they were no longer sure they'd back him, the study found.

It could be significant that the ad has the potential to affect 27% of pro Kerry independents. But,the ad only had a 500K buy in three swing states so it's unlikely that that many people have actually seen it in its entirety. If people have seen the ad on the news, they have also heard at least something of the other side of the story.

The bottom line is that in the future, it's possible that if a lot of independent voters who are leaning for Kerry see this ad, and never watch the news, a third of them might develop doubts right after seeing it. That's assuming that this online survey measures anything valid in the first place.

I think the endless mediawhore flogging is the real threat. But, I doubt there's much anyone can do about it. It's now a war of attrition. Kerry's reputation will always be scarred but the funny thing is that this little campaign is taking down his critics reputations too. John Kerry is not only a Vietnam veteran, he's a political veteran too. Whoever is left standing on election day will win this last chapter of the Vietnam saga and I'd put money on him. He's got a lot thicker skin than these guys.







digby 8/18/2004 08:28:00 PM |

 
Undercover Operation

All of you convention bloggers may want to program you Palm Pilots to be at Robert F. Wagner Park on September 1st at 6 pm. The Axis of Eve Coalition will be staging a very special protest.

More than 100 women will participate in the mass flash, which will showcase the group's provocative line of protest panties emblazoned with such sexy admonitions as "give bush the finger," "expose bush" and "weapon of mass seduction.

That ought to scare Gary Bauer right out of town.

For those who like their politics to be very personal the "panties with a purpose" are available here.




digby 8/18/2004 07:54:00 PM |

 
Campaign Finance Epiphany

I love how Bush has suddenly adopted McCain-Feingold as one of his signature issues.He's just appalled that these "shadowy" groups are undermining his fine achievement.

Q There's a new ad by MoveOn.org that talks about -- that criticizes Bush's record in the National Guard. What's your response to that, and what do you say to Harkin, who called Cheney a coward for not serving?

MR. McCLELLAN: We have been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative political attacks from these shadowy groups that are funded by unregulated soft money. And the President has condemned all of the ads and activity going on by these shadowy groups. We've called on Senator Kerry to join us and call for an end to all of this unregulated soft money activity. And so we continue to call on him to join us in condemning all these ads and calling for an end to all of this activity.

[...]

The President thought he got rid of all of this unregulated soft money activity when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And so it's another example of -- the senator's latest comments are another example of him saying one thing and doing another.

It makes you wonder why he signed the bill in private, allowed Mitch McConnell to promptly sue to overturn it and didn't even ask McCain to attend the ceremony. And his shock at these "shadowy groups" is especially rich considering that one of his primary objections to the bill was the limitation on issue ads and unregulated soft money by individuals.

Without any fanfare, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the campaign finance overhaul bill into law in the Oval Office Wednesday morning before heading off for fund-raising events in South Carolina and Georgia, the White House announced.

[...]

"The president believes the legislation, while far from perfect, will improve our current finance system," said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer.

As expected, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of the new law.

McConnell's legal team, led by former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams, plans to argue that the new law violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because it restricts the political speech of political parties and interest groups, but not the news media.

Bush also has reservations

In his written statement, President Bush praised provisions in the measure that ban unions and corporations from making unregulated contributions to political parties and the provisions raising the decade-old limit on individual giving.

The Bush statement also says that while the bill goes "a long way toward fixing some of the most pressing problems in campaign finance," the measure also has flaws.

In particular, the president wrote that he continues to object to the ban on unlimited contributions by individuals to political parties in connection with federal elections.

"The president believes the individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished," Fleischer said.

He said the president also has reservations about the limitations on issue advertising. The bill bans unions and corporations from using "soft money" to broadcast what are known as "issue ads" that mention a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary. Hard-money issue ads may run up to the election.

Fleischer said because of his concerns, Bush chose to sign the bill privately in the Oval Office as opposed to hosting a public signing ceremony at the White House.

Fleischer said it was the president's view that a South Lawn ceremony "would not have the aura of consistency...befitting with his beliefs in the bill in its totality."

His newfound concern for unregulated money in politics is quite touching. Who says he hasn't grown in the job?








digby 8/18/2004 06:50:00 PM |

 
Dear Roger Simon,

I wonder if you realize that your words on Meet the Press saying "'sensitive' is the kind of word a French candidate for president would use" were played several times by Rush Limbaugh on August 16 as evidence of Kerry's essential "frenchness."

While many of you in the press corps obviously find this "french" appellation hilarious, I'm sure you are also aware that this term is being used as a Republican code word in this campaign for cowardly and effeminate. As such, even though I know it is hard to keep from sharing those side-splitting one liners with the public, it might be more ethical to refrain from using these manufactured Republican punchlines. Of course, I'm assuming that you don't wish to be used by a propagandist like Limbaugh to push GOP talking points. Perhaps I assume too much.

Sincerely,


digby




digby 8/18/2004 03:56:00 PM |

 
Journalism

Lou Dobbs just had that con artist scumbag David Bossie on his show taking the Democrats to task for their "unprecedented" negative ad campaign comparing Bush to Hitler for over a year and a half.

And, in a most satisfying fashion, David Axelrod responded that Bossie was the guy who ran the Willie Horton ad, ran the 1992 ad with doctored tapes of Gennifer Flowers and was fired from the House for doctoring the Web Hubbell tapes.

Dobbs was shocked that Axelrod was personally attacking little Davy and interrupted. Bossie then decried negative advertising again.




digby 8/18/2004 03:30:00 PM |

 
Paging Doctor Parker

Doctor Nosy Parker

A judge ruled the state can suspend the driver's license of a man who lost his driving privileges after his doctor reported to police that he drank a six- pack of beer a day. But the judge also said Keith Emerich may obtain restricted driving privileges as long as he uses a device that tests his blood-alcohol content before starting his car. Emerich, 44, a printing company employee, was notified in April he would lose his license, about two months after he disclosed his drinking habit to doctors treating him for an irregular heartbeat.

Be very careful what you tell people, even your doctor. There is no evidence from this story that this guy was ever driving drunk. He might have downed all six of those beers after work and never left his house which, the last I heard, was still legal.

This is where my libertarian leftist tendencies come in to play. Fuck a bunch of moralistic assholes trying to tell people how they should live, in the name of "public safety." Cops, bureaucrats, do-gooders and religious zealots (and apparently doctors, now) are the very last people on the planet who should have the power to invade your private life because they are the very first in line to do it whenever they get the chance.

This is the preemption doctrine writ small.




digby 8/18/2004 02:59:00 PM |

 
What's Whiz This?

Campaign Desk highlights one of the typically egregious Inside Politics bitch fests about Kerry and Bush's relative machismo as illustrated by how they eat a Cheese steak.

I have one question for all of you Philly homeboys and girls. Unlike Kerry who ordered the wrong kind of cheese and proved he was a eunuch, Bush apparently showed that he had a giant dick by saying:

"A lot of people are wondering why I'm coming so much," he said. "It ought to be obvious to you. I like my cheese steak 'Whiz with.'"

I understand that this means he prefers it with Cheez Whiz. But, do real men have to order it "Whiz with" or are you a french pansy if you say "with Whiz?"




digby 8/18/2004 02:17:00 PM |

 
Why'd He Bother?

Be careful of these folks who travel around the country making all these big promises, and say, oh, don't worry, we'll pay for it by taxing the rich. You know how that goes. The rich hires accountants and lawyers and you get stuck with the bill. But we're not going to let him raise your taxes.

I don't get it. If "the rich" hire accountants and lawyers to avoid paying taxes, why in the hell did Bush bother to lower their tax rates twice in the last three years? He could have saved himself a lot of grief if he'd just let the rich do what they always do instead of changing the tax code in ways that made it appear that he was granting them a favor. (And think of the economic stimulus all those extra billable hours would have created --- and from the private sector, too!)

Are people actually buying this nonsense or is it some kind of a focus group glitch?






digby 8/18/2004 10:37:00 AM |

 
The Expert

President Bush reaffirmed his administration's commitment to building an antimissile system, accusing opponents of the program of "living in the past."

Although Bush did not mention his Democratic rival by name on Tuesday, his speech here at a Boeing Co. plant included a thinly veiled attack on John F. Kerry's stance on missile defense. "I think those who oppose this ballistic missile system don't understand the threats of the 21st century," he told 1,400 cheering Boeing employees and supporters.

The guy who invaded a country on the basis of its huge scary cache of unconventional weapons only to find it didn't even have one is lecturing people about understanding the threats of the 21st century.

digby 8/18/2004 02:41:00 AM |

 
Poison Stinger

Key Evidence Cast in Doubt on a Claim of Terrorism

Federal prosecutors acknowledged possible flaws yesterday in a major piece of evidence used in their case against two leaders of an Albany mosque on charges that they supported terrorism.

[...]

Prosecutors said they were given information from the Defense Department that a notebook with Mr. Aref's name and address had been found in what they said was a terrorist training camp in the western Iraqi desert near the Syrian border. They also said that a word in the notebook, written in Arabic, had referred to Mr. Aref as "commander."

As it turns out, the word is Kurdish, albeit written using the Arabic alphabet, and the translation may be incorrect. "Commander" could be translated as "brother," according to federal prosecutors.

Nijyar Shemdin, the United States representative for the Kurdistan Regional Government in Washington, reviewed a copy of the page at the request of The New York Times and said he did not see how a translation would have come up with the word "commander."

Mr. Shemdin said that Mr. Aref is referred to with the common honorific, "kak," which could mean brother or mister, depending on the level of formality.

[...]

In court last week, Mr. Kindlon did not have access to the note, and he expressed frustration at having to rebut the clearly ominous implications of the word "commander."

[...]

The judge gave the prosecution seven days to give the defense a copy of the note. The prosecutors asked the Defense Department for a copy, which they received and had the F.B.I. translate independently. That brought the discrepancy to light.

Mr. Kindlon said his client would seek a new bail hearing.

He said that Mr. Aref, a Kurd, had three brothers in northern Iraq and that there was no independent verification that the note had been found in a terrorist training camp. According to court documents, United States soldiers found the document on June 12, 2003, near the town of Rawah.

The sting operation being conducted in Albany was already underway then and was not tied to the discovery of the note, according to court documents.


[...]

However, many of the conversations between the informant and the men were in Urdu, as well as in Arabic and English, and Mr. Kindlon said there might be problems with the translations of those meetings, as well.

In court documents, the government provided only snippets of the conversations already translated.

This case is another one of those travesties in the making, you can tell. It's a bullshit sting that apparently relies on mistranslated notes the DOD conveniently found in a "terrorist training camp" in Iraq after the sting had already been initiated.

Evidently, they've caught all the active terrorists so they are now busy entrapping random people as a test of their loyalty. Good to know.




digby 8/18/2004 02:09:00 AM |

 
Deep Breath

Josh Marshall has posted an analysis by Charlie Cook that I had also planned to write about which shows that the electoral college count is still tilted slightly to Bush. He says:

A veteran politics watcher like Cook can see through that smoke and take into account the poor quality in some polls and deeper trends at work in given states. For that reason, I put a lot of stock in Cook's opinion.

I've also always found Cook to be very astute and his analysis makes wonder if we Democrats aren't in the middle of another one of those fugue states in which we start having visions of landslides and certain winners without any data to back it up. Cook writes:

In adding up all the electoral votes that are in the safe and lean columns for each candidate, President Bush has a tight 211 to 207 lead in the Electoral College. Bush also has 120 votes in the toss up column. However, if you pushed each of the 10 toss up states to Kerry -- who seems to be ahead by a slight margin -- he would come out on top.

I am feeling optimistic about this election, but I don't see where everyone is getting the idea that it's a done deal. As much as I'd like it to be so, I still see a race that's neck and neck where anything could happen.

The crowds on the ground are very encouraging and you can't dismiss that. But, I don't think there's any doubt that the Democratic base is riled up this time and so it's not all that surprising to me that more people would show up at rallies. And, we really can't measure the Bush rallies by the same yardstick since they are completely scripted and controlled media events. We don't know if his crowds would be just as large if he opened them up.

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade and I hope just as fervently as anyone that we win in a huge landslide. But, I'm not seeing any reliable evidence of this so-called new CW that it's "Kerry's to lose." It's still tied.




digby 8/18/2004 01:34:00 AM |

 
Lame

Before everybody gets all upset that Kerry condemned the MoveOn ad, think about it for a minute.

Personally, I think it's too late for this ad --- the story was already losing its momentum in the mainstream media. Editorials called Bush out. Even O'Reilly was condemning the swiftboaters. The timing is off.

Mostly, I agree with Chris Bowers at MYDD that the ad itself sucks (particularly in comparison with the SBVT ad.) I think they could have alluded to the Bush guard stuff with visuals and saved the righteously indignant VO to address the swiftboat smear. A little subtlety is called for if you are taking a position from the high road while you are sticking a shiv in someone's belly.

But, it's done and since our side demanded that Bush condemn his ad, Kerry has little choice now but to stand with McCain and condemn the MoveOn ad and and try to make Junior look bad by comparison. Kerry refused to distance himself from Admiral Turner and General Clark who are out there as attack dogs every day on the issue, (and explicitly bringing up the Guard) so he's not making the subject off limits.

Bush may end up looking slimy for being the only one who refuses to explicitly condemn these ads, and maybe just getting the Guard thing out there again in contrast to Kerry's record is what they are really after. If the ad had been a little bit more clever, that might have worked better. I think the best that can be hoped is that the whole subject looks so muddy now with flying charges and counter charges that people discount the whole thing as politics, no harm no foul to either side.

I honestly think the way to attack back would have been to let the swiftless do their thing and then brutally call into question Bush's behavior on 9/11. You want to go nuclear on these guys, that's the way to do it. My Pet Goat, baby. That's the soft white underbelly.




digby 8/18/2004 01:18:00 AM |

Tuesday, August 17, 2004

 
Judy In Disguise

Judith Miller got another subpoena in the Plame case over the week-end.

Strange, yes? She was, as we know, very well conected on the neocon WMD beat, wasn't she? The question in my mind is if she was the chicken or the egg.




digby 8/17/2004 04:08:00 PM |

 
Exit Poll Strategy

If the media wanted to make up in some small way for their transgressions in blindly helping Bushco send this country to war based on a neocon wet dream, they should follow the advice of Paul Krugman and finance several different competing exit polling operations for this election.

If the election is anything less than a landslide on either side, the skepticism about touch screen voting machines will hinder any president's claim to legitimacy. Now, Junior and his kool-aid drinkers don't really care about that because he found that he could pretty much do anything he wanted without it, but it's crucial to preserve our democracy, nonetheless.

The Georgia election in 2002 is a good example of what might happen in a number of places if good exit polling isn't done that validates the returns. The state showed two very surprising upsets that none of the polls had predicted. Going into the election they'd all had Senator Cleland winning by 2 to 5 points and he lost by 7. In the governor's race the swing was 16 points from the last polls to election day; Barnes had been up by 9 points and he lost by 7.

These things happen and it may very well have been a result of a last minute GOP surge. But, there is also some good evidence that the e-voting machines in Georgia were tampered with. We will never know the truth of that.

This time people on both sides are bound to question the results of these new e-voting machines if the returns show a close race. There will be no paper trail in most of them and the legitimacy of many winners is likely to be in question if there's no data to suport the tally. Exit polls are one way to do that.

The media should spend some money and get this done, not for predictive purposes on election night, but to validate the actual election returns. Otherwise we are going to be in tin foil hat territory for a long time to come. It's the least they can do.

Here are the Exit Poll Results for the 2000 election. You might want to bookmark it as we will start seeing more comprehensive polls over the next couple of months and it's interesting to see where the shifts, if any, are taking place.




digby 8/17/2004 03:40:00 PM |

 
Thanks For Nothing

E.J. Dionne says:

[Kerry] needs a much better defense of that Iraq vote of his. It really isn't so hard. When Bush went to Congress in the fall of 2002 for authorization to go to war in Iraq, he did so after saying he was going to the United Nations to seek international support for a war against Saddam Hussein.

Yes, the congressional resolution empowering Bush to wage war was far broader than it should have been. But when push came to shove, Kerry decided to take the chance in voting "yes" to strengthen Bush's hand in negotiating with the United Nations. That seeking U.N. support was never really a Bush priority and that he botched the postwar planning is the president's problem, not Kerry's. Why can't Kerry keep it that simple?

Does anyone in their right mind think that is simple? Has E.J. ever heard what Kerry really said? Jesus, by comparison he sounds like Forest Gump compared to that wonky blather:

Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have, but I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.

Now maybe there is a simpler way to say this but it sure isn't Dionne's meandering bullshit.

Look, this is a difficult issue for Kerry, there's no doubt about it. I was very disappointed in him for voting for the resolution because this was entirely predictable. From a tactical standpoint, it was never clear to me why these guys thought that they could win a presidential election by supporting Bush on Iraq. If the war was perceived as a success, Bush would probably be unbeatable. It is because the war has been such a strategic disaster that he's as vulnerable as he is. This, to me, was the only scenario in which we could win in '04 and therefore, it was always the smart move politically (much less morally) for Democrats to oppose that goddamned war --- and hammer on terrorism, the real threat, hard.

At the end of the day, the Bush people might want to rethink bringing this up everyday. Iraq is Bush's albatross, not Kerry's, no matter how hard they try to hang it around his neck. That big old elephant sitting over in the corner is holding a sign that says "where are the WMD?"

As for the much desired "bumper sticker explanation" that even Dionne can understand, The Howler suggests this:

I voted to give President Bush the authority. Then President Bush f*cked it up

Works for me.




digby 8/17/2004 12:47:00 PM |

 
Dangerous Ally

On July 30, the day after Senator John Kerry's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, CNN Crossfire host Tucker Carlson stated, "His [Kerry's] plan for Iraq, such as it is, is to have other people, dark skinned foreigners, from the Middle East fight our war for us. He said it last night in his speech. I watched his speech.

I heard that comment and I wondered what Carlson had been smoking. But I now realize that he was simply indulging in the usual right wing projection:

Few people likely paid attention last week when former President Clinton accused the Bush administration of contracting out U.S. security and the hunt for Osama bin Laden to Pakistan in its zeal to wage war in Iraq. In an interview with Canadian television, Clinton asked, "Why did we put our No. 1 security threat in the hands of the Pakistanis, with us playing the supporting role, and put all our military resources into Iraq -- which was I think at best our No. 5 security threat?" Clinton also observed, "We will never know if we could have gotten him [bin Laden] because we didn't make it a priority."

One consequence of the decision to subcontract the hunt for members of al-Qaida to Pakistan is that the terrorists appear to be regrouping. The Washington Post, quoting senior U.S. and Pakistani officials, reported "new evidence" on Aug. 14 that suggests "that Al-Qaeda is battered but not beaten, and that a motley collection of old hands and recent recruits has formed a nucleus in Pakistan that is pushing forward with plans for attacks in the United States."

Despite Pakistan's past role in propping up the repressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the Bush administration -- in one of its least transparent foreign alliances -- continues to rely on Pakistani military and intelligence services to deliver bin Laden. Since much of the give-and-take in this relationship is covert, it is unclear exactly what is or is not taking place.

Pakistan sells nuclear and missile technology to Iran and North Korea and its internal political situation is so complex that probably half of the army and most of its intelligence service are sympathetic to al Qaeda. Yet we are depending upon that country to handle the most sensitive intelligence matters pertaining to islamic terrorism while we fiddle around in Iraq for no good reason.

The Bush Doctrine of "if you feed a terrorist, talk to a terrorist, or harbor a terrorist means you're a terrorist" applies in every aspect to Pakistan. The country is a military dictatorship in which the general in charge suspends the constitution on a regular basis. The country is a powderkeg in a region that is a powderkeg. And yet we have put the real central front in the war on terrorism in their hands.

I know we had to keep them close, but our dependence on them has always seemed to me to be exceedingly dicey. As many commentators have pointed out recently, it's created a dilemma for both countries in that Pakistan is motivated to keep dribbling out al Qaeda from time to time while never actually netting anything definitive or seriously meaningful because to do so would mean the end of huge amounts of American money and support. Crack diplomacy at work, once again.

One can't help but wonder every day, for a hundred different reasons, what we could have acomplished in narrowing the threat of Islamic radicalism if we had focused our best and the best of all of our allies on that problem. It certainly would have been preferable to having Pakistan take the lead on al Qaeda while we fought a completely unnecessary war elsewhere.

It all comes back to the delusionary belief among Bush's advisors, even after 9/11, that islamic radicalism is not as great a threat as rogue states. This fundamental error has almost driven us off a cliff and will definitely do so in the next four years if these people remain in power.




digby 8/17/2004 02:03:00 AM |

Monday, August 16, 2004

 
Bist meshugeh?

Ryan Lizza tells us that aside from blacks, Hispanics and catholics, Rove hasn't managed to bring in any Jews either.

A poll out today by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research confirms that Bush has made no inroads [among Jews.] The numbers look almost identical to what VNS exit polls found in 2000. Here are the highlights:


Senator Kerry maintains a very strong lead over President Bush within the Jewish community. Senator Kerry leads President Bush by a margin of 75 percent to 22 percent. Senator Kerry's lead is as strong as the American Jewish vote was in 2000 for then-Vice President Gore over then-Governor Bush; respondents voted in 2000 for Gore over Bush by a margin of 76 percent to 21 percent.

[...]

** President Bush is deeply unpopular among American Jews. President Bush is seen as favorable by only 20 percent of respondents; a stunning 73 percent see him unfavorably. Conversely, Senator Kerry is seen as favorable by 59 percent of the respondents, while only 27 percent view him unfavorably.

This doesn't surprise me. Members of groups in this country who have historically been discriminated against by nativist whites and waspy elitists have good bullshit detectors. They are the last people in this country who would be fooled by this GOP flim-flam.

Rove thought they could back Ariel Sharon and American Jews would just follow Junior off a cliff. I think he spent a little too much time with the radical fundamentalists. American Jews aren't cult members. They are cosmopolitan Americans who think for themselves and have a very long tradition of respect for liberalism and intellectualism, neither of which are concepts that Bush understands, much less stands for.

So, after three years in office and a one time 90% approval rating, Bush has wrapped up the fundamentalist and CEO vote. Quite an achievement.




digby 8/16/2004 07:51:00 PM |

 
Don't Go There

Kevin Drum does a masterful takedown of Jonah Goldberg's ridiculous assertion that the "Bush haters" are more extreme and nasty than the Clinton haters were. He reminds him of the murder charges from the WSJ editorial page, the videos about cocaine running in Arkansas and, of course, the $70 mil spent chasing Clinton's mighty member.

But, he is too polite (and I'm not) to mention that Jonah's dear mother was the shrill, shrieking harpy from hell who committed a litany of heinous and disgusting acts during the era and "secured her footnote in American political history as Linda Tripp's accomplice, delightedly hawking a story to the equally spiteful New York Press about Clinton "finger-fucking" his daughter Chelsea."

Now, when Michael Moore or MoveOn come out with sewage like that we can talk. Until then, Lucianne's little boy ought to shut the fuck up about Clinton-haters and Bush-haters. It's not exactly a topic that benefits the family name.




digby 8/16/2004 04:25:00 PM |

 
Darby's Nightmare

When it was revealed that Joseph Darby came forward about the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib, many of his friends and neighbors turned on him and his family. I'm sure they all were listening to Rush and Sean who told them it was just "blowing off steam" and Senator Inhofe who said he was "outraged by the outrage." This is the president's base, the heart and soul of wingnut America:

Each day, she [wife, Bernadette Darby] would catch another snippet of the hostility brewing around her. There was the candlelight vigil in Cumberland, Maryland, to show support for the disgraced soldiers, including the ones who did the torturing, about a hundred supporters standing in the pounding rain, as if beating and sodomizing prisoners were some kind of patriotic duty. Or the 200 people who gathered one night in Hyndman, Pennsylvania, waving American flags to honor Sivits, the first soldier tried in the scandal. They posted a sign in Hyndman. It said JEREMY SIVITS, OUR HOMETOWN HERO. And the mayor told reporters that even though Sivits would sometimes do "a little devilish thing," on the whole he was "a wonderful kid."

Where were the signs for Joe? Bernadette had to wonder. Where was his vigil? Where was his happy mayor? Where were his calls of support? Down at the gas station, Clay overheard some guys say that Joe was "walking around with a bull's-eye on his head," just casually, just like, oh, everybody knows Joe's dead. Some of Bernadette's family even let her know that other members of the family were against her now, that they couldn't support a traitor. The more Bernadette heard, the more paranoid she became. How serious was this? Her nerves were so fried from the media onslaught that she couldn't be sure what was serious and what was just talk. Had those cops really ignored Maxine because they were against Joe? And if so, what else would they ignore?

[...]

When they got to Bernadette's apartment in Corriganville, they went inside, and the cats rushed to Bernadette, and she held them in her arms and talked to them while Maxine and Clay tried to give her space.

And then the phone rang.

It was a major from the U.S. Army, and he was coming over. Within a few minutes, everything began to shift around Bernadette, and it was hard to tell what was happening. She found herself in the passenger seat of an unmarked government vehicle, speeding down the highway to some unknown destination, Clay's truck right behind her with Maxine and the kids packed inside, the whole group snatched up by military protective custody without any prior warning or even a clear idea of why. Bernadette called Virginia and said, "We're in protective custody now. I don't know where we're going, but we'll call you when we get there."

Mrs. Darby hadn't heard from her husband, but he'd been taken into protective custody himself, sometime before. The military knew that his life was in danger.

You know, I don't know how much more of this Bush administration-style honor and integrity this country can take.



digby 8/16/2004 02:36:00 PM |

 
Spoonfed Gibberish

Some Deep Thoughts from our president on the campaign trail in New Mexico:

I understand the limitations of government. I understand that government is not a loving organization. (Laughter.) But government can stand side-by-side with loving organizations to help improve the lives of people from all walks of life.

And there is nothing I love more than a fabulous, loving organization. As long as they're not too sensitive. I'm against that.

The only reason I ask is that people have got to understand when you hear the tax relief encouraged investment, investment means you're purchasing something, and somebody has to make that which you purchase and sell that which you purchase. And that's how the economy works.

And people have got to understand that when you fall down and go boom it means you're no longer standing. And that's how gravity works.

It's one thing to have justice; it's another thing to go overboard with justice, because people start to lose work.

Especially my close personal friends and political contributors.

I think a healthy society is one in which people own something. If you own something you have a stake in the future of your country.

And if you don't you are a fucking loser who has no stake in the future so just go die.

You can't have a hopeful society if you're not allowed to express your opinion or worship freely.

And you can't attend or speak at this rally unless you agree to express the opinions we want you to express.

You see, it's a different kind of war. It's a different kind of war. We cannot hope for the best anymore. In the old days, we could, because we thought oceans would protect us. It wasn't all that long ago that we thought we were safe from harm's way.

Well, except for the thousands of Soviet ICBM's that were aimed at every American city for almost 50 years, that is.

Q: We are praying for righteous leaders in Washington and throughout our country, because we know that it's time for America to get back to its moral roots that our founders put in place for us when this country was founded. And it is time for the people in this country to realize and to call out for righteous leaders. That is our right as God's children. And we are doing that...And you will be in the White House.

God isn't fooled by George W. Bush like you are. Don't count on it.




digby 8/16/2004 01:19:00 PM |

 
Faultlines

Here's an interesting article in TNR by Clay Risen about restiveness in the Chamber of Commerce, particularly the small business side, over its goosestepping adherance to the GOP line.

...at the same time the Chamber was drifting to the right, the interests of its larger members began to diverge from those of its small-business constituency. Several fissures have emerged. For one, the rise of offshore manufacturing means that smaller firms, which tend to be at the bottom of the supply chain, have been forced to cut costs significantly or lose out to overseas competition. "They are more and more being told that their prices have to look like what the big guys are getting from China," says Josh Bivens, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute. "If they're not poised to do that, they lose out." Meanwhile, chains like Wal-Mart are pricing small retailers out of the market, offering more products at lower cost. And because they buy primarily from other multinationals (who can supply large quantities of cheap products) small manufacturers are getting squeezed as well. But because big business invariably has more money to contribute, its influence in setting the Chamber's priorities means that the needs of smaller firms have been largely ignored. "For small businesses, their adversary used to be government regulation," says Marks. "Now it's big business."

For these guys, paying taxes is the least of their problems. They are concerned about health insurance inflation and low educational standards and a whole host of other things, while the Chamber is blathering on rellentlessly about tort reform. And, their biggest threat is the rapaciousness of the corporate oligarchy. The way it's going the new ownership society is going to have a few successful owners and a whole mess of untermenchen serving them. (But, don't worry, they'll be able to save five dollars a week in their 401K's, so they'll be "owners" too.)

The story of how the Chamber became Tom Delay's bitch is also quite interesting. It's pretty much the story of how the GOP whips its own if it steps out of line. It's not really a big tent; it's a big S&M parlor:

The Chamber was initially supportive of Clinton's plan; William Archey, its chief lobbyist, and Robert Patricelli, chair of the Chamber's Health Committee, even met regularly with the administration to iron out key points of disagreement. The Chamber, as Patricelli said at the time, saw Clinton's managed-competition proposal as a reasonable solution to what it considered a crippling problem for businesses. But Republicans feared that a health care win would solidify Democratic dominance in Washington, and so they began browbeating the business lobby into opposing the plan. In late 1993, Ohio Congressman John Boehner told Archey and Chamber President Richard Lesher that it was "the Chamber's duty to categorically oppose everything that Clinton was in favor of." Republicans made public statements about the Chamber becoming "irrelevant," and a klatch of conservatives--such as Boehner and Georgia Senator Paul Coverdell, along with lobbyist Grover Norquist's "Wednesday Group" of anti-Clinton, anti-health-care-reform lobbyists--hinted that unless the group changed its tune, they would retaliate, perhaps by telling constituents to quit the Chamber or by creating a competing organization more sympathetic to the right.

If Junior doesn't manage to eke out another dubious "victory", it's going to be interesting to see some of these fault lines break. The problem with humiliating people by forcing them to pledge fealty against their will is that they don't mean it. They'll stab you in the back the first chance they get. The GOP fight over "who lost the permanent majority" will be a lot of fun to watch.




digby 8/16/2004 10:29:00 AM |

 
(Brain) Size Matters

I've been waiting to read this article for three long years. Bravo Yglesias.

This emperor has no clothes thing has been the single most frustrating thing about the Bush presidency. He is not smart enough for the job of president and he has been incompetent because of it, over and over again. The man isn't up to the task intellectually and doesn't have the temperament to privately trust someone else (like his father perhaps) to be the arbiter of disagreements among his advisors when he doesn't understand the issues. Neither did he have the experience or instinct to effectively manage people to create consensus on their own.

You could argue that the family values that Yglesias says are not necessary in a president are actually emblematic of other desirable character traits like loyalty or honesty. (I wouldn't.) But, what you cannot do is say that intelligence is not an issue and you cannot say that it isn't an issue of primary importance. Obviously, the job of leader of the free world is complicated and one of the requirements is that you be able to understand it.

When Republicans tell me that it doesn't matter if Junior is intelligent I ask them if they think it matters if a doctor is intelligent or a judge or a general and if they think the job of president requires any less of a brain than those jobs do. Then picture George W. Bush doing any of them.




digby 8/16/2004 08:41:00 AM |

Sunday, August 15, 2004

 
He's Quite A Little Man

Killing Goliath alerts us to the reliably reactionary Walter Scott's Personality Parade® today:

Q. George W. Bush has occupied the White House for almost four years, yet little is known of his personal preferences. Can you fill in the blanks? -- J. Brinkley, Los Angeles, Calif.

A. He's a man of simple tastes whose favorite foods are peanut butter (creamy, not chunky) and jelly sandwiches and Fritos. According to Ronald Kessler's A Matter of Character: Inside the White House of George W. Bush, just out, the health-conscious President brings his own treadmill and nonallergenic pillows on long trips.

The audacity of presenting this election as a choice between an effete French pussy and macho manly man is mind-bending.

Clearly, this election is a choice between a 60 year old man and a five year old boy.




digby 8/15/2004 11:20:00 AM |

 
Nuclear Advertising

Atrios has a fun example of a possible nuclear attack ad the Dems might have at the ready if Bush continues down the low road using 9/11 fearmongering to sell his floundering presidency.

Here's one I'd like to see:

George W. Bush: I can't imagine the great agony of a mom or a dad having to make the decision about which child to pick up first on September the 11th. We cannot hesitate, we cannot yield, we must do everything in our power to bring an enemy to justice before they hurt us again. (from TV ad)

VOICEOVER: Here's what the families of the victims of 9/11 think about George W. Bush.

WOMAN: My husband was killed in the WTC

WOMAN: My father was killed in the WTC

SUSIE ELLIOT, Firefighter husband died in the WTC. : George Bush has not been honest about what happened on September 11th.

ALISON FRENCH, Father died in the Pentagon: He is lying about his record.

CINDY LETSON: Son killed in the WTC : I know that George Bush is lying about 9/11, because I saw the video where he froze up and couldn't figure out what to do when he was told about the attack.

BETSY ODELL, Son killed in the WTC: George Bush lied when he said he did everything he could. I know. I've read the 9/11 report.

DINA CHENOWETH, Husband killed in the WTC: It took us pressuring him for months to even agree to a commission to investigate what went wrong.

MARY HOFFMAN, Son and daughter-in-law killed on Flight 93: George Bush didn't want people to know that he had received explicit warning for months and did absolutely nothing.

KATHY LONSDALE, Sister of brother killed in the Pentagon: He lacks the capacity to lead.

KATIE THURLOW, Husband and son killed on flight 93: When the chips were down, you could not count on George W. Bush.

DEBBIE ELDER, Husband killed in the WTC: George W. Bush is no leader.

ANGELA HIBBARD, Daughter killed in the WTC: He betrayed us. He lied before the american people.

SHELBY WHITE, Husband killed in the WTC: George W. Bush has betrayed all the men and women who died on September the 11th.

BRENDA PONDER, Husband killed at the Pentagon: He dishonored his country. He most certainly did.

JANE HILDRETH: Wife of firefighter killed in the WTC: I watched George W. Bush try to cover up his administration's actions leading to 9/11. George W. Bush cannot be trusted.

VO: 9/11 Widows for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

digby 8/15/2004 09:57:00 AM |

Saturday, August 14, 2004

 
Offensive PR

Atrios and Bob Sommerby and others have been critical of Kerry's campaign press operation lately, particularly the fact that the surrogates and pundits aren't well prepared.

I'm often in the uncomfortable position of sounding like an apologist for the Democratic establishment because I don't think it's right to call them immoral or cowardly when the legislative or political strategy is more complicated than immediately obvious or when it is simply a failed tactic not a mark of poor character. I believe that the entire culture has been brainwashed to one extent or another by relentless right wing attacks against liberalism. But, I'm all for real constructive criticism and this is an example.

Our pundits and surrogates are often unprepared, poor public performers and they always have been. I have never felt that we had the same energy or the same charismatic self assurance that the other side does and it hurts us in the modern media climate. I often think that much of what we Democrats see as failure in our politicians is really failure in our pundits and spokespeople. We don't have the message discipline that they do, particularly when we are on the defensive. And when we do, far too often we use it incorrectly, in my view, by clumsily inserting it into situations in which it's clearly inappropriate and looks like a dodge. There are times when you simply have to be prepared to make an argument. Not to mention that our talking points sound about as interesting as reading the letters H through J in the Yellow Pages. We need a better PR operation desperately.

I do take issue with one thing that Sommerby says, however. He chastizes the Kerry campaign for putting out press releases in which they do not say specifically what they are rebutting. But, there is an old truism in public relations -- you don't repeat the charges against you. The press releases are sent to the media under certain headings that make it clear what they are rebutting and the press then uses the words in the release in their story about whatever the charge was. But, it's never considered smart to have your opponents words come out of your own mouth. It's just another way to get the charge out there. None of that is to say that I think Kerry's rebuttals have been particularly effective either. It's just that refusing to reiterate the charges is not the reason.

One thing they should do immediately is put out an order that the words "out of context" should never be uttered as a rebuttal again. Those words no longer have meaning in plain English. You might as well be screaming "no fair!" or putting fingers in your ears and humming the star spangled banner. It's wasted breath. They need to reiterate specifically what they meant, not just say that the Republicans are taking it "out of context." Indeed, sometimes it can work to your advantage by giving you an opportunity to lay your charge out more explicitly. For instance, on the "sensitivity" thing:

"John Kerry was saying that we need to end the bumbling Bush diplomacy that has recklessly alienated too many of our our allies. The stakes in the war on terror are much too high for such clumsy mistakes."

Frankly, I don't know why the Democrats don't make better use of their natural constituency in the entertainment business. Those people know everything there is to know about selling "people" to people and they have been in the business of PR even longer than the business base of the GOP. There is much the Dems can learn about the marketing of politics from them.

It's a part of the big modernization project that the Democrats simply have to keep working on. This is the new politics and we're way behind.




digby 8/14/2004 12:31:00 PM |

 
Misguided

Bob Kerrey writes a nice op-ed today in the Washington Post in which he lays out an excellent case for why Kerry will make a good commander in chief, regardless of his Vietnam service --- his longstanding committment to veterans.

He opens with a point that is quite obvious and should be hammered home:

The former Navy personnel who are attempting to discredit Sen. John Kerry's record of service in Vietnam are doing so to argue that he is unqualified to be commander in chief. Most appear to be angry with him on account of his opposition to the Vietnam War, not his service in it. They have done a better job of damaging the reputation of the U.S. Navy than they have of damaging John Kerry.

Yes indeed. Unfortunately, being Bob Kerrey, he is congenitally unable to keep himself from from pretending to be a "maverick," even when it makes no sense, so he ends up with this:

I was going to end this by calling on President Bush to join McCain in calling for the cessation of this misguided effort to discredit Kerry's service in Vietnam. But fair is fair. There are just as many misguided ads running against President Bush today by these "527" organizations. Unless our campaign finance laws are changed again, U.S. voters are just going to have to figure this one out on their own.

Oh, he must be talking about the misguided 527 ad in which a bunch of businesspeople who hate George W. Bush because of his politics imply that he personally bilked millions from small investors in one of his business ventures back in the 80's. They say they worked with him, but actually they were just working in Texas at the same time. And even though they have no direct knowledge that he did it, and there is no record of it anywhere, they are sure he must have because he believes in tort reform and a couple of Democratic plaintiff's lawyers who've had it in for him for years say it's so. They've all come forward now for the first time because they believe in our system and they don't think a fraud and a cheat should be trusted with the US treasury. Oh yes, and it's financed by Barbra Streisand and Siegfried and Roy, who paid for similar ads calling Bush a pedophile back in 2000. The main spokeman is the man Bush beat for head cheerleader at Andover.

I haven't actually seen that ad nor have I seen the accompanying media frenzy in which the mediawhores bring on the former cheerleader to claim repeatedly that "many people saw him taking the money right out of grandma Millies purse", while Bush's spokespeople struggle to get them to explain why there is not one shred of documentary evidence to back up the claims and not one person who said anything at the time. I'm sure I just missed it when I went out for groceries.

Yes, the Democrats also just make stuff up out of whole cloth. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves. Bob Kerrey is certainly right about that.




digby 8/14/2004 11:44:00 AM |

Friday, August 13, 2004

 
Coffee, Tea or Moron

Jesse comments on the single stupidest interview of the year. Even George W. Bush isn't as stupid as these people. Read the latest on Little Annie Fannie's adventures in the sky.




digby 8/13/2004 07:14:00 PM |

 
Fredo and Sonny Combined --- The Worst Of All Possible Worlds


This is the man they support because the other guy protested the war after he came back from Vietnam:

“I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." George W. Bush on why he joined the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, 1990.

Campaign '94: George W. Bush /As operative for his father, loyaltywas the foremost watchword

By CRAGG HINES, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
Staff

WASHINGTON -- Soon after the 1988 election, a handful of intensely loyal Bush supporters began to divvy up the spoils of victory.

The sole task of the partisans on the so-called "silent committee" was to decide who had been politically dedicated enough to the new president to merit top federal jobs. Leading the small group was George W. Bush , the winner's eldest son.

At one session, the well-connected chairman advanced the prospect of an acquaintance, Dallas catalog king Roger Horchow, to be chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, a juicy federal plum.

The choice struck some in the group as inappropriate. Why Horchow, they asked?

"Because he gave money to my father" was Bush 's matter-of-fact reply, a participant in the meeting recalled.

But a quick cross-check of the records indicated that Horchow also contributed to the Democratic nominee, Michael Dukakis .

"It didn't take any more," the participant recalled. "George W. said, "That's it.' "

Friend or not, Horchow ceased to be a candidate.

The younger Bush 's leadership of the committee and his response to Horchow's bet-covering demonstrate the role he took in his father's political life -- a behind-the-scenes operative who displayed and demanded unquestioned loyalty to the older Bush .

"Loyalty to his father was all," said Chase Untermeyer, a longtime aide to President Bush and now a vice president of the Houston-based computer firm Compaq.

Even the few times the actions of the younger Bush made their way into the headlines, his role remained unchanged.

It was George W. Bush who finally told White House chief of staff John Sununu that, after months of controversy, it was time to go. When Sununu sought to rally conservative support to remain on the job, word of the first son's mission was leaked to reporters -- to increase pressure on Sununu to move on.

That Sununu failed to understand the message was coming from the president -- and no appeal was possible -- indicates how badly he failed a Bush -style political IQ test.

The incident, in late 1991, also illustrates how George W. could operate as a second pair of political eyes and ears for his father.

Rich Bond, a Bush campaign operative for more than a decade, recalls getting a letter from President Bush as old-line supporters were getting restless about the lack of planning for the 1992 race. The note said George W. soon would be in touch to discuss politics.

"I unloaded" when George W. called, Bond said. "I told him what an idiot I thought John Sununu was."

Bond wasn't the only one with that view.

George W. delivered the message from supporters to his father and, once the president had made up his mind, passed the verdict to Sununu.

To some folks with extensive ties to the Bush family, George W. was also sometimes a messenger for his mother. Barbara Bush carefully cultivated her role as national grandmother and rarely wanted her fingerprints on any political hatchet work. But both she and her oldest son have long, exacting political memories, friends agree. And, one added, George W. and his mother "were a lot harder nosed about things than (the president) was."

"She can smell a phony a mile away," the younger Bush once said of his mother, whom he admiringly referred to as "the silver fox."

The run-in with