Month: September 2004

“You know when they give you the menu, I’m always struggling, what do you want?” – John Kerry. Does Karl Rove give him his ad-libs?

No conflict there, I guess. Naah.

MALKIN’S RESPONSE: In fairness, I should also direct readers to Michelle Malkin’s response to her critics.

Zogby doesn’t diminish Bush’s campaign achievement but puts his lead at 2 percent.

NO BUSH ENDORSEMENT: From Log Cabin Republicans. I’m impressed by the lop-sided vote against Bush, as well as their care to insist that they do not reject all his policies – just the discriminatory ones. They did what they had to do, in my opinion. But it’s terribly sad, nonetheless.

In his latest adjustment, John Kerry is now becoming a more straight-forward opponent of the Iraq war; and his statement Monday that he wants to bring all the troops home in four years is as close to Howard Dean as he’s been since, well, December. The president’s tilting at Kerry for his Dean-like rhetoric is not as effective, it seems to me, as criticizing Kerry’s declaration of advance withdrawal to terrorists. Look, Kerry deserves some benefit of the doubt with respect to his general support of the War on Terror, and decision not to cut and run immediately in Iraq. But there’s no chance that other countries can or will make up the gap in armed forces in Iraq, and the signal of weakness Kerry’s deadline sends to the Islamists, Baathists and Shiite separatists could make our possible failure in Iraq a self-fulfilling prophecy. I guess the sane criticism of the Iraq war – undermined by bad intelligence, crippled by incompetence, but still worth winning – is too nuanced a position for a challenger to make. But the alternative only adds to a sense that Kerry cannot be trusted to keep our nerve in Iraq. Or anywhere else for that matter. (And please stop the emails assuming I’ll endorse Kerry. The Senator’s recent dreadful performance and pathetic equivocations on the war only further convince me that Bush truly is the luckiest man alive.)

REALITY: Meanwhile, the somewhat surreal description of the world assumed by the Bush camp keeps getting tarnished by, well, the facts. The deficit is a serious problem, and will only get a lot worse in a second Bush term, and far, far worse thereafter. We are ceding territory in Iraq in several major regions. 1,000 military deaths is arguably a price a nation has to pay for a necessary war. But Americans will get far less tolerant of the losses if they perceive that the war isn’t being won, or if they do not see a credible way forward. The problem with Bush’s convention strategy is that it portrayed a world in which everything was going splendidly. But if events intervene and prove that not to be the case, won’t Bush seem dangerously complacent and out of touch? In some ways, Bush has made himself more vulnerable to terrorist attacks in Iraq. By declaring that his war-leadership is an undiluted triumph, some hideous massacre or series of attacks on soldiers in Iraq could undermine public confidence in his leadership more than if he’d been more candid about the risks involved and the difficulties we face. We found out that Kerry’s superb convention wasn’t quite as accomplished in retrospect. We may find the same with Bush’s.

ZELL’S LIES: More substantiation of the deceptions parlayed by Senator Miller.

OUR BLESSED LEADER: Here’s Michael Novak, putting some purplish touches to Republican prose in National Review:

Let me close by mentioning one other perception I took away from my exciting four days of stirring speeches from truly distinguished leaders: Among all of them, the greatest of all and the most reliable, focused, disciplined, plain-speaking, and trustworthy was our president. He stood with some great ones, but his moral stature rose at least a shoulder’s height above all the others. He stood the steadiest of all.

No, that wasn’t a recent quote from an obscure North Korean sports stadium. Readers are invited to send in suck-uppery of either Kerry or Bush in this ra-ra campaign.

THE BOOK ON MALKIN: Some interesting and devastating scholarly critiques of Michelle Malkin’s new book defending the internment of the Japanese in World War II can be read here and here.

I’m writing this in a Starbucks in Dearborn, Michigan, (love will find a way), after a trip to LA and back to Ptown tomorrow, before NYC and then back to DC. Blogging may be a little erratic. It was fun in LA. Hanging with Bill Maher, in so far as I can remember anything from after the show, is never boring. I met Frank Gehry on the flight over as well. He overheard my talking to my London editor about my column and chimed in with an anti-Bush comment. Amazing how being pro ar anti-Bush is now a significant cultural and psychological marker in the country. My own mixed feelings are pretty rare these days. Gehry sure didn’t seem to have any.

BUSH AND THE WAR: Perhaps the most impressive achievement of the Republican convention and the Bush campaign is to present the president as a war-leader in the abstract. The most celebrated images were from the wreckage of 9/11 when Bush spoke the only truly inspired off-the-cuff remarks of his presidency. The actual concrete details of his war-leadership – the fall of Kabul, the blitzkrieg to Baghdad, the aborted siege of Fallujah – were absent. So too the protracted negotiations at the U.N. or any images of Bush with foreign leaders, or the decision to advance the war by days to get Saddam (more bad intelligence) or even the speech that launched the Iraq war. What I think the Republicans have realized is that the war on terror is far more popular and winning an issue for Bush if it is stripped of its actual events, and setbacks and triumphs and difficulties. That’s why the convention rhetoric approached propaganda – focusing not on what has happened, but on the virtues of a strong war-leader. The dynamics of both wars – of instant military success, followed by damaging and difficult follow-through – were deliberately obscured. This is good politics; but it strikes me as risky war-management. People need leaders who level with them about failures and difficulties in wartime – not gauzy North Korean-style biopics about the invincibility of the Great Leader. But then this war, vital as it is, has been exploited by the Bushies for political purposes since it began. How else to explain the “Mission Accomplished” photo-op or the bare-knuckled 2002 Congressional campaign? Some on the left would have politicized this war under any circumstances. But others might have rallied to a war that was conducted with less hardball domestic politics. In this, Bush is, of course, the opposite of Churchill, who brought in opposition leaders to play key roles in his war-cabinet. I know that’s not the American tradition, but a little less politics might have gone a long way. And made the middle-ground voter a little more sympathetic to the narrative that the Republicans are now so effectively deploying.

DIVIDE, DIVIDE: One other thing has troubled me, after mulling the NYC convention for a few days. It struck me that John Kerry at his convention did something politically shrewd but also historically significant. He took a reluctant Democratic base and emphatically backed the war on terror. Yes, he did not relinquish criticism of the war in Iraq, nor of the way in which the Bush administration had made the case for war. But it was not a left-wing convention, and it signaled a welcome shift among Democrats to a more war-oriented approach. The Republicans essentially responded by throwing back this concession in John Kerry’s face. They refused to take “yes, but” for an answer, and dredged up the divisions of the Vietnam War as a means to further polarize the electorate. Again, this might be good politics, but it is surely bad for the country. I believe in this war, which is also why I believe it is important to get as many Democrats to support it. But the Republicans have all but declared that this is a Republican war – and can only be conducted by a Republican president. I think they will live to regret this almost as much as the country will. And I fear the animosity and division that are already part of the cultural fabric (by no means all fomented by the president) could get worse in the coming years – to the glee of our enemies. In wartime, unity matters. When a campaign deliberately tries to maximize polarization to its advantage, it simultaneously undermines the war. Winning this war is more important than building a new Republican majority. But somehow I don’t think that’s how Karl Rove sees it.

OLD EUROPE ON THE BRINK: Will Hutton rightly observes the slide toward steep decline in France and Germany. But he’s wrong about Europe as a whole. Britain, unshackled by Thatcher from socialist economics, is as vibrant as it’s ever been in the past fifty years – culturally and economically. Hutton, of course, frets that this coud mean the end of the EU as a viable institution. Man, I hope so.

“The one thing I wanted to see last night was Mary Cheney on stage with her family after the president’s speech. That would at least have given me some sign of hope, but it was just asking for too much from this crowd. And, I’ve considered myself a moderate of this crowd for a while now. It really bugs me. I’m RC, married with two little kids living in the burbs of Chicago and I can’t get over how much this bothers me because it wouldn’t have been something to get to me before.” Steve Waldman makes a similar point at Beliefnet:

What possible explanation is there here that doesn’t make the Cheneys look like ghoulish parents? I suppose we should wait for more information; perhaps she had an appendicitis attack and was immobile. More likely, either they discouraged her from appearing or she voluntarily exiled herself, not wanting to embarrass her dad, at which point dad should have said, “I love you. You belong up here with me.”
As I wrote earlier, perhaps Mary said she couldn’t wound her partner by going up their without her. If that was the case, the compassionate thing for the Cheneys to do would be take away the awkwardness by having the podium scene without spouses. They would have produced a slightly less cheery photo up but made a powerful statement about love, pride and family.
And this has nothing to do with one’s position on gay marriage. Having Mary Cheney up there would have in no way contradicted either Dick Cheney or George W. Bush’s policies on gay marriage. Bush should be asked about this, too. Powerful evidence was offered that, on a personal level, Bush is a compassionate man. So why didn’t he go to Cheney and say: “Hey, don’t sweat it Dick. Mary is part of our family. Don’t worry about the politics”?

But that’s not the way they are, is it? The Republicans talk about family values; but they believe in disappearing their loved ones when politics demands it.

EMAIL OF THE DAY II: “I always find historical analogies interesting and have been pondering how the current Bush Administration compares to governments in time of change. I think there is a Bismarck analogy, but not exactly the one you used.
I agree with your discussion of Bismarck’s domestic and foreign policies. He was a firm believer in German military might, but an even bigger proponent of a pragmatic diplomacy to achieve his goals. After German unification, he was the architect of a sort of collective security system for Europe. The Reinsurance Treaty between Germany and the other great powers called for the each to come each other’s aid if attacked by one of the signers. Thus, Germany removed the threat of a two front war and the other continental powers received some assurance from being invaded (again) from what was becoming the dominant economy in Europe. The arrangement left Britain blissfully untangled in continental matters and free to focus on Empire. In the late 1800s this arrangement resulted in the biggest rivalries being between England and France in Africa and England and Russia in central Asia. It left Germany out of the colonial game, but allowed it to rapidly grow it’s economy. Unfortunately, this arrangement required a lot of diplomatic dexterity on Germany’s part, some might say, a nuanced approach.
The new Kaiser, Wilhelm II, was cool to this approach and thought it limited Germany’s freedom of action in things like colonial policy. So, with the departure of Bismarck, Germany, now clearly the dominant economy in Europe, set out to make its way outside the nuanced collective security system. It let lapse the Reinsurance Treaty which set in motion a dynamic which eventually resulted in an alliance between France and Russia clearly aimed at Germany. France began a long term effort to establish an entente with Britain, up to now its chief rival. Germany, seeking to project its power overseas, began to build a major navy, finally pushing Britain, on the eve of the Great War, to an understanding with France and Russia.
The irony was that Germany, in trying to assert itself more forcefully, now found itself isolated, surrounded by the other powers, and less secure than ever.
Any resemblance to current events is purely coincidental.”

Bill Clinton is in hospital, with an emergency bypass operation. Check in on Lucianne Goldberg’s site to see how her readers respond:

No doubt his arteries are clogged up with pounds of MacDonalds hamburgers and pizzas.

I at least hope he lives long enough to see JFK AND Hildabeast go down in flames. Then he can go down in flames, metaphorically speaking. I hope his big honkin’ bible is printed on asbestos so he can carry it with him.

Give him a enema and send him home. The widow Hillary will gather the sympathy vote in 08′

sorry, I cant muster any sympathy. I’d feel the same if they said Saddam was gettin bypass surgery. It’s a waste of time and money.

My prayers are for all those he lied to, hurt, and misused.

I wonder if this is heart damage from snorting cocaine.

Where can I send a happy meal?

Classy, no? I particularly like the equation of Clinton with Saddam. An almost perfect reflected image of the loony left.

The Washington Post details Zell’s most recent untruths about John Kerry’s record. Hey, as Zell might have put it, he was merely “trying to mislead the people of the United States.” Money quote:

Cheney, at the time defense secretary, had scolded Congress for keeping alive such programs as the F-14 and F-16 jet fighters that he wanted to eliminate. Miller said in his speech that Kerry had foolishly opposed both the weapons systems and would have left the military armed with “spitballs.” During that same debate, President George H.W. Bush, the current president’s father, proposed shutting down production of the B-2 bomber — another weapons system cited by Miller — and pledged to cut defense spending by 30 percent in eight years.
Though Miller recited a long list of weapons systems, Kerry did not vote against these specific weapons on the floor of the Senate during this period. Instead, he voted against an omnibus defense spending bill that would have funded all these programs; it is this vote that forms the crux of the GOP case that he “opposed” these programs.
On the Senate floor, Kerry cast his vote in terms of fiscal concerns, saying the defense bill did not “represent sound budgetary policy” in a time of “extreme budget austerity.”

You know, Dick Cheney has called the liberation an “occupation” and opposed many of the things Miller accused Kerry of opposing. Does that make Dick Cheney wobbly in the war on terror?

There’s more interesting background on it from Blog for Democracy. The quote came up in a debate in an election Begala and Carville were running for Miller. Here’s what happened, once Miller’s opponent brought it up:

[W]e were thrilled when Miller wheeled on his accuser and said that back in 1964 when the Atlanta Constitution had printed that so-called quote he’d marched down to the paper’s offices and demanded and received a correction. He’d never say a thing like that. A great moment.
The next day that great moment became one of our greatest nightmares. Al May, the veteran political reporter for the Atlanta Constitution, interviewed Miller as Paul drove them and Shirley Miller to an event in rural Georgia. May made small talk for a little while. Then he sprang the trap. “Zell,” he said, “I’ve talked to all the editors who were around back then, checked the morgue and the archives, and you never asked for a retraction and the paper never printed one.”
“I know,” Miller said, biting the words off the words like they were bitter herbs.
“So why’d you say all that in the debate last night?”
Miller leaned in close to May and said, “Because, Al, I was trying to mislead the people of Georgia.”

A liar and a bigot. And a hero to conservatives everywhere.

Finally, someone in the inner circle explains what motives Bush’s nanny-state, expensive, big government conservatism:

“It struck me as I was speaking to people in Bangor, Maine, that this president sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child,” [Andy] Card said. “I know as a parent I would sacrifice all for my children.”

The old “leave-us-alone” conservatism really is dead, isn’t it?