Month: July 2004

Both are repulsive in different ways. But O’Reilly, at least, has some grip on the truth and on morality. He wins this exchange outright, I’d say. But the exchange also highlights the difficulty of the Bush administration and its supporters on the Iraq war. In my view, they made the right decision; and they didn’t lie. But they were wrong – spectacularly wrong – on the major plank they used to justify the war. Where does the accountability for that lie, if not, ultimately, with the president? And how does a president who has made such a massive error – however understandably – retain the confidence of the public to continue what is a vital war? Those are the questions this election must answer. The president has publicly held no one accountable, unless you count the departure of George Tenet (whom Bush praised to the skies). Will the voters now hold Bush responsible? Or will the prospect of Kerry get Bush off the hook once again?

According to Ryan Lizza, they’re Clintonomics:

The message from Altman and Rubin was that Kerry is a passionate advocate of Clintonomics–especially an emphasis on deficit reduction and the return of congressional spending rules. Altman made a point of noting that like no other politician he knows, Kerry has publicly said he would trim some of his spending priorities back to achieve a fiscally conservative budget. Rubin made a point of answering a question about Kerry’s decision-making style by telling an anecdote about how he and Sperling once left a meeting with Kerry marveling about how he reminded them of their old boss. “Gene said to me, ‘You know, this is just like being with Clinton,'” Rubin said.

Deficit reduction? Spending restraint? Well, at least you know they’re not Bush Republicans.

“You made insightful points regarding what George W. has done wrong during his presidency. I think the worst offense (among many) was hubris. It was offensive. But, but, but, but, but I sense that you are now engaging in delusional behavior, and trying to convince yourself that Kerry can be your guy – because you – like so many others – want to believe there is a better choice than George W . . . I’m sorry, Andrew, but no matter how many reverends, ex-presidents, rock and film stars, and shots of his (distinguished) service in Vietnam the DNC will show you – he is still – sadly – John F. Kerry – you can’t fool yourself – you’re too smart for that.
If Kerry gets in, he’s my president too (and I’ll root for him daily), and W. will have himself (and fight club – Rummy, Cheney, Wolfie, Scooter, et. al.) to thank – but the implications of a Kerry presidency are really bad. Please don’t lose sight of that in your quest for a better answer.
Please understand that there truly is NO conviction in Kerry, no matter what he tells you on Thursday. He has proven this. Now is a time when we need conviction – not political expediency or grand deliberative schemes or intellectual grandeur.
Seriously, Andrew – a nice tall cup of strong black coffee is in order here!”

“I’ve read how Americans are polarized, only listening to the media that reinforces their beliefs. I am a life long Democrat, but when I started reading blogs, I thought it was important to get the other side of the story. I chose your blog because it seemed honest and intellectually fair. Even when I disagree with one of your positions, your reasons and comments made sense. You’ve influenced me. I’m hoping there are others like me that are open to hearing more than one side of a story.
I’m a Democrat, but a more conservative one for having read you. For Republicans, can that be a bad thing? I know you’re getting grief for being open to considering Kerry, but because of you, I’m much more open to a conservative message.”

EMAIL OF THE DAY III: “Andrew, dear, you’ve pretty much panned the selection of the prime time speakers at the upcoming Republican Convention for being, in effect, too moderate, and therefore, not a true reflection of the Administration, but you’ve apparently gone gaga (on Day 1, I might add) over the “Republican-esque” tone and content over at the Fleet Center. You’re a smart guy. Do you honestly believe that “the tightly scripted…seamlessly on…centrist message” was anything but an act? Spewing what’s become the standard anti-Bush (i.e., Bush Lied! Bush is Hitler! Bush Betrayed Us! Bus Misled Me!) lines would turn off soccer moms (or I suppose it’s now more like security moms). And it’s a smart move…..their only move. But, if you’re going to keep hammering away at Bush for his stance on gay marriage and spending, you can’t go wobbly on Kerry and his 20-year record of defense and intelligence cuts, and his oh-so-Sept-10th view that terrorism can best be handled via subpoenas and criminal complaints and nice-nice talk with Chirac. Jeez, if you’re so caught up by the script already, what are you going to do after Day 2, 3, and 4’s Academy Award performances? PS, Did you catch the sycophants fawning over Michael Moore as he strode across the convention floor? Now, that’s more like it. No script there. No-sir-ree.”

I was all enthused by the smart tactics of the Democrats on opening night, and then I find out almost no one watched it. No one even watched the ten o’clock hour, let alone what went before. A pity. This is too important an election to switch off.

I’m still somewhat in shock at the first night of the Democratic Convention. I kept thinking I was at a Republican convention. Tightly scripted, elegantly choreographed, seamlessly on the centrist message of war, unity, maturity and judgment. Foreign policy was front and center; faith was showcased; military service was held up as the ideal; prudent leadership was touted in a time of “peril,” in Hillary’s word. I wonder if they can keep this up. But I’m amazed they’ve tried. I’ve been writing for months now that Kerry’s most effective message would be that he’d conduct the war on terror with more allies and more wisdom than Bush. But I never actually believed he’d be canny enough to do exactly that. But he has! If the first night is any indicator, the Democrats have played the smartest, strongest card of the campaign so far. First off, they put 9/11 front and foremost, insisting that this is their catastrophe too, and the center of their concerns as well. A vital move. And it was done movingly and well. I had a catch in my throat as “Amazing Grace” struck up, and another as I absorbed the fact that a Muslim-American and a Jewish-American had just joined in tribute to the murdered. Ironic, isn’t it, that the Republican convention was placed in New York in early September precisely to evoke memories of 9/11, and yet, by coming first, the Democrats may have dented that advantage with their innovative commemmoration. And the 9/11 set-piece dealt with a deeper problem as well. It is a feature of incumbency during moments and periods of trauma that the president inevitably becomes associated with the national expressions of grief, determination, unity. By the same token, the opposition, especially one that comes to question the conduct of the war, may come to find itself disassociated. Last night, the Democrats did all they could to erase and undo that impression. Rhetorically, at least, they were saying: this is our war too. But we can pursue it more wisely and effectively than the well-meaning hothead now in office. And there was a subtler message as well. Remember when we were one as a nation? Do you really think that president Bush is capable of bringing any of us together again? Of course, some Democrats are responsible for exactly that polarization. But it’s nevertheless a smart move to portray themselves as a unifying future compared to the divisive past.

The cultural signals were superbly done as well. Kerry’s former boatmate touched on faith and courage and the military, as well as implicitly evoking Kerry as a unifying figure. I lost count of the number of times John Kerry’s possibly future title was described as “commander-in-chief.” We were constantly reminded that Kerry would attack in his aluminum boat, rather than be merely defensive. Jimmy Carter’s speech was one of the best I’ve ever heard from him; and the genius of it was that Carter went against type. He re-introduced himself as a navy veteran, and was most effective mentioning those presidents who had actually been in the military: Eisenhower and Truman, under whom Carter served. Now listen to this passage:

Today — today our Democratic Party is led by another former naval officer, one who volunteered for military service. He showed up when assigned to duty — and he served with honor and distinction. He also knows the horrors of war and the responsibilities of leadership. And I am confident that next January he would restore the judgment and maturity to our government that nowadays is sorely lacking.

Kerry showed up. Kerry is as tough as Bush – but with “judgment and maturity.” And in case you didn’t get the message: “The biggest reason to make John Kerry president is even more important. It is to safeguard the security of our nation.” From a former president, that’s tough stuff; and Carter delivered an attack-speech that was all the more effective for being measured and often damning by mere inference. Less, someone has finally figured out, is more. (Of course, I’m leaving aside here the sheer chutzpah of Jimmy Carter giving anyone lessons on defending this country, or, for that matter, fighting the war on terror. My point is merely that Carter sketched exactly the centrist-conservative narrative that the campaign is obviously trying to portray. And it worked.)

TO THE RIGHT OF BUSH: For the Democrats to run to the right of Bush on the war – while leaving behind the question of whether the war in Iraq was right or not – is their only hope of victory, but also, oddly enough, the most direct path to victory. They also evoked the anxiety many Americans have that, in a time of war, they are so reviled around the world. Americans are prepared to fight alone, but they’d prefer not to. Carter spoke to those anxieties:

After 9/11, America stood proud, wounded but determined and united. A cowardly attack on innocent civilians brought us an unprecedented level of cooperation and understanding around the world.
But in just 34 months we have watched with deep concern as all this good will has been squandered by a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and miscalculations.

If you’re a worried undecided voter, you may nott agree with all that. But you’ll be troubled by enough of it to consider Kerry. And then there was the gut-punch: the indirect use of Bush’s dubious National Guard service. In fact, the way in which the Democrats used the service record of Kerry against Bush was straight out of the Republican playbook. It’s a pretty low blow, and Carter delivered it with a deep thud. When you describe someone as weak on defense and a draft-dodger, you’re usually a Republican. But not this time.

Carter’s was the better speech, but Clinton was magnificent. I think he was better last night than at either of his own conventions and certainly better than any of his SOTUs. He performed a brilliant rhetorical trick: he deployed the usual canards used against him to buttress Kerry. Rather than attack the wealthy as recjpients of tax cuts, he attacked himself as a now-wealthy man. And then the coup de grace: he put himself and Bush in the same camp as draft-dodgers, in stark comparison to the patriotic Kerry! My jaw was on the floor at that point in a mixture of admiration and horror. But it was mighty effective. And the way in which he described the cost of the tax cut in terms of squandered attempts to improve homeland defense was another smart move. Use the Republican tax cut issue against the Republican security issue. Wedge against them for once. If the constitution didn’t prevent it, the man would still be president. After last night’s speech, you can see why.

THE PANS: Yes, there were some duds. Whose great idea was it to have Glenn Close as a speaker? She’s an actress! And she even flubbed her lines. Oh and Tammy Baldwyn and Barbara Mikulski make the dullest femme and butch act I’ve ever seen. Hillary was pedestrian, as always.

BUSH LOSES MINORITIES: Here’s an interesting nugget of polling. After three years, George W. Bush has lost some appeal among minorities and become a much more exclusively white evangelical president. here’s the Annenberg data:

As the Democratic National Convention begins, 66 percent of African-American registered voters called themselves Democrats and just 7 percent say they are Republicans, numbers almost unchanged since 2000, when it was 65 to 7 percent. Among registered Hispanics, Democrats now outnumber Republicans 45 to 24 percent, compared to a 39 to 21 percent margin in 2000.
But among registered white Protestants who described themselves as born-again or evangelical – a share of the population bigger than blacks and Hispanics together — Republicans now enjoy majority status. Fifty-one percent of this group called themselves Republicans, while 22 percent said they were Democrats. Four years ago, 43 percent said they were Republicans and 24 percent said they were Democrats.
Seventy-one percent of registered white evangelical and born-again Christians now view Bush favorably and just 19 percent see him unfavorably, up from 63 percent favorable, 19 percent unfavorable in 2000. That ratio is reversed among African-Americans, where 12 percent view Bush favorably and 72 percent unfavorably. In July of 2000, 34 percent had a favorable view and just 40 percent an unfavorable opinion.

It’s important to understand that this was a deliberate choice by Rove: to increase the base before you reach out to others. He has been successful. And Bush may lose because of it.

“I am not sure you understand your critics. As a longtime reader (and future reader), I am scratching my head at your endorsement of Kerry. Not because you are wrong on your criticisms of Bush (I may disagree, but not substantially so), but where does President Kerry make anything better? Even on gay rights: do you think that gay rights will become better/worse no matter who is President? If Bush is elected the Senate will prevent any backsliding on rights, and the same Senate will not allow Kerry (if he were inclined – which he is not) to promote a “pro-gay rights” agenda. This effectively becomes a non-issue, so base your vote on something – anything – else.
Beyond that, the war on terror, government spending, free trade – pick one any one. I just cannot see Kerry as an improvement. Maybe the argument is that Kerry will be a Clinton and the fight against a Republican Congress will prevent the government from doing anything dumb, but then put your blame on the shoulders of the men and women who deserve it – the senators and congressmen and women.
Just call me an ABK – “Anyone But Kerry” voter – disappointed in the President’s abandonment of conservative ideals, but knowing the alternative is a heck of a lot worse.” I take these points. and that’s why I haven’t said I’m endorsing Kerry – despite all the hyperventilating on some hard-right sites. But I’m open to being persuaded and, given the nation-building challenges of the next few years, and Bush’s obvious inability to master the art, I’m not sure Kerry would be such a disaster in the war. As for free trade, I think it’s a wash. Same with the deficit, although I think Kerry won’t get his healthcare proposal through and so might be better than Bush. Government spending? If the House stays Republican, Kerry will be much better than Bush.

Now why doesn’t Postrel grace the op-ed columns of the NYT? Postrel versus Ehrenreich: two women columnists who don’t do chick lit.