Hullabaloo

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

 
Time To Put On Your Game Face

I enjoy backseat campaign managing as much as the next person. And I admit that the press and our inability to manage it profoundly depresses me. But, I NEVER say we are going to lose. I love to analyze the race and offer my ideas, but it is never done in the spirit that the Kerry campaign are a bunch of losers. I cannot conceive of a more demoralizing and hopeless thing to read than something like this:

Some prominent Democrats are already grumbling privately that none of the people in Kerry's communications operation should ever work on campaigns again, should Kerry lose. Given all the money Kerry, the DNC, and the 527s have raised and spent this time around, the typical Democratic lament of having been vastly outspent will ring hollow. If Kerry loses, it will not be because he was outspent; he will be because he was outfoxed.

There was a moment in the 1992 campaign, former Clinton-Gore '92 communications director George Stephanopoulos told Frontline in 2001, where the staffers could suddenly feel the weight of what it was they were trying to do. Stephanopoulous talked about it in the context of the history of the War Room, and it's quite illuminating:

Frontline: After the primaries in California, you then set up the war room. What are you trying to do?

Stephanopoulous: Not to be the Dukakis campaign, which a lot of us had worked in. And a lot of us felt we had been beat because the Republicans had laid out a pretty targeted, fierce assault on Dukakis that we didn't answer. We were determined that if we were going to lose, we were going to lose fighting. We were going down fighting. In June, we were in third place, broke and we hadn't gotten paid in two months. And Ross Perot was moving. And like I said, we were not going to go down without a fight.

And the war room was important, not just for the actual work it would do in answering the Republican charges and counterattacking, but the very idea of it was important -- just having a war room so that Democrats, especially, but also others who were just going to start to pay attention to the campaign, would see that we weren't like Democrats in the past. They'd see that we were different -- not only because we were different on our ideas -- but because we fight back when we're hit.

Frontline: Later in the fall, polls were looking pretty good for you with Bush. Still, according to everything everyone had written, there's a sense of fear that never goes away.

Stephanopoulous: It's a different kind of fear. I remember the first time I ever really let myself believe we could win and we're going to win. It was late September in the Washington Hilton on a Sunday morning, and Clinton was about to go give a speech in North Carolina on NAFTA. And he called me in and had his standard morning outburst on the speech and was yelling about it. And, but his heart wasn't really in it, and I could tell. . . . And he suddenly stops yelling, looks me right in the eye and says, "You think we're going to win, don't you?" I said, "Yes." And he goes, "I do, too." And for me, that was just incredible. He was saying out loud what we all hoped for, but could never say. It would be like talking about a no-hitter in the eighth inning.

And from that moment on, inside we didn't feel like underdogs anymore. We felt like we had this responsibility to win. And as a staffer, it was starting to get a little bit out of control, because I had never been through anything like that and nobody else had either. When you're in a presidential campaign at its peak in the fall, all the sudden it's not just 20 people in Little Rock sitting in a room. You're representing a lot of people who have invested in you, and not just the money. People have just invested their hopes. The whole country is paying attention. There are millions. And we start to think, my God, if we blow it now, it's all our fault. And we will have blown this opportunity that a lot of people are counting on us to carry out.

So the fear of making a mistake and letting these people down and thinking, basically, that you're going to have to leave the country becomes tremendous. You just don't want to blow it.

You have to wonder if the Kerry team is feeling that same fear right now, though, as they approach late September trailing rather than confident of victory. Because if they blow this one...

In late September of '92 people were beginning to beg Perot to get back in the race and nobody knew what was going to happen. There was no empirical reason to believe that Clinton had it in the bag although I'm not surprised that he felt confident. That's how competitors make themselves get up in the morning. That race was like a fucking bungee jump. And believe me, if you'd asked the same crew of sad sack Democratic insiders what they thought at the time they would have said that the sky was falling and that we were doomed, doomed, doomed and should have nominated Tsongas because he didn't have a draft problem.

I'm as fond of Clinton hagiography as anyone on the planet, but a whole lot of this fuzzy nostalgia about '92 is just crap. Bush senior was in free fall in the polls because he was widely considered to be out of touch on the economy, which was perceived to be very bad. Ross Perot had sucked all the oxygen out of the campaign for months and took the press's eye off of the Bush assault on Clinton. Then he dramatically withdrew from the race during the Democratic convention saying that the Democratic party was "revitalized." That was quite a gift and it gave Clinton a chance to re-start what had been a very anemic campaign.

He fought back, yes, by using the innovation of answering charges within the same news cycle. But, I watched that campaign more closely than any in my life and I can tell you that each one of those hits took another piece off of his hide. He didn't lie down, and that was admirable, but that's not why he won. He won because both he and Perot were hitting Senior hard on the economy while Senior and his crew were having to discredit both Perot and Clinton with character smears. Perot imploded, but by the time he did he had helped drive Senior's negatives even farther into the dirt than Clinton's and maintained a "movement" that siphoned off 20% of the vote when he got back in. It was one of the weirdest campaigns in American history and virtually no lessons can be drawn from it.

Kerry has every reason to be hopeful. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that Bush's ephemeral lead is shrinking as we speak. It's a nailbiter, but it is far from over.

I just wish that Dems could put on their game faces and try to sell the guy a little bit instead of constantly writing his epitaph. He's really a good man, you know. He's spent his life in public service, trying to do the right thing, working hard and carrying our agenda. He's our most liberal nominee in decades. He's smart and energetic and he's never been tainted by corruption or scandal. Is it so hard for Democrats to get behind a man like this or are we just as shallow as everybody else? Would we too be happier with a brand name in a suit?




digby 9/14/2004 05:53:00 PM |

 
Poll Jumpy

DonkeyRising has a few more thoughts on the state of the race:

Well, those cards and letters keep coming in, so I thought I'd respond to a few of the most common questions that have been posed to me.

1. How can you deny that Bush is ahead?

I don't. My view is that he is currently ahead, but only modestly, contrary to the tone of media coverage and the findings of some polls. I have tried to explain the reasoning behind this assessment, especially as it pertains to possible problems with contemporary polls.

It's worth noting that the latest poll data on RVs--ending the night of the 12th--have Kerry up by 2 (IBD/CSM/TIPP) or Bush up by 4 (ICR). That averages out to a 1 point Bush lead, even without party-weighting the data. And Rasmussen LV data for the period ending the 12th also has Bush with a one point lead.

2. How is it possible for samples of RVs to suddenly have too many Republican identifiers? Aren't voters just shifting their party identification?

It is certainly possible that we gone from, say, a 4-5 point Democrtic lead in party ID to a 4-5 point Republican lead in the space of the last month. But color me skeptical about this 8-10 point swing in a few short weeks.

A better explanation for this sudden shift in poll samples, in my view, is that when the political situation jazzes up supporters of one party, they are more likely to want to participate in a public opinion telephone poll and express their views. An increased rate of interview acceptance by that party’s supporters would then skew the sample toward that party without the underlying distribution having changed very much, if at all.

In this case, the Republican convention, coming on the heels of the Swift Boat controversy, may have helped raise political enthusiasm among Republican partisans, leading to more interview acceptances and a disproportionate number of Republicans in recent samples.

Do I know this for sure? No, I don't, because we lack direct evidence that this is happening, just as we lack direct evidence that individual voters are suddenly and massively shifting their party allegiance. But I do know which of these explanations I find more plausible and consistent with other evidence about the general stability of party ID.

More here

My uninformed gut tells me that this race is, and will likely remain, close. I always thought it would be, as inexplicable as that is. I have been following this interesting theory by professor James Galbraith that Bush is on a slow trajectory to defeat for some time. Basically, he says that Bush has been artificially boosted above his natural level by three events, 9/11, Iraq and the capture of Saddam. He is fairly sure that it will take an October Surprise for Bush to win:

With about seven weeks to go, this equation suggests that if no new major episode occurs, Bush should lose about 2.1 percentage points between now and Election Day. In that case, he will face John Kerry with approval ratings very close to the lows of his presidency. And very close to the floor, below which he probably can't sink.

The moral remains the same. As I've said in earlier columns, an "October surprise" could tip the balance. The country should be braced for news on the terror front from Pakistan or elsewhere. Or perhaps we'll see the gift of a "You can go home soon" speech by Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. One hears, at this stage of the campaign, all kinds of rumors. They can't be verified, but they gain weight from the fact that the Bush team tried to manipulate the terror war -- ordering up well-timed arrests in Pakistan -- to squelch Kerry's convention bounce last July. Who knows what else they have planned?

On the other hand, it's clear that Bush hasn't put the contest away. Kerry can win this thing for sure.

digby 9/14/2004 04:37:00 PM |

 
True Lies

The truth of the Killian memos has been established, at least according to Andrew Sullivan in TNR. But, while simultaneously taking credit both for being a superior blogger and a superior journalist he explains that he is actually superior to everyone by telling them that they should all just stop being so superior. Meanwhile, he reveals that he is living on another planet.

There's been a lot of hubris in the blogosphere about this, and, indeed, some blogs, most especially Power Line, should get the blog equivalent of a Pulitzer for their dogged pursuit of the truth. But the reality is far simpler and less flattering to bloggers. Journalism is not a profession as such. It's a craft. You get better at it by doing it; and there are very few ground rules. By and large, anyone with a mind, a modem, a telephone, and a conscience can be a journalist. The only criterion that matters is that you get stuff right; and if you get stuff wrong (and you will), you correct yourself as soon as possible. The blogosphere is threatening to some professional journalists because it exposes these simple truths. It demystifies the craft. It makes it seem easy--because, in essence, it often is.

Blogging's comparative advantage has nothing to do with the alleged superior skills of bloggers or their higher intelligence, quicker wit, or more fabulous physiques. The blogosphere is a media improvement because the sheer number of blogs, and the speed of response, make errors hard to sustain for very long. The collective mind is also a corrective mind. Transparency is all. And the essence of journalistic trust is not simply the ability to get things right and to present views or ideas or facts clearly and entertainingly. It is also the capacity to admit error, suck it up, and correct what you've gotten wrong. Take it from me. I've both corrected and been corrected. When you screw up, it hurts. But in the long run, it's a good hurt, because it takes you down a peg or two and reminds you what you're supposed to be doing in the first place. Any journalist who starts mistaking himself for an oracle needs to be reminded who he is from time to time.

This must be the bizarro world blogosphere where truth is decisively discovered by an objective judge (perhaps Sullivan himself) who hands down a final order when the facts have been established. In my blogosphere, nobody agrees on what color the sky is. And for some reason, the vaunted self correcting mechanism only seems to run one way. Why is that? For instance, the right spent two months swearing the John Kerry faked his medals in Vietnam and I haven't read any "corrections" to that "simple truth."


Here on planet earth even if writers correct their errors, readers pick and choose which versions to believe and continue to battle the arcane details long after everyone else has lost interest, clinging to their own version of reality as if it is a life raft. The "transparency" of the blogosphere is as clear as orange juice with pulp. Nobody gets stuff "right." They just get stuff. Errors are sustained forever. The "collective mind" is schizophrenic. The blogosphere demystifies the craft of journalism all right and turns it into an endless self-referential loop of The Osbornes.

What an nice bizarro blogosphere it is indeed when you just dismiss fully half of it as "moonbats" in order to believe that you have achieved a pure and real set of facts. I'd like to go there. It sounds soothing. What's the URL?

In Sullivan's blogosphere, credibility is granted once everyone (who's anyone) agrees. Therefore, the famous blogger hero Buckhead, who within seconds of the CBS broadcast, had "proven" the documents were forgeries, should be deemed credible for his other scoops as well, yes? Like this one:

The question on the table is going to be whether John Kerry was a witting or unwitting communist agent.

1. He traveled to Paris for illegal meetings with the communist enemy.

2. He comes back and in his Senate testimony gives them a major, major, major propaganda victory with his lies about war crimes.

3. He presents to the Senate and the country, and argues for, the communist proposal for giving them complete victory.

4. He attends, in leadership positions, meetings of the VVAW at which the assasination of American political leaders is openly discussed, and does not immediately disasssociate himself or do anything to report on this criminal conspiracy.


5. Post war he is lionized by the Vietnamese communists for his indispensable contributions to their victory.

135 posted on 09/02/2004 5:41:03 AM PDT by Buckhead

Just another credible blogger/journalist plying his craft. I'm sure Sullivan will get right on the case and fact check his ass.


Oh and by the way, I'm no expert mind you, but I've spend a bit of time on blogs and I've never come across Sullivan's little insider "blogspeak" term for the mainstream media --- MSM. Is this only for super bloggers who get more than 20K hits a day or something? I feel so small and insignificant.




digby 9/14/2004 03:09:00 PM |

 
Bringing The Two Together

The Decembrist makes an extremely valuable insight into the way the intersection between issues and character help people to make decisions. His advice to the Kerry campaign is, I think, very valuable:

I don't think the problem with Kerry is that he talks about issues when he should be talking about character. That was Al Gore's problem. I think the problem is that the Kerry brain has split into an issues half, and a character half, and the two sides aren't communicating. The character half controlled the convention, and focused on Vietnam. Fine, but what did that say about how he would deal with Iraq? And the issues half has plans -- entirely good ones, even for Iraq. But those proposals don't reinforce any sense of the kind of person Kerry is, and how he would cope in a crisis.

I don't know enough about the internal politics of the Kerry world (in which I know almost no one) to speculate whether one side is represented by Bob Shrum or Michael Whouley or John Sasso or whoever. But whatever the factions are, they have to get it together. The issues and scheduling side of the campaign has to stop picking an issue of the day, based on the polls. It has to start trying to choose some issues that really emphasize whatever it is that they want to say about Kerry as a person that contrasts him to Bush (honest, brave, forward-seeing, smart, common-sense, independent, cares-about-ordinary-people -- pick one and reinforce it) and then use those issues to tell that story over a period of a week or more. And where they want to attack Bush on either character or issues, pick a point that best emphasizes a single point that they want to emphasize to draw the contrast with Kerry. That means, among other things, saying no to all the issue-advocacy groups that are besieging the campaign, brandishing polls and begging Kerry to devote a day to their cause.

The issue advocates need to be bum rushed out the door. Kerry is hanging in there in the polls (contrary to the news which has suddenly decided that outlying polls are the best guage of the state of play) but he needs some focus as we go into the stretch to pull this out. Relying on the debates isn't enough because you simply cannot depend upon the press corpse to properly report the event. What they can do is try to find that sweet spot and hammer it home so that when the debates arrive your storyline has been set.

"Brave" is the quality I'd choose and I'd hammer Bush for not being brave enough to fight off the special interests, the neocons, the tax cut zealots and the extremists in his own party. Kerry volunteered to fight a war, take on criminals as a prosecutor and big corporate interests as a Senator and says "bring It on" to smear artists and dirty tricksters who've tried and failed to take him down. (You don't even have to mention the guard stuff. The implication is clear.) You could tie this in to terrorism, health care, Iraq, the economy and judicial nominations. Any of those issues can be framed as Bush being unable to stand up and be his own man. You could even use the fact that he hasn't vetoed one bill as evidence of his cowardice in facing the congress.

But, regardless of what character trait they choose to highlight, the key is to stick with it and hammer it home relentlessly. Bush is vulnerable on almost everything but I think it it could be quite helpful for Kerry to focus on one character contrast that can illustrate the whole enchilada.







digby 9/14/2004 02:24:00 PM |

 
What The White Men Want


Apparently most white guys are so egotistical that they think they could be president and so they want a president who is just as stupid as they are. People were offended by the title of Michael Moore's book, but the truth hurts.

George W. Bush has it down: the "bring 'em on" macho sensibility, the public swagger, even the quick-draw High Noon cowboy stride. Call it the testosterone factor. It's one reason Bush has maintained a strong appeal to white men throughout his presidency, especially in the South and Southwest.

[...]

"Part of it is a Republican thing," says Rutgers political scientist Ross Baker, "but a good part of it is a Bush thing. For guys who drank and loafed their way through college, he's a familiar figure." And, it turns out, a popular one. In his early years, Bush was a likable party animal, seemingly committed to a lifestyle of making wisecracks, chasing women, and guzzling brew. He says he reformed two decades ago, giving up alcohol and becoming a born-again Christian. As president, he has come across in an equally comfortable way to white men--as a strong commander in chief and a conservative who seeks to return honor and responsibility to public life.


What works for most white men (as opposed, for example, to African-American men, who evaluate the president in starkly different terms) is Bush's reputation as an "average guy," says a senior White House official--the opposite of what California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger famously calls "girlie men." Baker says Bush "has a down-to-earth quality that men find appealing. You know he won't slip off to a quiet place and strum a six-string guitar." And his support among white males has helped Bush open up a 52-to-43 percent lead over Kerry among likely voters, according to that Washington Post /ABC News poll.[bullshit ed.]


Vacillating. No Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of white male voters since Jimmy Carter in 1976. That's partly because the party's candidates have come across as vacillating on military issues and lenient on social concerns like crime and federal "giveaways" to the poor. Al Gore got only 36 percent of the white male vote in 2000; Bush pulled 60 percent. Bush now has about 57 percent support among white men to Kerry's 39, according to GOP pollster Ed Goeas, and Bush appears to be gaining momentum on issues most important to those voters, such as making America safe and waging the war in Iraq Bush leads Kerry by 8 points among single white men and by 20 points among married white men, according to recent polling.


Adding to Kerry's problems, if the Democratic challenger tries to court the white male vote too aggressively, he risks alienating white single women and minorities who are turned off by Bush's macho tendencies. Joe Lockhart, former White House spokesman for Bill Clinton and now a Kerry adviser, says, "If you want the easiest way to define the Bush doctrine, it's what I call the testosterone presidency. They've worked very hard making him look like Gary Cooper in High Noon. Why? Men have testosterone. Does that make good policy? No, of course not."


But Bush advisers say the president's big advantage in attracting the "white-guy vote" is that he can just be himself. Bush, like those in this core constituency, likes to watch sports on television, enjoys fishing, doesn't take himself too seriously, and doesn't express himself well. White males like to see themselves in what White House officials call Bush's "moral clarity," his attitude toward the war on terrorism, and his espousal of conservative values, such as opposition to gay marriage.

"Bush has his flaws," says Ted Stout, 39, who runs a bus company in Scranton, Pa., where Bush and Kerry made stops after their respective conventions. "But there's no question that when he says he's going to do something, he does it. That's what I like about him." Stout, waiting to bowl on league night at Scranton's Southside Bowl, adds: "He might seem a little dull-witted, but he's an average person. He makes the right decisions when he needs to."


Sporty. "We can't be girlie men" about the war on terror, says Michael Bidwell, a 38-year-old Republican dining at Scranton's Stadium Club with three male coworkers. "We need to go after terrorism. Terrorism isn't going to go away, and we can't put a blanket over it." Bidwell says he has a son and a daughter serving in the Middle East and adds: "I don't want to see them over there on a mission that's not finished." Steve Pasternak, a retired utility worker standing among "Sportsmen for Bush" signs at a pro-Bush rally in Johnstown, Pa., says he will vote for the president "because he thinks like sportsmen do. He's a hunter going after the people who need to be hunted."

Kerry has made a bid for white males by calling attention to his record as a Vietnam War combat hero. The Democratic nominee has also been emphasizing Bush's poor record on job creation and improving the economy.


But so far, none of this has made much difference. "I'd rather vote for action than inaction," says David Thorn, a 30-year-old communications representative from Overland Park, Kan., who sat in the dark-paneled comfort of O'Dowd's Little Dublin, a bar in Kansas City's upscale Plaza district. "And I'd rather stand for something than nothing. John Kerry doesn't seem to stand for anything." That's not an enviable position to be in with the election less than two months away.

God, that's depressing.

However, there is some good news. The GOP pollster who says that Bush has 57 percent of white males to Kerry's 39% is full of shit. (Why this guy is the only one quoted for this article is anybody's guess, but fair and balanced it ain't.) This article by John Judis and Ruy Teixeira explains why. Iraq.




digby 9/14/2004 01:16:00 PM |

Monday, September 13, 2004

 
The Kennebunkport Project

Here's Kitty:

While the Camp David coke party is getting the headlines, Kelley's book is filled with many other tawdry stories about the Bush dynasty. Here is a family that looks 'like "The Donna Reed Show," and then you see it's "The Sopranos,'' Kelley tells Salon in the interview below. As Kelley tells it, the dynasty had respectable origins -- in the form of family patriarch Prescott Bush, the distinguished, moderate Republican senator from Connecticut -- but rapidly slid into cynical opportunism, skulduggery, and a mean-spirited sense of entitlement. The first President Bush is presented as a weak yes man, driven not by political vision but a savage preppy spirit of competition instilled in him by his whirlwind of a mother.

But it is his wife, Barbara (whom the ex-wife of White House counsel C. Boyden Gray calls "bull-dyke tough"), and their eldest son, George, who are the true pieces of work in Kelley's book, a mother and son team brimming with such spite and ambition they would give the ruthless duo in "The Manchurian Candidate" the shivers. In one of the creepier passages of the book, a family gathering from hell at Kennebunkport, Maine, Barbara is shown mercilessly baiting her dry-drunk son, then governor of Texas, as a teetotaling "Chosen One," while he keeps pleading to skip the cocktails and put on the feed bag, and his elderly father "drools over [TV newswoman] Paula Zahn's legs."

Isn't it time the president came clean about his dysfunctionaL family?




digby 9/13/2004 10:22:00 PM |

 
Sticky Blogs

Chris Bowers at MYDD has a very interesting post about the right vs left Blogosphere. In the interest of not being too sticky, I will not discuss it, I will simply recommend that you go and read it.




digby 9/13/2004 08:28:00 PM |

 
Sharon's Revenge

I don't know how many people saw Kitty Kelley this morning on the Today Show, but it was interesting. She'll be on a couple more days so tune in if you get up early. This morning Sharon Bush was on to refute the claims that she told Kelley that Junior was doing cocaine at Camp David during the 80's.

She was pretty weak, mainly because she just couldn't resist trashing the family about how they were treating her during the divorce. It was clear that she harbored enough resentment that she could have easily spilled the beans on little George during a contentious divorce case. It's possible she lied but you'd think she would have come up with one that would be more current if she wanted to stick it to him. Regardless, it seemed clear to me that Kelley accurately quoted her. Here's the publisher's response to Bush's appearance on the show:

Statement by Doubleday Regarding Kitty Kelley:

NEW YORK, Sept. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by
Doubleday regarding Kitty Kelley:

In an appearance on the Today Show on Monday, September 13, 2004, Sharon Bush repeated a denial she made earlier last week. After telling Kitty Kelley that she had knowledge of President George W. Bush "doing cocaine" at Camp David -- "not once, but many times," Mrs. Bush now denies that statement.

This denial has already been utterly discredited by a third party to the meeting at which Mrs. Bush made the statements. Doubleday and Kitty Kelley, author of "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty," firmly uphold the accuracy and veracity of reporting on this topic. Further, Doubleday and Ms. Kelley affirm that Mrs. Bush was read her comments on the day following the meeting in a telephone conversation, lasting over an hour, that was witnessed by Random House Vice President Peter Gethers -- that those comments included her remarks on cocaine use at Camp David -- and that she once again agreed that these comments were true.

The following are undisputable facts:

-- Mrs. Bush confirmed that she was aware of cocaine use by President George W. Bush at Camp David when his father was President

-- Mrs. Bush confirmed that such usage occurred on more than one occasion

-- Mrs. Bush knew that Ms. Kelley planned on using this information in her book and was read the exact quotes that would be utilized

-- Mrs. Bush continued to have a good relationship with Kitty Kelley -- long after the meeting in April at which she confirmed the cocaine report

-- Mrs. Bush called Ms. Kelley in May, 2004 after which there was a friendly correspondence.

Additionally, Today Show host Matt Lauer and Mrs. Bush suggested that Kitty Kelley had a "relationship" with Lou Colasuonno, a public relations executive who witnessed the April 1, 2003 lunch meeting between Kitty Kelley and Sharon Bush. Kitty Kelley had never met or spoken with Mr. Colasuonno prior to April 1, 2003. Kitty Kelley has never had and does not have any personal, social or financial relationship with Mr. Colasuonno.

Knowing the way Kelley operates, there are probably a few hidden bombshells that will come out over the next few days. Has anyone heard anything?




digby 9/13/2004 04:55:00 PM |

 
Free To Be Unemployed

For those who wonder if I am right in saying in my post below that your boss can fire you for your political beliefs, yes she can.

It seems reasonable to ask what business Michael Italie's political convictions were to his employer. But when the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union looked into Italie's case, it discovered, as Pastrana evidently had, that Goodwill was on strong legal footing. "There is no legal case to be brought," explains Miami chapter president Lida Rodriguez-Taseff. "The law is pretty clear that a private employer can fire someone based on their political speech even when that political speech does not affect the terms and conditions of employment." A public employer would be prevented from firing someone based on political speech (because that would constitute the government itself suppressing free speech). Rodriguez-Taseff briefly held out some hope that Goodwill could be challenged based on its government contracts. Apparently, though, the case law isn't favorable for government contractors, either. Italie told Chatterbox that every lawyer he's spoken with has told him essentially the same thing. Everyone who isn't a lawyer, Italie said, is outraged. Chatterbox tested this hypothesis by describing Italie's case to Ronald Radosh, the virulently anti-Communist writer. "Everybody has a right to run for mayor on the SWP ticket," Radosh said. "That's a clear-cut infringement of civil liberties."

The irony is that one can make (and many have made) the case that people like Michael Italie shouldn't be permitted to hold jobs in government, where at least in theory they have the power to subvert the U.S. system. Yet it is in government where Italie would be protected. In the private sector, where Italie is entirely harmless, he enjoys no protection at all.

If you refuse to swear fealty to your leige's politics, you can be kicked out on your ass. If you wanna eat, keep your mouth shut. Freedom of speech only goes so far. Creepy, isn't it?




digby 9/13/2004 04:25:00 PM |

 
Manly Men And Their STRONG STRENGTHLYNESS™

Gary Farber helped me to figure out why I've been having disturbing dreams of bouncing a tennis racket off of Scott McClellan's face every night:

KERRY, BUSH'S STRONG STRENGTHLYNESS™, AND NORTH KOREA.

Yesterday:

On Sunday night, Scott McClellan, the president's press secretary, told of Mr. Kerry's comments, said: "Senator Kerry wants to return to the failed policies of the previous administration, where the U.S. was duped. We've been down that road before and we have no intention of letting it happen again."

We are instead far better off with the failed policies of the current administration! Look how much safer we are, today, from the threat of North Korea achieving nuclear weapons, thanks to the Strength™ of the Bush Administration!

It's just that simple. Anything else is just rhetoric.

Truly has there ever been a more arrogant administration? This, apparently, is a real step forward:

A mushroom cloud that towered over a remote corner of North Korea last Thursday was a result of a huge blast to prepare earthworks for a hydroelectric dam, the North said Monday.

Bill Rammell, a British Foreign Office official, met with Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun of North Korea to discuss the incident, according to a BBC correspondent in Pyongyang."It was no nuclear explosion or an accident," Rammell quoted Paek as saying. "It was a deliberate, controlled detonation to demolish a mountain in the far north. The Press Association of Britain gave similar details about the explosion in a pool report, and Xinhua, China's press agency, quoted a North Korean Foreign Ministry official with the same explanation. In a pool report received by Reuters in London, Rammell noted that he had asked permission for "our ambassador and other ambassadors to be allowed to visit the scene of the explosion." "I am very pleased the North Koreans have agreed to the request," he said. North Korea's neighbors, China, Russia and South Korea, have reported no increased radiation releases.

But five days after seismic detectors picked up the blast, there were as many questions unanswered Monday as after the train explosion on April 22 that leveled a railroad station and killed 171 people shortly after the passage of a train carrying Kim Jong Il, North Korea's dictator, whose father was Kim Il Sung, the nation's founder. If the government planned to blast apart a mountain on Thursday, the 56th anniversary of the founding of North Korea, why do it in the middle of night, when no heroic propaganda videos could be made?

The date was purely a coincidence, I'm sure. Clearly, the reality is that Kim Jong Il is so afraid of Crusader Codpiece that he is trying to get the American people to vote for his good friend John Kerry who will let him have all the nuclear bombs he wants. At least Senator Roberts thinks so:

SEN. PAT ROBERTS (R), KANSAS: It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Kim Jong Il would think in some deranged way that if he had some kind of a test that that would affect the election. I don't know if that's the case, but that could be one of the conjecturing that is going on in the intelligence assessment.

BLITZER: What would be his motive in trying to affect the U.S. election, Senator Roberts?

ROBERTS: Oh, just to cause, you know, more concern in regards to possible terrorist attack, and they would then be the eighth nation that would have the kind of nuclear capability and what we're working against.

We were able to convince Libya to, you know, go the other way; same thing with Pakistan; same thing with other countries. But it's very hard to predict what Kim Jong Il will do. He's just not very predictable.

BLITZER: Before we move on, are you suggesting he would like to see President Bush defeated?

ROBERTS: Well, I think that's probably the case. I'm not going to go out on a limb and say he's endorsing -- or anybody that would want any kind of endorsement from Kim Jong Il.

I'm just thinking in terms of what he is up to, we have to very closely monitor it. And I'm saying the intelligence is mixed, and we'll continue that monitoring.

Yeah, he's obviously very afraid of Junior. That's why he's building nuclear weapons right in front of the whole world while John Bolton ineffectually shakes his tiny fist and Lil' George pulls his proverbial pud. This is working out really well. I sure hope Bush gets elected. Maybe we can have a full fledged nuclear war. That'll teach 'em who's boss.








digby 9/13/2004 04:01:00 PM |

 
Can You Believe It?


The World's Shortest Blog's bounty is up to $2,060.00! A thousand here and a thousand there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Isn't it time for the president to come clean about how many times he's been arrested?

Speaking of which, has anyone ever asked him why he had his drivers license number changed in the early 90's?




digby 9/13/2004 03:08:00 PM |

 
There Ought To be Limits To Freedom

Via Salon:

Moulton woman says she lost job for sporting Kerry sticker on car:


MOULTON — Lynne Gobbell never imagined the cost of a John Kerry-John Edwards bumper sticker could run so high.

Lynne Gobbell said her boss fired her last week because of the Kerry-Edwards campaign sticker on the back of her car.
Gobbell of Moulton didn't pay a cent for the sticker that she proudly displays on the rear windshield of her Chevrolet Lumina, but said it cost her job at a local factory after it angered her boss, Phil Gaddis.

[...]

"We were going back to work from break, and my manager told me that Phil said to remove the sticker off my car or I was fired," she said. "I told him that Phil couldn't tell me who to vote for. He said, 'Go tell him.' "

She went to Gaddis' office, knocked on the door and entered on his orders.

"Phil and another man who works there were there," she said. "I asked him if he said to remove the sticker and he said, 'Yes, I did.' I told him he couldn't tell me who to vote for. When I told him that, he told me, 'I own this place.' I told him he still couldn't tell me who to vote for."

Gobbell said Gaddis told her to "get out of here."

"I asked him if I was fired and he told me he was thinking about it," she said. "I said, 'Well, am I fired?' He hollered and said, 'Get out of here and shut the door.' "

She said her manager was standing in another room and she asked him if that meant for her to go back to work or go home. The manager told her to go back to work, but he came back a few minutes later and said, " 'I reckon you're fired. You could either work for him or John Kerry,' " Gobbell said.

"I took off my gloves and threw them in the garbage and left," Gobbell said.

Though she is unemployed and uncertain if she will get her job back, Gobbell said, she doesn't regret her decision to keep the sticker on her windshield.

"I would like to find another job, but I would take that job back because I need to work," she said. "It upset me and made me mad that he could put a letter in my check expressing his (political) opinion, but I can't put something on my car expressing mine."

She was referring to a flier that she said Gaddis placed in employee envelopes to remind them of the positive impact that President Bush's policies have had on them. An employee at the plant who would not identify himself confirmed the contents of the letter.

Gobbell provided a copy of the flier. It says:

"Just so you will know, because of the Bush tax (cut):

I was able to buy the new Hammer Mill
I was able to finance our receivables
I was able to get the new CAT skid steer
I was able to get the wire cutter
I was able to give you a job"
It further says:

"You got the benefit of the Bush tax cut. Everyone did."

It's perfectly legal for an employee to express his or her political view. It's perfectly legal for an employer to express his or her political view.

And it is also perfectly legal for that employer to fire that employee for expressing his or her political view.

Kind of harkens back to the glory days of the feudal system, doesn't it?




digby 9/13/2004 02:29:00 PM |

 
It's All They've Got

The Political Animal is absolutely correct about what this election is really all about. Whether we like it or not, national security is the issue on which this election is going to be won or lost. And Democrats have been at a disadvantage on this issue for the last forty years which is why, despite the fact that the country agrees with us on virtually every other important issue, (and knows that Bush has been a disaster even on national security) it is an article of faith with many people that Republicans are better at defending the country. I believe that John Kerry, of all the primary candidates (except Clark who ran explicitly on that issue) understood that this election would be played on Republican turf and positioned himself to challenge Bush there. And that, in combination with the fact that there were no WMD and Iraq is looking more and more like a total disaster, is why we are tied instead of behind. If Iraq had turned out well, I never believed that there was any chance the Democrat would win.

I have said before and I will repeat, we can and must discuss other issues and in swing states particularly, there is nothing wrong with hitting hard on the economy and other domestic concerns. But, the sub-text of everything in this election has to do with each candidate proving that he is tough enough to beat the terrorists and handle any new threats that come up. If you do an ad about medicare reform, it must show Kerry being tough and calling Bush weak. If you do one about education, again, Kerry tough, Bush weak. The Democrats must show that they will give as good as they get, that they aren't afraid and that they will go after anyone who challenges their willingness to fight. No matter what the actual subject of discussion, the sub-text is who can keep America safe from terrorists and since Democrats operate at a disadvantage on that issue, we have the higher bar to meet.

Kevin notes that Clinton won at a time when national security was not a major concern. (I agree. If Clinton were running for the first time today, I don't think he'd have a chance.) He wisely used that period to lay to rest the shibboleth about Democrats being too irresponsible to manage the economy. He was largely successful in realigning the public's view on that a fact which has only been reinforced by Junior's fiscal nightmare. (They'll keep trotting out their "tax and spend" mantra but it just doesn't have the punch it once had.) Now, we face the other propaganda set piece that the Republicans successfully sold the public for the last forty years, which is the defense issue. Like Clinton and the economy, Kerry is challenging them on their field of battle and is promoting a better and more rational approach to national security. But, it's tough sledding, just as it was for Clinton, to change public perceptions after a notion has been inculcated in the national sub-conscious for a generation.

This is also why I have to laugh at this notion that Rove has gone after Kerry's strength by attacking him on national security. It's bullshit. Any Republican would have done that and they all have since 1960. When we won, it was largely in response to external events that changed the landscape temporarily (assasination, Watergate, end of the cold war.) As long as there was an external threat, the Republicans built in their advantage through relentless propaganda.

But, this is a cautionary tale that we should be very careful to look at with eyes wide open. Forty years ago, as now, the problem of convincing the public that we are tough enough to meet the threats of our time is only the first step. The real problem will be when we win and have to fend off the constant attacks from the right that we are appeasing the enemy. This was an ongoing problem during the cold war and it was how we ended up with a Democratic president escalating a war simply because he was hamstrung by the right wing's obsession with communism. He didn't believe in the war:

It looks to me like we're getting into another Korea. It just worries the hell out of me. I don't see what we can ever hope to get out of there with, once we're committed. I believe that the Chinese Communists are coming into it. I don't think that we can fight them 10,000 miles away from home. … I don't think it's worth fighting for and I don't think that we can get out. It's just the biggest damned mess that I ever saw.

But the political reality was daunting. Robert Sheer explained like this:

Why did Johnson commit to such a disastrous course? He clearly did not share the hubris of his advisors, led by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara (who later recanted), that the war could be won. Nor could those advisors convince him that winning a war against one of the poorest nations on earth mattered to U.S. security.

But he did agree that the status quo in Vietnam was untenable; the choice was withdrawal or escalation. And he chose the latter because to do otherwise would endanger his chances for victory in the election that fall. "The Republicans are going to make a political issue out of it," warned Georgia Sen. Richard Russell, the president's longtime political confidant. "It's the only issue that they've got," Johnson replied.

In particular, Johnson was concerned that Henry Cabot Lodge, the U.S. ambassador to Vietnam, would return to take a place on the GOP ticket, probably as the vice presidential candidate, and use weakness on Vietnam against Johnson. "Now, one of our big problems, the biggest, between us, and I don't want this repeated to anybody, is Lodge," Johnson told Russell. "He ain't worth a damn . . . and he can't work with anybody . . . so it's just a helluva mess."

Russell agreed, adding that in dealing with the Vietnamese, Lodge "thinks he's dealing with barbarian tribes out there and that he's the emperor and he's going to tell them what to do, and there's no doubt that, in my mind, that he had old Diem killed out there himself." Of the killing of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, Johnson responded, "That was a tragic mistake." But he didn't dare remove Lodge because "he'd be back home campaigning against us on this issue every day."

So in the end, Johnson sent half a million troops to Vietnam and carpet-bombed the country with more explosives than were used during World War II because he wanted to deprive the Republicans of their one issue and feared even Congress would turn against him if he withdrew: "Well, they'd impeach a president that would run out, wouldn't they?" he asked Russell.

They impeach presidents for a lot less than that these days.

Kerry is, I believe, uniquely qualified to deal with this difficult issue and reposition the democrats on national security as Clinton did on economics. His personal knowledge of the Vietnam problem and the experience of dealing with the Washington power structure for the last twenty years prepared him for the political battle that lies ahead on Iraq and terrorism. But, it is going to be tremendously difficult to deal with the Republicans on these issues.

As Johnson said forty years ago, "It's the only issue they've got."


UPDATE: Since I linked to Drum's piece, I should make it clear that I generally agree Michael Tomasky's take on why Democrats' fealty to the notion that elections are won on issues as opposed to "character" (I would call it personality) is losing us elections. ("Republicans understand the world, and Democrats do not," is, however, a statement I don't think is precise or wise. The out of context possibilities are frightening.) I don't think that Drum and Tomasky really disagree with one another, either --- what Kevin calls an "issue" (national security) Tomasky would call "character."

Republicans certainly use national security as a character point --- tough, uncompromising and aggressive vs being weak, vascillating and fearful --- to beat us over the head. The reason that people trust republicans more than Democrats on the issue is not because of their superior 10 point plans, but because they trust them to have the character and temperament to fight and win. They have been taught to think the opposiote of Democrats.




digby 9/13/2004 01:06:00 PM |

Sunday, September 12, 2004

 
Big Improvement

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 12 - In a series of tightly sequenced attacks, at least 25 Iraqis were killed by suicide car bombings and a barrage of missile and mortar fire in several neighborhoods across Baghdad on Sunday.

The attacks were the most widespread in months, seeming to demonstrate the growing power of the insurgency and heightening the sense of uncertainty and chaos in the capital at a time when American forces have already ceded control to insurgents in a number of cities outside of Baghdad.

[...]

American forces appear to be facing a guerrilla insurgency that is more sophisticated and more widespread than ever before. Last month, attacks on American forces reached their highest level since the war began, an average of 87 per day.

In a Sunday appearance on the NBC News program "Meet The Press," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell acknowledged that the United States faced a "difficult time" in Iraq but had a plan to "bring it under control" before nationwide elections scheduled for January.

"It's not an impossible task," he said.

The violence, which began before dawn, all but paralyzed this country's capital city, where portions of several central highways were closed, and traffic slowed to a crawl.

[...]

After the attack, fighters and gleeful onlookers scaled the burning armored vehicle, said Hassan Lazim, assistant security director at nearby Karkh Hospital who said he saw the scene. Reuters reported that several young men had hung a black banner of the Unity and Jihad militant group, believed to be linked to Al Qaeda, on the barrel of the Bradley's main gun.

Helicopters that flew in to protect the Bradley were then fired on from the ground and fired back, the military said in a statement, adding that the aircraft then destroyed the armored vehicle as well. The helicopters "fired upon the anti-Iraqi forces and the Bradley, preventing the loss of sensitive equipment and weapons." The military stressed that the helicopters had not fired indiscriminately into the crowd, but said, "An unknown number of insurgents and Iraq civilians were wounded or killed in the incident."

[...]

In the fighting before and after the attack on the Bradley, 13 people were killed and 61 were wounded, the Iraqi Health Ministry said. A journalist for the Arabiya television network and a 12-year-old girl were among the dead, hospital officials said.

Al Arabiya showed dramatic footage that followed the journalist, Mazen al-Tumeizi, as he stumbled away from the scene of the airstrikes, yelling, "I'm dying, I'm dying!" More than 20 journalists have been killed here since the beginning of the American invasion.

"We can say there were innocent people who died," said Sabah Abud, head of emergency room statistics at Yarmouk Hospital, which received most of those wounded on Sunday.

There's more to the story and it's all bad. I don't know how much more of the "freedom" these poor Iraqis can take.




digby 9/12/2004 08:09:00 PM |

 
An Expert


Just one last little word on this document drama and the blogosphere. We have among us here in left blogistan someone who is not only and expert in typography, but an expert on the blogosphere --- Barbara O'Brien who has written a book called Blogging America (which you should all buy because it features many fine and familiar bloggers, including yours truly) and who also runs the great blog the Mahablog.

Her expertise in these two areas means that her blog is required reading on this subject:

From Friday on the documents:

Even I think I am spending way too much time on the Killian memo issue, but I'm visiting it again because, dammit, I'm an expert. And I don't think they are forgeries.

I studied typography as an academic discipline (circa 1971) as part of the old journalism school curriculum at U of Missouri. I spent roughly 30 years in the book publishing business, most of which was on the production side dealing with type compositors and printers. I have worked with typography and printing processes from the end of the raised-metal-type era to current digital technology. I have designed and written complete type specifications for more books than I can remember.

As a production editor in the 1980s I became especially good at measuring the type in books to be reprinted so that corrections could be made by patching the film. To do that, I had to measure the old type and match font, body size, ledding, and letter spacing exactly. This is not a skill people need much any more, since books are stored digitally. But I still know how to do it.

I'm bouncing around the web seeing wingnuts flying off about proportional letter spacing and kerning and whatnot, and I'm telling you these people are off the wall.

Read the details here

Sunday on the blogosphere:

As of now, I believe all of the "proof" of forgery of the Killian documents has been tossed out of court, so to speak. We've accounted for proportional type several different ways, centered heads, all manner of character questions (including the famous raised "th," which turns out to have been a special character on some type element balls, as I suspected), kerning (there wasn't any), and the astonishing fact that when you set the same document twice in the same type face and size it will look pretty much alike. Imagine.

The hyenas on the right are still mindlessly yapping about forgeries, because that's what they do. But by now most people with brains understand the documents are most likely authentic.

According to this LA Times article, the "forgery" claim can be traced to an anonymous poster on Free Republic. Of course. Then some junior technoweenie on Little Green Footballs discovered he could replicate the documents on Microsoft Word, which said junior technoweenie, who clearly knows absolutely nothing about typography, assumed was proof the documents were phony. And then Matt Drudge picked it up, and then it went to mainstream media. And this in a space of about 12 hours.

No question that the Web is impacting major media and the political campaign. The question is, how? Quoting the LA Times:

This was the first time, some said, that the Web logs were engaging in their own form of investigative journalism — and readers, they warned, should be cautious.

"The mainstream press is having to follow them," said Jeffrey Seglin, a professor at Emerson College in Boston. "The fear I have is: How do you know who's doing the Web logs?

"And what happens when this stuff gets into the mainstream, and it eventually turns out that the '60 Minutes' documents were perfectly legitimate, but because there's been so much reporting about what's being reported, it has already taken on a life of its own?"

There are two legitimate issues here. One is the content of the documents, which proves Our Fearless Leaders was indeed a spoiled little princeling who got away with disobeying a direct order while dissing his country.

But the other question is, how can we restore some semblance of responsibility to news reporting?

When I was in journalism school (a zillion years ago, seems like) there was this notion that a professional journalist verified his information before making a story public. And even then, statements were to be cautiously edged with lots of qualifiers just in case the reporter had been misled.

But now false allegations hit the public so fast the whole world hears them before knowledgable people can clear their throats to speak up.

Short of giving a responsibility transplant to anyone within ten feet of a computer keyboard, I don't know what to do.

I don't either, but whatever we do, I know it's not going to happen before November.


digby 9/12/2004 07:31:00 PM |

 
Two Extra Memos

I'm no expert on the arcana of the Killian documents, but I hadn't been aware until a reader alerted me that there are six memos rather than the four reported by CBS linked on the USA Today site. Maybe everyone already knows about these other two, but they were news to me.

The first is dated 02 February, 1972 and says simply

Subject: Flight Qualifications

Harris,

Update me as soon as possible on flight certifications, specifically Bath and Bush.

The other is dated 24 June, 1973 and says:

Subject: Bush, George W. 1st Lt.32447544FG

Sir,

1. I got a call from your staff concerning the evaluation of 1st Lt Bush due this month. His rater is Lt. Colonel Harris.

2. Neither Lt Colonel Harris or I feel we can rate 1st Lt. Bush since he was not training with 111 F.I.S since April 1972. His recent activity is outside the rating period.

3. Advise how we are supposed to handle this.

Like I said, I'm not an expert and don't want to become one, but these two docs were news to me. The note concerning Bush and Bath from February 1972 is particularly intriguing.


Here's the USA Today pdf link.

If I'm not just misinformed here, I think it's a bit odd that USA today has two documents that CBS never reported. They don't mention it in their article. Where did they come from?



UPDATE: Apparently DU has been on this all day and has lots of intrigue. I'm not all that engaged in the details on this so if you want to get the latest go over there and check it out. In case anybody doesn't know the illustrious history of Bush and Bath, here's a handy site.


UPDATE II: Kevin Drum talked to the USA Today reporters who say that they received the memos from their own sources. One does wonder why they published them but didn't mention that they had their own sources or that there were two more memos. Very strange.




digby 9/12/2004 03:04:00 PM |

 
Who Da Man Redux

Kevin Hayden the overlord of The American Street alerted me that the Freepers seem to think there was a long term conspiracy to get Bush on these TANG issues and they are linking to an old post of mine on AS as some sort of proof. I can't really follow what they think they've found (check for yourself at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1213742/post) but it did remind me that this old post of mine from last April illustrates nicely why the Swift Boat Liars needed to be formed and why the TANG stuff had to be trivialized.

When you put these two records together it's really quite devastating:


April 21, 2004

Via Atrios, I read that the Republicans have decided to try to take on Kerry’s war record. They’ve trotted out one of Nixon’s old lackeys to disparage his leadership and they got lapdog Russert to imply that he was hiding something in his military files, so today he released them in their entirety. I think that’s a good idea. To start, let’s take a look at some of his military fitness evaluations:

A top notch officer in every measurable trait. Intelligent, mature and rich in educational backround and experience. ENS Kerry is one of the finest young officers I have ever met and without question one of the most promising. Polished, tactful and outgoing, this officer is a brilliant conversationalist who can contribute much worthwhile comment to any discussion. In three months aboard he has clearly made his mark as an outstanding division officer and a skilled administrator. He has done a superb job as Public Affairs Officer, putting many extra hours into collateral duty and exhibiting uncommon ingenuity and initiative. He utilizes the English language expertly, both orally and in writing. He is an alert and active original thinker with great potential to the Navy. He eagerly accepts and actively seeks out tasks of greater responsibility. He is recommended for accelerated promotion.

—

In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat operation his unites were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIA.

LtJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program.
During the period of this report, LTJG kerry had been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards.)

—

LTJG Kerry was assigned to this division for only a short time but during that time exhibited all of the traits desired of an officer in a combat environment. He frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgment in planning operations against the enemy in the Mekong Delta. Involved in several enemy initiated fire fights including an ambush during the Christmas truce, he effectively suppressed enemy fire and is unofficially credited with 20 enemy killed in action. Though relatively new to the PCF he is thoroughly knowledgeable of all aspects of his boat and PCF operations. He is instrumental in planning of highly successful Sea Lords operations. He was cited for his performance during action against the enemy by Commander Task Force in his message 0808072Z Jan 69.

—

LTJG Kerry is one of the finest young officers with whom I have served in a long naval career. His combat record prior to becoming my personal aide speaks for itself and is a testimony to his competence and courage at sea.
As my personal aide he could not have been more effective. In every instance he has displayed tact, judgment, foresight and energy. he is particularly adept in his relations with people both military and civilians from all strata. I have given him personal speaking assignments which he has performed in an outstanding manner to the credit of the Navy and himself.

This young man is detached at his own request to run for high public office to whit the Congress of the United States. The detachment of this officer will be a definite loss to the service. He is the dedicated type that we should retain and it is hoped that he will be of further perhaps earlier greater service to his country, which is his aim in life at this time.

This is a man who certainly seems to have the requisite qualities of leadership. In the earliest evaluation, where he is on ship awaiting his requested assignment to Vietnam (pdf), he is described as an intelligent, energetic, skilled administrator who uses ingenuity and initiative. Special attention is given to his outstanding communication skills and he is shown to be actively seeking out responsibility.

The next assignment shows Kerry in Vietnam. Using phrases like “independent, decisive action” he is said to be constantly reviewing tactics and using his growing experience at every opportunity. Wounded three times, winner of the silver star and the bronze star he is a heroic leader who has smartly taken initiative in everything from battle tactics to learning the vietnamese language.

By the third report, we see a seasoned, battle hardened veteran who has imagination and judgment; a well known leader of men at the highest levels. He is also credited with killing the enemy in double digits in an ambush during the Christmas truce.

At the final report we see Lt Kerry back in the states assigned as the personal aide to a high ranking officer in Washington. Hardened by battle he is described as a young man of tact, judgment, foresight and energy who his officer sees as a great loss to the Navy as he leaves the service to make a run for Congress. The trajectory from his earliest fitness reports to the last were of an intelligent, ambitious, brave young man who consistently surpassed his previous success and abilities.

—

George W. Bush (pdf) entered the National Guard in May 1968. Despite his lackluster performance on the entrance exam, he was allowed to train to be a fighter pilot, which by all accounts he managed to do without incident. His fitness reports start off in promising fashion:

Lt. Bush is an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot. After completing the F102 all weather interceptor school in November 1969, he came to this unit as a highly qualified fighter interceptor pilot. Lt. Bush possesses sound judgment and is mature beyond his age and experience level. During the last weapons firing deployment, he delivered both primary and secondary weapons from the F102. Lt Bush performed in an outstanding manner, following the best project requirements set forth. He also participated in a practice deployment during annual field training. He was able to handle intercepts with varying [?] and tactics selections. He continually flies intercept mission with the unit to increase his proficiency even further. Lt Bush is a natural leader but he is also a great follower of military discipline. Lt Bush has outstanding growth potential and should be promoted well ahead of his contemporaries.

Strengths: Lt Bush’s main strengths are his eagerness to participate in the unit’s activities and his ability to work harmoniously with others.

Suggested assignments: At the present time Lt Bush should continue to serve as a squadron pilot. This will enable him to gain valuable knowlege of the Air National Guard’s role in the defense of this country and experience as a pilot.

Self Improvement Efforts: Lt. Bush makes an effort to learn more abnout the all weather interceptors mission and capability by attending squadron briefings and studying available material in his spare time.

Other comments: Lt Bush is employed by Statford of Texas. Being on the managerial side of this diversified company he tells the story of the ANG and the USAF to the public at every opportunity. Since completing pilot training in November 1969 and F102 all weather interceptor school in June 1970, he has made a concentrated effort to improve his proficiency as a pilot. He is a member of the National Guard Association of the United States and Texas. Lieutenant Bush is an outstanding young pilot and officer and is a credit to his unit. I have personally observed his participation and without exception, his performance has been noteworthy. This officer is rated in the upper 10% of his contemporaries. 27 May, 1971.

—

Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer. He eagerly participates in scheduled unit activities. During this past year he participated in several target force deployments and an F-102 aircraft deployment to Canada. His conduct and professional approach to the mission were exemplary and apparent to observers. His skills as a interceptor pilot enabled him to complete all his ABC intercept missions during the Canadian deployment.

Strengths: Lt/ Bush’s major strength is his ability to work with others. He makes a welcome addition to any group of team effort.

Suggested assignments: Lt Bush should be retained in his present assignment. He has gained valuable experience in the [?] area and would be a welcome addition to any fighter squadron.

Self improvements efforts: Lt. Bush is enrolled in the Squadron’s Officer School by correspondence and progressing satisfactorily. He also participates in ground school and briefings to stay abreast of the F-102 response employment and the ANG mission.

Other comments: Lt Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interst in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted a position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world. His abilities and anticipated future assignments make him a valuable asset. He is member of the National Guard Association of the United States and Texas.

Lieutenant Bush is an exceptionally fine young pilot and officer and is a credit to this unit. I have personally observed his participation and without exception, his performance has been noteworthy.

—

This officer should have been reassigned in May 1972 since he no longer is training in his AFSC or with his unit of assignment.

—

Lt Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 may, 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying status with the 187 Tac recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama

—

Verbal orders of the Comdr on 1 Sep 72 suspending ist Lt george W. Bush ANGUS (Not on EAD) TX ANG, Hq 147 Flt GTp, Ellington AFB, Houston TX, from flying status are confirmed, exigencies of the service having been such as to preclude the publication of competent written orders in advance. Reason for suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination. Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13 Authority: Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13

—

Not rated for the period 1 May 72 through 30 Apr 73
Report for this period not available for administrative reasons.

It’s true that until 1972 they consistently say that Bush is a fine pilot and a credit to his unit. But, look at what he’s actually doing during this time. The only thing that seems to set him apart is that he’s an excellent cheerleader for the National Guard — his “anticipated future assignments make him a valuable asset.” They assert without evidence that he should be promoted ahead of his peers because he is a natural leader, but his strengths are always listed as simply “works well with others.” His performance is “noteworthy,” for what we don’t know. The trajectory is of someone who performed to expectations at first and then lost interest.

Finally, he just stopped showing up altogether.

Perhaps the best way to look at this election is as if we are making a movie called “Post 9/11 America.” That’s something anyone can understand.

Which one of the above two stories provide us with a glimpse of a true leading man for our movie? The full time cheerleader, part-time pilot or the smooth, heroic, battle tested naval officer?






digby 9/12/2004 01:57:00 PM |

 
Business As Usual

The state Democratic Party chairman said Friday that GOP leaders should denounce a state lawmaker who urged Republicans to disrupt a campaign event by supporters of presidential candidate John Kerry.

In a news release, the DFL Party included an e-mail that Rep. Bill Kuisle had sent to Olmsted County Republicans, urging them to attend an event in Rochester on Friday featuring singer Carole King and the group Minnesota Women for John Kerry.

Kuisle provided the details of the event and said, "If anyone can go and harass it would be appreciated. Bill."

[...]

Randy Wanke, a spokesman for the state Republican Party, said it's hard to take the criticism seriously given that Erlandson "didn't condemn the Democrats who heckled the President in Duluth," where Bush campaigned in July, and other disturbances at Bush rallies.

Yes, the two parties are equivalently malignant this way. Except that Bush supporters are routinely allowed their freedom of speech to heckle Kerry and do it quite often. Bush on the other hand deals with it differently:

Officially, the Secret Service does not concern itself with unarmed, peaceful demonstrators who pose no danger to the commander in chief. But that policy was inoperative here Thursday when seven AIDS activists who heckled President Bush during a campaign appearance were shoved and pulled from the room -- some by their hair, one by her bra straps -- and then arrested for disorderly conduct and detained for an hour.

After Bush campaign bouncers handled the evictions, Secret Service agents, accompanied by Bush's personal aide, supervised the arrests and detention of the activists and blocked the news media from access to the hecklers.

The Bush campaign has made unprecedented efforts to control access to its events. Sometimes, people are required to sign oaths of support before attending events with Bush or Vice President Cheney. At times, buses of demonstrators are diverted by police to idle in parking lots while supporters are waved in. And the Secret Service has played an unusual role; one agent cooperated with a plan by the Bush campaign last month to prevent former senator Max Cleland (Ga.), a Kerry ally, from handing a letter to the agent outside Bush's Texas ranch.

digby 9/12/2004 01:41:00 PM |

 
Blogospherics

Sullywatch and Steve Gilliard take issue with my recent posts on typegate and I think they deserve a response.

Sullywatch takes the intriguing position that the left blogosphere should actively debunk these Killian documents because they are forgeries from the right meant to be exposed as such to discredit the news media and the left blogosphere if we fall for them. Therefore, we should get ahead of that and expose them ourselves. That's an interesting idea. We all know that Rove has a history of such dirty tricks. But, I believe that there is almost no chance that we will ever prove that Rove's fingerprints are on this, so if they are forgeries it is actually more likely to be pinned on our side than theirs just because it's the simpler more obvious explanation. I guess I don't buy that by helping to expose the fraud that Democrats would not be blamed anyway.

In the bigger picture, I actually did not suggest that lefty bloggers had an obligation to actively embrace the documents. I don't think it matters one way or the other because a huge news organization has its reputation resting on this and they are highly motivated to see them proven valid. But, I also don't see any strategic benefit in actively helping the other side enact a tactical misdirection, for the reason I stated above. Even if an alleged forger is exposed, I don't think the truth of who was behind it will ever be known and even more depressing, even if it is, I don't think more than half the people will believe it.

On one point, I seriously disagree with my esteemed blogger comrade. I absolutely do not believe that the left blogosphere will be granted points for integrity or for credibility and furthermore I think that we will either be discredited or ignored by the other side no matter what we do. And, there is no mediator to decide who's right and wrong. It depends on who you believe. Certainly, the consensus of belief that your past performance translates into credibility down the road no longer exists. For instance, this morning's LA Times approvingly quoted Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, a site that pushed the Swift Boat Lies relentlessly, (not to mention that he is racist and xenophobic to an extreme.) They also discussed Free Republic and Drudge without mentioning that they are wrong about virtually everything.

Modern politics is epistomological quicksand and relativism is the order of the day. There will be no reckoning. Therefore, if the documents actually are forgeries or if they aren't isn't really relevant to the larger point. Being factually right or factually wrong does not necessarily accrue to our benefit not does it discredit us. All that matters is how the story plays out in the media's and public's perceptions.

Which brings me to Steve Gilliard's argument. I stand behind my statement that this was a masterful play on the right. We had 60 Minutes, the most respected news show on television just set back on its heels by the Mighty Wurlitzer (joined by it's newest players, LGF and Free Republic) within twenty four hours. What was a confluence of stories from CBS, the Globe the AP and others revealing that Bush got many more favors in the Guard than previously known was reduced to an arcane argument about typewriters almost immediately. Compare that to the Swift Boat controversy which played out in great detail over the course of a month.

I agree that Rove would rather not have the story be about Bush being AWOL, and he certainly wishes the story would go away entirely. But given the choice between having the press discuss the substance of the charges or typewriter fonts and duelling document experts I think it's clear he would choose the latter. From the look of the Sabbath Gasbag shows, it may be dying more quickly than it came alive. When the major media all decide that "the story" is based upon bogus information they all drop it. It looks as if that may be exactly what happened.

Finally, my post Dupes and Skeptics was aimed at the media. I frankly don't believe that anything the left blogosphere did on this story helped or hurt. It wasn't our play and we were more or less irrelevant. What I do see is that the right blogosphere has now become an integral part of the Mighty Wurlitzer and I have to grant grudging respect for its power and effectiveness. We underestimate them at our peril.

My post was widely seen as being defeatist, which I think is unfortunate. I do admit that I am deeply cynical about the way politics and the media intersect these days but the truth is that I believe that the Democrats can certainly win, both on superior substance and with superior strategy. But, I maintain that we are not going to get there by relying on rules that don't apply anymore --- rules about credibility and fairness and factual integrity. It's difficult, I admit, to know where the lines are and whether we should or should not cross them. It's hard to let go of the idea that truth and reality will out.

The political world I see is one dominated by media manipulation and marketing and public relations in which reality is not as important as the perception of reality. I think we adapt to that or we cease to survive. I certainly believe that we can do it. We are, after all, the smart people.




digby 9/12/2004 08:40:00 AM |

 
Right Blogosphere Takes A Victory Lap


A big article in the news pages of the LA Times this morning. (The best thing about it is that Instapundit isn't mentioned even once.)

No Disputing It: Blogs Are Major Players

Netizen's late-night post questioning CBS claims about Bush's service spreads at warp speed.

These days, CBS News anchor Dan Rather and his colleagues at the network's magazine program "60 Minutes II" are enduring an unusual wave of second-guessing by some of the public and fellow journalists.

For that, they can thank "Buckhead."

It was a late-night blog posting by this mystery Netizen that first questioned the validity of documents Rather cited Wednesday as proof that George W. Bush did not fulfill his National Guard duty more than 30 years ago.

Buckhead refuses to further identify himself, other than dropping hints that he is a male who lives on the East Coast — preferring to proclaim that the scramble to verify the contentions in his posting marks an extraordinary achievement for a medium that has operated more as an underground world of ideological venting than a source of legitimate news.

But Buckhead is vehement about one thing: He acted alone when he posted, to the conservative website FreeRepublic.com, what was widely believed to be the first allegation that the CBS report relied on documents that could have been forged.

"Absolutely, positively, on my own, sitting at my computer in my bedroom just before midnight — but not in my pajamas," he wrote in an e-mail exchange with The Times. "But once I posted the comment to Free Republic I was no longer working alone, and that is the real point of the story about the story about the story."

That story began Wednesday, 19 minutes after the "60 Minutes II" broadcast began, when another FreeRepublic poster, TankerKC, noted that the documents were "not in the style that we used when I came into the USAF…. Can we get a copy of those memos?"

Less than four hours later, Buckhead pointed to "proportionally spaced fonts" in the memos, which CBS said had been written in the early 1970s by Bush's commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984. Buckhead concluded that the documents had been drafted on a modern-day word processor rather than a typewriter.

"I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old," Buckhead wrote. "This should be pursued aggressively."

And it was — with startling speed.

Early Thursday morning, Minneapolis lawyer Scott Johnson was in his basement home office, preparing to link some morning news reports to the site he co-authors, when a reader sent an e-mail about Buckhead.

Intrigued, Johnson, whose online ID is "The Big Trunk," put a link on his site, PowerLine Blog.com, to Buckhead's post.

Then the floodgates opened.

[...]


Soon Charles Johnson, a Los Angeles musician-turned-conservative-blogger who hosts the site LittleGreenFootballs.com, posted the results of his own investigation. He wrote that he had opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Times New Roman and used the program's default settings to retype a purported Killian memo from August 1973.

[...]

Within 90 minutes of that post, the Power Line site was linked to perhaps the best-known conservative site of all — the Drudge Report, made famous when Matt Drudge took a lead role in the first reports on the relationship between then-President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

[...]

Suddenly, the story line shifted from the question Democrats had been trying to ask — whether Bush received special treatment in the Guard — to whether a network long detested by conservatives had been duped in its quest to air a report critical of the president in the midst of the reelection campaign.

Journalists at mainstream media outlets rushed to consult with experts to check the validity of the documents. The claims of seemingly legitimate analysts posting commentary online could not be ignored.

"If the blog enthusiasts wanted to write a better scenario, they'd have a hard time coming up with one more spectacular than this one," said Jim Geraghty, host of the Kerry Spot blog published by the conservative National Review, whose e-mail queue was filled by font experts from across the nation wanting to weigh in.

[...]

"It was amazing Thursday to watch the documents story go from FreeRepublic.com, a bastion of right-wing lunacy, to Drudge to the mainstream media in less than 12 hours," said Jim Jordan, a strategist for independent Democratic groups opposed to Bush.

"That's not to say the documents didn't deserve examination. But apparently the entire thing was cooked up by a couple of amateurs on Free Republic. The speed with which it moved was breathtaking."

By Friday, articles in The Times, the Washington Post and other news outlets were quoting some analysts raising questions about the CBS documents, and others saying it was impossible to judge the memos' authenticity without seeing the originals.

[...]

Media experts said the role of the bloggers illustrated a significant development in the relationship between mainstream news and the still-nascent phenomenon of blogging.

This was the first time, some said, that the Web logs were engaging in their own form of investigative journalism — and readers, they warned, should be cautious.

"The mainstream press is having to follow them," said Jeffrey Seglin, a professor at Emerson College in Boston. "The fear I have is: How do you know who's doing the Web logs?

"And what happens when this stuff gets into the mainstream, and it eventually turns out that the '60 Minutes' documents were perfectly legitimate, but because there's been so much reporting about what's being reported, it has already taken on a life of its own?"

"All hail 'Buckhead,' " wrote one posting to Free Republic.

"Here, here," wrote another. "But how do we know Buckhead is really not Karl Rove..."

This is really a testament to the right wing echo chamber, not blogging per se. They had a conduit to get this information into the mainstream quickly. Had our side done the same thing it would have taken days to get the attention of the mainstream.

We don't have a Drudge, which is an absolutely necessary bridge from the internet to the mainstream media.

Why not?




digby 9/12/2004 08:18:00 AM |

Saturday, September 11, 2004

 
A Country Full Of Zealots

Craig Crawford notes that if swing voters are turned off by the negative tone of the campaign and don't vote, it would turn the election "into a test of the turnout strength of each side’s faithful."

"That, sadly, would put the next four years in the hands of those seduced by the shrill sound of ideological zealotry. Such people should not be labeled 'true believers,' because they have allowed themselves to believe the most ridiculous lies being spread, frequently on the Internet, about one candidate or the other. Rabid Democrats insist that Bush and Cheney sent young Americans to their death in Iraq just to make money for Halliburton. Equally rabid Republicans insist that Kerry deliberately shot himself for a war medal."

"If these are the people who now decide elections, Heaven help us."

Yes, it's definitely better that 17 uninformed morons who would refuse to vote based upon their dislike of all that icky "negativity" do the deciding. Those are the kind of citizens that make this country great.




digby 9/11/2004 04:38:00 PM |

 
That Awful Day

The best way to show your respect for those who died three years ago today is to read the 9/11 Commission Report. You can download it here or you can get it at any bookstore.

It is a harrowing account of years of political confusion leading up to an administration that pushed it down the list of priorities to that final day of reckoning.

That the man who presided over that day, with all his early inattention and his terrible performance at the time and in all the days that have followed, may be rewarded with another term is sobering indeed.






digby 9/11/2004 01:35:00 PM |

 
Dupes And Skeptics

Not that it matters, because the echo chamber seems to have made a decision, but there are a couple of interesting articles today in the SF Gate ("Authenticity backed on Bush documents") and the Boston Globe ("Some skeptics now say IBM typewriter could have been used") about the premature conclusions reached by the so-called experts in typewriter-gate. There are some who are sticking to their guns but at least two of them are questionable themselves.

I would like to see someone do a thorough forensic investigation on how the skepticism on the memos made its way so quickly into the mainstream. This is a good start. What it says is that once again, the Mighty Wurlitzer played the press for chumps. And, I suppose it won't be the last time because press feels no shame or guilt about falling for GOP super-spin time after time.

Today, we hear the startling news that General Hodges now says he was misled into believing that the memos were handwritten, which for some reason is supposed to make a difference. He claims that he said, "well if he wrote them, that's what he felt."

According to the Washington Post, the conversation went like this:

A senior CBS official, who asked not to be named because CBS managers did not want to go beyond their official statement, named one of the network's sources as retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, the immediate superior of the documents' alleged author, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. He said a CBS reporter read the documents to Hodges over the phone, and Hodges replied that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."

Now, it's possible that CBS is just lying outright on a story that was guaranteed to put the entire Republican establishment into a frenzy. Or, perhaps they were terribly sloppy. If you believe Hodges today that is what you have to assume because whether or not these memos were handwritten is irrelevant if they were simply read to Hodges over the phone. And the quote from CBS is entirely different from the one that Hodges claims he gave them.

I will take the big leap here and say that the likely scenario is that when Hodges heard that they had these memos he figured he might as well tell the truth, which was that they reflected Killian's feelings as he remembered them. After the memos were called into question he lied about what he told CBS. (I would say that he'd better be sure they didn't have it on tape, but then the tape will be called a forgery and we'd be back on the merry-go-round.) Logic says that CBS, being a professional news organization, knew that this was an explosive story and was extremely careful with its quotes.

None of the hysterical forensic evidence produced so far has held up. The Boston Globe article pretty well establishes that the "experts" who were contacted by the Post and others in the first cycle had their heads up their asses about what was and wasn't in use during the period. Nobody, as far as I know, has done the basic forensic task of comparing Killian's other memos of the period with these, which would probably shed real light on the subject.

Meanwhile, Killian's wife and son, who if you believe them must have spent many Thanksgivings and Christmases engaged in fond recollections of that fine first Lieutenant George W. Bush, say that they know their husband/father wouldn't have written those memos. And according to the LA Times this influenced Hodges on the issue:

On Friday night, retired Maj. Gen. Hodges, Killian's former supervisor, said in an interview that he also now believes the documents are not real — in part because of the statements of Killian's relatives.

Certainly it is very common for wives to have intimate knowledge of the work memo stylings of their husbands and can vouch for their reliability 30 years after the fact. One should always believe them over a man like Robert Strong, a friend and colleague of Killian who ran the TANG administrative office in the Vietnam era, and who said on camera:

"They are compatible with the way business was done at the time. They are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Killian being," says Strong. "I don't see anything in the documents that is discordant with what were the times, what was the situation and what were the people involved."

His testimony was very interesting and nobody gives a damn. What he said was that the TANG of the period was completely corrupt. That the kind of favors being granted to rich little chickenhawks like George W. Bush were commonplace. I know that it doesn't speak directly to whether the documents are real but it's a helluva lot more relevant than whether Mrs Killian thinks that Lil' Georgie Bush was a nice boy.

Interestingly,in the LA Times Hodges seemed to walk back a little bit on what he said to ABC:

He also said that he could not recall any conversations in which Killian had complained about Bush's performance or about the fact that Bush failed in August 1972 to take a physical exam, removing him from flight status

"I have no recollection of anything like that happening," said Hodges. "It's possible we did talk about the physical not happening, because we would have to ground him."

In other words, after he'd shot his mouth off, Hodges remembered that he signed off on the grounding. It goes on:

The retired Guard general, who favors the president's reelection, called Bush "a truly outstanding pilot." He called Killian "a good guy" who "ran a tight ship" and might have had concerns about Bush's service.

"But he was maybe a little bit too conscientious, because he wanted his pilots to do everything perfect," Hodges said. "Pilots, like everyone else, are not perfect. [Killian] was conscientious to a fault."

So, if the memos do turn out to be real, it was Killian's fault because he was a tight ass perfectionist about pilots being qualified to fly million dollar airplanes.

(Still think this guy didn't tell CBS what they say he told them?)

(As for Bush being an outstanding pilot, this brings up some new questions on that.)

Perhaps we will never know what the truth is, but we do know three very important things.

First, contrary to the malarky that the Wurlitzer began circulating almost immediately, every single so-called anomoly in the douments that made them questionable could have been produced by typewriters in use at the time. The press jumped the gun and the "experts" were wrong.

Second, CBS had every reason to be extremely careful with its quotes on this story. Hodges, the Bush supporter, has every reason to lie about what he told CBS now that the documents have been called into question. His babbling about handwritten vs typewritten makes no sense. He admits that Killian had very high standards and didn't hold with pilots not meeting them. Therefore, it's not reasonable to assume that Hodges saying that he told CBS "if he wrote it, it must be true" is more credible than CBS's original quote. Indeed, it is ridiculous.

Third, the statements of Killian's family are irrelevant compared to the statement of Strong who handled Killian's work documents and others like it at the time. Unless you believe that spouses and children have better direct knowledge of workplace events than co-workers, that is the only conclusion to which you can come.

But, that is not going to be the story. From this point forward it will be who in John Kerry's campaign (Clinton??) forged the documents:

McClellan made this clear:

Q Scott, on the National Guard documents, do you have any suspicions about their authenticity?

MR. McCLELLAN: We don't know whether the documents were fabricated or are authentic. You know, the media has talked to independent experts who have raised questions about the documents. CBS has not disclosed where the documents came from. But, regardless, it does not -- the documents do not change the facts. The President met his obligations and was honorably discharged. And the one thing that is clear is the timing and the coordination going on here. There is an orchestrated effort by Democrats and the Kerry campaign to tear down the President because of the direction the polls are moving. And it's not surprising that we're seeing the same old recycled attacks. The Democrats are determined to throw the kitchen sink at us, and I suspect this is just the beginning.

Q When you use the word "coordination," it seems to suggest in a legal sense that the Kerry campaign is illegally coordinating with the 527 --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's clear. I mean, look at the media reports, they've documented the coordinated efforts by Democrats to tear down the President here, because they're falling behind in the polls. You look at the -- The Washington Post had a story about it today, talking about the multi-front effort by the Democratic National Committee, other Democrats. You have outrageous comments being made by Senator Harkin. You have the Democratic National Committee using the term "Operation Fortunate Son." "Fortunate Son" was the name of a book by an ex-convict that was widely discredited in the 2000 campaign.

This whole pushback by the right, from the blogosphere to the Wurlitzer to the Whitehouse, is absolutely masterful. And, it should give everyone pause if they think there is even a snowball's chance in hell that any member of the Bush administration will ever get justice for the crimes they have committed while in office. Clearly, the press and much of the public are so willing to be used that it is hopeless. This entire episode is nothing but a pathetic reminder of how easily they manipulate perceptions.

We'd better be content to congratulate ourselves for having integrity because it's clear that we do not get any public credit for it. Indeed, we are perceived as being just as bad as they are. If that's the case, does it even matter that we aren't?





digby 9/11/2004 09:24:00 AM |

 
Compassionate Conservative

Re: "Hospitals Are Gouging the Uninsured," Commentary, Sept. 7: Ruth Rosen's article regarding hospital bills to the uninsured focused on one issue of our current healthcare crisis and ignored many more.

[...]

Rosen uses the example of single mothers who work at Wal-Mart but can't afford their "unaffordable" health premium. I agree this happens to some. But, in my experience, for most it is about financial responsibility and responsible decision-making.

Many lower-income employees can afford the premiums; it just means they may have to prioritize and possibly give up the cellphone, keep the used car another year or two or give up a $5 pack of cigarettes each day. Or, God forbid, develop healthful dietary and exercise routines.


Gordon Tagge MD.

Those poor people would be able to afford the four or five hundred a month in insurance premiums if they'd completely give up their car and walk. It's good exercise. And if only they stopped eating so much they'd lose weight and be healthier.

Clearly, being unable to afford health insurance is another bullshit socialist excuse for being lazy.

Of course, there is this:

Since 2000, the cost of employee health insurance has risen 59%, Kaiser found, and workers' share of their health insurance premiums has surged 57% for individual coverage and 49% for a family. During that period, wages increased just 12% — 2.2% this year.

Well, maybe they could give up shelter, too. There are plenty of gas station bathrooms to clean up in before they walk to work. There is simply no excuse for them to not pay for their health insurance.




digby 9/11/2004 08:27:00 AM |

Friday, September 10, 2004

 
Case Closed

I think the Poorman has finally found the way to properly evaluate the claims of document forgeries:

Let me save everyone a whole lot of time. They are genuine. How do I know? Because the internet is currently awash in wingnuts claiming the memos are fakes. Ergo, they are for real. Q.E.D.

Some people may feel that I'm just being flip here. Is that so, some people? Tell me: how rich would you be right now if, every time something was posted on a right-wing message board, or everytime Drudge had an exclusive, or any time Rush Limbaugh revealed a secret truth that the liberal media won't tell you, you called up your bookie and put down $20 even money on "bullshit"? The correct answer is: "pretty fucking rich". The correct answer is: "I would never, never lose." So, if anyone doubts my methodology, I have a crisp new $20 bill that just told me that I'm 100% right and you're just too dumb to see it. If any of you champs out there think me and Andrew Jackson are both wrong, well then, today's your lucky day, because we're paying 2:1. If you need us, we'll be on the couch playing ESPN NHL 2K5. Peace.

And, I'll be drinking cheap wine in an undisclosed location. I'm convinced.






digby 9/10/2004 06:17:00 PM |

 
Tooth And Nail, Might And Main

As we think about the relentlessness of the Republican machine and its propensity for playing hardball, it pays sometimes to remember that their ruthless tactics are actually a matter of temperament rather than ideology. Conservatives have always been this way. The problem today is that they are operating with a radical agenda, an incompetent president and a country with much too much power to be allowed to run wild with either.

This interesting post from Steamboats Are Ruining Everything takes us back to 1820 and reminds us that brutish conservatives are nothing new:

William Hazlitt explained the nature of it in his 1820 essay, "On the Spirit of Partisanship."

Conservatives and liberals play the game of politics differently, Hazlitt wrote, because they have different motivations. Liberals are motivated by principles and tend to believe that personal honor can be spared in political combat. They may, in fact, become vain about their highmindedness. Hazlitt condemns the mildness as a mistake, both in moral reasoning and in political strategy. "They betray the cause by not defending it as it is attacked, tooth and nail, might and main, without exception and without remorse."

The conservatives, on the other hand, start with a personal interest in the conflict. Not wishing to lose their hold on power, they are fiercer. "We"---i.e., the liberals, or the "popular cause," in Hazlitt's terminology---"stand in awe of their threats, because in the absence of passion we are tender of our persons.

They beat us in courage and in intellect, because we have nothing but the common good to sharpen our faculties or goad our will; they have no less an alternative in view than to be uncontrolled masters of mankind or to be hurled from high---

"To grinning scorn a sacrifice,
And endless infamy!"

They do not celebrate the triumphs of their enemies as their own: it is with them a more feeling disputation. They never give an inch of ground that they can keep; they keep all that they can get; they make no concessions that can redound to their own discredit; they assume all that makes for them; if they pause it is to gain time; if they offer terms it is to break them: they keep no faith with enemies: if you relax in your exertions, they persevere the more: if you make new efforts, they redouble theirs. While they give no quarter, you stand upon mere ceremony. While they are cutting your throat, or putting the gag in your mouth, you talk of nothing but liberality, freedom of inquiry, and douce humanité. Their object is to destroy you, your object is to spare them---to treat them according to your own fancied dignity. They have sense and spirit enough to take all advantages that will further their cause: you have pedantry and pusillanimity enough to undertake the defence of yours, in order to defeat it. It is the difference between the efficient and the inefficient; and this again resolves itself into the difference between a speculative proposition and a practical interest.

It is not fair play, and Hazlitt thinks that liberals who decline to fight fire with fire are fools. "It might as well be said that a man has a right to knock me on the head on the highway, and that I am only to use mildness and persuasion in return, as best suited to the justice of my cause; as that I am not to retaliate and make reprisal on the common enemies of mankind in their own style and mode of execution."

Hazlitt was right. And never more than today when the stakes are so high.

As I said, we have been fighting this beast forever. Conservatives are just more inclined to fight and more serious about winning. But, I have seen the Republican agenda change from conservative to radical in the last 30 years and their candidates from steady, stolid leaders to firebrands and incompetents. America is the most powerful nation on earth. If the modern GOP boasted prudent, tested leadership and a simple desire to avoid radical change, I would still oppose them but I would not be worried. But, these people want to wildly experiment on a global scale and their track record of the last three years is devastating. History proves that bad things do sometimes happen. Being barely left standing to say "I told you so" will be no compensation.


Thanks to reader K Greier for the link.




digby 9/10/2004 05:37:00 PM |

 
Negativity Rising

Liberal Oasis has a typically trenchant take on the latest polls that comports with my gut feeling about the state of the race at this moment. There's plenty of good news, so go ahead and click the link and read the whole thing. But I'd like to focus on a specific point that I think we still need to keep in mind:

There's no getting around Kerry's negatives were raised by the GOP convention onslaught.

Even in the dead heat polls, Kerry lost ground in areas like leadership, personality, ability to fight terror, flip-flopping and favorability.

Of course, there's still conflicting data.

In the Gallup poll, Kerry's favorable-unfavorable rating is 53-43, down from 57-37 after the Dem convention.

Not good, but manageable (Bush is a similar 55-44).

The CBS poll, which appears not to have pushed undecideds to choose, has far worse data for Kerry: 32-41 (with Bush at 47-39).

Can a candidate win with unfavorables in the 40s?

Well, yes. Bill Clinton did in 1992.

Near the end of the race, his fav-unfav was similarly polarizing and conflicting: 51-45 (Gallup), 52-45 (LA Times) and 33-39 (CBS/NYT).

It's not that there was widespread love for Clinton, who was dogged with attacks on his "character" by Poppy Bush, and won with just 43%.

In fact, a late CNN/Time poll had vastly more people saying Poppy was more "honest and trustworthy" than Clinton.
But Poppy's fav-unfav was still worse than Clinton, with his unfavorables generally in the low 50s.

That's Kerry goal, to jack up Bush's negatives.

Like any Bush campaign, this race will be filled with muck, making it impossible to stay positive and generate warm feelings.

Kerry can't expect his unfavorable numbers to go back down to the 30s.

But with Bush probably at his high-water mark, just after his convention, Kerry should be able to get Bush's unfavorables higher than his.

This is not to say Kerry shouldn't try to talk himself up and articulate his compelling, alternative agenda.

It's always a balancing act: promoting yourself, tearing down the other guy.

And since Kerry can't single-handedly put this campaign on the high road, going after Bush is the bigger priority.

One of the keys roles that we in the blogosphere could play is to keep hurling the negative crap out there, build on good stories from the widely read blogs like Atrios and kos and just keep up a relentless pace. If the Killian documents prove to be a distraction from the ongoing negative stuff, just pull back and pick something else. There is plenty to choose from. This isn't pretty, but it's absolutely necessary to raise Bush's negatives over the next couple of months and to do that we have to be a bit....icky.

Kitty Kelley's book has some interesting items, I'm sure. Sy Hersh could provide a new angle. Cheney says something stupid almost every day. We should take a page from Rove and Cheney and Card and Condi and do as they did when they were building their case against Saddam. "We just keep hurling stuff against the wall and hope that some of it sticks."

I know it sounds unattractively shrill to keep pointing this out, and there are those who do not believe that anything substantial will change in everyday Americans' lives if Bush is elected to a second term, but I truly believe that winning this election is more vitally important than any in my lifetime. (My first typewriter was a manual, which after our recent crash course in typewriter history should tell you that I've observed a few.) George W. Bush and the modern Republican party are not business as usual.

I think the country is far more likely to survive a negative campaign from the Democrats than endorsing what George W. Bush has been doing for the last three years and validating the very worst beliefs about America all over the world. This is as serious a problem as terrorism itself. We just have to win.








digby 9/10/2004 04:14:00 PM |

 
Playing By The Rules

It's admirable that lefty bloggers are being duly skeptical of the CBS documents and diligently reporting it on their blogs. It means that we have more integrity than the other side and will probably go to heaven.

Unfortunately, it also means that we are helping Republicans spin their lies and hurting our candidate. Again.

But, now that professional Republican propagandists are on the case, if you can't stomach the idea of not standing up for truth, justice and the American way in all circumstances, the better part of valor may be to blog on the myriad other Bush atrocities and let the right do its own dirty work:

Throughout the Swift Boat smear campaign, the veterans involved asserted they had no political agenda and were unaffiliated with any political party. But Creative Response Concepts, which was obviously paid some undisclosed amount for its Swift Boat work, has many links to the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Among its clients are the Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee. Its client list also includes the Christian Coalition, National Taxpayers Union, Media Research Council and Regnery Publishing. Regnery is the firm that published "Unfit for Command," the SBVT screed against Kerry's military record.

Now Creative Response is working the case against CBS's "60 Minutes" report on Bush's questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard...By Thursday, the online Drudge Report and the Weekly Standard were also trumpeting the accusations. And Creative Response Concepts sent out a press release to major news organizations stating that the "documents on Bush might be fake."

In the release, Creative Response promoted a Web site called Cybercast News Service, one of several groups directed by Brent Bozell, a longtime right-wing activist who has devoted years to attacking the "liberal bias" of the mainstream press. His Media Research Center and other similar efforts have been heavily funded by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.

They have the Mighty Wurlitzer fully cranked. Do we really need to help the right turn what is an irrefutable charge that Bush was given A LOT of special treatment when he was in the National Guard into a charge against John Kerry? Because, mark my words, that is coming next.

If voices of the left blogosphere work to actively advance the idea that the documents are forgeries, no matter what their earnestly high minded motives, then whatever influence the blogosphere provides certainly doesn't benefit our side.

Imagine the shoe on the other foot.

updated for clarity




digby 9/10/2004 01:16:00 PM |

 
The SS

Atrios has a disturbing post up about the Secret Service preventing the press from interviewing protestors. This isn't the first example of the Secret Service behaving badly toward the press. In fact, I would venture that this was even more outrageous:

Inside the Fleet Center, the working press sits at tables that flank the convention stage. Except during major speeches, the reporters -- like the delegates themselves -- seldom pay much attention to what's happening on the stage. They talk among themselves, burn through their cell phone batteries and write pieces on their laptops.

That's what we were doing Thursday afternoon when a Secret Service agent had another idea. "Excuse me sir," his voice boomed from behind us. "It's the presentation of the colors, and I think it's important enough for you to stand up."

The agent had noticed -- we had not -- that the American flag was being presented in the still half-empty convention hall. We acknowledged his right to his opinion, then we returned to our work. At that point, the agent ordered us to stand -- ostensibly so he could confirm that our press credentials were valid. We complied with the order, then turned on our tape recorder and asked if he was actually ordering us to stand for the flag.

"No sir, I'm not. I'm looking at your deal," he said. "I'm ordering you because I want to see your credentials, and you're going to stand here until the flag is over with."

What's your name? "I'm Chad Reagan, and I'm checking your credentials, out of the New York field office. I'm checking your credentials."

Because we're working during the presentation of the flag?

"No sir, because I'm wondering who you are."

We told him that we worked for Salon.

"Great," he said, "I'm checking your credentials."

Nearby officials from the Congressional Periodical Press Gallery instantly confirmed the validity of our credentials. We asked the agent if he always orders people to stand for the flag, and whether Secret Service policy either authorized or required him to do so.

"I served for six months in the United States Marine Corps overseas, sir, so I like it when people stand. The reason I came over here was to credential you. You can think what you want, but the reason I came over here was to credential you. And I'll stick to that. I'm allowed to credential anyone I want. That is Secret Service policy."

But you told us to stand for the flag, right?

"No sir, I didn't tell you. I said that I think it's important enough to stand, and then I said, 'Let me see your credentials.' There's a difference."

If they are now behaving in a blatantly partisan manner and keeping the press from interviewing protestors, I can only assume that they will not be happy guarding a Democrat. If I were President Kerry, I would not feel particularly secure with people who think like this guarding me.







digby 9/10/2004 07:40:00 AM |

Thursday, September 09, 2004

 
The Power Of Workplace Chit Chat

Donkey Rising asks:

Why would September 6-8 be a better period for Bush than September 3-5, right after the convention?

Because by the 6th, everybody had heard that Bush kicked ass at his convention and he had a huge lead in the polls. When people came back to work on the 7th, the water cooler chatter passed it around.

Then he asks:

And could Fox's polling period, which does not include September 6, mean they missed Bush's best day and he was starting to go downhill a bit?

Could be. As the news that his bounce was questionable began to filter through the grapevine, people probably started to get a grip. Now, with these new numbers based upon the old numbers, the process may reassert itself for awhile.

But reality bites. If Bush has a lead it is still small and manageable. And nobody's measured since the news came out that he was a perfumed little sissy in the national guard who called his daddy in every time he had to do something he didn't want to do. That could slow his alleged big mo just a tad.




digby 9/09/2004 05:25:00 PM |

 
Gut Instinct

One of Josh Marshall's readers writes in to criticize this latest storyline about Bush's guard service because he feels it does not address the real issues in the campaign and will not persuade undecided voters. I hear this a lot --- the whole Vietnam thing is allegedly a distraction from what is really important and Kerry has brought all this trivia on by emphasizing his wartime experience.

I disagree. Campaigns run on several levels only one of which is to reach people with an explicit message in the hopes that they will make the rational decision of voting for your candidate. There are complicated tactical and strategic matters that are just as important (and I would argue more important in this campaign) than telling voters you have a better plan.

The first reason is tactical in that every day Bush and his campaign staff have to defend themselves against these charges is a day they are not getting their message heard. The staff is distracted and worried, they have to weigh all of their statements carefully, the campaign takes on a seige mentality and they make mistakes. It's not a particularly elevating aspect of politics, but it's effective and necessary.

Another reason is that undecided swing voters just don't make decisions based upon the rational assessment that Bush has been a terrible president. Most voters have a complicated range of reasons why they vote the way they do, from tribal identity to personal likeability and reasoned discussion of the issues is way down the list. But, as this very interesting and widely read article says, undecided swing voters are the most susceptible to personality impressions and marketing manipulation:

The advice to the political professionals is: Don’t assume that your candidate’s positions are going to make the difference. “In a competitive political climate,” as one article explains, “informed citizens may vote for a candidate based on issues. However, uninformed or undecided voters will often choose the candidate whose name and packaging are most memorable.

Using reason to reach these voters is a waste of time. In this close election, most people have, for whatever reason, made a decision and are sticking to it. Therefore, the two bases must be mobilized and the undecideds must be reached on a marketing or entertainment level.

The article goes on to discuss the various theories to explain why the electorate as a whole is so dismally uninformed and whether that can translate into any coherent political philosphy. The theory that makes the most sense is that people use shortcuts, or hueristics, that give them a fairly accurate assessment of the candidates and the issues even while they are not specifically informed about the details.

Voters use what Samuel Popkin, one of the proponents of this third theory, calls “low-information rationality”—in other words, gut reasoning—to reach political decisions; and this intuitive form of judgment proves a good enough substitute for its high-information counterpart in reflecting what people want.

These little dramas in campaigns, which seem to be about everything but what we informed voters believe are the essential issues, actually serve as character and issues proxies for the electorate to come to its gut reasoning. Therefore, the Vietnam drama was a way of illustrating the contrast between the high achieving Kerry and the screw-up son of privilege. This was a man who did his duty without complaint but was not afraid to later challenge the orthodoxy that was leading the country into ruin. This picture provides a gut reason for people to vote for Kerry over the privileged playboy who doesn't seem to realize that he's made a mistake.

And, on another level the campaign controversy itself works as a proxy for each man's will to win. In that fight, George Bush has shown repeatedly that he is determined, most recently when he winked and nodded at what is now a notorious smear campaign. In this proxy fight, it is important that Kerry be seen as giving as good as he gets. "If you wimp out when George W. Bush attacks you, what will you do if there's another terrorist attack?" This is not particularly rational, but for many, it is a short cut to figuring out if Kerry is willing to be tough on terrorism. In this sense, the picture of Bush becomes uneasily contradictory and vague, while Kerry is sharply and consistently tough, both in his past and in the present.

Finally, this argument brings to a final head a long standing metanarrative that has been killing Democrats ever since the Vietnam war--- our perceived weakness on national security. Just as Clinton had to work very hard to convince the nation that a Democrat was capable of managing the economy (after decades of relentless negative propaganda) Kerry is having to work very hard to reverse a successful decades long effort to portray Democrats as a bunch of hippies who would stick a daisy in the barrel of bin Laden's Uzi rather than stop him from blowing up Chicago. By exorcizing the Vietnam ghost, perhaps we will actually be able to leave it behind once and for all by killing the shopworn image of Democrats as flower children.

In a long term strategic sense, then, Kerry's history is vital to changing that narrative. His experience in Vietnam and afterward merges that narrative into a more realistic vision of Democratic national security that people can absorb and understand in their gut.

And finally, let us not forget the care and feeding of the press corpse. Stories of the murky mysterious past are far more interesting to them than stale policy arguments and they are far more likely to frame the debate in a simple way that people can understand if you give them the frame to do it. Feed that beast or they'll continue to slurp the spoonfed GOP diet of "Democrats are immoral, spendthrift cowards."

It would be wise for Democrats to accept that in order to win and have the power to implement the policies we care so much about, we have to be ready to construct a narrative that will instruct the public through their emotions and their gut instincts rather than through an intellectual engagement on the issues alone. It doesn't have to be dishonest and it doesn't have to be dirty. What it has to be is authentically connected to what you really want to do and it has to be executed in a way that respects the instincts of the populace.

Clinton said over and over again that the American people almost always get it right. I don't know how true that is, but it's the right thing to say. Knowing the public's propensity for gut political decisions we should give them what they need to make the right one. In that sense, Vietnam works. As sick as all of us informed types may be of hearing about it, it gives Kerry the proper image and frame from which to make his pitch that Democrats have the right stuff to lead this nation in a time of great national insecurity.







digby 9/09/2004 01:45:00 PM |

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

 
Nailbiter

Chris Bowers at MYDD comments on a Zogby analyses of the state of the race:

On the one hand, of course Bush is closing the gap. He made up ground before the convention, and he made up ground--even moving ahead nationally--during the convention. However, Kerry remains in a strong position. He leads in four of the six "red" states that are his best chances for pickups, FL, MO, NV and NH, (OH and WV are the other two) even though Bush just had his convention after and the last three weeks of free media were decidedly negative for the challenger. It would be too much to assume that this is Bush peak, since the attacks will keep coming and history does not tell us what always happens in the future. If at what is very possibly Kerry's low point he still leads in the Electoral College, then it is not hard to be optimistic about this election.

Ruy Texeira analyzes the internals of the Gallup Poll

Prior to the Republican convention, Kerry had a one point lead among RVs (47-46) in the battleground states. After the Republican convention, now that battleground voters have had a chance to take a closer look at what Bush and his party really stand for, Kerry leads by 5 in these same states (50-45)! Note that Kerry gained three points among battleground voters, while Bush actually got a negative one point bounce.

Indeed, if equal polarization of partisans continues and Kerry carries a 3 point lead on independents into the election, he'll win fairly easily, since the Democratic proportion of voters in presidential elections is always higher, not lower, than the Republican proportion. In 2000, after all, Bush carried independents by 2 points and received stronger support from his partisans than Gore did from his--but still lost the popular vote by half a point.

We can certainly be encouraged that the race remains close. But, keep one thing in mind. If the race remains this close, or if Kerry takes the lead, the other side is going to loose another barrage of negative campaigning equally vicious to that which we saw in August. The Bush machine will do anything to prevent President Asterisk's loss after his very dubious win in 2000 and his fathers ignominious defeat in 1992. Two one term presidents in a row and this dynasty is done. Father and son will be remembered as historic losers of epic proportion. They know this. They will not go down easily.

Let's hope the new National Guard info puts them off message. They get all confused when they have to play defense. They aren't used to it.





digby 9/08/2004 06:14:00 AM |

 
Patriotism

Rush Limbaugh has been predicting for weeks that liberals would be celebrating the 1000th death. I haven't noticed any dancing in the streets. The right, on the other hand is very upset.

Kevin writes that the 101st Fighting Keyboarders are pissed off and ready to rumble:

If I see one more headline like this, I'm gonna beat somebody:
U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq Pass 1,000

So F**KING what?

Kevin adds:

From the Associated Press:

"I want pictures of you, to see how big your belly is getting. How much my baby is growing inside of you. Not being with you makes me weak. You are the link that makes my chain strong. You complete me in every way."

Army Sgt. Micheal Dooley, 23, of Pulaski, Va., in a letter home to his wife, Christine, who was six months pregnant with his daughter, Shea Micheal Dooley, when he died.

You can't blame that little cretin. In America, "real men" are too manly to mourn soldiers dying in wars they support but can't be bothered to fight. Just ask George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. They've spent a lifetime doing it. And, no one is more manly than they.




digby 9/08/2004 05:44:00 AM |

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