mattgunn.com

- July 2004 -

July 30, 2004

The Presidentification of John Kerry

For months now, I've felt like I'm one of probably about 50 people in the country who was not just anti-Bush, but very pro-John Kerry. Finally, I feel like I've got a lot more company. Kerry didn't just exceed expectations; from what I'm reading, hearing, and sensing, he gained a lot of fans. Few predicted that.

I thought Kerry addressed the two central concerns about him: he responded to his "flip-flopper" tag by coming off as strong, determined, and decisive. He answered the "is he human or robot?" question by being passionate and caring.

Some criticized him for rushing through the speech – so he could fit the entire thing into prime time just before the networks go into local news, and he did even barrel over a "USA" chant (which I don't think I've seen any one else do before... pretty gutsy), but I think his speeded-up delivery actually gave him a fever pitch he wouldn't have had otherwise, and it worked for him.

But in the end, who cares what I think? It's all about what persuadable voters thought. If a week from now it looks like John Kerry closed the deal with some of them, then it was a great speech. If not, then it wasn't.

Still, I feel very hopeful about it. What I'm most excited about generally, though, is that Democrats have now had a convention where we took on Republicans directly on national defense. Republicans have been creaming us on this issue since Vietnam, and we've never recovered. Voters have trusted them more on defense issues in high double digits for decades. Finally, we've got a candidate and a message that allows us a great chance, at the very least, of neutralizing the issue.

More thoughts, disorganized:

1.    The Kerry daughters – Vanessa and Alexandra – were two of the most natural speakers to grace the podium. I only wish they'd been in prime time. I hope their sound bites get some play on the morning shows tomorrow, because they succeeded masterfully at humanizing their Dad in a way that Teresa did not on Tuesday night.

In fact, the whole rollout leading up to JK's speech was perfect: his daughters, the video biography was a presidential candidate's dream (Morgan Freeman's authoritative, steady, comforting narration perfectly matched the message – if the campaign had Freeman address all the Kerry "flip-flopper" accusations, they'd go away), and Kerry's great friend and fellow Vietnam vet, triple amputee Max Cleland, not only made a powerful picture but delivered a profoundly compelling speech, which he's not known for. This was my favorite part:

When John Kerry declared he was going to be a candidate of the highest office in our land the presidency of the United States on a hot, steamy day in Charleston, S.C. a little less than a year ago, I joined the band of brothers at his side. After the ceremony, I grabbed John's arm and pressed a little Bible into his hand. It was the Bible I once read from as a child. I knew that he would need the strength that it provided, the guidance it provided and the comfort it had to offer in the days ahead. At first, he said he was afraid he might lose it. He refused to take it. But I insisted. I told him, hold onto this. You'll need it like your country needs you now. He looked at me with those kind of long, sad eyes and said, I won't let you down. My fellow Americans, John Kerry has never let me down. And he won't let you down either. Why, why? Because he is an authentic American, an authentic American hero. He is the captain of our ship of state. And he will be the next president of the United States.

For anybody who may not have heard, Cleland lost his Georgia senate race in 2000 to Saxby Chambliss, who chose to air a campaign commercial juxtaposing Cleland with Osama bin Laden. You see, Cleland wanted worker protections in the Homeland Security Act, so he wasn't with us, he was with the terrorists. Never mind that George W. Bush opposed the creation of a Homeland Security Department for months. Never mind that Bush could have asked Chambliss privately or publically on one of the many campaign trips he made on his behalf for him to stop airing the ad. Never mind that a "bum knee" got Saxby Chambliss a deferment from having to serve in Vietnam. No, somehow Max Cleland, who left his limbs in Vietnam fighting for us, wanted the same weakly defended America as Osama bin Laden.

John Kerry vowed early in his primary run to never let the Republicans forget what they did to Max Cleland in Georgia. Max Cleland is never gonna let the Republicans forget about it either, and both men's speeches served as a just reminder tonight.

The icing on the cake of the build-up to Kerry's speech was his coming in from behind the crowd, State of the Union-style. Although Springsteen's "No Surrender" doesn't play during many presidential State of the Union entrances, it should.

2.   Long-time political operative and analyst, and West Wing producer Lawrence O'Donnell was on Charlie Rose last night talking about how millions more people will see extended sound bites of Kerry's speech on today's morning shows and on last night's local news broadcasts than saw it live last night. Therefore, the speech was designed not only as a coherent whole, but also to work in smaller snippets.

He also said that everybody who watches the cable network coverage – everybody – not only knows how they're gonna vote, but they know exactly where they stand on every piece of political news before it's delivered to them. I watch a tremendous amount of cable news, and I've got to admit I think O'Donnell has me, at least, pegged pretty well.

3.   Weaknesses? Kerry sweat too much, which is never good. Also, he'll get criticized for not addressing Iraq more specifically – both his vote to authorize the president and his plan going forward. If there's a way to address either of those things with specificity in a political speech and still be successful, I don't know what it is.

I disagree with those who say he should have to answer how he would vote on the Iraq War today, because he never voted to take the country to war in the first place. Those lines in his speech about not rushing to war aren’t post-occupation revisionist ass-covering: he warned Bush not to rush to war before it ever started (I heard him say several of those lines in tonight’s speech in person at a fundraiser in early 2003, before the war even started), and he couldn't have been more clear in saying that Bush had not exhausted the diplomatic options before he went. Kerry would have never taken us into that war — that’s the substantive reality. The political reality is that its perceived as Bush’s war, and he must pay the price for it.

Nonetheless, explaining to the masses his vote to give Bush authorization to use force after diplomcatic options had been exhausted is an impossible political sell, especially for a politician whose weakness is long-windedness and getting too deep into policy minutiae. He learned that lesson throughout 2003.

Kerry should continue to do exactly what he’s been doing: affirm exactly what his standards are in sending our troops to war (which intimates he wouldn’t have gone to war the way Bush did, because Bush didn't meet those standards), and address what we should do NOW. On the now part of it, he won't be able to draw up plans that are much more specific than what he outlined last night until he's commander in chief.

4.   I don't think Rove's "flip-flopper" and "weak on defense" attack lines are going to win him this election. In fact, I think he's played to a natural Kerry strength. Kerry may not have a great common touch, but strength and steadiness are in his body language, gaze, and voice. There was a lot of pressure for Kerry to prove himself a credible alternative going into this convention. I think he did it. Now the pressure goes back on Bush, and their game plan up to this point of pitting "steady leadership" vs. "flip-flopper" isn't gonna do it. They have to come up with something else, and it's got to be creative, because Kerry's answered their best shots in this convention and established himself as an elusive target.

5.   I'll write more about the text of Kerry's speech over the weekend. Wes Clark's, too, which some thought was the best speech of the night.

July 29, 2004

Unsurprised in July

A couple weeks ago, The New Republic posted an article, July Surprise?. Today, exactly what they reported might happen in the article happened. Here's the editor's note TNR now posts along with the original article:

[Editor's Note: This afternoon, Pakistan's interior minister, Faisal Saleh Hayyat, announced that Pakistani forces had captured Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian Al Qaeda operative wanted in connection with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The timing of this announcement should be of particular interest to readers of The New Republic. Earlier this month, John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman, and Massoud Ansari broke the story of how the Bush administration was pressuring Pakistani officials to apprehend high-value targets (HVTs) in time for the November elections--and in particular, to coincide with the Democratic National Convention. Although the capture took place in central Pakistan "a few days back," the announcement came just hours before John Kerry will give his acceptance speech in Boston.]

Although I have no reason to believe the administration's sitting on bin Laden or al Zawahiri, something like this reminds us they're not above it. If I were Karl Rove advising on the timing of an announcement of a household name high-value target, I'd avoid the obviousness of a major announcement on Kerry's convention day speech, and do it the day after. This would make Kerry's speech seem like old news.

Excerpts

The Los Angeles Times has up some advance excerpts from Kerry's speech.

Damn good stuff.

All he needs to do is weave it into a personal narrative and he'll hit a home run.

Convention Night #3: Hope Is on the Way

I don't have a good instinct about how well this presentation is playing (or if it's playing at all) among the swing state persuadables who will probably decide this election. But I'm pretty sure that just about everything rides on how well John Kerry comes off in tonight's speech. He's got 2 things going for him: relatively low expectations, and a history of giving his best performances under pressure.

As for last night's speeches...

Al Sharpton

Every once in awhile in politics, you've got to get off message in order to get real. I admired this passionate speech, and I didn't even find it that controversial. Besides calling Barack Obama "Obam Baracka," what did he say that was inaccurate?

Here's how Sharpton started off:

Last Friday, I had the experience in Detroit of hearing President George Bush make a speech. And in the speech, he asked certain questions. I hope he's watching tonight. I would like to answer your questions, Mr. President.

What he's talking about is a condescending speech Bush gave before the Urban League (after he became the first president since Warren Harding to reject all speaking invitations from the nation's largest civil rights group, the NAACP) in which he asked them to consider if it was a good idea to be giving all their votes to the Democratic Party, and to consider further whether the Democratic Party wasn't taking them for granted. Sharpton had some good answers:

Mr. President, you said would we have more leverage if both parties got our votes, but we didn't come this far playing political games. It was those that earned our vote that got our vote. We got the Civil Rights Act under a Democrat! We got the Voting Rights Act under a Democrat! We got the right to organize under Democrats!

Mr. President, the reason we are fighting so hard, the reason we took Florida so seriously, is our right to vote wasn't gained because of our age. Our vote was soaked in the blood of martyrs, soaked in the blood of good men (inaudible) soaked in the blood of four little girls in Birmingham. This vote is sacred to us.

This vote can't be bargained away.

This vote can't be given away.

Mr. President, in all due respect, Mr. President, read my lips: Our vote is not for sale.

Right around the time Sharpton spoke those words, Chris Matthews on MSNBC broke into his speech to remind the audience that Sharpton came to public attention on the basis of a lie (the Tawana Brawley case). I wanted to catch the rest of the speech, of course, so I immediately turned to CSPAN, but I was still astonished and infuriated by Matthews' complete disrespect for what Sharpton was saying. And then flipping around to catch the post-speech analysis on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox, I couldn't find a non-dismissive comment on the merits of the speech – there was only talk about how it was "divisive" and "off-message." It's outrageous that none of these "political analysts" – all of them even whiter than me – could even consider for a second that there might be some truth in Sharpton's speech.

After Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he quietly predicted to fellow Democrat Bill Moyers, "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come." Of course, Johnson was right, and every serious historian agrees on why: because the Republican Party in a variety of ways has embraced and courted the racist, anti-civil rights sentiment in the South, sometimes overtly and other times in code, and it's come to define their "Southern strategy" in presidential elections.

For the cable news "analysts" to completely ignore this history in their dismissal of Sharpton's speech shows how much progress we still need to make in this country. It's sad.

By the way, if anybody wants a good recent example of a Southern Republican courting the racist vote, look no further than Haley Barbour's tragically successful race for Mississippi Governor last year.

A couple more Sharpton gems:

– "We never got the 40 acres. We went all the way to Herbert Hoover, and we never got the 40 acres.

We didn't get the mule. So we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us."

– "I suggest to you tonight that if George Bush had selected the court in '54, Clarence Thomas would have never got to law school."

John Edwards

1.   I heard about 70% of this speech many times, and it's fabulous. I'm glad it had its biggest audience yet.

2.   I'm confident the speech worked generally well tonight, too, but I think Edwards was slightly off. He's been getting over an illness, and I thought it affected his timing and power just a little bit.

3.   The tighter the shot is on Edwards, the better he comes off. The intimacy of the camera elevates him. I don't question his stature at all except when I see him in long or medium shots.

4.   I've glanced at a couple dozen headlines from papers across the country, and almost all of them have Edwards' name and image juxtaposed with different written descriptions, nearly all including the word "hope." Bingo.

5.    Edwards needs to get his pumping fists and thumbses ups a little more under control. Some of it seems contrived.

6.    I've heard from a few people – all women, actually – whose first impression of Edwards is that he's too slick. I also heard from a friend, but didn't see myself, that several people in an MSNBC focus group in Ohio were similarly struck by him. I encourage them all to do the same thing: watch him again. His intelligence and sincerity makes you forget about that quality. Actually, according to at least two different women I know, first he causes you to forget about that quality, and then he forces you to fall in love with him.

7.    Pictures of the Edwards family are political gold. The only problem is that his 4 year-old son Jack and 6 year-old daughter Emma Claire belie the fact that he's much older than he looks (51).

8.    The 30% or so of the speech that's new dealt with Iraq and al Qaeda, and most of those lines were very good. I trust him completely to make good foreign policy decisions because I know how smart he is and what good judgment he has, but his central struggle in this campaign will be to convince voters to trust him on national security issues.

9.    I loved this part, which Edwards delivered very passionately, with complete conviction, as he echoed Barack Obama:

And I've heard some discussions and debates around America about where and in front of what audiences we ought to talk about race and equality and civil rights. I have an answer to that question: Everywhere, everywhere, everywhere.

This is not an African-American issue. This is not a Latino issue. This is not an Asian-American issue. This is an American issue.

10.   This is very savvy, and right, and foreshadows what I expect to be Kerry's steeliness tonight:

And we, John and I, we will have one clear unmistakable message for Al Qaida and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you.

11.   Everything he said on Iraq is completely right, I just hope people can buy the sunny Edwards being so tough and even militaristic. The debate with Cheney will be key, and I've got a lot of confidence in him.

12.   Elizabeth Edwards lack of podium polish works for her. She is a tremendous political asset. She's so effective I hope she'll do some pretty serious battleground state campaigning on her own.

July 28, 2004

Convention Night #2

President Obama

My Dad called me after Barack Obama's speech last night and we were both crying. It was an inspirational speech perfectly delivered, among the best either of us had ever heard, but what really turned us to sap was the sense we both had while watching that Obama would be our first black President, and there's a good chance together we'll live to see it.

T he speech reads very well, even without the aid of Obama's magnificent oratory. Some of the highlights:

– "My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin- roof shack. His father, my grandfather, was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place, America, that's shown as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before him.

While studying here my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas.

Her father worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor, my grandfather signed up for duty, joined Patton's army, marched across Europe. Back home my grandmother raised a baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they studied on the GI Bill, bought a house through FHA and later moved west, all the way to Hawaii, in search of opportunity.

And they too had big dreams for their daughter, a common dream born of two continents.

My parents shared not only an improbable love; they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or "blessed," believing that in a tolerant America, your name is no barrier to success."

– "Now, don't get me wrong, the people I meet in small towns and big cities and diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solves all of their problems. They know they have to work hard to get a head. And they want to.

Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you: They don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or by the Pentagon.

Go into any inner-city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn.

They know that parents have to teach, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things.

People don't expect -- people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice."

– "When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they are going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return and to never, ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace and earn the respect of the world."

– "John Kerry believes in America. And he knows that it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we are all connected as one people.

If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child.

If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for their prescription and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandparent.

If there's an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

It is that fundamental belief -- it is that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work.

It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family: "E pluribus unum," out of many, one."

– "The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.

We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states.

There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

– "Do we participate in a politics of cynicism, or do we participate in a politics of hope?

John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism here, the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't think about it, or health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it.

That's not what I'm talking. I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.

Hope in the face of difficulty, hope in the face of uncertainty, the audacity of hope: In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation, a belief in things not seen, a belief that there are better days ahead.

I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity.

I believe we can provide jobs for the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair."

As you can see, this speech unifies as it splendidly blends classic liberalism with classic conservatism, broadly defining where government's role begins and ends.

The only problem is that more people didn't see it. I understand that there probably aren't all that many people outside political junkheads like myself who will watch anything other than Kerry's speech Thursday night, but there are still several million more watching during the network's prime time coverage than at any other time. Obama ended just before the network coverage began and there's got to be some head-shaking in the Kerry campaign that they couldn't fit him in [update: I'm told the networks didn't carry ANY of the convention last night, but that Chicago stations broke into their regular programming to air the speech – that's cool, but would have been much cooler had Ohio, Florida, and Missouri done it].

Oh, well. A star is born, hopefully one who will be around for a long time, and perhaps even change history.

By the way, Illinois Republicans still haven't come up with a sacrificial lamb to oppose Obama. It's a remarkably rare thing for a non-incumbent to run unopposed, but it's possible here [update: Jack Ryan never officially dropped off the ballot, so it looks like the GOP's best option is to ask him to stay on – that's not quite running unopposed, but same effect].

Teresa Heinz Kerry

Teresa Heinz Kerry is a sophisticated, exotic, uncommon American. I value all those attributes, but unfortuntely many voters don't. I'm curious to see how people respond to her as the campaign goes on, but I think it's right both politically and morally for the Kerry campaign to just "let Teresa be Teresa." She showed a lot of herself last night, and I liked her.

I think her speech was a little too long, though. Also, while she made some very good points in her case for her husband, it's frustrating that she can't find better ways to be a more humanizing character witness for him, talk about some of the things she shares with her husband that make both of them more relatable (John and Elizabeth Edwards have mastered this political art, just take a look at any of their joint interviews and you'll see what I'm talking about). Both John and Teresa have said they see their staunch Catholicism as a mostly private matter, and I admire their refusal to exploit it, but I wish she'd at least let Catholics out there know that they're connected by a shared Catholic faith. I don't think revealing that simple fact is too much political whoring, and I think it would probably help in some important regions.

Some of her best stuff:

– "And tonight, as I have done throughout this campaign, I would like to speak to you from my heart. Y a todos los Hispanos y los Latinos...

... a tous les Franco-Americain...

... a tutti Italiani...

... a toda a familia Portugesa e Brazileria...

... and to all the continental Africans living in this country...

... and to all new Americans in our country, I invite you to join our conversation and together with us work toward the noblest purpose of all: a free, good and democratic society."

– "As a young woman, I attended Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg, South Africa, which was then not segregated.

But I witnessed the weight of Apartheid everywhere around me. And so with my fellow students, we marched in the streets of Johannesburg against its extension into higher education.

This was the late 1950s at the dawn of civil rights marches in America. And, as history records, our efforts in South Africa failed, and the Higher Education Apartheid Act passed. Apartheid tightened its ugly grips. The Sharpeville Riots followed. And Nelson Mandela was arrested and sent to Robben Island.

I learned something then. And I believe it still. There is a value in taking a stand, whether or not anybody may be noticing it, and whether or not it is a risky thing to do."

– "My right to speak my mind, to have a voice, to be what some have called "opinionated"...

... is a right I deeply and profoundly cherish.

And my only hope is that one day soon, My only hope is that, one day soon, women, who have all earned their right to their opinions...

... instead of being labeled opinionated will be called smart and well-informed, just like men."

Gotta rest the back. I'll get to Reagan, Dean, and Kennedy later...

July 27, 2004

Opening Night at the Convention, Part III

Hillary

Best line:

– "John Kerry is a serious man for a serious job at a serious time in our country."

Hillary's not a great speaker, and she didn't have much to do other than introduce her husband, but she did okay. All the people that accuse her of selfishly wanting Kerry to lose because she wants to run herself in 2008 are full of shit. She's raised a lot of money for him, and been an otherwise faithful advocate.

The only thing I'd add is that even though everything she said about health care was right, I don't think it's a great idea for Hillary to be delivering the health care message in prime time on Kerry's behalf, only because many voters associate her, unfairly, with health care socialism.

Billy Jeff Clinton

Best lines:

– "Everyone had to sacrifice except the wealthiest Americans, who wanted to do their part but were asked only to expend the energy necessary to open the envelopes containing our tax cuts."

– "In this year’s budget, the White House wants to cut off federal funding for 88,000 uniformed police, including more than 700 on the New York City police force who put their lives on the line on 9/11. As gang violence is rising and we look for terrorists in our midst, Congress and the President are also about to allow the ten-year-old ban on assault weapons to expire. Our crime policy was to put more police on the streets and take assault weapons off the streets. It brought eight years of declining crime and violence. Their policy is the reverse, they’re taking police off the streets and putting assault weapons back on the streets. If you agree with their choices, vote to continue them. If not, join John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats in making America safer, smarter, and stronger."

– "We Americans must choose for President one of two strong men who both love our country, but who have very different worldviews: Democrats favor shared responsibility, shared opportunity, and more global cooperation. Republicans favor concentrated wealth and power, leaving people to fend for themselves and more unilateral action."

– "During the Vietnam War, many young men—including the current president, the vice president and me—could have gone to Vietnam but didn’t. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too. Instead he said, send me."

– "Strength and wisdom are not conflicting values—they go hand in hand."

This was one of the best delivered speeches of Clinton's career, and that's saying a hell of a lot. I giggled through much of it. The Kerry campaign could use it as an outline for how to frame the rest of the race.

The only possible problem I wonder about is if he's become such an icon of the masterful political performance that the man doesn't overwhelm the message. I know I still hear what he's saying, but I'm sometimes distracted marvelling at how well he says it. He's the ultimate political salesman.

Lumping himself as a draft dodger along with Bush and Cheney is selfless and brilliant. I loved it the first time I heard it (months ago), I loved it during this speech, and I'll love it the other hundred times I hope to hear it before November 2. It's also hilarious to hear him talk about how he doesn't know why Republicans have changed their mind about him and showered him with these generous tax cuts. It's ironic that they're working so hard to line Satan's pockets.

Also, it hasn't been a frequently cited part of his speech, but Clinton got elected in part because he presented himself in 1992 and 1996 as tough on law and order issues, which Republicans used to beat Democrats over the head with in decades of elections pre-Clinton. Now, there's no getting around the fact that this president has reduced the number of cops on our streets – one of the only surefire ways to make them safer – just as he's allowed the assault weapons ban to expire. Any way you measure it, whether at home or abroad, this administration is weak on defense.

Opening Night at the Convention, Part II

Remembrance of 9/11

This was very well done, because the focus was truly on remembering the tragedy of that day as it affected all Americans. As the Muslim woman (I'm sorry, I missed her name, now I can't find it, and I'm on limited writing time with my prematurely elderly back [update: her name is Haleema Salie]) who lost more than one family member on 9/11 said, "What unites us is stronger than what divides us."

RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie today said that last night's 9/11 tribute has now made talk of the tragedy "a legitimate part of the conventions." Of course, there's a big difference between last night's tribute to American loss and American unity and the way Bush-Cheney '04 has used the tragedy – starting on about 9/12 – to highlight what they see as Bush's own heroism on 9/11 and thereafter. When they try to exploit 9/11 at their convention, which obviously has been their plan all along, the important thing for Democrats to emphasize is that 9/11 happened to us, not just him, as much as Bush-Cheney would like to eliminate the distinction.

Reverend David Alston

Reverend David Alston, a crewmate of John Kerry's on PCF 94 in the Mekong Delta, testified about Kerry's "brave, wise, decisive" leadership. He also spoke about what a caring leader Kerry was, something you often hear the other crewmates mention.

I hate to say it, but I think Alston's delivery diluted the message of the speech. He orated it, and I think a quieter, more personal tone would have been more effective.

What his crewmates witnessed of Kerry in Vietnam is enormously imporant in contradicting this "flip-flopper" nonsense. What Republicans are really saying with this line of attack is that Kerry's not made of anything, that he's an opportunist missing a solid core. If coreless opportunists repeatedly risk their lives for other men, like Kerry did, then we need more of them.

Gotta rest the back. I'll cover The Mother of all convention speakers, Bill Clinton, when I return...

The Convention: Opening Night

Tonight was everything it needed to be, and a little more.

Nearly everyone agrees, the Democrats at this convention are more unified than ever. Usually that would involve some strong-arming, but my sense is that Democrats of all kinds are eager to submerge their usual piques in order to conquer a president they believe to be a clear and present danger to the America they know and imagine. This has made the Kerry campaign's job much easier, but they still deserve credit for arranging the parts to create a pitch-perfect opening statement.

My reaction to each piece:

Al Gore

Best lines:

– "I prefer to focus on the future because I know from my own experience that America is a land of opportunity, where every little boy and girl has a chance to grow up and win the popular vote."

– "The first lesson is this: take it from me – every vote counts."

Even a cold-hearted Republican has to feel a little bit sorry for Al Gore. The man not only won the popular vote, but he also won the state of Florida using any standard for counting votes state-wide. While he should be president, he's remembered mostly as a comically awkward politician who ran a horrible campaign. It's not entirely fair, but I think Gore has to embrace that identity. If he tries to fight that image, as he has in some recent appearances when he's said some great things but appeared completely unhinged, he comes off as an indignant victim. When he brands himself as a wronged, lovable loser – as he did tonight – he can be a highly compelling, effective leader within the Democratic Party (although I highly doubt he'll ever hold elected office again).

The text of Gore's speech was excellent. Great self-deprecating humor to start off, then he started picking at the wound. The cliche "every vote counts" sounds completely original coming from his mouth; he owns those words like nobody ever has, and hopefully like no one else ever will.

As with the other speakers I saw tonight, he didn't utter the words "George W. Bush." I presume that's a tactical decision by the Kerry campaign to prevent anyone from personalizing their criticisms, and that's great strategy.

He's also the right guy to be making a plea (and warning) to the Nader voters, and I thought it was effective.

The only problem I had with Gore's speech is that he rushed through much of it, but most of his delivery was nearly as good as I've ever heard him. He may have been really time-conscientious, which is a good thing for the Democratic Party. I was only a few months old, but I understand George McGovern gave his acceptance speech at 3 o'clock in the morning at the 1972 convention. Even Bill Clinton finished his speech within about a half hour tonight!

Jimmy Carter

Best lines:

– "Today, our Democratic party is led by another former naval officer—one who volunteered for military service. He showed up when assigned to duty, and he served with honor and distinction."

– "Today, our dominant international challenge is to restore the greatness of America—based on telling the truth, a commitment to peace, and respect for civil liberties at home and basic human rights around the world. Truth is the foundation of our global leadership, but our credibility has been shattered and we are left increasingly isolated and vulnerable in a hostile world. Without truth—without trust—America cannot flourish. Trust is at the very heart of our democracy, the sacred covenant between the president and the people."

– "At stake is nothing less than our nation’s soul."

Wow. Carter's speech was extraordinarily harsh, but he delivered it as a gentle old man and recent Nobel Peace Prize winner. Some may still see him as a failed president, but all former presidents' favorability ratings tend to rise with the length they've been out of office, and Carter is our most accomplished former president in his near quarter century post-White House. I hope a lot of people were watching him.

Like everyone else, he couldn't seem too nasty because he didn't even say Bush's name, but make no mistake: he was nasty. His praising John Kerry for having "showed up when assigned to duty" had an obvious target, and somebody needed to say it. It's good that it came from someone of Carter's stature. (By the way, Bush's National Guard payroll records that the Pentagon reported "inadvertently destroyed" happened to show up late last Friday evening when no one was paying attention, and they proved what nobody really denies – Bush was absent from the Alabama Guard for several months in 1972).

Carter's speech tells 3 true stories very clearly:

I. Kerry's a wise and brave war hero prepared to be commander in chief.

II. Bush's extremism has betrayed America's traditional values, squandered the goodwill of the world, and made us less safe.

III. Kerry can turn that around, and must be given the chance.

I hurt my lower back yesterday and can't sit down for too long, so I'll continue my review of last night later...

July 26, 2004

The Convention

When Republicans try to raise expectations for this Democratic Convention, they often point to Bill Clinton's 16 point bounce after the 1992 convention. What they don't tell you is that Clinton was stuck below 30% in the polls up to that point, so he didn't just have a lot to gain with swing voters, but with Democrats.

John Kerry is polling at about 46% to 48% nationally right now. Bush has about 45% that seem pretty solid for him. So it's extremely doubtful that we'll see a big bounce for Kerry post-convention, no matter how well it goes. There simply isn't a large percentage of voters who haven't already been tapped.

Nonetheless, I do think this is a very important few days for Kerry. Not only is Kerry a complicated guy to begin with, but Bush-Cheney has spent over $100 million on ads telling voters he's awful, and Kerry has spent about $80 million on ads saying he's awesome, so a lot of people are understandably confused. Some of the confused make up the 46% to 48% who say they're voting for him, but aren't entirely locked in, and others are disinclined to vote for Bush but want to be convinced that Kerry's not worse.

While the networks are giving this convention even less coverage than the last one (which had less coverage than the one before it), Kerry's speech Thursday night will still be seen by more people than have ever seen him before, and just as important as their reaction will be its reception by the news media afterwards. It could really make or break his image with the persuadables.

If I were him, I'd focus like a laser beam on countering the "flip-flopper" tag. Some of that will entail Kerry just looking and sounding "strong" and full of conviction, laying out a clear agenda. It should also include drawing a dramatic through-line from his personal biography to his public service record, much of which can be done by testimony from others before he takes the stage. But I also hope Kerry's made sure some of the juiciest sound bites in his speech mock the whole "flip-flopper" idea.

I have a couple main worries about this convention that have been alleviated somewhat by recent happenings.

One is that with Kennedy, the Clintons, Gore, and Carter given high-profile speaking slots, we'd appear more backward than forward-looking. But Barack Obama (recently chosen to give the keynote address Tuesday night), John Edwards, and John Kerry are the featured speakers Tuesday-Thursday, and all 3 are fresh faces nationally who intend to focus on themes of optimism and progress.

The other worry is that this would become too negative with the Bush bashing, but Dems at the convention appear to be heeding Kerry's call to cool it. Let's hope they continue, because Bush hatred is going to be there through election day no matter what, and wasting valuable time on it during the convention is counter-productive. Of course we've got to bring in a little Bush comedy, I just don't want it to be incessant and too mean-spirited...

July 23, 2004

9/11 Commission Report

Here's the 9/11 Commission's website, where the full report can be downloaded. The staff statements also add insight, and tend to be more detailed (from what I've read so far) on certain subjects. You can also get a copy at any bookstore for $10, which is what I did.

Here are some of my reactions after having read a little of it carefully, and having skimmed through most of it:

1. This is a great country we live in, and I really mean it. How cool is it that this report, the subject of so much controversy, has been made so readily available to every U.S. citizen on-line and at bookstores? People may not be interested in the information, but in this case they can't blame their government for not supplying it.

2. Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton have both valued transparency and bipartisan agreement throughout their careers, and they've earned their reputations for that once again. They've done an extraordinary job leading this commission. If you didn't know which party each was from, you wouldn't be able to tell from any of their interviews (if you didn't know, Kean's a Republican and Hamilton's a Democrat).

Sure, the other 4 Democrats and 4 Republicans – to varying degrees – were harder on their party's opponents during questioning at the hearings, but it was never the kind of partisanship where people lead all their senses toward a pre-ordained conclusion, as often happens in congress (the Henry Hyde-led Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings is the textbook example of that kind of numbskull partisanship; by the way, that's what this commission might have looked like had Bush gotten his original appointee, Henry Kissinger, to lead the commission). Instead, this group of 10 have put forward a set of meticulously established facts and a well-thought out set of prescriptions. They focus on fixing systemic problems in a comprehensive way, and don't assign much individual blame.

Somebody like me, of course, wishes they were a little more blunt in their assessments of Bush administration inaction, and those on the other side must be frustrated they didn't criticize Clinton more. Ultimately, though, they were fair, and usually let the facts make their own indictments. For instance, Chapter 8: "The System Was Blinking Red," makes it pretty clear that Bush and Rice were completely incompetent in dealing with the various pre-9/11 warnings, but you have to arrive at that by processing irrefutable facts, not by commission proclamation. It's more powerful that way.

3. Chapter 12: "What To Do? A Global Strategy" and Chapter 13: "How to Do It? A Different Way of Organizing the Government," are extremely impressive, and crystallize what I believe to be a lot of the best thinking out there on a comprehensive way to wage an effective war on terrorism and protect American citizens.

Chapter 12 suggests ways not just to attack the current terrorists, but to stop the growth of terrorism, particularly by engaging the stuggle of ideas and multilateral relationships. It also outlines a number of specific ways we can protect against and prepare for terrorist attacks locally.

Chapter 13 suggests a national counterterrorism center, a national intelligence director with vast budgetary authority, a variety of measures that would make the system more open and accountable, and new ways for congress and homeland security to be more effective.

4. These proposals are extraordinarily ambitious, but I don't think they're pie-in-the-sky, and I understand McCain and Lieberman have co-sponsored a bill to begin enacting some of the tangible recommendations. Nothing's going to happen any time soon, almost surely, because congress isn't even in session much before the election. If there's any justice, there will be an intense focus on debating these specific proposals, though, and they'll become central to the presidential debate.

5. God damn George Bush. If he wouldn't have stalled the establishment of this commission for 18 months, we'd be much further along in this process, and we'd be safer.

6. I was struck by the differences between Bush and Kerry during their public statements yesterday. Kerry is ready to go full-steam ahead with a lot of these proposals, especially the specific reorganization proposals, including the appointment of a national intelligence director. Bush seemed really political, hedging on specifics while speaking in his usual platitudes about "good work" done by the commission and his advisors "taking a serious look" at what's been proposed.

This is a real opporunity for Kerry to show his superior substance and put some of this flip-flopper crap to bed. He's very, very comfortable navigating his way through these kinds of complex policy proposals, and has decades of experience doing it. He was very clear yesterday while Bush looked like a politician.

Remember the 2002 elections? One of the reasons the Republicans did so well was that Bush made it look like he had supported the creation of the homeland security department all-along and Democrats had been holding it up. Of course, it was Lieberman who had proposed it in the first place and Bush had rejected it publically. He flipped on it, though, wisely stole it as an issue, and ironically used it to batter Democrats as he traveled all over the country.

The difference this cycle, I hope, is that Bush isn't dealing with a bunch of anonymous Democrats; he's in a chess match with John Kerry, who's been positioning himself professionally a lot longer than he has. And, if the reports that Bush is hostile to the appointment of a national intelligence director as well as some of the other primary proposals, his only hope is to flip-flop once again. Even if he does, though, he won't be able to credibly co-opt the issue, because Kerry's out front.

July 22, 2004

Berger

One more thing about Berger: while there's no doubt Republicans aren't as concerned about anything Sandy Berger did as they are about distracting the public from the 9/11 Commission report and the Democratic National Convention, there's no getting around the fact that Berger is a moron for not releasing this himself months ago.

His surrogates have been on several shows saying basically that the Justice Department screwed him by leaking this at the most politically inopportune time – and they're right – but what in the world did he expect from Ashcroft's Justice Department? The reality of politics is if you're there to get screwed by your opponents, you'll get screwed by your opponents.

Sandy Berger knows this, and he could have controlled this information much better and saved Democrats a big headache if he had faced reality and announced the allegations against him framed by his response in a press conference last year (around Christmas time would have been good). Perhaps the main reason he didn't do this is because he thought it would jeopardize his chance to be secretary of state in an incoming Democratic administration (he's always mentioned on a short list of candidates), which is both selfish and delusional thinking. His chances were jeopardized once the investigation started, so he should have cut his losses. Instead, he's burdened his party with this. It's aggravating.

July 21, 2004

Berger

5 Things You Can Tell Them About This Sandy Berger Stuff

1. So Republicans have scored some political points and put Democrats on the defensive by leaking sketchy information about a nine month-old FBI investigation of Clinton National Security Advisor and Kerry campaign advisor Sandy Berger. Do they really think that's more important than what's gonna become official tomorrow with the release of the 9/11 Commission report, including the fact that nearly every argument the administration made (or insinuated) pushing war with Iraq actually applied not to Iraq but to Iran?

2. Republicans argue that Berger was trying to cover up something by removing notes and copies of documents from the National Archive (where Berger spent dozens of hours in a secure reading room poring over thousands of documents in preparation for his 9/11 Commission testimony). First off, the 9/11 Commission says it didn't affect their work at all. Secondly, of course it didn't, because from what I've read Berger is only accused of taking his own notes and copies of documents, nothing that each member of the 9/11 Commission needed or wouldn't already have. Thirdly, the copies Berger took were of a Richard Clarke after-action memo on the foiled millenium bombing attempt of LAX, a memo that's been widely reported on in various publications and something that makes the Clinton administration look good.

3. Republicans like Pennsylvania Senator and gay-hatred aficionado have made shadowy claims that somehow Berger stole the copies for the benefit of a Kerry press conference on port security. Santorum yesterday:

Right after the documents were taken, John Kerry held a photo op and attacked the president on port security. The documents that were taken may have been utilized for that press conference [!].

First, there's simply no evidence for that.

Second, Rick Santorum may have enjoyed sex with animals.

4. Maybe Sandy Berger did something illegal. If he did, he'll be charged, and we'll have some specific allegations to talk about, and we can avoid much of this partisan, Santorumesque nonsense.

5. If we're gonna get into classification issues, let's have a long conversation about the Bush administration's shamefully political classification and declassification measures. According to National Security Archive analyst John Prados, writing in The New Republic, "Bush is the first president since Richard Nixon to try to brandish declassification as a political weapon." I think you'd find bipartisan agreement with that in Washington, at least privately.

Girlie-Men Problem Solved

So here's the silly quote:

"If they don't have the guts to come up here in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you, I want to represent those special interests, the unions, the trial lawyers … if they don't have the guts, I call them girlie men,'" Schwarzenegger said to the cheering crowd at a mall food court in Ontario.

Democrats have been too serious complaining about this "girlie men" thing, and Arnold's laughing right over them again. The only way for Democrats to beat Arnold is with their own nasty, silly, political theatre. One should stand up and wink and smile this before the cameras:

We all know Arnold has problems with girls. We don't.

War President, We Hardly Knew Ye'

Peace President George W. Bush, yesterday:

Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president.

War President George W. Bush on Meet the Press, February 8, 2004:

I'm a war president.

The flip-flop president, maybe?

July 20, 2004

Ready to Rumble

From The New York Times:

Mindful of the election problems in Florida four years ago, aides to Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, say his campaign is putting together a far more intricate set of legal safeguards than any presidential candidate before him to monitor the election.

Aides to Mr. Kerry say the campaign is taking the unusual step of setting up a nationwide legal network under its own umbrella, rather than relying, as in the past, on lawyers associated with state Democratic parties. The aides said they were recruiting people based on their skills as litigators and election lawyers, rather than rewarding political connections or big donors.

Lawyers for the campaign are gathering intelligence and preparing litigation over the ballot machines being used and the rules concerning how voters will be registered or their votes disqualified. In some cases, the lawyers are compiling dossiers on the people involved and their track records on enforcing voting rights. The disputed 2000 presidential election remains a fresh wound for Democrats, and Mr. Kerry has been referring to it on the stump while assuring his audiences that he will not let this year's election be a repeat of the 2000 vote.

You figure there will be some very dirty ground battles before and perhaps after the election, so it’s both good politics and good management for Kerry to lead Democrats into fighting shape and reassure those – especially African Americans who are understandably afraid that they’ll again encounter problems at the polls – that his campaign is ready to fight. Some historical perspective:

Robert Bauer, a partner of Mr. Elias's who is overseeing the Kerry legal effort, took a historical view of what he called "warfare over the electoral franchise." The first phase, he said, concerned who was entitled to vote and included the all-white primary, literacy tests and poll taxes that were eliminated in the mid-20th century. The second phase was fought largely over the dilution of the vote along racial lines and used the Voting Rights Act, he said.

"Now, we're into a third phase, that was exemplified by Bush-Gore, of franchise restrictions that are accomplished through manipulations of the elections administration process or of the law," Mr. Bauer said. "It's about people who somehow can't register, or can't vote, or their vote isn't counted, and it's done not frontally, but through legal manipulations."

This is the kind of crap Bauer intends to stop:

…in the special Congressional election there [South Dakota] last month, Native Americans reported widespread discrepancies in the application of the rules, said Jacqueline Johnson, executive director of the National Congress of American Indians. In some places, Ms. Johnson said, signs went up at polling places warning, "No I.D., no vote," even though the law allows voters to sign an affidavit if they do not have valid identification. Elsewhere, she said, people living as far as 60 miles from polling places were sent home to get identification, and partisan poll watchers sometimes insisted that voters instead fill out provisional ballots. Ms. Johnson said such ballots were more likely to be disqualified on challenges.

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that the felon purge list in Florida was finally discarded, despite the continued, deplorably anti-democratic gamesmanship of a few high office holders in Florida, one of whom happens to maintain a familial stake in the election. From The St. Petersburg Times:

The state had tried to keep the list a secret. It fought a lawsuit aimed at opening the records to the public. A series of errors emerged once a Tallahassee judge rejected the state's arguments and released the records on July 1.

The error that proved final - and garnered national attention - was that Hispanics were largely overlooked because of glitches in how the state records information about race and ethnicity.

The list was created by cross-checking voter registration and criminal records. Of the more than 47,000 voters on the potential felon list, Hispanics made up one tenth of 1 percent - this in a state where nearly 1 in 5 residents is Hispanic.

Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood issued a written statement Saturday saying the exclusion of Hispanics was "unintentional and unforeseen."

"We are deeply concerned and disappointed that this has occurred," Hood said. Many Hispanic voters vote Republican. That they were largely omitted from a list disproportionately weighted with Democratic-leaning blacks has fueled theories that voter rolls were being manipulated for political motives. State officials said it was data errors, not politics, that excluded Hispanics from the list.

"Not including Hispanic felons that may be voters on the list . . . was an oversight and a mistake. . . . And we accept responsibility and that's why we're pulling it back," said Gov. Jeb Bush, who was in Fort Lauderdale on Saturday at an "African-Americans for Bush" rally in support of his brother's re-election as president.

Let me get this straight: Bush and Hood fight to keep their list a secret and go forward with plans to purge, but after it's made public they acknowledge errors, apologize and say, "Damn, I guess we just won't use it." Unbelievable.

Are Glenda Hood and Jeb Bush completely crooked, unimaginably incompetent, or both? There are no other options.

July 19, 2004

Clinton on Race

Here's a great little interview with Bill Clinton on race in America. I only wish it were longer.

During Clinton's term, the African American unemployment rate fell 6.2% nationally; median African American household income increased 21% – outpacing the rate of growth for all Americans; African American home ownership rates went way up; the African American poverty rates declined signifigantly; and the Clinton Earned Income Tax Credit helped lift over a million African Americans out of poverty. And those are just a few of the highlights (by the way, he doesn't mention many in the interview, which is mostly about the future). Diverse economic improvement under Clinton was extraordinary, and a highly underrated part of his legacy.

Meanwhile, our current President is the first American President since Warren G. Harding to refuse to speak before the NAACP, mostly because he's got nothing to talk about.

Da Great Ali G

Da Ali G Show is back on HBO with new episodes, beginning with "Respek." I think it makes me laugh out loud more than any television show I've ever seen.

July 18, 2004

Re-examination

I want to elaborate on what I wrote in my last post, because I've given it some more thought today.

I may have gone too far when I wrote that Bush's assertion that he couldn't do his job without God speaking through him "establishes Bush as a bonafide theocrat, not unlike Osama bin Laden."

Let me be clear: I don't think Bush wants America ruled by one Christian religious authority, like bin Laden clearly wants the world ruled by his perverted notion of Islam. But I do think both men share the conviction that they have a divine mission and that God/Allah has let them know precisely what it is and trusts them to carry it out. This conviction isn't necessarily bad in and of itself – there are numerous examples of great historical figures who shared a similar conviction and used it to make the world more peaceful.

What's wrong with both Bush's and bin Laden's practice of divine mission, though, is not only that they see it as inseparable from their political mission, but also that each has used his religion as a political justification.

Reinhold Niebuhr said it much better than I ever could:

We can approach a solution of the problem of relating religious commitments to political decisions by excluding two answers which have already been shown to be in error. The one wrong answer is to find no relevance at all between our faith and our political actions. This answer is wrong because it denies the seriousness of our political decisions and obscures our Christian responsibilities for the good order and justice of our civil community.

The other wrong answer stands at the opposite extreme. It is to equate religious and political commitments and to regard every political decision as simply derived from our faith. This is a wrong answer because political issues deal with complex problems of justice, every solution for which contains morally ambiguous elements. All political positions are morally ambiguous because, in the realm of politics and economics, self-interest and power must be harnessed and beguiled rather than eliminated. In other words, forces which are morally dangerous must be used despite their peril. Politics always aims at some kind of a harmony or balance of interest, and such a harmony cannot be regarded as directly related to the final harmony of love of the Kingdom of God. All men are naturally inclined to obscure the morally ambiguous element in their political cause by investing it with religious sanctity. This is why religion is more frequently a source of confusion than of light in the political realm. The tendency to equate our political with our Christian convictions causes politics to generate idolatry.

July 17, 2004

Theocracy, American-Style

Via Political Wire:

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job."

– President Bush, quoted in the Lancaster New Era, during a private meeting with an Amish group.

As far as the first part of that statement – if Bush were truly a religious person, he'd be praying for God to speak through him, not merely trusting that God does speak through him.

It's the second part of the statement that's most alarming, though, because it establishes Bush as a bonafide theocrat, not unlike Osama bin Laden.

July 16, 2004

Republican Hypocrisy

Usually, the anonymous political chain emails I receive are inaccurate or at least shamelessly thin, but this one cleverly exposes several disingenuous Republican arguments:

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.

A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

Forward away...

July 15, 2004

Edwards Cuts Like a Knife

My opinion runs counter to popular belief: John Edwards is the best attack dog John Kerry possibly could have chosen.

Before he decided upon his all-positive, all-the-time path in the closing month or so of the Iowa primary, Edwards made some blatantly vicious attacks on George W. Bush, calling him things like "an unadulterated phony."

Edwards gets away with using such pointed attacks not just because he's a preternaturally good-natured guy, but also because he usually drops them in right before and after some hopeful, value-heavy talk. There's a good case in point from yesterday's Today show:

Couric: Let me ask you about Dick Cheney. Do you know him well?

Sen. Edwards: No.

Couric: What do you think of him?

Edwards: In my personal interaction with him, he's always been perfectly cordial and polite. He called me on the day that Sen. Kerry named me as his running mate. He was very cordial and polite. I think he is out of touch with the lives of most Americans. I don't think he has any idea of the struggles and problems that people face most days in their lives. I think as a result of that, it's very hard for him to, going forward, to provide the kind of vision of hope and opportunity that this country, I think, is entitled to and needs. But we have dramatically different views of the world. I mean, I come from a family where my father worked in a mill in rural North Carolina. I was the first person in my family to … be able to go to college. And I've had more opportunities than anybody could ever hope for, that I would've ever dreamed of. And because of that, I feel an enormous responsibility to … provide those same opportunities to all other Americans.

Couric: You don't think Dick Cheney wants to provide opportunity...

Edwards: I don't see any sign of it, if it's true. The real question is, in governing, what is it that drives you every day when you get up? For me, it's thinking about all those people that I've grown up with along the way who I want to see them, their families, their kids, their grandkids, get the same kind of chances I've had. I mean, I've grown up in the bright light of America — that's the truth — and I want to make sure others get that same chance.

Stealthily and politely, John Edwards tells us quite directly that Dick Cheney not only doesn't understand average Americans, but also that he doesn't even want to provide opportunities for them. In other words, he doesn't give a shit about them, while they're about all Edwards cares about.

Poll responses to the question "Cares about people like you" reveal it to be Cheney's biggest weakness (and one of Bush's) and one of Edwards biggest strengths. Interview by interview, Edwards intends to widen that gap.

Some in politics have called Edwards a "happy warrior" recently, and I think that's right. But make no mistake: he's a political gladiator who wields a lethal, velvet sword.

July 14, 2004

Bush as 3-Dimensional Cartoon

Yesterday on Hardball, a segment covering Bush's Monday national security speech included a rapid-fire sequence that edited together the 7 different times during the speech Bush defiantly repeated the words "The American people are safer." Here's how it reads in the Hardball transcript:

Kerry‘s aggressive posture came as the president, during a foreign policy speech on Monday, said seven different times...

BUSH: And the American people are safer.

And the American people are safer.

The American people are safer.

The American people are safer.

The American people are safer.

The American people are safer.

The forces of terror and tyranny are suffered defeat after defeat, and America and the world are safer.

Later, guest Richard Holbrooke said this to Chris Matthews:

Your Jon Stewart-like “America is safer” iteration of President Bush‘s speech, which really could have been on the Jon Stewart show, shows a very simple approach to a very complicated problem by the president.

Sure enough, those tuning in to last night's Daily Show (segment will probably be posted soon) saw Jon Stewart lead with a satirical replay of Bush's idiotic "The American people are safer" drumbeat. Stewart aptly summed up the speech:

So basically what it comes down to is this: the Bush administration's strategy to fight terrorism is... repetition.

One of the things the American people have to decide in this election is: do we want to be talked at like children for another 4 years, or do we want to hear from somebody who assumes adults can handle some complexity?

July 13, 2004

I don't have any problem with the word liberal, but I realize it's not a popular word throughout much of the electoral college; I've got a big problem with Democrats losing the electoral college. That's why we shouldn't let Republicans get away with this fallacious assertion that Kerry is "the most liberal" senator and Edwards is "the 4th most liberal" senator, making them "the most liberal ticket in history."

When they spread this crap, here's 3 things we should tell them:

1.   Kerry's #1 liberal ranking and Edwards' #4 liberal ranking from The National Journal are based on just a handful of votes they made in 2003. Some more perspective from Kevin Drum, with an assist from Andrew Sullivan:

Courtesy of one of Andrew Sullivan's correspondents, here are the rankings for the past five years:

2003: Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5)
2002: Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0)
2001: Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2)
2000: Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8)
1999: Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2)

Average: Kerry - 12th (85.9) Edwards - 24th (75.7)

The rankings for 2003 are skewed by the campaign season, and a longer look shows that Kerry is liberal, but hardly a Paul Wellstone liberal, and Edwards is smack in the middle of the Democratic pack.

You may not get invited onto a talk show like editors of political magazines do, but you can do your part anyway. So the next time someone brings this up, let 'em know the facts. After all, that's the whole point of being an advocate for the left, isn't it?

2.   The National Journal is a respectable publication, but their categorizing is pretty silly. For instance, both Kerry and Edwards voted against a $1.3 trillion tax cut that contributed to an unprecedentedly high budget deficit, but somehow their vote against it was "liberal" and to vote for it was "conservative." Certainly that's not fiscally conservative by any traditional definition, so The National Journal's standards are arbitrary and essentially meaningless.

3.   If John Edwards is as "liberal" as Republicans suggest and he still got himself elected in "conservative" North Carolina, then he should get the Christian Right vote because he's almost certainly the second coming of Christ.

Edwards Bounce

When you averaged the Zogby, Time, Newsweek, CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls taken just before Kerry chose Edwards, JK and Bush were deadlocked at 47%. Today, average the same polls and you get JK 50% and GW at 46%.

It's not a big bounce, but there's not much room for big bounces in this election. Persuadables are at historic lows – maybe 10 or 11%, so Kerry and Bush could well struggle for them until November 2, with little breathing room.

Still, Edwards wears as well as any politician I've seen, so I'm optimistic he'll continue to prove his value most over time, especially when it comes to sharpening the ticket's message.

Old Glory

My comrade Brian Cook has a great idea, and I'm gonna take him up on it:

I got an idea for us liberal bullies . . . Encourage all Kerry
supporters to put a Kerry Edwards sticker on their rear window AND a big 'ol American Flag decal. Let's take back the American Flag as a symbol. Placed right next to a Kerry sticker, the message is clear . . .

Please join us. Make Lee Greenwood wet his diaper.

The War on Timber

The President's "War on Timber" continues, from WaPo:

The Bush administration said yesterday it plans to overturn a Clinton-era rule that made nearly 60 million acres of national forest off-limits to road-building and logging, setting aside one of the most sweeping land preservation measures in decades.

From a March 5, 2001 Mother Jones article:

Those who make their living from the land made no secret of their preference during the last election: George W. Bush received $2.6 million in campaign contributions from the agriculture industry, 10 times more than Al Gore collected from farming and timber interests. Galen Weaber (No. 381), president and CEO of Pennsylvania's largest lumber mill, gave $157,750 to support Republican candidates. "I want to protect a way of life that is fast disappearing," he explained to reporters. "The way government is coming down with all these regulations, the way bureaucracy is going, is unbelievable. If I had to start up now, I couldn't do it."

Good investment.

July 12, 2004

Edwards Experience

When they (and you know who "they" are) try to tell you that John Edwards is too inexperienced to be Vice President (or President), here are 4 things you can tell them:

1.   Edwards' 5+ years on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence gives him 5+ more years of official experience delving into foreign policy issues than George W. Bush had before taking office [Correction: I recently read in Newsweek that Edwards joined the Intelligence Committee later in his term, in 2001, so he's really got more like 3 years on that committee – of course, it's also worth noting that senators still have to vote on various issues of international signifigance no matter what committees they serve on]. If you want to be really strident about it, his years working in the senate give him more official international affairs experience than G.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan combined (I'd throw Carter in there, too, but I suppose his years as a naval officer should count for something).

2.   What are the worst things that could result from Edwards' so-called inexperience? Perhaps he might falsely claim on national television that Saddam has "reconstituted nuclear weapons"? Or that it's "pretty well confirmed" that 9/11 orchestrator Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague? Or suggest myriad other collaborative actions between Iraq and al Qaeda? Or maybe he'd do something really crazy, like assert that "we'd be greeted as liberators" in a land we sought to occupy, and worse, base all post-invasion occupation plans on the naive assumption of such a magnanimous greeting?

You get the picture. Dick Cheney has had decades of experience, but it's hard to imagine a less-qualified President because his track record makes it horrifically clear that his judgment and values suck. He's both dishonest and buried in ideological quicksand.

Contrast Edwards with Cheney. Nearly everybody on both sides of the aisle characterizes Edwards as an honest guy. He's also earned a reputation from senate colleagues who've worked with him on a host of different domestic and foreign policy issues as a phenomenally quick study. Team that with his communication skills and you've got classic Presidential timber.

3.   Some people get stuck on this inexperience thing with Edwards simply because he looks so young. But he's 51 years old, 8 years older than John F. Kennedy was at his inauguration.

4.   Any discussion of Edwards' experience invites comparisons between Kerry's and Bush's experience. Kerry's a multi-decorated combat veteran, a prosecutor, a Lieutenant Governor, and, as senator, an investigatory maverick and long-time foreign and domestic policy wonk. Bush was a trust fund bounder until he was 40, failed businessman, baseball owner, constitutionally-weak Governor of Texas for 5 years, and incurious, bad President.

July 11, 2004

Snub'ya

My friend Lee Kirk told me this story recently, and I realized it's the only first person account of the President I've heard from someone I know and trust.

In 1989-90, Lee worked as a self-described "towel guy" at Cooper Fitness Center in Dallas. His job was simple: as the clientele walked in, verify their gym cards and provide them with locker keys and towels.

Over the 9 months Lee did this job, he'd see George W. Bush come in to work out about once a week. At that time, Lee didn't care a bit about politics, but he grew to dislike Bush because he walked around with an "I'm a badass" demeanor, and clearly enjoyed his exalted status made conspicuous by two secret service officers who were there to guard him at all times.

The worst thing, though, was that over the course of the nine months, not only did Bush never once say "thank you" to Lee as he gave him his towel and keys, but he never even looked at Lee. He'd just grab the towels and keys out of his hand while looking over his head or off to the side. That seems almost too cartoonishly dickheadish to be true, but I pressed Lee on it and he swore it was as bad as he described it.

"So over nine months, he never said anything to you?" I asked Lee.

"Not a single word."

"No thanks? Ever?"

"Nope. He didn't even look at me. Not once. Would just grab the towel and key right out of my hands without looking at me. It was weird."

After several weeks of that treatment, Lee began to do something he didn't for any of the other members. When he'd see Snub'ya coming, he'd just leave the key and towel up on the counter so he could get them himself and Lee could avoid the indignity.

June 10, 2004

Stand-Up Kerry

I thought both these lines from Kerry were pretty funny.

Kerry lists the similarities between he and John Edwards:

He's a lawyer; I'm a lawyer. His name is John; my name is John. He was named People magazine's sexiest politician of the year; I read People magazine.

Also, on Larry King Live Thursday night, Kerry explained why he didn't plan to see Fahrenheit 9/11:

I've seen it. I've watched it for the last 4 years.

Frankenedwards

I had a horrible dream last night that I was watching the John Edwards-Dick Cheney debate, and Edwards showed up wearing these huge Al Franken-style glasses. I was thinking as I dreamt, "oh no, oh no, what a terrible political miscalculation..."

By the way, I've been readjusting after vacation and my posts have been very light of late, but I'll be back in full swing this week.

Also, Before Sunset is a great movie, particularly the ending, which ranks up there with The Godfather, Ten to Midnight, Shampoo, Some Like It Hot, and Annie Hall as among the greatest of all-time.

July 8, 2004

Kenny Boy

Now that he's been indicted, The White House is once again downplaying Bush's very close relationship with his #1 all-time financial contributor, Enron Chairman Ken Lay. Bush, of course, has deceived us about his relationship with Lay before.

Now, The Smoking Gun has posted dozens of pages of correspondence between Bush and Lay that document not only their close personal relationship, but also how closely intertwined their legislative priorities were. It's just another glaring example of Bush as an agent (and pawn) of big business.

Also, Center for American Progress has a sad rundown on how Lay directly influenced White House energy policy. The whole thing's pretty damning, but this segment really stuck me:

THE KEN LAY PLAN NOW OFFICIAL ADMINISTRATION POLICY: According to Vice President Dick Cheney, Lay met privately with him in April 2001 "to talk about energy." Lay was "the only chief executive of a major player in the electric power industry to confer privately with Cheney as he formulated his national energy strategy." Lay said that he was "flattered that [Cheney] decided to meet with me, and at least hear me out as to some of the things I thought were pretty important that should be considered for his report." At the meeting, Lay handed Cheney a memo outlining "eight points spelling out Enron's case for why federal authorities should refrain from imposing price caps or other measures sought by California officials to stabilize runaway electricity prices." At the time, Enron was manipulating the market to bilk hundreds of millions of dollars from West Coast ratepayers, with company traders caught on tape "gloating over the crisis they helped create." Nonetheless, "seven out of eight recommendations were adopted in the administration's final energy plan." And the president is still pushing the Ken Lay plan as the solution to the nation's energy woes.

When the Supreme Court ruled that Cheney didn't have to turnover the names of the energy executives who effectively wrote White House energy policy, that may have taken the administration off the hook legally (for now), but the those in the news media shouldn't interpret that decision as an ethical or moral pass, and I'm afraid most of them have.

Divider

From ABC News:

President Bush declined an invitation to speak at the NAACP's annual convention, the group said.

and...

Bush spoke at the 2000 NAACP convention in Baltimore when he was a candidate. But he has declined invitations to speak in each year of his presidency, the first president since Herbert Hoover not to attend an NAACP convention, John White, a spokesman for the group, said Wednesday.

I bet he used the "I'm a uniter, not a divider" canard when he spoke before the NAACP in 2000. Have you heard him use that line lately?

July 7, 2004

First Choice, Part I

I know you want a free Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker, and you can sign-up to get a free one here.

Notes on the Edwards' pick, my preference all along:

1.    Some analysts reasonably suggest that VP picks are of little importance because people go into voting booths thinking only about the top guy. However, image is everything in politics, and a candidate's VP running mate can greatly positively or negatively impact the image development of the guy at the top of the ticket. Yesterday, Kerry became a little more handsome, a little more energetic, a little more optimistic, and a little more confident.

2.    While it may have been the obvious best choice in many different ways, Kerry still deserves an awful lot of credit for picking Edwards. Kerry's smart enough to know that many headlines would read, basically, "Kerry gets a charisma injection," which has got to be a little bit tough for even the most confident person to face.

I can't tell you how many pundits I've heard over the last couple months assert Kerry would never pick Edwards precisely because he would never allow himself to face the indignity of being overshadowed on the trail. Slate's resident jackass Mickey Kaus is tops on that list, but in discussing the Edwards' pick on his blog he hasn't uttered a word of apology or even a simple acknowledgment that he had underestimated Kerry. The guy's got no integrity whatsoever. He and others like him are interested in perpetuating the myth of Kerry as some kind of constitutionally frail, exceptionally vain, me-first kind of politician, and the confidence he shows picking Edwards doesn't fit. Well, actually, some just redirected their argument. Pre-Edwards they were saying Kerry wouldn't sacrifice his ego to make a good pick, now they're saying his pick was self-serving in that it was poll-driven.

3.   Edwards makes Kerry more attractive to nearly every voting group I can think of, most importantly independent voters (whom he proved to be enormously appealing to in the Democratic primaries) and rural voters. In fact, his appeal to rural voters in southern Ohio and throughout Missouri could flip the election. Even if Kerry doesn't win those states, Bush will have to spend more money there. Same with North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas, and maybe even Virginia. People say, "Oh, Edwards still can't turn North Carolina," but even if that's true his presence on the ticket forces Bush-Cheney to divert resources from somewhere else. The perception of a threat has tangible benefits in politics, and Edwards makes BC04 more worried about at least 3 or 4 different states, and several more important regions throughout the country.

Also, I think Kerry-Edwards will widen Kerry's advantage with women, and will inspire more African-Americans to get to the polls. I don't know if it will make any difference with Latino voters or not, but I'd like to see someone take that question on.

More soon...

July 6, 2004

Oh No? Oh YES

John Kerry's email subject to supporters, sent to me at 5:14am PST:

Kerry-Edwards: A New Team for a New America

Another way of repeating Kerry's campaign theme, "Let America Be America Again."

Read it and weep, George.

Oh No

It's 12:30am on the West Coast and all kinds of rumors are floating around, but The New York Post is now reporting that Kerry has chosen Dick Gephardt as his running mate. I hope to God they've got it wrong.

If Kerry does announce Gephardt as his pick this morning, he not only squanders an opportunity to boost his image with an exciting choice like Edwards, he exacerbates one of his central problems, which is that many people think he's boring. A Kerry-Gephardt ticket is truly "The Ny-Quil Ticket."

Over at The American Prospect a couple weeks ago, Matthew Yglesias went into other details on why Gephardt would be such a horrible pick.