![]() |
The Weblog at The View from the Core - Tuesday, September 07, 2004
|
Plan. Plan! Plan? Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCCLXVIII There's a shake-up going on at Camp Kedwards. Or is it just a fill-up? Even NYT is talking about it. Kerry having to change (or to merely add) headquarters staff to "refocus" the mission leads me to some observations & questions. Dear Kedwards: In the past two years, this nation has freed another nation from three decades of murderous torture at the hands of a maniacal dictator. That nation is well on the way to a more democratic way of life, and the dictator is going into the dock. Somehow, you think that the Bush administration took our country into that war without a plan: the on-going results belie your judgement. Now comes news that your political opponent has gained considerably in the polls, and that your own staff has consequently been... adjusted. :-) Are these political developments (1) evidence of your own lack of a plan and/or (2) further evidence that no war plan whatever and politics is war by another name no war plan ever survives first contact with the enemy? Here's what I mean. Your party has been able to presume for six months that you would be its nominee for the presidency. And your party has been able to presume for much longer that George W. Bush would be your opponent. Your own political history is what it is, and so is your opponent's. You have had, therefore, plenty of time to plan and implement a campaign for the presidency. Why is it going so poorly? Does a continually changing situation on the ground have anything to do with it? The economy has perked up; the Swiftees came at you; the Republicans don't just sit back and take what you want to dish out; and, the people react differently, here and there, now and then, than you might have expected. Is not, then, your own political campaign a nearly perfect analogy, in the world of politics, to the War Against Saddam Hussein? And, is not your own campaign doing, so far, demonstrably worse than the campaign to free the Iraqis? Specifically, what does this comparison say about you and your political strategy? And about the current administration and its foreign policy? Thank you for your kind attention to these considerations. The Blog from the Core. Kerry Enlisting Clinton Aides in Effort to Refocus Campaign. + + + + + Former President Bill Clinton, in a 90-minute telephone conversation from his hospital room, offered John Kerry detailed advice on Saturday night on how to reinvigorate his candidacy, as Mr. Kerry enlisted more Clinton advisers to help shape his strategy and message for the remainder of the campaign. In an expansive conversation, Mr. Clinton, who is awaiting heart surgery, told Mr. Kerry that he should move away from talking about Vietnam, which had been the central theme of his candidacy, and focus instead on drawing contrasts with President Bush on job creation and health care policies, officials with knowledge of the conversation said. The conversation and the recruitment of old Clinton hands came amid rising concern among Democrats about the state of Mr. Kerry's campaign and criticism that he had been too slow to respond to attacks on his military record or to engage Mr. Bush on domestic policy. Among the better-known former Clinton aides who are expected to play an increasingly prominent role are James Carville, Paul Begala and Stanley Greenberg, campaign aides said. Mr. Kerry's aides emphasized that this was an expansion of the staff for the fall campaign and did not represent another upheaval of the Kerry campaign. Still, several Democrats outside the campaign said the influence of Mr. Clinton and his advisers could be seen over the past few days in Mr. Kerry's attacks on Mr. Bush's domestic policies. They said the Clinton team had been pressing Mr. Kerry to turn up the intensity of his attacks on those policies after a month spent largely avoiding engaging the president. The installation of former Clinton lieutenants is creating two distinct camps at Mr. Kerry's campaign headquarters on McPherson Square in downtown Washington. The first is the existing Kerry high command, which includes Mary Beth Cahill, the campaign manager; Bob Shrum, a senior adviser; Tad Devine, a senior adviser; and Stephanie Cutter, the communications director. The second is the Clinton camp, which includes Joe Lockhart, a former White House press secretary; Joel Johnson, a former senior White House aide; and Doug Sosnik, a former Clinton political director. And Howard Wolfson, a former chief of staff to Hillary Rodham Clinton, joined the campaign yesterday. Members of both camps played down any suggestion of a Clinton takeover of a troubled campaign and insisted there was no tension between the two groups. Still, these days, Mr. Lockhart is stationed in an office on one side of the campaign war room; Mr. Shrum's office is on the opposite side. On Saturday, Mr. Johnson drew applause from Democrats assembled for a weekly strategy meeting at Mr. Kerry's headquarters when he reassured aides that the campaign had settled on a clear line of attack against Mr. Bush, people at the meeting said. They said Mr. Johnson told the group that the campaign wanted the entire party to heed the new talking points. "It's very simple," Mr. Johnson said in an interview yesterday, describing what he said would be the template for Mr. Kerry's speeches and advertisements in the weeks ahead. "It's: 'Bush has taken us in the wrong direction. If you want more of the same for the next four years, vote for President Bush. If you want a new direction, John Kerry and John Edwards.' It's not complicated. Failed policies, jobs and the economy, health care." Officials with knowledge of the Clinton conversation said it came after Mr. Kerry called Mr. Clinton at Columbia-Presbyterian Center of New York Presbyterian Hospital on Friday to wish him well. Mr. Clinton, who was described by advisers as concerned by the direction of the Kerry campaign, thanked him and suggested that the two men talk over the weekend about the campaign, which they did Saturday night. The telephone conversation, which was described as detailed and expansive, with Mr. Kerry doing more listening than talking, also included Mr. Lockhart, who joined Mr. Kerry's campaign as a senior adviser about two weeks ago. Mr. Lockhart declined to comment on the conversation. People close to Mr. Kerry said he was receptive to the counsel and was moving to widen his circle of advisers in the face of mounting concern among prominent Democrats about the potency of Mr. Bush's campaign. They noted that Mr. Clinton and his strategists were architects of the only winning Democratic presidential drives since 1976. Even so, some of Mr. Kerry's aides insisted that their seeking help from Mr. Clinton was not a reflection of flaws in their campaign. Mr. Kerry's aides insisted that the Clinton advisers were augmenting the staff as it headed into a difficult period, and did not represent another instance in which Mr. Kerry was shaking up his campaign staff. Mr. Kerry fired a campaign manager in the primary season. The Kerry aides said that senior advisers, among them Ms. Cahill and Mr. Shrum, remained in their posts. Still, some Democrats described what was taking place as a slow-motion shake-up as Mr. Clinton's former advisers assume increasingly powerful roles. Mr. Greenberg, who was Mr. Clinton's pollster in 1992, resigned Tuesday as the pollster for independent Democratic groups that have been running advertisements attacking Mr. Bush so that he would be permitted, under the law, to play a more prominent role in advising Mr. Kerry's campaign. Mr. Kerry's aides said that a longtime political adviser from Boston, John Sasso, who is working as general manager of the Democratic National Committee, would start traveling with Mr. Kerry as a full-time aide. Mr. Sasso is said to have history with Mr. Kerry and his respect, enough to be able to give the candidate unvarnished criticism on his performance on the trail. Mr. Begala, who said he would remain a CNN commentator, said he was delighted with the changes. He added that Mr. Bush had succeeded over the past month in transforming the race from a referendum on an incumbent president to a referendum on Mr. Kerry. "It was an enormous shift," Mr. Begala said last night. Then, referring to Karl Rove, a top Bush strategist, he added: "And it required the cooperation of the candidate. And you know what? The Kerry campaign is no longer cooperating. Sorry, Karl." Mr. Clinton's engagement in the campaign is new but hardly surprising. Throughout the 2004 campaign, Mr. Clinton has offered advice to any Democratic presidential candidate who would listen, including Mr. Kerry. And he told Mr. Kerry's advisers before his hospitalization that he would play a major role campaigning for Mr. Kerry this fall. In 2000, Mr. Clinton made no secret of his dismay that his vice president, Al Gore, did not turn to him more for counsel and campaigning help. The Kerry campaign has become roiled in recent days by criticism from inside and outside of its decision to initially resist responding to the attacks on Mr. Kerry's war record by a group of veterans. Members of the Clinton camp as well as some of Mr. Kerry's aides were said to have believed that the slow response hurt Mr. Kerry and contributed to polls in recent days suggesting that he had slipped behind Mr. Bush. "We talked about this last year, the fact that Republicans would come after his service and the idea that they would come after what he did when he got home," said one midlevel Kerry adviser who is not part of the Clinton camp. "The idea that we got caught flat-footed is just crazy." Mr. Shrum, in an interview yesterday, called such second-guessing "ridiculous," saying, "We responded within six or seven days. "I was strongly in favor of responding to the Swift boats when we did or around when we did, and so was Mary Beth," Mr. Shrum said, referring to Ms. Cahill and the advertisements by the Vietnam veterans critical of Mr. Kerry. While Mr. Kerry's crewmates denounced the advertisements as soon as they were released Aug. 4, Mr. Kerry himself did not address the accusations until Aug. 19. The notion that the campaign was settling on a new message for the fall came as news to some senior staff members. "That's really groundbreaking," one senior aide said sarcastically when told about the focus on Mr. Bush's policies outlined by Mr. Johnson. "I think our negative frame should be that George Bush is a liar. He misled the country on Iraq. And then everything else that he lies about, bring it back to that." Mr. Devine said any lack of clarity of Mr. Kerry's message was due to the campaign's running few advertisements in the past five weeks. He said the polls are showing a downturn they always planned for. "If you want to deliver a powerful message, you need all the means of message-delivery at your disposal," Mr. Devine said. "Absent those tools and those means it's just harder to deliver that kind of message." Jodi Wilgoren contributed reporting for this article. + + + + + The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes. Lane Core Jr. CIW P Tue. 09/07/04 09:03:53 PM |
Estrich & Pearson Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCCLXVII And Keillor, too. Susan "The Mouth That Walks" Estrich a Democratic party operative, whatever else she may also be thinks that the Democrats have gone way too easy on Bush & the Republicans. Here is her hysterical threat, followed by a cutesy-pie article from one of those nicey-nice left-wingers. Lies move Democrats to dig up dirt. + + + + + 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. They are frustrated, mostly at the Kerry campaign, for naively believing that just because all the newspapers and news organizations that investigated the charges of the Swift Boat assassins found them to be full of lies and half-truths, they wouldn't take their toll. The word on the street is that Kerry was ready to fire back the day the story broke, but that his campaign, believing the charges would blow over if they ignored them, counseled restraint. But most of all, activist Democrats are angry. 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. Lies move numbers. Remember the one about Dukakis suffering from depression after he lost the governorship? We lost six points over that lie, planted by George W.'s close friend and colleague in the 1988 campaign, Lee Atwater. Or how about the one about Kitty Dukakis burning a flag at an anti-war demonstration, another out-and-out lie, which the Bush campaign denied having anything to do with, except that it turned out to have come from a United States senator via the Republican National Committee? Atwater later apologized to me for that, too, on his deathbed. Did I mention that Lee's wife is connected to the woman running the Swift Boat campaign? What do you do, Democrats keep asking each other. The answer is not pretty, but everyone knows what it is. The trouble with Democrats, traditionally, is that we're not mean enough. 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. Will it be the three, or is it four or five, drunken driving arrests that Bush and Cheney, the two most powerful men in the world, managed to rack up? After Vietnam, nothing is ancient history, and Cheney is still drinking. What their records suggest is not only a serious problem with alcoholism, which Bush but not Cheney has acknowledged, but also an even more serious problem of judgment. What if Bush were to fall off the wagon? Then what? Has America really faced the fact that we have an alcoholic as our president? Or how about Dead Texans for Truth, highlighting those who served in Vietnam instead of the privileged draft-dodging president, and ended up as names on the wall instead of members of the Air National Guard. Or maybe it will be Texas National Guardsmen for Truth, who can explain exactly what George W. Bush was doing while John Kerry was putting his life on the line. 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. Or could it be George Bush's Former Female Friends for Truth. A forthcoming book by Kitty Kelley raises questions about whether the president has practiced what he preaches on abortion. As Larry Flynt discovered, a million dollars loosens lips. Are there others to be loosened? Are you shocked? Remember Dukakis? Now he teaches at Northeastern University. John Kerry has been very fair in dealing with the Swift Boat charges. That's why so many of my Democrat friends have decided to stop talking to the campaign, and start putting money together independently. The arrogant little Republican boys who strutted 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. + + + + + Prime-time Republicans are hard to take. (Quoted ellipsis in original.) + + + + + As I watched Tuesday night's network coverage of the unrelenting political propaganda hour known as the Republican National Convention, the first thought that came to mind was of old newsreels of those self-congratulatory Nazi rallies held in Germany during the reign of Adolf Hitler. For many people, I'm sure, such a comparison sounds extreme. Yet, just as the Nazis were obsessed with endless displays of swastikas, the Republicans are obsessed with the red, white and blue (for that matter, the Democrats are, too). In the same manner that the German people were told that Nazi leadership was faultless, the Republicans are telling the American public that no one knows what's best for the world except the current leadership in the White House. "If you believe this country and not the United Nations is the best hope for democracy, then you are a Republican!" bellowed California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. In the same way that Nazis rationalized doing away with democratic rights and launching a pre-emptive war to protect the self-interests of the Third Reich, Republicans this week continue to encourage the American public to ignore our Constitution's directive that only Congress has the right to declare war (thus, we are not officially at war with anyone), and that a pre-emptive war with no exit strategy will actually protect "the American way of life," rather than further endanger it. Simultaneously, on the streets of New York City, the police are responding to dissent by protesters from around the country with a mild approximation of the kind of crackdown that happened decades ago in Germany. Tuesday night they arrested close to 1,000 protesters in an attempt to make sure the demonstrators couldn't come close to displaying to a world shocked by the mess our government has made of its foreign policy that, indeed, dissent in America is alive and well. With the cooperation from the broadcast media, there were ominous signs that the Republicans have every intention of continuing to dumb down the American public, turning us into collective putty in their hands. Indications came not only from the propaganda espoused by Schwarzenegger, but in the performance of President George W. Bush's twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. Having the audacity to stand in front of the convention like two bored rich girls at a coming out party, they told the audience: "Since we've graduated from college, we're looking around for something to do for the next few years..." How about suiting up and joining the front-line troops your father has sent to fight in Iraq, in his misdirected effort to protect your privileged existence? After watching this convention on television, about the only sign I could find that the Republicans have any understanding of the real struggles facing those in this nation without the privileges epitomized by the president's daughters came from the mouth of the president's wife, Laura Bush. Our first lady acknowledged that making the ideal of freedom in America real has been an arduous task. What neither she nor anyone else speaking from the podium acknowledged is that the economic and foreign policy facts of life in America are about as far from Republican fantasies as Crawford, Texas, is from New York City. Convention speakers want us to believe that decisiveness from our current president, even if you disagree with where he has led us, beats the wishy-washy pronouncements from the mouth of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Given the tone of what Republicans have been telling us at their convention about the direction George W. Bush is leading us and the way they are delivering the message let us not forget one other thing: Hitler was decisive, too. + + + + + P.S. We're Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore. (Emphasis in original.) + + + + + Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the antipapist antiforeigner element. The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate, produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue the French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeoned—and there was a degree of plain decency in the country. Fifties Republicans were giants compared to today’s. Richard Nixon was the last Republican leader to feel a Christian obligation toward the poor. In the years between Nixon and Newt Gingrich, the party migrated southward down the Twisting Trail of Rhetoric and sneered at the idea of public service and became the Scourge of Liberalism, the Great Crusade Against the Sixties, the Death Star of Government, a gang of pirates that diverted and fascinated the media by their sheer chutzpah, such as the misty-eyed flag-waving of Ronald Reagan who, while George McGovern flew bombers in World War II, took a pass and made training films in Long Beach. The Nixon moderate vanished like the passenger pigeon, purged by a legion of angry white men who rose to power on pure punk politics. “Bipartisanship is another term of date rape,” says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP. “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” The boy has Oedipal problems and government is his daddy. The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous. Rich ironies abound! Lies pop up like toadstools in the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public trough! Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires! Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of Divine Grace. Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy — the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president’s personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully. The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this. The election of 2004 will say something about what happens to ours. The omens are not good. Our beloved land has been fogged with fear — fear, the greatest political strategy ever. An ominous silence, distant sirens, a drumbeat of whispered warnings and alarms to keep the public uneasy and silence the opposition. And in a time of vague fear, you can appoint bullet-brained judges, strip the bark off the Constitution, eviscerate federal regulatory agencies, bring public education to a standstill, stupefy the press, lavish gorgeous tax breaks on the rich. There is a stink drifting through this election year. It isn’t the Florida recount or the Supreme Court decision. No, it’s 9/11 that we keep coming back to. It wasn’t the “end of innocence,” or a turning point in our history, or a cosmic occurrence, it was an event, a lapse of security. And patriotism shouldn’t prevent people from asking hard questions of the man who was purportedly in charge of national security at the time. Whenever I think of those New Yorkers hurrying along Park Place or getting off the No.1 Broadway local, hustling toward their office on the 90th floor, the morning paper under their arms, I think of that non-reader George W. Bush and how he hopes to exploit those people with a little economic uptick, maybe the capture of Osama, cruise to victory in November and proceed to get some serious nation-changing done in his second term. This year, as in the past, Republicans will portray us Democrats as embittered academics, desiccated Unitarians, whacked-out hippies and communards, people who talk to telephone poles, the party of the Deadheads. They will wave enormous flags and wow over and over the footage of firemen in the wreckage of the World Trade Center and bodies being carried out and they will lie about their economic policies with astonishing enthusiasm. The Union is what needs defending this year. Government of Enron and by Halliburton and for the Southern Baptists is not the same as what Lincoln spoke of. This gang of Pithecanthropus Republicanii has humbugged us to death on terrorism and tax cuts for the comfy and school prayer and flag burning and claimed the right to know what books we read and to dump their sewage upstream from the town and clear-cut the forests and gut the IRS and mark up the constitution on behalf of intolerance and promote the corporate takeover of the public airwaves and to hell with anybody who opposes them. This is a great country, and it wasn’t made so by angry people. We have a sacred duty to bequeath it to our grandchildren in better shape than however we found it. We have a long way to go and we’re not getting any younger. Dante said that the hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who in time of crisis remain neutral, so I have spoken my piece, and thank you, dear reader. It’s a beautiful world, rain or shine, and there is more to life than winning. + + + + + The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes. Lane Core Jr. CIW P Tue. 09/07/04 07:40:54 PM |
"Veterans' Day" A poem by Russ Vaughn. Our favorite Screaming Eagle Poet writes to The Blog from the Core again. Veterans' Day
How liberals do defy the mind
Russ Vaughn I think it's going to turn out that John Forbes Kerry lost his bid for the presidency on April 22, 1971. See also these. [Follow-up: "Their Veterans' Day".] Lane Core Jr. CIW P Tue. 09/07/04 07:03:16 AM |
After the Republican National Convention The Big Bounce. Oops. Sorry. Wrong bounce. The Big Bounce. Oops. Sorry. Wrong bounce again. The Big Bounce. Newsweek Poll, September 2-3, 2004. "In general, would you like to see George W. Bush reelected to another term as president, or not?"
Time Poll, September 2-3, 2004. "Suppose the 2004 election for president were being held today, and you had to choose between John Kerry and John Edwards, the Democrats, and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republicans. For whom would you vote?"
Ah. Yes. That bounce. (Source.) Of course, this was not news to you, Faithful Reader: Big Bounce and Bigger Bounce. Democratic flaks have been very amusing. They try simultaneously to assert that (1) Kerry's lack of a bounce after the DNC was irrelevant and (2) Bush's big bounce after the RNC is also irrelevant. Lane Core Jr. CIW P Tue. 09/07/04 06:49:22 AM |
The Blog from the Core © 2002-2008 E. L. Core. All rights reserved. |
Previous | Week | Next |