February
27, 2004 link
I've been wrestling
with whom I'm gonna vote for Tuesday, and I've decided
to vote for John Kerry. In their
endorsement
today,
The New York Times editorial board
articulates well some of my own reasons for voting Kerry:
Mr. Kerry, one
of the Senate's experts in foreign affairs, exudes
maturity and depth. He can discuss virtually any issue of security
or international affairs with authority. What his critics
see as an inability to take strong, clear positions seems to
us to reflect his appreciation that life is not simple. He understands
the nuances and shades of gray in both foreign and domestic policy.
While he still has trouble turning out snappy sound bites, we don't
detect any difficulty in laying down a clear bottom line. His
campaigning skills are perhaps not as strong as his intellectual ones,
but they are pretty good and getting better. Early in the race he alienated
some audiences with brittle, patronizing lectures. But he has improved
tremendously over the last few months. His answers are focused and to
the point, and his speeches far more compelling.
If Mr. Kerry wins the nomination,
the Bush administration will undoubtedly attempt to
paint Mr. Kerry as a typical Massachusetts liberal, but
his thinking defies such easy categorization. His positions
come from mainstream American thought, centrism of the
old school. He has always worried over budget deficits. His
record on the environment is extremely strong. He is a gun owner
and hunter who supports effective gun control laws, a combat
veteran who, having seen a great deal of death, opposes
capital punishment. A sense of balance comes through when he
is talking. Unfortunately, so far in this campaign Mr. Kerry
has shown little interest in being daring, expressing a thought
that is unexpected or quirky on even minor issues. We wish we could
see a little of the political courage of the Vietnam hero who came
back to lead the fight against the war.
Like most Democrats, my
primary concern in this election is electability. But
that's not why I choose Kerry. When I weigh his and Edwards'
"electable" and "non-electable" qualities, it's always even.
Since there's no clear cut winner there, I go with the guy
who makes the best President.
John Edwards is an extraordinarily
attractive, persuasive candidate and he'd make a great
President tomorrow. But he doesn't have Kerry's grasp of
foreign and domestic policy, and I don't think he's as prepared
as Kerry to be commander-in-chief or to do the necessary
congressional arm twisting to actualize his policies.
Kerry's superiority in his
intricate understanding of the issues has been clear
throughout the campaign, even when he looked like a sure political
loser. It was also clear in
last
night's debate, as well as during his
interview
with The NY Times board that compelled
them to pick him over Edwards.
I have no doubt that Kerry's
fascination with policy minutiae and his complexity
as a politician and as a man are sometimes going to be political
obstacles for him in this campaign. But the flip side of those
qualities is that they're an executive asset. From day one, he'll
fully understand and be able to make fine distinctions upon hearing
briefs from his advisers, and he'll make informed decisions
at every step. Right now, we see and feel the consequences of an
incurious President fully at the mercy of his advisers.
Also, what kind of a man
opposes the Vietnam War in his late teens/early 20's,
volunteers for it anyway so nobody has to go in his place, sacrifices
his own life to save other men's lives, and returns to lead
the political fight against it? A good man, with a strong
conscience, who loves his country.
Republicans will take controversial
things he said in his 1971 congressional testimony
opposing the war and try to paint him unpatriotic, but they'll
fail politically and substantively. There's no getting around
the fact that history has proven Kerry right in his strong,
principled opposition to the continuance of that war.
Kerry also has the most
realistic, far-reaching health care plan around right
now. I think that's the country's #1 problem, and he has the
best chance to solve it.
And to all those who would
accuse him of always choosing the most politically convenient
side of an issue, look at his opposition to the death penalty.
He's one of the last high-profile Democrats courageous enough
to stand against it, and that's a real distinction between him
and Edwards. I'm convinced that if I were stranded forever
on a desert island with Bill Clinton and John Edwards, they'd acknowledge
that pro-death penalty arguments don't really hold, but opposition
to it is such a political liability that it's not worth the
bother. I admire John Kerry for defending death penalty opposition
throughout his political career. You can say that he's from
"liberal" Massachusetts, but even there it was a monkey on his
back during his 1996 campaign and he took the hits for it.
Kerry's the one.
By the way,
Kerry also made some news in the debate, but I haven't
heard anybody pick up on it yet. He said, for the first time
as far as I've heard, that he'd sign an executive order within
days of taking office that would ban government officials from
registering as lobbyists until after they've been out of office
for 5 years. That's a really good, progressive, sweeping change,
the kind that makes government measurably cleaner both instantly
and in the long term.
Here's George
W. Bush on gay marriage during the 2000 campaign:
LARRY KING:
If a state
were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to
that state not to approve it?
GEORGE W. BUSH:
The state
can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me into
this state's issue, like you're trying to get me into.
His position
seems to have evolved somewhat dramatically, eh?
Karenna Gore
Schiff, who'd be a perfectly adequate first daughter
right now if it weren't for Ralph Nader, made a really incisive
argument against Nader the other day:
Ralph Nader's
main message is a cynical one, more about tearing down
than building up. So for those who believe in a progressive
agenda, let's not allow the imperfect be the enemy of the
good. For those who don't, let's work toward a clear and honest
debate about our differences. And in the end, let's recognize
the plain truth: A vote for Ralph Nader is not a vote for some
Utopian principle. It is a vote for George W. Bush.
I agree with her completely.
Let me mention
another election 2000 related activity. All the controversy
surrounding the Florida vote count robbed the country
of a very healthy, necessary debate on the existence of the electoral
college. I think there are good arguments on both sides, but
it's a shame we didn't get to have the debate then because there's
a realistic chance the winner of the popular vote this year could
lose again. I don't think it's probable, but it's highly possible.
I can tell you this: as
a Gore voter in California, it pisses me off that an
individual Floridian's vote was worth infinitely more than
mine. And it will doubly piss me off if it happens twice.
But them's the rules, I
guess.
This Washington
Post tidbit offers the worst news in the
history of man:
Moralist Bill
Bennett has a new career as a talk-radio host: He's
expected to announce today that he's launching a daily national
show, filling three hours of air with chatter about politics,
entertainment, sports, whatever.
Whenever I listen to blowhard
Bennett it bums me out because I become acutely aware
of sin. Not mine, but his.
Another disgusting,
sinful moralist, Antonin Scalia, is in the
LA
Times yet again for taking more hunting trips
with people who have business before his court. Read the
whole thing, but it seems pretty unethical to me. It'll be
interesting to see if Kerry or Kerry surrogates start tagging
Scalia with these ethical lapses, because associating Scalia
with these recent controversies is a good way to indirectly
remind people about the 2000 election controversy.
February 26, 2004 link
5 Thoughts
on Gay Marriage
1.
On
dailykos.com, they've
been referring to the Musgrave Amendment as The Hate
Amendment, which is apt.
Andrew Sullivan – a gay conservative
who's as good a thinker on this as anybody – invoked the
flag amendment today when he referred to it as "the fag amendment."
I don't think I can get away with using the slang perjorative
like Andrew can, though, so I'll adopt Hate.
2. The
Hate Amendment is already dead, because
34
(and counting) senators have committed against it,
including 8 Republicans (
here's
another list, too, less current but with more
specifics). This crosses the 1/3 of the senate threshold
needed to defeat an amendment. Even Tom DeLay and several
other House conservatives have been lukewarm on it. So Bush/Rove
know they're not actually gonna win on this. Why are they pushing
it, then? In part to secure their white evangelical base, in part
as an aggressive political wedge issue, and in part to further
trumpet their campaign slogan, "steady leadership in times of change."
They want to cram the idea that Bush is uncompromising and apolitical
down our throats, which may have a smidgeon more truth to it than
their uniternotadivider bullshit slogan in 2000, but it's just as
false. His misleadership has been steady.
Besides their base, though,
favoring Hate is a real political risk. Not only are
young people
mostly against it, but so are Independents (oddly enough, in numbers
greater than Democrats). Most political observers think Independents
and moderates are the keys to winning the election, but Karl Rove
may think it's entirely about getting the several
million white evangelicals who didn't show up for him last
time.
3. I
think this is the Hate's language, as last composed:
Marriage in
the United States shall consist only of the union of
a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution
of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed
to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof
be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
The wording, of course,
might change. I'm no lawyer, but in its present form
couldn't that "legal incidents thereof" part be used as
a judicial rationale to prohibit civil unions?
4. I'm
too lazy to look it up right now, but I think Joe Klein
wrote in
Time that George W. Bush is "The War President"
– "The Culture War President." That's right. And it's good
for Democrats that Bush comes off his White House perch and
starts tangling. That's something candidates do, not Presidents.
5.
Here's
a freshly scanned picture of Bush's first draft
of Hate, from his own hand.
The state of
the Democratic race right now is this: John Kerry
wins. He's leading big in every state except Georgia, where
he leads by 8% (not an insignifigant margin). I think Edwards
can win Georgia, but nowhere else, and he'll drop out as early
as Tuesday night and endorse Kerry soon thereafter. Then Kerry
can do the $$$$$ run in earnest, and we can all get behind him.
Calvin Trillin
is right to
revisit the
Dan Quayle National Guard controversy:
What I'm talking
about is Quayle's military service during the Vietnam
War. Remember now? When Dan Quayle was chosen by George H.W.
Bush to become the Republican vice presidential nominee
in 1988, a firestorm broke out on the subject of whether the
considerable influence of his family in Indiana had been used
to get him a slot in the National Guard.
At the time it was thought
that if the jackals of the press, who were in full pursuit,
managed to find proof that influence had been used -- that
he had been jumped over a waiting list of less than influential
Hoosiers, one of whom might have gone to Vietnam in place of this
cosseted rich boy and been killed -- Quayle would have had difficulty
remaining on the ticket.
Quayle denied receiving
preferential treatment, but he didn't quibble about
what making it into the guard meant at that time. "Obviously,
if you join the National Guard, you have less of a chance
of going to Vietnam," he said on "Meet the Press" some time
later. "I mean, it goes without saying." That's presumably what
Colin Powell had in mind in "My American Journey" when he wrote,
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well
placed . . . managed to wrangle spots in Reserve and National
Guard units."
But in the current furor
about George W. Bush's military record it seems to be
taken for granted that Bush got into the so-called Champagne
unit of the Texas Air National Guard through influence. The
stories begin by saying he was jumped over a 500-man waiting
list. Then they quickly go on to investigate the details of his
sojourn in Alabama. Using influence to get into the guard and
therefore out of Vietnam is no longer disqualifying for "sons of
the powerful"; it's assumed. Or could it be that Dan Quayle is judged
by stricter standards than other politicians?
Compare Quayle's honesty
on the subject with G.W.'s.
Optimism-inducing
factoid of the day
: in 2000,
Bush won Ohio by only 3.6%, despite the fact that Al Gore
pulled his ads and stopped spending altogether in the state
3 weeks before the election.
February 25, 2004 link
George W. Bush imagines
a U.S. Constitution that will specifically, permanently,
and maliciously dispose of the possibility that Del Martin,
83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79, could achieve equality in the
United States, despite the fact that the two have been in
a loving, committed relationship for 51 years.
Meanwhile, our Governor
could grab this woman on the tail end of a a steroid-fueled
bender and marry her within a matter of minutes.
Our country's a lot
better than George W. Bush imagines it.
When I was a kid, I
read about the civil rights battles of the 1960's and
would ask myself: would I have been one of the good white guys
or one of the bad white guys? I really hoped I'd be a good white
guy, one of those courageous enough to ignore the day's popular
sentiment and march alongside my fellow black Americans. I
even kind of lamented that I'd never get to prove my mettle, because
the era had passed.
I may get my chance
after all. It's painfully clear today that we're engaged
in the great civil rights fight of our generation. As a nation,
I hope we're ready for that fight. I know I am.
In his
outrageous
speech yesterday, George Bush arrogantly assumed
his definition of marriage is
the
definition of marriage. He blatantly disregarded separation
of church and state when he said, "
Marriage cannot be severed
from its cultural, religious and natural roots...".
Civil marriage and religous marriage are separate, if related,
entities, and Mr. Bush's attempt to fuse them is an attack on
both. Religions have been and will continue to be entirely free
to make their own independent decisions about gay marriage.
Worst of all is the
simple goal behind Bush's words: he seeks to prevent
a frequently bullied minority group from ever fully joining
our civil society. That's uncivil, inhumane, brutal, immoral,
sinful, and whatever other adjective you can think of to
express contempt.
February 24, 2004
According
to 2000 CNN exit polls, if Nader had not
run his votes would have gone:
Gore
48%
Bush
22%
No Vote
30%
So no Nader would
have given Al Gore both Florida and New Hampshire,
at least, by margins in the multiples of thousands. His assertions
that he didn't cost Gore the race are ridiculous, almost
as ridiculous as the nonsense about there being little difference
between Democrats and Republicans.
He has pledged not
to attack the Democratic nominee, though, so we'll
see if he holds true on that.
Finally,
Bush has come
out swinging against Kerry. These Spring
months will be crucial for whomever our nominee is,
since he'll be in a race to define himself positively before
Bush does so negatively with $100 million or so.
Trying to preempt
the speech earlier yesterday, I think it's funny how
Kerry invoked Bush's own stock language against terrorists,
saying
Bush is "on the run."
It's fair for BC
Chair Marc Racicot to criticize Kerry's votes against
individual weapons, but his overriding suggestion is that
voting against any weapon system makes you "weak on defense,"
which is absurd. Kerry has a really good line where he says,
"I used these weapons, so I know what works and what doesn't,"
but I haven't heard it lately. Time to bring that back.
I also think he's
got to pound on Bush about his failure to get bin Laden
at Tora Bora. It's a rarely recalled story that the press
will revisit if Kerry talks about it (he criticized Bush
for it shortly after it happened), and it's more truthful to
say Bush is "weak on defense" because he didn't have the smarts
or courage to commit the necessary American troops to get bin
Laden when we had him boxed in (Bush relied upon the Northern Alliance
to get him, which is the definition of weakness).
Furthermore, after
bin Laden killed thousands of our citizens, why are
we so respectful of Pakistan's borders when everybody knows
there's still a ton of al Qaeda in Eastern Pakistan? I think
Kerry's got to say it again and again and again: BUSH IS WEAK
ON DEFENSE. Not just because his foreign policy is misguided,
confused, simplistic, overwrought, and inept, but because
he doesn't understand how the military works and is unable to make
informed strategic decisions at the most important junctures.
He's weak. Weak weak weak weak.
And stupid.
If Kerry beats Edwards,
Teresa Heinz Kerry stands to be one of the most interesting
characters in this campaign. The
NY Times
wrote
her up over the weekend. It's been reported
that Kerry campaign advisors are more than a little
skittish about the political impact she'll have, but she's
a candid, offbeat lady, and I like her.
She poses a few very
interesting questions, answers to which will be important:
How will the country
respond to the prospect of a Mozambican first lady?
Will she do more
to humanize Kerry, or make him seem more weird?
She runs a $1.5 billion
philanthropic organization, as well as possessing
a $500 million+ personal fortune. Gee, do you think the Bush
campaign will look for some controversial spending there?
Most importantly,
she's said that if necessary she'll spend some of that
ketchup to protect her "honor." How wide a net does her
honor cast? How tied into her own honor is her hubby's reputation?
For what purposes will the FEC allow her to spend her own money?
(They've already weighed in that Kerry can't use her fortune for
his campaign, but I'm sure lawyers will figure out a bunch of ways
in which she could help the campaign using it legally if they need
to, which I have little doubt they will).
We'll see.
Here's
more
on planned protests of the Republican convention in NYC this Summer.
Protestors really have a great opportunity to make
an impact by drowning out the Rovian propaganda. I hope
they focus more on creative, organized messages – effective
theater – than they do civil disobedience.
It looks
like Reverand Al Sharpton is having a hell of a good
time on the campaign trail. From the
Washinton
Post:
Democratic
presidential candidate Al Sharpton, who has billed
his campaign for hotel stays of more than $1,000 a night,
has campaign debts totaling $485,696, including unpaid staff
salaries dating to last May, finance reports show.
If he
can keep up that high living, and then find a way to
pour on a few more extravagances, Sharpton would be able to
claim that a Sharpton administration could spend as gluttonously
as a Bush administration. Nobody who studies the drunken White
House spending would buy it, but he could at least make
a case.
February 23, 2004
Yeah,
I'd like to call Ralph Nader a lot of names right
now. Egomaniacal. Self-destructive. Vain. Stupid. Liar.
He is all those things. But I don't think his candidacy's
gonna make much of a difference this year, for the following
reasons:
1.
He's running as an Independent, not as a Green. He benefited
from the Green Party's grassroots organization in 2000, but
this time he'll have to do most of the organizing on his
own. From what I've read, he might have real trouble getting on
the ballot in several battleground states.
2.
I've only encountered a select few people who would
even consider voting for Nader this year. They hang out in
the message boards on
Daily
Kos, and while they claim to hate Bush, I've discovered
in correspondence with them that they're so illogical
that if it were between just Bush and the Democrat, they'd vote
for Bush. If you're having trouble figuring that out, after
several emails back and forth, I still am, too. Most people
aren't that stupid, though, and realize what's at stake in this
election. There were a lot of principled progressives, like
repentantnadervoter.com,
who went for Nader in 2000 that not only will vote for the Democrat
this time, but also will be politically energized
and committed like never before.
3. Just
hearing the name "Nader" generally reminds people
of 2000 and its unfairness, which isn't good for Republicans.
4. This
was the most interesting part of
Russert's Q&A:
MR. RUSSERT:
If it got down to the final days of the election
and you saw that your presence on the ballot could swing
the election to George Bush, might you consider stepping
out and saying, "I endorse the Democrat"?
MR. NADER:
First of all, there are 40 slam-dunk states
where either the Republicans or Democrats are going to win
handily; that's number one. Second, I think there's
a very good chance that President Bush is going to start
declining in the polls. He's making a lot of mistakes.
People are beginning to realize that he doesn't care about
the American people, although he says he does; that as a
conservative president, he's presiding over and encouraging
the shipment of industries and jobs to the despotic Communist regime
in China; that he fabricated the basis for the war in Iraq, which
is now a quagmire. And if President Bush doesn't trust the American
people with the truth, why should the American people trust George
W. Bush with the presidency?
Now, you gave me
a hypothetical, all right? You know how Arnold answered
that hypothetical. When that and if that eventuality occurs,
in the rare event that it occurs, you can invite me
back on the program, and I'll give you my answer.
Now, if there's
one thing Democrats have learned about Ralph Nader,
it's that we can't rely on him ever to be sensible. But
that answer certainly isn't a no. So there's a scenario where
Nader actually helps our nominee: he's effective on the
campaign trail talking about impeaching Bush (something
Democrats would like suggest to the electorate, but can't
themselves) and stuff like that and then it looks like the election
might be close and he makes a big media splash on
Meet the
Press to endorse the Democrat and implore radicals everywhere
to unify behind the Dem because Bush is the worst President
in history.
Some day down the
road, I'll take issue with Nader's nonsensical idealization
of third party options. The bottom line is, a two party
system protects minorities in ways that a multi-party system
can't.
It's also worth
noting that Nader has become such an albatross to the
group he founded, Public Citizen, that they've had to send
out a letter saying that Nader no longer has any active
affiliation with them. Reportedly, their fundraising has taken
a huge hit since 2000. It's pretty sad that a guy who spent so
much of his life advancing progressive causes is seen as a regressive
political figure by so many progressives today.
"Let's
kick his ass." – James Hoffa, Jr., Teamsters President,
referring to George W. Bush at a rally last week where he announced
the Teamsters endorsement of John Kerry. Interestingly, the
Teamsters didn't endorse Al Gore until September 7, 2000, a scant
3 months before the election.
A group
called Americans for
Jobs,
Health Care and Progressive Values put out
a really over-the-top anti-Howard Dean ad last year
in Iowa tying bin Laden and Dean together. If you've read
this blog before you know I'm no Dean fan, but the ad was contemptible.
Oddly enough, FEC reports indicate that the Yankees Entertainment
and Sports Network, 60% of which is controlled by
George Steinbrenner,
donated $100,000 towards airing the ad. Was Howard
Dean a threat to the Yankees?
"There's
not a single Republican I've talked to in Washington
who's not more worried about John Edwards than John Kerry."
– Bill Kristol, conservative editor of
The Weekly
Standard, on
Fox News. Edwards is reportedly
drawing huge crowds on the campaign trail, too. Ruy Teixeira
does a pretty good analysis of the Kerry-Edwards electability
argument
here.
I think it's damn close to a draw.
Patch
Adams has endorsed
Dennis Kucinich. You gotta believe!
Can you
believe that Alabama
dropped
their ban on interracial marriage just 4 years
ago, and only on a 60% to 40% vote by residents? Wow,
those Alabamans didn't even need one of those "activist
judges" whom Bush so frequently lambastes to prod them towards
progress.
February 22, 2004
I strongly
support gay marriages, civil or religious. In
fact, I don't think that I've heard an argument against gay
marriage that isn't somehow rooted in homophobia and bigotry,
and I really believe that 30 years from now gay marriages
will be such an accepted norm that people will shake their heads
the same way they do at segregation today. For the most part,
though, I forgive the majority of Democratic politicians (including
John Kerry and John Edwards) for taking the timid but politically
pragmatic stance of "I oppose gay marriage, but support equal
partnership rights." But when I watched San Francisco Gavin
Newsom on
CNN's Late
Edition today, God I wished more Democrats
would join him in taking a courageous public stand.
Sure, as mayor of America's most infamously liberal
city, Newsom's in a much more convenient position than most
Democratic pols to be a vociferous gay marriage advocate,
but he's only 36 years old and clearly has ambitions that extend
beyond SF and even California.
Watching Newsom
today, it was pretty clear to me that he's welcomed
the politically risky proposition of becoming a – perhaps
THE – leading national advocate for gay marriage. It takes
courage, and he's perfect for the role: he's articulate, passionate,
and has a hot wife. He certainly has my belief and admiration
when, fire in his eyes, he says things like this:
Wolf,
guys like me come and go. But there's certain principles
I hold dear. And the principle of non-discrimination,
of advancing human rights and civil rights, affirming marriage,
affirming relationships and families like we've done for
3000+ couples, that's signifigant. That's purposeful. And
I believe very strongly what we're doing is appropriate.
February 21, 2004
I'm certainly
no expert on trade issues, but during the Clinton
years I began to see the necessity of free trade in an increasingly
global economy. So it's worried me that it's become a political
imperative for Kerry and Edwards to engage in a race to
make ever stronger appeals to traditionally more protectionist
segments of the Democratic Party. Given we don't stand
a chance in most of the South because Republicans have cornered
the market on coddling Evangelicals, the NRA, and homophobes,
we must win nearly every state in the industrial Midwest;
there's no room for error. We can win the political argument
– after all, we've got a White House that says plainly that
outsourcing is a "good thing" – but I've feared we're in danger
of wrongly advocating failed protectionist policies over a
more friendly free trade philosophy that's in our long term interests.
But when I listen
to Kerry and Edwards talk about trade and look closer
at their trade proposals (here's
Kerry's and here's
Edwards'),
I come to the conclusion that these are not my father's protectionists,
and that the old "free trade vs. protectionism" debate isn't
as stark as it once was. Almost everybody, including labor unions,
now recognizes that we're in a global economy, and huge tariffs
and quotas don't work. So much of the debate now is really about cracking
down on corporate welfare for multi-national corporations and providing
tax incentives for American companies to provide American jobs.
Substantively, Democrats win here.
Yes, Edwards specifically
mentions that trade agreements should include
"strong labor and environmental protections," but his solutions
focus not on imposing tariffs or quotas, but on enforcing
existing rules in our current trade agreements and incentivizing
American businesses to produce at home. Kerry, who's been
known as a "free trader" in the Senate, takes pretty much
the same approach.
In fact, the only
person who's guilty of advocating old-style protectionism
in this race is George W. Bush/Karl Rove, who pandered
to American steel workers by imposing the steel tariff (which
they later revoked, but how can you call yourself a "free
trader" when you imposed one of the most highly restrictive
tariffs of the decade?).
I'm also highly
supportive
of
Gephardt's proposal for an international
minimum wage, and I think it should become a part of
the Democratic platform. It may be the single best
new policy proposal from a Democrat that I've heard in this campaign.
Trade isn't just
a great domestic political issue for us Democrats.
It's an opportunity for us to draw more positive, substantial
economic policy visions than the Republicans can match.
February 20, 2004
I laughed
out loud a couple times while reading this
NY Times story
about the ingenuity of Bush-Cheney protestors who created some classic street
theater outside a BC fundraiser headlined by
Karl Rove in New York City the other night. This is
priceless:
At
one point, as hundreds of guests with invitations waited
to pass through velvet barriers to enter the club, a small
group of men in bowler hats and women in gowns marched
up, chanting, "Four more wars" and "Re-elect Rove."
As the group
approached, a man who appeared to be a security agent
of some type, was overheard whispering into a microphone:
"We've got two groups. One for and one against."
Actually, it
was two against. The person was confused by a group
that calls itself Billionaires for Bush, a collection
of activists who use satire to make a political point.
Indeed, members of the Sierra Club, who were protesting on
the other side of the street were also confused and began shouting
at what they thought was a pro-Bush contingent.
" We want the
truth and we want it now!" the Sierra protesters shouted.
The billionaires
shouted back, "Buy your own president!"
It took a few
minutes, but the police finally realized what was going
on when they escorted the group behind the blue barricades
as well. Still, the show was not over. A black town car
pulled up and out stepped a man whom who the crowd assumed
to be Mr. Rove. "There is Karl Rove," people shouted.
Reporters, photographers
and television cameramen swarmed the man,
but the police pushed them back. Another man lifted
the velvet rope to let him enter. But the would-be Mr.
Rove walked over to the crowd of protesters and began shaking
hands, when finally, again, this was seen to be a joke.
It was not Mr. Rove, but an actor playing the part.
Hilarious. I
lived in NYC for 9 years and I love it, but I never
felt as nostalgic for it as I did while reading those
paragraphs.
This may be the
best part, though:
Each
of the groups has said it planned to stage similar
events when the Republican National Convention comes to New
York City from Aug. 30 through Sept. 2.
Aha. Hee hee.
I love it.
How in the world
are the Republican convention planners going to contain
the protests in NYC? Holding their ultimate rally in
NYC strikes me as risky in ordinary times, but there's no
doubt this is going to be an extremely charged, divisive
election, and setting it in the most dynamically Democratic
city in the United States is flat out crazy. I think there's
a really good chance that a big part of their message will get drowned
out in the media by reports on the vitriol of the protestors,
and hopefully also the creativity of groups like "Billionaires
for Bush."
My hunch is that
the brains behind BC assume that your average person
gets a viscerally positive feeling when they link Bush
and 9/11 in their mind. It's really crass that they so blatantly
try to link the two, and very upsetting to me personally
that they pimp the tragedy of 9/11 as a political backdrop.
They deserve
the price I hope and think they'll have to pay for
it.
Yesterday,
I mentioned that BC people have hit the airwaves trying
to revise history by suggesting Dole was ahead of Clinton
at this point in 1996. Here's a
link
to a bunch of the 1996
CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls; the most relevant
totals are probably these:
If
Bill Clinton and Bob Dole were the only candidates
running for
president in
1996, who would you vote for?
Clinton
Dole
%
%
96 Jul 18-21
56 39
96 May 9-12 58
38
96 Apr 25-28 58
37
96 Apr 9-10
57 40
96 Mar 15-17 54
42
96 Mar 8-10
54 42
96 Feb 23-25 56
40
96 Jan 26-29
54 42
96 Jan 12-15
48 49
96 Jan 5-7
46 49
95 Dec 15-18 54
43
95 Nov 6-8
53 43
95 Sep 22-24 50
45
95 Aug 28-30 48
48
95 Aug 4-7
46 48
95 Jul 20-23
49 45
95 Jul 7-9
47 48
95 Jun 5-6
46 51
95 May 11-14 48
48
95 Apr 17-19 48
49
95 Feb 3-5
45 51
Look at the jump
Clinton got after his State of the Union (Jan 26-29).
He never let go after that. Bush, unprecedentedly, lost
support after his SOTU this year.
BC are also trying
to tell us that Bush's current 51% favorable rating
is better than Clinton's was at this time in 1996. That's
just a
lie:
Favor- Unfav-
able
orable
%
%
Bill Clinton
96 Jul 18-21
62 35
96 May 9-12
60 39
96 Mar 15-17
58 38
96 Feb 23-25
60 37
96 Jan 12-15
54 44
In
this week's
USA
Today/CNN/Gallup poll, Bush was 9%
below where Clinton was (51% to 60%) in favorability
and his unfavorable rating is 9% higher (46% to 37%).
It's fair for
Republicans to question what these past and present
polls mean, but what they actually say is pretty clear.
The
Edwards campaign raised over $700,000 since Wisconsin,
$450,000 of that on-line. That's the good news for
them.
The bad news
for Edwards is that the
AFL-CIO
endorsed John Kerry. Here's some
cogent analysis.
More bad news
for Edwards: it looks like Al Sharpton and
kucinich! will be joining Kerry and Edwards in
the
LA Times/CNN debate next Thursday, which is a joke.
It's a waste of everybody's time to have the two vanity
candidates up there, and robs us of a more substantive debate
in which we could draw clearer distinctions between Kerry and Edwards.
Shame on the
LA Times,
CNN,
and the DNC.
Back to good
news for Edwards: his new speech declaring joblessness
a "moral issue" that Bush doesn't understand is brilliant.
Edwards treads lightly criticizing Kerry because I think he
genuinely wants what's best for the Democratic party (and
for his possible VP candidacy), but he still gets his jabs in.
With Bush, he punches much harder. These pundits I continue
to hear saying that it's not "in his nature" to go for the jugular
are just plain wrong. The guy's a brilliant trial lawyer, for crying
out loud.
I honestly don't
know who I'm gonna vote for in our March 2 primary.
I think they're both outstanding choices, though, and
I'm happy as can be that it's come down to the two of them.
This
Poe News
picture gallery of the Rumsfeld Fighting Technique is really funny.
February 19, 2004
The
new CNN/USA
TODAY/Gallup poll shows both Kerry
and Edwards beating Bush nationally:
KERRY
55%
BUSH
43%
EDWARDS
54%
BUSH
44%
While I think
polls like this have very limited predictive value,
if I were BC (Bush-Cheney, sounds like VC as in Vietcong),
I'd be very concerned about the following 3 realities:
1.
Traditionally, incumbent Presidents who continually
fall below the 50% re-elect line in national polls are in
dangerous terrain. He's currently in the low 40s in this
latest one, not even close.
2.
Despite what BC surrogates will say about the 1996
race (I heard BC Campaign Chair Marc Racicot misremember those
polls on
Inside Politics today), Bill Clinton
took the lead over Bob Dole after his 1996 State of the Union
Address and didn't fall behind for a day in any poll before his
electoral landslide.
3.
Not only is credibility no longer Bush's bread and
butter, it's a weakness. Almost all the polls show about half
the country thinking Bush is afflicted with at least occasional
bouts of truthlessness. Personal trust in Bush – his
"I mean what I say and say what I mean" crap – has been essential
to all his previous success; his entire 2000 campaign
was based on the "honor and integrity" mantra. BC '04 is now forced
to reinvent that, a tough task, especially with
this
kind of crap.
Also, I think
this poll helps John Edwards more than anybody else.
It bolsters his electability claims, and his VP credentials.
His campaign has already sent out an email touting it.
February 18, 2004
Howard Dean
has announced he'll stop campaigning for the Presidency,
but continue to lead his supporters to defeat Bush
and Republican members of Congress.
This is
good news for Democrats, mostly because Dean's created
an unexpected money machine for us. It'll be interesting
to see how that machine runs without his candidacy.
The
LA
Times story on Dean's announcement
includes this intriguing paragraph:
A Democratic source said Dean approached Edwards
after a debate Sunday night in Milwaukee and the two
candidates agreed to confer today. The subject of their
conversation was not clear, but there was speculation that
Dean, who has recently called Edwards a stronger general election
candidate than Kerry, might try to support the North Carolina
senator in some way. On Tuesday night, Dean called Edwards to
congratulate him on his showing.
My instinct is that a Dean Edwards' endorsement
at this point would help mostly by generating positive
press for Edwards that showcases him as a realistic Kerry
alternative and unifying figure. If there's anything Edwards
needs right now, it's free press. But I don't think Dean's money
machine would help Edwards a whole lot – even if he could raise
it, he's hamstrung by federal caps on what he can spend. On the
other hand, Kerry opted out of the federal finance system and could
benefit enormously if he finds a way to tap the Dean money machine.
Political Game Notes, Post Wisconsin
• I had a feeling Edwards would
do well yesterday, but nobody I know predicted he'd
come within single digits of Kerry, much less 6%. This
is now inarguably a two-man race, and the media already
has begun framing it that way – most of the morning's papers
have Edwards' name alongside Kerry's in their headlines. In fact,
the
LA Times doesn't even mention the victor in theirs:
EDWARDS
TAKES A CLOSE SECOND IN WISCONSIN.
•
Kerry continues to do very well among all Democratic
demographics. And as CNN political analyst Bill Schneider
said,
"There is no evidence that the message Edwards'
voters were sending was an anti-Kerry message. Their
message was jobs." This is backed by exit poll
data showing 69% of Edwards' own voters saying they would be
satisfied if Kerry wins the nomination. But the fact that
Kerry's most dominant results come with voters most concerned
with who can beat Bush (59% to Edwards' 26% tonight) is worrisome.
Perceived electability in Democratic primaries isn't a useful
asset Kerry can bring with him into the general election, as opposed
to Edwards' proven ability to convince voters he cares about "people
like you." And are the voters' perceptions that Kerry's more electable
than Edwards right? I don't know. Kerry's Vietnam heroics, decades
of experience in foreign and domestic policy, and natural gravitas
allow him to leap past many questions voters initially ask of first-time
national candidates (particularly post 9/11 national security concerns),
but Edwards wears better over time than any candidate I've ever
seen. Also, in the last few states, Edwards is showing strength
with Independents and Republicans (all registered voters are allowed
to vote in Wisconsin's open primary, and Edwards beat Kerry among
Independents 40% to 28%), voters we're going to have to win in November.
I have two major concerns about Edwards' electability, though: 1)
as smart as he is, can he meet the national security threshold? and
2) he's subject to spending caps that would disallow him from spending
any $$$ from the end of the primaries to the convention: is there
any way he could withstand $150 million of Bush ads against him
without countering with ads of his own?
•
As Jeff Greenfield pointed out tonight on CNN, it's
going to be interesting to see who CNN invites to their
debate scheduled this Monday. DNC rules state that any candidate
who gets over 10% in any primary must be invited, but
neither Sharpton nor
Kucinich!
meet that standard (little k got 15% in the Maine caucus,
not a primary). Assuming Dean drops out (he has an "event"
scheduled for 1pm EST today), I think they should just invite
Kerry and Edwards, so we can see them go mano a mano and get into
some substance.
•
Edwards, a clean Clinton, is the most dynamic candidate
in the race, but Kerry has to fall if he's to rise.
While Kerry will be running hard in all 10 Super Tuesday
(March 2) contests, Edwards is reportedly only going to
focus on Georgia, Ohio, and New York.
•
Kerry went to kiss his wife Teresa after his victory
speech, and she turned her head away from him kind of awkwardly.
I don't think it means anything, but if you play it in
slow motion it's a little bit funny and a little bit sorrowful.
John and Elizabeth Edwards' post-victory speech hug was
much more convincing.
•
The Edwards campaign really screwed up. They
advertised his victory speech tonight as the most important
speech of his political career. But the Kerry campaign
made sure nobody saw it. Kerry rushed to the podium to
speak as soon as Edwards went out, and all the networks covered
the victor's speech, as they probably should (although who wouldn't
have rather seen Edwards' speech, actually?). It seems like
a dirty trick, but it's common political stagecraft. In fact,
Edwards did it to Dean before Kerry did it to him. I just wonder
how the Edwards people didn't find a way to avoid it, like going
on before Kerry was projected the winner.
•
Some Democrats want to see Kerry wrap this race up asap
so we can focus our energies on fundraising and Bush, and
they may be right. But Kerry certainly will improve with a
stiff challenge from Edwards, and both stand to continue to
benefit from prolonged media attention of a dynamic race, one
which has elevated Democrats' favorability ratings nation-wide.
Hopefully, they won't saddle each other with anything
that would stick in the general. Pretty good odds they'll
be the ticket, I think.
In Kentucky yesterday, Democrat
Ben Chandler beat Republican Alice Forgy Kerr easily,
by 11%, to pickup a seat for Democrats in a district
where Bush won in 2000 with 56% of the vote. Many
bloggers
have been placing a high value on the outcome of this race for awhile now,
because they see it as a bellwether and
because Chandler has been putting up blogads
all over that appear to have really helped his fundraising.
I think Kerr's middle name, "Forgy," may have been the
biggest reason for her sizable loss.
February
17, 2004
I've gone back to something from George W. Bush's
Meet
the Press appearance that I find pretty despicable.
In an answer about whether he supported the Vietnam War, Bush
added,
"And I would have gone had my unit
been called up, by the way." Of course, his unit wasn't,
and there was about zero chance anybody in Bush's "champagne unit"
– as it was nicknamed because of all the political sons that inhabited
it – would have been called up. He must know this – the guy's
just a liar.
Granted,
Bush and his campaign are at a decisive disadvantage
in having to go up against Kerry's war record, but
that doesn't entitle them to misrepresent his service
as something that it wasn't. Listening to his Republican
surrogates on the political talk shows lately, I would have
thought that Bush actually did fly planes in Vietnam, that
there was real risk involved, and that the Guard then was similar
to what it is now. Listen to Bush himself earlier in the
MTP interview,
"I
wouldn't denigrate service to the Guard, though, and the reason
I wouldn't is because there are a lot of really fine people who
have served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National
Guard today in Iraq."
The Bush/Cheney
campaign and their political talk show mouthpieces
have an orchestrated effort underway to suggest that
Vietnam-era Guardsmen were in similarly perilous positions
to today's Guardsmen, and that's shameful. About a quarter
of the approximately 130,000 troops currently in Iraq are
National Guard and reservists, and they'd accounted for about
14% of combat deaths
as
of January. Looking at the service designations
in the up-to-date
Iraq Casualty
List, I think that percentage may have risen
slightly in the month since. I can't locate definitive
information on how many National Guard served in Vietnam,
but
namvets.com
suggests 9000 went and 22 were KIA.
In his
1996 autobiography, Colin Powell wrote:
I am angry that so many of the sons of the
powerful and well-placed... managed to wrangle slots in
Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies
of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the
most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created
equal and owe equal allegiance to their country.
Secretary
Powell couldn't say the same thing about today's
National Guard, because so many are dying.
Bush bragged
about his National Guard service in his 2000 campaign
biography, his campaign spread glossy photos of
him in the Guard to mislead people that he served in
Vietnam, he masqueraded as a fighter pilot during the
"Mission Accomplished" fiasco, and now
he's
denigrating the current Guard by suggesting it's the same deal as
it was in his "champagne unit" days. You want Democrats
to quit asking questions about your Guard service? Fine.
Stop mythologizing it and we will.
I predict another big win for
Kerry tonight in the Wisconsin primary, but I won't
be surprised if John Edwards does better than the
latest polls would lead us to expect. I think Kerry will
get about 50%, Edwards 30%, and Dean 20%.
Tom DeLay is arguably the most powerful person,
Republican or Democrat, in all of Congress. Here's
what
he
said last week:
"A woman can
take care of the family. It takes a man to provide
structure. To provide stability. Not that a woman can't
provide stability, I'm not saying that... It does take a
father, though."
Somebody
ought to tell him it's 2004, not 1904. And that despite
his best efforts, progress has been made.
February 16, 2004
Daily Show correspondent Samantha
Bee had this to say about filmmaker Michael Moore
after General Wesley Clark, whom Moore endorsed, exited
the race last week:
"By the way, John, I understand Moore is not
taking the General's decision well. I'm told he stopped
shaving, put on a little weight, taken to just throwing
on a baseball cap instead of comb his hair. He's really
let himself go."
That's
great comedy.
I rarely
agree with Republican pollster/MSNBC analyst Frank
Luntz, but he had his analysis of John Kerry right when
he spoke post-debate last night:
"Over at
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they should be very nervous.
This is not Al Gore, and this is not Michael Dukakis."
Howard
Dean was tough on Kerry last week, but seems to have
decided not to hit the frontrunner any more (indeed,
even if he insists on continuing his pointless campaign
after what I predict will be his distant 3rd place finish
Tuesday,
his
own campaign Chairman plans to back Kerry).
John Edwards gave a nice jab at Kerry's lengthy
answer to a question on the war when he said,
"That's the longest answer to a yes or no question
I've ever heard," but besides that focused more on selling
himself than beating up Kerry (although Edwards continues
to be extremely artful when it comes to subtly drawing distinctions
between himself and his opponents, and stealthily hitting
them). Left mostly untouched, Kerry continued to go after
George Bush and sell himself as a general election candidate,
and he maintained his string of near flawless debate performances.
Some
of his noteworthy responses:
• After
initially turning a question about Bush being AWOL
into an opportunity to criticize his administration's
veterans' policies, here's what he said about dropping the
AWOL issue:
KERRY:
I have suggested to some people who are my
advocates who've gone to that line of attack, it's not
one that I plan to use, it's not one I have. I don't plan
to do that and I've asked them not to. But the president has
to speak for his own military record. And those of you in
the news media, obviously, have asked questions about it and
that's where I'll let it sit.
He made
it sound more noble when he said it than it reads now,
actually. So he won't be bringing it up directly himself,
I suppose, but it's clear he loves this AWOL stuff, especially
when it comes in the form of a
"What the Vietnam Years Really
Tell Us about Bush and Kerry" Newsweek
cover.
• He
defended himself very vigorously and convincingly
against charges that he's beholden to special interests.
I think the White House attacks him on this to plant
seeds that lead them to establish a pattern of Kerry hypocrisy,
but I think it's a little crazy for them to open the door to
any discussion about special interest money.
• More
explicitly than I've ever heard it, Kerry linked himself
to Clinton-era economic fiscal responsibility and
growth, which I think we'll be hearing a lot more of:
KERRY:
And the same people who helped Bill Clinton
put together that plan, the very same people in the
White House, the Treasury Department, the OMB, are
the same people who are working with me right now to put
my plan together. The numbers are real. It's a promise
that can be kept. And if Americans liked the eight years
of Bill Clinton's economy, they're going to love the first four
years of John Kerry's.
The most
candid and entertaining exchange of the evening took
place between Lester Holt and (who else?) Al Sharpton:
HOLT:
I'd actually like to let Reverend Sharpton
follow up on that very question. Do you think that the
president knowingly lied, and if so, why?
SHARPTON:
Well, first of all, I think that if he didn't
know he was lying and was lying, that's even worse.
(LAUGHTER)
Clearly, he lied. Now if he is an unconscious
liar, and doesn't realize when he's lying, then we're really
in trouble.
(LAUGHTER)
Because, absolutely, it was a lie.
They said they knew the weapons were there. He had
members of the administration say they knew where the
weapons were. So we're not just talking about something
passing here. We're talking about 500 lives.
We're talking about billions of dollars.
So I
hope he knew he was lying, because if he didn't, and
just went in some kind of crazy, psychological breakdown,
then we are really in trouble.
Clearly,
you know, I'm a minister. Why do people lie?
Because they're liars. He lied in Florida
he's lied several times. I believe he lied
in Iraq.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT:
And Reverend, you'll recognize, obviously,
calling someone a liar is a very serious charge.
So it does lead to that question...
SHARPTON:
I think he lied.
HOLT:
So it does lead to the question: Why would
he lie?
SHARPTON:
Why do people lie? I mean, if in my judgment...
HOLT:
I mean, knowing he would be in the position
that you're putting him in now, why would he...
SHARPTON:
Well, first of all, Lester, let us look at
the facts. The facts are that what they presented to the United
Nations, what they presented to the world was not so.
You can only assume that they had to know if they said that they
knew where the weapons were, that they knew they didn't know
where they were.
And now
to come back and tell us that Saddam Hussein is a cruel,
despicable person, which we all agree, but we believed
him when he told us he had them. Can you imagine
me telling you that I believe somebody that you should
never believe, and I brought 500 people to their deaths believing
in a man that was as despicable as Hussein, and this is who
we're going to have over the troops' lives in this country?
I think
that this is absolutely outrageous. Why he lied?
I think we should give him the rest of his retirement
to figure that out and explain to us.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
Some
people think this kind of heated rhetoric hurts the
Democratic Party, but I think it's one of the things
helping us right now. It would hurt us if John Kerry
himself were forced to make these kind of heated statements
to trumpet Bush's wrongs, but he doesn't have to because Al
Sharpton does it for him. In an ordinary election year, throwing
around the words "he lied" appears overly aggressive, but Bush
has left a treasure-trove of well-documented lies of the most
serious sort for Sharpton and other partisans to dwell on. Truth
is the best defense.
By the
way, John Edwards also came off really good tonight.
He focused on jobs, jobs, jobs like a laser beam, and
of course that's the most important issue to a great many
Wisconsin voters. I think he's going to finish well behind
Kerry on Tuesday, but well ahead of Howard Dean. If a bombshell
derails Kerry, he'll be the nominee.
February 15, 2004
You can watch tonight's Wisconsin debate
on MSNBC starting at 3:30pm PT. Unfortunately, Sharpton
and
kucinich! will still be up there.
February 14, 2004
John Kerry racked up two
more
victories today, the DC caucus and a nonbinding party caucus in Nevada.
That brings his victory total to 14 in 16 tries, which is astonishingly impressive
considering the competitive field we were looking at pre-Iowa.
He
also categorically denied those affair rumors that
started kicking around on Thursday. The rumors appear
scattered and frivolous, and may not mean much more
than that
some woman's
dad
thinks
he's a "sleazeball."
It's
important to keep in mind how the Republican shit
machine spreads stuff like this. Friday's
Note
gave a pretty good description:
But we do want to highlight one textbook case
of how the right cleverly uses the modern media
conveyer belt to produce sound and fury about Democrats
who they want to take down.
The
sequencing is pretty basic: they start by handing something
to one or more right-leaning Web sites.
That
begets talk radio, which begets cable TV (usually
FNC first), which begets a Washington Times story, which
leads to other newspaper stories, and then, finally --
pay dirt -- network television coverage.
On
Monday, the conservative website NewsMax.com ran
a 1970 photo of John Kerry with Jane Fonda. Kerry seems
for weeks to have gotten positive mileage in his paid
and free media on his Vietnam-era personae, and whoever
put the photo out there was clearly hoping to dirty that
up with some Hanoi Jane stuff.
And
after passing through all the steps above, the picture
yesterday found some morning show traction.
Corbis
-- who owns the rights to the picture -- tells ABC
News that it is a huge seller right now, to the media
and others.
So
in the Kerry "intern" slime attack (it doesn't look
like the alleged woman was even a Kerry intern at
all), Drudge posts some nonsense picked up in rants by
the established drug-addicted racist Rush Limbaugh and the
rumored drug-addicted racist Sean Hannity (see how easy
it is to start baseless rumors on the web!) and pretty soon
all of the 91% of American talk show hosts who consider themselves
conservatives are talking about it, too, and then even some
local tv affiliates pick it up and the cable networks and so on.
Democrats
don't have any media infrastructure in place to match
their organized attack machine, which is one reason
why we need our own liberal radio and tv networks.
But we do have enough pundits out there to combat the message
a little bit, and what I think we should do from now on
is match them rumor for rumor. For instance, if
Hannity
and Colmes (
thanks
to Al Franken for letting me know the
correct printing of the show's name) decide
they're gonna have a show about John Kerry's alleged
infidelities, then whatever pundit represents the left
on that show should refuse to talk about it in any other
context apart from George W. Bush's cocaine use, which, unlike
Kerry on these current rumors, Bush has taken great pains not
to deny.
By
the way, I'll have more on the Kerry-Fonda pictures
soon...
It looks like Howard Dean
will
be out of the race by Wednesday.
Happy Valentine's Day to everybody, with
special wishes for those gay Americans practicing civil
disobedience by
getting
married in San Francisco. Good for
them.
February 13, 2004
As of this writing (3:11am PST), no mainstream
news organizations have done any solid reporting
substantiating the allegations of a Kerry affair promoted
first by Drudge and later by Rush Limbaugh and a few other
Neanderthals. John Kerry is scheduled to be on
Imus in the Morning today, and Imus is certain to
ask him about it.
Yesterday,
Drudge's reports on the alleged affair became increasingly
defensive. Check out these qualifiers in his latest
report:
"Unlike
the Monica Lewinsky drama, which first played out
publicly in
this space, with audio tapes, cigar and a dress, the Kerry
situation has posed a challenge to reporters
investigating the claims.
"There
is no lawsuit testimony this time [like Clinton with
Paula Jones]," a top source said Thursday night.
"It is hard to prove."
Keep
in mind that Drudge doesn't hesitate to post rumors,
particularly about progressive-minded politicians.
He's posted a number of false stories in the past, including
a
particularly
vicious one accusing Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal of physically
abusing his wife.
Also,
go back and look at the Lewinsky story as it was originally
posted, look at the level of specificity (he was being
fed things second hand by Lucianne Goldberg, who was
being fed things first hand by Linda Tripp), and compare
it to the lack of specifics in the Kerry rumor. Also, notice
how he habitually attributes quotes to "top sources," as he
does above, which for all we know could be Drudge himself,
his local bartender, or Ann Coulter.
His
"top source" suggestion that the Kerry thing
"is hard to prove" probably translates into
"there's no evidence" in Drudgespeak.
Earlier
yesterday, Drudge
posted
an internal email from
CQ's Craig
Crawford, who is a reputable journalist, blaming Chris
Lehane for pushing the story about Kerry. Lehane, whose
nickname is "The Master of Disaster," is a notorious behind-the-scenes
political cutthroat who was fired by Kerry earlier this
year and later became an advisor to Wes Clark. Drudge removed
this post later, but did he originally post it to deflect blame
from himself and scapegoat Lehane (who had no response yesterday),
if the story isn't more than a story? I wouldn't be surprised.
Also, if Crawford's right that this was a reason why Kerry didn't
get the VP call from Al Gore, that doesn't jive with Drudge's
latest report that Kerry started a relationship with the
