PoliBlog(TM)

Bureaucratic Sisters for Kerry

Kerry's Sister Angers Abortion Foes

A Catholic antiabortion group sharply questioned the propriety of John F. Kerry's sister, Peggy Kerry, giving a speech to "a campaign crowd of feminists" in Boston and telling them that, if elected, her brother would overturn various Bush policies -- such as barring funds for U.N. population control efforts.

Not surprising that she'd be campaigning for her brother, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute noted, but she "works for George W. Bush" as part of the U.S. mission to the United Nations.

The institute, a nonprofit that works with the United Nations, acknowledged that Kerry, a career civil servant, broke no law in giving the speech, but it questioned how she can represent Bush's policies if she's bashing them.

[...]

Meanwhile, it seems there's no love lost between Kerry and the institute. "Kerry is best known for booking the U.N. press office on behalf of Catholics for a Free Choice when they announced their campaign to throw the Catholic Church out of the U.N.," the institute said.

I suspect that some will get all upset about this, but she has the right, as I understand it, to do this. It is a bit odd, I must admit, althought aside from the serious nature of the abortion qustion, I find this mildly amusing.

The Not So Much Bounce Continues

Some new numbers:

Orange Politics

Two quick thoughts on the claim that this whole financial sector orange alert brouhaha is simply grandstanding for political gain:

1) If so, it is a pretty stupid move. It strikes me that making the financial sector in New York jittery on purpose would be a rather bad move on the Bush administration's part, as nervous investors aren't what the economy needs. Further, since oil futures are at or near record highs, partially because of fears that another terrorist attack is coming, this kind of situation will hardly help.

2) If the Democrats think that increased concerns about terrorism helps Bush, what does that say about their own views of how Kerry is perceived vis-a-vis national security?

Post-DNC Toasties: This Week's Toast-O-Meter is Here!

Texas Toast or French Toast? Tracking the race to the White House.

This week's Toast-O-Meter reading

Staring this week, each candidate will be awarded flaming toasters for substantial bad news, and wonder bread for good news.

Bush gets the good news that Kerry's bounce looks slim at best, but gets a bit burned in that the economic numbers aren't as good as projected. However, given that he has the rest of the month of August to spend like crazy and dominate the airwaves going into his convention, his outlook is good, given that he doesn't have any serious ground to make-up. And it should be noted he has roughly $30 million to spend over the next four weeks, meanwhile the Kerry campaign has to shepherd their resources until September.

The DNC was well run and showcased unified Democratic Party. However, initial polling isn't what the Kerry camp would have hoped for, and Kerry's speech was met with mixed reviews.

As such, Bush comes out ahead this week, especially given that he should be starting the post-DNC period in a hole, and he isn't.

Hence, Kerry is looking a tad more French Toastish and Bush is a step back from being Texas Toast.

POLLING (and we all know how painful that can be)

The initial reading of the toaster doesn't look very Kerry-ish largely because of the initial polling data: despite a week in which Kerry and his message were in the spotlight, and during which the President hung out in Crawford, the polls show either a baby bounce, or slight bounce in Bush's direction (shades of McGovern, 1972).

As always, Dave Wissing has both the national numbers and the state by state numbers.

Brewing Issues

.

Now he Brings it up?

Kerry Foresees No More U.S. Troops for Iraq.

Interesting, because he didn't mention this at all during the convention (which was, after all, only a few days ago), and now he is talking about bringing home a "significant number" during his first term?

Not only is this a fairly major statement policywise, and hence something that was worthy of airing at the convention, it also would have gone over quite well with the delegates, and led to more energy from the crowd. So why wait until the Sunday after the convention to bring it up?

Of course, this is the same John Kerry who wanted more troops not that long ago.

From the 12/4/03 edition of USAT:

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said Wednesday that he would reverse President Bush's "inept, reckless" foreign policies. He said he would send tens of thousands more troops to Iraq and name special envoys to the Mideast and Islamic world.

Or from the 4/19/04 edition of USAT, Kerry says he would send more troops to Iraq if necessary:

"It may well be that we need a new president, a breath of fresh air, to re-establish our credibility with the rest of the world" and bring other countries into Iraq, Kerry said on NBC's Meet the Press.

He also said that "if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos" discouraging the United Nations and other countries from helping, "that's what we have to do."

So I guess that since he now thinks that more troops aren't needed that he thinks that the Bush administration has been successful in recent months creating stabilitiy and elimininating chaos?

Quote of the Day

"I'm not Jesus Christ of the tax code. I can't completely martyr myself."--Ben Affleck.

Here' the backstory, from the NYT article:

At a breakfast with Florida delegates, the actor Ben Affleck got into specifics, explaining that the Bush tax cuts had provided him with $1 million last year that he didn't need.

[...]

We asked Mr. Affleck if he had considered sending the $1 million back to Washington. "No," he said. "I'm not Jesus Christ of the tax code. I can't completely martyr myself."

Hat tip: Dave Wissing.

A Bumpless Convention?

Poll: No boost for Kerry after convention

n the survey, taken Friday and Saturday, the Democratic ticket of Kerry and John Edwards trailed the Republican ticket of Bush and Dick Cheney 50% to 46% among likely voters, with independent candidate Ralph Nader at 2%.

Before the convention, the two were essentially tied, with Kerry at 47%, Bush at 46%.

The change in support was within the poll's margin of error of /- 4 percentage points in the sample of 763 likely voters. But it was nonetheless a stunning result, the first time in the Gallup Poll since the 1972 Democratic convention that a candidate seemed to lose ground at his convention.

Granted: it's one poll, and the sample is smaller than I tend to like, but if you are Kerry you sure don't want comparisons to the 1972 Democratic convention.

The story also notes that the Newsweek poll showed that James Joyner termed a "Baby Bounce" yesterday.

Works for Me

Bush Planning August Attack Against Kerry

President Bush's campaign plans to use the normally quiet month of August for a vigorous drive to undercut John Kerry by turning attention away from his record in Vietnam to what the campaign described as an undistinguished and left-leaning record in the Senate.

Mr. Bush's advisers plan to cap the month at the Republican convention in New York, which they said would feature Mr. Kerry as an object of humor and calculated derision.Entering a four week run-up to the unusually late Republican convention, Mr. Bush's aides said they had laid out a week-by-week in plan in which Mr. Bush would talk about his accomplishments and his second-term agenda. But they said they would also try to blunt what Democrats and Republicans said was a successful four-day Democratic convention focused on Mr. Kerry's veteran credentials by turning attention from what they described as his brief four-month tour in Vietnam to his 20 years in Washington.

This seems reasonable. Yes, Kerry served in Viet Nam and he deserves credit for it. However, the convention skipped the part of his life that is most important in terms of determining what kind of president he will be: his career in politics.

And this strikes me as silly:

"The research we've done shows that the Bush campaign has come right up to the edge and probably now crossed the line in being too negative," said Geoff Garin, a pollster for the Democratic Party. He asserted that Mr. Bush was in something of a strategic box, under pressure to try to turn back any Kerry rise by attacking him, but in danger of alienating undecided voters who he said already perceived the Republicans as too negative.

Making factual statements about an opponent's record isn't being negative. Kerry has the right to question Bush's time in office, and Bush has the right to question Kerry's record. And we go through this "oh, the campaigns are so negative" every four years--time to get a new script, fellahs.

Did the GOP Have Lori Hacking Killed? (And Other Tales of Paranoia)

Yesterday I noted a little paranoia emanating from Mr. Drum (also here) over the idea that the Bush administration has specifically pressured the Paks to arrest a top suspect to spoil the DNC. Drum wondered earlier in the week as to the timing of the arrest of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani(a key suspect in the African embassy bombings of 1998) and ponderes whether it may fit the bill and prove the theory--especially since it seems that the Paks waited a few days to release the information.

However, given that people who are paying attention wonder in public, Who Is It?, one wonders as to the strength of this argument. And yes, I know, just because it didn't distract from the DNC, or wasn't as high a value of a target as it coudl have been doesn't disprove the theory. Still, I find the whole concept to be paranoid and simply fuels the idea that the Democrats would rather see Bush lose than to see Bush have any success in the war on terror between now and November.

Indeed, I have noted that despite a great deal of news consumption, I have heard precious little about the arrest. In fact, it occured to me that if the GOP is trying to take media time from the Dems, then maybe they had Lori Hacking killed, because that has taken up a whole lot more news time than has the arrest of Ghailani. And it is the kind of story that is more likely to attract the attention of the less-politically invovled swing voter. (Yes, I am being silly, but so are Drum and the New Republic).

I would note that the The New Republic Online story that Drum cites suggests that the administration is pressuring Pakistan specifically for electoral reasons (based on some quotes from sources within the Pakistani intellgence agency). While I have no doubt that the administration would love to have high value target arrested during the campaign, I also am sure that the administration would have liked to have arrested a HVT at any time. This onging paranoia that the administration has the ability to produce whomever they wish on command borders on the insane. It is akin to the more radical right-wing nonsense aimed at Clinton (such as the idea that he had people killed or used to run drugs when he was Governor of Arkansas). As such, this kind of nonsense does not befit the New Republic.

And further, haven't the anti-administration types been screaming that we aren't doing enough against al Qaeda specifically? So now that it appears that pressure is mounting, it must be political? Is it at all possible that whatever is currently going on is the natural evolution of the policy? Is it not also possible that the sources that NR used were misinterpreting the requests of the admin, or that they wanted to damage the Bush administration (let's face fact: the Pakistani intelligence community, sectors of which aided the Taliban, aren't all pro-American).

And by the way, note to Kevin Drum, the New Republic and whomever else it applies: capturing Ghailani is a good thing.

Shall We Dance?

Source: Yahoo/Reuters

Hype is on the Way

Or so I have been told.

Even More DNC Discussions

Joe Gandelman of the Moderate Voice has an impressive post that asks Did John Kerry's Speech Advance His Campaign?

Some More Speech Reaction

Fineman Gets "Hot under the Collar"

From Howard Fineman's convention blog (which is really more of a blog than Hardblogger) we find the following:

We're sitting here on the "Hardball" set and I got a little hot under the collar when Joe Scarborough presumed to give us all a lecture about the "reality" of the Kerry speech. Joe said it was a blown chance because it was too rushed. I think that Kerry, if he didn't hit a home run, hit a solid double up the gap or even a triple and put himself in scoring position.

I caught the tail end of this last night (including Fineman rolling his eyes at Scarborough), so I missed Joe's exact argument (which I gathered was about Kerry's cadence and general delivery). Fineman and Andrea Mitchell were quite dismissive of Scaraborough's comments, noting that delivery doesn't matter, but rather the words matter (not only is that not the way they cover Bush speeches, it really ignores the fact that both the words and the delivery matter).

The thing that struck me about the interchange at the time, and that is driven home by Fineman's entry (e.g., "Joe Scaraborough presumed to give us all a lecture"), is that Fineman and Mitchell weren't exactly treating Scaraborough as a serious member of the panel (which was chaired by Chris Matthews and also included Willie Brown). Instead he was clearly the token conservative on the panel, and wasnt supposed to overly rain on the Democrat's parade. It really should embarass Fineman who was there as an analyst, not a booster for the Kerry campaign (and unlike Professor Doctor John Lemon, I tend to think Fineman does a good job, although he has seemed a bit more agressive vis-a-vis Bush of late).

And I certainly do not think that Fineman had to have a negative view of the speech because he was there as an analyst--he could legitmately have had a positive view. However, to get ticked because Scaraborough didn't like the speech and "presumed" to share his views (which is what he was there for) came across as biased to me. At a minimum he seemed to be treating Scarborough as an interloper who shouldn't have been allowed to crash the Hardball inner circle.

Update: A thought I forgot to include: I am not sure that a "solid double" does it. Weren't we told by the chattering class in the lead-up to the speech that Kerry needed a home run?

Ridge to Resign if Bush Re-elected?

Barry Ritholtz notes via e-mail that Security czar Ridge weighs resigning after election

To be honest, this doesn't surprise me. It is a stressful and largely thankless job.

Reporting for Duty

This is what came to mind last night. (In fact, the image that specifically came to mind was that of Gilligan saluting during the theme song when the song tells us "The mate was a mighty sailing man"--however, I couldn't find a picture of that).

Update: Jeff Jarvis has another photographic juxtaposition.

Update II:protein wisdom has another comparison (hat tip: Mark the Pundit)

Update III: Included in the OTB Traffic Jam.

Bite-Size Toast for Thurday Night

Bite-Size Toast: A Supplement to this week's Toast-o-Meter

BITE-SIZE TOAST FOR THURSDAY'S EVENTS (AND A GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE DNC 2024)

Gilligan for President

Based on Taylor's Iron Law of Political Speeches, I am guessing that we are going to hear that "My name is John Kerry and I am reporting for duty" line over and over. Unfortunately it was more evocative of Gilligan than it was of the Commander in Chief.

Pilfering Parts for his Speech

I noted several cases of semi-plagiarism in Kerry's speech:

Indeed

I must agree with Stephen Green, quoting Kerry, and then responding:

"A threat that is real and eminent"

So much for preemptive war -- a goddamn tragic necessity in the age of terror.

John Kerry isn't serious about this war. Iraq was a battle, not the war. He won't initiate any other battles; he'll only respond. He just said so.

Nobody who is serious about protecting the US today can vote for this guy.

Yup.

More Live Blogging

Dal Franks at QandO is living blogging as well.

Live Convention Blogging II (The Kerry Part)

The Entrance: Not as silly as Bill's tunnel entrance a few year's back, bit still not what it was billed to be.

Opening Line: "I'm John Kerry, and I am reporting for duty." Oh, my.

"Home" I was afraid that he was about to break into a rendition of Simon and Garfunkel's Homeward Bound.

The Hospital "I was born in the west wing." Hylarious.

9:18 central The man isn't exactly oozing with energy, now is he?

9:19 central He brought peace to Viet Nam? Did I just hear that properly?

9:21 Oh yes, John Kerry: man of sunny optimism. And enough with the idea that the Democrats created all those jobs in the 90s. Note to the Senator: the government doesn't run the economy. Indeed, the fact that even pretends to think that is the case is sufficient reason not to vote for the man.

9:31: If he won't give any nation a veto over US security policy, yet he claims the main problem with the Bush foreign policy is that isn't sufficiently multilateral, does that mean that ultimately he will go it alone, if he thinks it is necessary? And if so, how is he any different than Bush?

And is he saying that he will only use military force once we have been attacked? Does that mean adopting a more law enforcement posture in the war on terror?

9:37 He stole that flag line from Dean's old stump speeches.

9:39 Taking cop offs the streets to give tax breaks to Enron--who writes this stuff?? And "taking up a colelction for body armor"? The name didn't vote for the bill that would have funded more body armor. My gosh.

9:41 "Help is on the way" now he's stealing from Cheney (okay, it was only one line in his 2024 convention speech, but still)? And te crowd isn't into it--Edwards had a far better response last night.

9:50 He's looking a tad sweaty at this point.

9:53 More stealing: he took the "wearing religion on my sleeve" line from Ron Reagan's eulogy of his father.

The End: If this was supposed to be "the speech of his life" I don't think he delivered.

Live Convention Blogging, Part I

This will be a single pre-Kerry Speech, live-blogging post that I will update as I watch. I suspect I will switch to a second Kerry-specific post.

First Comment (Vanessa): Not to be overly critical, nor to suggest this a Democratic/Kerry phenom, but clearly being the family member of a big time politician clearly does not equate to being a particularly good public speaker.

Alexandra I: Alexandra is a far better speaker than her sister. Although, wowie, it didn't take long for the Viet Nam comments to start. Gee whiz.

Alexandra II: Ya gotta love the semi-veiled reference to abortion rights. And I am so weary of the suggestion that Republicans don't want children to have clean water and clean air. Yes, I want my kids to breath smog and drink swamp swill.

The Film: I have no reason to denigrate Kerry's service, but the focus on a relatively small slice of his slice continues to strike me as an over-focus on a small slice, albeit a significant one, of an overall career. Especially given that his political career is like a blip in comparison. And let's face facts: his political career is far more significant than his military one in terms his qualifications for the presidency.

Kerry quote from the video--"I'm alive today through the grace of a higher being"--gee, way to take a stand for one's faith.

Said the narrator (Morgan Freeman): in the Senate Kerry "became known as a foreign policy expert"--that's news to me. I have never though of him as such, even well before he ran for President.

Kerry: "I decided to run for President because I was frustrated." This is supposed to be a compelling reason to elect him to the presidency of the United States?

Film II: Indeed, if the time devoted to specific elements of Kerry's life in the film were proportionate to the time that element actually occupied in his real life, then the conclusion to draw would be that Kerry was a careerist in the military who only lately got involved in politics.

The Band of Brothers: OK, nothing wrong with them being there and supporting Kerry. That is fully legitimate. However, I would like to see the press treat those who served with Kerry, but don't think he should be President a tad more respect. It is as if the pro-Kerry veterans are pure and perfect in their motivations, yet the anti-Kerry are considered suspect and shady.

Max Cleland: Senator Cleland deserves a great deal of respect, if anything for his service to his country and for the fact that he overcame is injuries and lived a successful life in spite of them. However, again with the litany of horrors (bad schools, etc.) that the Republicans would visit upon us.

Questions for Kerry

New England Republican has five good ones.

I would add another: if the Democratic Party is the part of the positive and true, why has it embraced Michael Moore?

Some Ketchup to Go with your Toast

I forgot to post this last night: Kerry's House of Ketchup #21.

Bite-Size Toast: Recapping Wednesday in Boston

Bite-Size Toast: A Supplement to this week's Toast-o-meter

BITE-SIZE TOAST FOR WEDNESDAY

It still appears that no bounce-producing heat has emanated from Boston.

The week so far:

BREAKING NEWS!!

Kerry Acceptance Speech to Display Vietnam Experience.

Man! Those WaPo reporters are good! I smell a Pulitzer.

More Critiquing of Edwards

Edwards Gives Strong Tribute as Democrats Nominate Kerry

The heart of Mr. Edwards's speech was the theme he sounded throughout his primary campaign, that "we still live in a country where there are two different Americas," one for people who "are set for life," the other for "most Americans who live from paycheck to paycheck." He proudly recounted his own rise as the son of a millworker, paying tribute to his emotional parents in the convention hall, and made the case for a return to Democratic economic and domestic policies to "build one America."

I know I am beating a dead horse here, but isn't the fundamental story here that if you work hard in America your children can do better than you can? Yes, even in America the Son of a Millworker^TM can grow up, become a multi0millionaire attoreny, become a US Senator and be the nominee for Vice President for a major political party? Not to mention that the Son of a MIll Worker^TM can send his daughter to Princeton?

Does it cause great angst around the Edwards' household that his kids live in a different "America" than the one Edwards' supposedly grew up in?

Doesn't Edwards' own experience contradict the following from the text f his own speech?

Hard work should be valued in this country. So we're going to reward work, not just wealth. We don't want people to just get by; we want people to get ahead.

Quite frankly, the pro-entitlement menality of the Democratic Party would seem to me to work against the idea that hard work should be valued.

This line of reasoning continues to vex me, to say the least.

The Contradiction that is Edwards

I still maintain that I don't understand why Edwards isn't example of how one is rewarded by hard work in the United States, rather than being the Man Who Sees Two Americas.

Of course, I've said it before and I suspect I'll say it again--and I still won't get it.

Edwards: "Hope is on the Way" (More Speech Blogging)

Ok, so if we elect Kerry-Edwards, people will never have any bills to pay, we won't have to work long hours ever again, and there wil be no more dangerous wars?

And I suppose everyone gets a pony, too?

Convention Blogging: Edwards' Various Americas

Kevin Alyward is afraid that Edwards lost one of his Americas in his speech tonight--rest assured, that he found them later in his speech.

I must say, I tire of this idea that most of us live on the brink of utter ruin.

Forget Kerry-Edwards

Shouldn't the bumper stickers simply say "Viet Nam Vet-Mill Worker's Son for President"?

Mama T

From the National Journal's convention e-mail alert:

So Does That Make Kerry Papa K?
We followed Teresa Heinz Kerry for hours today, hoping for a "shove it" sequel. And while the outspoken Kerry didn't drop any bombshells, a new nickname may have taken hold.

Addressing the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus meeting, the would-be first lady said: "If nothing else, you will have a mom in the White House... You can call your Mama T. at anytime." That seemed to please the crowd, which responded with an extended chant of "Mama T., Mama T., Mama T..."

Are the Dems Hurting for Actual Speakers?

Twelve-Year-Old Wows Convention Delegates

Twelve-year-old Ilana Wexler had some advice for Vice President Dick Cheney

[...]

With her high-pitched delivery and breathy enthusiasm, the seventh-grader from Oakland, Calif., wowed the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night. And when she chided Cheney for using a four-letter expletive in an exchange with Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), she brought delegates roaring to their feet.

"When our vice president had a disagreement with a Democratic senator, he used a really bad word," Ilana said. "If I said that word, I would be put in a timeout. I think he should be put in a timeout."

Ilana, who founded a grassroots group called kidsforkerry.org, was rewarded last week with a phone call from Teresa Heinz Kerry inviting her to address the delegates.

Ilana recounted how she skipped camp this year to work for the Kerry campaign full time, and how she liked Kerry's commitment to education, America and kids.

Ok, I must admit, amusing after a fashion. However, having a twleve year old skip camp to campaign for Kerry)or anyone, for that matter) seems a bit much.

Still: kudos to the kid for having the wherewithall to address that many people in public.

My Kind of Deaniac (More Logic, Less Screaming)

Dean Esmay is on fire today at Dean's World. I am not sure if the Queen slipped him extra caffeine this morning of if the DNC has simple got him jazzed up and ready for verbal battle.

Bite-Size Toast: A DNC Convention Update (Fortifying your Daily Political Analysis)

Bite-Size Toast: A Supplement to this week's Toast-o-meter

Rather than wait until the end of the week, when the news would be, well, stale, here's a bite-sized version (ok, actually it is practically a loaf in and of itself) detailing the first two nights of the DNC. More bite-size toast tomorrow examining tonight's festivities.

Initial assessments: the convention's first two nights have been a tad lukewarm, and hence so far have not been able to toast President Bush in any substantial sense (one guesses that Mr. Bush is feeling more heat from the Texas sun than he has, to date, from the convention). Indeed, Bush may be feeling more immediate heat from Michael Moore.

I remain unconvinced that the "play it nice/don't overtly bash Bush" strategy is all that wise. First, it assumes that Kerry has the lead, which is by no means the case (neither of them can claim a lead at this point). Second, the lack of passion isn't good for the base (which plays to issues such as turn-out, which will be key this year, especially if the tie we see in the polls persists to election day).

Indeed, Kerry, though confident, could be feeling a tad warm from his own base. For example, this is not the kind of headline Kerry is hoping for, but I guess hell take it: Many in Boston Will Settle for Boring Over Bush.

And along those lines, Betsy Newmark share the following:

Mickey Kaus records an actual conversation overheard in a cab.

Passenger: "Fleet Center, please."

Boston cab driver (an immigrant): "You like John Kerry, eh?"

Passenger: "Well, I'm a Democrat but I don't really like Kerry that much."

Cab driver: "I hear that all day. All day. 'I don't like Kerry.' Why you pick him if you don't like him?"

And here's the re-cap of the first two nights of the convention:

Monday

The big stories on Monday were:

They Should've Gone with Optical Scan

Lost Record of Vote in '02 Florida Race Raises '04 Concern

Almost all the electronic records from the first widespread use of touch-screen voting in Miami-Dade County have been lost, stoking concerns that the machines are unreliable as the presidential election draws near.

The records disappeared after two computer system crashes last year, county elections officials said, leaving no audit trail for the 2024 gubernatorial primary. A citizens group uncovered the loss this month after requesting all audit data from that election.

Lovely. As I have noted before, the rush to touch-screens was a foolish one--the best response to a mess like Florida 2024 is not to leap forward to the latest (and largely untested) technology. Further, if the issue was voter confusion, did they really think that people who can't adequately punch a stylus through a piece of flimsy cardboard are going to have an easier time with computers?

Update: James Joyner echoes my sentiments, and rightly notes that the optical scan system used in almost every county in Alabama is a far preferable system. An additional bonus of the system in question: when one inserts the ballot into the ballot box, it scans the ballot to see if you have engaged in any overvoting (i.e., voting twice for the same office). If you do so, it spits the ballot back at you so you can fix it. And Stephen Green rightly notes that the problem appears to one of simply getting the proper back-up system in place.

Still, the move to high-tech voting is going to actually fuel the conspiracy-minded, as they will treat it in their own minds as some kind of voodoo that the Powers That Be can manipulate, rather than the cutting edge.

BunnyGate

Glenn has the run-down on BunnyGate and pretty much puts to rest Cahill's assertion that the photos were part of a dirty trick.

Indeed, given the number of pictures that were available on the wires this morning, it hardly seemed llike a leak--indeed, I thought it was simply an ill-advised photo op.

I Couldn't Believe my Ears

Mary Beth Cahill, of the Kerry campaign, was on Special Report with Brit Hume this afternoon and stated that Ron Reagan was going to be "crossing party lines" to address the Democrats this evening.

Either Ms. Cahill has been living in a cave since before the Reagan administration, or she thinks we all have. It was obvious when Reagan was president and it certainly has been obvious since Mr. Reagan left office that Ron Reagan may be many things, but he has never been a Republican.

"Crossing party lines." Yeah, right.

(She was also complaining that the pics of Kerry in the spacesuit weren't supposed to exist and that someone "leaked" them and implied it was a dirty trick of some kind. NASA apparently has a different interpretation of the story).

Update: As Michael Reagan pointed out in an interview I saw later in the day, and as a reader noted in the comments section, Ron Reagan was a Green supporter in 2024. So technically he crossed party lines. However, I am not sure that that was Cahill's implication. In US political parlance, "crossing party lines" tends to refer to Dems and Reps. And when one is speaking about a Reagan, the Green Party hardly leaps to mind.

Kerry Joins Starfleet (TOS Edition)

Keeping up my image as the political analyst with the Trek edge, I bring you the following comparison:

I report, you decide.

Update: Jay Solo has some observations on the topic as well. (ya gotta luv the Oompa Loompas).

Convention Blogging: More on the Gore Speech

According to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, Gore didn't give the speech he intended to give:

So the word is out: the liberal wing of the party is being told to avoid any harsh rhetoric. That could already be affecting tonight's headliners: last night, Al Gore's speech was basically torn up, according to two sources, and is now being rewritten, presumably to fit more closely with the party line. The other challenge tonight is to avoid having two Democratic party stars.

Intriguing.

Hat tip: CrushKerry.com.

Spot the Irony

From Bill Clinton's Remarks to the Democratic National Convention

On the other hand, the Republicans in Washington believe that America should be run by the "right" people -- their people -- in a world in which America acts unilaterally when we can and cooperates when we have to. They believe the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their economic, political and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on important matters like health care and retirement security. Now since most Americans aren't that far to the right, our friends have to portray us Democrats as simply unacceptable, lacking in strength and values; in other words, they need a divided America. But we don't.

Can you Spot the Irony? (I bet you can).

Convention Bloggging III

One thing's for certain: Bill Clinton has more energy and charisma in his left hand than Kerry has in his whole body. And he has a far great facility with words and phrases in a speech.

I think that he is wrong on most of what he says, but I will admit he says it a whoooole lot better than Kerry does.

That whole cop thing really annoys me, because it isn't the Federal government's job to fund police officers in New York City or any other locality. I really wish these guys would read the Constitution.

Ron Reagan ain't too Bright

He just claimed on MSNBC that "Gore won Florida" and that the media recounts showed that "in every recount, Gore won"--which is wholly false. In all the recount methods that the media engaged in, save one, Bush won.

From the Conservative Network of Record, CNN, we have:

If a recount of Florida's disputed votes in last year's close presidential election had been allowed to proceed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican George W. Bush still would have won the White House, two newspapers reported Wednesday.

The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month.

Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.

"In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been president of the United States," said Mark Seibel, the paper's managing editor. "I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked."

Gore won the media recount only vua one method, one Gore never asked for:

Ironically, a tougher standard of counting only cleanly punched ballots advocated by many Republicans would have resulted in a Gore lead of just three votes, the newspaper reported

Without getting into the basic problems with recounts, this situation simply shows that Mr. Reagan should follow the maxim: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and give the impression that you're stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."

Convention Blogging II

Gore's speech was fine--and I think he has hit a number of the key Democratic talking points. Howeevr, in tryin gto put the kibbosh on the Bush-bashing, I think maybe the Kerry people have put too much of a muzzle on Gore. Clearly the crowd wants to get into the spirit of the event, but Gore is trying too hard not to get overly exuberant. The lack of energy on Gore's part is quite evident.

Further, a lot of it was the whole "we'll do better by magic" quality of most of Kerry's campaign (the whole "leadership" and "strength" schtick).

I think he said more nice things about Bill Clinton tonight than he did the whole 2024 campaign.

At least he didn't make-out with Tipper.

Convention Blogging

I am time-delayed via TiVo, and am just now watching Gore.

Three initial reactions:

1) What's up with that intro music and who chose it?

2) Did they give Gore a valium? He's gone from Fire-and-Brimstone Al to Open Mic at the Improv Al.

3) Ok, humor is nice and all, but how many lame recount jokes can you tell in five minutes?

Convention Condiments

Sean Hackbarth has the latest House of Ketchup.

More Polling

Barry Ritholtz has some polling data from the WSJ that is worth a look.

Amusing

Kerry's Wife Tells Reporter to 'Shove It'

Teresa Heinz Kerry urged her home-state delegates to the Democratic National Convention to restore a more civil tone to American politics, then minutes later told a newspaperman to "shove it."

"We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics," the wife of Sen. John Kerry told her fellow Pennsylvanians on Sunday night at a Massachusetts Statehouse reception.

Minutes later, Colin McNickle, the editorial page editor of the conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, questioned her on what she meant by the term "un-American," according to a tape of the encounter recorded by Pittsburgh television station WTAE.

Heinz Kerry said, "I didn't say that" several times to McNickle. She then turned to confer with Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and others. When she faced McNickle again a short time later, he continued to question her, and she replied: "You said something I didn't say. Now shove it."

Update: James Joyner has far more extensive comments.

The Power of Alabama Democrats

I found this from yesterday's Montgomery Advertsier to be a tad amusing:

Members of the Alabama delegation will sit in the nosebleed seats at the Democratic National Convention, a measure of how little clout the state has in party politics this year.

Delegation members will watch the convention speeches behind the seats reserved for Mississippi and next to the delegations from Guam and the Virgin Islands, whose residents aren't allowed to vote for president.

When you are behind Mississippi and next to Guam, you know you ain't exactly important.

The Pre-DNC Toast-O-Meter

The Toast-o-meter: A Weekly News Round-Up and Handicapping of the Race for to be the next President of the United States.

The true contest to either turn George W. Bush into Texas Toast, or John F. Kerry into

Burnt French Toast has finally begun and the Toast-O-Meter is back in business to

provide you with a weekly round-up of news and commentary links, as well as to assess

the current state of the contest.

This Week Reading on the the Toast-O-Meter: both Bush and Kerry are a nice shade of light brown, as they come into this week tied in the polls, and with neither enjoying a particular trend in one direction or another.

Kerry remains unknown to many in the electorate an must come out of the bread box this week and introduce himself to the non-political junkies in the US. Meanwhile, President Bush is hanging out in Crawford, hoping that Kerry's dough doesn't rise too much after this week.

GETTING READY FOR BOSTON

The spin is already out. Earlier in July the GOP let it be known that they the expect the Democrats to get up to a 15 point bounce out of the convention while on Meet the Press on 7/25, Ed Rendell proclaimed that the Democrats already got their bounce out of the Edwards pick. So, the expectations game has been set in motion.

Rightfully, the pundits have noted that this week is nothing more than an infomercial for Kerry and that he must get the attention of swing voters. Nothing all that new there.

One amusing bit that I have noticed in the coverage is that the press nostalgia for conventions past is no longer about brokered fights about nominees (practically no one in the press is old enough to remember those), now it is over the Reagan-Ford negotiations in 1980. This is, of course, amusing, because that means that the key memory of "

convention drama" had to do not with the nominee, but with the veep selection.

The other bit of nostalgia to look for: the riots! such as 1968 and 1972.

Here's some of the pre-convention coverage:

Kerry's Campaign Slogan?

Listening to the Kerry-Edwards folks (both the candidates themselves and their surrogates), it seem to me that perhaps Mr. Kerry's slogan perhaps ought to be:

Kerry's America: Better, Stronger, Faster! (We Just Won't Tell You How!)

At a minimum it seems like it perhaps should be:

John Kerry's Promises: Less Filling but Tastes Great!

In short: I would like to hear how Mr. Kerry is going to make us "stronger" or "more respected" and so forth.

Wishful Thinking

Tom Brokaw on MTP, immediately after seeing his own network's poll stating that 93% of Republicans are planning to vote for Bush, and only 3% are voting for Kerry (the similar number's for Kerry were 86% an 6%), stated that "you are starting to here about Republicans who say thy can't vote for Bush"--to which I say, pardon? Perhaps Brokaw knows that 3%.

Indeed, I keep hearing these anecdotal statements from reporters and commentators that Bush might be in trouble with "some" Repubilcans. However, it certainly seems to me that the empirical evidence suggests otherwise, and has for months.

What?! Money in Politics?

Redefining Democratic Fundraising

John F. Kerry has created the most effective fundraising machine in Democratic Party history by tapping disparate interests -- trial lawyers, financial services executives, social liberals, teachers, Hollywood figures and others -- united by their antipathy to President Bush.

I will readily agree that Mr. Kerry has been quite successful in raising money. However, the special thing that he did was to eschew the primary season spending caps and the federal matching dollars (a move I applaud as both smart and kinder to the federal treasury).

However, the breathless coverage of this has been amusing. For one thing, by choosing to forego the matching funds and therefore not having to abide by caps he was destined to be a record-breaker for a Democratic candidate. That is to say, such record-breaking is no surprise.

For another, I don't recall this kind of coverage when Bush also eshewed the caps and matching funds in 2024. Back then it was a more sinister "oh no, here comes big money Republicans" tone to the coverage.

And thirdly, since when it is a feat of political prowess for a Democrat to raise moeny from trial lawyers, teachers, Hollyood types and so forth?

I do think that the Kerry campaign has done a good job of fundraising. Still, there are two key elements that (and very basic ones) that these stories ignore: 1) is the refusal of the matching funds/dropping of the caps mentioned above and 2) with the changes to the soft money rules under McCain/Feingold coupled with the lack of caps means that money is flowing directly into the coffers of the candidate in way it never did before.

This really isn't all that mysterious. In short, while the Kerry people deserve credit for hard work and the smarts to know what to do with the situation, it is more the structural changes to the fundraising situation that have allowed for the money to flow as it has--not because of anger directed at the President or because of something extra special amazing that the Kerry folks have done. Further, the trend is that every campaign cycle more money is raised and spent than the one before. Hence, records aren't really all that impressive.

Kerry's Foreign Policy Allies

One thing is for sure: many of the visible pro-Kerry foreign policy types haven't been doing Kerry any PR favors of late.

To wit:

Joe Wilson: After a very public and much ballyhooed campaign to demonstrate that the Iraqis never even thought about trying to get yellowcake uranium from Niger, he is shown to be untruthful (to be kind).

Sandy Berger: Best case scenario: a sloppy individual who, despite his previous high office, doesn't know how to follow basic security-related rules. Worst-case scenario: guy who sutffed classified documents in his socks.

Richard Clarke: Orginally seen as a strong voice of criticism aimed at the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policy and one who extolled the Clinton administration's approach. However, the 911 commission report doesn't back either claim, it would seem. And in the realm of the symbolic: despite the implications in Moore's Fahrenheit 911 that Bush personally favored bin Laden family Saudis in the US, who were allowed to fly out of the country soon after the attacks, the 911 commission's report confirmed that it was Mr. Clarke who authorized those flights.

It's Chock Full o' Lycopene!

Sean Hackbarth has the latest House of Ketchup.

*Sniff* the HoK is now 19. And I remember when it was born.

Give Me Whoopie Pies (I'll Pass on the Whoopi Goldberg)

I'm with Will Collier:

I love Whoopie Pies. They're what a Moon Pie ought to be if Moon Pies were actually edible.

Oh, and he notes a nice story about President Bush visiting the Amish.

(Yes, all of a sudden the Amish seem to be a major theme here at the Real PoliBlog^TM--accept no substitutes).

Prepare to be Amused

Even if you saw the edited version this on Special Report with Brit Hume last week, this is worthy of a full viewing.

(Thanks to Citizen Smash for the reminder).

Indeed

Amusing.

The Georgia Primaries are Tomorrow

Will Collier has some interesting things to say about GOP candidate Herman Cain.

I have heard Cain interviewed on the Michael Medved show a number of times (including today) and have been favorably impressed. He seems to be the kind of conservative that I would very much like to see make it to the Senate.

The Georgia primaries are tomorrow, and the GOP winner will be favored to win in November, so this is one to watch.

It's a Pretty Good Economy, Stupid

Kerry Takes Gamble on Economy

Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards are gambling that there is enough lingering uneasiness about pocketbook issues that their message about a struggling economy and loss of jobs will resonate despite rising public optimism.

"It's the best issue they've got, especially in some of the swing states," said Democratic consultant Dane Strother.

When it comes to voters' anxiety about the economy, this election year is a far cry from 1980, when Ronald Reagan famously asked: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

Nor does 2024 measure up to 1992, when Bill Clinton's team summed up the campaign's theme with the memorable phrase: "It's the economy, stupid."

Indeed.

I am not sure if this is a very good gamble for Kerry to take, although I understand why he is taking it. This election will turn on Iraq specifically and the war on terror generally. The economy, though an issue that redounds to Democrats on balance, is a plus for Bush, not a negative.

Further, if one of the key issues of this campign going to honesty and trustworthiness (and it will be), then talking down the economy in the face of emipirical evidence that suggests otherwise could mightily backfire on Kerry-Edwards.

And these numbers don't show a very effective basis for the Kerry-Edwards economy gamble:

In June 1980, three-fourths of Americans disapproved of Carter's handling of the economy at a time of rising inflation and little growth.

In June 1992, three-fourths disapproved of the elder Bush's economic performance when the economy was just starting to revive.

An AP-Ipsos poll this month found that voters were about evenly divided about the current president's handling of the economy, with 49 percent approving and 50 percent disapproving. Also, consumer confidence has been on the rise.

Another Round of Polls

No Poll Boost From Edwards

Senator John Edwards is viewed far more favorably than unfavorably by Americans in the aftermath of his introduction as Senator John Kerry's running mate, and the intensity of feeling for Mr. Kerry has deepened, among his backers in the presidential race, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

But naming Mr. Edwards did not immediately win over any substantial number of voters for the Democratic ticket, and the campaign between Mr. Kerry and President Bush remains statistically deadlocked as Mr. Kerry heads toward the Democratic convention and his best opportunity to make a strong impression on the country, the poll found.

None of that surprises me. Despite all the hoopla about how great a candidate Edwards was during the primaries and all of that, the simple truth is that he won practically no states, and only looked good because he exceeded expectations in Iowa and New Hampshire and because Dean and Gephart imploded. Liberal commentators may love his "Two Americas" speech and they may be enamored of the fact that the man is a liberal with a southern accent, but where was there hard evidence to suggest that Edwards was going to produce a bounce? Indeed, the fact that so many thought that Edward's "energy" was going to be good for Kerry always struck me as an acknowledgement that Kerry has troubles that his supporters were hoping that Edwards' smiles would somehow gloss over.

Of course, there is bad news for Bush as well:

Mr. Kerry's greatest opportunity appears to remain Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq. Fifty-one percent of respondents said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, up from 46 percent in April, May and June. Forty-five percent said taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, down slightly from the past several months.

Sixty-two percent said the war was not worth the loss of American lives and other costs, a figure that has risen steadily over the past few months.

And despite all of this this, the numbers remain tight. I fear another late, late election night at the rate we are going.

It is all going to boil down to whether Kerry can convince the handful of swing voters out there that a change is warranted under the current circumstances--because even if there is disapproval over Iraq, everyone knows that we are staying, and both candidates acknowledge such (unless there is a surprise nomination of Kucinich at the end of the month). So, Democrats cannot take full solace that 51% think we should have stayed out. The issue won't be in or out at this point, it will be who should lead us now that we are there?

AAAAARRGGGHHHHHH!

This is really starting to get on my nerves. I just heard a CNN Radio Network news break which continues to float the "Cheney might go" rumors, noting, among other things, that Cheney was campaigning with John McCain who, the story noted "has been rumored to possibily replace Cheney." At this point this is getting embarassing for the press, as the story that Cheney is going to be replaced has been thoroughly debunked, yet they persist. What's the deal?

Cheney Problem? What Cheney Problem?

Bill Quick notes the following Gallup study entitled Most Americans Want Dick Cheney to Stay on GOP Ticket, which is subtitled "Little evidence of change in public sentiment about Cheney." Says the first paragraph:

Despite the fairly consistent "buzz" in recent weeks about the possibility of President George W. Bush dumping Dick Cheney from the Republican presidential ticket, a review of recent polling evidence suggests that there is little support for such a change based on public opinion. A majority of Americans, including 7 in 10 Republicans, want Cheney to remain on the ticket, his favorable ratings are no lower now than they were earlier this year, and Cheney is actually less of a polarizing figure than is his boss, George W. Bush.

This bolsters my personal opinion that the reason we have seen all these Cheney stories is a combo of reporter boredom and the fact that the press corps, on balance, doesn't like Cheney.

His numbers really aren't that bad at all:

There is no evidence from Gallup polling that Cheney is viewed more negatively now than he was earlier this year. Cheney's favorable rating is now at 46%, with a 42% unfavorable rating. These ratings are almost identical to what Gallup measured in February, before the recent controversies in which Cheney has been so publicly involved.

Further, the public sentiment for dumping Quayle in 1992 was considerably higher than the current numbers on Cheney.

The current sentiment also stands in fairly stark comparison to the situation in July 1992, when only 37% of Americans felt that George H.W. Bush should retain Quayle.

This is clearly a media-driven story.

Red State/Blue State?

Take the Red or Blue Quiz. Some of the questions are pure trivia that I don't think measure much (e.g., won't most readers of Slate know who John Stewart is?).

Ends ups I am pretty Red State. Go and figure. (Although I am on the left edge of Red-kina pinkish...I wish the thing had a numerical score for better cross-blog comparisons).

Update: Dan Drezner reports he is purple, as is Virginia Postrel.

Update II: Kevin Drum scored only slightly to the left of me--the quiz seems to be as much a test of cultural literacy as anything else. Some of the questions are better indicators (e.g., have you ever fired a gun) than others (one doesn't have to be a red-neck from a red state to know a Toby Keith song). Further, it isn't hard in most cases to figure out the "right" answer) based on context.

Isn't that Sweet?

Kerry Asks Sen. Clinton to Introduce Bill

Debate Debate Starts

Kerry Accepts Debate Schedule

The Commission on Presidential Debates has proposed limiting two of the three debates by topic. The first meeting on Sept. 30 at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla., will deal with domestic policy. The third on Oct. 13, on the subject of foreign affairs, is scheduled to be held at Arizona State University in Tempe.

The second forum on Oct. 8 would be a town hall-style format at Washington University in St. Louis where undecided voters question the candidates on any issue.

The commission proposed a single debate between the vice presidential nominees on Oct. 5 at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, to cover the full range of issues.

The Bush people have not replied yet, leading the Kerry people to criticize them. In short: business as usual for these kinds of things.

The format looks identical to the 2024 slate, but in a different order.

WH Responds Regarding Cheney

Annoyed White House says Cheney will be VP candidate

"Yes, he will be on the ticket," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. "You all amaze me sometimes, playing to this kind of speculation when it was asked and answered long ago."

Indeed.

Now That's News!

'Doonesbury' Artist Trudeau Skewers Bush.

This is Worthy of an AP Story?

John Edwards Quizzed on Milk, Beer Prices.

This was silly when they did it to 41, and it is silly now. Yeesh.

Why Let Facts Get in the Way of a Good Rant?

Two things that have been bugging me this week:

1) Wilson-Plame: The current spin from many on the left is that it doesn't matter if Wilson lied, the bottom line is that a crime was committed. Well, we don't know that to be the case, now do we? As I understand it, revealing that Plame was CIA agent was only a crime if the person who revealed that fact knew she was undercover. In other words, the knowledge and motivation of the leaker matters greatly. It is quite possible that Novak's contact was aware of the memo and simply told him that Plame got Wilson the job--and that, therefore, no crime was committed. The idea that simply telling Novak that Plame worked for the CIA was, in and of itself, a crime is simply false.

2) Delaying Elections: People on the left and right are bugging me with this one. For one thing, governments are supposed to plan for ridiculously unlikely contingencies. One guesses we have battle plans somewhere in the Pentagon for invading allies "just in case" among other contingency-planning scenarios. Do you all remember the story a few month back about the Pentagon' global-warming scenarios? Many on the left loved that one, because it seemed to indicate that the Pentagon endorsed radical climate change theories.

In short: there is nothing insidious about the government considering what could be a real (but I think unlikely) event. Indeed, I would argue it is their job to plan for such outcomes. So those who have opined that it was a horribly stupid idea to have even brought it up really aren't being logical about the situation (for example, see Nancy Pelosi's statemet here)..

Now, I concur that it would be a tragedy for a host of reasons to have to delay the November elections, but given that the offices being elected in November don't take office until January, it isn't as if a minor postponement would affect our democracy is any substantial way aside from the symbolic fact that the terrorists would have been able to affect our calendar (bad, but hardly devastating). And might I note, that despite the rantings of some, no one has spoken about cancelling the elections (look up the words: "postponing" isn't the same as "cancelling").

But here's the bottom line: if the events of September 11, 2024 had occurred on November 2, 2024, can there be any doubt that one of the effects of that attack would have been that a large number of New Yorkers would have been unable to vote that day? And what about all the people in airplanes that morning who thought they would go vote once they got home, but instead found themselves stranded in another state. Surely an event like that would call for a reasonable, and brief, postponement of the elections to ensure that the voters actually had a chance to go to the polls. Not to mention, as I noted the other day, that any attack on a major city that disrupted voting in that location would almost certainly harm the Democratic party (in terms of the presidential election) since major metropolitan areas vote overwhelmingly Democratic (are the conspiracy-theorist on the Left thinking about such thing, or are they so paranoid about Bush that they can't rationally evaluate this situation?

As such the hyperbolic hand-wringing on this one has really seemed disproportionate in the extreme.

Update: This post is part of today's Beltway Traffic Jam

Ditka's Definitely Out

I can't say as I blame him.

Game over: Ditka won't run

"Iron Mike" Ditka broke the hearts of Illinois Republicans on Wednesday, telling them he will not suit up and get in the game to take on Democratic Senate nominee Barack Obama.

"There was a moment when I said, 'God, I'd like to take this on,' " Ditka said. "And then I said, 'You know, put your head on straight and think about what you're getting into right now.' "

Ditka, 64, said he was not ready to give up his private business deals or undergo the scrutiny that would come with being a political candidate or U.S. senator.

"I don't get headaches, and yesterday I got a headache," Ditka told reporters late Wednesday. "I had so many phone calls, I didn't know what was going on. It's just that I'm not used to that since I got out of coaching. I'm not used to the scrutiny, and I don't know if I would handle it well or not.

I must admit: being on the end of a media feeding frenzy can't be much fun. Although what is kind of scary is that a lot of politicians like it.

Evidence that the News Media are Bored

Some believe Cheney may have dismissed doctor to get out of race

Here's my question: if Bush wants Cheney out, or Cheney wants out, why is such an elaborate scheme necessary? It ain't like he has to have a doctor's note.

And again with the "prominent Republican" label being given to Alfonse "I have been nearly invisible for six years" D'Amato:

But some prominent Republicans, including former Senator Alfonse D'Amato, believe Bush would do better without Cheney on the ticket.

Here's the link to the NYT story which notes:

Mr. Cook's column came less than a week after Alfonse M. D'Amato, the once-influential Republican senator from New York, said on the cable station NY1 that Mr. Bush should replace Mr. Cheney with Mr. Powell or Mr. McCain. Mr. D'Amato's motives have stirred speculation among New Yorkers, although some who know him well said that getting attention might have been primary among them. An assistant in Mr. D'Amato's office said Wednesday that he would have no further comment on the matter.

Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said that Mr. D'Amato's comments had not thrown the White House into any evident frenzy. As Mr. King recounted it, he was recently at the White House with another member of Congress and had a brief conversation with Mr. Bush. The other member of Congress mentioned Mr. D'Amato's comments to Mr. Bush, Mr. King said, and Mr. Bush laughed.

"He didn't seem concerned or angry," Mr. King said. "And then I said that Al is getting married on Sunday and he's got other things on his mind." Mr. Bush responded, Mr. King said, by saying, "Tell him the president wishes him well on his wedding day."

At least the Times get's D'Amato's status right. And I suspect that they have well-identified his motivations as well as Bush's reaction to the whole thing.

Given that an alarming number of people in this country can't name the Vice President, and further that the empirical evidence suggests that runnning mates make little difference in elections, I find all of this discussion to be somewhat, well, silly.

Update: Kevin of Wizbang has a similar assessment: Slow News Day.

Update II: James Joyner comments.

And I will further add: I expect that Cheney's numbers wil go up after the debates.

Senator Ditka, We Hardly Knew Ya...

Stephen Green (who has been all over this Ditka story) reports that Da Coach ain't gonna run.

You Don't Say?

Voters Seldom Swayed by the Running Mate

And, indeed:

Bob Dole, the unsuccessful 1996 Republican nominee, tried to rejuvenate a lifeless campaign by choosing Jack Kemp, a charismatic icon of the party's conservative wing, Rothenberg said.

"At the of the day, Bob Dole was still Bob Dole."

Democratic Convention to be Hillary-less

Mrs. Clinton Will Be in Boston, but Not at the Microphone

The Democratic National Committee released on Tuesday its lineup of the big-name politicians speaking at the convention this month, and it included every major Democratic star except one.

There were Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, near the top of the list. Al Gore was there, too, and so was Edward M. Kennedy. Even the wife of the Iowa governor made the cut. But Hillary Rodham Clinton, the junior senator from New York and one of the most prominent names in the party, was nowhere to be found.

From a purely PR point of view, I far prefer the GOP line-up of Schwarzenegger, Guiliani and McCain...

And I wonder if Gore is going to give one his ranting melt-down speeches? Maybe Ted can regale the crowd with tales of his dog splash.

Still, it is a bit odd not to include Hillary, especially given all the conspiracy theories that abounded for so long that she would eventually be the nominee. Further, for those who were sure that the Clintons were trying to defeat the Democratic nominee this year so that Hillary could run in '08, is it not odd that she isn't speaking to set up her 2024 campaign?

At a minimum, and back to the world of reality, it seems to indicate that the Clintons don't run the show, like many on on the right are convinced is the case.

That Darn Internet!

Gov't Search Engines Link to Kerry Critics

Square Holes, Round Pegs and the Logic of John Kerry

Life begins at conception, Kerry says

Amid a three-day bus tour in which he highlighted his values and cast himself as an acceptable alternative for conservative voters, John F. Kerry was quoted yesterday as saying he believes life begins at conception, but continues to favor abortion rights.

[...]

''I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist . . . who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

So, then, if as a matter of public opinion a lot of people decide that while 1-year-olds are "alive" but that it is okay if their parents dispose of them, would that be ok? If I object to such toddler-slaughter, am I trying to infuse religion into politics? (Isn't Kerry basic argument that since about half the population supports abortion, that therefore it is something the government should allow? As such, the only moral test in operation here is that at least a large plurality of the population supports something for it to be at least potentially acceptable. Oddly, that is not the logic he applies to gay marriage...).

And, for that matter, just because one uses religion-based values to argue for a specific public-policy does not mean one is abridging the separation of church and state. By that definition of separation Kerry is creating a de facto religious test for office wherein anyone who says that they are motivated to argue for specific legislation as a result of their religious views shouldn't be allowed to do so. That is ludicrious on its face.

I can understand (though I disagree) how people who don't think life begins at conception can support early term abortions (how anyone supports late-term abortions is beyond me), but if one believe that life begins at conception, how can one support abortion?

It wholly baffles me.

Rice Says There Are No Plan to Delay Elections

Rice: No Plan to Delay National Election

Rice said the Bush administration, while concerned about the impact of terrorism, is not thinking of postponing the elections.

"We've had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war. And we should have the elections on time. That's the view of the president, that's the view of the administration," Rice told CNN on Monday.

The Edwards Effect in NC

Or, more accurately the lack thereof.

While I take every poll at this point somewhat lightly (although we are going to hit the point soon where they will start mattering), this one is quite interesting. I have long-maintained that Edwards wouldn't help Kerry win NC, but one would have thought that in the wake of the EdwardsFest that the numbers in NC would be closer at this point than 15%.

Thanks to Dave Wissing for pointing to the numbers.

Betsy Newmark further notes the USAT write-up on NC and points out this rather amusing observation by the Kerry camp:

Mark Mellman, Kerry's pollster, points to a huge turnout for Kerry and Edwards at a rally in Raleigh on Saturday and notes the Bush campaign is airing TV ads in the state. "When they take their ads off we'll know they believe" the state isn't competitive, he says.

Hmmm....a double-digit lead v. the fact that there was a big rally and the fact that the opposition is running commercials. I think I'll take the double-digit lead in the polls.

And for those who think Edwards will help in the South, the initial indicators aren't good:

In the national poll, Edwards didn't help Kerry's draw among Southerners, which was 44% before and after Edwards joined the ticket.

I maintain that just having a running mate with a southern accent is insufficient to overcome the liberal nature of the ticket--which is the real issue for the majority of Southern voters.

Ditka to Da Senate?

I heard something about this in passing yeterday: Ditka won't rule out U.S. Senate run

Hall of Fame football coach Mike Ditka says he's just a regular guy but that shouldn't rule him out as a replacement Illinois U.S. Senate candidate.

The 66-year-old former head coach of the Chicago Bears appeared on television news shows to talk about a possible bid for Senate. More than 6,000 people have signed a petition for Republicans to draft Ditka as the "people's choice" for November.

"I'm getting excited about it. I'm just thinking about it," Ditka told WGN-TV, Chicago.

And you can't argue with this kind of logic:

"If you're going to tell me I couldn't be a better senator than Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. -- I could be," Ditka said.

Hat tip: Will Collier at VodkaPundit.

Unfair and Silly

This kind of story annoys me: Crowd Turns Out To See Senator Go To Church, Including Convicted Peeper. Edwards is hardly responsible because some guy in the crowd was a convicted peeping Tom. It says nothing about Edwards, the Kerry campaign or the Democratic Party. One suspects that in any given crowd at a campaign function of either party there is likely to be convicts and kooks--and it is hardly newsworthy. For a reporter to report on such is simply an attempt to either titillate the reader or to embarrass the candidate.

Confirmed: Reagan to Speak

Ron Reagan to Address Democrat Delegates.

The speech will be prime-time, and allegedly will focus solely on stem cell research policy. We shall see.

"If they had asked me to say a few words about throwing George Bush out of office, I wouldn't do it," Reagan told The Philadelphia Inquirer. "This gives me a platform to educate people about stem cell research."

Warped Logic

Social Conservatives Want More of Their Own to Speak at the G.O.P. Convention

"I hate to say it, but the conservatives, for the most part, are not excited about re-electing the president," warned Paul Weyrich, the longtime Christian conservative organizer, in an e-mail newsletter on Friday. "If the president is embarrassed to be seen with conservatives at the convention, maybe conservatives will be embarrassed to be seen with the president on Election Day."

Yup, that would be a great idea. It will teach those GOPers a lesson! Meanwhile, President Kerry will be able to appoint likely three Justices to the Supreme Court, which will certainly forward Mr. Weyrich's policy goals.

Look, while I can understand the idea that many social conservatives wish they had a more prominent speaker at the convention, need I point out to them: it's the freakin' convention!!--what difference does it make policy-wise? (and remember: the reason one wants to win elections is to influence public policy).

What's further amusing is that folks on the Left will read the platform and then holler how the right-wing nuts control the Republican Party.

Note to all: the convention is an infomercial (especially the prime-time speakers) aimed not at the party faithful, but at voters on the fence. As such Guiliani and Schwarzenegger make excellent choices for prime-time speeches.

Does anyone even remember who the prime-timers were in 2024? And might I point out that Pat Buchanan's 1992 "Culture War" speech was hardly helpful. Does Weyrich want more of that?

If social conservatives are interesting in actually influencing abortion policy and similar issues, then their best bet is to do their best to re-elect George W. Bush and not pout over convention speakers.

More on Election Postponements

Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I checked the U.S. Constitution for any specific on election dates. Article II, Section 1 states:

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

And as James noted yesterday, the federal code sets that date as the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November.

The basic calender is:

1. Voters choose the electors in November
2. Electors cast their votes in their state capitals in December.
3. The electoral vote is counted in a joint session of Congress in January.

As such, if so horrible event caused a slight delay of the November election date, it would hardly disrupt the entire process.

And as predicted: a post over at the Daily Kos is referring to this as "calling off elections" and further proffers conspiracy theories that this is all just "partisan hokum" to scare people and therefore aid Bush.

However, like I noted yesterday: an attack on a major city would disproportionately affect Democratic voters--and can one imagine the conspiracy theories that woudl crop up if we just soldiered forth, "not letting the terrorist win" and therefore undercounting New York city or LA?

I can see scenarios in which a postponement would be reasonable. Calling off the elections, which no one is calling for, would, however, be ridiculous.

Investigating a Vote Delay?

This seems to be a growing story in the Blogosphere, and I expect the conspiracy buffs to go hog wild with it: U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack.

A few initial thoughts:

1) It seems prudent for Homeland Security to at least investigate the options. If there was a major attack on election day, there can be no doubt that the HS Department would be roundly (and rightly) criticized for not having a plan in place. If there was a truly disruptive attack , issues of whether the votes of certain citizens would be counted or not would be a major issue. For example, imagine the hue and cry if a major attack disrupted Miami, causing strongly Democratic parts of Florida to be unable to vote, or for conditions to be such that voters were afraid to leave their homes. Indeed, any attack aimed at a major city would almost certainly negatively affect Democratic voters (just look at the Red and Blue map and see how almost every major metropolitan area in the country went for Gore).

2) This whole process is contingency planning.

3) Those who think this is some master plan for the Evil Bush to stay in power extra-constitutionally are just as looney as the right-wingers who thought Clinton was going to use the Florida kerfuffle to extend his stay in office (for a representative example of that brilliant line of reasoning, go here).

4) Hopefully mainstream left/Democrat bloggers won't go nuts on this, but we shall see...

Joe Gandelman is blogging on this as well, as is Kristopher of The World Around You and James Joyner.

The main story (brief as it is) is here.

Best I can figure, it would take a federal law to grant such powers to the HSD. One wonders whether Congress will act on this issue, however.

Gushing Over Edwards

Juan Williams gushed over Edwards' campaign for the nomination today on Fox News Sunday--a gushing that I have noticed a number of liberal commentators engaged in since his naming. Now, if his "Two Americas" speech was so wonderful and if he was such an awesome candidate, why was it that Edwards lost the primaries? Edwards won what? One state?

And, again, Kerry is the head of the ticket, and he has to win this race.

(I will post the appropriate transcript excerpts from Juan when available).

Ronald Reagan to Speak at Democratic Convention

Ronald P. Reagan, that is. Or so reports Howard Fineman on The Chris Matthews Show.

I guess it is getting harder and harder for him to maintain that he was digging at Bush in his eulogy wasn't political.

At any rate, the idea that he is Democrat is no surprise. However, having him speak at the convention will be a plus for the Democrats.

The Power of Veeps

David Brooks, on The Chris Matthews Show made an excellent point that is of issue of hwo signifiance VP nominees are: Bentsen clearly beat Quayle (indeed, devastated him) in the 1988 VP debate. Further, there was no doubt that Bentsen was better prepared to be president than was Quayle.

Yet, who won the 1988 election?

The "Mill Worker's Son"

I continue to tire of the whole "he's the son of a mill worker" bit vis-a-vis Edwards. As I noted a while back, why is the fact that he emerged from the lower middle class to wealth an example of how horrid the United States is in terms on the ability of people to get ahead? Given that Edwards made the leap across this alleged gap that supposedly divides the "Two Americas" isn't he an illustration of how one can succeed with hard work in America?

Which Means that the Campaign Lacked "Energy" and "Enthusiasm"

Kerry Says Edwards Injecting 'Enthusiasm'

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says his selection of John Edwards as his running mate seems to have injected energy into the campaign. Still, he recognizes the dangers of being swept up by the excitement of the moment and growing complacent.

The thing is: it is Kerry who ultimately has to generate the energy and enthusiasm. The buzz oer Edwards is going to die off relatively soon.

That's a Rather Narrow Definition...

Kerry, Edwards blast Bush on values

"Values are putting the full force of the Justice Department on day one in an effort not to take three years and a few months before the election before you bring Ken Lay to justice," Kerry told a morning fund-raiser in New York.

Not only is it a narrow definition of "values" it is a rather lame attempt to make political hay out of the Lay indictment. Kerry, as a law school gradate and former District Attorney, knows full well that these things take time, and that one moves up the pyramid from the least important suspect to the most significant. It is hardly the case that a Ken Lay would be indicted the first day of the investigation.

The truth of the matter is that the Bush Justice Department has been quite successful in prosecuting these corporate scandal cases (especially Enron) and that it is difficult for the Democrats to make a credible argument that the administration has coddled these individuals.

And I remain stunned that this is supposed to be some statement about "America values."

For Sean Hackbarth

I think that Sean will appreciate this.

Let the Conspiracy Theories Begin!

Pentagon: Bush Military Records Destroyed

You Don't Say?

Kerry's Choice of Edwards May Not Affect Election, Polls Show

Edwards' Experience

Let me say that on one level Edwards has wholly adequate experience to be the veep. And, further, I think that the Bush campaign and their allies ought not overplay the experience card.

However, I do think that this issue has some relevance for the following reasons:

1) There is no doubt that as a matter of empirical fact, that Cheney's resume is far more impressive than Edwards'--and I think that in the veep debate that will be obvious. Edwards, who is better spoken that Dan Quyale in my opinion, still has certain Quayle-like qualities. And while Cheney will be unlikely to lay a "you're no Jack Kennedy" line on Edwards, I think that the veep debate this year will have a quality similar to the Quayle-Bentson debate in 1988: that of the elder stateman versus the kid.

In an era of terror, I think this will matter. As such, I think Kerry made a mistake with this selection.

2) Kerry promised to find the most qualified candidate for the slot, and Edwards simply doesn't qualify for that.

3) The Bush in 2024 comparison is off the mark for one key reason: 911 hadn't happened yet. Had we been in the war on terror in 2024, Gore would almost certainly would have been elected, givent he experience differential on foreign policy. 2024 simply wasn't a foreign policy election, this one is. As such, I find the Edwards pick to be odd.

Now, ultimately I don't expect Edwards to have much effect on the race, and, in general, veeps don't have as much impact as the current media blitz would have us all think they do. Still, I continue to think that Kerry could have picked someone who would have been less flashy, but ultimately a strategially better selection.

The Edwards Bounce

Not so much: AP Poll: Bush Gains Slight Lead Over Kerry.

This matched other polls I heard noted on the radio today and on what little TV news I have seen since getting home.

The most interesting part to me is that there are finally signs that the President is starting to reap the benefits of the growing economy--i.e., as predicted by many, the facts on the ground that have been around for months are now finding their way into the minds of voters.

On the down-side for Bush: the wrong-track numbers are still high. On the up-side for Kerry: one of the days of the poll was pre-Edwards and also part of a holiday weekend for many (meaning the numbers are likely less accurate).

Alex, I'll Take "People Not to Take Advice From" for $300

Ex-GOP Senator Suggests Bush Dump Cheney

President Bush should consider dumping Vice President Dick Cheney from the Republican ticket this year, an influential former GOP senator said Wednesday.

Alfonse D'Amato said Bush should consider putting Secretary of State Colin Powell or Sen. John McCain of Arizona on the GOP ticket.

A) This "dump Cheney" stuff is silly, because 1) it ain't gonna happen, and 2) it wouldn't make much difference.

B) D'Amato isn't exactly high on my list of politicos from whom I would take advice.

and

C) Since when is D'Amato an "influential former GOP Senator"? The last time I heard his name was when he lost his seat back in 1998.

Dewey Picks Truman

Hilarious.

Blogospheric Reaction to the Edwards Choice

So, It's Edwards

No big surprise: Kerry Picks Edwards as Running Mate. Not a bad choice, but I am not sure that it was the best choice.

Some thoughts:

1) The "Bringing a State" Test. Yes, this is an over-rated category, but since it is fairly clear that Edwards was unlikely to be re-elected to the Senate from NC, his electoral impact will be small. And one can throw out the idea that he will help in the South to the degree to which he could swing a Bush state to Kerry.

2) The "Read to Govern" Test: A scant six years (almost) in elected office isn't really suffcient to pass this test--and while he is a better looking man thatn Cheney, and more energetic looking, I don't think he will compare favorably in the debates. To the small degree to which some swing voters may look at the veeps as potential presidents in a time of war, I would think that Cheney would win that comparison.

3) Senator + Senator: While hardly a death-blow, it seems odd to me to have two Senators on the ticket who have, between them, zero hours of chief executive experience (although, granted, Kerry was Lt. Gov. of Mass under Dukakis).

4) The "He Adds Energy to the Ticket" Argument: First, whatever energy infusion that Kerry will get will only last through the initial media-fest over the nomination, and second, the excitement over the possibility of some excitement bespeaks poorly about the head of the ticket. LIke the GOP excitement over Jack Kemp in 1996, this situation serves to underscore how un-exciting the nominee is.

I still think that Gephardt would have been a better choice: a chance at tippping MIssouri to Kerry, a ton of governmental experience, and less discussion about him being chosen for "energy." Although, granted, there was still a lack of executive experience there.

The selection does follow the same pattern as that other JFK, i.e., Senator+Senator (and Northeastern+Southerner)--except that LBJ had a ton of experience and could bring Texas, and the top of the ticket had the charisma and energy.

4th of July Weekend Caption Contest

This photo begged for a CC, so have at it:

Does This Even Qualify as News?

TV to snub conventions.

For the last several cycles this has been the case, and I expected as much this year, so what's the story?

More Myopia from Kerry

Kerry Looks to Boost College Graduates

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) says if he's elected president, 1 million more students will graduate from college during his first five years in office and he will bring a special focus to boosting opportunities for low-income and minority students.

Okay, obviously I think higher education is important. Not only did I spend a total of ten and a half years acquiring my degrees, but the food that feeds my kids is purchased by dollars I earn teaching students at a university.

However, this proposal by Kerry is plain silly. While the idea of boosting the number of minority gradautes is a noble one, not only is it not the President's job to deal with these things, but just providing money for people to go to school does not necessarily translate into more graduations.

Further, speaking as a professor teaching in one of the poorest states in the union, it is my experience that if one has the qualifications to attend college, there are ways to do so. Not only are community college quite accessible, but there are a number of programs available (not to mention working to pay one's tuition) to help worthy students to go to school. In other words, I question the implicit assertion in the Senator's proposal that there aer serious barriers to entry for students who wish to obtain a degree.

And not to rain on the Senator's parade, but it may indeed be the case that there are currently too many students in our colleges and universities who aren't ready to be college, and in some cases never will be.

Really, I don't see the great crisis here.

And you have to love the math:

Kerry's campaign says nearly half the hike in graduation rates will come from population increases, and he'll achieve the other half by bringing down the cost of education and creating other incentives to bring students to college and keep them there.

So by this logic, if the next President does nothing at least 500,000 more students will graduate, so his proposal is only for half a million.

I wish the Senator would repeat after me: Presidents don't create gradautes, Presidents don't create graduates... He can meditate on that one after he writes President's don't create jobs 200 times. He also needs to write a 10 page essay on why Presidents have no control over the cost of education.

And What if they Protest the Democratic Convention?

Romney Replaces Kerry at Mayors Meeting

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney replaced Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry as a speaker for the nation's mayors on Monday after Kerry canceled a speech rather than cross a police union picket line.

Romney, a Republican, said he would cross the picket line to speak to the U.S. Conference of Mayors as a show of support for Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. The Boston Police Patrolmen's Association has been working without a contract for two years.

"Executive leadership requires tough decision-making, and that's true whether you're a mayor, a governor or the president of the United States," Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said.

Menino had urged Kerry to attend the conference, which he called "an important event for urban America," and contended the police union's demonstrations did not constitute a legitimate picket line. However, Kerry said Sunday night: "I don't cross picket lines. I never have."

Ok here's the scenario: the strike runs into July, Kerry refuses to cross, and therefore has to postpone his nomination so that he can forestall taking the federal grant for his campaign, allowing him to raise money until the end of the summer.

Kerry is Going to Need new Talking Points

Betsy Newmark notes that another of Kerry's arguments have fallen by the wayside: Tuition burden falls by a third 80% jump in aid offsets price hikes

What students pay on average for tuition at public universities has fallen by nearly one-third since 1998, thanks to new federal tax breaks and a massive increase in state and federal grants to most students and their families.

Contrary to the widespread perception that tuition is soaring out of control, a USA TODAY analysis found that what students actually pay in tuition and fees -- rather than the published tuition price -- has declined for a vast majority of students attending four-year public universities. In fact, today's students have enjoyed the greatest improvement in college affordability since the GI bill provided benefits for returning World War II veterans.

What made the difference: a $22 billion annual increase in grants and tax breaks since 1998.

That 80% jump in financial aid -- targeting middle-class families earning $40,000 to $100,000 a year -- has more than offset dramatic increases in tuition prices.

Indeed, two of Kerry's talking points takes a hit: 1) the general idea that college tuition has become a massive burden on the middle class, and 2) that tax policy hasn't been helping middle class voters.

Life's Tough

Estimate of Heinz Fortune Doubled

Teresa Heinz Kerry, through a network of investments in blue-chip corporations, venture capital funds and municipal bonds, controls a family fortune worth an estimated $1 billion, an examination of public records shows.

The $1-billion figure is double the estimates of her wealth that are widely cited in news stories about her husband, Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

The couple would rank as the wealthiest to occupy the White House, far surpassing such storied presidential fortunes as the Kennedys'. Their assets are so vast and far-reaching that they mirror the U.S. economy, and will likely raise questions about conflicts of interest.

[...]

Since key details of Heinz Kerry's investments are not in the public record, a precise valuation is not possible. The Times analysis produced estimates as low as $900 million and as high as $3.2 billion.

Three senior executives at investment firms that handle accounts for wealthy clients reviewed The Times' study and said the $1-billion valuation was a fair and conservative estimate.

That ain't chump change, to be sure. If Kerry is elected, is she going to put all of it into a blind trust? I would pressume she would have to do so. However, that issue is apparently still up in the air:

Heinz Kerry has not said whether she will continue to oversee her personal assets or the family trusts if Kerry is elected. A Kerry spokesman said Friday that these issues had yet to be seriously considered. However, she has said repeatedly that she would not step down from her leadership of her philanthropic corporations.

It would seem sans blnd trust, the possibility of onflict of interest would be enormous.

Leon Panetta appears to concur:

"They will have to seriously consider putting it in a blind trust," Panetta said. "All of us who have served in government have had to do that. In the end, it is the better way to go, because it removes any suspicion that a decision is self-serving. You have enough problems just making a decision, without dealing with the concern you may be putting money in your pocket."

Of interest:

No specific law requires the president, much less the first lady, to put assets in a blind trust, said Stan Brand, a federal government ethics expert and Washington attorney. In fact, federal law says almost nothing about the first lady, though she does get protection and funding for an office.

Since Heinz Kerry owns such a broad portfolio of U.S. and foreign stocks, the actions of a Kerry administration could have a daily effect on companies in which his wife has millions of dollars invested, said Robert M. Stern, a financial disclosure expert and president of the Center for Governmental Studies.

"Almost any decision Kerry makes will affect one of her companies," Stern said. "It might help the situation if the wealth were put into a blind trust."

President Bush has placed his assets in a trust that is invested almost exclusively in certificates of deposit, according to his financial disclosure statement on file with the federal Office of Government Ethics.

All Wise Choices for Prime-Time

GOP convention to feature McCain, Schwarzenegger, Giuliani

The official, who asked not to be named, confirmed a New York Times report that the three had been chosen to make prime-time speeches at the Republican gala in New York that will run from August 30 to September 2.

Intriguing: Greens Reject Nader

US Green Party spurns Nader as presidential nominee

Nazis are Only Funny in Mel Brooks Musicals

The Blogosphere is all atwitter about the latest rant from the former Veep:

In an hour-long address punctuated by polite laughter and applause, Gore also accused the Bush administration of working closely "with a network of 'rapid response' digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for 'undermining support for our troops."'

First off, I concur with James Taranto who, in the June 25th edition of "Best of the Web" cites Godwin's Law (something that has to be cited far too often these days).

Second, while I can see how this can be amusing on one level, I must admit that it really is too creepy to me to be funny.

(Perhaps "Nazis are only funny in Mel Brooks musicals" can be Taylor's Corollary to Godwin's Law).

Fun with Indicators

Barry Ritholtz has a list of numerous presidential election indicators over at the Big Picture. The outcome is mixed.

One Would Hope

Judge Sorry for Likening Bush, Hitler

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

Kerry Goes on 36-Hour Bicoastal Campaign

Ryan Quits Illinois Senate Race

Illinois' Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid

Illinois senatorial candidate Jack Ryan abruptly abandoned his bid for Congress on Friday, succumbing to a furor over sex club allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and made him a target of late-night comedy.

"It's clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race," said the 44-year-old Ryan, who won his party's nomination in a multi-candidate primary earlier this year.

"What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign — the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play."

Illinois GOP leaders expressed relief. "Jack Ryan made the right decision. I know it must have been a difficult one," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who made his feelings known by canceling a fund-raising event scheduled for Thursday with the senatorial hopeful.

Iacocca Endorses Kerry

A former Bush backer endorses Kerry

Senator John F. Kerry won the coveted endorsement yesterday from a onetime supporter of President Bush, former Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca, who praised Kerry's proposals for creating 10 million jobs across the country and assailed the Bush administration's economic record.

Yup, new jobs and robust growth pretty much sucks.

But I thougt they Were All for Voting and Stuff

Democrats Sue to Block Nader From Ariz. Ballot

What happend to letting every vote count?

Arnold and the GOP Covention

Schwarzenegger, Confident and Ready for Prime Time

"Whether I'm speaking, I'll leave that up to them," said Mr. Schwarzenegger, a global celebrity who has emerged as perhaps the most intriguing new Republican face of the political season. "If they're smart, they'll have me obviously in prime time."

No kidding. And I suspect he will have quite a prominent slot.

And this is neither surprising, nor unreasonable:

But Mr. Schwarzenegger, who has been defining himself as a moderate, also made it clear that when prime time is over, he intends to keep some distance from Mr. Bush, who is not particularly popular in Democratic-leaning California.

Mr. Schwarzenegger said that while he would appear with Mr. Bush if the president comes to California, he had no plans to travel outside of the state to stump for him. "If I start flying around and not spending time here, it could backfire big time," he said, adding that Californians elected him to be their full-time governor and that he was not going to risk his standing by devoting himself to national politics.

The only question, really, will be how hard he tries to help in California.

And yout have to love this:

For instance, since Mr. Schwarzenegger took office on Nov. 17, the toilet paper in the Capitol has been switched from two-ply to one-ply, a saving of thousands of dollars over the years. "It's not anymore the two-ply," he said. "Because you know what? We're trimming. We're living within our means."

SC Senate Race

Jeff Quinton has a round-up of the DeMint victory in South Carolina.

It's Called "Being a Senator"

From the same story, we find that Kerry didn't get to vote on what he wanted to vote on yesterday:

The meeting came on an unusual day for Kerry, who spent it not campaigning for votes in New Mexico, as originally scheduled, but in the Capitol. He had come, he said, to cast a vote to increase funding for veterans' health care. Republicans, eager to deny Kerry the moment he sought, maneuvered to prevent a roll call.

By evening, he bemoaned the delay in remarks on the Senate floor. "We have an opportunity to make a choice today. If we don't, then we'll continue to talk about this issue over the next months," the Democratic presidential candidate said. "And the American people will make a choice in November."

[...]

"Senator Kerry ought to have an opportunity to vote" on veterans, Daschle, of South Dakota, said at mid-afternoon, at a time when the presidential candidate still nursed hopes — later abandoned — of being able to do so in time to fly to New Mexico for an evening fund-raiser.

What, the Senate has to schedule its votes to accomodate one Senator? There is an easy way for Mr. Kerry to get to vote: he can stay in Washington and be a Senator. If he wants the political advantage of being able to vote for something that will make him look good, he has to live with the political game of the vote being delayed.

Really, while he has the right to keep his seat while he runs, there does come a point where it seems a choice should be made: either he is a presidential candidate or a legislator. It is nearly impossible to effectively be both.

OK, So it wasn't Entirely all that Secretive

Kerry Has Secretive Meeting With Edwards

So every time that Kerry meets with a potential running mate we are going to have the same breathless story.

DeMint: GOP Nominee for Senate in SC

DeMint Easily Wins S.C. Primary

Rep. Jim DeMint began his Senate campaign as a relatively unknown candidate across most of South Carolina. Two weeks ago, he barely made it out of the Republican primary.

But the three-term congressman completed a remarkable turnaround Tuesday, coasting to a decisive runoff victory over former Gov. David Beasley and setting the stage for a race that could help determine the balance of power in the Senate.

And this is interesting given all the outsourcing chatter that has been going on of late:

The two generally sparred over trade issues and how best to revive South Carolina's manufacturing-heavy economy. DeMint supports free trade, while Beasley is more of a protectionist.

NewsFlash: Kerry Casts Vote in Senate

Kerry Cancels Campaign Trip for Vote

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry canceled a campaign swing to New Mexico and returned to the Capitol on Tuesday to vote on a Senate bill requiring mandatory funding of health care for military veterans, a constituency he has courted since the beginning of his bid.

Campaigning for president has made Kerry a rare figure in the Senate for most of the year. He has participated in just 14 of 132 votes since January, according to an Associated Press tally. However, Kerry said the veterans health care bill drew him back to Washington.

Wasting Time on Capitol Hill

Robert Tagorda is correct: this is pointless and counterproductive. PLus, who watches one minute speeches anyway?

And a Collective Yawn Swept Over the Nation...

The Independent: Beating Kerry to Punch, Nader Picks a No. 2.

Can it get any more electrifying than Peter Camejo?

Of course, the fact this may lead to the Green Party's endorsement and ballot slots for Nader is no small thing.

This Might Affect his Election Chances...

This proves (or creates) a political maxim: never get divorced during a campaign: Ex-wife of GOP Senate candidate alleged sex club forays - Jun 22, 2024.

The whole thing is bizarre. First you have this:

The ex-wife of Jack Ryan, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, alleged in court papers filed in 2024 that he took her to sex clubs and asked her to engage in sexual activity in front of other patrons.

Portions of the documents, which related to a visitation dispute over the couple's son, were released Monday, after a judge in Los Angeles ordered them unsealed.

At a news conference Monday, Ryan reiterated the denial he made in his initial legal response to the charges by TV actress Jeri Lynn Ryan, in which he called the allegations "ridiculous" and "smut" and insisted he was "faithful and loyal to my wife throughout our marriage."

And then you have this:

Jeri Ryan, who starred in the TV shows "Boston Public" and "Star Trek: Voyager," also issued a conciliatory statement, saying that she now considers her ex-husband "a friend" and has "no doubt that he will make an excellent senator."

While not addressing the sex club allegations directly in her statement, she said that "there was never any physical abuse in our marriage -- either to myself or to our son -- nor, to my knowledge, was he ever unfaithful to me."

"Jack is a good man, a loving father, and he shares a strong bond with our son. I wish him all the best," she said.

Which is, one must admit, a strange juxtaposition.

Apparently the docs cames out as a result of the following:

Several Chicago media organizations had sued for release of documents relating to the Ryans' divorce, saying the public interest outweighed their concerns about privacy and the possible effect on their now 9-year-old son. Friday, a judge in Los Angeles, where their divorce was litigated, agreed to unseal portions of more than 360 pages of documents, although large parts remained blacked out.

Both Ryans had objected to the release of details in the documents, but they opted not to appeal the ruling.

Quite frankly, a rather sordid situation, and one that I would think would likely damage Ryan's electability (to put it mildly). Although it might help him with the swing vote.

You Know Your Nominee is in Trouble When...

More fun from the Sunday shows, in this case, Fox News Sunday and a round-table discussion of Kerry's VeepQuest:

WILLIAMS: You know, I'm just looking for some excitement. And all you guys are looking for steady, and there's this belief that somehow Kerry has now mastered the idea that Democrats can protect the homeland, conduct the war on terror.

But I think, you know, it's like Madonna changes her name to Esther. I think we need somebody who comes out of the dark and reinvents this whole Democratic ticket and gives it some energy and gives it a message, so the Democrats who want to vote for Kerry, not just because dislike Bush but because they want Kerry, have a reason.

WALLACE: Juan, do you really think a vice presidential candidate that can do that?

KRISTOL: Kerry should change his name to Esther.

WILLIAMS: To Esther? You like that?

KRISTOL: I think that's the way to go, yes.

WILLIAMS: No, I think the vice presidential candidate can't do everything. I'm not suggesting that. But they can bring some energy to this ticket, which is why John Edwards has reemerged.

For the longest time, people were talking about Wesley Clark. Now there's this dark-horse effort about Joe Biden. But I think whoever it is has got to bring energy to the ticket. That's what's lacking.

This struck me as a remarkable commentary on Kerry's candidacy. When one thinks that a ticket needs "reinventing"--and the convention hasn't even taken place yet--that is hardly a stirring endorsement of one's party's nominee.

Indeed, the last time I recall partisans citing a need for energy and excitement like this was when Bob Dole was looking for a running mate.

I hate to tell Juan Williams, but it won't matter who Kerry picks as his running mate--there isn't going to be more than a brief charge of excitement, and then the voters will return their focus to the non-energetic, boring head of the ticket. That's the way it works.

(and ya gotta luv the Madonna/Esther ref from Kristol).

Hylarious

From LAT: Where Kerry Takes a Break, Celebrity Is Commonplace

On Saturday at dusk, Kerry's campaign summoned the news media to a street corner to watch him ride by on his bike. Nearly an hour later, aides reported the ride had been canceled because of a flat tire.

The concept of summoning the media to watch the Senator bike by is hilarious.

My Campaign Finance Rant of the Day

Staggering Sum-Raising

The amounts are eye-popping -- and it is only June. President Bush has raised at least $218 million for his reelection campaign and has spent $152 million, more than half of it on television ads. If contributions keep coming in at the current pace, Bush's total could reach $250 million by the time of the GOP convention at the end of August.

No, what's "eye-popping" is this number: $2,473,000,000,000--the proposed amount of the FY 2024 federal budget. It is because the President has substantial influence over the spending of those funds that so much money is raised and spent to affect who wins the presidency.

This, in addition to that whole Commander-in-Chief thing, the foreign policy thing, the ability to affect how the laws and constitution are interpreted thing because of that whole appointment power thing, and so forth.

Why it is shocking or "eye-popping" that a great number of persons have given money to help their side win is beyond me.

As the article notes, we aren't talking abut Daddy Warbucks breaking open the checkbook:

Bush received donations in May from 224,380 people, who gave an average of $60, the campaign said.

The piece doesn't give the Kerry figures, but they are likely similar.

I continue to be baffle, if not a bit annoyed, by this ongoing hand-wringing over the money in politics.

Heck, the payroll for the New York Yankees this year is $183,335,513, according to ESPN. Surely selecting the next president is more important than baseball (perhaps not more important than football, of course, but easily more important than baseball).

McCain to Kerry: "No--and I Really Mean it!"

Bush Gets a Boost from Maverick McCain

McCain, a bitter Bush rival during the 2024 Republican presidential primaries, provided a boost to the president's re-election campaign with an enthusiastic endorsement of his leadership and of the war in Iraq.

"He deserves not only our support but our admiration," the maverick Republican senator from Arizona, a strong supporter of the Iraq war, said of Bush's response to the Sept. 11, 2024, attacks.

"He has led this country with moral clarity," McCain said, telling thousands of troops packed into a hangar at Fort Lewis, Washington, that the war in Iraq was "a fight between right and wrong, good and evil. It is no more ambiguous than that."

Lofty Goals

Kristopher of The World Around You notes that the Alabama Democratic Party is seeking to lose by not as much this year in the Presidential election. Certainly an investment well-made.

My guess is that between not being the incumbent Vice President, being from Massachusetts (Gore was at least ostensibly from the South), and the fact that the South tends to be quite pro-military, that Kerry is likely to do worse in Alabama than Gore did in 2024, increased effort in the state or not.

Kerry's Foreign Policy Proposals

James Joyner examines Kerry's Foreign Policy proposals, which have been criticized (by myself as well as others, as vague and nonsubstantive). James summarizes Kerry's proposals quite succinctly with this line:

it’s basically the current plan with a magic wand making things all better.

That pretty much sums up most of Kerry's proposals.

Understatement of the Day (Plus More Tales of Campaign Finance Reform)

In a WaPo piece we find the following gem:

Together, the Kerry and Bush campaigns are on track to raise a total of more than $400 million by the end of the summer in a demonstration that the 2024 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law has not constrained presidential spending.

No joke--and anyone who thought it would wasn't paying attention. Indeed, there is nothing in the law that was likely to affect the amount that candidates raised--indeed, by upping the hard money limit from individuals to $2000 (from $1000--which the article notes), McCain-Feingold would have been projected to have moderately affected the amount raised by candidates upward a tad.

However, as Bush's 2024 campaign demonstrated (which was pre-McC-G)--the system doesn't necessarily work as advertised.

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more telling the above-quoted paragraph is: people don't really understand the campaign finance rules (not even Washington-based reporters on politics). Rather, they just assume that "reform" means that less money will be collected and spent. However, the history of "reform" does not demonstrate such an outcome.

However, the one area that Mc-G was supposed to curtail was "soft money"--yet:

In fact, when money raised by the parties, the two presidential candidates and by "soft money" committees known as "527s" is added, the total on the Republican side is $574 million and on the Democratic side $421 million, a $153 million GOP advantage.

The technical political science reponse to the failure of the legislation is: oops!

The main point of the article, as the headline notes ("Kerry Breaks Bush Record For Pace of Fundraising ") is to note the following:

The disclosure shows that Kerry led Bush in fundraising from March through May almost 2 to 1: $100.4 million to Bush's $55.2 million. In May alone, Kerry raised $26 million compared with $13.2 million by Bush, according to calculations by CNN that Bush officials described as accurate.

However, as amazing as that is, the bottom line is still that Bush has far more money than Kerry, even after that impressive run:

Bush has outraised Kerry by an estimated $214 million to $145 million, according to FEC records and data released by the Kerry campaign.

McCain Emphasizes his "No" to Kerry

McCain, Bush Begin to Mend Ties

After being courted by John F. Kerry to consider joining the Democratic presidential ticket, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will join President Bush on Air Force One on Friday and introduce him at a campaign event in Reno, Nev., campaign officials said yesterday.

[...]

McCain will join Bush on Friday morning in a hangar at Fort Lewis, Wash., where the president will discuss transformation of the military. McCain then will introduce the president at a rally in the Reno-Sparks Convention Center.

Kerry Round-Up

Sean Hackbarth has the latest House of Ketchup.

More Evidence of the Death of the Current Campaign Finance System

Republicans Nearing Money Record for Convention

The committee's aggressive fund-raising is expected to exceed the record $36.1 million collected by Los Angeles officials for the Democratic convention in 2024, and will effectively signal an end to the effort to make conventions publicly financed, campaign finance experts said.

Gee, what a shame. Quite frankly I see no justification whatsoever for the public paying one red cent for these things.

Kerry Must Know How to Make a Dollar Go a Loooong Way

Kerry Wants Federal Afterschool Program

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Wednesday he would create a federal program that would pay to keep schools open until early evening to help working parents.

Kerry, visiting an after-school and summer school program center, said he would spend an additional $1.5 billion on after-school programs. He said he would get the money for keeping schools open until 6 p.m. from repealing President Bush's tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000 a year.

1) Would someone remind the Senator that he is running for President of the United States not mayor or school superintendent. This kind of stuff always bugs me. After-school care isn't the president's job.

2) He can't pay for everything by repealing the tax cut for the $2000k+ crowd. After all, I thought he was going to pay for health care:

Kerry would repeal tax cuts for families making $200,000 a year or more and spend that money for health care.

Kerry spokesman David Wade said that some proposals would be paid for by eliminating the Bush administration's tax cuts for Americans who earn more than $200,000 a year. Other elements would be financed through cuts in other federal programs.

and a trust fund for No Child Left Behind:

Laura Capps, spokeswoman for the John Kerry campaign, argued that the Bush administration has fallen short of providing enough money for the mandates of No Child Left Behind.

Capps said Kerry would like to create a $200 billion education trust fund to pay for education improvements with money from the repeal of Bush's tax breaks for those earning more than $200,000 a year.

To name a few...

Somehow I am guessing that all of this can't possibly add up.

Kaus on Party-Switching

Mickey Kaus shares my skepticism over Mrs. Kerry's recent statements over her converstion to the Democratic Party:

Honk if you think Teresa Heinz Kerry really became a Democrat because she was outraged at the GOP treatment of Max Cleland. ... I'm not hearing anything! ... As if Mrs. Heinz Kerry (until recently Mrs. Heinz) wasn't going to switch her registration at some point before her Democratic husband ran for President? Did she change her name because of Cleland too? ...

Indeed.

Impressive: The $100 Million Dollar Dem, the Ailing Campaign Finance System, and Other Tales

Kerry Raises Record $100M in Three Months

John Kerry raised a Democratic record $100 million from March through May, lifting his presidential campaign to more than $140 million so far.

Can we say "matching funds are dead"? I bet we can. There can be no doubt that after Bush in 2024 (and '04) and Kerry and Dean this time, that the presidential primary matching-fund process created by the FECA is essentially dead. At best it is campaign welfare for medium-to-low wattage candidates.

And for those keeping score at home, here're the Bush numbers:

President Bush has raised at least $216 million since he began his re-election effort in May 2024. That includes at least $13 million raised in May through online and mailed contributions.

Bush stopped holding fund-raisers for himself in April, turning his attention to helping the Republican Party and fellow GOP candidates raise millions for the fall election.

The campaign finance system at worst broken, and at best a bad joke. Kerry's convention conundrum illustrated this, as does the fact the Kucinich is still getting matching funds,

A Truly Remarkable Thing to Say

"My entire person is affected by my belief structure, by the values given to me both through my parents and through religion. But I don't make decisions in public life based on religious belief, nor do I think we should. I think there is a separation of church and state."--Senator John Kerry as quoted in USAT on June 11.

OK, so his religious beliefs have shaped his "entire person" except for "decisions in public life"? Pardon?

It's like a Socialist politician saying that the collective works of Karl Marx have affected their entire belief structure, except when it comes to serving in office.

Ok, so what values do inform Mr. Kerry's decisions in public life? Inquiring voters want to know.

(Maybe this is just so nuanced a position that I am missing the elusive point).

Political Naivete

In an column in the Arizona Republic E. J. Montini writes to Senator McCain about Kerry's offer of the veepship. Mr. Montini appeals to McCain as follows:

You are flattered but also loyal. You have said that you would not hand over an election to the opposition. Except that if you were on the ticket you wouldn't be handing over the election to the opposition. You would be sharing in the victory.

You have said many times recently that this is the most divided political era that you have ever seen. You have called for an end to personal attacks. You have come to the defense of Sen. Kerry when he was criticized in a way that you considered to be unfair. For doing so, you were attacked by activists within your own party.

Months ago you told The Arizona Republic, "I believe the citizens of Arizona are a bit disturbed about how partisan and bitter this campaign has become." And you recently have witnessed it getting worse.

You can change all that.

To which I say: poppycock.

Firstly, the Vice President has no powers of any significance. Second, to give a Vice President McCain "unity government" kind of powers would require complex negotiations between the two men that would amount to a semi-co-presidency that went outside the constitutional design of either office. Third, just because Kerry and McCain were on the same bumper sticker doesn't mean that their differences would melt away on key issues like abortion.

This all sounds good in the "can't we all just get along" vein, but it is wholly spurious reasoning. The reality would be that McCain would have to swallow his own views on many issues so as to get along with the boss. Such a "unity" ticket would not create a dissolution of the differences between these two men, or between the two parties.

The idea that just putting a Republican on a Democratic ticket would lead to true unity is the stuff of delusional fantasies.

Trying to Explain Himself

Kerry: 'I'm Running for President Because ....'

"I'm running for president because ...." the White House hopeful, longtime senator from Massachusetts and decorated Vietnam War veteran explained again and again.

[...]

"I'm running for president because I want an economy that strengthens and expands the middle class, not one that squeezes it," the presumptive Democratic nominee told a labor conference in Atlantic City.

[...]

"I'm running for president to put America back to work ... I'm running for president because health care is not a benefit for the wealthy or the elected or the connected ... I'm running for president because I know that we could be a hell of a lot stronger in the world if we were to secure our freedom ... I'm running for president because I believe we can build an even more effective military."

Ok, so he wants a vibrant economy, security at home, a strong military and he wants to expand health care benefits. My guess is that every mainstream party candidate who has ever run for President wanted the first three things. So is he saying he main raison d'etre is health care reform?

Seriously: the man is having a problem expressing a basic message.

UPDATE: This is part of today's Beltway Traffic Jam.

Umm, I Think the Answer is: "She Married One"

Heinz Kerry Says Why She Joined Democrats

Oh, now come on, this is silly.

Teresa Heinz Kerry says anger, not ideology, prompted her to become a Democrat. The wife of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, says her emotion stemmed from the way the Republican Party, to which she had pledged allegiance, treated Democratic Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia in 2024.

What? If the Republicans had been nice to Cleland in 2024 she would've stayed a Republican and would now be campaigning for Bush against her husband?

Heinz Kerry had been a registered Republican until Kerry, her second husband, announced his bid for the White House.

As one would expect. Surely this is one switch that needs no explanation.

Just Choose Already!

I know it's early, but I am tired of the speculation. The latest is from US News' Washington Whispers

Labor leaders believe union friend Rep. Dick Gephardt has the inside track to be Sen. John Kerry 's vice president. We hear that AFL-CIO execs say it's a done deal.

While harldy a charisma-infusion, I have long thought Gephardt a better choice thatn Edwards. Why? Because having Gephardt has the chance of bringing along Missouri. I don't think that Edwards can deliver NC (remember: he chose not to run for re-election to the Senate). And aside from the news boost that naming his veep will bring him, I do not think that an exciting VP nominee will have any lasting significance for Kerry. Gephardt, however, could help in MO.

People get really excited about this stuff for a few days, and then things tend to calm down. We go through this hype every four years--yet I ask: what VP nominee has ever made that much of a difference? The only one in the Twentieth Century that I can think of is LBJ--who delivered Texas to JFK in a hotly contested 1960 race.

NOTE TO THE PRESS: I know you are bored, but the Veep thing really isn't that big a deal.

The Silliness of the Big "L" Libertarians

Libertarian Candidate Won't Concede to 'Evil'

Badnarik started as an underdog in a party of underdogs, but said he is now ready to convince mainstream voters they don’t have to settle for the "lesser of two evils" any longer.

"Part of our campaign is to let voters know that when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still faced with evil," he said. "We are another choice. We are a viable choice. I am dedicated to getting this message out to as many people as I can."

Ok, not only are neither of the gentlemen in question "evil," let's face facts: the Libertarians have zeo chances of winning, and, further, any voter who was going to vote for either Bush or Kerry, but instead votes libertarian might as well have voted for their opposite choice. And no, it won't send a message. Just ask the Nader voters in Florida in 2024.

Kerry's Nuance Problem

Via WaPo: Doubts Linger as Kerry Advances

John F. Kerry has shattered fundraising records, unified an oft-warring party and pushed past President Bush in some national polls. Yet many Democratic voters, officials and even members of Kerry's staff express an ambivalence -- or angst -- about their presidential candidate that belies this strong public standing.

These Democrats say the enthusiasm for defeating Bush runs much stronger and deeper than the passion for electing Kerry. The chief reason: The senator from Massachusetts, they say, has not crisply articulated what a Kerry presidency would stand for beyond undoing much of the Bush agenda.

So far, these concerns have not slowed Kerry. But if Kerry cannot change this perception coming out of next month's Democratic convention in Boston, it could prove much harder for the party to maximize turnout, win over Ralph Nader voters and keep independents from swinging to Bush, they say.

"There is a danger in that [ambivalence]," said John D. Podesta, White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration. "You can't just be against something. [Voters] want a positive vision of where the country is going, and he has to provide that."

I think this is quite accurate and underscores why I cannot, at this point, take the polls seriously.

And the following highlights a serious problem for Kerry:

Yet many Democrats are concerned that Kerry will have a harder time than previous candidates detailing his positions in a way voters can readily understand. Kerry holds nuanced positions on many issues, such as trade, that do not translate into 30-second sound bites. One of his plans -- cutting taxes for corporations in exchange for ending overseas tax-dodging -- is not easily explained and turns off many liberal Democrats because it includes tax breaks for wealthy corporations.

Despite spending 20 years in the Senate, Kerry has not left a distinct policy mark, having chosen to focus more on investigations. And, at times, he has straddled both sides of issues. The Bush campaign frequently chides Kerry for voting for Bush's plan for education and the Patriot Act, only to criticize both on the campaign trail. In the middle of June, "it's unclear what John Kerry's vision and message [are] for the country," said Steve Schmidt, spokesman for the Bush campaign.

Even on abortion rights, which Kerry has consistently supported, his staff is unclear about whether he would appoint lower-court judges who oppose Roe v. Wade.

A top Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about Kerry, said many House members and staff say it is hard to explain what Kerry stands for, and what he has stood for in the past. The aides said the Kerry campaign is aware of this concern and committed to addressing it.

At this point in 2024, it was clear Bush stood for lower taxes, sweeping education changes and a strong military. In 1992, it was clear Clinton was a "new kind of Democrat," who would cut taxes for the middle class and revamp health care.

For these types of reasons (amongst others), I don't expect this race to crystalize until the Fall when there is a real one-to-one comparison between the two candidates. And in that comparison I think that Kerry's "nuance" isn't going to serve him well. Yes, there is a good deal of anti-Bush sentiment that Kerry can capitalize upon, however that isn't going to be enough to win. He has to convince swing voters that there is a positive reason to elect him in a time of international uncertainty--he has yet to articulate such a message. Indeed, I am not entirely certain why Kerry wants to be President, aisde from the fact that he wants to be President.

Indeed, the piece notes:

The danger is if voters come to see Kerry as a candidate more of ambition than ideas and more calculating than complicated, Democrats say.

And this works at the state-level, especially if one is a Democrat in a heavily Democratic state (or a Rep in a heavily Republican state):

Kerry may never stir Democrats passionately, but he may not need to. Since his earliest days in politics, Kerry has appeared somewhat detached from the people and voters who helped elect him. He is cerebral, and his interests -- such as windsurfing -- and his wealth separate him from the general public. Despite Kerry's two decades in the Senate, not many Democrats consider themselves "Kerry Democrats" or ardent loyalists, or even close friends.

And I love how he is "cerebral." Daniel Patrick Moynihan was "cerebral"--Kerry hardly comes across as an intellectual.

That's His Story and He's Sticking to it

Clinton Planning to Use Book Tour to Assist Kerry.

Headline aside, methinks this is the more accurate priority list:

Mr. Clinton received an advance of more than $10 million to write his memoirs, "My Life," and aides to the former president say his first priority now is to sell as many books as possible.

But they also say that whenever his book-selling obligations allow, Mr. Clinton is eager to pitch in for the party by plugging Mr. Kerry and subtly putting down Republicans at book-selling events, and by speaking at fund-raisers or campaign stops on his tour.

Further, one guesses that the book's release will take airtime away from Kerry. Of course, given that the less Kerry is on TV, the better he does in the polls, there may be a coincidence of interests here...

Of course, an unforeseen result will also be that given the death of President Reagan, there will be some Reagan-Clinton comparisons, certainly in the minds of the public, if not in the mouths of pundits. Such comparisons, I would think, which could help Bush.

And This Would be Surprising Because?

I have seen this story breathlessly noted in various places: Poll: Edwards Top Choice for Kerry Ticket

Sen. John Edwards, the smooth-talking populist who emerged from the nominating campaign as John Kerry's chief rival, is favored among registered voters to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate, according to an Associated Press poll. But his name on the ticket does not automatically boost Democratic prospects.

Given that he came in second and the name-recognition factor, what's the big news here. Indeed, the following quote sums it up well:

"Polling information on potential running mates is soft and unreliable because it's all about name identification and hypothetical," said Doug Sosnik, a top adviser in the Clinton White House. "Eventually, we'll have a campaign when people will get to know them. Right now, it's just mush."

More on Kerry-McCain

CNN now has details from the AP--McCain rejects Kerry's veep overture:

Kerry has asked McCain as recently as late last month to consider becoming his running mate, but the Arizona senator said he's not interested, said a Democratic official who spoke on condition of anonymity because Kerry has insisted that his deliberations be kept private.

A second official familiar with the conversations confirmed the account, and said the Arizona senator made it clear he won't change his mind.

Both officials said Kerry stopped short of offering McCain the job, sparing himself an outright rejection that would make his eventual running mate look like a second choice.

"Senator McCain categorically states that he has not been offered the vice presidency by any one," said McCain's chief of staff, Mark Salter, who would not confirm the officials' account.

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter declined to comment.

Did Kerry ask McCain?

The CNN website currently has this "Developing Story" on its fron page:

Sen. John McCain rejects Sen. John Kerry's overtures to join Democratic presidential ticket, AP reports. CNN is working to confirm.

Interesting.

Grain of Salt Report: Bush Leads in Three Key States

Bush Gets Better Ratings in 3 Battleground States Than Nationwide

In all three states, the bottom line is the same: Bush is in better shape politically than he is nationwide.

In Missouri, Bush leads Kerry by 48% to 42% in a two-way race, and by 48% to 37% in a three-way race, with independent Ralph Nader garnering 5%.

In Ohio, the two men are in a virtual dead heat: Kerry attracts 46%, Bush 45%. With Nader in the mix, Kerry's lead slightly expands: The Massachusetts senator attracts 45%, compared with 42% for Bush and 4% for Nader.

In Wisconsin, Kerry and Bush draw 44% each; in a three-way contest, Bush remains at 44%, while Kerry slips to 42% and Nader gets 4%.

More Evidence for the "Less Kerry is Good for Kerry" Hypothesis

Kerry has the lead among likely voters

Democrat John Kerry opened up a 6-point lead over President Bush in a Gallup Poll released Monday. The poll showed Kerry with 50% to Bush's 44% among people considered likely to vote.

Of course, is this the best they can manage, a sample of 599?

The poll of 599 likely voters was taken Thursday-Sunday and had a margin of error of +/--4 percentage points.

Kerry-Vilsack?

Interesting: Kerry Seeks Columns From Iowa Governor

Aides to presidential candidate John Kerry have asked for hundreds of newspaper columns written by Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, one of the Democrats whose backgrounds are being checked as Kerry ponders a running mate.

It's Good to Know he isn't Bitter

Gore Calls Fla. Mayor 'Dishonest'

Al Gore harshly criticized U.S. Senate candidate Alex Penelas, saying his fellow Democrat was "the single most treacherous and dishonest person" he dealt with during the disputed 2024 presidential campaign. The former presidential candidate's comments came in response to questions from The Miami Herald about Penelas' role in the 2024 election and the current Senate race. The comments were published in the Herald's Sunday editions.

Although a Democrat, Penelas is mayor of a largely Republican county.

Fellow Democrats attacked him for not aggressively supporting Gore during the campaign and especially during the controversial recounts in many counties — including in Miami-Dade — that led to Bush's victory after narrowly winning Florida.

"One of the other candidates in this race became in 2024 the single most treacherous and dishonest person I dealt with during the campaign anywhere in America," Gore told the newspaper after praising Penelas' opponent, U.S. Rep. Peter Deutsch.

Penelas is not mentioned by name in the statement. But a Gore aide confirmed Sunday he was not referring to former state education commissioner Betty Castor, considered the only other viable Democratic candidate.

"Not all who claim to have been supportive and loyal truly were," Gore said.

Even if true, this statement is perhaps not wise, as Gore is currently cultivating a public image of a bitter and angry man, which isn't helpful to hiim or to those he supports.

Reagan and '04

There is something to this: Reagan Legacy Looming Large Over Campaign

"Americans are going to be focused on President Reagan for the next week," said Ed Gillespie, the Republican national chairman. "The parallels are there. I don't know how you miss them."

Even some Democrats said they were concerned that the death of Mr. Reagan would provide a welcome, if perhaps temporary, tonic for a president who had been going through tough political times.

"I've been dreading this every election year for three cycles," said Jim Jordan, Mr. Kerry's former campaign manager. "Bush has totally attached himself to Ronald Reagan. He's going to turn Reagan into his own verifier."

[...]

Some Republicans said the images of a forceful Mr. Reagan giving dramatic speeches on television provided a less-than-welcome contrast with Mr. Bush's own appearances these days, and that it was not in Mr. Bush's interest to encourage such comparisons. That concern was illustrated on Sunday, one Republican said, by televised images of Mr. Reagan's riveting speech in Normandy commemorating D-Day in 1984, followed by Mr. Bush's address at a similar ceremony on Sunday.

"Reagan showed what high stature that a president can have — and my fear is that Bush will look diminished by comparison," said one Republican sympathetic to Mr. Bush, who did not want to be quoted by name criticizing the president.

Another senior Republican expressed concern that by identifying too closely with Mr. Reagan, Mr. Bush risked running a campaign that looked to the past, which this adviser described as a recipe for a loss.

Clearly this is all true: there are elements of Bush's presidency that do parallel Reagan's and such comparisons will redound to his favor--especially amongst the conservative base that Bush needs to energize. However, one-to-one comparisons could leave Bush lacking, especially since the images of Reagan this week will be of the most complimentary nature.

It does push Kerry off the stage, although in the past that has been to his favor (and no, I am not being sarcastic). However, in this case I am not certain it will work out that way. The Reagan tributes will stir patriotic feelings and generally pro-presidency ones as well. Bush, as both the sitting President and arguably Reagan's political heir, will receive some bounce from all of that. Plus, between the up-coming economic summit and the official state funeral and such, Bush will have numerous opportunities to look "presidential" in the coming days, while Kerry will be in the background. Barring especially bad news from Iraq, one would expect Bush to gain some political ground this week, even if it is a temporary gain--on that count we shall see.

Certainly one can expect a great deal of legitimate Reagan-praise at the Republican Convention in New York.

Odd Veepness

What are the people at CNN smoking? On their extended list of Kerry veep possibilities they list Bill Clinton and Tom Brokaw. First, what former president in right mind would beome VP and, for that matter, what presidential candidate would want a former president as their running mate? And second: Tom Brokaw?

Maybe Kerry Will Pick this "Uncommitted" Fellow as Veep

I mean, gee whiz, such a selection would have thematic consistency and "UN" is in the name...

At any rate Mr. Uncommitteed ended up besting the combined might of Kucinich and LaRouche in South Dakota and Alabama yesterday.

Uncommitted Beating Kucinich and LaRouche (Combined)

In both Alabama and South Dakota: Unofficial Democratic Primary Returns

Line of the Day, II

"It's not to say that our industry loves John Kerry or anything like that. But George Bush, if he's re-elected, it could be damaging to our industry."--Dave Manack, associate publisher of E.D. Publications, which publishes Exotic Dancer magazine, on strip clubs helping their patrons to register to vote and asking them to support Kerry.

Source: Newsweek (5/31/04 issue).

You Don't Say?

Jobs Loss May Affect Who Wins The Vote

Indeed

An on-target Kerry 'toon.

Words, Like, Mean Things and Stuff

So Joe Carter correctly notes.

I Wonder How Bush-Dean Would Poll?

Poll: Kerry-McCain Would Beat Bush-Cheney

Kerry-McCain has a 14-point advantage over Bush-Cheney among registered voters, 53 percent to 39 percent, in the latest CBS News poll. The results were released Thursday.

The lead is nearly double the edge Kerry alone enjoys over Bush.

So, what does that say about Kerry?

When Gores Attack

Ok, it's one thng when James Joyner notes (correctly, btw) that the former Vice President's speech yesterday was evocative of "Jesse Jackson on crack" but you know it's bad when Maureen Dowd notes that

Mr. Gore hollered so much, he made Howard Dean look like George Pataki.

And would someone please send Ms. Dowd an American government textbook with the passages on how the president is elected highlighted in neon yellow. It appears she still hasn't gotten the memo on that whole electoral college v. the political vote thingie.

Believe it or Not...

Lyndon LaRouche is actually running radio ads in Alabama in anticipation of the June 1 primary.

My favorite soundbite from the commercial: "people don't like what I would do, but it would work!"

Kerry to Remain Largely Silent on Iraq

Kerry to Highlight Foreign Policy Differences

on the central question of the day, the future of Iraq, Kerry may have less to say than some voters expect. Aides said that none of Kerry's speeches, the first of which he will deliver Thursday here in Seattle, will deal directly with Iraq. Instead, he will seek to provide a broader vision of how he sees the U.S. role in the world and reassure voters that he can step into the role of commander-in-chief during a period of war.

Kerry advisers said his views on Iraq are well documented, the most recent coming in a speech last month in Fulton, Mo. Critics say that Bush's recent initiatives, particularly his outreach to the United Nations to put together a new government in Iraq, have narrowed the differences between the two men and that Kerry will have an increasingly difficult time explaining what he would do differently in the future.

[...]

Aides said Kerry on Thursday will draw sharp distinctions with the president by highlighting his support of stronger alliances with U.S. allies, greater respect for other nations and their leaders, transforming the military and increasing spending to defend the homeland and reward veterans. The speech will serve as framework for Kerry's worldview on the nature of current threats and combating terrorism offensively and defensively.

A top adviser, who requested anonymity to discuss internal strategy, said the 11-day campaign is designed to clear a big hurdle: convincing voters Kerry has superior ideas for protecting the United States here and abroad and winning the war on terrorism. In the early days of the campaign, this has sometimes proved a more difficult task for Kerry. Several polls show Bush is still viewed as a stronger leader in the war on terrorism, which is troubling to some Kerry advisers.

But Kerry will not offer new plans for ending the conflict in Iraq, which could complicate his efforts to distinguish himself in this key area. Kerry advisers said they see no reason to respond to Bush's Monday night speech in which he outlined his objectives for Iraq.

Given that this election is going turn largely on Iraq, this strikes me as odd and a mistake.

The Story that Would Not Die

Look, I'm just no buying it (I buy that DC is abuzz--kinda--but the whole Kerry-McCain thing? Please.): Kerry-McCain alliance the talk of Washington

Washington is abuzz with rumors that John McCain, one of the most popular Republicans in Congress, could team up with Democratic contender John Kerry in the race for the White House.

[...]

McCain has repeatedly denied interest, but top Democrats refuse to let the rumour die. Senator Hillary Clinton (news - web sites) fueled speculation by saying Sunday she would have no problem supporting the maverick Arizona senator.

"I'm a big admirer of John McCain's," Clinton said.

So, if he had been nominated in 2024 by the GOP, Hillary would have been thrilled? No, of course not, she would have attacked him in his run for the White House as she supported Gore, and rightfully so. This is simply ridiculous. She only would suport McCain as veep because she thinks it would damage Bush, not because she holds McCain's views all that dear.

Further, as good as this sounds now, I repeat that McCain's war hero bona fides would overshadow Kerry's, Kerry would have to seriously deal with the whole "war criminal" bit if McCain were his runing mate, and McCain would have to endlessly explain why he, Mr. Straight Talk, so went back on his word.

You Don't Say?

"I think it's important to show them you have a plan. If you don't have a plan, I don't think people are going to have much confidence in you."--Senator John F. Kerry, last week.

In fairness, Kerry went on to say

"But I have a plan. I have a specific plan about manufacturing jobs, a specific plan about how we're going to fight for a fair playing field, a specific plan about science, technology investment. A specific plan about health care.

"I think you have to run an affirmative campaign, and I think you have to - I have to - show America that I have a plan for the country," Mr. Kerry said. "And I do have a plan. And that's what I'm doing."

I do notice a rather glaring omission in that list (hint: it is a word ending in the letter "q").

Further, while it is clearly the case that I am not a fan of the Senator's, as a political analyst I honestly have to say that running on what is essentially a recycled list of standard Democratic issues. It simply isn't enough. Indeed, it isn't very different than Dole's run in 1996: basically a combo of standard Republican issues (taxes, defense, etc..) and statement to the effect that he would be a better President than Clinton had been. This is a hard enough sell under normal circumstances, and we are hardly in normal circumstances.

One thing that is especially interesting is that there appears to be no grand strategy for Kerry's campaign apart from "Kerry should be President, not Bush". Where is the vision? Where is the rationale for why Kerry would make a better leader than Bush? Instead, the piece notes a debate between:

Some party officials say that with three new polls showing President Bush more embattled than he has ever been, Mr. Kerry's wisest course would be to take few chances and turn the election into a referendum on a struggling president. "People have won a lot of campaigns by just saying, `It is time for a change,' " said Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster.

and

But other Democrats warn that such a strategy entails risks of its own, banking on the proposition that Americans would be willing to fire an incumbent during war time and replace him with someone they know little about. "I don't think anybody in their right mind is going to run for president on a strategy of `people hate the other guy and that's enough for our guy to win,' " said Douglas Sosnik, the White House political director for President Bill Clinton.

It is this lack of an argument for why Kerry should be President that I think will start to damage him late in the summer/early in the Fall when people start really paying attention. Will swing voters want to elect a man to the presidency who doesn't really seem to have a good argument for why he should be president (or when he should accept the nomination) in an era of such international turmoil? I have my doubts.

Certainly thoughtful Republicans have issues with the President, but I find it hard to believe that thoughtful Democrats are imbued with rock-solid confidence in Senator Kerry.

Source: Democrats Wonder if Kerry Should Stay on Careful Path

OK, That Didn't Work, So How About...?

Taegan Goddard's Political Wire notes the following story in today's BoGlo: Kerry rules out delaying tactic

One idea under consideration within the Kerry campaign is petitioning the FEC for permission to continue raising and spending private funds until Bush receives his federal allotment in early September, according to campaign spokesman Michael Meehan. The FEC has not indicated how it would rule on Kerry's campaign spending options. But Republicans are almost certain to oppose a rules change in the midst of a campaign.

I am not unsympathetic to a rule that states that the nominees get the cash on the same date. However, what I am not sympathetic to is the notion that the rule should be changed mid-campaign. At one point the Democrats wanted an early convention so that they would have money earlier because of a fear that a long primary fight would exhaust their candidate's cash-flow. Now that that did not come to pass, they aren't happy with the process. I am a big believer in establishing the rules and then playing the game. And if there is a flaw discovered in those rules, you wait until next season to fix it. Everyone know what they are going in, and gameplans accordingly.

And I still maintain that all this public scenario-shopping and indecision over a relatively easy issue is not helping a candidate whose main argument is that he would exhibit better leadership than the current occupant of the White House.

And this statement is just shameful, because it isn't true--they are both operating under identical rules, just different timetables. The statement is especially galling, as he made no move to change these rules when he was in the Senate, and was a supporter of the existing campaign finance regime:

''The decision that I made today raises the bar, because there will be a five-week period when I'm living under different rules than the Republicans are, which is not sensible, but it's the way it is," he said last night at a Seattle fund-raiser, several hours after issuing a statement announcing the decision.

Another transparently ridiculous statement:

''I made that decision because I believe it's the right thing to do. I believe it's right for us to have a good convention, to nominate and speak to the country, to have a finality of the process of nomination. But I know it puts us at a disadvantage financially, and so I'm relying on you who helped bring us to this point."

If accepting the nomination at the convention was the "right thing to do" why almost a week of consideration? No, the trial balloon sank and/or the legal issues didn't play out to the Senator's liking. It doesn't take several days to figure out the "right thing to do" on a decision like this one. It isn't like he had to decide whether his dying mother should have painful and highly risky surgery or somesuch. My word. "Leadership" indeed.

Kerry Decides to Accept Nomination at Convention

Eric the Viking Pundit reports that Kerry will accept the nomination at the convention after all.

What a relief!

Air Kerry

Okay, giving credit where credit is due, this is a nice little bit of self-depricating humor:

``In the event of emergency, my hair can be used as a flotation device,'' Kerry quipped on board the inaugural flight of the refurbished Boeing 757 from Reagan Washington National Airport.

But, my goodness, can the man not lay off the Nam refs?

Comparing the plane to aircraft that brought U.S. troops to and ferried them home from Vietnam, Kerry called the plane his ``freedom bird.''

If the man really does see Viet Nam everywhere he looks, perhaps he needs to see a therapist.

Source: Hopes for Kerry's campaign take flight

McGovern to Kerry: Don't Delay Acceptance

McGovern: Kerry Shouldn't Delay Nomination

The liberal South Dakotan told The Associated Press that Kerry's proposal to delay accepting the Democratic nomination would show that "money is king and everything else takes a back seat." And while McGovern said he wished he'd had more funds in his unsuccessful campaign against Republican Richard Nixon, he said money isn't everything.

My initial snarky reaction is: well, if McGovern says not to delay, then he should.

Of course, since I made this point myself yesterday I guess I will have to agree with McGovern.

John Kerry Considering Tom Delay as Veep!

From the LAT: Kerry Close to Decision on Delay, Sources Say.

Wow! And we all thought that the McCain speculation was radical. Can you imagine? A Kerry-Delay ticket? Now that's bipartisanship--especially since Delay has been so involved in planning the Republican's convention in New York. And a risk, too, given the accusations about Delay's campaign fundraising and all of that.

Man, that Kerry is quite the revolutionary--a true unity government could come to Washington!

[Have you read the piece?--Ed.]

Oh.

Never mind.

More Tales from the Campaign Finance Zone

An editorial in yesterday's WaPo details another tale from the Campaign Finance Zone. In today's installment they detail how the RNC and DNC are making up for the fact that they no longer are allowed, due to BCRA (a.k.a., McCain-Feingold), to accept uncapped soft money contributions:

Instead of six-figure or higher donations from corporations, labor unions and wealthy people, the parties are limited to individual donations that are capped at $25,000 a year. And so, like their candidates, the parties are more reliant than ever on fundraisers with well-stocked Rolodexes -- the kind of folks who can coax $10,000 or $25,000 checks from many friends and associates.

Of course, as with all restrictions on the amount that can be contributed comes the result that the money has to raised in smaller increments, and hence more time is spent raising money. So, rules meant to allegedly decrease the importance of money end up creating a situation in which the parties spend an increasing amount of time focused on fundraising.

Then we get the hypocrisy part of the story:

Both the Republican and Democratic national committees have set up new programs as an incentive for such bundlers. The RNC has just launched its "Super Rangers," modeled after the $100,000 Pioneers and $200,000 Rangers who have swept up checks for the Bush campaigns. Attaining Super Ranger status requires producing $300,000 in contributions for the party by Aug. 15. On the Democratic side, there are two similar entities: Patriots, who collect $100,000 for the party, and trustees, who bring in a combination of $250,000 for the party and Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign (Mr. Kerry gets the first $2,000 from an individual contributor, and the party gets the rest.).

But there is a significant difference between the approaches of the two parties -- and it's not just that the Republicans set the money bar higher. The RNC plans to post the list of Super Rangers on its Web site, just as the Bush campaign does with its Pioneers and Rangers. The DNC says it will not disclose the names of its Patriots and trustees. This is wrong. It is inconsistent with Democrats' professed belief in the importance of full disclosure.

And this is from the party of campaign finance reform? Really, there is no justification for not revealing the names of all donors. Indeed, I would argue that that should be a key aspect of the entire campaign finance system: if you give money, that fact should be public. Rather than hand-wringing over the dread influence of money in politics, how about just letting the voters know from whence came the cash, and let us decide.

The editorial notes, to his credit, that Senator Kerry is releasing the names of all those who donate to him, including those who engage in large-scale bundling (i.e., helping to raise multiple $2,000 contributions).

Hat tip: Eric the Viking Pundit.

Frivolous Response

Robert Tagorda ain't none too impressed with Kerry's response to Bush's speech last night.

Indeed, Robert notes, essentially, what I think is one of Kerry's main problems, and that is that his main argument for why he should be President is "I will do better, so pick me!" However, especially on Iraq (and foreign policy in general) he never really says how.

Battleground States

Ads apparently help Kerry catch up to Bush in 17 states

The $25 million in TV ads he's run the past three weeks seems to have helped pull Sen. John Kerry even with President Bush in states likely to decide who wins the White House in November.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll done Friday through Sunday showed that in 17 states considered to be key to the race, Kerry and Bush were tied among registered voters. Kerry spent $25 million to air two biographical ads in most of those states.

In mid-February, at the height of his success in Democratic primaries, Kerry held a 15-percentage point lead over Bush in the 17 states. But by late March, Bush was ahead by 10 points. Political scientists and communication experts said at the time that the Bush campaign's mostly negative TV advertising, along with Kerry's relatively small ad presence, was hurting Kerry in the polls.

Ok: up by 15, down by 10, now tied: these locales are living up to the concept of "battleground."

I am of the opinion that this race will not start to fully crystalize for at least another two months. I think this for following reasons:

1) I remained unconvinced that voters really "know" Kerry as yet. This means numbers could go either way.

2) The Bush campaign and the pro-Republican 527s have a ton of money yet to unleash.

3) The improvement of the economy seems to not to have fully filtered into the public consciousness yet--plus gad prices are likely to start going down somewhat.

4) And there is the wildcard of how things will develop in Iraq over the summer.

Scientific Polling at its Best

Go vote for President at ESPNRadio.com.

“Deferring Acceptance” and Other Tales of Campaign Finance Lunacy

Part of Kerry's problem regarding the idea of deferring his acceptance of his party's nomination is solely symbolic, and part of it raises a more concrete problem in terms of following established rules.

The symbolic problem is obvious, and has three prongs. The first is the one that baffles me the most about the entire affair: it reinforces Kerry's image as a man who can't make up his mind, and who wants to be on all sides of a given issue. If he thinks he has to defer, then all this public "consideration" of the idea makes him looks indecisive. Do I think that it is an especially damaging situation by itself? No, but it does help to contribute to an image that I think works against him: that he isn't a leader. Given that one of Bush's strengths is that he is perceived as decisive and resolute, this kind of public thinking out loud over a relatively simply decisions (you accept it at the convention or not) isn't helpful to his image.

The second symbolic prong is that this makes the entire situation come across as being about money. While that may well be true, is that really the message a candidate wants to send?

The third symbolic prong is that in the post-reform (i.e., early 1970s) era, the only substantive function that the convention has is to formally nominate the candidate. It is the crescendo of the event. Otherwise the entire affair is combo preaching to the choir session and infomercial. And yes, they write the platform, but given that no candidate is bound that that platform it is really not much more than a series of partisan platitudes.

Institutionally and legally speaking, there are other issues as well. Since the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the convention has been a legal point of reference in the campaign finance system. Further, the federal government provides millions of dollars (I think it will be about $15 million this year) to each party to help defray the costs of the conventions. Setting aside whether that is a good idea or not, there are implications for providing federal funds for a nominating convention that does not produce a nominee during the actual temporal bounds of the convention itself.

Indeed, the BoGlo notes that

two prominent campaign finance watchdogs questioned whether it would be legal for the host committee to spend $15 million in federal funds to stage the Democratic National Convention if the event does not produce Kerry's nomination.

"I think there is a very strong case here that it would be illegal," said Fred Wertheimer, who runs a campaign finance organization called Democracy 21. "They received the money to conduct a nominating convention, and a nominating convention tends to include the concept of a nominee. At a minimum, they face real legal questions."

Representative Martin T. Meehan of Lowell, a fellow Democrat and coauthor of the country's new campaign finance law, agreed that the $15 million is at risk. "The question is whether it could be made up in private contributions," the congressman said.

Now, if they want to renounce the $15 million, fine by me. Of course, if they do it just proves that the feds don't need to be funding either convention. However, if they take the money, they should nominate a candidate and that candidate should accept at the convention. To take the money and fail to have an official nominee at the end of the convention smacks of trying to change the rules in-process. Part of my reaction to this strategy is that is has long been the Democratic Party who has been the primary champion of the campaign finance rules, and yet now that they are inconvenient, they want to play games. It isn't like they DNC didn't know that having the convention first wasn't going to result in this scenario.

And if anyone can read the following paragraph in the context of this situation and not think that our campaign finance system is a hopeless joke, I don't know what to say

The Kerry campaign is studying alternatives, including the use of a lesser-publicized option that would enable individuals to give as much as $57,500 to national and state parties for advertising that would independently boost Kerry's candidacy. While individuals are allowed to give no more than $2,000 to Kerry for the primary campaign, Wertheimer said they can give an additional $25,000 to the national party and $10,000 to state parties, with an overall two-year limit of $57,500.

What a hopeless morass of rules that neither really curtail the collection nor the spending of money. How anyone can argue with a straight face that this system does anything more than confuse a lot of people and employ a lot of lawyers is beyond me.

And this little historical analysis by Kerry is pretty poor, because it misses two major points: 1) the convention used to actually deliberate and then nominate the candidate, rather than rubber-stamping the results of the primaries, and 2) the conventions in the period he references had nothing to do with the campaign finance system. This is a poor excuse for an argument that what he wants to do is "normal":

"Once again, the Republicans don't know history, and they don't know facts," he said. "The truth is that it used to be that the convention, after nomination, traveled to the home or the state of the nominee to inform them they've been nominated. Woodrow Wilson was at his house in Princeton, N.J.; Harry Truman was in Independence," Mo., he said. "They're trying to make an issue out of something that they're surprised by, because . . . they're very upset someone might have a way of neutralizing their advantage."

To BoGlo's credit, they do note at least part of the historical problem with Kerry's argument:

The nominations of Wilson and Truman occurred in the days before public financing of presidential campaigns and federal election rules about campaign fund-raising.

There is a simple way to avoid this kind of nonsense in the first place: trash this entire campaign finance system. If Kerry wasn't getting money from the federal government, none of this story wouldn't exist. And that is the bottom line.

Hat tip: OTB for the BoGlo story.

UPDATE: This post is part of today's Beltway Traffic Jam

National Party Conventions

You know, all of this brouhaha about Kerry, the nomination and the campaign finance system not only raises substantial questions about the campaign finance system itself but also of the need for the national conventions.

There hasn't been any drama at the conventions since the current primary rules were adopted in the early 1970s and the televisions networks have been yawning about the whole thing for at least a decade, so why even have them?

Heaven knows that only political junkies will pay them much attention.

Broken Campaign Finance System

Even this editorial in WaPo seems to understand that the current system for financing presidential campaigns isn't working too well.

And what a shocking revelation that is.

Of course, my guess is that the editorial board at WaPo wants more restrictions in the system. The piece isn't clear on that, however. They do note, rightly, that the primary/general election bifurcation is rather silly (my word, not theirs), given the evolution the nomination process.

He's One of the Opponents, Rigjt?

Nader Advises Kerry on VP Candidates

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader said Sunday he had advised John Kerry to choose North Carolina Sen. John Edwards or Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt as his running mate on the Democratic ticket.

One wonders if Nader is just looking for camera time.

One further wonders if having Nader suggest Edwards means Edwards now has no shot.

Nothing Like Being Decisive

Kerry Undecided on Delaying Nomination.

I find it odd that they are making this such a public process. Plus, does it really do hi any favors to appear indecisive on what is a relatively easy question?

More on Deferring the Nomination

Betsy Newmark notes that the idea of deferring the nomination may not site well with Bostonians: i BostonHerald.com - Election 2024 News: Voters tell senator: `Don't put us on hold'

Many Bay State voters forced to put up with a week of gridlock because of the Democratic National Convention will consider themselves slapped in the face if Sen. John F. Kerry [related, bio] doesn't accept the nomination here.

``I think (that would be) a cheap shot from the junior senator to all of his supporters in Massachusetts,'' said Henry Santoro, who is preparing for the worst as he commutes daily from Brookline to Lynn. ``It's just one of those cases of `Get your ass here and get the job done.' This is an anybody-but-Bush-state. Do not put us on hold.''

James Murphy, who runs a painting and contracting company out of Swampscott, said he can't believe Kerry would snub his homestaters.

``How does a senator of a state - when the DNC is here - not honor his state by declaring his nomination here?'' said Murphy, 38. ``I would wonder whether this, in the long run, is going to work against him. I very well think it could.'

It also occurs to me that this could set off Viet Nam-inspired deferment jokes.

Betsy also notes that the TV folks ain't none too happy with the idea, either: Democrats' delay tactic may turn into big TV turnoff

Stalling his presidential nomination might end up costing Sen. John F. Kerry [related, bio] the one thing he really wants at a convention - live prime-time television.

At least one major television network yesterday frowned on the idea of Kerry delaying.

``If this comes to pass, we don't like hearing about one more piece of news that will not happen at a convention,'' said Mark Lukasiewicz, executive producer of NBC News' election coverage.

The more I think about this, the more unlikely it seems.

Speaking of PR Issues

Apropos of the previous post Bill Quick is looking for bumper sticker slogans.

My favs to date:

Yet More Evidence that the Entire Campaign Finance System is Loony

Kerry May Defer Nomination.

And why might he do that, you ask? There are two distinct periods in the campaign finance system for presidential campaigns: pre and post convention. Pre-convention candidates raise and spend their own money, post-convention they get a grant and that is all they are allowed to spend--both campaigns will get $74.69 million this go 'round.

So, if Kerry accepts the nomination as scheduled on July 26th, he will have to make his federal check stretch longer than Bush's, which won't kick in until a little over a month later. Bush could be raising money during that period and spending it, hence the dilemma for Kerry's campaign.

This has led the Kerry people to consider not actually accepting the nomination officially at the convention--which strikes me as a PR problem, but we shall see. Indeed, I suspect that they will end up rejecting that plan.

And the entire idea that the grants equalize the spending on both sides and therefore "takes the money out of politics" will be shown once again to be the sham that it is as the 527s and other groups find ways to raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars during this time period.

So, as usual, the campaign finance system is shown to be a joke and, in this case, a specific and monumental waste of federal dollars.

There He Goes Again...

I saw this story yesteday, but didn't have time to read it. Limbaugh made mention of the overall topic, so I went back gave it a look. Kerry Open to Anti-Abortion Judges.

First off, this strikes me as pure rhetoric. If the Democrats in Senate proved anything this term, it is that to the vast majority of them, the miniimum requirement to sit on the bench is that the nominee cannot even have the whiff of someone who might threatened abortion.

Second, there he goes again: He first notes that voting for Scalia was a mistake and then cites that vote as an example of how he could support pro-life nomineess.

Kerry, the presumptive nominee of a party that overwhelmingly favors a woman's right to abortion, struck a moderate note as he lashed out at one of the high court's most conservative justices, telling The Associated Press he regrets his 1986 vote to confirm Antonin Scalia.

"If you're looking for me to admit that I made a mistake in my years in the Senate, there you go--there's one," said the four-term Massachusetts senator.

Yet in the same story he says:

Kerry said he has voted in favor of "any number of judges who are pro-life or pro-something else that I may not agree with," some of whom were nominated by Republican presidents. "But I'm going to make sure we uphold what I believe are constitutional rights and I'm not going to pick somebody who's going to undermine those rights."

"Do they have to agree with me on everything? No," Kerry said. Asked if they must agree with his abortion-rights views, he quickly added, "I will not appoint somebody with a 5-4 court who's about to undo Roe v. Wade. I've said that before."

"But that doesn't mean that if that's not the balance of the court I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I've already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge Scalia."

Later, aides said "some court" was not a reference to the Supreme Court, only lower federal benches. Kerry tried to clear up the matter with a written statement that said: "I will not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who will undo that right" to an abortion.

Line of the Day

"Yesterday, John Kerry and Ralph Nader met face to face, it was a historic meeting. Astronomers said their meeting actually created what is called 'a charisma black hole."'-Jay Leno (5/20/04)

Source: Yahoo!

With Praise Like That...

Kerry Woos Nader, Who Deems Him 'Very Presidential'

Mr. Nader called Mr. Kerry "very presidential," fondly recalled his antiwar leadership in the 1970's, praised his skills as a politician and quite favorably compared Mr. Kerry to Vice President Al Gore.

Amusing (to me, anyway).

Campaigns and the Net

Bush's site neck and neck with Kerry's in traffic race

The total number of Americans visiting the campaign sites for Bush and for Sen. John Kerry was virtually the same in April, according to numbers released by Nielsen/NetRatings.

U.S. visitors to the Kerry campaign Web site numbered 1.6 million last month, while the Bush site attracted 1.5 million, the measurement company said.

Can We Say "Wishful Thinking"?

The only problem with this Reuters piece, Iraq War Weakens Bond Between Bush, Evangelicals, is that it appears to be based solely on anecdotal evidence and speculation. It starts with this thesis:

Concern among evangelical Christians over the course of the war in Iraq is opening a crack in their strong bond with President Bush (news - web sites) and the Republican Party, political analysts who track this powerful voting group said.

To support that proposition, however, the piece provides such evidence as:

"I know there are a lot of evangelicals who are disillusioned with the war and worried about a lot of things, the Woodward book, the Clarke book ... (and) how we got into this thing," said Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., referring to recent books on the al Qaeda threat and the Iraqi war and occupation.

I kept reading the piece to see if it was based on a poll or somesuch, but no go. Another example:

"I don't see anything but trouble over there (in Iraq). People could increasingly become disenchanted with George Bush, evangelicals too," said Derek Davis, director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University.

"I think the war could have an effect on the evangelical vote," he said but estimated it would cost Bush no more than 10 to 15 percent of support among evangelicals at the most. He noted that in the 2024 election Bush received about 80 to 85 percent of the evangelical vote.

While I suspect that continued bad news will damage the President, and may supress turn-out, but it is a spurious claim that this would uniquely affect evangelicals.

This story represents some shoddy reporting. Clearly the author had an idea, called a few people who said things that might be construed as confirming his hypothesis, and then wrote a story around the quotes in a serious tone to make it sound as if there is a real issue here. And even if they hypothesis has merit, there is nothing in this piece that would confirm or reject it.

Who?

Down but Not Out, Kucinich Keeps On Fighting

This reminds me of those stories of Japanese solidiers on islands in the South Pacific who keep fighting for years because no one told them that the war was over.

Wardrobe Malfunction?

Both Chris Lawrence and James Joyner note the, um, revealing nature of a dress worn by Senator Kerry's daughter at Cannes (Joyner has the pic, as does Drudge and likely any number of sites).

This kind of thing, not unlike the under-age beer buying of one of the Bush daughter's a while back always raise tis kind of question in my mind: You do know that your Dad is running for/is President, don't you?

I mean, gee whiz, in the grand scheme of things no big deal (and as Ogged notes, flash photography is part of the issue here) but it would seem that more thought might ought to go into such activities if one would like not to draw undo attention to one's self, and especially one's father.

In short: I am hardly scandalized by the dress--not that I would want my daughter to wear such, if I had a daughter--but the lack of thought that goes into some of these things is always remarkable to me.

Yet More Evidence that Campaign Finance "Reform" Doesn't Work

Yahoo! News - 'Soft money' may help GOP launch wider attack on Kerry

After holding back for months, Republican political operatives say they will compete with Democrats in raising and spending millions of dollars in unregulated "soft money" on this year's presidential election.

[...]

Most activity by independent political groups - known as "527s" for the section of tax law under which they are organized - has been among Democrats. That has helped to counter Bush's campaign fundraising advantage. While the Bush and Kerry campaigns are limited in what they can collect, the outside groups can take multimillion-dollar donations from wealthy partisans such as financier George Soros.

If the FEC fails to enact regulations, "it will be abundantly clear that 527s are going to play a major role in the election," Hirschmann said. "We do not want to see Soros and the unions and the liberal Democrat 527s go unanswered."

*sigh* When will legislators learn that they can't stop money from flowing into politics? If companies that sell hamburgers and soda will spend millions and millions annually to get us to buy their products, why is it such a shock that groups and individuals will spend millions and millions to help elect the leader of the free world?

A system that allows unlimited contributions to parties and candidates with full and immediate disclosure on the internet would certainly be a far more transparent system than the one we currently have. And it would have the virtue of leaving the First Amerndment alone.

With Friend Like These II

Check out the JFK in 04 Vintage Style T-Shirt. Where did they get the "model"--a park bench? Is he about to drop acid in the photo?

Of course the anti-Texas shirts annoy me even more, but whaddya gonna do?

Hat tip: Betsy's Page

This is Getting Silly

McCain Urged to Join Ticket with Kerry

With Friends Like These...

Jerry Springer Named Democratic Delegate

Ohio Democrats have chosen talk-show host Jerry Springer to be an at-large delegate for the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

"He's made 50 appearances at Democratic events this year. He's been an outspoken advocate for the party," said Dan Trevas, spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party.

Of course, to be fair there are a number of embarrassing Republicans as well.

On All Sides of the Issue

Kerry Again Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

With his home state set to begin marrying same-sex couples on Monday, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) reiterated his opposition to the idea yesterday, even as he met with gay and lesbian groups to shore up their support.

The presumptive Democratic nominee has long opposed gay marriage, favoring instead state-sanctioned civil unions that extend legal protections to gay couples.

Yet Kerry has taken several positions on the issue: He voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a union only of a man and woman, saying it amounted to gay-bashing. Kerry has opposed President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage but said in February that he favors such a ban in Massachusetts.

"If the Massachusetts legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection," he told the Boston Globe.

Kerry-McCain?

The NYT has the latest Veep speculation, focusing on a fantasy Kerry-McCain ticket: Undeterred by McCain Denials, Some See Him as Kerry's No. 2.

First off, I just don't see it. As annoying as McCain can be, I simply don't see him jumping ship and he has given me no reason to think that he would so radically go back on his rather clear statements that he will not accept a veep slot.

Second, what does all of this say about Kerry? When he thought he was the shoe-in for Democratic nomination last year, he was willing to vote for the war resolution and support the president in regards to Iraq. When he thought he was going to lose the nomination to Dean, he became a major war critic (to the point I thought he was going to suggest withdrawal), voted against the $87 billion to fund the policy and was highly critical of the entire effort, even when things were going fairly well. Now that he is trying to overtake Bush in the polls he is thinking about adding a Republican who is extremely hawkish on this war to his ticket?

Further, I would note, the other day, when asked about who he he would replace Rumsfeld with, he cited McCain and Senator Carl Levin. Now, those are two rather substantially different persons who have almost diametrically opposed visions of US defense policy. They certainly view the Iraq situation and the war on terror rather differently. It's like saying that to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice he might consider either Scalia or Bader-Ginsburg--it is a statement that tells us nothing about the man's values or policy goals. It is simply something that sounds good in the hopes of generating political support. Citing McCain might appeal to Reps and Levin appeals to liberal Dems. All he is doing is covering as many bases as possible.

Back to McCain as veep, and this absurd notion from the NYT piece:

"Senator McCain would not have to leave his party," Mr. Kerrey said. "He could remain a Republican, would be given some authority over selection of cabinet people. The only thing he would have to do is say, `I'm not going to appoint any judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade,' " the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, which Mr. McCain has said he opposes.

First, I love how everything always boils down to abortion. Second, the notion that McCain would be some kind of co-president is ludicrous.

What strikes me the most about this is that it isn't a principled stance by Kerry & Co. that McCain is the right man for what Kerry believes in, but simply an electoral ploy.

Further, it is a move that would likely have a backlash at the core of the Democratic Party:

Such an offer would undoubtedly be controversial among Democrats. Some say Mr. McCain would upstage Mr. Kerry; others regard him as too conservative. Among the latter is Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore's campaign in 2024. "McCain has not been pro-choice; he's not been out front on affirmative action," Ms. Brazile said. "He's not been out front on core issues that have defined the Democratic Party."

And why would McCain give this up:

For Mr. McCain, 68, joining a Kerry ticket would mean giving up his Senate seat, since he is up for re-election this year. He is also in line to become chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee when the term of the current chairman, John W. Warner, expires in 2024.

Further, since McCain has stated on numerous occasions that he thinks Bush should be re-elected, and since he has said he will not be anyone's veep, would not much of his forthright plain-speaking be blunted by this move, and hence damage his value to Kerry?

No, this is an absurd fantasy on the part of some in the press and amongst some Democrats.

UPDATE: And this would make for some interesting interviews and stories:

The two senators were not instantly close. When Mr. Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984, Mr. McCain, then a freshman House member, went to Massachusetts to campaign against him. Mr. McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent more than five years in captivity, had little use for Mr. Kerry, who became a war protester and famously threw away his ribbons.

"I didn't approve of it," Senator McCain said in an interview. "I still don't approve of it."

Plus, by comparison, wouldn't McCain's Viet Nam experience diminish Kerry's? The more I think about this, the worse of an idea for Kerry this becomes.

How Helpful of Him

Kerry Names Replacements for Rumsfeld

Kerry Wins Nebraska; WV!

Democratic Primaries Results

John O'Neill

Kos (whom I had quit reading, but came across in searching for some info), dubs John O'Neill, a member of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth (and more here from 5/4's WSJ), a "GOP hack".

He main proof? O'Neill clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. Now, I hate to break it to Kos, but it is not the case that SC Justices simply select ideological clones as their clerks (Antonin Scalia, for example, often chooses clerks who don't agree with him ideologically, on purpose (for example, from this week's Newsweek: Scalia likes to hire liberal clerks who spar with him in his book-lined chambers.")). And, quite frankly, I would be of the opinion that anyone who was bright enough to clerk for any SC Justice, liberal or conservative, is almost automatically not a "hack"--whether they are libs or cons. (Further, the suggestion is that Rehnquist himself is a "GOP hack"--which it ridiculous on its face).

Now, clearly, O'Neill is a conservative, and a Republican. Yes, Nixon thought him the perfect foil for the young Kerry, but none of that makes the man a "hack." And the fact that seems to scandalize Kos the most is that one of O'Neill's law partners was a General Counsel to Governor George W. Bush--which hardly means much of anything vis-a-vis O'Neill. Indeed, having now read the information that Kos provided, I am more prone to take O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans far more seriously.

I am not arguing for a return to the debates of the 1970s (as I have noted before), but it seemed worth noting who at least one of the more prominent SBVs is--and to defend him from unfair characterizations.

Here's the link to O'Neill's firm: Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson.

Kerry Link-fest

Sean Hackbarth has his latest House of Ketchup.

Campaign Like it's 1971

This isn't a new story, but I thought it interesting to note that it has hit the mainstream press, and in Kerry's hometown newspaper no less: Kerry's commanders speak out against him

A group of former officers who commanded John F. Kerry in Vietnam more than three decades ago declared yesterday that they oppose his candidacy for president, challenged him to release more of his military and medical records, and said Kerry should be denied the White House because of his 1971 allegations that some superiors had committed ''war crimes."

This is really starting to feel like a bad flashback to the early 1970s. Indeed, one of the organizers tangled with Kerry right after the war:

Meehan said the commanders were motivated by partisan politics and noted that a lead organizer, John O'Neill, had ties to the Republican Party stretching back to the Nixon White House. The Kerry campaign showed reporters a photo of O'Neill meeting with President Nixon in 1971 and copies of favorable evaluations of Kerry by Elliott and Hibbard.

As I pointed out the other day, we withdrew from Viet Nam over a quarter-century ago and so all of this borders on the silly. Could we please debate the relative merits of the two candidates' political careers?

And I agree with James Joyner, this isn't going to damage Kerry very much, if at all.

Enough with the Hillary '08 Conspiracies

Joe Gandelman outlines some of Dick Morris' theories about why the Clinton's memoir is due in June. The short version: to screw Kerry cuz Hillary wants Kerry to lose so she can run in 2024. Joe is skeptical, as am I. Indeed, the whole "Hillary wants the Dems to lose" theory has struck me as ludicrous from the beginning. That Hillary wants to be President, I have little doubt, but that she would sabotage the Democratic Party in 2024 (aided and abetted by Bill) strikes me as over-the-top. For one thing, while the Clintons are influential and powerful, they aren't that powerful. For another, that seems to take the whole paranoia about the Clintons to a ridiculous level. And as I like to point out: Bill couldn't keep his dalliance with Monica a secret, yet he and his wife are going to manipulate the 2024 elections and no one is going to find out?

Here's a more plausible theory as to why Bill's book is coming out in June (or any time prior to the election, for that matter): to capitalize on High Political Season. Since people will be focused on politics, why not release the book into that climate?

Publishing is a business, after all.

Another theory: that's when the book will be finished and ready for distribution--it is no secret that Bill has been slow in the writing of the book and the publisher, which paid a hefty advance, likely wants to book as soon as it possible, and summer reading season/the aforementioned political season would be pretty decent timing.

In Defense of Kerry

Hugh Hewitt notes the following:

John Kerry, speaking today at an Anti-Defamation League event:

"For all of its history, ADL has been self-asked to live up to one of the oldest most fundamental principles of civilization. It is actually one of the Commandments as we know: 'Love your neighbor.' And all of you are yourselves showing courage, because it can be bitter, it is tough. Bigotry, hatred, fear, drive people to do things that are inexplicable, and it is hard in any community to stand up against that, but it is vital."

John Kerry --connecting again with yet another audience. ADL is a largely Jewish organization, which is not likely to recognize John Kerry's "commandment" as one of the big 10.

Now, to be fair, while the admonition to "love your neighbor as yourself" is associated primarily in the US with Jesus, it is an Old Testament commandment, although not one of the "Ten" (you know, the one's made famous first by Moses, and later by Roy Moore).

Jesus discusses the two "greatest commandments" in Matthew 23:34-40, in response to the question, posed by the Pharisees, as to which was the greatest commandment.

Jesus quotes the Old Testament, including the greatest commandment, in Deuteronomy 6:5, which refers to loving God, and to Leviticus 19:18:

You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.

It is hard to get more jewish than Leviticus. It is certainly a command from God to the Jews.

Now, it may well be that Kerry thought he was referencing the Ten, but it is also possible that he knew what he was doing. In short: of the many criticisms one can level at Kerry, this one won't fly.

Hat tip: Ipse Dixit.

UPDATE: This is my entry in today's Beltway Traffic Jam

Awash in Cash

Bush, Kerry Awash in Money

This year's presidential race--fueled by more than a million donors, including many who have never given before--is well on its way to becoming the country's first $1-billion political campaign, experts say.

The money is coming in small donations and large ones, online and in the mail, from wealthy philanthropists and immigrants who can't even vote. In part, it represents unprecedented interest in the campaign from people throughout the country.

and, I hear, from a fox in a box and on a train in the rain...

The only question now is how long before the hand-wringing starts in earnest about all that awful money in politics.

Who?

Who is this "Dennis" of which you speak?

Race Continues for Kucinich.

Excessive Cliche Usage! Five Yards and Repeat the Down

First, the title: Heinz Co. Relishes Political Neutrality.

Then the first sentence: "H. J. Heinz Co. is in a pickle."

Make that ten yards.

Running for School Superintendent-in-Chief

Ok, this is one of my pet peeves (and both parties do it): Kerry Blasts Bush's Education Policy.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry pledged Tuesday to push for 1 million more high school graduates within five years and blamed President Bush for failing to provide enough money to help schools raise academic standards.

What, I ask, does the President of the United States have to do with graduation rates in High Schools? (Plus, there is another pet peeve here: the use by politicians of those perfect big, round numbers like 1,000,000 or 100,000, etc.).

And can anyone spot the irony is this statement?

"It is time to stop shortchanging our education reforms and get this done right," Kerry said in remarks prepared for a campaign appearance in Albuquerque, N.M. "This administration is not paying attention to graduation rates and is hiding the fact that more than 1 million kids drop out every year. We cannot let empty rhetoric and misleading test scores count as real results."

We won't get into the fact the Kerry voted for the No Child Left Behind Act.

The "Biographical Fallacy"

John Zimmerman, writing in the Oregonian, discusses John Kerry and the biographical fallacy of politics

So Kerry is more qualified to lead the country in its current war, right?

Wrong. Kerry might well be the better war president, but the reason has nothing to do with his own exploits in battle. By invoking his wartime heroism, Kerry's supporters reflect one of the worst trends in modern U.S. politics: the biographical fallacy.

The fallacy goes like this: To know something you must experience it -- directly, immediately and personally. So Politician A understands poverty, because he was born into it; Politician B understands business, because he succeeded in it; Politician C understands cancer, because she survived it.

And Politician D knows all about war, of course, because he fought in it.

As has been said, read the whole thing.

Quip of the Weekend

"It really gets me when the critics say I haven't done enough for the economy. Look what I've done for the book publishing industry."

--President Bush, White House Correspondents' Association dinner.

Projecting the Election

Election Projection has its newest analysis of the poll and is currently projecting a repeat of 2024.

More Evidence that Campaign Finance Laws Don't Work

The real irony here is that both Bush and Kerry chose not to adhere to the spending caps during the primary, which is a process that is supposed to encourage small donors (because agreeing to the cap means getting federal matching funds from the feds for small donations): Small Donors Grow Into Big Political Force.

From the ability to finds ways around campaign finance laws (e.g., the 527s and BCRA), to the fact that the stated goals of campaign finance laws don't appear to come to pass (FECA was supposed to reduce the amount of money in politics, but it has steadily climbed upward since its initiation), one would think that policy-makers and analysts would see what a sham these laws are. Instead we ended up with the First Amendement-bending BCRA.

Campaign finance legislation is almost always motivated by the misguided notions that 1) money in politics is bad (it's not, it is a neutral fact of life), 2) that money can be taken out of politics (it can't--politics is, by definition, about money), and 3) that good intentions trump reality (they don't).

Further, the laws tend to forget the idea that giving money to campaigns is a mode of participation, as the cited WaPo piece illustrates.

VeepWatch 2024

Kerry's Pick for No. 2 Remains Guarded.

In interviews with more than 20 Democratic and campaign operatives with some direct or indirect knowledge of the process, it is clear that Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) are being officially investigated by Washington lawyers. Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack apparently is also under consideration, as is Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) -- each viewed as a moderate, midwestern balance for the Massachusetts senator.

Of course, the lede cracks me up:

Rarely has so much speculation generated so little information.

As we go through this every four years--who will he pick? Could it be him? Could it be her? What about that guy? What about the electoral connection? What about the personalities? What about experience? etc. In this case there is clearly nothing new under the sun.

What's even funnier is that after saying that had so little info, they go on to give some of the hardest information that I have seen to date.

Druming up Support for the 'Skins

Steve Bainbridge is trying to get loyal Cowboys fans to root for the Redskins.

Short Memories, Poor Analysis and the Press

I wonder to the degree to which this is as unique as many analysts are currently trying to make it out to be:

amid all this sound and fury, many strategists in both parties think that "real world" developments in the economy, the struggle against terrorism and the occupation of Iraq are likely to influence the November result more than anything the campaigns do.

Source: LAT

Isn't this just a complicated way of noting that typically it is the incumbent's job to lose? I would submit that an incumbent and challenger never start off on equal footing and that the incumbent either has to have done something specific to warrant firing, or events have to be such that a change is deemed in the country's best interest.

Let's look at some recent examples where incumbents were running for re-election:

1996: What cause was there to choose Dole over Clinton, save for partisan policy preference? The economy was in good shape and there was relative peace in the land.

1992: Had the economy been booming, or at least not in recession and/or if the Cold War had not ended, Bush would have likely been elected. The fall of the Wall took foreign policy off the table and so it was all about the economy, which was outside of Bush's control.

1984: One could apply similar logic to this race. The only question would be why such a gigantic landslide? From there we can get into personalities and policies (such as Mondale's promise to raise taxes).

1980: Surely the economy and that pesky problem with the Iranians had something to do with Carter's demise, not just the fact that Reagan put on a great campaign. And certainly those issues were well out of Carter's control by the election campaign.

1976: Surely the single most important issue in that race was Watergate and Ford's pardon (which, as least, is a specific action linked to the President. And while the pardon was of Ford's making, the general political climate in the Watergate era wasn't.

1968: The fortunes of the Viet Nam war caused Johnson not to seek re-election. Yes, his polcies in Viet Nam were on trial, but the degree to which he could "control" those events was small.

Now, it is the case that the incumbent president's action concerning on-going events are key in re-election bids, but such elections are always affected by events outside the control of the incumbent, so I am not sure what is suposedly so sui generis in this election. Indeed, the economy is always beyonf the "control" of the President, despite what Presidents themselves say, and what the press thinks.

Indeed, if one wants to get simplistic, isn't a president's re-election always predicated on the basic issues of peace and economic prosperity? While presidential actions affects those issue, they are certainly not controlled by anyone.

The only thing different about this race than any since perhaps 1980 is that there is a major ongoing foreign policy operation underway that was initiated by the sitting president, but whose outcome is far from certain. However, this is hardly a unique event in the electoral history of the United States--indeed, it would seem that it closer to the norm than not.

Really, the fact of the matter is that elections always turn on events outside of the control of the incumbent, and when things are going poorly, or are uncertain, this gives the challenger an opening through which to attack. Part of Kerry's challenge isn't that thing are demonstrably bad at this point, simply uncertain. Indeed, while uncertainly provides an evenue of attack, the advantage still remains with the incumbent, as making a change at the top simply fuels uncertainty. Of course, if thing go especially poorly in Iraq or in the economy, then a clear opening for a argument for change emerges.

Still, I would reiterate: this is hardly a historically unique situation. Rather, this is just another example of the press looking so hard for a story that they ignore passed political patterns.

PermaToast

For anyone who would like to have a link to a dedicated page with this week's Toast-O-Meter, go here.

I am experimenting with this idea to see how it works out. This is based on the following suggestion. The idea is not to replace the link to the posted T-O-M, but rather to allow for a static address that would contain the weekly updates if one wanted to put a "Toast-O-Meter" link on one's site.

Hmm, I think I need to make a button for distribution...

More Concerns About Kerry

Tomorrow's NYT has this depressing (if one is a Kerry supporter) title: Kerry Struggling to Find a Theme, Democrats Fear, and includes these rather remarkable examples of what would appear to be quite the errors on the part of the Kerry campaign:

In Ohio, the state that strategists for Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush view as perhaps the most critical battleground, Mr. Kerry has yet to hire a state director or open a campaign office. His operation is relying so far on the work of committees working independent of the Kerry campaign.

By contrast, Mr. Bush appointed an Ohio state director on Jan. 1, and opened a headquarters in Columbus, staffed by 13 people, three months ago, his aides said.

The Kerry campaign has yet to open its own full-fledged campaign "war room"--staffed with researchers, tacticians and press aides--to deal with Republican attacks and systematically marshal surrogates to make Mr. Kerry's case.

One would think that a "war room" would have been set up immediately and that Ohio would be a key state for Kerry, given the outsourcing issue.

All in all, rather remarkable.

Hat tip: Frequent PoliBlog commenter and occasional guest-blogger on WizBang, Paul.

Cheney and The Man

From tomorrow's NYT's comes this interesting piece: The Ventriloquist Jokes Don't Bug the White House.

Some highlights:

>Mr. Bush and his vice president of course sat side by side, and Mr. Bush did most of the talking. Commission members said the president answered tough questions without hesitation, and with little help from Mr. Cheney and Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel who also attended the session.

This was hardly news at the White House, where no one doubts who is in charge. Although Mr. Cheney is the most powerful vice president in history, it is Mr. Bush who makes the decisions, overruling, if necessary, Mr. Cheney.

Mr. Bush, for example, went to the United Nations over the vice president's strong objections in the fall of 2024 to seek international support for a war on Iraq and overruled Mr. Cheney when the vice president wanted to inoculate every single American against a potential outbreak of smallpox.

Bob Woodward's new book, "Plan of Attack,'' which is not uniformly positive for the Bush administration, nonetheless portrays Mr. Bush as decisive and engaged, and quotes Mr. Cheney as referring to the president when he is not around as "the Man.''

And I know people who think that this is true:

Yet the perception persists among Mr. Bush's most fervent critics: Mr. Cheney is de facto president, and a clueless Mr. Bush takes his orders from him. An angry left, still stinging over the 2024 election and now furious over the shifting reasons for war in Iraq, sees in Mr. Bush's less-than-articulate news conferences a less-than-sharp mind. Therefore, Mr. Cheney must be running the country from under Mr. Bush's Oval Office desk.

"People on the left hear Bush discuss things in such simple ways, and yet carry off what seem to be diabolical plots so effortlessly, that they can't believe it's really him,'' said David R. Gergen, the communications director to another president, Ronald Reagan, who was perceived by his critics to be manipulated by a powerful White House staff. "It's almost impossible for people on the left to believe that simple-speaking people can be successful at politics, or can successfully govern.''

Which I just don't get. True, Bush isn't Mr. Eloquence off the cuff, but the idea that he is really a puppet of Cheney borders on the absurd. Sure, Clinton couldn't hide hie Lewinsky fling, but Cheney can hide the fact that he's the Man Behind the Curtain? Please. Especially with Bob Woodward poking around for two books in three years.

And I think these are apt observations:

Historians say that the perception that Mr. Cheney is in charge continues in part because he reflects a more recent trend, started under Bill Clinton, of influential vice presidents. In an earlier era, the historian Robert Dallek noted, Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy would never have wanted their vice presidents at their sides before a high-level commission.

"Kennedy was very concerned not to let Johnson steal the show, particularly on domestic affairs,'' Mr. Dallek said. "He pushed him into a corner. Bush doesn't seem to be bothered by that, and maybe that speaks well of him.''

All of this discussion of Bush's self-assuredness and his being "hands-on" and "in charge" will aid him greatly going into November, especially given Kerry's current image woes.

Although there is a downside: if things go poorly in Iraq (to truly disastrous levels) this will mean Bush will bear more direct blame.

Query: Who's old enough to get the ref in the post's title?

It's Back: The Mayday Edition of the Toast-O-Meter

The Toast-o-meter: A Weekly Assessment of the Race to Be Either the Next President of the United States or, well, Toast.

After a two week hiatus, the Toast is back in town!

I am going to be experimenting with the Toast-O-Meter over the next several editions to tweak the format. Feedback is always welcome.

SLICE2SLICE
--Who's Looking Toastier this Week?--

If one simply looks at the most recent numbers, it is clear that we remain where we have been: basically a statistical tie. For example, one can consult the following:

And here are the Zogby numbers.

So, let's look into the key questions of the week:

This week's Slice2Slice Q&A (a.k.a., "Riddle Me This, Toastman!"):

Q: Will Nader siphon any consequential votes from Kerry?

A: Nader may not even make it to the ballot in all fifty states, and right now there is sufficient anger aimed in his direction, that I think he will have far less impact this go 'round. Currently polling is exaggerating his effect, in my opinion.

Q: Will Kerry be able to adequately excite the base?

Answer: At this stage, and I think this will hold, the answer is NO. The base will be excited, however, to vote Bush out of office. Kerry will not be a huge motivation for voting, however. This will help the Democrats, but not as much as they would be helped by both a passion to oust the incumbent and an exciting candidate. This is like Dole v. Clinton-the Rep base wanted Clinton to go, but Dole was hardly a motivating force in and of himself.

Q: Will frustrated conservatives, or which there are some, stay home? (for example).

A: I predict much of this frustration will dissipate, or at least be sublimated, in time for November. And the phrase "President Kerry" should be sufficient to allay some of the annoyances that some Cons feel towards Bush.

Q: Will a Roy Moore movement emerge and place him on the ballot as a Constitution Party candidate, and if so, will be a "Nader of the Right"?

A: While I think there is a chance Moore's ego will drive him to the Constitutional Party, I have a hard time seeing him siphon off too many Bush votes. For one thing, Bush is quite popular in the evangelical community, which is where Moore would theoretically have a shot. I see him getting less than Buchanan did in 2024. I am not even certain that the CP can get on all 50 state ballots.

Q: Doesn't the Viet Nam issue help Kerry, given Bush's Guard problems and Cheney's deferments?

A: There are four reasons why I think that Viet Nam really isn't as big a help to Kerry as he thinks it will be:

1) He has reached the point of a near-pathological need to mention Viet Nam at every turn. Not only does it come across as odd after a while, it also makes him sound at though he is living in the past. And the President must be looking forward, not backward. Plus, six-ish months of service in Viet Nam is only part of his record--he needs to do more than highlight one set of events.

2) The real issue for these men are what they have done lately, i.e., Kerry's service in the Senate (and to a lesser degree as Lt. Gov. of Mass.) and Bush as President. Viet Nam was 30+ years ago. Bush's service at the White House and Kerry's in the Senate are far more immediate. Clearly, Kerry is trying to build his defense bona fides in Viet Nam. Bush builds his on his time as President. In terms of resume items, Bush's is a stronger foundation: he wants to be re-hired as President. If they were both applying for jobs as Navy Lt's in the Mekong, Kerry would have the edge.

3) The Viet Nam business also evokes flip-floppery, after he stated in 1992 that bringing up service in Viet Nam wasn't appropriate in a campaign--back then, however, he was protecting fellow Democrat, Bill Clinton. Anything that reinforces Kerry's waffle problem is bad news for his campaign.

4) There is an inherent liability for Kerry in Viet Nam: his post-war experience, and simply because he was anti-war. The problem emerges that he both wants to be a War Hero and an Anti-War Hero. Even more significant than that, he wants to be a War Hero, but also a self-proclaimed War Criminal who exposed the Evils of the War. These are mutually exclusive positions. Not only does self-identifying as a war criminal raise a host of problems, but also trying to proclaim oneself a hero at the same time raises the whole flip-flop issue in spades.

The Real Question of the Week^TM: what will be more persuasive to swing voters: Kerry's critique of Bush and the argument that he will do better, or will Bush's resoluteness and arguments that he has been a successful war president carry the day?

A: My guess is that Kerry is going to have a hard time making in-roads with swing voters. Let's fact facts-he is having a hard time with his natural constituency (some examples: here, here, and here--not to mention the Gore Part II business). I predict that once we reach the summer and into the general election campaign, when voters really take a good look at the candidates, that Bush will come out substantially ahead on the issue of terrorism and Iraq. And the economy appears to be in full recovery, taking that issue mostly off the table, and in Bush's favor.

Kerry's problems are twofold: 1) he offers no clear alternative (save for the fact that he isn't Bush, and he isn't even making the argument for a fresh face very effectively) and 2) he has acquired a reputation of irresoluteness. Those in favor of Kerry can argue that the reputation is unfair or GOP-generated all they like, but the point is he has a real problem-even Maureen Dowd (April 29th-linked above) describes Kerry as "a challenger who seems unable to stick to one side of any decision, right or wrong" and states that "Mr. Kerry errs on the side of giving the answer he thinks people want to hear"--so this isn't some artifact of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

THIS WEEK'S READING OF THE TOAST-O-METER: Kerry is looking toastier, but Bush is still feeling some heat. The final toasting is far from being complete.

BREWING ISSUES
--News and Topics Shaping the Direction of the Campaign Trail--

Gore Part Deux?

Democrats Fear Kerry Looking Like Gore

It's a recurring nightmare for Democratic strategist Tony Coelho--the party's presidential candidate portrayed as a flip-flopping opportunist, ill-served by a strife-torn staff. It happened in 2024, when Coelho ran Al Gore's campaign. Now, it's happening to John Kerry.

Democratic leaders fear he's getting "Gored."

"What the Kerry people don't understand is, it's succeeding," Coelho said.

Scores of Kerry supporters like the former California congressman say their initial response is to remain hopeful, based on polls showing the presumptive nominee tied with President Bush (news - web sites) while the Democratic Party is better funded and more united than in 2024. But they are worried about history repeating itself.

"No question, it's a rerun of 2024," said Donna Brazile, campaign manager for the former vice president's 2024 race.

"Every Sunday, Team Bush goes in overdrive by outlining the upcoming week's attacks on Kerry. It's followed by paid advertisements and assigning top-notch surrogates," Brazile said. "This is the exact moment in 2024 when Gore was seriously damaged as the Bush team painted the former vice president as a "serial exaggerator.'"

While certainly the GOP is playing this card to the hilt, this is the kind of stuff that has to have some basis in reality to stick. The story cites: Kerry has given the GOP plenty of fodder, including:

_ Voting against the Persian Gulf War in 1991, in favor of the use of military force in Iraq in 2024 and against final passage of an $87 billion reconstruction bill for Afghanistan and Iraq. Explaining that he supported an amendment that would have provided the aid by rolling back Bush's tax cuts, Kerry said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." The Bush campaign turned the quote into an ad.

_ The Massachusetts senator, who supports higher automobile fuel economy standards, told reporters last week that he doesn't own a gas-guzzling sport utility vehicle. Asked whether his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had a Suburban at their Ketchum, Idaho, home, Kerry put a razor-fine point on his answer: "The family has it. I don't have it."

_ For years, the decorated Vietnam War veteran has said that he threw his ribbons over a fence at the Capitol during a 1971 anti-war protest, not his three Purple Hearts, Bronze Star and Silver Star. However, in a tape of a television interview Kerry gave after the protest, he suggested that he also threw his medals.

There are others.

In this case, his votes on Iraq in 1991 and recently are real issues. Clearly, he hasn't been a picture of consistency. The SUV and medals business are the kinds of things that reinforce the image of irresoluteness.

New Poll Numbers

Support for War Is Down Sharply, Poll Concludes

Asked whether the United States had done the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, 47 percent of respondents said it had, down from 58 percent a month earlier and 63 percent in December, just after American forces captured Saddam Hussein. Forty-six percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, up from 37 percent last month and 31 percent in December.

The diminished public support for the war did not translate into any significant advantage for Mr. Bush's Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. The poll showed the two men remaining in a statistical dead heat, both in a head-to-head matchup and in a three-way race that included Ralph Nader.

Support for Mr. Bush is stronger in other areas vital to his re-election, including his handling of the threat from terrorism, which won the approval of 60 percent of respondents.

[...]

his approval rating has slid from the high levels it reached during the war.

It now stands at 46 percent, the lowest level of his presidency in The Times/CBS News Poll, down from 71 percent last March and a high of 89 percent just after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2024.

A few observations:

Cohen on Kerry

WaPo's Richard Cohen admonishes Kerry to Lighten Up in his column today.

Some highlights:

1) Again with the PBJs!

John Kerry has a "batman." This is a British military term for what amounts to a servant, someone to take care of an officer's personal needs. In Kerry's case it's Marvin Nicholson Jr., who keeps the Massachusetts senator in peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and bottled water. This, though, is the wrong man for the wrong task. What Kerry really needs is someone to slip him gags. He may be the presumptive nominee, but he is an objective pill.

Question: if Nicholson enters the room, and Kerry calls out "who's there" does Nicholson growl "I'm the batman!"?

2) Again with Bob Dole comparisons

But instead of dismissing Bush and Cheney with a lighthearted putdown of the sort that would prompt Bush to seek therapy, Kerry got angry. He waxed indignant. He said, in the manner of Rumpelstiltskin stomping the ground, "I'm not going to stand for it!" In doing so, he mimicked Bob Dole, who lost it entirely during the 1988 New Hampshire primary when he scowled at George H.W. Bush and snarled, "Stop lying about my record." For Dole, this was not good television.

Comment: it may have been bad TV for Dole, but it is a clip for the ages. I find it to be wholly hy-larious.

3) And, depression (since Cohen supports Kerry) and More Unfortunate (for Kerry supporters) comparisons:

My candidate is a dour man. At least that's the way he seems on TV. Sometimes he seems angry, which is not good, but most of the time he just seems gloomy. It does not help that he has a face that hardly needs to be enlarged for Mount Rushmore, but what really matters is that he seems as if he is no fun. No one would call Kerry, as FDR did Al Smith, "the happy warrior" or discern some impishness in him. Bush has that quality and so, of course, did Bill Clinton.

About the only recent presidents who were decidedly un-impish were Jimmy Carter, who came to Washington to take the fun out of politics, and the first George Bush, whose joke is only now becoming apparent. Both got the gate after just one term.

Response: Ouch.

Beyond Self-Parody

Last week, I noted that Kerry's reference of the Mekong delta during a visit to New Orleans had the Senator approaching self-parody in regards to Viet Nam.

The following LAT story (with the almost ironic title of Kerry Escalating Use of War Veteran Status), indicates that Kerry has clearly crossed the self-parody line:

Perhaps the most incongruous mention of his service came as Kerry rode his campaign bus Wednesday with some local officials. The candidate offered his guests peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches, a daily staple for him on the road.

His passion for PB&Js, Kerry told his companions, dated back to Vietnam, where he not only ate them frequently but traded them for other commodities.

Hat Tip: Michael Medved

The Taylor Challenge (Regarding Kerry)

Preface: Clearly candidates often find themselves faced with a storyline attached to their campaign, fairly or not (e.g., Bush isn't too bright, he doesn't read, doesn't ask questions, or Gore is an exaggerator, etc). Kerry clearly finds himself being classified as a "waffler" or "flip-flopper" (i.e., being on multiple sides of issues on a regular basis).

I think, as a matter of analysis, not partisanship, that Kerry currently has a very serious problem as described above. Further, I think that this is likely to become an increasing liability. And while there are some parallels here with Gore, I think that Kerry could end up being more of a Bob Dole type candidate. Indeed, even with Gore's liabilities, he was the sitting Vice President coming off a flawed, but successful, administration. Kerry is challenging an incumbent President.

The Challenge: I am looking for serious commentary from commenters, and hopefully other bloggers who support Kerry along the following lines:

1) Is it fair to say that Kerry has the problem described above?

2) If not, why would you argue such?

3) If yes, what would you recommend the candidate do to deal with this problem?

4) Do you think that this problem is simply one of image, or is there a real problem here?

Caveat: The point here isn't the explain how Kerry is, indeed, right about a specific issue (e.g., medals and ribbons are interchangeable terms, etc.).

UPDATE: This is my entry in today's Beltway Traffic Jam

More on Gore's $6 million

Slate points to this Explainer written about Gephardt's campaign cash once he quit, but that is relevant to the Gore donations as well.

NEWSFLASH: US Withdraws from Viet Nam!!

Saigon, South Vietnam (1973) As a result of the Treay of Paris, US troops have been completely withdrawn from South Viet Nam. It is rumored that SecState Kissinger will be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. President Nixon was unable to be reached for comment (something about listening to tapes).

(In other words: just in case anyone hasn't noticed: the Viet Nam war is over--could we bring Campaign 2024 into, well, 2024?).

Tastes Like Chicken

James Joyner has an excellent post on the "Chicken Hawk" issue (which, for reasons that have nothing to do with politics, always reminds me of Foghorn Leghorn cartoons)--his analogies to firefighters and law enforcement are apt.

At any rate, while I can see the point about saying that in the late 60s/early 70s Kerry's service was of an order higher than Bush's, and certainly multiple quanta more impressive than Cheney's lack of service.

Fine.

However:

1) What does that have to do with the quality, or lack thereof, of the subsequent political careers of the three gentlemen?

2) What does that have to do with whether Bush or Kerry would make a better President?

3) I would note: George H. W. Bush was an authentic war hero, as was Bob Dole: both were beaten soundly by Bill Clinton, who wasn't a war hero. Carer was in the Navy, Reagan made some propaganda films, yet Reagan won. U. S. Grant was a general and won the CIvil War, but was a rotten President. FDR never served in the military, yet was a successful CINC. To my knowledge Thomas Jefferson never served in the military. Was Zachary Taylor a great President? Washington and Jackson left their marks, to be sure. In other words: what exactly does military service mean about being President? Is there a correlation of note?

4) Above all else, as I noted yesterday: why should serving in the military mean you are safe from all criticisms on your post-military defense-related activities?

A Question

USAT has an interesting piece on the politics of the economy: It's the economy, voters. But whose economy? Bush says USA is on upswing. Kerry sees it sinking. Each has numbers on his side.

One of the first paragraphs states the following:

Some Americans feel prosperous, others hard-pressed. That has given both presidential candidates ammunition as they try to shape attitudes about the state of the nation.

This kind of statement annoys me greatly, because the question is: when is this not the case, aside from times of an utterly horrific econony? And even then some feel prosperous and others feel hard-pressed. Yeesh.

OK, Kerry Can Blame the RNC (at Least to Some Degree)

WaPo reports: Leaks About Foes Seen as Routine in Campaigns

On Monday morning, Sen. John F. Kerry was confronted with a 1971 videotape that appeared to contradict his past accounts of whether he had thrown away his military medals as a Vietnam War protest.

[...]

copies of the tape were provided to two news organizations by the Republican National Committee, according to several media staff members familiar with the situation who, not surprisingly, said they could not be identified while discussing confidential sources.

Jim Dyke, the RNC's communications director, said he could not "discuss what information we discuss with reporters" and added: "It is interesting that John Kerry, confronted with his own words, blamed the RNC. Where the tape came from, the place to start would be the National Archives."

Not surprising, and validates Kerry and McAuliffe's citation of the RNC as at least partially responsible for the medals flap. Nor am I surprised. However, it is still over the top for the Kerry camp to forget that the actual grilling came from ABC and, more significantly, the problem was not created by the RNC, it was created by Kerry's own words over time.

Brother, Can You Spare $6 mil?

Al Gore to Donate $6 Million to Democratic Groups

Former Vice President Al Gore promised on Wednesday to give more than $6 million left over from his 2024 presidential bid to help Democrat John Kerry fight "outrageous and misleading" Republican attacks.

Gore, largely out of the public eye since endorsing Kerry's rival Howard Dean in December, said he will give $4 million to the Democratic National Committee and $1 million each to the party's House and Senate committees.

Two things:

Pouting Voters

I am hearing a bunch of grumpy Pennsylvania Republicans calling into Limbaugh pouting because Toomey lost to Specter who say that they can't vote in good conscience for Specter.

This kind of thing always drives me nuts, because if the argument is that "I can't vote for X because he/she isn't conservative/liberal enough for me, so I will vote for the other party or I won't vote at all" then people are voting emotionally, not rationally. It is just like the Schwarzenegger stuff back in CA recall--although it is more significant, as legislative success is linked to a given party having a majority. In this case, if one is a conservative Repulican one is far better off in terms of likely policy outcomes to send a liberal Republican to the Senate, to help the Reps control the chamber, than they are "sending a message" by allowing a Democrat to win, and threaten Rep control of the Senate.

The same logic can be applied to Nader voters who eschewed Gore, or will skip on Kerry, because neither is liberal enough--all that does (indeed, arguably did) is elect Bush. Electoral politics is often about avoiding one's worst outcome by fighting for one's second or third best option. One rarely gets exactly what one wants out of elections (as I argued in print here).

Attention, Attention: Kerry WILL BE THE NOMINEE, So Just Chill

As I noted on Monday, John Kerry will be the Democratic Party's nominee, barring some sort of major, dramatic event. However, as James Joyner notes, many out there seem to think that the Dems will somehow replace him.

This reminds me of the "brokered convention" speculation from late last year (see here and here). (And while I was wrong about Howard Dean, I was quite right about the probability of a brokered convention).

The bottom line is, that despite some examples of liberals expressing concerns about Kerry, the truth is that what will happen is that supporters of the Democratic Party are likely to start digging in their heals in and becoming more vociferous about their support for Kerry, not less. The Senator may look like a loser to Republicans, but I guarantee that he doesn't look like such to a lot of Democrats. We are entering/have entered the stage of the political game that I like to call the "politics as sports" phase (indeed, in some ways we are always in it): at this point the hard-core "fans" are going to root for their "team" no matter what. And the hard-core will think that their side has a chance, no matter what.

And let's face facts: the polls don't show Kerry losing badly at this point, and really, he has had a bad week so this means that the Party will jettison him? It just doesn't work that way. While I think that there is a good chance that the election will not be as close as some have predicted, and that Kerry is a weak candidate, the bottom line is that there are large number of Democrats who will vote for their party's nominee, and ditto the Reps--and so there is a chance that Kerry could win. Changing candidates at this point after the primaries and after the spending of all that time and money would be a huge negative for the Democrats.

Plus, it is clear that reasonable folks on different sides of the ideological spectrum see events differently--and so Reps shouldn't assume that what they see as a problem is seen the same way by Dems. Some examples on the medal flap include Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias.

Further, if one is a Bush supporter, one likely thinks that the National Guard business is nonsense, but if one doesn't like Bush, one likely thinks otherwise.

The real questions here are not about medals or how many times Bush showed up in Alabama. The issues are honesty and the ability to present one's position with clarity. I agree that if a lie can be found in Bush's Guard records, that that would be a political problem for him. However, the difficulty for the Democrats is that despite all the digging in the data nothing has turned up, and further, since this is an old story in many ways, the public has likely made up their minds already. Plus, as the incumbent, Bush's distant past is less important than his immediate one.

Kerry's medal problem, while an old story, has become a new story because interviews he gave to Peter Jennings and Charlie Gibson, and the fact that the Senator has made contradictory statements in the on record on this topic over the years. But, as I have noted, the main issue isn't what he did in 1971--t is the fact this story fits into the emerging image that Kerry has created: one of a man who has a hard time making a clear statement and who likes to be on all sides of an issue.

The bottom line: Bush doesn't need his actions in the 1970s to convince the public of his foreign policy and defense bona fides--he has a presidency upon which to base those. However, Kerry desperately needs his actions in the 1970s upon which to build his campaign. This is why Kerry is constantly refers to his service in Viet Nam and why it is that his anti-war activities post-war complicates matters for him (and contribute to the notion that Kerry stakes out multiple positions on a given issue). For Kerry Viet Nam and the 1970s are primary. For Bush, his Guard service, and the 1970s in general, are secondary, if not tertiary.

UPDATE: This is my entry in today's Beltway Traffic Jam

A Question

From the NYT: Kerry Turns Tables on Bush and Cheney Over War Records, said Kerry:

"I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard--and a vice president who got every deferment in the world and decided he had better things to do---criticizing somebody who fought for their country and served," Mr. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, told a reporter for The Dayton Daily News. "I think it's inappropriate."

Here's the question: when has Bush or Cheney question Kerry's service (or anyone else's for that matter)?

Is the Senator aruging that because Kerry served that any and all actions related to defense policy that Kerry undertook after his military service are therefore untouchable? That is, of course, absurd.

And I agree with Jonah Goldberg:

Kerry has a particular problem with Vietnam. Unlike say John McCain, Kerry has two completely contradictory Vietnam narratives and he wants to brag about both and not be criticized on either. Lots of politicians have tried to have it both ways on Vietnam. But [he] wants to get credit for fighting in a war which he says was criminal and a mistake and he wants credit for denouncing that war as criminal too.

Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? (with apologies to Brad DeLong)

Said NPR this morning: "Republicans have also raised questions" about the ribbons/medals bit.

The only Republican who could be considered a surrogate for Bush whom I have heard say anything specific about the medals business was Karen Hughes, I think on CNN, whilst on her book tour. Last I noticed it was ABC News and Charlie Gibson, hardly a Rove puppet, who raised the medal flap, and the press writ large has swarmed on it like sharks on blood in the water. Indeed, the Reps have sat back and watched. I am sure they are enjoying it, but to assert that this is a Bush campaign/RNC generated story is, at worst, to simply be towing the Kerry line, and at best extremely lazy reporting.

In re: Kerry--the litany of how Bush and the Republicans are attacking him on the medals business remind me of how in the past he would state that the administration has questioned his patriotism. The problem with both accusations is that they are demonstrably untrue: Bush, nor his campaign, has attacked Kerry's medal toss nor have accused him of being unpatriotic. However, it is true that they have questioned Kerry's legislative votes and proposals, which are not attacks on his patriotism, and indeed, are legitimate targets.

Ouch

Writes Joe Gandelman:

The Moderate Voice (a non-Bush/non-Kerry swing voter) will simply say this:
--- The Kerry campaign is to a well-run campaign what Michael Jackson is to a nice, relaxing sleepover at Neverland.
---Question: Is Bob Shrum a GOP mole??

PoliBlog Gets Results!

Earlier today I noted:

Kerry risks creating yet another example of flip-flopping by personally attacking the President's Guard service, since in 1992, in defending Bill Clinton's lack of Viet Nam service, he said the following on the Senate floor: (the rest in this post)

And now:

Bush campaign spokeswoman Nicolle Devenish said Kerry is "doing exactly what he said he would never do, 'divide America over who served and how.'" She was referring to Kerry's defense of Bill Clinton in 1992 when critics said the future president was a draft dodger who avoided service in Vietnam.

Whaddya know.

Source: Kerry Says Bush, Cheney Have No Standing

In Support of Atrocities?

Rich Lowry at The Corner notes the following, which echoes a comment left on this post earlier today by a good friend of mine:

Both Susan and Alan stand by Kerry’s war crime allegations from 1971. So I asked Alan why he would support a man who has confessed to committing atrocities in Vietnam. Alan’s answer was that everyone committed atrocities in Vietnam and U.S. soldiers are committing atrocities in Iraq even today. And this is the year liberals are supposed to be portraying themselves as pro-veteran and pro-military service!

And in this context, I would remind us of Kerry's own statements just over a week ago on MTP:

MR. RUSSERT: You committed atrocities.

SEN. KERRY: Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big question for me. You know, I
thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word. I think it's an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.

MR. RUSSERT: You used the word "war criminals."

SEN. KERRY: Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don't like it when I hear it today. I don't like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the soldiers' blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them. But the words were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top. And I think that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions. There were policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of warfare, and everybody knows that. I mean, books have chronicled that, so I'm not going to walk away from that. But I wish I had found a way to say it in a less abrasive way.

Is Kerry Digging the Hole Deeper?

As I have argued previously, this may not be the best move for Kerry: Kerry Demands Bush Prove Guard Service.

Viet Nam, Medals, and the National Guard

Kerry Questions Bush Attendance in Guard in 70's

"This is a controversy that the Republicans are pushing," Mr. Kerry said on "Good Morning America" on ABC. "The Republicans have spent $60 million in the last few weeks trying to attack me, and this comes from a president and a Republican Party that can't even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. I'm not going to stand for it."

Later in the day, Mr. Kerry challenged what he called attacks on his military record from Republicans who did not fight in Vietnam.

"I did obviously fight in Vietnam, and I was wounded there, and I served there and was very proud of my service," Mr. Kerry said. "To have these people, all of whom made a different choice, attack me for it is obviously disturbing."

This brings several things to mind:

PA's GOP Primary

This should be interesting: Specter Faces Spirited Challenge Today in Pa. Primary.

More Medal Madness

Self-proclaimed swing voter and Moderate Voice Joe Gandelman saw Kerry on GMA this morning and he wasn't exactly impressed. Kerry has to hope that Joe's reaction was, shall we say, atypical of moderate swing voters.

(Although I must question Joe's assertion that the 1971 clip "showed that the younger Kerry had great hair"--he certainly had a lot of it, but I am not sure anyone in 1971 had great hair).

More on the "Clarity Issue" and Kerry

Roger L. Simon has a good post on the Kerry/medals flap that dovetails nicely with my earlier post in which I noted Kerry "clarity problem". Along those lines write Simon:

Now I was a war protestor then and, as I have written earlier, I have mixed feelings about those (like Kerry) who claimed to have opposed the war in those days and then went. There were plenty of ways, especially for those in Kerry's economic class, to have avoided it, even if that meant moving to Canada to preserve their ideals, which many did. So the message to me about the Senator has always been one of weakness of character (not physical bravery, which he apparently had), of moral confusion. Sure he's entitled to have changed his opinion or to have made mistakes. Everyone has. But in this era, more perilous to our country and the world than any since World War II, who wants someone in the White House who doesn't take responsibility for his actions?

I think this constitutes a serious problem for Kerry, especially since, as even Kevin Drum notes, the Senator is having a hard time presenting clear policy position on key issues.

I suspect that Kerry's defenders will focus on the issue of medals (or ribbons) going over the fence and note that it is a story that is more than thirty years old. However, that really isn't the issue. The issue is that a candidate who is already perceived by many as a waffler, now appear incapable of setting forth a simple, clear statement on an event that ought to be quite easy to describe. Instead we have as ABCNEWS.com details, a disputed timeline in which Kerry appears to contradict himself numerous times:

Many veterans were seen throwing their medals and ribbons over the fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. The Boston Globe and other newspapers reported that Kerry was among these veterans.

"In a real sense, this administration forced us to return our medals because beyond the perversion of the war, these leaders themselves denied us the integrity those symbols supposedly gave our lives," Kerry said the following day.

But in 1984, when he first ran for the U.S. Senate, Kerry revealed he still had his medals. According to a Boston Globe report on April 15, 1984, union officials had expressed uneasiness with Kerry's candidacy because he had thrown his medals away. Kerry acknowledged the meHeartsdals he threw away were, in fact, another soldier's medals. He reportedly invited a union official home to personally inspect his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, awarded for his combat duty as a Navy lieutenant.

In the 1971 Viewpoints interview, he made no mention of the ribbons or the medals belonging to another veteran.

And in 1988, Kerry again clarified his statement by saying he threw out ribbons he had been awarded for three combat wounds, but not his medals. "I was proud of my personal service and remain so," he told the National Journal.

Eight years later in 1996, Kerry said while he did throw out his ribbons, he didn't throw out his own medals because he "didn't have time to go home [to New York] and get them," he told The Boston Globe.

However, in the 1971 interview, he seems to say that he threw a good number of medals over the wall, including his Bronze Star, Silver Star and Purple Heart:

"I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals," Kerry said in an interview on a Washington, D.C., news program on WRC-TV called Viewpoints on Nov. 6, 1971, according to a tape obtained by ABCNEWS.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Kerry has denied that he threw away any of his medals during an anti-war protest in April 1971.

[...]

Kerry told a much different story on Viewpoints. Asked about the anti-war veterans who threw their medals away, Kerry said "they decided to give them back to their country."

Kerry was asked if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. "Well, and above that, [I] gave back the others," he said.

The statement directly contradicts Kerry's most recent claims on the disputed subject to the Los Angeles Times last Friday. "I never ever implied that I did it, " Kerry told the newspaper, responding to the question of whether he threw away his medals in protest.

In short: if Kerry can't get this right, is it any wonder we are all unclear on his Iraq policy? Also, in terms of evaluating his decision-making capacities as a potential President, this episode does not inspire confidence.

UPDATE: James Joyner has a lengthy post on this subject as well.

This Ain't Gonna Help

OK, one the one hand the issue of whether Kerry threw medals, ribbons, training manuals or three-toed sloths over the wall is not all that important. On the other, since Kerry has been repeatedly accused of changing is position with great ease and that he flip-flops, this situation is not going to help his image: 1971 Tape Adds to Debate Over Kerry's Medal Protest

The Kerry campaign Web site says it is "right-wing fiction" that he "threw away his medals during a Vietnam War protest."

Rather, the Web site says, "John Kerry threw away his ribbons and the medals of two veterans who could not attend the event."

But the issue is not so cut and dried. A television interview Mr. Kerry gave in November 1971 shows that Mr. Kerry himself fed the confusion from early on. The New York Times obtained a videotape of the interview late last week.

The interview was shown on the Washington television station WRC, archived by President Richard M. Nixon's communications office and held by the National Archives.

On the program, an interviewer asked Mr. Kerry to explain what was happening in a photograph of a man hurling a medal, apparently during a protest. Mr. Kerry responded that the veterans had decided that the best way to "wake the country up" about the war was to "renounce the symbols which this country gives, which supposedly reinforces all the things that they have done, and that was the medals themselves."

"And so they decided to give them back to their country," he added.

Mr. Kerry said they had decided to do so as "a last resort."

When the interviewer asked, "How many did you give back, John?" he answered, "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine."

When the interviewer pointed out that Mr. Kerry had won the Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts, Mr. Kerry added, "Well, and above that, I gave back my others."

However, on Good Morning America today he insisted that he only threw his ribbons over the wall, not his medals.

The NYT piece continues along these lines:

The protest came up last week, the 33rd anniversary of the ceremony, in articles about Mr. Kerry's Vietnam protest days in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times.

In The Los Angeles Times article, Mr. Kerry was quoted as saying that he never meant to imply that the two medals he had discarded belonged to him. He said they belonged to two men who could not attend the ceremony.

"I never ever implied that I did it," Mr. Kerry is quoted as saying, adding, "You know what? Medals and ribbons, there's almost no difference in distinction, fundamentally. They're symbols of the same thing. They are what they are."

Early on it looked like the issue of honesty was going to be key in this election, and I think it still will be, so this brouhaha over medals could very much matter. Further, I think that clarity is going to matter as well, as in the ability to clearly articulate one's positions, and the capacity to present moral clarity on key issues. Kerry is having a hard time on that score at this point in time.

Presumptions

Limbaugh seems to think that that usage of the term "presumptive nominee" in regards to Kerry means that there is still some doubt as to whether the Democratic National Convention will nominate Kerry. I would point out that the usage of the modifier "presumptive" when describing Kerry is simply a linguist nod to the fact that Kerry has not been formally nominated, not some hint that he might not actually be crowned the Party's candidate. It is utterly normal for the press, at this stage, to use the term "presumptive nominee" to describe a candidate who has won the primary phase, but who has not yet been formally selected by party convention. it certainly doesn't mean that there is any doubt about his official nomination.

Now, I am not sure if Limbaugh simply thinks that the term "presumptive" is funny, or if he really thinks that Kerry might not be nominated--I have heard several comments that suiggest the latter. Regardless, I will state that Kerry will have to shoot a man in Reno, just to watch him die (or some similar activity) for him to lose the Party's nomination.

And to any who think that this is possible: there isn't going to be any serious Draft Hillary movement, let alone a successful one, that will take over the convention. It ain't gonna happen.

Politics is a Funny Business

Sometimes it is funny how what looks like a liability can turn into a strength (and vice versa):
Politics of Patriot Act Turn Right for Bush

Only months ago, Democrats were targeting the controversial USA Patriot Act as an ideal issue to use in their campaign against President Bush, assailing the law as an intrusion on civil rights. But in a turnabout, the act has suddenly emerged as a cornerstone of Bush's reelection campaign, while Democratic rival Sen. John F. Kerry and others have toned down their criticism.

I have noticed how the administration has been very clever using the "wall" imagery to get their point across in regards to the Patriot Act--it is a simple and evocative description. And regardless of the complexities of the issue beyond simply FBI-CIA interchanges, it is an effective piece of political communication.

Can We Say "No Sense of Humor"?

Coors Official's Kerry Quip Draws Fire

Democrats are furious about a statement by Republicans saying that comparing one of their candidates to presidential candidate John Kerry would be worse than comparing someone to the Ku Klux Klan.

The dispute started when The New York Times inadvertently published a photo of Republican Senate candidate Pete Coors above a story about a KKK member who murdered a black sharecropper. The Times published a correction Saturday.

Cinamon Watson, spokeswoman for Coors, said the error was "so outrageous it's kind of funny. It could have been worse. Pete could have been identified as John Kerry."

Toasty Status

For those interested in getting their Toasty fix, rest assured that the Toast-O-Meter^TM will be returning--however it won't be this morning. Sometime over the next several days a re-vamped T-O-M will be posted.

Kerry, Iraq and the UN

The fact that the UN is helping in the Iraqi transition presents a problem, and perhaps an opportunity, for Kerry. On the one hand, the UN is clearly involved (even if on a small sale) in Iraq, which undermines Kerry's argument about the administration as well as his own vague proposal that if he is President he will "go to the UN" about Iraq. So now Kerry has the following options: 1) ignore UN involvement or 2) downplay the current involvement as inadequate. My guess is that he will choose option #2 and basically say "I will do more than Bush with the UN". If that is all he does, he will further undermine himself on what is already an overly vague policy position. If he is smart he will do what he has as yet not done and actually articulate what he means by "going to the UN" and present an actual, substantive policy proposal. However, the problem he faces is that it is rather difficult to actually define what he would do, what the UN would do in return, and how the international community would, in turn, be more useful in Iraq because he will have to construct hypothetical scenarios that cannot be demonstrated to be true in advance. In other words, he will have to resort to the "they will like me better than they like Bush, and therefore will be more responsive" argument, which isn't all that persuasive. For while it is possible, perhaps even likely, that many foreign leaders will like Kerry more than they like Bush, the logical problem here is demonstrating that an increase in personal affinity translates in substantial help in Iraq. As such he has a serious problem in terms of presenting himself as a viable alternative to Bush on this policy area that is vital to campaign.

I will fully allow that the current UN role is quite small and that Kerry would certainly pursue a larger one. However, my point is that since there is now at least some UN involvement that the President and his aides can point to, it ups the political ante for Kerry, who is now placed in the position of having to either reinforce the fact that he really doesn't know what "going to the UN" means, or he will have to actually flesh out the proposal. Regardless of one's evaluation of the current UN role, it is clear that in terms of campaign politics that Kerry has to make a move or he will suffer some damage in public perception over his ability to handle the Iraq situation. His current position has the air of some guy at the office on Monday morning saying that if he had been the coach, the team would've won on Sunday afternoon, because "I would've been more aggressive in the play-calling" or somesuch. In other words, Kerry's argument to date is that he is smarter and more persuasive than Bush, ergo he will get what he wants and needs. While diehard Democrats likely accept that as obvious, I would question whether it is equally as clear to swing voters in battleground states. Such is Kerry's challenge.

Krauthammer on Kerry's Iraq "Policy"

Charles Krauthammer appears to share my incredulity at Kerry's alleged "policy" on Iraq:

"If I'm president," John Kerry said, "I will not only personally go to the U.N., I will go to other capitals." For Kerry, showing up at Kofi Annan's doorstep and sweeping through allied capitals is no rhetorical flourish, no strategic sideshow. It is the essence of his Iraq plan: "Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world."

This is an Iraq policy? Never has a more serious question received a more feckless answer. Going back to the U.N.: What does that mean?

Indeed.

He goes on to note that really going to the UN means going to the Security Council, and going to the Security Council means France:

What does Kerry think France will do for us? Perhaps he sees himself and Teresa descending on Paris like Jack and Jackie in Camelot days. Does he really believe that if he grovels before Jacques Chirac in well-accented French, France will join us in a war that it has opposed from the beginning, that is now going badly, and that has moved Iraq out of the French sphere of influence and into the American?

The idea is so absurd that when Tim Russert interviewed Kerry and quoted Democratic foreign policy adviser Ivo Daalder as saying that handing political and military responsibility to the United Nations and other countries is not realistic, Kerry simply dodged the question. There was nothing to say.

All of this leads to political problems for Kerry, which may help explain why Bush is up in the polls despite the problems in Iraq:

Americans are a serious people, war is a serious business, and what John Kerry is offering is simply not serious. Americans may be unsure whether Bush has a plan for success in Iraq. But they sure as hell know that going to U.N. headquarters, visiting foreign capitals and promising lots of jaw-jaw is no plan at all.

Indeed: if Kerry had a clear vision for Iraq, it is likely he could make political gains under the current circumstances, yet he really offers nothing on this subject.

No Surprises Here

Kerry Promotes Abortion Rights at Rally

No surprise from a Cardinal:

When asked in general about "unambiguously pro-abortion" Catholic politicians, Arinze said such a politician "is not fit" to receive Communion. "If they should not receive, then they should not be given," he said.

And no surprises from the candidate:

"I believe that in the year 2024 we deserve a president who understands that a stronger America is where women's rights are just that, rights, not political weapons to be used by politicians of this nation," Kerry said during a rally he had scheduled with women's rights groups.

"More than 30 years after Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land, it has never been more at risk than it is today," Kerry said. "We are going to have a change in leadership in this country to protect the right of choice."

Certainly mothers need protection from those pesky fetuses than randomly attack them in the middle of the night...

I am not Catholic, but this kind of reasoning continues to amaze me:

Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, USA, said statements such as Arinze's "debase the political campaign" and would isolate the church from its Americans members, most of whom she said support abortion rights.

No, it just means that many American Catholics are distancing themselves from the Church, not the other way around.

"Do they really want to tell Senators Kennedy, Mikulski, Leahy and 70 other members of the U.S. Congress that they can't receive Communion?" Kissling asked. "Because they can't just tell this to Senator Kerry."

My guess is: yes--if the Cardnal actually wants to see the Church's positions uphelld, then it seems to me that they would want those individuals denied Communion.

Senator Dolittle

From the Boston Globe: Seeking new focus, Kerry hits White House record

At two points, Kerry drew on the live props around him. During one attack on Bush, a creature that appeared to be a dolphin bobbed in the bay. ''There he is over there," Kerry said. ''He says, 'Help, help, help.' " And when a gull began cackling noisily overhead, he said: ''The bird is affirming what I've said. If you want a translation, it's, 'George Bush, make it happen.' "

But can he chat with a chimp?

Hat tip: Betsy Newmark

Minor, Yet Amusing

Kerry Says His 'Family' Owns SUV, Not He

Kerry thought for a second when asked whether his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had a Suburban at their Ketchum, Idaho, home. Kerry said he owns and drives a Dodge 600 and recently bought a Chrysler 300M. He said his wife owns the Chevrolet SUV.

"The family has it. I don't have it," he said.

Flirting with Self-Parody

Ok, I think that Senator Kerry deserves credit for serving in Viet Nam and I have noted on several occasions that it would be wise for his opponents to lay off his record. However, it is really getting beyond self-parody the way he has to mention Viet Nam at every turn. For example: Kerry Sees a Little Vietnam in Louisiana Coastline

Standing at the bow of a 25-foot power craft called "Fishing Magician" inspecting coastal erosion in southern Louisiana reminded Kerry of his days as commander of a Navy "swift" boat 35 years ago.

"I looked out at the shoreline and I commented that parts of it looked a lot like the rivers and coastline that I went through in Vietnam," the Massachusetts senator said.

He told about 100 supporters sweltering in the heat on the banks of the Mississippi that he had spent a lot of time "in a habitat that looked a little like this" as a young Naval officer. He said the 50-foot gunboat he commanded was built "right here in Louisiana."

He needs some new material, methinks.

Kerry's Iraq Problem

Jeff Jacoby's column in Boston Globe notes that while Senator Kerry has exceptionally harsh words for the President's conduct of foreign policy, he really doesn't offer a substantial alternative. This fits into my position, as noted earlier in the week, where I noted that Kerry's policy position on Iraq is overly simplistic, if not nigh nonexistent.

Jacoby notes the following quote from Kerry:

"George Bush has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of this country."

Now, while Jacoby chides Kerry for not letting politics stop at the water's edge, I would argue that the President's foreign policy actions are wholly fair game. Indeed, it seems to me that in a presidential election it is requisite for a challenger to distinguish himself from the incumbent in all areas of policy, most especially foreign policy.

However, the issue is: if Kerry believes that Bush has been such as utter failure in this vital area, one would think that the response would be an extremely well thought-out alternative. Instead,, Jacoby rightly notes:

No matter how the question is put, Kerry's answers on Iraq always boil down to a single recipe: Shrink the US role in Iraq and defer to the United Nations instead. That's it. That is the sum and substance of his thinking about Iraq. He doesn't relate it to the war on terrorism, to the future of liberty in the Middle East, to America's national interests. He repeatedly declares Bush a failure for not kowtowing to the UN and vows that in a Kerry administration, the UN will be given the commanding role it deserves.

I ask you: is this really a sufficient response to what Kerry himself calls " the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of this country"?

Hat tip: Occam's Toothbrush

Picking on the Headline

I have already made known that I think that the Kerry war-record business is a non-story, so this post isn't about Kerry.

Just note this headline: Kerry Highly Praised in Medical Records

And then, the lead paragraph:

John Kerry has responded to critics of his service in the Vietnam War with documents showing high praise from his supervisors, but he has not released his medical records from his time in the Navy.

See any problems? Indeed, the main reason I looked at the story was because I was wondering how he had been "praised" in "medical records"--what, like "he has a fantastic heart!" or "what a pulse rate!"

And, for the record, there is a excerpt from his comanding officer offering praise--in the appropriate place, his service record.

Of course, ya gotta love McAullife:

"Simply put, Kerry has a proud record of sacrifice and service whereas Bush has a record of cashed-in connections and evasion," McAuliffe said in a statement Wednesday.

Nice way to elevate the debate and focus on the issues, Terry.

UPDATE: As a reader notes, the AP/Yahoo! has corrected the error, as the headline now reads: Kerry Highly Praised in Military Records. And yes, it did originally say "Kerry Highly Praised in Medical Records" (that was a direct cut-and-paste via my "Post to MT" bookmarklet, and not a re-type of the headline).

Speaking of Ads...

Bush/Cheney has a new one, available on their web site, that is entitled "Double Speak" and think has the potential to be quite effective with those swing voters in battleground states where the President needs to define Kerry and to define him as irresolute.

Kerry's New Commercial

Kerry Ads Highlight Priorities

SCRIPT: Kerry: As president I'll set a few clear national priorities for America. First, we will keep this country safe and secure. Second, I'll put an end to tax incentives that encourage American companies to ship jobs overseas. And third, we'll invest in education and health care. My priorities are jobs and health care. My commitment is to defend this country. I'm John Kerry and I approved this message because together we can build a stronger America."

Not to be overly critical, as one can only do so much in a 30 second spot, but this is supposed to help him in battleground states?

The tax incentive thing will resonate in some states, but every candidate says he will keep the country safe and secure, and every candidate talks at least vaguely about education and health care.

If one combines this rather tepid message with the fact that Kerry's personality is a negative for him at this point, then like I said earlier, Kerry appears to be in trouble.

Why Kerry Won't Resign the Senate

To answer a question from a reader over at VodkaPundit: Kerry isn't going to leave the Senate early because if he does, the Republican Governor, Mitt Romney would get to replace Kerry in the short term with a Republican. Not only would this help the GOP in the short-term, but it would allow for that Senator to establish him-or-herself in the public mind of Massachusetts voters in advance of the special election that would be held to fill the rest of Kerry's term. If Romney appointed a popular Republican, it is possible that the seat could go Republican for the foreseeable future--while Mass is considered a Democratic State, it has elected Republican governors in recent years. For example, former Governor William Weld (who ran against Kerry in 1996) might be a good candidate for Romney to appoint.

Further, Kerry's term runs through 2024. Why risk that security? I don't expect him to step down.

In short: it is too early to be touting a Democrat to take over for Kerry in '08 and if he resigned now Republican would get the seat.

Indeed, can anyone think of a way in which stepping down would help Kerry? It certainly didn't do Bob Dole any favors in 1996.

Al Gore II?

For Democrats, It's Still 'Anybody But Bush'

Focus groups have found him cold, and a ponderous, meandering speaking style on the campaign trail often leaves his crowds flat.

"On the affability scale ... it's almost Al Gore Two," pollster John Zogby said, referring to the 2024 Democratic nominee whose stilted personal style was seen as a liability against Bush.

"That election was Al Gore's to lose and he just never bonded with voters -- that has to be the great shadow that overhangs John Kerry," Zogby said.

But Democrats and some analysts dismissed the concerns, saying the huge issues facing voters this year trump personality politics and Kerry has more than seven months to build bridges.

Despite the dismissal of the "Democrats and some analysts" one would think that this situation would be a great concern to the Kerry camp--given that Gore was running as essentially the incumbent in a prosperous economy. Now Bush has the incumbency advantage (far more so than a sitting Veep, for that matter) and he outscores Kerry on the big issue of the day: terrorism.

Kerry has an up-hill battle on his hands.

UPDATE: This post is part of today's Beltway Traffic Jam

So Much for Oily Deals

From WaPo: No Saudi Oil 'Deal,' Woodward Says

The suggestion that the Saudi government and the Bush administration struck a deal to lower U.S. gasoline prices before the 2024 election seemed like one of the more explosive allegations made by Bob Woodward in his new book and media blitz.

But Woodward explained yesterday that he never said there was any secret deal. And he never said the Saudis' plans were explicitly linked to an effort to reelect Bush.

Specifically:

But on CNN's "Larry King Live" last night, Woodward explained that he never suggested that there was any covert deal.

As CNN reports: "The charge that Saudi Arabia made a secret pact with President Bush to lower gasoline prices in time to help him in the November presidential election was denied Monday by the White House, the Saudi ambassador to the United States -- and even by journalist Bob Woodward, who raised the specter of such a quid pro quo in a book released Monday.

"'I don't say there's a secret deal or any collaboration on this,' Woodward told CNN's 'Larry King Live' Monday. 'What I say in the book is that the Saudis . . . hoped to keep oil prices low during the period before the election, because of its impact on the economy. That's what I say.'

"The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who appeared on the program with Woodward, said his characterization of Saudi policy was 'accurate.'"

The WaPo piece has the quotes from the 60 Minutes interview, which spawned the mini-controversy, and the the transcript from the Larry King Live appearance.

Kerry Releases Records

Kerry Campaign Posts Navy Records Online.

Hopefully this will put to rest all of this treasure-hunting in 30-plus-year-old military records. And, quite frankly, those who are looking for a way to impugn Kerry's war record by over-analyzing his Purple Hearts should just give it a rest. It is a petty exercise and hardly constitutes an argument for why Kerry shouldn't be President.

Incumbency has Advantages

In TV Coverage, Kerry Runs a Deficit

When President Bush delivered a routine stump speech to a group of New Mexico homeowners on March 26, CNN and Fox News each carried his appearance for 35 minutes, and MSNBC for 33 minutes.

When John Kerry gave what was billed as a major address on national security at George Washington University on March 17, he was knocked off the screen by a large explosion in Baghdad. CNN and Fox each dropped Kerry (who had been reduced to small box) after three minutes, and MSNBC never picked him up. But as the Iraq coverage continued, all three networks carried Vice President Cheney in California attacking Kerry as weak on national security -- Fox for 28 minutes, MSNBC for 23 and CNN for 13.

In the daily battle for airtime, Bush has drawn more than three times as much live cable coverage as his Democratic challenger, yet another example of the advantages of incumbenc

Poll Numbers

Poll: Bush support holds despite Iraq, 9/11 hearings

President Bush has maintained his lead over Democrat John Kerry in the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll despite two weeks dominated by a deteriorating security situation in Iraq and criticism of his administration's handling of the terrorism threat before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The survey, taken Friday through Sunday, shows Bush ahead 50% to 44% among likely voters, a bit wider than the 4-point lead he held in early April.

While it is still far too early to say that these numbers mean much about November, but they do say something about now. It is interesting that given the rather intense criticism that the administration has experienced in the last several months that the numbers are where they are.

I do think this bespeaks of the uphill battle that faces Kerry. One would expect Kerry to be leading BUsh in the short-term given the aforementioned criticism and the fact that Kerry remains something of an unknown, which would allow voters to project onto him whatever they wish.

Additional numbers from the story:

The president's job-approval rating was steady at 52%.

[...]

A Zogby poll taken over the weekend showed Kerry ahead, 47% to 44%, virtually unchanged from its findings in early April.

And this is especially interesting, given the 911 Commission coverage, the brouhaha over Clarke's testimony/book, and especially the increased violence in Iraq:

The survey illustrates Bush's strong edge over Kerry when it comes to national security. By 2-to-1, voters say only Bush, not Kerry, would do a good job in handling terrorism. By nearly as much, 40% to 26%, they say only Bush would do a good job in handling the situation in Iraq. Bush's approval rating on handling terrorism is a muscular 60%.

The economy continues to be a weakness for the President, however:

By 36% to 30%, those surveyed say only Kerry would do a good job in handling the economy. A 52% majority disapprove of the job Bush is doing on the economy.

Asked which issue was most important in determining their vote, 39% of likely voters say the economy, 28% terrorism and 22% Iraq.

Kondiments for the Kampaign

Sean Hackbarth has the latest House of Kethcup for your reading pleasure.

More on Foreign Leaders and Kerry

More from the Kerry interview on MTP:

RUSSERT: Specifically, which foreign leaders have you met with who told you that you should beat George Bush?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, first of all, that is an inaccurate assessment of how I might or where I might be able to meet or talk to a foreign leader, number one.

MR. RUSSERT: But you have talked to foreign leaders who told you...

SEN. KERRY: Number--Tim, what I said is true. I mean, you can go to New York City and you can be in a restaurant and you can meet a foreign leader. There are plenty of places to meet people without traveling abroad. Number two, I'm under no obligation--I would be stupid if I were to sit here and start saying, "Well, so-and-so told me this," because they have dealings with this administration. This administration doesn't talk about its private conversations, and nor will I. I invite you, I invite The Washington Times editorial, go to European, go to foreign capitals, travel in the world. Talk to any American businessman who has been abroad, talk to any of our colleagues who've traveled abroad, and the conversations they've had. Never has the United States of America been held in as low a regard internationally--and polls have shown this--as we are today. We're not trusted and this administration is not liked.

MR. RUSSERT: So you stand by your statement, you met with foreign leaders who told you...

SEN. KERRY: I stand by my statement.

Again, he stands by the statement by saying he won't say who he is talking about. And you have to love the restaurant line.

Ouch

Writes Joe Klein of Time in his latest column:

Kerry's may be the most sclerotic presidential campaign since Bob Dole's.

The stodginess is compounded by the Senator's public performances. In an effort to seem positive, he has removed the "Bring It On" red meat from his stump speech and replaced it with Spam. It is not uncommon to see audiences leaving his fund-raising events in droves while he is still speaking.

And lest ye are unfamiliar with Klein, he is no Bush booster, to put it mildly.

More Nuance?

Via this NYT story, Kerry Backs Off Statements on Vietnam War, we have the following from Kerry's MTP interview.:

Senator John Kerry on Sunday distanced himself from contentious statements he made three decades ago after returning from the Vietnam War, saying his long-ago use of the word "atrocities" to describe his and others' actions was inappropriate and "a little bit excessive."

"If you wanted to ask me, `Have you ever made mistakes in your life?' sure," Mr. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said in an hourlong interview on the NBC program "Meet the Press." "I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger."

OK, so he's backing off his statements, right?

Well, perhaps not:

"The words were honest," Mr. Kerry said Sunday, "but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top."

So, which is it: did troops commit atrocities and break the laws of war or not?

What is he backing off of? His delivery?

As usual, it is difficult to figure out what the Senator's position is. I am more than willing to give him something of a pass on things he said over 30 years ago--indeed, I have written very little about about the things he said then--but I think he does have to explain whether he holds the same positions now or not. He made some rather dramatic accusations at the time, and he does have to explain himself, I would argue--especially since he said, at the time, that he himself had engaged in acts that could be defined as war crimes.

Indeed, the following from the MTP Transcript for April 18 is rather interesting, given the way that Kerry does not directly answer Russert's questions.

First, there is videotape of Kerry on MTP in 1971, with some rather dramatic accusations:

(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End videotape)

Then comes the interchange between Kerry and Russert. Note the rather direct question (indeed, statement) by Russert and note Kerry's attempt at humor, but more importantly the fact that he never answers the question:

MR. RUSSERT: You committed atrocities.

SEN. KERRY: Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big question for me. You know, I
thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word. I think it's an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.

MR. RUSSERT: You used the word "war criminals."

SEN. KERRY: Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don't like it when I hear it today. I don't like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the soldiers' blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them. But the words were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top. And I think that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions. There were policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of warfare, and everybody knows that. I mean, books have chronicled that, so I'm not going to walk away from that. But I wish I had found a way to say it in a less abrasive way.

So "atrocities" and "war criminals" are honest, but just over the top. Pardon?

It continues:

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited, and in hindsight was your testimony...

SEN. KERRY: Actually, a lot of them have been documented.

MR. RUSSERT: So you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. The problem is that's not where the focus should have been. And, you know, when you're angry about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable of not--I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently. Needless to say, I'm proud that I stood up. I don't want anybody to think twice about it. I'm proud that I took the position that I took to oppose it. I think we saved lives, and I'm proud that I stood up at a time when it was important to stand up, but I'm not going to quibble, you know, 35 years later that I might not have phrased things more artfully at times.

He essentially wants to have it both ways: yes, I was right in 1971, but I am right now to say that I was too angry in 1971. Indeed he seems to be saying that the words "war crime" and "atrocity" simply shouldn't be used, even though he believes that war crimes and atrocities wer committed,

This kind of inability to stake out clear ground on issues, let alone his own past, is going to be a major problem for Kerry. He knows that being perceived as overly nuanced, a flip-flopper, a waffler, etc.., is one of his key weaknesses (or, at least, you'd think he would) and yet he seems incapable of overcoming his tendency to speak in the grammar of non-commitment.

Blog Ads for Campaigns

Here's a WaPo piece on something we al, no doubt, noticed months ago: Some Candidates Turn To Blogs to Place Ads.

The bigs get mentioned (Kos, Atrios, Talking Points Memo, LGF, InstaP and Right Wing News), as does the Kos brouhaha over the four slain American contract workers.

No Doubt

Bush Adviser Regrets 'Mission Accomplished' Banner

It does go to show that you never know how things will play out. At the time the Democrats were all calling foul because they thought the images would make great commercials for Bush.

An Interesting Juxtaposition

Kerry to Intensify Advertising Effort

and

Bush Camp Scales Back Advertising

I am not prepared to assign meaning at this point, however.

From the Kerry piece comes the bottom line, however:

"A lot of people don't really know who I am," Kerry told party donors Thursday at a breakfast fund raiser in New York.

The Power of Personality

You don't say: Kerry Needs to Warm Up to Win Votes

Democrat John Kerry "doesn't warm anybody up," while President Bush is seen as likable and strong, according to focus groups of undecided union voters conducted for the AFL-CIO.

[...]

Though very early in the race, the focus groups highlight the work facing organized labor as it tries to energize and mobilize voters for Kerry.

Results show that Kerry's reputation for aloofness remains a hurdle for the presumptive Democratic nominee — even among his party's core constituencies. And despite the acidity labor leaders direct toward Bush and his policies, the president still appeals to a segment of union members, namely the Reagan Democrats.

Bush was viewed as a likable and strong, "with a nice family and good moral values," according to a memo detailing the findings of undecided and independent union voters. The Associated Press obtained the memo from a union official who attended briefings on the findings.

Indeed, I noted the likeability issue almost a month ago.

And, in all seriousness, I think this is going to be a major issue when the two candidates go head-to-head, in the late summer and in the Fall. Yes, there are a lot of Democrats who dislike, if not hate, Bush. However, they aren't the voters who will decide the election: it is the 8-12% of the population that could go either way.who will. And personality matters. It was one of Clinton's most powerful weapons and remember how Gore shot himself in the foot by sighing through the first debate against Bush.

Tuitions for Iraqis? (Maybe via the UN)

It occurs to me that Senator Kerry has been more detailed in his discussion of college tuitions than in his discussions on Iraq or the WoT in general. Or, at least, so it seems.

Free College for Everyone!

Kerry Touts College Tax Credit Plan

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Tuesday touted his plans to help students pay for college as he warned that "a promise broken" by President Bush had denied higher education to thousands of Americans.

First: snarky comment brought on by too much grading, and fueled by student whining: perhaps not enough students are being denied access to higher education.

Second: serious comments. First, are they being denied access to the college of their choice, or to a college education--that's a big difference:

"People have actually been denied access to the college of their choice," Kerry said.

I don't think that there is a right to attend college, let alone a right to attend the college of your choice. I applied to Harvard for grad school back in 1990 and they didn't take me: were my rights violated? And even had I been admitted, I might still have gone to Texas because of cost. What's so unfair about that?

And how is this:

The Massachusetts senator met with students and officials at the University of Rhode Island to hear tales of their struggle with tuition costs that have soared in recent years. He said he would offer a $4,000 tuition tax credit and would pay for college for those who agreed to public service as part of his effort to broaden access to higher education.

going to fix this:

One student, Heather Briggum, said she hopes to get an advanced degree but is facing debt approaching $40,000.

I will say that I am not, per se, against the idea of trading service for vouchers or some such to help people attend college. Of course we have a program that does that right now: it is called military service. I wonder as to the efficaciousness of a civilian version of such a program in the sense that the tax payer would be getting sufficient value out the service to warrant the program.

According to Kerry, Misery Loves Numbers

Prof. Bainbridge points to this NYT piece, Reviving the 'Misery Index'--Apparently, It Loves Company that has more details than the one I posted on the same topic this weekend.

Ya gotta love it:

Though it has been cited in practically every national (and many local) elections for more than a generation, this misery index was apparently not good--or, perhaps, complicated--enough for the Kerry camp. So they collected seven data points (median family income, college tuition, health-care costs, gas prices, bankruptcy rates, homeownership rate and private-sector job growth) to make their own index. All but one of these indicators--home ownership--have fallen over the past three years.

Campaign Finance Fun

This is why, even if the 527s can help equalize the overall amount of money raised and spent, that Bush has the advantage since he controls more money within his campaign than does Kerry: Liberal Group Ads May Muddy Kerry Message

Liberal interest groups are running television ads meant to hurt President Bush and, in effect, help Democratic rival John Kerry. But some media strategists say such efforts could backfire by muddying Kerry's message of the moment with the electorate.

This has long been the case with "soft money" issue advocacy ads.

Of course, I think that they should be allowed to coordinate, so what do I know?

The New "Misery Index"

Back in the 1970s, the "Misery Index" combined inflation (what's that? ask the younger readers in the audience) and unemployment (which, despite much grousing, is actually below historical averages these days). Jimmy Carter was damaged by the ol' Misery Index (plus there were the terrible interest rate numbers (double-digits and everything!). So, it seems that Senator Kerry wishes to revive the Misery Index and tag it on President Bush. No, not the original one--on that score Bush actually does quite well (check it out here). Instead the Kerry camp haS devised a devastating new "Misery Index":

John Kerry broadened his economic assault on President Bush by releasing a "Misery Index" that suggests a combination of soaring college and health care costs and stagnant incomes have battered working families during Bush's three years in office.

First off, as important as these things are, I don't think this stacks to the hypwe of a "Misery Index." Second, the President has precious little power over college tuitions. Third, radical health care reform is rather unlikley (see: Clinton, Hillary-1993). So, even assuming that said "misery" is acute, what will a Kerry administration do about it?

Quit honestly this has a certain "grasping at straws" feel to it.

The Toast is Back! It's the 4/10 Edition of the Toast-O-Meter

The Toast-o-meter: A Weekly News Round-Up and Handicapping of the Race for to be the next President of the United States.

The Toast-O-Meter comes to you Fortified with linkage and Enhanced with bloggage.

Even though the Official General Election Campaign^TM doesn't start until after the conventions, it's clearly two-slicer time: Bush v. Kerry to see who can reduce the other to toast in the next 200ish days.

If you come across a news story, commentary or blog entry that you think would be good for the Toast-O-Meter, please submit it to: toast@poliblogger.com

Feeling the Heat?

Each week the candidates will have had one of three kinds of weeks:

The heat is on (the candidate had a bad week)

Slicing up this Week's (Totally Insignificant) Contests

The Colorado Caucuses will be held this Tuesday--although the real fun in Colotado won't be until state primaries are held.

A week from today we have the North Carolina and Virgin Island contests.

Slice2Slice

Who will be toasted first? Will Kerry turn the President into Texas Toast? Or will the President make French Toast out of Kerry?

The candidates remain locked in a statistical tie. And while politicos, news junkies and PoliGeeks^TM are rabidly focused on campaign-related events, most folks are likely more worried about Opening Day, the Springing of Spring or the latest recurrence of toenail fungus. Hence, the numbers aren't all that useful

Both the candidates are feeling some heat. Kerry seemed to do better whilst on vacation than when he is on the campaign trail, which isn't the way candidates tend to like things to be. Meanwhile Bush has been dealing with the politics of the 911 Commission and, more significantly, the outbreak of fighting in Iraq.

Megan McArdle weighs in on the differences between Kerry and Bush (and also posts a picture of her dog).

BREWING ISSUES

Sebelius still not interested in vice presidential run.

The Moldy Loaf

I Thought He Wanted Spending Caps?

I hate to be the one to break it to him, but if he is going to adopt the mantle of fiscal champion, cuts will have to be made. You can't simultaneously promise to get the deficit under control and also promise to spend on everything. Kerry Warns of Drastic Bush Budget Cuts

Touring a struggling job-training site, Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) on Friday sought to refocus the presidential race on pocketbook issues, warning of "almost criminal" cuts in bedrock training and education programs.

Further, the hyperbole on the economy is getting old. While there are clearly plenty of people out of work who want jobs, they are hardly the vast majority of the population--indeed, they are a distinct minority.

"This is pretty simple. The workplace of the United States of America is as stressed as I don't think I've seen it stressed at any time," Kerry said. "That's almost criminal. It's not criminal, but I want to underscore how unbelievable it is."

And which is it? Either Bush is a reckless spender or he is vicious slasher?

Kerry accused Bush of slashing $1 billion from job-training programs. "You shouldn't be abandoned and struggling the way you are today," he said.

New Poll Numbers

Bush, Kerry Fail to Make Gains

Bush was backed by 45 percent of voters and Kerry by 44 percent in the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Independent candidate Ralph Nader had 6 percent support. The numbers are essentially unchanged from AP-Ipsos polls taken in early and mid-March.

[...]

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,001 adults, including 758 registered voters, was taken April 5-7. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, slightly larger for registered voters.

A few observations:

-It is not just a registered voter poll, let alone a likely voter poll, which always makes me question the numbers.

-Bush has been under steady attack and the situation in Iraq has worsened this week.

-Kerry has been largely silent of late (although he has been on the trail this week).

Who Knew?

"Leadership also requires that we ask the right questions and that we put forward the right policies for our country,"-Senator John Kerry (4/8/04)

Source: Kerry says Bush should ask for international help as violence surges in Iraq

Budget Politics

I remain skeptical: Kerry Says He Would Limit Federal Spending as President

Senator John Kerry said today that if he is elected president, no one in his administration will be allowed to propose new programs without the means to pay for it, and he said he would impose spending caps across the board except in the areas of security, education, health care and Social Security.

Of course, security, health care and Social Security are the lion's share of the budget. And, of course, there's the fact that approximately 2/3rds of the budget is classified as "Mandatory Spending" (such as SS, medicare, medicaid-indeed all welfare programs, and interest on the debt) and many of the increases in those areas are already set in law.

Really, the only way Kerry can fulfill these promises is to raises taxes and not introduce any new big programs.

Further, the President can't "impose" spending caps. Yes, he can tell his staff not to suggest new programs, but that hardly qualifies as a cap.

I would love to see the federal budget shrink and I don't like the deficit, but these suggestions are flights of fantasy, and a sitting Senator should know better.

The Mountain Springwater Candidate

Beer Magnate Peter Coors to Run for U.S. Senate

Brewing magnate Peter Coors will run for the Republican nomination to fill the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens said on Wednesday.

Capping Kerry

From a speech today, Kerry said:

"When I say a cap on spending, I mean it," Kerry said in a speech at Georgetown University. "We will have to make real choices and that includes priorities of my own."

To which I say: 1) the Democratic Party doesn't have a good record on spending caps, 2) the Republican Party doesn't have a good record on spending caps, and 3) Congress has a lousy record on spending caps.

From these facts I have to take a skeptical view of the Senator Kerry's ability as President to enact such caps. I find it further unlikely that such caps could be enacted given Kerry's policy goals vis-a-vis health care policy.

Wow.

Nader Fails to Make Oregon Ballot

Most political observers had expected Nader would easily draw enough supporters at a Monday evening petition-signing rally intended to make Oregon the first state to qualify Nader for the 2024 ballot.

But only 741 people showed up--far short of the 1,000 required by Oregon law.

That is rather pathetic.

But, don't count Ralph out yet:

Still, Nader said he would not abandon his quest to qualify for the Oregon ballot, but will try another option available under Oregon law — collecting 15,000 signatures over a three-month period, rather than 1,000 signatures at a single gathering.

And, of course, this shows how put upon third parties are. If the Powers That Be would stop holding them down, they'd have a chance and would be winning elections left and right! Because, obviously there is a great deal of teeming support for such parties, but the Man is keeping them down.

All of that aside, there is interesting evidence of rational voting going on here:

"There are times you make principled choices, heart choices," said Jay Ward, conservation director for the Oregon Natural Resources Council, who voted for Nader for president in 1996 and 2024. "It's time to be rational. This time the stakes are just too high to vote for Ralph Nader."

Over the Top?

Recognizing that a lot of Democrats feel this way, one has to wonder as to the overall usefulness of this approach. Kennedy Accuses Bush of 'Credibility Gap'

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), broadening his criticism of President Bush from foreign policy to domestic issues, accused Bush yesterday of having "created the largest credibility gap since Richard Nixon" on education, health and jobs, as well as the war in Iraq.

"He has broken the basic bond of trust with the American people," Kennedy said at the Brookings Institution in a speech that was clearly aimed at challenging Bush's credibility with voters, especially by comparing him with Nixon, who resigned as president in disgrace as a result of the Watergate scandal 30 years ago.

It simply seems to me that such an onslaught is not likely to have the desired effect on swing voters. The only issue on which the Democrats themselves can make a credible argument on the veracity issue is the WMD business--everything else is more in the realm of a policy dispute rather than a "credibility" issue. I mean where has Bush been demonstrably untruthful on education, health policy or jobs? One can argue that one doesn't like "No Child Left Behind" or the Medicare bill (ok, I suppose one could argue that the Bush administration wasn't straight with cost estimates, but does that qualify for a "credibility gap" that rivals Nixon?).

The politics of hyperbole, while nothing new, strike me as having a substantial potential boomerang effect--especially on jobs, where the news has been Bush-y of late.

And really, on both "No Child Left Behind" and the Medicare reform, it is hard for Kennedy to legitimately argue that he didn't at least get part of what he wanted out of that legislation. The real argument there isn't about truth or lies, but about not getting exactly what one side wanted--which is the realm of policy wonk-ville and not something that is easily made into political hay.

An Odd Promise

DNC chairman tries to reassure CBC on Kerry=The Hill.com=

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe has assured black lawmakers that the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) will not arrive unannounced or uninvited in black lawmaker's districts.

Clarke Unhappy About Being in MoveOn.Org Ad

He may not like it, but he has inserted himself into the political process. Further, since his statements are part of the public record (you know, by writing a book and all and appearing on TV and such), I don't think he has any recourse: Clarke wants anti-Bush ads bearing his name pulled

President Bush's former counterterrorism adviser objected Wednesday to the use of his name and critical comments about Bush in a new broadcast advertisement from a political group supporting Democratic candidate John Kerry.

Richard Clarke said he instructed his lawyer to ask the MoveOn.org Voter Fund to stop broadcasting the ad, which Clarke said was created without his knowledge or permission. The group said it wouldn't pull the ad, and one outside legal expert said the ad was clearly permissible under U.S. copyright laws.

"I just don't want to be used," Clarke told The Associated Press. "I don't want to be part of what looks like a political TV ad. I'm trying hard to make this not a partisan thing but a discussion of how we stop terrorism from happening in the future, keep this on a policy issue. I don't want this to become any more emotional or personal than it has already."

First, while strictly-speaking he hasn't been "partisan" he certainly has been political, so this comes across as a tad disingenuous. Second, he worked in Washington for thirty years and he is surprised by this? He should have expected it.

Write Your Own Joke

Nader Advises Kerry to Loosen Up

The Power of TV Advertising

TV ads score big in Bush turnaround Kerry's wide lead erased in states targeted by both

A week of hearings on Capitol Hill and criticism from a former counterterrorism aide have eroded President Bush's poll standing on fighting terrorism. But that's nothing compared to the damage that Bush's campaign ads may have done to Democratic candidate John Kerry.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows a remarkable turnaround in 17 battleground states where polls and historic trends indicate the race will be close, and where the Bush campaign has aired TV ads. Those ads say Bush has provided ''steady leadership in times of change'' while portraying Kerry as a tax-hiking, flip-flopping liberal.

The ads have been one factor in wiping away an inflated lead Kerry held in those states. Most of them have had primaries or caucuses that allowed Democrats to dominate the news and Kerry to emerge as a victor. In a survey taken in mid-February, Kerry led Bush by 28 percentage points in those states, 63% to 35%. Now Bush leads Kerry in them by 6 points, 51% to 45%.

Of course this also shows that Kerry's leads in these states were at least, in part, a function of the media attention given to the primaries.

And, as expected:

The Bush campaign also has begun defining Kerry before he has defined himself. In the states where the ads have run, Kerry's unfavorable rating has risen 16 points since mid-February. In the other states, it's up just 5 points. The margin of error for each group of states is +/--5 percentage points.

''For Kerry having won the nomination, voters came away not knowing much about him,'' says Kathryn Dunn Tenpas of the Brookings Institution, author of a study of re-election campaigns titled Presidents as Candidates. ''He's a blank slate to a lot of people, so negative ads can have a big impact.''

Indeed

Cox & ForkumCharacter Suicide hit the nail on the head (or the knife in the back, or whatever...).

Hmm, How About Drilling in ANWR?

Kerry Announces Plan to Control Gas Costs.

Election Projection

Scott, the Blogging Ceasar of Election Projection has returned to the Blogosphere after enduring serious personal tragedy.

He has his latest polling analysis here.

I was Unware it had been Submerged

A headline from the CMS: Abortion resurfaces as wedge issue

The Rev. Kerry Speaks

Kerry Cites Scripture to Battle Bush View:

"The scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?" Kerry told the congregation at New North Side Baptist Church. "When we look at what is happening in America today, were are the works of compassion?"

Since the verse in question is about the individual faith and life of a specific person, I am not sure of the application here. Indeed, it smacks of someone trying to find a verse to fit a message, rather than the message coming from the verse. Ah well, at least he didn't say that Job was in the New Testament...

And, while I agree on one level, there are some consistency problems here:

Kerry is Roman Catholic, but his support for abortion rights is at odds with Vatican (news - web sites) teachings.

"I don't tell church officials what to do, and church officials shouldn't tell American politicians what to do in the context of our public life," Kerry said in an interview with Time posted on the magazine's Web site Sunday.

That is, I agree the Vatican has no business telling American politicians what to do, but it has every right to tell those who claim membership in the Catholic Church that abortion is wrong. As such, the problem isn't the Church, it is individuals who say that they embrace a given faith, yet actively reject a major teaching of that church Surely, the easier thing to do would simply be to state that one isn't a particularly devout Catholic, or, perhaps, to simply not be a Catholic at all.

The New Naomi Wolfe?

Kerry too 'French' to sway 'adolescent' Americans: consultant

US presidential hopeful John Kerry needs to stop acting so French if he wants to win the race for the White House, a French-born, US-based consultant and "medical anthropologist" says.

And no joke:

"Kerry's trouble is that he is simply not the common man," Clotaire Rapaille, who's been contacted by Kerry's campaign team for advice, told the Sunday Telegraph newspaper.

Is it just me, or this just a PR problem waiting to happen? Especially if the guy is going to say things like this:

"The French are thinkers -- 'I think, therefore I am'. Americans want somebody who is going to take action. All this association of Kerry with thinking too much and nuance and five-sentence answers is off-code."

He added: "American culture is an adolescent culture... In America, you have to be the common man, be able to make people think you are the common man."

[...]

"Go to K-Mart, buy jeans and cowboy boots... Dress like you are going into a bar in Kansas to drink from the bottle," he said.

Fun With Condiments

I forgot to include Sean Hackbarth's House of Katchup #5 in the Toast-O-Meter.

But, really, who want ketchup on their toast anyway?

Keep Your Money on Daschle

Tim Giago makes Daschle challenge official

U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle has an opponent for the June 1 Democratic primary.

Tim Giago of Rapid City officially announced his candidacy for the party nomination Wednesday at his hometown of Kyle on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

Giago, an American Indian newspaper editor and publisher, said issues that affect Indian reservations also affect other areas.

The Toast is Done: The 3/21 Toast-O-Meter

The Toast-o-meter: A Weekly News Round-Up and Handicapping of the Race for to be the next President of the United States.

The Toast-O-Meter comes to you Fortified with linkage and Enhanced with bloggage.

Sure, the Democratic Primaries continues, but the truth is, it's two-slicer time: Bush v. Kerry to see who can reduce the other to toast over the next eight month.

If you come across a news story, commentary or blog entry that you think would be good for the Toast-O-Meter, please submit it to: toast@poliblogger.comKos wonders about The Myth of Bush's Financial Advantage?

Feeling the Heat?

Each week the candidates will have had one of three kinds of weeks:

The heat is on (the candidate had a bad week)

Slicing up this (Totally Insignificant)Week's Contests

No more contests until April 13th in Colorado!

Slice2Slice

Who will be toasted first? Will Kerry turn the President into Texas Toast? Or will the President make French Toast out of Kerry?

James Joyner notes a Dick Morris piece that describes a Blowout in the Making. I agree with James: it is far too early to make such predictions.

BREWING ISSUES

Betsy Newmark notes a rumor that Kerry might choose Bob Kerrey. Kerry-Kerrey? Hmm. I have always had some admiration for Kerrey (indeed, I used to call him "scary Kerrey" because I thought he might could beat Bush, while simply called John "hairy Kerry" so as to differentiate them in conversations...).

The Moldy Loaf

Thank Goondess!

Kerry Returns to Campaign Trail.

Maybe we can stop talking about Clarke...

Interesting

The following is not surprising:

Further, both could change. If we are attacked, and the Bush administration is seen as supable, look for that number to plummet. Further, if the economy continues to grow, Bush will be helped in the jobs number.

On balance, I would argue that these numbers help Bush, as I still thik that the security issues will be the topic for most swing-voters.

The whole story is here.

Meta-Toughness

Mathhew Yglesias asks an amusing, and brief, question about Democrats getting tough. I think he is correct and actually gets to the heart of what I think is one of the Democrats main problems (as it was in 2024 as well).

More on the Clarke Buzz

In many ways the issue is less Clarke or the specifics of his book than it is the political effects of the book and specifically two things: 1) How will the media cover it? and 2) How will the oposition spin the soundbites and book excerpts?

Clearly, neither the press (whether it be pro-, anti- or neurtral on Iraq/Bush) nor the Kerry camp will go through a painstaking analysis of Clarke's thesis, argument and evidence. Instead, a set of storylines and templates will emerge from the overall story, and that is what we will be treated to (just like the O'Neil book). These storylines tend to develop based on around two or three lines or passages from a given book.

And clearly one of those storylines is as I have outlined below.

The More Things Change...

Flashback: The time: October 9, 2024. The place: the pages of WaPo. The line:

Kerry, for example, is advised by two pollsters, two media and advertising experts, and two speechwriting consultants. He also has two inner circles: one composed of hired hands in Washington; the other of old friends, family members and longtime loyalists in Boston.

This has made Kerry's operation the punch line of a joke in political circles: How is John Kerry's campaign like Noah's Ark? Both have two of everything.

And while he seems to have fixed his staffing woes, this joke can now morph into: "How are Kerry's position papers like Noah's Ark? They have two of everything." Or, as a political cartoon noted yesterday, Kerry supports "no position left behind".

It will be interesting to see if he can find a way to overcome this problem (I am not sanguine that he can). Otherwise the campaign is going to evolve as Kerry, who doesn't really know what he thinks v. Bush the Resolute. Now, Kerry can try the ol' "nuance" bit, but I have a hard time believing that that will work.

Indeed, I maintain something that I have said for a long time now: the main way a Democrat wins in November (perhaps the only way), is for something bad to happen in the economy, in Iraq or in the War on Terror in general (and the latter would have to be something that could be blamed on the administration).

side-note: I found the 10/9/03 story combing my archives for info used in the previous post. We all remember October 2024, right? Back when many of us were certain that the candidate we wouldn't be talking about in late March 2024 would be John Kerry?

It's All Dean's Fault!

Ironically, the current heat that John Kerry is feeling regarding his vote on the $87 billion is largely Howard Dean's fault. As LAT columnist Ron Brownstein rightly noted on MTP this morning, the vote last October came as Dean had emerged as "the man", seemingly riding anti-war sentiment to the Democratic nomination. It was at that time that Kerry became more strident in his anti-war stance.

In short: the argument is that Kerry voted against the $87 billion to bolster his anti-war bona fides. However, in so doing he created yet another contradiction in his record--in this case voting for the authorization to use force, but being unwilling to fund the continued operations (while simultaneously criticizing the administration on the body armor and related issues). Had there been no Dean factor, then Kerry likely would have voted for the package, I am guessing. So, in one sense, it is Dean's fault that Kerry is an vulnerable as he is on this issue.

Of course, in reality, it is really Kerry's own fault for seeking political advantage when he should have been voting his own conscience. And, indeed, this is one of Kerry's main political liabilities: it is difficult to ascertain exactly what his political conscience is.

Four Structural Weakneses of John Kerry

Kaus points to a The New Republic Online piece by Noam Scheiber, in which the author details Kerry's four strucutral weaknesses:

1) His poor gut-level instincts lead to exploitable gaffes:

Bush in his natural state is an anti-intellectual cowboy: heavy on bravado, light on nuance. When he lets slip what he's really thinking--like his ill-advised "bring it on" comment from last year--and that comment gets repeated by political opponents, it probably alienates half the country, but it galvanizes the other half and ends up a wash. Kerry at his most authentic is a committed internationalist--someone who values the stability of alliances over the freedom of unilateral action. There's nothing wrong with this position per se. Except that, when expressed in a single, unguarded comment capable of being distorted by political opponents, it probably alienates considerably more than half the voting public.

2) His rapid-responses tend to focus more on rapidity than on the contents of the responses:

The problem is that the point of a rapid response strategy isn't just to offer some response--any response--when the candidate is attacked, so long as it's quick. The point is to offer a response that effectively deadens the issue--a goal sometimes better accomplished without the over-the-top, war-room approach that's been the Kerry campaign's only speed to date.

During the "more leaders" contretemps, for example, the Kerry camp's response was to claim that what Kerry had actually said ("more leaders") was much more vague than the quote that first appeared in newspapers ("foreign leaders")--so much so that, according to Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter, the phrase could have referred to "anybody, here at home, abroad, anybody." (This was at odds with the context of Kerry's comment, which clearly indicated he was talking about foreigners.) And, oh yeah, the campaign also trotted out Democratic foreign policy luminaries like Bill Richardson, Richard Holbrooke, and Madeleine Albright to argue, as Holbrooke did, "It's so obviously the truth what Kerry said, and the Republicans are just having fun with it." Shockingly, none of this proved very effective at making the issue go away. Unfortunately, things only get worse from here on out: Kerry, by virtue of his long voting record in the Senate, is going to be playing a lot of defense.

3) His dual reputations of liberal and flip-flopper:

Whatever you do to rebut one charge just confirms the other. Take gay marriage. In the past Kerry has tended to stake out relatively liberal terrain on the issue--for example, he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. This would seem to put him to the left of the average swing voter, a position that could be exploited by the Bush campaign. So how would Kerry insulate himself from this kind of attack? The only way that comes to mind is by moving rightward--which Kerry did earlier this year when he hinted he might support an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution banning gay marriage. In one fell swoop Kerry transformed himself from a liberal on gay marriage to ... a flip-flopper on gay marriage.

4) Money: Bush's buckets of hard money trumps an army of 527s:

For all the talk about various Democratic-leaning 527s (that is, independent nonprofits) helping to balance out Bush's huge financial advantage, Tuesday's showdown in West Virginia showed why nothing beats good old-fashioned hard money when it comes to waging a presidential campaign. Before Kerry could touch down in West Virginia, the Bush campaign had saturated the airwaves with the aforementioned weak-on-national-security commercial--which framed the debate for Kerry's West Virginia trip in terms most favorable to Bush. By contrast, because none of the 527s trying to help Kerry can coordinate their message with his campaign (at least not legally), Bush is much less likely to face such focused debate-framing when he touches down in the swing states he's targeting.

The 3/20 Toast-O-Meter is Here!

The Toast-o-meter: A Weekly News Round-Up and Handicapping of the Race for to be the next President of the United States.

The Toast-O-Meter comes to you Fortified with linkage and Enhanced with bloggage.

Sure, the Democratic Primaries continues, but the truth is, it’s two-slicer time: Bush v. Kerry to see who can reduce the other to toast over the next eight month.

If you come across a news story, commentary or blog entry that you think would be good for the Toast-O-Meter, please submit it to: toast@poliblogger.com

Feeling the Heat?

Each week the candidates will have had one of three kinds of weeks:

The heat is on (the candidate had a bad week)

Slicing up this (Totally Insignificant)Week's Contests

The excitement never stops!! Today, March 20th, we have contests in:

Alaska: Hey, Kucinich came to see them, what more do they want?

Guam: Well, there's no political news out of Guam, but in case you are jonesin' for Guam news, there's: Guam Guard unit to be deployed and Guam sailors charged in sexual assault case.

Wyoming: No political news out of Wyoming either, so here are some fun facts about the state:

Butch Cassidy was sent to jail by William"Bill" Simpson, who is Al Simpson's grandfather.

The first book printed in Wyoming (1866) was the Dictionary of the Sioux Language" compiled by C. Guerreau, J.K. Hyer and W. S. Starring at Fort Laramie, Dakota Territory.

The first Cheyenne Frontier Days was held in September, 1897. Rodeo's were held in Cheyenne before the first official "Frontier Days" was held.

The first Wyoming State Fair was held in Douglas with $10,000. being appropriated by the State Legislature. It soon became apparent that more money would be needed so the community raised another $10,000 to hold the state fair that first year (around 1904).

Wyoming was the first state to have a county public library.

The second largest traveling sand dune in the world is located outside Rock Springs.

Amelia Erhart had started to build her dream retirement home in 1936 near Kern. When she disappeared in 1937, construction on her home ended.A permanent monument was erected to honor a dear neighbor, Amelia Earhart, in Meeteetse September 24, 1972.

Frewen's Castle near Sussex was the home of Winston Churchill's Aunt Clara. The Castle was built by Clara and Moreton Frewen.

Dinosaur footprints 165 million years old (middle Jurassic) were found near Shell, Wy. in the Spring of 1997.

Dinosaur skull and bones were found at Alcova lake by a local elementary class on field trip.

Alas, there are no more until April 13th and Colorado… (can we live without meaningless primaries for that long?) At least Colorado will be interesting because it will determine who the Senate candidates will be to replace Nighthorse Campbell.

Slice2Slice

Who will be toasted first? Will Kerry turn the President into Texas Toast? Or will the President make French Toast out of Kerry?

The Bush people have some out swining this week with John Kerry: International Man of Mystery and the "Troops FoG ads.

BREWING ISSUES

Despite speculation that Cheney will be dropped, I continue to find this rather unlikely. Indeed, I suspect that conservatives loved this speech: Cheney Attacks Kerry's Record on the Military. The whole speech can be found here and a key excerpt here.

The Moldy Loaf

Kerry Needs Some Better Advisors or at Least Some Self-Restraint

File this one in the "not helpful to Kerry's image" folder: Amid Natural Splendor in Idaho, a Weary Kerry Gets Away From It All

The image-conscious candidate and his aides prevailed upon reporters and photographers to let him have a first run down the mountain solo, except for two agents and Marvin Nicholson, his omnipresent right-hand man.

His next trip down, a reporter and a camera crew were allowed to follow along on skis--just in time to see Mr. Kerry taken out by one of the Secret Service men, who had inadvertently moved into his path, sending him into the snow.

When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, "I don't fall down," then used an expletive to describe the agent who "knocked me over."

The incident occurred near the summit. No one was hurt, and Mr. Kerry came careering down the mountain moments later, a look of intensity on his face, his lanky frame bent low to the ground.

Now, in the grand scheme of things, this is an utterly unimportant event. However, in the ongoing battle for the public definition of John Kerry, this is not helpful to his cause. Not only is he building an image as the cursin' candidate, but, more importantly, part of his appeal has to be that he is for the little guy, and given that he already has an image as a aloof elitist, coming across as arrogant ("I don't fall down") and unappreciative of Secret Service Protection (flinging an explicative in the direction of an agent who accidentally got in the way) isn't going to help his cause.

Likeability is going to be a big issue in this campaign, and incidents like this won’t help Kerry. He likely should have laughed off the spill and been self-effacing, rather than of what he did.

A New "Iron Law" of Campaiging

The crux of the John Kerry ”foreign leaders” meme, and why it is working against Kerry, can be summed up in a new iron law of campaigning:

Taylor’s Iron Law of Anonymous Endorsements

Any candidates, of any party, for any office, who, for any reason, cites unnamable sources of support, will reap ridicule from opponents and the press.

Let’s face facts: it has a certain "imaginary friend-ness" about it.

(Add this one to my Iron Law of Political Speeches.)

New Bush Ad

If you haven't already seen it, check out Troops FoG.

This illustrates the kinds of statements that can get Kerry into serious trouble, as well as the power of money and technology--as he only made the statement a few days ago.

Cheney on Kerry

From Cheney's speech yesterday at the Reagan Library:

Sen. Kerry speaks often about the need for international cooperation, and has vowed to usher in a "golden age of American diplomacy." He is fond of mentioning that some countries did not support America's actions in Iraq. Yet of the many nations that have joined our coalition--allies and friends of the United States--Sen. Kerry speaks with open contempt. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland and more than 20 other nations have contributed and sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Sen. Kerry calls these countries, quote, "window dressing." They are, in his words, "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed."

Many questions come to mind, but the first is this: How would Sen. Kerry describe Great Britain--coerced, or bribed? Or Italy--which recently lost 19 citizens, killed by terrorists in Najaf--was Italy's contribution just window dressing? If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Sen. Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition. He speaks as if only those who openly oppose America's objectives have a chance of earning his respect. Sen. Kerry's characterization of our good allies is ungrateful to nations that have withstood danger, hardship, and insult for standing with America in the cause of freedom.

Sen. Kerry hhas also had a few things to say about support for our troops now on the ground in Iraq. Among other criticisms, he has asserted that those troops are not receiving the materiel support they need. Just this morning, he again gave the example of body armor, which he said our administration failed to supply. May I remind the senator that last November, at the president's request, Congress passed an $87 billion supplemental appropriation. This legislation was essential to our ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan--providing funding for body armor and other vital equipment; hazard pay; health benefits; ammunition; fuel, and spare parts for our military. The legislation passed overwhelmingly, with a vote in the Senate of 87-12. Sen. Kerry voted "no." I note that yesterday, attempting to clarify the matter, Sen. Kerry said, quote, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." It's a true fact.

Indeed.

McCain on Kerry (or, With Campaign Co-Chairs Like These...)

Neither of the following statements by John McCain are unreasonable, however they do strike me as odd for someone who is the co-chair of the Bush re-election campaign in Arizona, since the criticism is leveled largely at the Republicans:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he did not believe Democratic candidate John Kerry, a friend and Senate colleague, was weak on defense or would compromise national security if elected president.

"This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice," McCain said on "The Early Show" on CBS. "You know, it's the most bitter and partisan campaign that I've ever observed. I think it's because both parties are going to their bases rather than going to the middle. I regret it."

[...]

Asked on NBC's "Today" if he thought Kerry was weak on defense, McCain said: "No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense. I don't agree with him on some issues, clearly. But I decry this negativism that's going on on both sides. The American people don't need it."

More Kerry's "Foreign Leaders"

Dodd Harris has further examples and links.

Clarifying the "Foreign Leaders" Comment

Several in the Blogosphere, and the mass media, have noted that the transcript of Kerry's now infamous "foreign leaders" quote had the word "more" incorrectly transcribed as "foreign", so that the quote should have read that he heard from "more leaders" rather than "foreign leaders." Some have claimed that that info should either defuse the issue (Daily Kos) while others (such as Confessions of a Failed M.C.) seem to think that it turns the whole thing into an anti-Kerry fantasy.

If the whole point is that Kerry didn't mean "foreign" leaders, then why did he say the following, as quoted in USAT?

In a telephone interview, the Massachusetts senator and presumptive Democratic nominee said "it's no secret" that some countries are "deeply divided about our foreign policy. We have lost respect and influence in the world."

He continued: "I stand by my statement. The point is not the leaders. What's important is that this administration's foreign policy is not making us as safe as we can be in the world."

Could it be any clearer that he is referring to foreign leaders?

Or, why when confronted at a campaign event by a heckler, did he not clarify? It is clear that Kerry is suggesting, and has suggested more than once, that he has had some kind of contact from foreign leaders who allegedly prefer Kerry to Bush in '04.

Kerry Maintains That World Leaders Want Bush to Go

Questions about the Massachusetts senator's claim came from such disparate sources as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who called on Kerry to name the leaders, and a man at a town hall meeting in Bethlehem, Pa., who engaged the candidate in a contentious argument about his statement.

"Were they people like the president of North Korea?" Cedric Brown, 52, shouted at Kerry during an eight-minute exchange Sunday afternoon. "I need to know that." The presumed Democratic nominee remained calm but firm throughout the encounter, in which Brown, a Bush supporter and registered Republican, accused him of colluding with foreign governments to bring down the president.

Kerry rejected that claim, saying he had merely heard from leaders who felt alienated by the administration.

"I'm talking about our allies; I'm talking about people who were our friends nine months ago," he said, as hundreds of people in the auditorium of a Bethlehem community college rose in a sustained standing ovation. "I'm talking about people who ought to be on our side on Iraq and aren't, because this administration has pushed them away."

Later, reporters pressed Kerry to clarify whether he had met with these officials in person. The candidate insisted that he merely said he had "heard from" foreign leaders in his original remark.

So, regardless of whether one thinks the whole flap is substantial or frivolous, it is clear: Kerry uncategorically has claimed that foreign leaders have expressed, to him, that they prefer him to Bush.

The Politics of Legislative Votes

First, it was Helms-Burton, and now the supplemental appropriations bills for Iraq and Afghanistan:

Mr. Kerry added, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," referring to an amendment he supported that would have rescinded some tax cuts to finance the war.

This is utterly remarkable for the following reason: the Bush campaign and its allies have made a big deal about various votes Kerry has made in the past over defense and intelligence spending. However, some of the votes in question were either votes on amendments that failed, or preliminary votes, or a variety of other procedural votes that occur in the Senate constantly. Further, Senators will often votes against a bill that is going to pass because of appearance, even if they might support the bill, or part of the bill. It is extremely difficult at time to obtain clear intent from a legislative record: it isn't as black and white as it seems, but legislators are always open to criticism when they run because of the paper trail of various votes that the public often does not understand. On balance, the vote that normally is fair game is the final vote. And defenders of Kerry have rightly pointed that out.

However, like with the Cuba vote, Kerry is now vitiating that entire argument by picking and choosing which vote he made in a sequence of votes to be the vote that allegedly reveals his true intentions and support. This is unwise because if he is going to cherry pick which vote he wishes to highlight, his critics are going to be emboldened to do the same. Further, it re-enforces the image that the Bush campaign wishes to foster: that Kerry has at least two positions on every issue.

From the position of an analyst of elections and campaigns, I find this a rather odd move, to say the least, on Kerry's part. Especially when a NYT poll recently stated that 41% of the public has not yet formed an opinion on Kerry. he is playing right into the Bush camp's strategy: which is define Kerry as a waffler who lacks the conviction needed to lead.

Here are the poll numbers in question:

For Kerry, 28 percent had a favorable view, 29 percent had an unfavorable view and 41 percent were undecided.

Source: NYT

Hat tip: e-mail from Patrick Ruffini at the GeorgeWBush.com Official Blog.

Indeed

"Of course, it is still eight months to election day, but the campaign is starting to fall into its own natural rhythm: falsely macho Kerry comment, falsely indignant Bush response." -Jon Stewart

and

"John Kerry made a remark, he said a lot of world leaders want him to be president. Then the Bush administration said, 'Yeah, well, like who?' And then John Kerry said, 'Well, I really can't say.' So now they're really hammering John Kerry. The only name he could come up with? Queen Latifah."-David Letterman

Zebra Stripes for JFK?

This is rather amusing, if anything for the time it took to put together.

And, at least we now know that if Kerry loses, he can seek gainful employment as either an NCAA or NBA ref.

And there's always the NFL for that matter.

Not a Partisan Illusion..

I'm not the only one who sees Kerry as less than a straight-shooter. Kaus, no Bushie, has been all over Kerry's case:

The Kerry campaign philosophy isn't "Bring it on!" so much as "That'll snow 'em!" But it won't! ... P.S.: Those are not really flip-flops, but rather half-disclosed straddles--presenting one face of a strategically ambiguous position to a target audience and hoping they won't notice the other, contradictory face. Straddles seem to be Kerry's specialty. An actual flip flop would be, say, criticizing the overall Cuba embargo in 2024 and supporting it in 2024. ... Of course, Kerry did that too. ....

The latest flap is over Cuba. From the Miami Herald:

''I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,'' Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning.

Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: ``And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''

It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.

There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.

Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier.

The confusion illustrates a persistent problem for Kerry as Republicans exploit his 19-year voting history to paint the Massachusetts senator as a waffler on major foreign-affairs questions such as the Iraq war, Israel's security barrier and intelligence funding.

So, I suppose if Kerry can define his votes for legislation based not on the final vote, but early votes in the process, the opposition can do the same thing? Indeed, hasn't much of the criticism of using Kerry's legislative record on defense and intelligence that his critics have done what the Senator himself just did? (I suppose turn-about is fair play, but as long as I am brandishing cliches: it is also a two-way street).

Regardless, I still argue that these kinds of things are going to get Kerry into serious trouble over the long-haul, especially if the Bush campaign is successful in defining Kerry as a waffler in the minds of independent voters.

Indeed, stating how he is "pretty tough on Castro" is going to be tough to prove to Cuban-Americans given his record:

Kerry will also rue past votes supporting loosened restrictions on travel and cash ''remittances'' that Cubans are allowed to send back to the island, Republicans said. They point to a 2024 Boston Globe interview in which Kerry called a reevaluation of the trade embargo ''way overdue'' and said that the only reason the United States treated Cuba differently from China and Russia was the ``politics of Florida.''

Now, I am for liberalizing relations with Cuba, as I think the logic of the current sanctions regime exhausted itself in 1989 when the Wall fell, and further, that the sanctions are harming everyday Cubans far more than they are harming Castro. Indeed, the sanction may make a transition to democracy when Castro dies more difficult. Still, politically, Kerry is looking very much like a "straddler" on Cuba.

UPDATE: I've parked this post in today's Beltway Traffic Jam.

Kerry's Phony Toughness

William Safire's column today gets to the heart of part of my criticism of Kerry's campaign strategy to date (e.g., here) On Phony Toughness. In regards to Kerry's handling of his overheard statement that the GOP opposition is "the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen," Safire writes:

Obviously, the day after his overheard slander, the decision was made to strike a defiantly nonapologetic pose. Maybe Kerry-Kennedy-Soros masterminds in Boston passed the word to the candidate: Apologies are for wimps. Don't even think of flip-flopping with an "I meant"--on the contrary, ram "crooked and lying" down Republican throats. Remember the title of Barry Goldwater's book--"With No Apologies." Show you're decisive by refusing to back off anything. John Edwards just proved that nice guys get great press clips but don't win elections.

Such advice is what the best political columnist of the past century, Stewart Alsop, said causes politicians to become "phony tough." To counter the demonstrated tough-mindedness of a war president, Kerry's handlers want their man to strike a pose of toughness in all his rhetoric.

The phony toughness of his responses to criticism is what I have been talking about. I can fully understand defending oneself, and even being aggressive, but as I noted months ago, one of Kerry's liabilities is the appearance that he is shifty--willing to be whatever he has to be to win. For example: the way he started being "angry" back at the end of last year once it was clear that Dean's anger was helping him with primary voters.

Hat tip: Outside the Beltway.

Powell on Kerry

The California Yankee blogs on Kerry and his foreign leader friends who want him to beat Bush. My favorite part, from FNS:

WALLACE: All right. I'm not sure you can answer this one, but I would like to get your comment on it, if I could.
Senator Kerry says that foreign leaders — you look like you know this — want him to beat the president. And here's what he's had to say: "I've met with foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy."'

POWELL: I can't even talk to that, Chris. I don't know what foreign leaders Senator Kerry is talking about. It's an easy charge, an easy assertion to make. But if he feels it is that important an assertion to make, he ought to list some names. If he can't list names, then perhaps he should find something else to talk about.

UPDATE: James Joyner also has a favorite part of this story, and it, too, is rather interesting.

The 3/13 Toast-O-Meter

The Toast-o-meter: A Weekly News Round-Up and Handicapping of the Race for to be the next President of the United States.

The Toast-O-Meter comes to you Fortified with linkage and Enhanced with bloggage.

Sure, the Democratic Primaries continues, but the truth is, it’s two-slicer time: Bush v. Kerry to see who can reduce the other to toast over the next eight month.

If you come across a news story, commentary or blog entry that you think would be good for the Toast-O-Meter, please submit it to: toast@poliblogger.com

Feeling the Heat?

Each week the candidates will have had one of three kinds of weeks:

The heat is on (the candidate had a bad week)

Slicing up this (Totally Insignificant)Week's Contests

Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas are all this week. Whoopee!

This week brings us:

March 13 Kansas
March 16 Illinois

And really, the main things to watch are the Illinois Senate primaries for both parties.

SLICE2SLICE: DIRECT CONFRONTATION

Who will be toasted first? Will Kerry turn the President into Texas Toast? Or will the President make French Toast out of Kerry?

Kerry wants monthly debates. Methinks that ain't gonna happen.

BREWING ISSUES

Cheney's new role: liability, or, at least, so assesses the Baltimore Sun.

The Moldy Loaf

Feel the Love

Robert Novak writes:

James P. Hoffa was brought "kicking and screaming" to his presidential endorsement of Sen. John Kerry and really preferred Sen. John Edwards, according to a close associate of the Teamsters leader.

Hoffa met separately with Kerry and Edwards after the union president's first choice for the nomination, Rep. Richard Gephardt, dropped out following his defeat in the Iowa caucuses. Hoffa told friends that Edwards was much closer to Gephardt on international trade issues, adding that he did not care that much for Kerry personally.

Gephardt had quickly endorsed Kerry, and he talked Hoffa into getting on the winner's bandwagon. Gephardt and Hoffa attended the University of Michigan Law School together.

There's a Shock

Kerry Not Sorry for Swipe at GOP Critics

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says he does not intend to apologize for describing his critics in the Republican Party as "the most crooked ... lying group I've ever seen."

Clearly the Senator is trying to avoid the whole "Dukakis was a wimp who didn't defend himself" routine. However, one wonders if the hyperbole is going to serve him well over an eight-month period. Further, it would seem that one would eventually seem either defensive (rather than defending oneself) or appear, eventually, to be the "candidate who cried wolf."

A Question

Kerry, at Capitol, Slams Republican 'Attack Squad'

Aside from calling him a flip-flopper, exactly what vicious attacks have their been?

Surely saying he'll raise taxes and pursue the war ont error differently than Bush isn't an "attack"?

A Far Cry from "I Didn't Inhale"

Hull concedes he took cocaine in early '80s

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Blair Hull acknowledged Wednesday he used cocaine and marijuana until the early 1980s and had twice sought evaluation for alcohol abuse.

[...]

Hull held the lead in public opinion polls in the Democratic contest only weeks ago until his campaign was damaged over recent disclosures that he was accused of verbally and physically abusing an ex-wife during a 1998 divorce.

[...]

Later, he said he used cocaine "occasionally" but stopped in the early 1980s, the same time he also said he stopped smoking marijuana. A few years before that, Hull said, he had sought treatment for alcoholism. In 1985, he said, he sought a second round of alcohol abuse treatment, adding that doctors concluded at the time he did not have a drinking problem.

Indeed, the primaries on both sides for the Illinois Senate seat have been somewhat tawdry:

Meanwhile, the Republican Senate contest veered sharply away from issues and toward the gutter as frontrunner Jack Ryan claimed to be the victim of a "smear campaign" after rival John Borling shopped vague statements about being privy to embarrassing information regarding Ryan's 1999 divorce.

[...]

In a statement Borling offered, unsolicited, to reporters, he claimed to have come to know details of things in the sealed files that could jeopardize Ryan's electability if they became public.

Then, saying he found "this matter distasteful," Borling declined to elaborate on what he was suggesting.

And while I suppose it would be cool to have a Senator Jack Ryan, I have to wonder about a guy who let Seven of Nine get away.

Kethcup with That?

Sean Hackbarth of the American Mind has his latest Kerry-related linkfest: Kerry's House of Ketchup #3.

Kerry'll Love This

Plus, I predict that it will fuel the fire for those who want Cheney off the ticket: C.I.A. Chief Says He's Corrected Cheney Privately

Mr. Tenet identified three instances in which he had already corrected public statements by President Bush or Mr. Cheney or would do so, but he left the impression that there had been more.

Of course, I suspect this part won't make it to Kerry's stump speech:

In response to a question, he said he did not think the administration had misrepresented facts to justify going to war.

Amusing

'Priceless' parody ad singes Kerry on lifestyle

Citizens United, headed by former Republican congressional aide David Bossie, began airing the ad -- a parody of MasterCard's "priceless" commercials -- on cable and broadcast channels Sunday in select presidential battleground states.

The ad shows Kerry, boats at a marina, and oceanfront property as an announcer says: "Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Hairstyle by Christophe's: $75. Designer shirts: $250. Forty-two-foot luxury yacht: $1 million. Four lavish mansions and beachfront estate: Over $30 million."

Another shot is of Kerry and Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, with the words: "Another rich, liberal elitist from Massachusetts who claims he's a man of the people. Priceless."

Indeed.

Thank You, BCRA

I am beginning to think that campaign finance reform was secretly created by lawyers so that they would have more to do. Here's the new cycle: one side/group will try to find a way to get around the law or test a new loophole, and the other side will challenge the process as illegal, and instead of groups fighting on the airwaves, their attorneys will be in court or in administrative hearings.

Yes, this is a huge improvement.

Bush Campaign Seeks Probe of Election Ads

A group financed in part by liberal billionaire George Soros will run $5 million worth of TV ads against President Bush that mention the Republican by name, a point of contention among the president's re-election team that argues the spots violate federal law.

[...]

Bush's campaign, which began its own $10 million initial ad blitz last week, called the group's activity illegal. The campaign said it would file a complaint with the FEC accusing the Media Fund of violating a broad, new ban on the use of "soft money" — corporate, union and unlimited contributions — for federal election activity.

And I Just Thought Last Week was Forgotten Tuesday...

Tuesday's vote is primarily practice

Speaking of Campaign Buttons...

Given that disucssions of campaign buttons are all the rage, the followng from the John Kerry for President Blog might be of interest:

When Teresa Heinz-Kerry arrived, she handed me a pin that read in the center: "Asses of Evil" with "Bush", "Cheney," "Rumsfeld" and "Ashcroft" surrounding it. She met, greeted and talked to a jam-packed room of Kerry supporters and others who came for the MoveOn documentary.

Sadly, no image of the button was availble for posting.

The FDR "Remember Pearl Harbor" Piece

It would appear, based on some research a graduate student of mine did after seeing the discussion online about the piece, that the "Remember Pearl Harbor"/FDR piece is authentic, but is not a button from the campaign.

I do not have all the details at the moment, but will post them once I get them.

Letting a Prop Get in the Way...

I will say this: the FDR button issue is a good example of letting a prop get in the way of an argument. It really doesn't matter if FDR evoked Pearl Harbor or not in 1944, the issue is whether or not it is reasonable to evoke 911 in the current context, and as I acknowledged here, there is a point at which such usages are exploitation, but as I also noted earlier today, the placement of that line is probably dependent on how you view anti-terrorism policy and 911 in that context.

It is also difficult to adequately compare campaign advertisements in 1944 to 2024.

The Button is Real After All

Mark the Pundit, in an e-mail, pointed me to Museum of World War II. If you scroll down, click on Pearl Harbor and then scroll down a bit you will note that the "Remember Pearl Harbor" button is displayed. This would indicate that the button is genuine.

Another Thought on Campaign Rhetoric

It occurs to me that part of the divide here on the 911 imagery issue (aside from the obvious Democrat v. Republican part of the discussion), is that those who are predisposed to be pro-Bush tend to look at 911 and its aftermath as truly in the context of a war on terrorism. However, those predisposed to support Kerry see it more as a law enforcement/international cooperation issue. If one actually sees President Bush as a "war president" in any capacity, then images of war, even the coffins, don't seem all that problematic. Rather, they seem quite real and appropriate. If, however, one views the situation as something other war, even if one takes the situation quite seriously, then one likely sees these images as a kind of visual hyperbole.

Although I still maintain that there are those engaged on the political side who wish to critique the ads because they see them as raising an issue that Kerry is weak on.

Richardson: Doesn't Want to be Veep

New Mexico's Richardson Says No to Kerry's VP Job

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said on Sunday he was not interested in being tapped as the Democratic vice presidential candidate.

Appearing on the CBS "Face the Nation" program, Richardson said, "I love being governor of New Mexico. We've made a lot of progress. My job isn't finished yet. I've only been governor a year.

While I think he would be a great coice for Kerry, I am not surprised that he is taking this position. If he has presidential aspirations, there is still plenty of time for it in the future.

War and Campaign Rhetoric

Betsy Newmark points out (with a picture and everything) that FDR used WWII as part of his campaign in 1944 (in this case, on a button), and you can click here to see an FDR button with the phrase "Remember Pearl Harbor" emblazoned on it.

Such examples make this and this a bit silly.

Not to mention the simple fact that how could a President in time of great conflict, not refer to such conflict in his re-election campaign?

And we won't mention Kerry's use of Viet Nam (where he served, in case you didn't know) in his commercials.

UPDATE: It may be that the "Remember Pearl Harbor" button is a photoshoped picture, as I cannot find a site with historical buttons that has it up, although I haven't done extensive research. While I have seen it at Balloon Juice and rushlimbaigh.com and at least one other place, I will base my argument solely on the button the Betsy found, which is authentic as best i can tell, having found it on numerous sites that show actual buttons in historical context.

I still argue that the response to these commercials have been disproportionate and media-driven. And while I can accept the criticism, to a degree, of the coffin shot, I still do not find it illegitimate, although it could be said to be over the top. Still the bottom line is: when an event such at 911 takes place in the future, should it, and there are more flag-draped coffins to have to deal with, who do you want in the White House to deal with it? Or, for that matter, which man do you think is better equipped to ward off such possibilities. That is the real debate, not what images appear in a commercial.

Kerry's Radio Address

Daily Kos has an excerpt from Kerry's radio address yesterday (he gave the Democrat's response to the President). In the excerpt Kerry details numerous lacks that our troops face in Iraq including the lack of anti-missile systems on helicopters, the lack of armor on Humvees, and the lack of sufficient body armor for the troops.

To which Kos states that "This is deadly stuff".

However, one has to wonder for whom. For while even if every single charge Kerry levies is factually accurate and properly interpreted, isn't Kerry the one who voted against the $87 billion to help pay for the war effort in Iraq? Isn't Kerry the one who has often voted against increases in the defense budget, and specifically has voted against a number of weapons systems over the years? It would seem a difficult argument to make that Kerry is the candidate of the two who would be spending more for defense. Indeed, isn't one of the charges made against the Bush administration over spending, and specifically defense spending?

And this charge is ludicrous:

What we face isn't a question of the budget; it's a question of priorities and values. This Administration has given billions to Halliburton and requested 82 million dollars to protect Iraq's 36 miles of coast line. But they call this basic body armor a `non-priority' item

One defends the coast line because it is one of the main ways by which oil will leave the country, which will produce the money needed to rebuild Iraq, which in turn makes our troops safer. Further, as a former member of the Navy, one would think Kerry would understand the value of protecting key seaports.

And last I heard, we weren't "giving" Halliburton anything, but rather paying them to help reconstruct infrastructure that will help get the Iraqi economy going, which will have the same affect as mentioned above regarding the coastline: it will improve conditions in Iraq and result in greater safety for our troops.

This speech appears to me to help fuel the "he's on two sides of every argument" thesis, so it may be "deadly" rhetoric, but not in the direction that Kerry wishes it to go.

Hell Hath No Fury...

Yowza: Congressman's Ex-Wife Runs Against Him

Becky Whetstone has something to say to people who think they know why she's running for Congress: Enough already with the jilted-wife-hellbent-on-revenge theory.

It's true that her former husband holds the congressional seat she is seeking. It's also true that last year she announced she was writing a tell-much book titled "The Congressman's Wife." Yes, she says on her campaign Web site that she's angry about his "cruelty and selfishness within the marriage, and then the one-sided injustice of the divorce."

Despite all that, she insists, she's not running to get even with her ex, Democratic Rep. Charlie Gonzalez.

Although if she really wanted to beat him, she should've run in the primary as a Democrat

Gonzalez, 58, has no opponents in the Democratic primary for the 20th District and Whetstone is running as an independent, so she does not compete in a primary. They'll face each other and Republican Roger Scott, who also is unopposed, in the November general election.

Indeed, this sounds more like a publicity stunt than a run at the seat.

Her profession is amusing, given the context:

She is a marriage and family therapist, is enrolled in a doctorate program in counseling at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, teaches at the school, and is raising two teenagers from a previous marriage.

And, indeed:

The San Antonio newspaper has called Whetstone's candidacy "a sad soap opera."

The Toasty Hotline

I meant to include this below, but if you come across a news story, commentary or blog entry that you think would be good for the Toast-O-Meter, please submit it to: toast@poliblogger.com.

I don't guarantee that every suggestion will used, but credit will be attributed when a suggestion is used. Feel free to submit entries from your own blog.

It's Now a Two-Slicer! The 3/6 Edition of the Toast-O-Meter

The Toast-o-meter: A Weekly News Round-Up and Handicapping of the Race for to be the next President of the United States.

The Toast-O-Meter comes to you Fortified with linkage and Enhanced with bloggage.

Given that the Democratic nominating process is all over for practical purposes, is it time to toss the clunky multi-slice toaster and pull out the two-slicer: it’s Bush v. Kerry to see who can reduce the other to toast over the next eight month.

The Toast-O-Meter will continue to monitor the primaries as well, but with diminished emphasis.

New & Expanded Features!: Now that we have moved to a new phase, the Toast-O-Meter has added a few new features:

Nonetheless, Kerry is campaigning in the South, leading to amusing headlines such as: Easterner Kerry Goes Cajun in Bid for Southern Support.

Slice2Slice

Who will be toasted first? Will Kerry turn the President into Texas Toast? Or will the President make French Toast out of Kerry?

And so it beings... Kerry and Bush Kick Off 8-Month Battle

Dave Wissing has a round-up of all the Bush v. Kerry polling. In sum: they're all close, and all don't mean too much at this stage. He has state-level data as well.

BREWING ISSUES

Robert Tagorda also asks: Is Dick Cheney on the Chopping Block?. James Joyner also weighs in on the topic and Chris Lawrence also has thoughts on this subject.

The Moldy Loaf

Are Terry's Days Numbered?

Robert Novak:

Presidential nominee-apparent John Kerry has no intention of forcing out Terry McAuliffe as Democratic National chairman for the time being but wants him to watch his words more closely.

After Sen. Kerry clinched the nomination in Super Tuesday's primaries, an aide told reporters the campaign wanted to get McAuliffe entirely off television. That is not exactly the campaign's position, but the senator's aides do want to restrain the chairman. He recently publicly declared that he would continue to attack George W. Bush's National Guard record even though Kerry disapproved of that approach.

McAuliffe's job appears to be safe at least through the party's national convention in Boston this summer. A Washington dealmaker, McAuliffe was not a popular choice to head the Democratic National Committee following the 2024 election. Bill and Hillary Clinton insisted on it, and Al Gore decided not to make a fight.

I figured that the rumors that Kerry was going to immediately replace McAuliffe were unlikely to be accurate, as it would cause a potential public fight at the precise moment that the Democrats wish to present themselves as one big happy, unified, party (just go look at the DNC web page). That he might go after the convention, however, makes sense.

The Bush Ad

I saw the Bush ad during "Special Report with Brit Hume" tonight on FNC during the 5-6 hour, I think between 5:30 and 6 (central), and the portion that is 911 footage is brief, and quite frankly, not obviosuly from 911 unless one stops and really thinks about it. Indeed, had I not known of the furor ahead of time, I might not have immediately thought of 911 when I saw the flag against the damaged building. The point of the commerical was about leadership in difficult times, hardly a controversial topic.

Indeed, having now seen the commerical as a commercial I am utterly convinced that the hype has been manufactured.

Cline on 911 Ads

Dr. Andrew Cline has an excellent post on the 911 ads, as he should, as this is the kind of thing he does for a living.

Indeed, I should have checked out his site yesterday, but it didn't occur to me at the time (shame on me).

The Money Trail

Admiral Quixote's Roundtable had an updated his campaign finance graphic.

Does Karl Rove Read OTB?

This picture (by way of Confessions Of A Political Junkie) suggests he might by hanging out at Joyner's site.

More on the Ads

Understand something: everyone and anyone has the right to criticize the Bush ads (you know, the whole Free Speech bit). Further, I am not surprised that the DNC and Kerry campaign would criticize them. Indeed, they will likely criticize any ad Bush runs, especially if it is one that they think is effective.

My criticism is no aimed at the criticism itself (although I maintain that Kerry and McAuliffe are not truly indignant, but see 911 as a weakness for the Democrats), but my critique is aimed at the press. To take a handful of people, ascribe to them the role of "Victims' Families" and pretend as if there is a firestorm of controversy over these ads is disingenuous at best.

Indeed, the irony here, is that the ads have given Bush a huge amount of FREE publicity, and has largely changed the course of the media-conversation to more being about Bush than Kerry, even after his big wins on Tuesday.

Hence, it raises the question as to whom it is who has outmaneuvered whom?

Other Voices on 911 Ads

Others who have commented on the 911 issue as it pertains to the Bush-Kerry fight include: Mark the Pundit, James Joyner, the Rooftop Report, the New England Republican, the King of Fools, Jen, and the Rantingprofs.

(To name a few)

Can He Do it?

I don't know about you all, but I'm on pins-and-needles: Kerry Still Needs More Than 600 Delegates.

One never knows when a Kucinich-surge could derail him!

More on 911 in the Campaign

Going along with the post below, I would argue that if any complaints come from the Kerry camp/McAuliffe, then the reason will not be because of indignation over the use of 911 for political reasons, but it will be because the Kerry camp understands that 911 is a point of vulnerability for their campaign. The last thing they want is for voters to think of Bush as they thought of him in the last several months of 2024.

Also, Michael Medved raised an interesting point: how did the press find, so quickly, outraged families of 911 victims within approximately 24-48 hours of the commercials airing, and why does that rate as the top story on the newswires (as I type it is the main story at the Yahoo News politics section, via the AP and is also a top story at Reuters)? It seems unlikely that there was sufficient outrage generated in that brief a time for the AP and Reuters to discover the story without looking for it. Rather, it seems fairly obvious that some reporters sought out victims' families to interview and ran with those who are outraged.

Given the large number of people who have to constitute "victims' families" (with over 3000 dead, there have to be over ten thousand who could fall in that category), it would certainly be possible to run any of the following stories:

"Victims' Families Outraged by Bush Ads"

"Victims' Families Hail Bush Ads"

"Victims' Families Ambivalent on Bush Ads"

"Victims' Families Don't Care About Politics"

Really, the concept that there is a monolithic group called Victims' Families is ludicrious.

I suspect, to name one member of a victim’s family, that Ted Olsen, whose wife died in the Pentagon plane, isn’t offended.

Get Used to it

Furor over Bush's 9/11 ad.

Whether one likes it or not, this campaign is going to be, in large measure, about 911: both in terms of how Bush handled it, and how Bush or Kerry would handle any future such events. As such, it is hardly surprising that the Bush campaign would use images related to 911 or make specific reference to those events.

Further, while I am aware that there is a fine line between exploitation of these images and events and legitimate usage, I would argue that given that 911 is the most important event to take place in last three years that it is foolish to think that it would not, or should not, be utilized in the campaign.

Sound Bite of the Day

Clearly, this is the Bite of the Day, as I have heard it at least 6 times since I left home this morning (the span of just over an hour).

Said President Bush yesterday:

"Sen. Kerry has been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue"

Source: Bush Joins the Fray in L.A. Visit

Understated Headline of the Day

Kerry faces tough task to sustain enthusiasm

Veep-Talk (In this Case, Regarding Bush)

James Joyner discusses why Bush won't dump Cheney (and links to several bloggers on the topic. I agree with his assessment: Cheney isn't going anywhere.

I will give yet another reason why Bush won't dump Cheney: doing so would make it look like he made a mistake picking him in the first place.

Additionally, dumping Cheney wouldn't stop the attacks from those who make all the Halliburton/he's the puppet-master arguments, rather it would simply confirm their suspicions that something was up and Bush had to cave to the pressure to remove him.

The only positive benefit for dumping Cheney that I can see would be to groom someone for 2024.

And while I like Giuliani, he has a problem, and it can be summed up in a hyphenated word: "pro-choice". That wouldn't play well with the social conservatives, who Bush needs to turn out in large numbers in November.

I'm Getting Karenna Gore Schiff Flashbacks...

Kerry kid blasts Bush over Haiti

And the Real Campaign Begins

Bush Re-Election Ads Focus on Past 3 Years

President Bush talks about his hope for the future in his re-election campaign's first television ads but mainly focuses on the national security and economic challenges America has faced during his three years in office.

The ads include images of the wreckage from the Sept. 11, 2024, terrorist attacks and declining stock market numbers as they seek to portray Bush as a president who has faced both foreign and domestic problems and emerged as a leader on both fronts.

"I know exactly where I want to lead this country," the Republican incumbent says in one ad. "I'm optimistic about America because I believe in the people of America."

The Bush-Cheney re-election team unveiled the ads Wednesday, a day before they will start running on broadcast channels in media markets in 17 states that are expected to be competitive and nationwide on select cable networks.Carrying the slogan — "Steady leadership in times of change" — the ads are positive

This strikes me a good place to start and a solid strategy to, as ridiculous as it sounds, re-introduce Bush to the public--or at least try to remind voters why there were times they gave Bush such high approval numbers. And given that the political coverage has been hotly focused on the Democratic contest for some time, there is room for such attempts at reminding.

I expect that there are anti-Kerry ads in the works for subsequent strages of the campaign.

Calling all "Independents"

I agree with Kaus on this one (not that that is all that unusual):

How many times last night did NBC's Tim Russert reveal, with punditary flourish, that

Looking at the exit polls from Tuesday, 24 percent of the people who voted in Iowa are independents. They decided to vote in the Democratic primary. And of those independents, 78 percent said they are angry or dissatisfied with George W. Bush. That's a big deal.

[...] Isn't this statistic not a "big deal" but in fact relatively meaningless? You'd expect those independents who had "decided to vote in the Democratic primary" to be relatively dissatisfied with Bush, no? It's a self-selected group.

This is a huge analytical pet-peeve of mine: the way the press (and pollsters) often talk about independents. It strikes me as a largely meaningless category to break-out how "independents" chose to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primaries and consider them truly "independent". It seems to me that once that choice is made, that person has signaled at least a temporary affiliation with the party in question. Indeed, what makes a real independent "independent" in my mind is the willingness from election to election to switch sides. If one calls oneself "independent" but votes Republican 90% of the time, then the label is a fiction.

Still, one does have to stake out an alliance for a given election and one of the most fundamental partisan acts available to a citizen of the United States is voting in the primaries. Indeed, if one is truly, to-the-core independent, what is one doing voting in the party primaries?

Along these lines (at least tangentially), William Saletan has a piece on exit polls, independents and Edwards v. Kerry.

'Twas a Snoozer Tuesday Indeed

There really wan't much to captivate one's atention last night, although the Edward's withdrawal does take us to a new stage of the process. Still, in re: last night, James Joyner got it right:

Sigh. It's hard to be a political junkee with such slim fare.

Still, let the real campaign begin!

Big Day for Arnold

State Bailout Passes Easily

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger closed in on a resounding vote of confidence Tuesday with early returns showing Californians handily passing two ballot measures that are cornerstones of his plan for recovery from the state fiscal crisis.

As Schwarzenegger declared victory on the two measures, Propositions 57 and 58, Republican primary voters were strongly favoring former Secretary of State Bill Jones as their nominee for the party's eight-month battle to unseat U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer. The Marin County Democrat is seeking a third term in November.

Feel the Power

Is that John Kerry an electrifying speaker, or what?

One wonders how long before the Democrats get a little buyer's remorse.

Free at Last!

Robert Prather makes a good point about some really good news out of tonight: no more debates! And that also means no more official fora for Kucinich and Sharpton!

And Then There Was One (I Refuse to Count Al and Dennis...)

Edwards to Return to Homebase, Expected to Quit.

I thought he might hold on to the fantasy for one more week, but clearly it is time to get out.

Too Little Waaaay Too Late

Dean wins one: Vermont.

MSNBC also has Kerry winning Ohio--no shock there.

Ya Don't Say

Tues. Races Could Be Edwards' Last Hurrah.

That's a Relief!!

Primetime Schedules Unaffected by Super Tuesday.