Amid last week's knee-jerk Republican response to Lamont's victory and the latest installment of Fear Factor: America Under Siege, an extraordinary Republican talking point slid by, I think, without the discussion it merits. In what was clearly a coordinated media push intended to spin the meaning of the Connecticut primary, both Tony Snow and Ken Mehlman buttressed their arguments by asserting that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were the result of flawed American foreign policy. Quite a concept. In itself, this is an extraordinary admission from the party that ridicules its political opponents for blaming America first and simply bizarre for an Administration whose leader has sputtered for five years that they hate us for our freedom. But what's truly surreal is who they're now blaming for the American foreign policy that resulted in 9/11.
Below the fold: Snow and Mehlman throw Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush under the bus (with Colin Powell, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and Dick Cheney being dragged behind).
Please stop using the term "conspiracy theory" as a short cut to denigrate arguments you disagree with. This tactic comes directly out of the right-wing playbook. In fact, this is Tucker Carlson's favorite way to dismiss opposing arguments that require more than three verbs and two nouns to explain. If you wrote a diary critical of speculation that the latest terror alert was hyped or manufactured, please print this out and tape it to your monitor:
Joe Lockhart just pointed out that after the bin Laden video was released, the Bush campaign continued attacking John Kerry on national security, even implying that Kerry isn't committed to defending America. While Americans were getting their first glimpse of Osama in years, Bush himself was launching personal attacks on John Kerry.
John Kerry has never questioned Bush's committment to defending this country...he's questioned Bush's failed strategy. On the other hand, Bush has attacked Kerry in a disingenuous manner that divides America over an issue that shouldn't be politicized -- our shared committment to defend America.
What does this say about George W. Bush's character?
Everybody loves election humor! And believe it or not, most people don't know that George W. Bush was a cheerleader in high school and college...and even fewer have seen the photographic evidence. Here are the few (only?) pictures of the Cheerleader-in-Chief practicing his first love. Let's get these out there.
Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid came out swinging on tonight's Capital Gang, saying:
"We all know that the President was a cheerleader in college. But we don't need a cheerleader now, we need a leader. And that's what's wrong, what's going on in Iraq. He has to acknowledge what his own party's senators have to say. Lindsey Graham, Richard Lugar, Hagel, McCain, have said this week: the war is not good and something has to happen drastically, quickly."
I'm sitting here on Saturday watching yesterday's Hardball, which included a brief interview with Joe Trippi discussing the role blogs are playing in the 2004 election.
With all due respect, Joe, have you ever listened to what your Republican counterparts are doing with their few minutes on the boob tube? Could you, at least, make some effort to boost your team, instead of providing strictly impartial analysis?
Just a nice reminder to everyone, at all levels, in every organization involved with helping to elect John Kerry: there are few things, maybe nothing, more important than the care and feeding of our friends in the press. A little love can go a long way.
I'd hate to think that something so simple could cost us the election, but it could! Hopefully those managing the campaign are doing all they can and devoting the necessary resources to make sure that the national and local media are dealt with in a manner that leaves a positive impression, and not the opposite. Enough said.
Just now on CNN, following Cheney's speech-- Wolf pointed out to zig-zag Zell that Cheney had also voted against and attempted to eliminate many of the same weapon systems that Zell was so upset with Kerry about. Zell seemed taken aback that he was being challenged...he hemmed and hawed and then something truly amazing happened: both Judy and Wolf followed up. Zell finally stammered that he didn't know what Cheney's record was.
Icing on the Cake: Wolf told Zell that he seemed awfully angry tonight, and Zell looked shocked. "Me? Angry? Not at all, Wolf." Then Wolf zings him: "Some are already saying that you seemed so angry, your speech may have done more harm than good." Zell's face went white.
Me thinks this behavior will not go unnoticed in the WH. Bad Wolf, No Donut.
I think the Democrats had good reason not to get involved in the Plame scandal over the past year. Why get in the way of the Bushies' self-destructive behavior? (Even while Republicans have repeatedly tried to smear Joe Wilson and claim the allegations are partisan.) For a long time it made sense to stand back and let the investigation proceed...but I think it's time for a change of strategy.
I just had to share tonight's touching tribute from Chris to Teresa:
I don't know Laura as well as I know Teresa. I met Teresa a lot of times out there and I tell you, I think, she's the kind of woman you find fascinating...I do...because she's sort of a 1960s French movie star. I've said this before and everybody knows what I mean...all those great movies...she's a mature woman, not a kid. She gets better looking as she gets older. She's sort of charming, she's fun, she's...frisky! She's all the good things that guys like me like. But, you know, I don't know, I guess there are guys who like more straight-laced women like madam librarian from the Music Man. I guess that's what some of them are looking for...is there a Stepford quality to Laura?
Hey, it beats his obsession with Al Gore's wardrobe.
My wife just registered as a new voter in Monroe County, New York. After mailing in her voter registration card, she received the following bizarre letter. Read it carefully:
I think it's high time to move beyond the myth that Colin Powell is a man of strong character and honesty. Many Democrats seem to think that Powell is somehow more honorable than the other liars and criminals in the upper echelons of the Bush Administration. The truth is that Powell lies and spins almost every time he open his mouth. Here's the Secretary of State speaking to Larry King about abuse of Iraqi prisoners:
"It seems to be a limited number of soldiers who may have been involved in this..."
"I'm quite sure it is isolated, and what I have found out so far is that within a day or so of learning of this, the chain of command acted immediately..."
"...We will deal with this by telling the people of the world that this is an isolated incident..."
I guess Powell hasn't gotten around to reading the Taguba Report yet...either that or he's political hack who has dishonored his country.
I stayed up late last night to catch a replay of Drs. Howard and Judy Dean at the "Women for Dean" event Sunday morning. Governor Dean did exactly what he needs to be doing -- he talked about the issues that are important to Americans and reminded voters of what he accomplished in the state of Vermont: providing health care, balancing the budget, and improving the lives of regular working people.
But it was after the event that I was reminded me of why I personally started supporting Howard Dean almost a year ago. The C-SPAN correspondent interviewed several people who attended the event, and I was particularly struck by what one young women had to say. She talked about the way George W. Bush has created and stoked a mood of fear in this country, and when nobody else would, Howard Dean stood up and offered us HOPE. And then the correspondent asked her what she thought of the polls showing John Kerry in the lead. The young woman smiled broadly, looked directly into the camera with tears in her eyes and said:
"I'm not afraid."
Fear vs. Hope will be theme of the general election if Dean is the nominee, but it's also the theme of the New Hampshire primary right now. Dean offers us hope and change. The alternative is to recoil in fear at the change we face. We must take back the Democratic Party before we challenge the GOP-SCLM stranglehold on our country. Tomorrow can be a New Day for Democrats if we don't give into our fear of change.
Taking another look at John Kerry? He may be the frontrunner in the race right now, but throughout this nomination battle, from the invisible primary of 2003, up to the eve of New Hampshire, the Massachusetts Senator has done nothing to demonstrate leadership abilities.
Other than Howard Dean, the leading Democrats in this year's nomination fight -- Clark, Gephardt, Kerry, and Edwards -- have all followed the Clinton model of making their own personal story the focus of their campaigns. I can't blame them for trying to repeat Clinton's success, but in doing so I believe they have seriously damaged their chances of defeating Bush if any are to win the nomination.
The longer I follow and participate in politics, the more I think that a presidential candidate's personality and charisma are, in some circumstances, the most significant factors influencing voters. Recently, I've become convinced that the most important reason that northern Democrats like Mondale and Dukakis were rejected in the South had a great deal to do with a perception, a gut feeling by southerners, that these guys were wimps. I'm not saying they were wimps, by any means, but I can certainly see why voters (from any region) might get that impression. And I would hypothesize that southerners tend to be more sensitive to a demeanor that they perceive as flaky or wimpy.
Now I'm not from the South, so maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about. But it seems to me that something southern voters are really looking for is a candidate who seems tough. Issues are not irrelevant, but if a candidate doesn't break the toughness barrier, I don't think s/he stands a chance.
And that's why I think Dean will win in the South. One thing about Dean -- they guy is definitely not a wimp. He doesn't back down and he's not wishy-washy. I think this has a lot to do with his success, in general, but I also think it's helping him immensely in the South.
Matthews just had Lawrence O'Donnell and Peggy Noonan on discussing the lastest poll result showing that 52% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in 9-11.
After O'Donnell pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence linking Saddam to 9-11, Chris decided to press Peggy on this point and he would not let up.
Peggy Noonan absolutely refused to answer the question, "Do you believe there is evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9-11 attacks." Chris asked her about five or six times and would not let up. Peggy kept obfuscating and finally Chris said "Peggy, you can't handle the truth," and went to commercial.
After the break, Chris started in on her again, asking if she thought Americans would still be supportive of the Iraq war if they knew the truth about Saddam's lack of involvement in 9-11. Once again, Peggy refused to answer directly.
It's true. Peggy Noonan can't handle truth.
Howard Dean needs to run a nationwide commercials next year simply saying something to the effect of:
"Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11 attacks. The president misled you all and exploited the 9-11 victims so he could pursue his own agenda."
During his interview with Diane Sawyer, Bush commented on plans for Saddam's trial, saying "...you don't want a kangaroo court. I don't know if you saw the instant outburst when Bremer got up and said, 'We got him,' and some journalists, I believe they were journalists, started screaming, 'Death to Saddam.' "
I'm likely heading into tin-foil hat territory here, but I can't help but wonder if that spontaneous outburst at the Bremer press conference was actually a bit of Rovian stagecraft. It simultaneously set an example of how the Bush Administration wanted Iraqis to react and apparently also provides an excuse for the U.S. to exert control of Saddam's trial in order to avoid a "kangeroo court."
Has anyone heard media report about who those journalists were?
