| news: Counting the Days
|
Christ, if Bush survives this news cycle he really is invincible. Let's borrow Kevin Drum's recap of the past week:
Thursday: George Bush gets his butt kicked by John Kerry in the first presidential debate.(β¦)
Monday: Donald Rumsfeld admits that Saddam Hussein didn't have any substantial ties to al-Qaeda. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two." After his statement is reported, he tries unsucessfully [sic] to claim that he was "misunderstood."
Later Monday: The CIA agrees with Rumsfeld. The linchpin of the administration's case for collaboration between Saddam and al-Qaeda has been Saddam's alleged "harboring" of terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but a CIA report concludes that it probably didn't happen. "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything," said an official who read the report.
Tuesday: Paul Bremer admits that the administration made a big mistake by not having enough troops in Iraq. "The single most important change -- the one thing that would have improved the situation -- would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout" the occupation. (β¦)
Later Tuesday: [Edwards wins the VP debate and post-debate spin]
Wednesday: Weapons inspector Charles Duelfer releases his final report. He says that Saddam Hussein destroyed all his WMD after 1991, had no WMD programs in place after that, and that his capacity to build WMD was actually deteriorating after 1998, not increasing.
Now, Friday: on the eve of the second debate in employment-focused Missouri, there's today's disastrous jobs report. Currently, every major news site is headlining with the "weaker" (FOX), "lower than expected" (NYT), "slow" (LAT) job growth. The ledes then state the obvious, that it's a "political issue" (WaPo) and "blow to Bush" (MSNBC). Here's GOP Senator Bob Bennett speaking of this, the final jobs report before the election: "In political terms, sure, this isn't good for the President," (...but in non-political terms it is good news because, what- he hates jobs?).
Anyway, when Bush loses, this will be the eight days everyone points to.
|
Posted by: BigPicnic on
Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:21 AM
10 Comments  |
| news: Kudos to John Edwards
|
I was going to post this on the online message board for my Torts class, but as my professor has taken to deleting my posts I thought I'd put it up here instead.
Late in the VP debate, Gwen Ifill handed Cheney the opportunity to personally attack Edwards as a trial lawyer, but he demurred, opting instead for broad points about medical insurance. Why, one might wonder- it's not like he shied away from personal attacks the rest of the debate. It seems Edward's opponents have learned that to attack him on this front is sure to back fire. After all, no one thinks of a girl who's had her intestines sucked out as having "won the malpractice lottery" (as is the phrase-du-jour). Now, there are those who hear that story and lament not the girl's life, but the lost profits of the sued company. That is really heartbreaking, to be sure. Just think of all those profits that will never get to grow up, to see the smiling look on the CEO's face as they make their very first reinvestment. Sad. [ed- that part was directed at another student's post before I thought better of it] my guess is that most people who approach it that way are already committed Bush voters anyway.
I, for one, was delighted when Kerry picked Edwards to be his VP running mate. It's nice to see someone carry on the proud tradition of equally great trial-lawyer politicians like Abraham Lincoln. Especially now, when the conservative-talking-point-dominated media has been pursuing its relentless assault on malpractice victim's rights.
|
|
Posted by: BigPicnic on
Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 05:28 PM
9 Comments |
| news: I Think I Smell a Rat
|
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but listen; just yesterday, for the first time ever, Rumsfeld admitted there were no Iraq ties to Al Qaeda:
"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said
This quote, of course, has been all over the liberal blogs. Meanwhile, this very evening, Dick Cheney is making his biggest appearance of the entire campaign at the VP debate against Edwards. Cheney, coincidentally enough, is the world's biggest proponent of the "Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda" myth.
The Bush administration is renowned for it's ability to stick on message come hell or high water. Rumsfeld is the most disciplined of them all, able to deflect reporter's questions with the back of his hand even as everything that's supposed to be his responsibility turns to shit. Yet here he is, out of the blue, after he's been asked this exact question perhaps hundreds of times, for no reason all of a sudden "slipping up" and admitting he's never seen any evidence? Right before Cheney's debate. In the last cycle of the election. Right after Bush has already lost all momentum on foreign policy. What the hell is going on here?
I smell a trap. I'll bet dollars to donuts the wingers have cooked up some new talking point or soundbite they're waiting to spring when Edwards says, "but Rumsfeld admitted that Iraq had no tiesβ¦" Lord only knows what it is, but they must think it's good. Probably something about how Bush doesn't need "proof" because he's so awesome. Or maybe, just maybe, they're goading democrats into attacking on this front because they think they have some secret new "evidence" of a connection. Who fucking knows. The point is, liberal bloggers are all orgasmic over this quote, but I think they're fools, because it's got to be a trick. How gullible are we?
|
|
Posted by: BigPicnic on
Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 01:36 PM
6 Comments |
| news: Of Pre Debate Advantage
|
Many are assuming that Kerry can coast since he won the foriegn policy debate, because he's always been much stronger on economic issues. Ruy Texiera:
In addition, 50 percent of respondents in the LA Times Poll agreed that Kerry had "better ideas for strengthening the economy," compared to 37 percent saying the same about Bush. By a margin of 47-44 percent, the respondents said Kerry was "more likely to develop a plan for achieving success in Iraq."
But this does NOT mean he will win the upcoming domestic-policy debates. That was Rove's big mistake in the last debate: Bush enjoyed these kinds of polling advantages on foriegn policiy issues, but we've seen that that did not translate into a debate win. Indeed, it was a disasterous loss. Let's hope Kerry learned the right lesson and assumes nothing going into the home stretch.
Now, I'm not making the case that having a polling advantage on an issue is a disadvantage going into a debate. But the people who love the "low expectations" game might make just such an argument. Bush now has doubly low expectations since he lost the first debate AND we're entering his weakest area. The point is- Kerry should beware, becuase very, very little could be seen as a Bush 'success' here.
|
|
Posted by: BigPicnic on
Monday, October 04, 2004 - 01:05 PM
comments? |
| news: Bush Should Never Try to "Out-Smart" Kerry, or, Really, Anyone
|
I think this commentary from Betamax Guillotine is the most insightful I've seen on the debate yet:
I think what we saw in the debate was a Bush approach that we won't see again. It's Rove's approach versus Hughes' approach.
The Rove approach is to try to look intelligent. Name drop folks like A.Q. Khan and places like Darfur and North Korea. Look like you're paying attention, i.e. you're being Presidential about a key issue in the election. Well, Bush screwed the pooch on that one. He name dropped but mostly dropped the ball after that in trying to enunciate his administration's successes and future policy goals on these topics.
This is why I think Karen Hughes was anuerism-level livid on TV after the debate. Her boy looked like a fool and she was seriously pissed. I don't think she was pissed at Bush; I think she was pissed at Rove.
Hughes' approach has always been to water things down for Bush. It's pretty well known that she takes the already watered-down speeches written for Bush and distills them even further for him. What Hughes' approach ends up being is you get George Bush being George Bush regardless of the issues. It's the faux-folksy, smirking, ear-waggling George Bush that conned so many people in 2000 into thinking he would be a good President without ever going into the details. That's the Hughes approach.
This analysis has the major benefit of confirming my stereotype of Bush as a moronic man-child. As I remarked in Betamax's comments, if Rove really thought that Bush could convincingly play smart, then he's really not the political mastermind he's made out to be.
|
|
Posted by: BigPicnic on
Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 01:57 PM
6 Comments |
| news: Twirling Towards the Future
|
In the past week, everyone was saying the post-debate spin would be more crucial than the debate itself. It seemed like a good point at the time, but I think people were assuming it would be a lot closer than it was. Spin is still important, of course, but now the best the GOP can hope for is to try to diminish Kerry's clear win. Maybe I'm underestimating Rove's abilities, but it sure seems impossible to spin this into a victory for Bush, or even a draw. For example, if even FOX headline that reads: Both Campaigns Claim Win; Polls Favor Kerry thats big trouble in winger land. I mean, it pretty much takes an outright disaster for the media to ever acknowledge anything going against him.
Maybe they can use it to diminish expectations for Bush in the next debate. Hell, that's probably a freebie.
|
|
Posted by: BigPicnic on
Friday, October 01, 2004 - 08:26 AM
comments? |
| news: Full Debate Transcript
|
I'm really sorry, everyone; I realized I've been going off on the debate, and some of our readers may not have seen the broadcast. As service to these readers, I'll present the full transcript:
Kerry: reasonably substantive answer
Bush: Catch phrase. stock answer. β long pause β stuttered catch phrase.
Kerry: reasonably substantive answer
Bush: Pause⦠delirious expression. Pause. incoherent combination of catch phrases. Repeat of beginning catch phrase.
Kerry: reasonably substantive answer.
Bush: delirious expression. pause. Irritated non-sequitur. "Saddam. Freedom. Saddam". Repeat.
Kerry: reasonably substantive answer.
Bush: bitchy, nervous response. Nonsensical blabbering. Glance at notes. Nonsensical blabbering. Sip from empty water glass. Glance at notes. "Freedom". Repeat of nonsensical catch-phrase.
Kerry: reasonably substantive answer.
Bush: pause. Catch-phrase that might have sounded cool if wasn't already horribly losing. Blabber. Blabber. Blabber. Repeat.
Kerry: reasonably substantive answer.
Bush: "that's a matter for another debate"
Well, I only have so much bandwidth. It pretty much continues on that way for 90 minutes.
Update: This Pre-debate analysis from The New Republic seems particularly trenchant in retrospect:
The Note treats the following premise as so obviously true it doesn't need defending:
Kerry has a tough challenge [in tonight's debate]--to go on the attack but still be someone Americans want in their living rooms for four years blah blah blah.
But is Kerry really in such a tough spot? He would be if the knock against him were that people find him grating, condescending, and obnoxious. In fact, the knock against Kerry, personality-wise, is that voters don't find him tough enough. At least that's the impression you get from this Ron Brownstein article (pegged to the latest Los Angeles Times poll). As long as that's the case, Kerry actually kills two birds with one stone by attacking Bush: He demonstrates his toughness while holding Bush accountable for his abysmal record.
|
|
Posted by: BigPicnic on
Friday, October 01, 2004 - 02:03 AM
comments? |
| news: Debate Analysis I
|
I have to say, given the rules, I don't see how this debate could have gone better for Kerry.
Here's all you really need to know: for the majority of the debate Kerry was PROactive and Bush was REactive.
Of the two men on stage, you can't deny that Kerry was perceptibly more presidential. Each Kerry response was a self-contained answer. Agree or disagree, Kerry spoke consistently and articulately. He sought to define himself. Bush, by contrast, always seemed to be responding. It's clear that we was defensive; and defensive is not presidential. Now, to be sure, both candidates had pre-scripted responses; but where Bush always seemed antsy and annoyed to be questioned, Kerry seemed perfectly at home under pressure.
To be fair, there were brief times when Bush seemed to come into his best. Late in the debate, he mounted a convincing defense of the Iraq "coalition". There were (brief) moments when he was confident, assured, and laid out clear (if misguided) objectives for the country. It's true that there was nothing here that would cause Bush's base to lose heart. There were, undeniably, two or three real strong moments for him.
To average Americans, though, there are two Bushes: 1) the plainspoken and effective Bush that galvanized the nation after 9-11, and 2) the sad, stumbling miscreant that cannot answer simple questions at a press conference. It was the latter Bush that predominantly showed up tonight- the Bush that played dress up and declared "mission accomplished"; the Bush lat let our nation down. All in all, he showed his least flattering face.
If you know politics at all, you know the real objective of the debate is to introduce the challenger. For people who got their first real impression of Kerry from this debate (and I think there are many): he wins. Hands down. I can't imagine that anyone, making their decision tonight, would decide to vote for Bush. How could they? Kerry was undeniably in charge, and Bush in retreat, for the duration. Races are won and lost on less - but we'll seeβ¦
EDIT: Just to clarify, I don't think Kerry's foreign policy plan is necessarily more substantive than Bush's (though it could hardly be worse). I'm just saying that in the superficial game of presidential debates -where style is the only thing that matters - Kerry whooped Bush's ass. That Kerry would also happen to be a much better president is, for the moment, not really relevant.
|
|
Posted by: BigPicnic on
Friday, October 01, 2004 - 01:16 AM
comments? |
|
