mattgunn.com

- August 2004 -

August 28, 2004

No More Posts Until Wednesday Morning

I've become so outraged over the way most of the news media has mishandled this SBVT thing that I've begun wondering whether it's healthy for me to force myself to stomach the entire Republican National Convention. Instead of running the risk of harming myself or others, I've decided to take a mini-vacation at an undisclosed location. Nonetheless, I'll be back up and blogging Wednesday morning with an angry report on its first couple days.

Big Stories

Two potentially very attractive stories are developing.

The first is that Ben Barnes, the man who pulled strings to get George W. Bush into the Texas National Guard, has begun to talk. Surprise, surprise, just in time for the RNC news cycle. The real question is who Barnes was working on behalf of, which I don't think he's ever revealed.

I'll be gone the next couple days, but I'm sure all those on my blogroll (there to the left) will have full coverage.

The second is that there's about to be a big spy bust at the Pentagon.

I may have picked the wrong time to head out of town.

Incidentally, I haven't kept as close a watch on The Torture Scandals as I did the first go-round, but Jackson Diehl cut to the chase in Friday's Washington Post. It's a must-read.

Greenspan

Alan Greenspan continues to beg for medicare and social security cuts, as if there aren't any other ways to get these enormous deficits under control. Greenspan may be a revered figure in Washington, but I don't think he means jack to persuadable voters, while medicare and social security mean a hell of a lot to most of them. Would it be politically unwise for John Kerry to come out and say it's time for Greenspan to go? I think it's probably both the right policy and the right politics.

August 27, 2004

Census

The official census figures are even worse than indicated in the report I cited yesterday. From The Washington Post:

The census report provided hard numbers to anecdotal evidence that the recent recovery has missed certain regions and segments of the population. An additional 1.3 million Americans fell below the poverty line in 2003, as incomes dipped for the poorest 20 percent of the population. An additional 1.4 million became newly uninsured.

This is what the country should be debating right now, but George "We've Turned a Corner" Bush will do anything he can to avoid talking about this before election day. He has no serious health care plan and his economic policies completely ignore the poor. He's got a mighty odd way of showing his "compassionate conservatism," doesn't he?

Disgrace. The man is an absolute moral disgrace.

Sure enough, John Kerry and John Edwards have a very detailed plan to provide affordable health care to all Americans. Download Our Plan for America (an impressively specific 252 page policy outline) at johnkerry.com for all the details.

Some of its broader initiatives (download the book for all the details):

Up to $1,000 of Health Care Premium Relief
The Kerry-Edwards plan will provide relief for employers who offer their employees quality health coverage by helping out with certain high cost health cases - saving families up to $1,000 per year.

A Health Plan for Every Child
The Kerry-Edwards plan will pick up the full cost of the more than 20 million children enrolled in Medicaid. In exchange, states will expand eligibility for children's health coverage and low-income adults and enroll every child automatically.

Manage Skyrocketing Health Care Costs
The Kerry-Edwards plan will improve health outcomes while reducing health care costs by cutting administrative costs, waste, fraud, and abuse; enhancing disease management efforts; and reforming malpractice insurance.

Bush NYT Interview

Bush actually granted a one-on-one interview with a newspaper reporter, and it appears as if some of the questions may not have even been screened by the White House in advance!

A few points:

1. Here's my favorite part:

On environmental issues, Mr. Bush appeared unfamiliar with an administration report delivered to Congress on Wednesday that indicated that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were the only likely explanation for global warming over the last three decades. Previously, Mr. Bush and other officials had emphasized uncertainties in understanding the causes and consequences of global warming.

The new report was signed by Mr. Bush's secretaries of energy and commerce and his science adviser. Asked why the administration had changed its position on what causes global warming, Mr. Bush replied, "Ah, we did? I don't think so."

I wonder when Bush will own up to the fact that he's never met his energy secretary or his science adviser because God personally dictates to him all White House science policy.

2. Kerry should tee this one up:

He said that in North Korea's case, and in Iran's, he would not be rushed to set deadlines for the countries to disarm, despite his past declaration that he would not "tolerate'' nuclear capability in either nation. He declined to define what he meant by "tolerate.''

"I don't think you give timelines to dictators,'' Mr. Bush said, speaking of North Korea's president, Kim Jong Il, and Iran's mullahs. He said he would continue diplomatic pressure - using China to pressure the North and Europe to pressure Iran - and gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.

He doesn't give timelines to dictators? You can use that either to call him a flip-flopper or a coward, whichever you prefer.

Seriously, I was watching Harvard Professor Graham Allison the other night on Charlie Rose – he wrote a book called Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, and had some fascinating things to say.

There's good news and bad news when it comes to terrorists' getting their hands on a nuclear weapon. The good news is that a nuclear catastrophe is preventable. The bad news is that a nuclear catastrophe is inevitable if we continue to follow our present course.

The former Soviet Union has a bunch of loose nukes, of course, including 65 suitcase-sized bombs that nobody is able to account for. Scary.

Allison also told a story about a very credible report in October 2001 saying there was a nuclear bomb that had arrived in New York City. George Tenet told Bush, Cheney went to his undisclosed location, and a team of scientists went to New York. I don't know where the error was in the report, but obviously it turned out not to be true. I guess we've got to read Allison's book to find out.

Scariest of all, though, is that there's universal agreement – as opposed to the very sketchy information we had before the war about an Iraqi nuclear weapons program – that Iran is months away from a functional nuclear weapon. According to Allison, once Iran becomes a nuclear state, so will Egypt. Saudi Arabia won't be far behind, either, and will see a nuclearized Middle East.

Moreover, Israel is not going to let Iran complete a nuclear weapon. Iran is a timebomb waiting to explode, and there's going to be another war if we don't have a more engaged policy then we do now.

The huge problem for Bush is a lot of the things he said about Iraq before the war that turned out not to be true are true in spades about Iran. Iran has an advanced nuclear weapons program, will have a nuclear weapon within a year, and has a clear operational partnership with Hezbollah, a potent terrorist threat. The world has to deal with Iran, but Bush has squandered his credibility to the point where he's diplomatically impotent, and he doesn't have much credibility on war issues with most Americans, either.

Bush's inability to effectively deal with Iran is one of the central exhibits of his weakness on defense.

John Kerry, by the way, has a very realistic and detailed plan to secure and reduce existing nuclear weapons materials around the world. It can be found on pages 24-28 of Our Plan for America, which can be downloaded from johnkerry.com.

While I can't be absolutely sure, I'm fairly certain the official Bush administration policy for dealing with Iran is to bomb Iraq.

3. In the NYT interview, Bush clings to his refusal to specifically condemn the falsehoods in the SBVT ad, even though he answers, "No, I don't think he lied" when asked about Kerry's service. That's incredibly disingenuous, which we expect from Bush, but the NYT shamefully doesn't even bother to quesiton him further on why he won't specifically condemn an ad he essentially says is a lie. He wants to have it both ways, winking at those who seek to assassinate Kerry's service record while he calls it noble. It's his m.o..

The man is an outright coward and moral disaster.

4. So Kerry's seen some erosion – not catastrophic, but it's there – in this week's polls, not just in the horse race, but in perceptions of his personal qualities. Most people assume the SBVT thing is responsible, but there's some problems with that – specifically that in the LA Times poll Democrats by 10 to 1 thought the ads a lie, independents by 5 to 1, and Republicans split in half. In other words, the people who bought those ads were probably highly unlikely to have given Kerry a high rating on any of his personal qualities in the last poll, so they're probably not responsible for much of the erosion.

Instead, I think the senior political adviser quoted anonymously in this NYT article is on to something:

One senior political adviser to the president said the shift in Mr. Bush's favor was due to Mr. Kerry's statement two weeks ago that he would have voted to give the president the authority to invade Iraq even if he had known that the country currently possessed no weapons of mass destruction.

I think the senior political adviser to the president (Karen Hughes, perhaps?) is right.

I understand Kerry's position on the war completely – ousting Saddam was a worthwhile goal, and the president should have had the leverage to do it, but Bush fucked it up to the point where bad execution made it bad policy. Somehow, though, Kerry still hasn't been able to convey that in any language other than senate-ese, and I think his senatespeak before the Grand Canyon early this month is what's hurt him more than anything else.

John Kerry is 100 times the man George Bush is and I think he's going to make an excellent president, but he's got to fix his answer on this or it will definitely ruin him in at least one of the debates. It could also ruin his run for the White House and our chance for progress.

August 26, 2004

LA Times Poll

The LA Times has a new poll out that shows Bush leading Kerry for the first time all year, 49% to 46% among registered voters. There's a Gallup poll out tomorrow as well, and I don't expect that to look great, either. Not welcome news, obviously, but I'm not too concerned, especially after taking a look at the internals. He's had a decent August, as expected, but Bush still has bad numbers for an incumbent and Kerry's counteroffensive on the SBVT attacks is still taking hold.

700,000 More Impoverished

From Reuters:

More Americans likely slid into poverty in 2003 and the gap between the rich and poor widened, economists said on Thursday in a report that could fuel Democrat criticism of President Bush.

While the nation's official poverty rate will not be released until next week, the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research estimated 700,000 Americans were added to the ranks of the poor last year, based on early numbers.

That takes the number of poor in the United States to about 36.4 million, from 35.7 million in 2002.

The poverty line is set at an annual income of $9,573 or less for an individual, or $18,660 for a family of four with two children, according to the Census Bureau.

Don't let the description of the Center for Economic and Policy Research as "left-leaning" fool you – I think Republicans would agree this is an accurate predictor of what the official poverty rate will be, and the study is as close as we'll get to definitive pre-election. [update: sorry, I was too tired when I posted this – the actual definitve study is the census study itself, which I comment on here.]

THAT'S 36.4 MILLION PEOPLE, INCLUDING 18.8% OF ALL CHILDREN, LIVING IN POVERTY.

That's unacceptable.

George W. Bush's only prescription? Make his tax cuts permanent.

Morally disastrous leadership.

Olympic

It seems the United States Olympic Committee doesn't want to be pimped out by the Bush campaign, so they've formally asked the Bush campaign to pull their television ad that uses the Olympic name.

Ginsberg

I hear the loss of chief counsel Ben Ginsberg is not just a temporary embarrassment to Bush-Cheney '04, but functionally a significant setback because he's not easily replaced.

Meanwhile, on Nightline last night Ginsberg asserted that he would continue to work for the SBVT Summer Players.

Iraq

As I write this in the very early a.m., there's a very delicate situation developing in Iraq. From the AP:

A mortar barrage slammed into a mosque filled Iraqis preparing to march on the embattled city of Najaf, killing 27 people and wounding 63 here Thursday hours before the nation's top Shiite cleric was expected to arrive in area with a peace initiative.

The attack on the main mosque in Kufa -- just a few miles from Najaf -- dampened renewed hopes for a rapid resolution to the three-week crisis in Najaf. The U.S. military and the insurgents both blamed the other for the attack.

The crucial factor here, I think, is who Ayatollah Sistani ("the top Shiite cleric") determines is responsible for the mortar fire. If it's the Allawi government and/or U.S. troops, then there's apparently a strong chance the country could be turned upside down. If it's Sadr, it's hard to tell what might happen. [update: I'd like to strike this paragraph from the record. I was tired when I wrote it and not thinkign properly.]

The best source for a complex (yet fairly accessible for the committedly curious, I think) understanding of current events in Iraq is Juan Cole's Informed Comment. Here's what he wrote just prior to the carnage in Kufa:

Ash-Sharq al-Awsat says that Sayyid Muhammad Musawi, one of Sistani's more important aides, warned the Americans against damaging or raiding the shrine of Ali (where Mahdi Army militiamen are holed up). He said that if the Americans behaved this way, it would provoke "general" (i.e. nation-wide) protests and result in a "very bad" situation. This is a threat that Sistani will bring out large urban crowds against the Americans if they do not back off. He can do it, so it is not an empty boast. And those panglossian American military planners who think they have 10 years to get things right in Iraq will find themselves tossed out summarily from the country.

Admirable Complexity

Remarks by John Kerry Tuesday night at a DNC fundraiser in Pennsylvania:

"It's become so petty it's almost pathetic in a way as I listen to these things. You know every — (Rep.) Chaka (Fattah) was telling me a minute ago he keeps hearing these commentators, Republicans all of them, saying "well John Kerry was only in Vietnam for four months blah blah blah." Well, I was there for longer than that number one. Number two, I served two tours. Number three, they thought enough of my service to make me an aide to an admiral. And the Navy 35 years ago made the awards that I made through the normal process that they make. And I'm proud of them and I'm proud of my service and I'm proud that I stood up against the war when I came home because it was the right thing to do." "I've been 35 years now involved in foreign policy one way or the other. From being at the tip of the spear when leaders made bad decisions to trying to oppose it when I came home as an act of conscience. And you can judge my character incidentally by that. Because when the Times of moral crisis existed in this country I wasn't taking care of myself, I was taking care of public policy. I was taking care of things that made a difference to the life of this nation. You may not have agreed with me but I stood up and was counted and that's the kind of president I'm gonna be."

August 25, 2004

War's Unmistakable Horror

From the AP:

HOLLYWOOD, Fla. - A distraught father who had just been told his Marine son was killed in combat in Iraq set himself on fire in a Marine Corps van and suffered severe burns Wednesday, police said.

Three U.S. Marines went to a house in Hollywood and told the parents of a 20-year-old Marine that their son died had Tuesday in Najaf, police said.

The father, Carlos Arredondo, 44, then walked into the open garage, picked up a can of gasoline, a propane tank and a lighting device, police Capt. Tony Rode said. He smashed the van’s window with the propane tank and doused the van with gasoline before setting it ablaze.

So sad.

I know this wasn't exactly a Norman Morrison protest act, but we should all hear the echoes.

Hypocrisy at its Finest

From the August 7 Philadelphia Inquirer (that's right, just 2 and a half weeks ago):

...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."

Thanks to Political Animal's Amy Sullivan for the tip.

Quote of Tomorrow

"The President started this, and I'm telling ya' right now, John Kerry's gonna finish it."

– Tad Devine, Sr. Kerry Campaign Strategist, on Inside Politics today

Ginsberg Resigns

The opening paragraphs in The Washington Post:

The Bush campaign's chief outside counsel resigned Wednesday morning after acknowledging on Tuesday that he also was providing legal advice to the veterans group working to discredit Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's war record.

In a resignation letter sent to President Bush, Benjamin L. Ginsberg said there was nothing wrong with doing work for both the campaign and for the outside group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, known technically as a 527 organization.

Ginsberg's resignation followed the Bush campaign's dismissal Saturday of a volunteer on its veterans steering committee who appeared in a Swift boat veterans ad. The campaign said retired Col. Kenneth Cordier had not previously disclosed his participation with the swift boat group.

While it's true that there's no evidence Ginsberg has done anything legally improper, I always get a kick out of political resignations like this that basically say, "I'm resigning, but I didn't do anything wrong." I wonder how many Americans read that and relate with it: "Oh, yeah, I remember that time I resigned for nothing – what a shame."

The Bush campaign missed a political opportunity by failing to announce the president had terminated relations with Mr. Ginsberg over this, rather than Mr. Ginsberg simply resigning. That would have at least sent a message Bush disapproves of the smears, while Ginsberg's resignation suggests Bush has been approving all along (especially when Ginsberg's resignation letter is a tacit endorsement of the SBVT: "...I have decided to resign as National Counsel to your campaign to ensure that the giving of legal advice to decorated military veterans, which was entirely within the boundaries of the law, doesn't distract from the real issues upon which you and the country should be focusing.") You can't spin away people's natural association of resignation with culpability.

Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill's response is pitch-perfect:

The sudden resignation of Bush's top lawyer doesn't end the extensive web of connections between George Bush and the group trying to smear John Kerry's military record. In fact, it only confirms the extent of those connections. Now we know why George Bush refuses to specifically condemn these false ads. People deeply involved in his own campaign are behind them, from paying for them, to appearing in them, to providing legal advice, to coordinating a negative strategy to divert the public away from issues like jobs, health care and the mess in Iraq, the real concerns of the American people. It's time for George Bush to take responsibility himself and condemn these false attacks.

Kerry understands that the only thing that matters when you're attacked is your counterattack. Extensive polling data shows that people are a lot more likely to remember negative information than positive information, so in most political contests you've got to be able to deliver negative information about your opponent if you want to win.

Meanwhile, Kerry/Edwards have pledged to take the high road in this campaign and need to come off as if they are, so they need to walk a tightrope – all their attacks have to appear as self-defense. Bush's/Cheney's/ Rove's aggressiveness plays right into their hands, because it offers Kerry and Edwards the chance to be extremely negative in picking apart Bush as personal and political failure while appearing just to be fighting back, which voters respect.

Republicans have to tear down John Kerry at their convention and throughout the fall or they're not going to win. They've signaled that the politics of ridicule will be the name of their game from here on out. The Kerry campaign's response practically writes itself: "Of course they have to attack John Kerry personally. They can't talk about issues because their stewardship of our country has been certified as an absolute disaster – look at a (jobs), b (health care), and c (Iraq), the whole alphabet, really – and if you want to continue to attack our guys personally we can go down to personal issues like y (Bush as draft avoider and miltary absentee) or even z (Bush as cocaine lover), just let us know."

More SBVT Summer Players/Bush-Cheney '04 Hijinx

Ben Ginsberg, a prominent lawyer for Bush-Cheney '04 and one of Bush's closest advisers (you may remember him as a major player in the Florida recount court battles – he's bald, bearded, and unbearable), has been advising the SBVT Summer Players since July, the AP reports.

This might be the Kerry campaign's best opportunity yet to solidify what's likely a growing perception that these smears are tied to George W. Bush.

First off, let's clear up the misimpression that the Kerry campaign was doing something extraordinary by filing an FEC complaint alleging illegal coordination between the SBVT Summer Players and Bush-Cheney '04. The Bush campaign has filed several complaints alleging illegal coordination between Kerry and the liberal 527s, so SBVT supporters can't possibly argue Kerry's "silencing free speech" – as Crossfire jackass Tucker Carlson has been the past couple days – unless they want to criticize Bush for the same thing.

Furthermore, the FEC is by almost all accounts a toothless tiger, and I don't think there's much chance they'll rule on these complaints before the election. Both sides agree on that, I think, so it looks to me like these complaints have primarily a political intent.

So it's great political ammo for the Kerry campaign to argue that not only does one of Bush's top fundraisers (Texas homebuilder Bob Perry) own the SBVT Summer Players, but also that the lawyer responsible for things going smoothly in the Bush campaign is the same guy responsible for things going smoothly for the SBVTSP. You don't have to go too far to connect the dots there, do you? And when you factor in Merrie Spaeth, the loyal Bush operative who promotes the SBVT, the Kerry campaign can grinningly assert that the SBVT are directly owned (Perry), promoted (Spaeth), and operated (Ginsberg) by the Bush campaign.

Moreover, Ginsberg's bound by attorney-client confidentiality, which helps him in court, but could help Kerry, Edwards, and Co. make the case to the public that Ginsberg has something to hide. If this is much of a story today, Kerry should have surrogates out demanding specific answers from Ginsberg to questions he is legally obligated not to answer.

Kerry was pretty good on The Daily Show last night. He didn't make the mistake of straining to be funny, he just looked relaxed and was able to make a few good points with an audience that likely includes a lot of younger people who've never voted before.

The thing that jumped out at me was Kerry saying this:

The president has won every debate he's ever had. He beat Ann Richards. He beat Al Gore. So, he's a good debater.

This is smart. The debates could make the difference this year (if Al Gore hadn't sighed in that first debate and hadn't displayed a strikingly different posture for each debate, I think there's a good chance the Supremes would have never heard Bush v. Gore), and one of the reasons Bush has been successful in debates (success defined as improving his position in the race afterwards) is because the expectations for him have always been pitifully low. This is partly because many reporters and pundits grade him on a curve, but also because his campaign teams have always excelled at downplaying his debating skills. The Kerry campaign has to build him back up, and it's good to see they're on top of it.

August 24, 2004

The Further Presidentification of John Kerry

1. Kerry's on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart tonight (Tuesday), and that's no joke. Don't miss it.

2. Earlier today, Kerry is going to blast Karl Rove's penis, a.k.a. George W. Bush, in a New York City speech. He's going to say Bush and Co. "turned to the tactics of fear and smear because they can't talk about jobs, health care, energy independence, and rebuilding our alliances – the real issues that matter to the American people." Reuters also reports there's a "fact sheet" to go along with it, which I can't wait to see. I assume it puts their use of the SBVT Summer Players in the context of smears consigned by previous Bush campaigns (both Daddy and junior).

3. Three weeks ago, "Bush advisers" bragged to The New York Times that ridiculing John Kerry was going to be a big part of their convention plan. At the time I mentioned how Kerry and Edwards had spent some time at the Democratic convention foreshadowing the malice that was about to come their way, all for the purpose of using the negativity itself as their offense, a kind of "There they go again" offense.

Well, I'm afraid the "There they go again offense" doesn't adequately describe Kerry's dexterity in positioning himself by waiting until the eve of the Republican National Convention's "ridicule John Kerry" extravaganza to deliver his own extremely aggressive attacks on Bush (forget about the SBVT Players, they're nothing more than cheap props) that don't appear negative, only as self defense. In fact, he's harnessed the SBVT vitriol and transformed it into a sledgehammer that he's in the process of slamming down ferociously on to the Rove phallus (G.W.).

Kerry will say, "you want to attack me, I want to talk about issues important to the American people," and he'll mean it. Bush will say he wants to talk about issues, too, but then he'll attack. It's not Kerry's moral superiority (although maybe that, too) that makes him want to talk about policy issues, it's the polls. Bush can't win on the issues. Ask any Republican pollster and they'll admit that Bush absolutely must paint Kerry as a nauseating alternative because a clear majority of voters in this country want change. Plus, Karl Rove doesn't know how to run any other kind of campaign.

Did Kerry deliberately let that SBVT ad sit out there for an extra week or two so he could use it to unload a preemptive strike against Rove/Bush now? I can't say for sure, but there are some reasons to believe just that. I didn't see "Scarborough Country" tonight, but I read this in a Daily Kos recommended diary:

Oliphant: "Phase 2" of Kerry Counterattack To Begin
by thirdparty
Tue Aug 24th, 2004 at 03:05:44 GMT

This is a quick one... Just caught Tom Oliphant on Scarborough's show on MSNBC, and he had some fascinating insights into Kerry and Vietnam and the Swift Boat Scum that far outshone most of the crap usually on that channel/program. I know he's been a friend of Kerry's for over 30 years, but he seems remarkably objective about the man, the candidate, and his campaigns. A couple of his points:

Kerry, in every campaign he's ever run, has always invited (almost dared) his opponents to attack his Vietnam record. He "leads with his chin," but he does so on purpose. He relishes this fight, and it's a fight he's had over and over again. In this context, the words "Bring It On" take on an entirely new (and in this case, entirely earnest) meaning.

Kerry seems to have planned a very thought-out counterattack to the Swift Boat charges, "phase 2" of which is to begin tomorrow (he's speaking at Cooper Union, which The Note touched on briefly today). To Kerry, the counterattack is always what matters, not the attack itself. In this light, waiting a week or two before responding to the Swift Boat Scum was also a very planned decision.

Oliphant points out how much of this strategy (or obsession) has to do with Kerry's personal convictions and emotions. He has done this repeatedly, and has won every time. He really does turn his boat into enemy fire. Every time.

It was a very reassuring assessment of the man and his campaign. He doesn't fear attacks. He wants them. He invites them. That toughness is one of the most reassuring qualities I can imagine in a candidate. Hopefully, it will shine through to the electorate at large.

If Kerry's paradoxical counteroffensive/preemptive strike works, it will ensure that Bush's "fear and smear tactics" at the Republican convention and into the fall hurt Bush more than Kerry. It will also be considered one of the most brilliant political maneuvers in recent history.

4. "Unfit for Command" – John O'Neill and bigot Jerome Corsi's hatchet job on Kerry's war heroism – is flying off book store shelves. That scared me for a second, and then I thought, what's it gonna sell, like a couple hundred thousand copies or something?

Somewhere around 15 million Americans have already seen "Fahrenheit 9/11," and possibly double that [update: no, probably not double, but perhaps another 7 – 10 million] will see it before November 2 (it comes out on DVD at the beginning of October).

5. A bunch more stuff since yesterday has emerged that contradicts SBVT claims, but I'm not going to take the time to spell them out right now because I can't imagine there's a person left with above a 50 I.Q. who remains unconvinced that these guys are full of shit.

So much more to write but I've got to get some sleep...

August 23, 2004

SBVT Summer Players Updates

1. The Kerry campaign has another ad out today, called "Issues," which says Bush needs to renounce the smears, get back to the issues, and that America deserves better. It's very good, but not quite as powerful as yesterday's McCain ad, "Old Tricks."

2. I saw This Week With George Stephanopoulos and Meet the Press yesterday, and was saddened to see neither show air the McCain "Old Tricks" ad while both gave the SBVT Troupe more free air time.

3. Where's Bob Kerrey? As a friend of John Kerry's, a vet who left his leg in Vietnam, and a hell of a scrappy fighter who loves taking liars apart, he should be all over the talk shows representing Kerry.

4. From "This Is What I Saw That Day," a first person account by columnist William B. Rood about exactly what happened the day Kerry won his Silver Star, published yesterday in The Chicago Tribune. Read the whole thing, but here's the opening:

There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago--three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions.

Many of us wanted to put it all behind us--the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service--even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.

But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.

People like SBVT founder and "Unfit to Command" author John O'Neill, who didn't even meet Kerry until after the war and has precisely as much eyewitness experience of Kerry's Vietnam conduct as you or I. Somehow, though, he completely makes up a bunch of stuff about the situation surrounding Kerry's Silver Star (and others surrounding Kerry's Bronze Star and 3 Purple Hearts) and some people in the news media treat it as a "he said/he said" situation.

More on O'Neill tomorrow.

5. From today's Washington Post:

The [Kerry] campaign got some unexpected help from Wisconsin state Rep. Terry M. Musser, a Vietnam veteran and co-chairman of Wisconsin Veterans for Bush. Musser lambasted the Bush-Cheney campaign in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel over Republican attacks on Kerry's military record. "I think it's un-American to be attacking someone's service record. Period," Musser said in a Washington Post telephone interview. "The president has an opportunity here to stand up and demand that the attacks be stopped."

Again, that's the CO-CHAIRMAN OF WISCONSIN VETERANS FOR BUSH talking.

How long do you think it will be before he's fired, sent to Iraq, or Cheney just makes sure he disappears altogether?

6. Ken Cordier, who as of Friday was on the Bush-Cheney steering committee for veteran outreach, appears in the latest SBVT ad. I'm sure BC04 thinks his acting as a SBVT is much more valuable to them.

7. Another witness to Kerry's heroism, for which he won his Bronze Star, steps forward to confirm that it went down just as the U.S. Navy, all John Kerry's crewmates, and Jim Rassmann – the Green Beret whose life Kerry saved that day – said it did. From WaPo:

In Colorado, Jim Russell, who participated in Swift boat operations when Kerry did, wrote a letter to the editor of the Telluride Daily Planet to angrily dispute the claim that Kerry was not under enemy fire when he rescued Jim Rassman from the water, a feat that brought Kerry a Bronze Star and Purple Heart.

"I was on No. 43 boat, skippered by Don Droz, who was later that year killed by enemy fire," Russell wrote in the letter. "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago [is] John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

8. Josh Marshall explains why the news media would be wrong to try and turn this into a "he said/he said" situation of equal, competing claims:

But are Kerry and O'Neil really equal in this?

The military records all back up Kerry. Back in the old days -- i.e., last month -- official military records use to be considered at least presumptively accurate. Now, everyone knows or should know that every after-action report or medal citation isn't necessarily the product of an exhaustive investigation. Yet, they're not meaningless. At a minimum one would assume that the burden of proof would lie with those who dispute their veracity.

So, as I say, all the Navy records support Kerry's account . On top of that, all the people who were in Kerry's boat support his version of events.

Think about that for a minute. All the people in Kerry's boat means all the people closest to the action in question support Kerry's account. Others who were tens or hundreds of yards away, or not even present, contradict his account. Is it really so hard to distinguish between the quality of evidence and testimony that both sides are bringing to the table?

In commenting on Kerry's McCain "Old Tricks" ad the other day, Josh eked out some paragraphs so right that I think major newspapers should keep them on file to consider as the opening paragraphs of George W. Bush's obituary:

I say this is exactly where the Kerry campaign needs to go because it very powerfully captures a truth about President Bush -- namely, that he's a coward who truly lacks shame.

I don't say he's a coward because he kept himself out of Vietnam three decades ago. I know no end of men of that age who in one fashion or another made sure they didn't end up in Indochina in those days. (I quickly ran through both hands counting guys I talk to on a regular basis.) And they include many of the most admirable people I know.

He's a coward because he has other people smear good men without taking any responsibility, without owning up to it or standing behind it. And when someone takes it to him and puts him on the spot to defend his actions -- as McCain does in this spot -- he's literally speechless. Like I say, a coward.

As I said earlier, this is vintage Bush. And it's also a subtle nod to all the ways that Bush is someone who's always gotten by with help at all the key moments from family friends, retainers and others similarly hunting for access and power.

Amen.

9. "Big Lies for Bush," a great editorial yesterday in The Boston Globe (it's so good, I can't figure out where to excerpt, so I'll just repost it):

IMAGINE IF supporters of Bill Clinton had tried in 1996 to besmirch the military record of his opponent, Bob Dole. After all, Dole was given a Purple Heart for a leg scratch probably caused, according to one biographer, when a hand grenade thrown by one of his own men bounced off a tree. And while the serious injuries Dole sustained later surely came from German fire, did the episode demonstrate heroism on Dole's part or a reckless move that ended up killing his radioman and endangering the sergeant who dragged Dole off the field?

The truth, according to many accounts, is that Dole fought with exceptional bravery and deserves the nation's gratitude. No one in 1996 questioned that record. Any such attack on behalf of Clinton, an admitted Vietnam draft dodger, would have been preposterous.

Yet amazingly, something quite similar is happening today as supporters of President Bush attack the Vietnam record of Senator John Kerry.

The situations are not completely parallel. Bush was not a draft dodger, but he certainly was a Vietnam avoider, having joined the Texas Air National Guard rather than serving in the regular military.

Kerry, on the other hand, may have done more than Dole to qualify as a genuine war hero. Although his tour in Vietnam was short, on at least two occasions he acted decisively and with great daring in combat, saving at least one man's life and earning both a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. That's not our account or Kerry's; it is drawn from eyewitnesses and the military citations themselves.

Yet a group of Vietnam veterans is questioning Kerry's record, operating cynically and ignoring the evidence. Many in this group felt betrayed by Kerry's opposition to the Vietnam War after he returned home. A renewed debate on that war might be useful, though we believe most Americans now agree with Kerry's famous statement to Congress at the time that it was a mistake.

Rather than seeking debate, however, this group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is attempting political assassination, claiming in ads and a best-selling book that Kerry is "Unfit for Command." In many cases the charges conflict with statements the same men made in the past. Sometimes the allegations contradict documentary evidence. Last week a former swift boat commander, Larry Thurlow, said Kerry didn't deserve his Bronze Star because there was no enemy fire at the time, but this is contradicted by five separate accounts -- including the Bronze Star citation Thurlow himself was awarded in the same incident, as reported by The Washington Post .

While a few details and dates of Kerry's Vietnam record are open to question, most of the accusations are laughable. Kerry's record of service in Vietnam is clear and, one would think, unassailable. Given the contrast in their Vietnam-era records -- Bush even let his pilot's license lapse while still in the Guard -- Bush might be expected to change the subject.

Yet the Kerry opponents, working with funders and political operatives closely linked to Bush personally, are attempting what is known in politics as the big lie -- an effort simply to contradict the truth repeatedly.

Both parties do it, but Republicans are developing a shocking expertise. The smearing of John McCain in South Carolina in 2000, the reprehensible attack to oust Senator Max Cleland of Georgia in 2002, and this utterly cynical campaign against Kerry by Bush's False Squad deserve only condemnation.

Kerry has faulted a few of his own supporters who lampooned Bush's National Guard record. Now Bush should call off his dogs.

Double Amen.

O.T.

Thanks to George W. Bush, as many as 6 million American workers lose their right to overtime pay today. Here are the policy details. It hurts an awful lot of American families, and it's just sinful.

August 22, 2004

SBVT Summer Players Update

Okay, forget about my last post, where I allude to John Edwards not getting involved. Here's Edwards yesterday at a campaign stop in Roanoke, VA, where he called the SBVT claims "lies" and said that "only" President Bush could put an end to them:

John Kerry had his moment of truth 35 years ago and he chose to serve his country. This is Bush's moment of truth. We will now see what kind of man he is. We're not interested in his rhetoric about service. We're not interested in hearing from his spokesman. We're not interested in hearing from front groups.

In other words, George Bush is a coward well-accustomed to other people doing his dirty work, but I like the way he puts it better. (Maureen Dowd says much the same thing, also very well, in her NY Times op-ed today.)

Also, here's a great new ad from the Kerry campaign, which shows John McCain, in a 2000 debate, admonishing George W. Bush for sponsoring the same kind of smears against his Vietnam service that Bush now supports against Kerry's.

The ad was emailed to 2 million Kerry supporters, but its true intention is to get a bunch of free air time on this morning's shows and the rest of the political shows this week (just what G.W. wanted in the run-up to his convention – pundits reminding everybody what a major league asshole he is!). The ad is an extremely effective reminder that the Bush campaign has shepherded this slime before, and particularly what the Bush campaign did to John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 (a long story that if you don't know it yet, you probably will soon, but basically they waged a full-on character assassination campaign against McCain both above and under ground, including: 1) testimony that he turned his back on veterans, 2) fathered an African-American baby, 3) suffered mental shock during Vietnam that made him "unfit for command.")

It's an extremely shrewd way for the Kerry campaign to get the press corps and pundits to do their job and let every person in America know that the SBVT are bad actors engaged in a huge lie, because they all know what happened to McCain in 2000 and there's no more popular media figure than John McCain.

Also, McCain mentions five Vietnam veteran senators who wrote Bush in 2000 asking for an apology, and I wouldn't be surprised to see one of them (Kerry was another), Repubican Senator Chuck Hagel, join McCain this week in calling on Bush to condemn the SBVT lies.

Kerry has put his opponents in this box nearly every race he's run – they belittle his Vietnam service, which is unassailable, and he uses it as a noose around their necks. If Bush doesn't specifically condemn the SBVT ads, he's going to get pounded on in ways that he hasn't yet imagined – things far more severe than what he's faced in his previous races.

By the way, if you think it's unfair to hold Bush responsible for these ads, here's a handy chart from The NY Times showing how closely associated he and Karl Rove are with the SBVT benefactors.

August 21, 2004

Hmmm...

You think things are getting ugly? Here's Kerry communications director Stephanie Cutter responding to Bush spokesman Scott McClellan's snotty assertion that Kerry "lost his cool":

Mr. McClellan needs to understand that John Kerry is not the type of leader who will sit and read 'My Pet Goat' to a group of second graders while America is under attack. John Kerry is a fighter, and he doesn't tolerate lies from others.

McClellan gets the better of it in his emailed response to reporters by merely quoting Kerry in his DNC acceptance speech:

My friends, the high road may be harder, but it leads to a better place.

Cutter's next move should be to ask why the sitting president mocked Senator Kerry's entreaties to ensure a clean campaign by supporting one of the most dishonest, degrading, and despicable ads in the history of American politics.

Both seem to realize this is close to nuclear war, so why not take off the gloves?

Meanwhile, the one guy on either ticket who isn't marred by all of this is John Edwards, who's getting attractive coverage in the swing states.

Also, entering the week before the Republican National Convention, do you think President Bush seems more like a president or a candidate? He's come off more as "gritty candidate" than "presidential" since March (can you remember his last "presidential" moment?), and it's a real problem for him.

August 20, 2004

Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth Theatre Troupe

I've now concluded it's only a matter of time before the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" gather before the public and yank off their fake moustaches, bald caps, hair, and teeth to reveal that we've all been hoodwinked, victims of magnificent political theatre. How else do you explain these guys?

Recent SBVT Troupe engagements:

1.   I very much enjoyed the performance of SBVT Troupe member Larry Thurlow when he debated Jim Rassmann – the man who says he owes his and his children's lives to John Kerry's bravery – on Inside Politics a couple weeks ago. Thurlow said repeatedly that neither his nor Kerry's boat came under enemy fire.

From yesterday's Washington Post:

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

Official Naval documents also show there were bullet holes in at least one of the boats.

Only a brilliant and daring master of disguise like Larry Thurlow would fail to check his own Bronze Star citation before he signed an affidavit calling Kerry, Rassmann, and Kerry's crewmates liars.

(By the way, my favorite part of Thurlow's affidavit is found in part 3, which starts off with "Kerry inadvertently wounded himself in the fanny...")

After The Washington Post informed Thurlow about the language in his own citation, he remained committed to his performance and, in a comedic turn worthy of the great Ali G, blamed John Kerry:

Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.

By yesterday evening, Thurlow's speculation turned into certainty on Hardball With Chris Matthews (who reamed Thurlow so hard I thought Thurlow might have to reveal it was all indeed a gag):

MATTHEWS: But do you know now—right now that the testimony that you were both under fire, intense enemy fire...

THURLOW: Came from his report.

. If you want a good laugh, read the entire Hardball transcript. Thurlow contends that Kerry had a master plan to get his 3 Purple Hearts (including the one, I suppose, that dealt with the shrapnel still in his body today), Bronze Star, and Silver Star without earning them.

Also, on the same Hardball episode (obviously a classic), you can watch Japanese internment camp advocate Michelle Malkin (you probably think I'm kidding) claim that Kerry's Vietnam wounds might have been self-inflicted. The only problem is, Matthews treats her as a nutball for originating the statement, when in fact she's actually just a willing nutball who's repeating allegations from the madcap SBVT Players.

Matthews' look back at her when she told him he should have asked John Kerry if his Vietnam wounds were self-inflicted is priceless.

2. One of the craziest things about the SBVT Players is that they act as if John Kerry could have awarded himself all those decorations. Of course he had no such power, and any problem they have with Kerry's medals shouldn't be addressed to Kerry, they should be addressed to the U.S. Navy.

Oddly enough, I believe there's one of Kerry's awards none of them quibble with – I think it's either his second or third Purple Heart. When they were sitting around the table making this stuff up, do you think they joked about the irony of him having one mistaken act of bravery or heroism that wasn't part of his "master plan"?

One of the SBVT Troupe's favorite tactics is to dump all kinds of misinformation about different incidents on you that is very hard to sort out because Kerry was so highly decorated. Eriposte.com goes into awesome, very well-organized detail on each of Kerry's awards and the SBVT Troupe's allegations. When somebody tries to pass on one of the specific SBVT comedy routines as real life, it's an invaluable resource.

3. Today's New York Times has a fascinating look at the origins of the troupe. You've gotta read the whole thing, but I'll excerpt just a couple long passages:

The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements.

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said, "I am not going to say anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good man."

In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: "It took guts, and I admire that."

George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group, flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was "an act of courage." At that same event, Adrian L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement about the "bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats."

"Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard. "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

Those comments echoed the official record. In an evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders, ranked him as "not exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group."

and...

The book outlining the veterans' charges, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against Kerry," has also come under fire. It is published by Regnery, a conservative company that has published numerous books critical of Democrats, and written by Mr. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, who was identified on the book jacket as a Harvard Ph.D. and the author of many books and articles. But Mr. Corsi also acknowledged that he has been a contributor of anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic comments to a right-wing Web site. He said he regretted those comments.

The group's arguments have foundered on other contradictions. In the television commercial, Dr. Louis Letson looks into the camera and declares, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." Dr. Letson does not dispute the wound - a piece of shrapnel above Mr. Kerry's left elbow - but he and others in the group argue that it was minor and self-inflicted.

Yet Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the medical records for Mr. Kerry. Under "person administering treatment" for the injury, the form is signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several years ago. Dr. Letson said it was common for medics to treat sailors with the kind of injury that Mr. Kerry had and to fill out paperwork when doctors did the treatment.

Asked in an interview if there was any way to confirm he had treated Mr. Kerry, Dr. Letson said, "I guess you'll have to take my word for it."

The group also offers the account of William L. Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral who says in the book that he had been on the small skimmer on which Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968. He contends that Mr. Kerry wounded himself while firing a grenade.

But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they cannot recall a third crew member. "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three," Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself.

Mr. Schachte did not return a telephone call, and a spokesman for the group said he would not comment.

There was also this interesting little side note:

When asked if she had ever visited the White House during Mr. Bush's tenure, Ms. Spaeth [the SBVT stage manager] initially said that she had been there only once, in 2002, when Kenneth Starr gave her a personal tour.

Ken Starr's now a White House tour guide?

4. Until George W. Bush renounces this clownery – and I kind of expect he will soon – he's responsible for everything the individual SBVT Troupe members do, and, in fact, anything they've ever done. Kerry yesterday:

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn't interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the president won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to know -- he wants them to do his dirty work.

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.

As firefighters you risk your lives every day. You know what it's like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you've done -- and so am I.

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.'

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America -- then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people.

The conventional wisdom is that Bush and friends have succeeded in putting Kerry on the defensive with these allegations, and Kerry's worse off for it. Maybe that's right. But there's only one prominent issue where Bush has even a slight advantage over Kerry right now, and that's as commander-in-chief in the "war on terror."

How has Kerry drastically cut into Bush's lead on that issue, as shown in public opinion polls, over the last few months? By putting his military credentials front and center. What's the one thing George W. Bush and John Kerry seemingly both want to focus on right now, just a week before the Republican National Convention? John Kerry's military service.

Time will tell who that benefits, but in every race Kerry's ever won it's benefited John Kerry.

August 18, 2004

Fareed

In "Why Kerry Is Right on Iraq" in the current Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria defends John Kerry's Iraq position (which can be summed up as "worthwhile objective, disastrous execution"), and indicts Bush's criticism of it in the process:

Bush's position is that if Kerry agrees with him that Saddam was a problem, then Kerry agrees with his Iraq policy. Doing something about Iraq meant doing what Bush did. But is that true? Did the United States have to go to war before the weapons inspectors had finished their job? Did it have to junk the United Nations' process? Did it have to invade with insufficient troops to provide order and stability in Iraq? Did it have to occupy a foreign country with no cover of legitimacy from the world community? Did it have to ignore completely the State Department's postwar planning? Did it have to pack the Governing Council with unpopular exiles, disband the Army and engage in radical de-Baathification? Did it have to spend a fraction of the money allocated for Iraqi reconstruction—and have that be mired in charges of corruption and favoritism? Was all this an inevitable consequence of dealing with the problem of Saddam?

Sorry to my regular readers for the light posting lately – I'm on the verge of completing a side project I've been working on for the last couple weeks, which will allow me to get back to doing my homework and posting indiscriminately.

August 17, 2004

Movin' On

Here's some must-see t.v. from MoveOn.org.

First, documentary filmmaking legend Errol Morris interviews people who voted for Bush in 2000 about why they're changing their vote this time. Most of them have been loyal Republicans, and their compelling testimony makes for some of the best political ads this year. If you have a few bucks, you may want to donate so they get as much airplay as possible during the Republican Convention.

Second, another ad from MoveOn.org admonishes Bush to take the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" ad off the air.

August 16, 2004

A Lot of Sensitivity

John Kerry made this perfectly reasonable statement in response to a question on August 5:

"The first part focuses on security. I will fight this war on terror with the lessons I learned in war. I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president of the United States. I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history. I lay out a strategy to strengthen our military, to build and lead strong alliances and reform our intelligence system. I set out a path to win the peace in Iraq and to get the terrorists wherever they may be before they get us."

One week later, at one of his invitation-only campaign rallies, Dick Cheney took Kerry's quote wildly out of context:

Senator Kerry has also said that if he were in charge he would fight a "more sensitive" war on terror. (Laughter.) America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive. President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive warfare -- nor did President Roosevelt, nor Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. A "sensitive war" will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more. The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity. As our opponents see it, the problem isn't the thugs and murderers that we face, but our attitude. Well, the American people know better. They know that we are in a fight to preserve our freedom and our way of life, and that we are on the side of rights and justice in this battle. Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed. (Applause.)

From some reason, Cheney's absurd political jargon has been taken seriously by many political reporters. I even heard several pundits (Cokie Roberts and Arianna Huffington, to name just two) acknowledge that Cheney had taken Kerry out of context, but then mention that Kerry really opened himself up for attack by using the word "sensitive." Huh?

1.   Cheney's "sensitivity" rebuke is among the most hypocritical in the history of American politics.

The Center for American Progress has a long list of statements in which Bush administration officials publically stress the importance of waging a sensitive war on terror. Including...

Dick Cheney himself just 4 months ago: "We recognize that the presence of U.S. forces can in some cases present a burden on the local community. We're not insensitive to that. We work almost on a continual basis with the local officials to remove points of friction and reduce the extent to which problems arise in terms of those relationships."

President Bush on 3/4/01: "We help fulfill that promise not by lecturing the world, but by leading it. Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment for America itself. We pursue our goals, we will listen to others. We want strong friends to join us, not weak neighbors to dominate. In all our dealings with other nations, we will display the modesty of true confidence and strength."

These statements have made the rounds by now and I think almost all the political reporters and pundits who comment on them have seen them. It's totally unprofessional for them to make any points about Cheney's original attack without first establishing that it was totally disingenuous.

2.   Remember President Clinton's speech at the DNC: "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values."

3.   If Cheney continues trying to ridicule Kerry by taking him completely out of context on this sensitivity stuff, one of Kerry's surrogates – I suggest Wes Clark – should say the following:

Both Senator Kerry and President Bush have called for us to be 'sensitive' in certain regards in our war on terror. Cheney himself has urged sensitivity. I can't tell you how many military commanders I've heard urge certain types of sensitivity in warfare. Now, Dick Cheney's attacking Kerry for using the word, which is not only hypocritical, but makes you question what's lacking in Cheney's masculinity – or perhaps just his military experience – that makes him so afraid of a little word like 'sensitive.'

The politics of ridicule can be very effective, as Cheney has shown by getting all this free advertising for criticisms of something Kerry never said, and the best way to fight it is to ridicule back. There's no softer target than Dick Cheney, so the Kerry campaign must start hitting him, hard and without sensitivity.

August 14, 2004

A Republican Appeal to African-American Voters

From The Washington Post:

A group financed by a major Republican contributor has begun running radio ads in about a dozen cities, many in battleground states, attacking Sen. John F. Kerry as "rich, white and wishy-washy" and mocking his wife for boasting of her African roots.

The D.C.-based group, People of Color United, has substantial financial backing from J. Patrick Rooney, the former chairman of Golden Rule Insurance Co. and the founder of a new firm, Medical Savings Insurance Co. Both firms specialize in medical savings accounts, created by Republican-backed 1996 legislation, and health savings accounts, which were created by President Bush's 2003 Medicare prescription drug legislation.

The ads run on black radio stations, and represent a transparent attempt to sour black voters on John Kerry so much that they won't show up at the polls.

This group would be better off investing their ad money in Enron stock. You're not going to keep African-Americans from the polls this year. You could list 100 reasons, but for brevity's sake, let's limit to 5:

1. Bush's economic policies hurt.

2. George W. Bush celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday last year by coming out against affirmative action.

3. Bush is the first president since Warren Harding to reject speaking before the nation's largest civil rights organization, the NAACP, all 4 years of his presidency.

4. Two words: John Aschcroft.

5. One word: Florida.

August 13, 2004

The Rare Shock

It's not too often that a political speech surprises you. 99% of the time, reporters tell us what a politician is going to say before he says it, and usually you'd be able to guess even without them telling you. Everything's choreographed, stage-managed, hopelessly expected. That's why it's hard for me to imagine what it must have been like in 1968 listening to Lyndon Johnson end a speech announcing a new course in Vietnam with, "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President." He shocked the world.

Yesterday, New Jersey Governor James McGreevey pulled a mini-LBJ with the words, "And so my truth is that I am a gay American." Jaws hit the floor all over the country. As the sitting governor of a relatively large American state, McGreevey is by far the most powerful politician ever to come out of the closet. He's also married and has two daughters, whom I think greatly deserve our prayers (or whatever kind of secular benevolence you'd prefer to throw their way).

As much as I admired the honesty of McGreevey's speech, the focus on his personal struggles may also turn out to be a brilliant distraction from some fairly serious wrongdoing. From today's New York Times:

In early 2002, when he was facing criticism for appointing an unknown Israeli citizen named Golan Cipel as his special assistant on homeland security without so much as a routine background check, Gov. James E. McGreevey was asked by a reporter about rumors that he and the man were involved in a sexual relationship.

Mr. McGreevey responded, "Don't be ridiculous!"

But yesterday, in a short announcement in which he said he would resign the governorship, he acknowledged that he was gay and had had an affair with a man. The man, his aides acknowledged, was Mr. Cipel, 35, who, they added, had threatened a sexual harassment suit naming the governor.

The details of their relationship and a clearer picture of Mr. Cipel, a published poet and former naval officer, will emerge in the days ahead. But he occupied a significant position in New Jersey's effort against terrorism with questionable credentials for nearly three months and played a curious role in the McGreevey administration that provoked rumors about their relationship.

Reading the whole article, this thing doesn't look good for McGreevey. Given Cipel's lackluster qualifications, I think McGreevey's appointing him to an important counterterrorism post is at least unethical and, given the fact that Cipel's salary grew $30,000 in a month and a half to become among the highest in the executive branch, quite possibly illegal.

I imagine the details of this story, as it unfolds, will be well-publicized nationally because McGreevey has become, in a flash, a quintessentially modern and dramatic media subject. Whatever comes of his guilt or innocence, though, after today McGreevey will always be primarily known as "that gay Governor guy," and he'll be forever tied to discussions about public/private gay social struggles in America.

Ironically, McGreevey's announcement today overshadowed the California Supreme Court's decision to nullify the marriage licenses of thousands of gay Americans. In the long run, this verdict may prove a political blessing to the gay rights movement, but I'm sure that doesn't go a long way to comfort those gay Americans suffering the pain of state-enforced divorce.

Wonkette, a very witty writer who doesn't take things seriously very often, summed up this situation well for those who aim to build a more inclusive society:

We hope that someday it won't mean much to go on national television and announce, "I am a gay American." Someday, we hope that kind of announcement comes at the beginning of someone's political career, not the end.

August 12, 2004

ABC's The Note

For months, the authors of ABC's The Note have been sizing up the presidential horse race at least weekly, if not daily. They've been extremely careful to frame the race as either dead even or perhaps slightly favoring the president (if only due to the power of incumbency), so I was pleasantly surprised and comforted while reading yesterday's edition, which has them unequivocally tagging Kerry as the favorite. Here's a long, worthwhile excerpt:

It is our most fundamental job to regularly tell you three things:

1. where the presidential race stands

2. that where the race stands now is only a snapshot

3. that things can change

And/but the reality is — as amazing as this seems — this is now John Kerry's contest to lose.

Forget the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs (and Team Bush's inability — so far — to enunciate a second-term jobs/growth agenda or find a compelling Rubinesque spokesperson on the economy).

Forget the fact that that we still can't find a single American who voted for Al Gore in 2000 who is planning to vote for George Bush in 2004. (If you are that elusive figure, e-mail us and tell us who you are and why: politicalunit@abcnews.com.)

Forget the fact that California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey (sorry, Matthew) aren't in play and never were.

Forget the latest polling out of Ohio (and perhaps Florida … .).

Forget the extraordinary anti-Bush energy that exists on the left and the "how-do-we-whip-our-folks-up?" dilemma that exists on the right.

Forget the various signs that the Democratic challenger is playing in battleground areas for the middle and the president seems geographically and issues-wise to be still shoring up the base.

Forget the persistence of the Democratic advantage on the congressional generic poll question.

Forget the current ad spending advantage the DNC/anti-Bush 527s have over BC04RNC — while John Kerry pinches pennies.

But remember the poisonous job approval, re-elect, and wrong track numbers that hang around the president's neck to this day and then consider the very smart, mustest-of-read essay by Charlie Cook, in which the Zen Master surveys the troubling (and consistently so … ) poll numbers of the incumbent and renders this spot on verdict: LINK

(Now is the time to subscribe to National Journal's outstanding Web site if you don't already, because you need to read the whole thing.)

"President Bush must have a change in the dynamics and the fundamentals of this race if he is to win a second term. The sluggishly recovering economy and renewed violence in Iraq don't seem likely to positively affect this race, but something needs to happen. It is extremely unlikely that President Bush will get much more than one-fourth of the undecided vote, and if that is the case, he will need to be walking into Election Day with a clear lead of perhaps three percentage points."

"This election is certainly not over, but for me, it will be a matter of watching for events or circumstances that will fundamentally change the existing equation — one that for now favors a challenger over an incumbent."

Of course, Bush-Cheney '04 is aware of all this. Expect increasingly vicious attacks on Kerry, "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"-style. Arm yourself with facts and a smile.

August 11, 2004

"I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified."

Just as I sat down last night to offer you my opinion on whether or not Bush's appointment for CIA director, Rep. Porter Goss, was a good choice, I was given access to this transcript of Fahrenheit 9/11 outtakes from March 3, 2004:

INTERVIEWER: [Y]ou come from intelligence. This is what you did, this is what you know.

REP. GOSS: Uh, that was, uh, 35 years ago.

INTERVIEWER:   Okay.

REP. GOSS: It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late 50’s to approximately the early 70’s. And it's true I was a case officer, clandestine services officer and yes, I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, 'Dad you got to get better on your computer.’ Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have.

Let's review: Goss asserts he lacks the language skills, the cultural background, the technical skills – "the things that you need to have" – to even get a job with the CIA, much less lead it.

I defer to his judgment.

Updated comments:

On one hand, you can make a strong argument that the Goss comments aren't newsworthy. What he's really saying is that he couldn't get hired today as a CIA field operative, not that he couldn't be director of the CIA. They are, of course, very different jobs requiring different abilities. Moreover, if we limited prospective intelligence leaders to those who speak Arabic and are algorithmically-inclined, we'd be drawing from a shallow pool.

On the other hand, his acknowledgment that he doesn't have "the cultural background" is concerning. Perhaps he's merely saying that his ethnicity wouldn't allow him to go undercover, but there's another possibility: he doesn't have the kind of confidence in his expertise in Middle Eastern affairs that would enable him to lay out a comprehensive vision for the agency to assess and eradicate potential threats.

In their recommendations, the 9/11 Commission repeatedly emphasizes the importance of reimagining our analytic capabilities so we can locate potential threats from Islamist terrorists. One of the reasons I don't have much confidence in the Bush administration to do this effectively is because the main advisers to the president – Condoleezza Rice is a good example – didn't come into office with a sufficient background in understanding of the Islamic world. Others have to pick up the slack, and therefore I think it's fair and important to ask Goss specifically what he meant when he says he "probably doesn't have the cultural background" to get a job at the CIA today.

It's a minor point, but may also be worth noting, that former FBI director Louis Freeh was so technologically ignorant that the FBI's computer system remained a dinosaur on his watch. Naturally, this really hurt information gathering and coordination efforts. I assume Goss knows better, but if he gets to the confirmation process, somebody may want to make sure.

At the end of the day, though, I lean more towards the argument that Goss's comments probably aren't very meaningful, and will primarily serve only to amuse progressive bloggers like myself.

You Almost Heard It Here First

I've received some very solid information about Bush's CIA director nominee, Rep. Porter Goss, that should hit the wires very soon. Unfortunately, I can't tell you exactly what it is, but I can tell you that some things he said earlier this year are going to come back to haunt him. It's nothing that would derail his nomination (at least I don't think so, and it really shouldn't), but I think it will be an embarrassing p.r. headache for Goss and Bush.

As soon as Pat Buchan oops, I mean "Deep Throat," unleashes me, I'll post the specifics.

Sovereignty 101

You may have never realized before that you wanted to hear a short lecture on "Tribal Sovereignty in the 21st Century" from George W. Bush, but believe me, you do.

Few Americans are as experienced straddling the fine line between simplicity and idiocy as our president, but this is one of those wonderfully clearcut cases where he loses balance. It's extra hilarious how much the Unity Conference of Minority Journalists audience is laughing at him, but not so funny that all Bush knows about tribal sovereignty is a vague and simplistic definition.

Straddling/Flip-Flopping

Kevin Drum has a great post up that ably catalogues some of Bush's flip-flops/straddles, but also makes a fine point about John Kerry:

Does John Kerry sometimes straddle difficult issues in an effort to please multiple constituencies? Sure. So do all politicians. Kerry's real problem, though, isn't that he straddles more than anyone else, but that he does it badly. When he explains his positions, he sounds like he's straddling.

The only thing I wish Drum would have added is that another factor that leads to Kerry's reputation for straddling is the exhaustive cover-all-the-bases way in which he often answers questions and explains issues on the campaign trail. It's a snooze as political theatre, but at least there's a noble scrutinzation of public policy behind it.

August 10, 2004

Political Boss

A couple months ago, somebody asked me to name a popular artist whose work I respected while also admiring what I know about their personal character. Without hesitation, I named Bruce Springsteen.

Here are the opening paragraphs of The Boss's New York Times op-ed from last Thursday:

A nation's artists and musicians have a particular place in its social and political life. Over the years I've tried to think long and hard about what it means to be American: about the distinctive identity and position we have in the world, and how that position is best carried. I've tried to write songs that speak to our pride and criticize our failures.

These questions are at the heart of this election: who we are, what we stand for, why we fight. Personally, for the last 25 years I have always stayed one step away from partisan politics. Instead, I have been partisan about a set of ideals: economic justice, civil rights, a humane foreign policy, freedom and a decent life for all of our citizens. This year, however, for many of us the stakes have risen too high to sit this election out.

Through my work, I've always tried to ask hard questions. Why is it that the wealthiest nation in the world finds it so hard to keep its promise and faith with its weakest citizens? Why do we continue to find it so difficult to see beyond the veil of race? How do we conduct ourselves during difficult times without killing the things we hold dear? Why does the fulfillment of our promise as a people always seem to be just within grasp yet forever out of reach?

I don't think John Kerry and John Edwards have all the answers. I do believe they are sincerely interested in asking the right questions and working their way toward honest solutions. They understand that we need an administration that places a priority on fairness, curiosity, openness, humility, concern for all America's citizens, courage and faith.

A staff writer for a political insider site made some smug remark inquiring about which Kerr