Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Faultlines

Here’s an interesting article in TNR by Clay Risen about restiveness in the Chamber of Commerce, particularly the small business side, over its goosestepping adherance to the GOP line.

…at the same time the Chamber was drifting to the right, the interests of its larger members began to diverge from those of its small-business constituency. Several fissures have emerged. For one, the rise of offshore manufacturing means that smaller firms, which tend to be at the bottom of the supply chain, have been forced to cut costs significantly or lose out to overseas competition. “They are more and more being told that their prices have to look like what the big guys are getting from China,” says Josh Bivens, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute. “If they’re not poised to do that, they lose out.” Meanwhile, chains like Wal-Mart are pricing small retailers out of the market, offering more products at lower cost. And because they buy primarily from other multinationals (who can supply large quantities of cheap products) small manufacturers are getting squeezed as well. But because big business invariably has more money to contribute, its influence in setting the Chamber’s priorities means that the needs of smaller firms have been largely ignored. “For small businesses, their adversary used to be government regulation,” says Marks. “Now it’s big business.”

For these guys, paying taxes is the least of their problems. They are concerned about health insurance inflation and low educational standards and a whole host of other things, while the Chamber is blathering on rellentlessly about tort reform. And, their biggest threat is the rapaciousness of the corporate oligarchy. The way it’s going the new ownership society is going to have a few successful owners and a whole mess of untermenchen serving them. (But, don’t worry, they’ll be able to save five dollars a week in their 401K’s, so they’ll be “owners” too.)

The story of how the Chamber became Tom Delay’s bitch is also quite interesting. It’s pretty much the story of how the GOP whips its own if it steps out of line. It’s not really a big tent; it’s a big S&M parlor:

The Chamber was initially supportive of Clinton’s plan; William Archey, its chief lobbyist, and Robert Patricelli, chair of the Chamber’s Health Committee, even met regularly with the administration to iron out key points of disagreement. The Chamber, as Patricelli said at the time, saw Clinton’s managed-competition proposal as a reasonable solution to what it considered a crippling problem for businesses. But Republicans feared that a health care win would solidify Democratic dominance in Washington, and so they began browbeating the business lobby into opposing the plan. In late 1993, Ohio Congressman John Boehner told Archey and Chamber President Richard Lesher that it was “the Chamber’s duty to categorically oppose everything that Clinton was in favor of.” Republicans made public statements about the Chamber becoming “irrelevant,” and a klatch of conservatives–such as Boehner and Georgia Senator Paul Coverdell, along with lobbyist Grover Norquist’s “Wednesday Group” of anti-Clinton, anti-health-care-reform lobbyists–hinted that unless the group changed its tune, they would retaliate, perhaps by telling constituents to quit the Chamber or by creating a competing organization more sympathetic to the right.

If Junior doesn’t manage to eke out another dubious “victory”, it’s going to be interesting to see some of these fault lines break. The problem with humiliating people by forcing them to pledge fealty against their will is that they don’t mean it. They’ll stab you in the back the first chance they get. The GOP fight over “who lost the permanent majority” will be a lot of fun to watch.

(Brain) Size Matters

I’ve been waiting to read this article for three long years. Bravo Yglesias.

This emperor has no clothes thing has been the single most frustrating thing about the Bush presidency. He is not smart enough for the job of president and he has been incompetent because of it, over and over again. The man isn’t up to the task intellectually and doesn’t have the temperament to privately trust someone else (like his father perhaps) to be the arbiter of disagreements among his advisors when he doesn’t understand the issues. Neither did he have the experience or instinct to effectively manage people to create consensus on their own.

You could argue that the family values that Yglesias says are not necessary in a president are actually emblematic of other desirable character traits like loyalty or honesty. (I wouldn’t.) But, what you cannot do is say that intelligence is not an issue and you cannot say that it isn’t an issue of primary importance. Obviously, the job of leader of the free world is complicated and one of the requirements is that you be able to understand it.

When Republicans tell me that it doesn’t matter if Junior is intelligent I ask them if they think it matters if a doctor is intelligent or a judge or a general and if they think the job of president requires any less of a brain than those jobs do. Then picture George W. Bush doing any of them.

He’s Quite A Little Man

Killing Goliath alerts us to the reliably reactionary Walter Scott’s Personality Parade® today:

Q. George W. Bush has occupied the White House for almost four years, yet little is known of his personal preferences. Can you fill in the blanks? — J. Brinkley, Los Angeles, Calif.

A. He’s a man of simple tastes whose favorite foods are peanut butter (creamy, not chunky) and jelly sandwiches and Fritos. According to Ronald Kessler’s A Matter of Character: Inside the White House of George W. Bush, just out, the health-conscious President brings his own treadmill and nonallergenic pillows on long trips.

The audacity of presenting this election as a choice between an effete French pussy and macho manly man is mind-bending.

Clearly, this election is a choice between a 60 year old man and a five year old boy.

Nuclear Advertising

Atrios has a fun example of a possible nuclear attack ad the Dems might have at the ready if Bush continues down the low road using 9/11 fearmongering to sell his floundering presidency.

Here’s one I’d like to see:

George W. Bush: 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. (from TV ad)

VOICEOVER: Here’s what the families of the victims of 9/11 think about George W. Bush.

WOMAN: My husband was killed in the WTC

WOMAN: My father was killed in the WTC

SUSIE ELLIOT, Firefighter husband died in the WTC. : George Bush has not been honest about what happened on September 11th.

ALISON FRENCH, Father died in the Pentagon: He is lying about his record.

CINDY LETSON: Son killed in the WTC : I know that George Bush is lying about 9/11, because I saw the video where he froze up and couldn’t figure out what to do when he was told about the attack.

BETSY ODELL, Son killed in the WTC: George Bush lied when he said he did everything he could. I know. I’ve read the 9/11 report.

DINA CHENOWETH, Husband killed in the WTC: It took us pressuring him for months to even agree to a commission to investigate what went wrong.

MARY HOFFMAN, Son and daughter-in-law killed on Flight 93: George Bush didn’t want people to know that he had received explicit warning for months and did absolutely nothing.

KATHY LONSDALE, Sister of brother killed in the Pentagon: He lacks the capacity to lead.

KATIE THURLOW, Husband and son killed on flight 93: When the chips were down, you could not count on George W. Bush.

DEBBIE ELDER, Husband killed in the WTC: George W. Bush is no leader.

ANGELA HIBBARD, Daughter killed in the WTC: He betrayed us. He lied before the american people.

SHELBY WHITE, Husband killed in the WTC: George W. Bush has betrayed all the men and women who died on September the 11th.

BRENDA PONDER, Husband killed at the Pentagon: He dishonored his country. He most certainly did.

JANE HILDRETH: Wife of firefighter killed in the WTC: I watched George W. Bush try to cover up his administration’s actions leading to 9/11. George W. Bush cannot be trusted.

VO: 9/11 Widows for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

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.