It’s September of the year 2000. The election is heating up. And it is revealed:
FBI counterintelligence investigators have in recent weeks questioned current and former U.S. officials about whether a small group of Iran specialists at the Pentagon and in the Vice President’s office may have been involved in passing classified information to an Iraqi politician or a U.S. lobbying group allied with Israel, according to sources familiar with or involved in the case.
Do the Malebranche in The Inferno come to mind? Yeah, me too.
In Las Cruces, N.M., government professor Jose Z. Garcia, 59, said of his dilemma, “Bush lost me when we went into Iraq, and Kerry has never really grabbed me.” He thinks come Election Day that he will choose between Democratic challenger John F. Kerry and third-party candidate Ralph Nader.
Months ago, Kevin Drum wrote a post that I have thought about quite a bit recently. He said:
It’s true that doom-and-gloom messages by themselves don’t sell, but something similarly negative does: fear. And it sells big.
[…]
You buy deodorant because you’re afraid of the social ostracism of BO. You buy Wisk because you’re afraid your husband’s colleagues will think you’re a poor homemaker if they notice his ring around the collar. You drive your kids to school because you’re afraid of kidnappers and child molesters.
Of course you need a positive program too, but before anyone will listen to it you have to make them afraid of the opposition. So the fundamental problem for liberals is this: figuring out how to convince the middle third of voters that they should be afraid of what extreme conservatives are doing. When they are more afraid of them than they are of extreme liberals, then the real work can start.
That’s not a very inspiring message, is it? But it’s the reality of politics today, and liberals need to learn it. Fast.
…Bush plans to run an intensely negative campaign. And guess what? For all the whining we do every four years about negative campaigning, it works pretty well.
[…]
So: what’s the best way to make Bush seem either scary, unlikable, or untrustworthy? Forget about trying to turn his charges around and painting him as a waffler or a weakling. It won’t work. His branding in those areas is just too strong.
But Bush does have a couple of core negatives that can probably be exploited:
He’s a reckless warmonger who’s going to get a lot of people killed. This doesn’t apply just to Bush, of course, but to all the people around him. It shouldn’t be too hard to find a few video clips that make Bush and his supporters look like slavering warmongers — Zell Miller provided a good start Wednesday night — and there’s enough truth in the charge to turn doubts about Bush’s judgment into genuine fears. Basically, Kerry should do to Bush what LBJ did to Goldwater: convince the middle of the country that he can hardly wait to get his finger on the button.
He operates in secret and doesn’t tell the truth. Again, there’s enough truth to this that it shouldn’t be too hard to convince people that Bush and his administration are fundamentally secretive and manipulative. Maybe a few clips of John Dean talking about how they remind him of Nixon would work well.
I’m not convinced that you can sell people on the idea that Bush is a Nixonian madman. But I certainly agree that we should probably go hard negative on Bush. Bush threw down the gauntlet. Kerry had to introduce himself to the public and could not be too harsh until he had at least set out the parameters of his positive image. Now, he must concentrate on tearing down Bush. The question is how should he do it.
This evening Kevin is very discouraged because Kerry’s new ad campaign focuses on economic issues when it’s all about 9/11, stupid.
It’s fine to hammer away on domestic issues with specific target groups. It’s fine for John Edwards to focus on the two Americas. But anyone who thinks the primary message of Kerry’s campaign should be anything other than national security is just deluding themselves. To paraphrase James Carville, “It’s 9/11, stupid.”
In fact, it’s a no-brainer: somehow Kerry has to convince people that he can be trusted with national security and Bush can’t and if he doesn’t, he’s going to lose. But I guess he still doesn’t get that.
I’m finally beginning to think Mickey Kaus might be right: Kerry has spent too much time inside the liberal cocoon. It’s going to cost him the election if he keeps it up.
I think that’s a bit premature since nobody’s seen the ads yet. It may be 9/11, stupid, but in my view, there is no reason that a harshly negative fear campaign cannot be waged using economic issues as one of the symbols of Bush’s frightening recklessness.(If the ads are bunch of namby-pamby,kumbaya nonsense with Kerry and adorable children, then I’m discouraged too.)
The fact is that war (not 9/11 particularly, although Bush would like that) is the subtext of the entire campaign no matter what we actually say. All criticism, all negative ads all harsh rhetoric plays to insecurity about Bush’s leadership — and leadership is defined at this moment in history as wartime leadership.
This is more about an aggressive attitude and tone and the general way Bush is portrayed than it is about any ad’s literal message, at this point. It’s about making people see that Bush is frightening, because as Kevin said lo those many months ago, — fear sells. And, at this point all fear is wrapped up with Iraq and 9/11 and economic instability and the gnawing in your gut that things are going terribly wrong because Bush is at the helm.
As Kevin said, if we are going to wage a campaign of fear, it’s got to be believable and Bush as some kind of scheming warmonger who wants to blow up the world is not believable. What is believable is Bush driving the ship of state into an iceberg because he’s reckless and out of control.
To make that case, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to use economic issues as well as national security issues to illustrate that point. At the end of the day, if the message is that Bush is a dangerous man for the health of this nation, it doesn’t really matter what the subject is. People will make the association with national security all by themselves.
CNN is implying that Clinton must have covered up his health problems while he was in office.
Now, passing out eating pretzels and falling flat on your face several times while in office certainly doesn’t merit such scrutiny. I’m awfully glad they aren’t doing that.
On other hand, Tweety just said the race is over, so I’m going down to the beach.
Why is the AP just reporting this now? Some of us had it weeks ago, but more importantly, the Kerry campaign sent it out in its press release at the same time:
PARTISAN: Bush Administration Ties
He is a member of a Bush administration advisory panel on veterans’ issues.
[“VA Announces Membership of POW Advisory Committee,” PR Newswire, 4/17/02;
It is with a heavy heart that I share the news that Neal Pollack has shuffled off his mortal coil. Farewell, sweet teabag prince.
But, do not despair. James Wolcott — writer, gentleman and all around bon vivant (and occasional commenter on this blog, even) has decided to throw in with us lowly bloggers. It must be all the glamour and the money.
Welcome to our little obsession. I hope you don’t have a life or anything.
Via TBOGG and Atrios (as if you didn’t already know that.)
At a loose moment on radio row in the Garden, I saw Bob Barr, off in a corner, hosting a talk-show. This set me to wondering about the other great Unmentionable — other than that bin Laden chap — at the Republican Zellapalooza this week.
Six years ago, the Republicans, for reasons of high principle and in defense of the rule of law and the Constitution, brought forth the only impeachment ever of an elected president of the United States. Remember the soaring rhetoric, the agonized lawmakers talking over their epochal decision with their dogs and their children. (I guess Cokie Roberts’s kids came through the Clinton years unscathed after all.) I particularly liked that one guy from California who went surfing, and the great power of the sea convinced him that, sadly, Bill Clinton had to go. It was a bold and brave moment for these young conservatives. Remember how proudly they bore themselves on the talk shows? Remember how nobly they suffered their betrayal at the hands of their Senate brethren? Remember how they attached themselves to the uncompromising Thomas More created by Robert Bolt in “A Man For All Seasons”? (They quoted that movie the way some sportswriter pals of mine quote “Caddyshack.”)
My question, then, is this: Where in hell’s the video tribute?
Where’s the 15-minute package honoring these selfless solons, some of whom got the boot shortly thereafter? Where’s the stirring music, the NFL Films narration? Where’s the appreciation from the Republican Party for what these courageous men of honor did? They fearlessly dragged out what Thomas Jefferson — a Democrat, and wouldn’t you know it? — famously called a “scarecrow,” and they used it on behalf of the laws to which we all must be subject.
Where’s the movie, y’all?
A couple of more conventions without one, and I might think the whole impeachment thing was a prolonged dirty-trick aimed at hamstringing a moderate Democratic president that you couldn’t beat at the polls, and rammed through because of some aggravated nutbaggery from the extremists in the House of Representatives. This would be very disappointing to me, and to Thomas More, I’m sure.
I was struck by this as well. The great battle of the blowjob was not even mentioned despite the grave danger to the nation it once presented. I fear that, like Vietnam, the wounds will never heal until we openly honor the brave fighters who served our nation in the great Clinton cockhunt. If we don’t, years from now a fine young Republican may wish to run for president and Democrats will mockingly wear condoms on their heads at their nominating convention. I’d hate to see that happen.
On the other hand, if these brave men and women were able to stop even one grown man from enjoying fellatio, then they can take pride that they did their duty. But sadly, like Vietnam, I’m afraid this may be another example of the “best and the brightest” sending our boys and girls out to fight an unwinnable war for the hearts and minds (and penises) of the nation. I could be wrong.
Is it possible that they are incapable of doing anything that doesn’t smack of propaganda and self serving bullshit? Do they do this stuff just because it’s fun to get away with it time after time, even if they don’t have to?
Sigh. Remember the stirring letter from a soldier in Iraq that Bush quoted so dramatically last night?
Taken To Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital In New York City
Sen. Hillary Clinton Was At An Event In Syracuse
Sep 3, 2004 11:52 am US/Central
CBS News has learned that former President Clinton was hospitalized on Friday in New York City after complaining of chest pains.
A source close to Mr. Clinton tells CBS News that Mr. Clinton complained of chest pains Thursday night and was taken to a hospital near his home in Chappaqua, N.Y.
Doctors, according to our source, found a blockage. Mr. Clinton is now in the New York Presbyterian hospital in Manhattan.
The New York Times reports on its Web site that Mr. Clinton had a heart attack. CBS News has not independently confirmed that.
Mr. Clinton’s wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., was attending an event in Syracuse, N.Y., when the news of her husband’s condition broke.
Clinton, who is 58, struggled with his weight during his presidency but has slimmed down since leaving office.
In July, the former president addressed the Democratic convention in Boston.
“We Democrats want to build a world and an America of shared responsibilities and shared benefits. We want a world with more global cooperation where we act alone only when we absolutely have to,” he said. “We think the role of government should be to give people the tools to create the conditions to make the most of their own lives. And we think everybody should have that chance.”
He appeared on the “Late Show with David Letterman” in August to promote his biography, but much of his talk was about the 2004 presidential race.
“Of all the people I dealt with in Congress,” Mr. Clinton said of Democratic nominee John Kerry, “he cared the most about trying to find programs that would keep young, inner-city minority kids out of trouble and out of jail and in school.”
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said yesterday that President Bush views America as a ”10-year-old child” in need of the sort of protection provided by a parent.
Card’s remark, criticized later by Democrat John F. Kerry’s campaign as ”condescending,” came in a speech to Republican delegates from Maine and Massachusetts that was threaded with references to Bush’s role as protector of the country. Republicans have sounded that theme repeatedly at the GOP convention as they discuss the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq.
”It struck me as I was speaking to people in Bangor, Maine, that this president sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child,” Card said. ”I know as a parent I would sacrifice all for my children.”
I don’t know about you, but there is something very discordant about that statement. Perhaps because having Bush for president then means a sixteen year old delinquent is in charge of the family. (Please don’t kill me, please don’t kill me.) And the “sacrifice all” is a bit much considering the fact that he’s never sacrificed anything in his entire life except getting drunk every night.
Or maybe it’s because adults — voters— usually don’t care to think of themselves as ten year old children. In any case, if this is true, I think his line about “people should be able to keep their own money” is a bit of a problem. As is all the imperial goosestepping. A country of ten year olds should concentrate on their reading and comprehension skills. But then, if they did that they’d probably vote big brother off the island.