Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Shill

Has anyone ever trashed his reputation as a journalist more thoroughly than Robert Novak? It turns out that his son is the publicist for Regnery, publisher of Unfit For Command, but that was information Novak didn’t find relevant enough to mention when he scored an exclusive interview with the ghostly Admiral Schachte — you know, the guy who nobody remembers being the fourth guy in a three man crew on the day Kerry got wounded?

Novak’s son is the publicist for the publisher of a controversial book and Novak writes a fawning and unskeptical interview with one of the prime sources and Novak relies on his sterling reputation as a journalist to cover himself. Except, of course, his reputation as a journalist is in tatters.

But, Al Hunt seemed to think that there was even more to the story. He pretty much called Novak an outright liar on CNN over the week-end and it’s pretty clear he is right. The two guys besides Kerry on that skimmer, Zaladonis and Runyan, have told everyone the exact same story. They don’t remember Schachte ever being on that boat and they remember being under fire. It is only to Bob Novak that they are supposed to have said that there was no fire.

NOVAK: I interviewed Admiral Schachte this week. He is a former deputy judge advocate general of the Navy, a very distinguished man. He said he was definitely in the boat that night. John Kerry says he wasn’t in the boat. I believe Admiral Schachte. I checked with a couple of other officers who were there at that time. They say it is inconceivable that on his maiden mission, Lieutenant Kerry would have been sent off in that boat alone, that this — using this Boston whaler or skimmer was Lieutenant Schachte’s own idea. He was in all the missions on the Boston whaler, and I — and he is — and the idea that Kerry said nobody who was ever on a boat on him was ever critical of him is wrong because I believe Schachte was there.

SHIELDS: Yet the enlisted man who was on the boat, and everybody agrees was on the boat, says he wasn’t on the boat.

Al Hunt?

HUNT: Well, Mark, let’s leave John Kerry and let’s leave Schachte aside for a minute. I talked to those two enlisted men today. I talked to Pat Runyon and Bill Zaladonis. They both were on that boat December 2, 1968. They say there is no way that the admiral could have been on that boat. And they describe in vivid detail that night. They say it was a small, 14-foot boat with an outboard motor, that, in fact, with their weapons and other material, that four people would have been a really, really tight fit. They took orders from John Kerry. They remember — Zaladonis remembers Kerry saying, Shoot over here, rather than over here, when they were in a firefight. And Runyon remembers him telling him to, Start the boat. Let’s get the hell out of here. Zaladonis remembers when Kerry was hit, and they just say it’s absolutely impossible to — you wouldn’t have had two officers on a little boat like that on that kind of a mission.

Moreover, Schachte has changed his story. A year ago, he talked to Michael Kranish of “The Boston Globe,” and he said that there was a firefight. He didn’t say he was in the boat. He said Kerry was hit — quote, “hit” — though it wasn’t very serious. Now he says there wasn’t a firefight and it was a self-inflicted wound. Moreover, he went and he said that he — when he saw Kerry 20 years later in Washington, he was with a top aide with — of Fritz (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Ashley Thripp (ph). Ashley Thripp I talked to today and said, No way. I wasn’t there.

So I think that — I think the admiral is either mistaken or he’s lying.

[…]

NOVAK: Let me stick to this — this Schachte thing for just — just a moment. In the first place, I also interviewed those two guys, Runyon and Zaladoris (SIC), and they both said they both doubted there was any enemy fire. I don’t know if you didn’t ask them that question. But they told me they didn’t believe there was any enemy fire. That — that’s just a factual thing.

No. 2, I really do believe that — I’ve talked to other officers, and they say that this Boston whaler, this skimmer, usually had — almost always had two officers in it. Only has room for three, right. They usually had two officers and an enlisted man in the back. So there was a — I think these two men are probably good men. I think they’re the ones that are confused.

[…]

HUNT: Bob invoked my name and said I — you know, didn’t know if I asked them — I did ask them the question. They both very clearly say there was a firefight. They describe it in detail. They describe firing at people that night. And Zaladonis — by the way, you have his name wrong. His name is Zaladonis, Bob. You know, if you called him, you ought to get his name right — describes when Kerry was hit. They both say that, Mark, and I challenge anyone to call them, and they’ll tell him.

NOVAK: They both — they both told me they didn’t believe there was any fire coming from the enemy on that boat.

HUNT: And they also told…

NOVAK: Now, maybe they’ve changed their story!

Novak, like so many Republicans in this era, has completely lost his honor both as a journalist and a citizen. This man is not a journalist, he is a GOP propagandist and should not be afforded the same kind of shield offered to real journalists in protecting their sources. The profession should shun this guy. By allowing him to evoke that shield in the Plame case, they are likely to lose it all together.

Cold Cock Him

Atrios points out that the GOP theme is “Bush’s Leadership” and wonders if a 500k ad buy of “My Pet Goat” would garner three solid weeks of cable blather.

I think it would gather some and I honestly thing it would be a smart thing to do. The Republicans would go nuts — and that is what would fuel the controversy — but it’s him in that video and there’s no denying it. It is a devastating answer to his claims of being a brave man of action in a crisis and would deflate his convention bubble right quick.

Whatever they do, I’m hoping that the Kerry campaign is prepared to metaphorically stalk across the ring and slam Bush right in the nose on the day after the convention and change that storyline immediately.

Rogue Element

The long awaited first installment of the Washington Monthly article by Marshall, Rozen and Glastris is online. It is looking more and more as if we have another rogue element that’s been working out of DOD and I have to assume, some part of the White House. The many interconnecting webs seem to lead to and through the forged Niger documents, Chalabi, “Clean Break” and Valerie Plame. It’s got the earmarks of a John LeCarre novel and if it weren’t so incredibly dangerous it would be amusing.

The article is entitled “Iran Contra II” and that is apt for more reasons than the recurring roles of Mr Ghorbanifar and Mr Ledeen. Once again we see a marked “impatience” with the unfortunately cumbersome working of democratic government. That this may have happened for the second time in twenty years featuring many of the same people is a pretty clear indication that letting bygones be bygones will not do when dealing with this sort of traitorous, undemocratic behavior. The stakes are a hell of a lot higher now that they ae crashing airplanes into NYC skyscrapers. If there is an immediate lesson to be gleaned by the people, perhaps the simplest is that when you have a stupid and easily manipulated man at the head of the government, his minions and courtiers spend all their time jockeying for position and finding shortcuts to get their way. If Kerry happens to win he really must bite the bullet and see that this is investigated and people are brought up on charges. It’s completely unbelievable that these same players came back into government and ran their game all over again. Unbelievable.

If anyone is unfamiliar with the braintrust that is at the center of this little scheme, Michael Ledeen, here’s a little taste of the man’s brilliance. I’m sure you’ll agree that he is just the sort of guy you want running a secret back channel foreign policy in the middle of a national security crisis:

From March 10,2003:

Assume, for a moment, that the French and the Germans aren’t thwarting us out of pique, but by design, long-term design. Then look at the world again, and see if there’s evidence of such a design.

Like everyone else, the French and the Germans saw that the defeat of the Soviet Empire projected the United States into the rare, almost unique position of a global hyperpower, a country so strong in every measurable element that no other nation could possibly resist its will. The “new Europe” had been designed to carve out a limited autonomy for the old continent, a balance-point between the Americans and the Soviets. But once the Soviets were gone, and the Red Army melted down, the European Union was reduced to a combination theme park and free-trade zone. Some foolish American professors and doltish politicians might say — and even believe — that henceforth “power” would be defined in economic terms, and that military power would no longer count. But cynical Europeans know better.

They dreaded the establishment of an American empire, and they sought for a way to bring it down.

If you were the French president or the German chancellor, you might well have done the same.

How could it be done? No military operation could possibly defeat the United States, and no direct economic challenge could hope to succeed. That left politics and culture. And here there was a chance to turn America’s vaunted openness at home and toleration abroad against the United States. So the French and the Germans struck a deal with radical Islam and with radical Arabs: You go after the United States, and we’ll do everything we can to protect you, and we will do everything we can to weaken the Americans.

The Franco-German strategy was based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States.

It makes me feel all cozy knowing that a guy like this and his compatriots have been meddling in mid-east policy apparently in concert with a rogue element in the Pentagon for the last three years.

Waddaya Gonna Do?

ONLY A FEW years ago, it seemed the slightest suggestion of malfea- sance by a presidential administration — allegations of tampering with a minor administrative office, say, or indications that a cabinet secretary might have understated the amount of money given to a former girlfriend — could trigger a formidable response from the other two branches of government: grand juries, special prosecutors, endless congressional hearings, even impeachment proceedings. Some of that auditing, especially during the Clinton administration, went too far. Yet now the country faces a frightening inversion of the problem. Though there is strong evidence of faulty and even criminal behavior by senior military commanders and members of President Bush’s cabinet in the handling of foreign detainees, neither Congress nor the justice system is taking adequate steps to hold those officials accountable.

[…]

When the prisoner abuse allegations first became public in May, many members of Congress, including several senior Republicans, vowed to pursue the evidence up the chain of command and not to allow low-ranking reservists to be prosecuted while more senior officials escaped sanction. Yet, as matters now stand, Mr. Rumsfeld, Gen. Sanchez and other senior officials are poised to execute just such an escape. When the scandal began, these leaders told Congress they were prepared to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing. As it turns out, they didn’t mean that in any substantive respect. Their dodge shames not only them but the legal and legislative bodies charged with enforcing accountability.

Whoda thunk? And after they’ve been so zealous in investigating all the other crimes and scandals of the George W. Bush administration. Why, I’d almost think that Republicans (and their accomplices in the press) used their power to harrass and intimidate Clinton with phony, partisan scandalmongering and are now using it to cover for their Republican president’s criminal malfeasance and massive policy failures. No, that can’t be. That travel office scandal was a threat to the republic. This torturing of muslim prisoners in an age of islamic radicalism and terrorism is nothing by comparison — not to mention all the espionage, intelligence failures and negligent military planning. My mistake.

While it’s gratifying that the Washington Post may coming down from it’s self administered three year acid trip, it continues to amaze me that the paper of Ben Bradlee has concluded that it is a powerless little institution that has no influence on the way that politics are conducted in this country. It certainly appears that they have come to believe that investigative reporting means regurgitating partisan smears and reporting the results of official government investigations. Jesus, if these guys were in charge during Watergate we’d be dedicating the Nixon Memorial on the mall right now.

Is it reasonable to believe that nobody in the entire military establishment understands that this whitewash is seriously counterproductive to the security interests of the United States considering the pesky little issue we have with Muslim hearts and minds and people blowing up buildings and all? I just bet some enterprising reporter could find a few people who might think these bogus “investigations” are a mistake. After all, the guys most likely to suffer from this total disregard for international law regarding the treatment of prisoners are those in the military.

Blowback

I’m think it may be time to give Kerry a little r-e-s-p-e-c-t. Donkey Rising analyzes the LA Times poll and all the others that have recently been released in the wake of the swift boat smear:

In short, the four major polls conducted since August 20th do not reveal any consistent or substantial pro-Bush swing such as would be expected from a successful attack on John Kerry’s war record and character during the week and a half before. Instead, the only generalization that can be made from looking at a broader group of over 20 polls of registered and likely voters since the beginning of August is of a slight and gradual shrinkage of about 3 or 4% in Kerry’s lead.

If August had been a slow news month, this trend would almost certainly have been ascribed to an inevitable “coming back down to earth” following the run of positive news coverage Kerry had enjoyed for several months during the spring (the remarkable fundraising success, the popular choice of Edwards, the united, energized Democratic convention). Instead, because the attacks on Kerry’s medals and military service were intensely dramatic and widely covered, many commentators simply assumed that any changes in the opinion polls had to be due to their influence.

[…]

…there was never any realistic possibility that Kerry would hold onto the support of many of these voters [who remain angry at the anti-war movement] even after his quite effective performance at the Democratic convention. All the Bush campaign needed to do was to make sure that these voters were made aware of Kerry’s significant role in the anti-war movement of the early 1970’s.

This is what the LA Times poll essentially found. In July, 32% agreed that “By protesting the war in Vietnam, John Kerry demonstrated a judgment and belief that is inappropriate in a president”. By late August, this had risen to 37%. Similarly, 26% of the sample (and 31% of the men) agreed that Kerry’s anti-war protests made them less likely to vote for him. The voters among whom the LA Times survey found Kerry loosing ground in August were married, less educated, self-described conservatives, owning a gun and living in a rural area — a demographic profile that also describes the cultural environment of many U.S. veterans.

Had the Bush campaign been satisfied with simply harvesting these sympathetic voters, they probably could have done so with even a relatively honest and low-key series of commercials. Instead, however, they hoped that, with the help of their surrogates, they could achieve an even more ambitious goal – to impugn Kerry’s valor, honesty and character through attacks on his wartime record of bravery and heroism.

The essence of this strategy was not only to directly damage Kerry’s image and reputation, but to trap him into choosing between “taking the high road” and not responding to the attacks (which could then be spun to make him look weak and indecisive) or to provoke him into an ill-tempered, aggressive response (for which he could then be criticized as negative, partisan, bitter and shrill).

But the Bush campaign made a profound miscalculation. In the L.A. Times survey, only 18% of the voters had been convinced that “Kerry misrepresented his war record and does not deserve his war medals” while 58% said Kerry “fought honorably and does deserve” them. Independent voters sided with Kerry 5 to 1. Even men and self-described conservatives – groups that are normally quite pro-Bush – strongly supported Kerry, by 59 to 19 for men and 42 to 29 for conservatives. Other polls, such as the Fox/Opinion Dynamics and Annenberg Center for Public Policy survey found similar attitudes. In the Fox poll, even most veterans held, by 50% to 21% that Kerry deserved his purple hearts.

Moreover, Americans did not buy Bush’s transparent attempts to pretend his campaign was not involved with the smear. The Gallup poll showed that more Americans think Bush is responsible for the commercials (50%) then do not (44%) and 56% think he should specifically denounce them while only 32% think he should not. An August 26 Annenberg Center survey found very similar attitudes.

It was this failure to convince the American people of the charges against Kerry that set the stage for the growing backlash against the Bush campaign – the investigative reports and editorial statements in newspapers across the country, the resignations of two Bush officials when their links to the smear campaign were exposed, and then Bush’s disingenuous and finally humiliating series of statements and clarifications.

From the Bush campaign’s point of view, the magnitude of the swift-boat fiasco becomes clear when it is recognized that a major goal of the August campaign was to put John Kerry on the defensive – to have him stumbling over his words, being pilloried in the press and firing his advisors. Instead (although the issue will now be muted by the theatrics of the Republican convention) it was Bush who was forced onto the defensive by the end of last week while Kerry weathered the attacks with an extraordinarily small decline in the level of his popular support.

I agree with this and am coming very close to calling this one a win for Kerry. I’d like to see a couple more polls before the RNC gets started and the dynamic becomes too muddy to know what the hell went on, but it sure looks to me as if Kerry may have survived a very serious atack and actually inflicted some damage on Bush. The narrative now has Bush as a dirty campaigner in the election and it’s going to much harder for him to launch another filthy smear. That’s big.

The “swift boat smear” is now in the annals of all time low down character assassination attempts. If Kerry really has prevailed then I am going to feel much more sanguine about this election and perhaps even more importantly, his chances of actually getting something done. Political instincts are the key and he’s showing me he’s got some.

Projection Politics

This theory about Karl Rove’s wily and bold strategy of going after rivals’ strengths instead of their weaknesses is Rove’s own self-serving analysis and frankly, I think it’s bullshit:

“Look, I don’t attack people on their weaknesses,” he once told reporters in Texas during a campaign. “That usually doesn’t get the job done. Voters already perceive weaknesses. You’ve got to go after the other guy’s strengths. That’s how you win.”

That’s not what he does at all. In fact, it’s something quite different all together. Rove has developed a campaign of projection in which he tars his opponents with his own candidates’ weaknesses and then attacks them.

He attacks Kerry for phony heroism thirty years ago when just last year his own candidate had himself filmed in a little costume prancing around on an aircraft carrier pretending he’d won a war that had only begun. But, by tarring Kerry with using war as a PR stunt for his own personal gain, people can process the uncomfortable feelings they are experiencing about Iraq as not really being caused by Junior, but by his rival who is the real shallow opportunist who only pretends to be a man of proven leadership and experience.

He spent 70 million to get people to call Kerry a flip flopper when the truth is that the compassionate-conservative-uniter-not-divider has a very recent proven record of unprecedented ugly partisanship and ruthless bloodlust. He’s mananged to convince a large number of Americans that Kerry is unprincipled when the fiscal conservative Bush has just spent the entire surplus and run up the deficit beyond our wildest imaginings just three years ago. That’s a pretty good trick.

He’s projected Bush’s weaknesses on to Kerry and then gone after them ruthlessly. It makes it very difficult to then turn the attack back on Bush because it’s been co-opted. It’s another example of the Republican epistomological relativism that’s driving everybody up the wall.

Now, it is also true that Kerry bears some structural weakness on national security that makes it easier for this absurd notion to be accepted even though he has a box full of medals. (That anyone thinks attacking a Democratic candidate on national security is attacking his strength is kind of funny.) The fact is that any Democrat’s heroic war record functions mostly as superficial innoculation against charges of sissiness during campaigns, and it’s the reason you see so many more Republican chickenhawks than anti-war Dems in public office these days. To make it up the ladder in Democratic circles, a sterling war record was a huge asset while it was obviously irrelevant to the Republicans. It’s pretty clear why that is.

It’s kind of related to that old saying of David Halberstam’s about Nixon being able to go to China because only Nixon wouldn’t be red baited by Nixon. Ever since the 60’s only Republicans are considered worthy of wartime leadership because only Republicans won’t be called pussies by Republicans. That is the reality of our current political state. As we’ve seen, no matter how brave and heroic, no matter the extent of the sacrifice, you can be tarred as unworthy of the office of commander in chief if you are a Democrat. Going after Kerry’s credibility as a wartime leader is a no brainer. Rove isn’t showing any special tactical genius just by doing that — any GOP strategist would have found a way to take advantage of that existing CW.

What is interesting about Rove is that his way of dealing with his own candidates’ even more glaring deficiencies is to build a Kerry straw man in Bush’s exact image and then set it afire. I don’t know if it will work, or even if he’s aware that he’s doing it, projection being epidemic in GOP circles. But, it’s disarming and confusing and it makes it difficult to effectively counter attack. You end up with some defensive version of “I know you are but what am I” which doesn’t really advance your position.

Peaked Too Early

Americans increasingly believe President Bush’s re-election campaign is behind the ads attacking Democrat John Kerry’s Vietnam experience, a poll found.

Almost half in a poll taken this week say they think the president’s campaign is behind the ads that try to undercut Kerry’s medals for heroism while just over a third think the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is an independent group, the National Annenberg Election Survey found.

The Swift boat ads, which ran in three swing states earlier this month, challenged Kerry’s wartime service in Vietnam for which he received five medals.

The public’s belief that Kerry did not earn his medals grew to 30 percent when the attack ads got widespread publicity on cable news networks. But that number has dropped to 24 percent now.

It was a good story to fill the dog days but it would have been much more effective to hit later, giving Kerry little time to build a response.

The coup de gras:

On Monday and Tuesday when the Kerry campaign was making the accusation Bush was involved, 42 percent said the Bush campaign was behind them and 41 percent said they were truly independent.

After Ginsberg resigned from the campaign on Wednesday, 50 percent said in polling the next two nights that the Bush campaign was connected to the ads and 34 percent said it was not.

Misundercalculated

I’ve been out of the loop for a couple of days so I didn’t get a chance to read this until now. Has there ever been a bigger case of burying the lead than to breathlessly repeat the stale spin that Bush doesn’t think Kerry lied about his war record and he’s against 527’s for four paragraphs, until finally telling us that Bush “acknowledged for the first time that he made a ‘miscalculation of what the conditions would be’ in postwar Iraq?”

Uh, the Preznit acknowledging that he fucked up Iraq is called actual news in case they’ve forgotten what that looks like.

But he insisted that the 17-month-long insurgency that has upended the administration’s plans for the country was the unintended by-product of a “swift victory” against Saddam Hussein’s military, which fled and then disappeared into the cities, enabling them to mount a rebellion against the American forces far faster than Mr. Bush and his aides had anticipated.

He insisted that his strategy had been “flexible enough” to respond, and said that even now “we’re adjusting to our conditions” in places like Najaf, where American forces have been battling one of the most militant of the Shiite groups opposing the American-installed government.

Mr. Bush deflected efforts to inquire further into what went wrong with the occupation, suggesting that such questions should be left to historians, and insisting, as his father used to, that he would resist going “on the couch” to rethink decisions.

I think Junior just made a tactical error. Kerry and every other Democrat appearing in the media should wrap that statement around his neck. This is a trap if they want to spring it.

The fact that they had him admit his error in judgment for the first time suggests to me that they’ve decided he may need some cover on Iraq. But, I think Bush hates to admit he made a mistake and he will hate even more being reminded that he did it. It’s just not in character for him at all. I would bet money that he fought saying it and having the Democrats and the press throw it in his face could make him question whoever gave him that advice — Karen or Karl most likely. It is good to sow discontent in that little circle.

But, the bigger advantage is that he’s now simultaneously admitted that he screwed up big time on the single most important issue a president ever faces, while also saying that he has no intention of trying to figure out what went wrong. That is the worst of all possible worlds. It’s best not to have to admit screwing up something as important as war planning but if you do you simply have to make the case that learned from the experience and you won’t do it again. He didn’t do that. Iraq is a massive failure and the president has just opened the door to his own culpability on that.

Kerry should go for the jugular — this argument is on his turf. Bush isn’t talking about the decision to go to war anymore, he’s talking about his execution of that war and the decisions he made all by his lonesome. These mistakes are at the heart of Kerry’s criticism of Bush on the war.

The contrast is stark. John Kerry believes in planning for contingencies and evaluating what works and what doesn’t. George Bush admits he is a poor planner and wants to leave it to historians to figure out where he went wrong. But it will be too late by then. People are dying today. We need new leadership.

Nick of Time

Ron Brownstein analyzes the new LA Times poll as saying that Kerry has been “nicked” by the swiftboat controversy and now leads Kerry 49-46:

But with the controversy attracting intense media attention, especially on talk radio and cable television, the ads have achieved extraordinary visibility among voters. Forty-eight percent of those polled said they had seen the ad accusing Kerry of lying to win his medals; an additional 20 percent said they had heard about it. Similarly, 44 percent said they had seen the ad criticizing Kerry’s Senate testimony; another 17 percent said they had heard about it.

At the same time, just 18 percent of those surveyed said they “believe that Kerry misrepresented his war record and does not deserve his war medals,” while 58 percent said Kerry “fought honorably and does deserve” the medals.

Attitudes on that question divided sharply along party lines. As many Republicans said they believed Kerry was lying as believe he fought honorably. By nearly 10-1, Democrats said Kerry served honorably.Independents sided with Kerry in the dispute by more than 5-1.

When voters were asked whether Kerry’s protest against the war when he returned from Vietnam would influence their vote, 20 percent said it made them more likely to support him, while 26 percent said it reduced the chance they would back him and 52 percent said it made no difference.But if Kerry showed relatively few bruises on these questions directly measuring reactions to the veterans’ charges against him, indirect measures suggested he has suffered more damage.

Asked how Kerry’s overall military experience would affect their vote, just 23 percent said it made them more likely to vote for him, while 21 percent said it made them less likely; the remaining 53 percent said it would make no difference. That has to be a disappointment for the Kerry camp after a Democratic convention last month that placed Kerry’s Vietnam service at the top of the marquee.

I’m not sure how those figures add up to the fact that Kerry’s slight slippage is attributable to the Swiftboat liars, but I’ll take Brownstein’s word for it.

Where he’s definitely wrong, I think, is in thinking that Kerry’s camp is disappointed that voters feel his Vietnam service makes no difference after he placed it at the top of the convention marquee. I don’t think they ever expected it to be a decisive factor in the election. I’m quite sure that it was calculated to inoculate him as much as possible against this swiftboat attack. Imagine if the swiftees had come out with this and the public hadn’t been given the full star spangled banner routine with the stolid shipmates and Cleland and Rassman standing up there with him and proclaiming him a hero. If people didn’t have that clearly in their minds, the swiftboat smear would have taken hold much better than it has.

If this is all the damage two full weeks of smearing has done, then I’d say they’ve been as successful at fending it off as you could hope for in this closely divided electorate. Smears can be deadly. Nicks heal quickly.

Frankly, I think the $70 million spent convincing the public that Kerry is a flip-flopping frenchman is what’s really sunk into the subconscious of the electorate. In every one of these polls (and every political conversation I have) this comes up. “He’s all over the place”— “he doesn’t stand for anything.” I think it’s become a pretty solid perception and it would be helpful to counter it more effectively.

They have half heartedly come out with the “stubborn” line, but I don’t think that’s the right word. There is a positive spin to stubborn — “dogged determination” or “resolute” — that makes it a bad attack line. I think better phrase is “refuses to admit his mistakes,” or “the buck stops nowhere.” Play the footage from the press conference showing him unable to think of any errors he might have made. The neanderthals will go nuts,of course, and say it’s dirty politics to show the man speaking his own words, but when people see him bobble that question they see a very weak man who cannot admit that presidents sometimes need to change course. According to that poll, most people believe that a course change is required, even many of those who want to vote for him.

Hah!

I just heard CNN frame “Inside Politics” as “Is Kerry getting mileage out of the controversy?”

Update: I am enjoying watching the Republicans argue among themselves about the platform on gay marriage, particularly the Log Cabin guy calling the Family Research Council guy insulting. That Bush sure is a uniter not a divider.

BTW: How did I miss all these ads that said Bush was poisoning pregnant women? I don’t know what they are babbling about, but I’ve heard it several times today. Why do you suppose the cable news networks failed to give those who were accusing him of this crime hundreds of hours of free media? How odd.

I have to say this is kind of risky. I didn’t know that Bush was poisoning pregnant women until today. Geez, he really is low, isn’t he?