Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Offensive PR

Atrios and Bob Sommerby and others have been critical of Kerry’s campaign press operation lately, particularly the fact that the surrogates and pundits aren’t well prepared.

I’m often in the uncomfortable position of sounding like an apologist for the Democratic establishment because I don’t think it’s right to call them immoral or cowardly when the legislative or political strategy is more complicated than immediately obvious or when it is simply a failed tactic not a mark of poor character. I believe that the entire culture has been brainwashed to one extent or another by relentless right wing attacks against liberalism. But, I’m all for real constructive criticism and this is an example.

Our pundits and surrogates are often unprepared, poor public performers and they always have been. I have never felt that we had the same energy or the same charismatic self assurance that the other side does and it hurts us in the modern media climate. I often think that much of what we Democrats see as failure in our politicians is really failure in our pundits and spokespeople. We don’t have the message discipline that they do, particularly when we are on the defensive. And when we do, far too often we use it incorrectly, in my view, by clumsily inserting it into situations in which it’s clearly inappropriate and looks like a dodge. There are times when you simply have to be prepared to make an argument. Not to mention that our talking points sound about as interesting as reading the letters H through J in the Yellow Pages. We need a better PR operation desperately.

I do take issue with one thing that Sommerby says, however. He chastizes the Kerry campaign for putting out press releases in which they do not say specifically what they are rebutting. But, there is an old truism in public relations — you don’t repeat the charges against you. The press releases are sent to the media under certain headings that make it clear what they are rebutting and the press then uses the words in the release in their story about whatever the charge was. But, it’s never considered smart to have your opponents words come out of your own mouth. It’s just another way to get the charge out there. None of that is to say that I think Kerry’s rebuttals have been particularly effective either. It’s just that refusing to reiterate the charges is not the reason.

One thing they should do immediately is put out an order that the words “out of context” should never be uttered as a rebuttal again. Those words no longer have meaning in plain English. You might as well be screaming “no fair!” or putting fingers in your ears and humming the star spangled banner. It’s wasted breath. They need to reiterate specifically what they meant, not just say that the Republicans are taking it “out of context.” Indeed, sometimes it can work to your advantage by giving you an opportunity to lay your charge out more explicitly. For instance, on the “sensitivity” thing:

“John Kerry was saying that we need to end the bumbling Bush diplomacy that has recklessly alienated too many of our our allies. The stakes in the war on terror are much too high for such clumsy mistakes.”

Frankly, I don’t know why the Democrats don’t make better use of their natural constituency in the entertainment business. Those people know everything there is to know about selling “people” to people and they have been in the business of PR even longer than the business base of the GOP. There is much the Dems can learn about the marketing of politics from them.

It’s a part of the big modernization project that the Democrats simply have to keep working on. This is the new politics and we’re way behind.

Misguided

Bob Kerrey writes a nice op-ed today in the Washington Post in which he lays out an excellent case for why Kerry will make a good commander in chief, regardless of his Vietnam service — his longstanding committment to veterans.

He opens with a point that is quite obvious and should be hammered home:

The former Navy personnel who are attempting to discredit Sen. John Kerry’s record of service in Vietnam are doing so to argue that he is unqualified to be commander in chief. Most appear to be angry with him on account of his opposition to the Vietnam War, not his service in it. They have done a better job of damaging the reputation of the U.S. Navy than they have of damaging John Kerry.

Yes indeed. Unfortunately, being Bob Kerrey, he is congenitally unable to keep himself from from pretending to be a “maverick,” even when it makes no sense, so he ends up with this:

I was going to end this by calling on President Bush to join McCain in calling for the cessation of this misguided effort to discredit Kerry’s service in Vietnam. But fair is fair. There are just as many misguided ads running against President Bush today by these “527” organizations. Unless our campaign finance laws are changed again, U.S. voters are just going to have to figure this one out on their own.

Oh, he must be talking about the misguided 527 ad in which a bunch of businesspeople who hate George W. Bush because of his politics imply that he personally bilked millions from small investors in one of his business ventures back in the 80’s. They say they worked with him, but actually they were just working in Texas at the same time. And even though they have no direct knowledge that he did it, and there is no record of it anywhere, they are sure he must have because he believes in tort reform and a couple of Democratic plaintiff’s lawyers who’ve had it in for him for years say it’s so. They’ve all come forward now for the first time because they believe in our system and they don’t think a fraud and a cheat should be trusted with the US treasury. Oh yes, and it’s financed by Barbra Streisand and Siegfried and Roy, who paid for similar ads calling Bush a pedophile back in 2000. The main spokeman is the man Bush beat for head cheerleader at Andover.

I haven’t actually seen that ad nor have I seen the accompanying media frenzy in which the mediawhores bring on the former cheerleader to claim repeatedly that “many people saw him taking the money right out of grandma Millies purse”, while Bush’s spokespeople struggle to get them to explain why there is not one shred of documentary evidence to back up the claims and not one person who said anything at the time. I’m sure I just missed it when I went out for groceries.

Yes, the Democrats also just make stuff up out of whole cloth. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves. Bob Kerrey is certainly right about that.

Coffee, Tea or Moron

Jesse comments on the single stupidest interview of the year. Even George W. Bush isn’t as stupid as these people. Read the latest on Little Annie Fannie’s adventures in the sky.

Fredo and Sonny Combined — The Worst Of All Possible Worlds

This is the man they support because the other guy protested the war after he came back from Vietnam:

“I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.” George W. Bush on why he joined the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, 1990.

Campaign ’94: George W. Bush /As operative for his father, loyaltywas the foremost watchword

By CRAGG HINES, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

Staff

WASHINGTON — Soon after the 1988 election, a handful of intensely loyal Bush supporters began to divvy up the spoils of victory.

The sole task of the partisans on the so-called “silent committee” was to decide who had been politically dedicated enough to the new president to merit top federal jobs. Leading the small group was George W. Bush , the winner’s eldest son.

At one session, the well-connected chairman advanced the prospect of an acquaintance, Dallas catalog king Roger Horchow, to be chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, a juicy federal plum.

The choice struck some in the group as inappropriate. Why Horchow, they asked?

“Because he gave money to my father” was Bush ‘s matter-of-fact reply, a participant in the meeting recalled.

But a quick cross-check of the records indicated that Horchow also contributed to the Democratic nominee, Michael Dukakis .

“It didn’t take any more,” the participant recalled. “George W. said, “That’s it.’ ”

Friend or not, Horchow ceased to be a candidate.

The younger Bush ‘s leadership of the committee and his response to Horchow’s bet-covering demonstrate the role he took in his father’s political life — a behind-the-scenes operative who displayed and demanded unquestioned loyalty to the older Bush .

“Loyalty to his father was all,” said Chase Untermeyer, a longtime aide to President Bush and now a vice president of the Houston-based computer firm Compaq.

Even the few times the actions of the younger Bush made their way into the headlines, his role remained unchanged.

It was George W. Bush who finally told White House chief of staff John Sununu that, after months of controversy, it was time to go. When Sununu sought to rally conservative support to remain on the job, word of the first son’s mission was leaked to reporters — to increase pressure on Sununu to move on.

That Sununu failed to understand the message was coming from the president — and no appeal was possible — indicates how badly he failed a Bush -style political IQ test.

The incident, in late 1991, also illustrates how George W. could operate as a second pair of political eyes and ears for his father.

Rich Bond, a Bush campaign operative for more than a decade, recalls getting a letter from President Bush as old-line supporters were getting restless about the lack of planning for the 1992 race. The note said George W. soon would be in touch to discuss politics.

“I unloaded” when George W. called, Bond said. “I told him what an idiot I thought John Sununu was.”

Bond wasn’t the only one with that view.

George W. delivered the message from supporters to his father and, once the president had made up his mind, passed the verdict to Sununu.

To some folks with extensive ties to the Bush family, George W. was also sometimes a messenger for his mother. Barbara Bush carefully cultivated her role as national grandmother and rarely wanted her fingerprints on any political hatchet work. But both she and her oldest son have long, exacting political memories, friends agree. And, one added, George W. and his mother “were a lot harder nosed about things than (the president) was.”

“She can smell a phony a mile away,” the younger Bush once said of his mother, whom he admiringly referred to as “the silver fox.”

The run-in with Sununu was not the first time the younger Bush had tangled with a chief of staff to his father.

A number of Bush insiders believe George W. helped to block Craig Fuller, Bush ‘s chief of staff as vice president, from moving to that job in the White House. The younger Bush believed Fuller, a California Reaganite, was inattentive to the Bush family and longtime associates.

“He wouldn’t return a damn phone call,” is how Richard Ben Cramer, in “What It Takes,” his mammoth look at presidential politics, sums up George W.’s antipathy to Fuller.

Cramer also recounts an incident while Bush was vice president in which staff members occupied seats at an Astros game his father was attending that George W. believed should have been for him, his wife and his daughters.

It took Bobby Holt, a Bush family friend from Midland, to explain the misstep to Fuller.

Holt told Fuller he had ticked George W. off, and that he should not mess with the family — only Holt used more earthy phrasing.

George W. was reportedly instrumental in recruiting David Bates, the Houstonian who eventually became a senior White House official, to join his father’s vice presidential staff so that, as one insider put it, “the old Bush network was not cut out by Fuller.”

In 1980, the younger Bush was active in — but not central to — his father’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination and then his race as Ronald Reagan’s running mate.

By the 1988 campaign, George W. had assumed a major role in his father’s presidential campaign, operating directly out of the Washington headquarters.

“He was brought in as the disciplinarian among a staff that was seen as talented but self-promotional,” said an experienced operative with daily exposure to the Bush campaign.

“You had a lot of egos there,” the source said, mentioning ad chief Roger Ailes, campaign manager Lee Atwater and chairman James A. Baker III. George W. “was the only person there who didn’t have another agenda other than what was best for his father.”

“I don’t want to overstate his role,” the source said. “It wasn’t like he was the brains of the operation, but he was a figure to be reckoned with.”

Charles Black, a key Bush campaign consultant, said George W. could render an instant judgment on how his father would react to a proposed tactic.

“He knew his father like a book,” Black said. “He could say this is George Bush and this is not.”

Peter Teeley, Bush ‘s vice presidential press secretary, credited George W. with “doing a lot of things the prima donnas (in the campaign) didn’t want to do,” including public appearances that were guaranteed to generate zero news coverage.

After the election, on the “silent committee,” recalled a participant, “he had exactly the right standard — who was active (in the campaign) and who was play-acting. He has a great ability to see through guff.”

According to several accounts, by the time of the 1992 campaign, George W. was more assertive — and not always in a constructive way.

“He was a much more humble fellow in 1988,” said a longtime Bush activist. In 1992, “he had an answer to almost everything.”

Perhaps it was because he sensed the campaign — and his father — were faring so poorly.

In his last hurrah for his father, George W. acted as “a court of appeals for things that were going wrong,” said Marlin Fitzwater, Bush ‘s press secretary.

“Things didn’t always change,” Fitzwater said, “nor did (George W.) assume he had the power to change them.”

But the younger Bush was unquestionably influential throughout the failing effort, insiders agree.

“The president believed in him and knew George would tell him the hard truth,” Fitzwater said.

Gee, how surprising. When Junior became “influential” his daddy lost, big time. Everything the man touches turns to shit.

A Bush sampler, 1978-94

Selected soundbites from George W. Bush :

“There’s no such thing as being too closely aligned to the oil business in West Texas.”

— Running for Congress, 1978.

“Some people say I’m trying to run on my father’s name. Anyone who knows me knows I can stand on my own feet.”

— Running for Congress, 1978.

“Being the vice president’s son isn’t important. I don’t even know who Walter Mondale’s children are.”

— On being the vice president’s son, 1980.

“I was the loyalty thermometer.”

— On his role in his father’s 1988 presidential campaign.

“Being the president’s son puts you in the limelight. While in the limelight, you might as well sell tickets.”

— On his job with the Texas Rangers, 1989.

“I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.”

— On why he joined the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, 1990.

“I made my arguments and went down in flames. History will prove me right.”

— On his vote, as the Rangers managing partner, against realignment of baseball’s major leagues into three divisions each. The club was the only one of the 28 major league franchises to oppose the move, 1993.

“When all those people in Austin say, “He ain’t never done anything,’ well, this is it.”

— On The Ballpark at Arlington, the publicly financed stadium built for the Texas Rangers baseball club, 1993.

Thanks to Jeremy

Mouthbreathers:

There is new pool videotape of this exchange.

Down the sidewalk, other Bush supporters ‘Go, George Bush; Go, George Bush.’

One yelled, “who rules? Bush rules!” Another yelled, “you can’t take our president” and “Kerry’s wife is not American.”

The wife, THK, came over and shook hands with at least three Bush types. The pooler asked two of them what she said, but found their answers less than credible.

A third Bush supporter–Michael Guidero, 27, a college student from Eugene–reported: ‘She said she was glad we were here, and she was glad we have a view to speak.’

Guidero had told THK earlier: ‘Thank you for being a good sport with us.”

The Stink Of Desperation

Here’s a snapshot on the state of the race right this minute. It’s easy to miss the bigger picture when you’re rooting around in the mud with the barbarians:

Bush Campaign Steps Up Attacks as Kerry Gains in Polls

Republicans on Thursday leveled some of their most aggressive attacks yet against Sen. John F. Kerry, as a series of polls suggested the Democratic presidential nominee had gained slight leads in some battleground states and the economy continued to weigh on President Bush’s prospects.

The most scathing critique came from Vice President Dick Cheney, who jumped on Kerry’s recent assertion that he would lead a “sensitive” war on terrorism.

[…]

“A sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more,” Cheney told an audience of veterans and law enforcement officials in Dayton, Ohio.

“The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity,” Cheney added, referring to the American journalist and contractor slain by terrorists.

Later, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) accused Kerry of advocating socialism within the United States and appeasement overseas.

“It’s not John Kerry’s fault that he looks French,” Smith told reporters on the conference call arranged by the Bush campaign.

“But it is his fault that he wants to pursue policies that have us act like the French. He advocates all kinds of additional socialism at home, appeasement abroad, and what that means is weakness for the future.”

Some Republicans have referred jokingly to Kerry’s ability to speak French and his physical appearance, but rarely has the reference found its way onto the campaign trail.

Cheney’s comments reflected an escalation in the tone of attacks, coming a day after the president himself mocked Kerry for remarks this week that he would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Polls show that voters trust Kerry more than Bush on domestic concerns such as healthcare and the economy, but the Democrat continues to struggle to explain his position on the war in Iraq and how he would wage the overall war on terrorism.

[…]

This week, under pressure from Bush, Kerry said he would vote again for the Iraq invasion — even though no weapons of mass destruction had been found.

He insisted that it was not a vote on war and that he would have used the president’s authority to go to war differently than Bush. The president accused Kerry of trying to find a nuance that did not exist.

On Thursday, Cheney pounced on Kerry’s comments to minority journalists last week that the war on terrorism should be sensitive — referring, aides said later, to relations with allies.

In his campaign speech, Kerry tells crowds he would fight “a more effective, smarter and better war on terror,” as well as one that was more sensitive.

Kerry initially declined to engage in any back-and-forth with Cheney. But later, at an evening rally outside Medford, Ore., the decorated Vietnam War veteran offered a thinly veiled reminder that his chief critic Thursday received several deferments to avoid military service.

“I defended our country as a young man, when others chose not to,” Kerry said, appending that last phrase to a stock line in his campaign speech. “And I will defend it as president of the United States.”

For the most part, the Kerry campaign left the response to Cheney to campaign surrogates, many of them former military brass — and all of whom vouched for Kerry’s credentials by noting his service in Vietnam.

Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, a former primary rival of Kerry’s, called Cheney’s remarks a “cheap shot” and ridiculed the vice president and Bush for their lack of military service.

“Neither George Bush nor Dick Cheney has ever heard a shot fired in anger, never worried whether he’d ever see his family again, or seen the destruction caused by the weapons he’s wielded,” Clark said. “The losses of war are permanent. The consequences are unpredictable.”

The Bush campaign’s focus on the war comes as new polls suggest the president is sliding a bit in election battleground states while Kerry may be riding a delayed bounce from his nominating convention — putting added pressure on Bush to perform well at the Republican National Convention from Aug. 30 to Sept. 2.

A new Quinnipiac University poll of Florida voters released Thursday gave Kerry a 47%-41% lead over Bush, with independent Ralph Nader netting 4% in the state. Without Nader, Kerry leads 49% to 41%.

The poll, conducted Aug. 5-10, surveyed 1,094 registered voters in the state with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The same poll in late June found a dead heat.

Another survey, conducted Aug. 4-10 in Michigan by EPIC-MRA, gave Kerry a 7-percentage-point lead, 49% to 42%.

New polls released this week by American Research Group showed the Democrat with leads in Ohio and New Hampshire — two battleground states won by Bush in 2000.

Democratic strategists pointed to the poll numbers to explain the escalating words from their opponents.

“There’s no need to go that hard, that negative, this early — unless you’re in panic mode,” a senior Kerry strategist said.

Republicans, however, said Thursday that all was well.

“I’d still rather be us than them,” said John Sowinski, a Republican political consultant in Florida.

That’s pretty weak for an incumbent who once stood over 90% in the polls.

I think everybody needs to gird themselves for an full on assault for the next two months and if we win, an enraged right wing like nothing we’ve ever seen before. (Gordon Smith, for christ’s sake?) It’s going to be virtually impossible to govern, but Kerry is going to have to find a way to do it.

“Postcards from The Edge” just didn’t quite work

Can anyone doubt that this is the result of a Peggy Noonan and Karen Hughes slumber party that featured a little too much cheap wine and “Meryl Streep Week” on Oxygen Network?

“The Sophie’s Choice Ad”

I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message. My most solemn duty is to lead our nation to protect ourselves. I can’t imagine the great agony of a mom or a dad having to make the decision about which child to pick up first on September the 11th. We cannot hesitate, we cannot yield, we must do everything in our power to bring an enemy to justice before they hurt us again.

Bunuelesque maudlin-yet-macho is a bold new direction in campaign advertising. I’m actually looking forward to seeing more of what the dynamic duo of Nooner and Hughes can come up with.

I have one question. Is he asking which child they should pick up from the ground after they’ve been blown up or pick up from school or what? Sophie had to choose which child to save from being gassed in a concentration camp and, you know, that could be what they’re talking about too if Michelle Malkin has her way. Whatever it is, we can feel “comforted” that George W. Bush will save the babies from the Nazis on September 11th and that’s all that matters.

I’m really looking forward to what they come up with after the “Betty Broderick Marathon” on Lifetime. Woah nellie.

See What Sticks

I haven’t read the Spinsanity guys’s new book, so I don’t know the entirety of this thesis, but one of the authors, Bryan Keefer, said last night on Jon Stewart that one of the media manipulation techniques used successfully by the Republicans is to throw so much spin into the mix that the media isn’t capable of sorting it all out properly.

I think that lets the press corps off too easily — it is after all, their job to sort this stuff out and they are far too willing to adopt the easiest, most “entertaining” (to them) line. But, there is some truth to the idea that if you overwhelm the media with talking points and spin and propaganda the specifics start to sound like white noise and all you are left with is some basic, emotional understanding that something is wrong or right.

It seems to me that what they really do is throw absolutely everything out there and then hammer on whatever seems to stick with the media, which is often a rather snobbish, sophomoric narrative that casts the media in a superior role in terms of cool, status or morality. It worked with Clinton and it’s probably going to work with Kerry if he wins.

The question many of us have to start asking is how do you counter this effectively? Clinton survived by dint of his personal charisma and star power as well as the fact that his presidency was remarkably successful in a period of relative peace and prosperity. Kerry is a different animal facing a very different set of challenges. I believe that, as Dave Johnson at See The Forest predicts here the right will go completely insane — in my view, mostly because that asterisk next to Junior’s name is the coda to their fantasy of a “permanent conservative majority” — so they will go beyond even what we’ve seen before.

So, what do you think that Democrats should do to counter the slurs, character assassination and organized obstruction that President Kerry will inevitably face? And how can we better manage the media this time out?

Snark Attack

Readers, I think today might be a good day to write some e-mails.

LiberalOasis drew my attention to an impending bitchfest in the media over Kerry’s “sensitive” comment and maybe we should try to nip it in the bud this time.

This is an RNC special of the “Al Gore invented the internet” style. Jim Nicholson probably phoned it in himself. It’s the exact kind of high school kewl kid humor that sends the mediawhores into fits of laughter as they repeat it ad nauseum.

As I wrote earlier this week, Karen Tumulty in Time magazine illustrated how the word “french” has turned into a Republican code word for faggot, and how this “sensitive” talking point is being used to show Kerry’s essential “frenchness” not only by Dick Cheney, but by the press itself. It’s about to go hurtling out of control and the nasty little bitches of the press corps are the ones who are making it happen.

Liberal Oasis:

ABC’s The Note, surely speaking for the entire snarky political press corps called Kerry’s statement:

…the silliest thing John Kerry has said about national security since his “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it” classic.

No doubt that gave the green light for the rest of the press corps to paint Kerry the loser in this skirmish.

Remember, all of these skirmishes, from swift boat liars to “sensitive” to “flipflopping” are being done to paint John kerry as an effete pussy in contrast to the horse fearing, Pet Goat reading, cheerleader.

I don’t know if it is possible to shame the little tarts by showing them that they are being Dick Cheney’s bitches, but it’s worth a try. Read LO’s compendium of Bush admnistration officials saying the word “sensitive” in relatin to the WOT and then perhaps send an e-mail to a couple of journalists to let them know you know that this is an RNC talking point — perhaps they didn’t realize this and that they should use caution in helping the RNC spin Kerry just because they think this is funny, yada yada yada.

It’s worth a try.

Update: You’ve got to read Charles Pierce on this.

Oh, and do send along a link to this fabulous web site. Talk about French!

He Fights

Yet another coward for Kerry:

General Wesley Clark, USA (ret) released the following statement today in response to Vice President Dick Cheney’s attacks on John Kerry:

“I spent almost all of my adult life in uniform serving this great nation in the United States Army. I have led American soldiers into battle and led an international coalition in the Balkans where diplomacy, backed by force, was the winning formula.

“George W. Bush failed to learn the lessons from his predecessor or history. His ideologues who control American foreign policy have squandered much of our credibility with our allies and failed to achieve victory in the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. They gambled with a go it alone policy and our soldiers are paying with their lives.

“Today we Americans are shouldering the overwhelming costs of rebuilding Iraq without sufficient help from our allies. The administration’s incompetence in protecting our security effectively is rightfully a key issue in this campaign

“Today, Dick Cheney took the lowest road in politics — it was a cheap shot unworthy of the office of Vice President.

“The truth is that this administration has over-relied on the military in the war against terror – if we are to win, we must use all the means at our disposal – diplomacy, international law, economic development, law enforcement, and only as a last resort, military force.

“But then, maybe that’s to be expected. Neither George Bush nor Dick Cheney has ever heard a shot fired in anger. Never worried whether he’d ever see his family again or seen the destruction caused by the weapons he’s wielded. The losses of war are permanent. The consequences are unpredictable. That’s why John Kerry has always said force should be a last resort.

“John Kerry understands the risk and sacrifice that American soldiers undertake every day, in a personal way that neither George Bush nor Dick Cheney ever will. John Kerry has the physical courage, tested in combat, to hunt down and kill our enemies. He also has the moral courage and humility to avoid the arrogance, which has doomed this administration. John Kerry will make us safer at home and restore our credibility around the world.”

Oh yeah. This one’s crazy. Never mind.

thanks Armando