Three different points on three different (but related) topics:
- Clarke's Book.
- Powell Position.
- The Hard Base.
Read on...
- Clarke's Book. So everyone is wondering how much of an effect this book will have. I want to point out a simple fact: as of today, Against All Enemies has gotten more reader feedback on Amazon (183 comments) than Woodward's Bush at War, even though Woodward's book has been out maybe 100 times longer. And, Clarke's book has a higher star rating by readers. I haven't read it yet, and would be interested in people's comments on how this all feels after reading the book.
- Powell Position. I've been wondering, since reading Powell's defense of Clarke in the NYTimes, what's up with him. Now it sounds like Bob Woodward may actually redeem himself for Bush at War with his new book, which some say highlights Powell's discomfort with his own administration and how they pressured him into the UN speech. I have two questions here. First, does anyone have any more information on this? And second, do people think Powell can back out of his loyalty to Bush, particularly after that UN speech? Perhaps he can take advantage of the fact that Dems will welcome his switch, while he may be able to put Bush in a position of incriminating himself if he attacks Powell on that speech. That is, it'd be difficult to suggest that Powell knowingly lied, as that would only add fuel to the fire against Bush.
- The Hard Base. So it's generally been accepted that Bush has a "hard base" of 35-40%. I want to challenge this. There has never been a time when so many scandals and problems have faced an administration: not acting to prevent a major attack on the US, undermining the US position after that attack, lying to go to war, proposing a constitutional ammendment that alienates some but will fail to deliver for his base, forcing expensive social policy that no one seems to like by hiding the details, outing intelligence officers, screwing up trade policy, ballooning deficits, presiding over the worst jobs period since the Great Depression. I'd argue that (a) the medicare bill, (b) social progress for gays under his watch, (c) failures in the war on terror and WMD lies, and (d) job loss, will all chip away at his base. If anything really blows up, it might just crack. Anyone else think the rule of the "hard base" might finally be broken?