Brokaw Credits Hubris For Anti-GOP Wave--Well, Sort of

In discussing the election results with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball last night, former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw referred to Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War. Here's what Brokaw, who previously blurbed our book, said on the show:

Chris, one of the things I think that's happened with Republicans, especially with conservatives around the country, is that the president did not acknowledge that things were not going well until the last month or so, when he said they're not going as well as I would like them to. They kept insisting things were going well when there was a marked deterioration in the original strategy, and what was going on, and then had you October, with more Americans killed than ever before. Republicans come, to a large degree, from the corporate, from the business world and when things don't go well, they know that they have to change. And there was no indication of change going on in this administration.

And then in the closing days of the campaign, the president gave Don Rumsfeld a no-cut contract, said he's here until the very end. Some of the most pointed criticism of the president on the war came from George Will and from Pat Buchanan. And then there were a whole series of books and they were called "Fiasco" and "State of Denial" and "Hubris." And they were detailed accounts of all that had gone wrong before. So, you know, there was the reality on the one side and then what the president was trying to persuade the country, on the other side, was that I've got a plan, stay with me here. And finally people said, look, I've heard the sky is falling too long. I'm going to make my own judgment about this.

It's good to be on the side of reality--especially when you write nonfiction books.

Posted by David Corn at November 8, 2006 03:05 PM

Rumsfeld Out; Pelosi's To-Do List

Donald Rumsfeld is out. Why did he leave? Days ago, the president told reporters that he would retain Rummy through the end of his presidency. That implied that Bush wanted Rumsfeld in the job no matter what happened on Election Day and that he believed Rumsfeld was essential to protecting this nation's security. So is this a political decision? After all, how could this administration play politics with such an important position? It wouldn't do such a thing, would it?

Asked at a press conference about the contradiction between his statement of support for Rumsfeld last week and today's announcement, Bush tried to explain it away by noting that Rumsfeld's departure was not finalized until yesterday. That would mean that he told those reporters he was keeping Rumsfeld at the Pentagon for another two years at a time when Rumsfeld's exit was already in the works.

Bush was also asked if Rumsfeld's replacement by former Robert Gates, who was CIA chief for Bush's father, would lead to a "new direction." He said, "I am committed to victory." Pressed on the "new direction" point, he said that Gates would bring in a "fresh perspective." Let's see if (a) he does and (b) that "perspective" changes anything at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

In the meantime, yet more election analysis from yours truly, courtesy of www.tompaine.com:

Democratic To-Do List
David Corn
November 08, 2006
www.tompaine.com

"I hope they don't get it."

A veteran Democratic strategist, standing outside the Democrats' victory party in a Capitol Hill hotel ballroom, was talking about the Democrats and the Senate. The best outcome, he said, was for the Democrats to win back the House--which by this point on Election Night they had--and become the insurgents of Washington, challenging the discredited and sclerotic Republicans of the White House and Senate. With the House in hand, the Democrats would be able to pass popular pieces of legislation--say, raising the minimum wage--and mount whatever investigations they desire. The bills would then be killed by either GOPers in the Senate or the lame duck in the White House. The Democrats would have no true responsibility for governing--that is, for cleaning up George W. Bush's mess in Iraq and elsewhere. But if they were to end up controlling both chambers of Congress, they would become fifty-fifty partners in the government--become the target of a president who would use Democratic control of Congress as an excuse for his own failures and endlessly blame the Democrats for the nation's woes. "One-third is ideal," this strategist remarked. Moments later, the wife of another prominent Democratic strategist told me her husband also wasn't wishing for success in the Senate.

Well, these Democrats may have to settle for both houses of Congress. As I write on the morning after, the Democrats are leading in the not-yet-settled Senate races of Montana and Virginia. If these numbers hold--and it seems that there will be a recount in the James Webb versus George Allen race in Virginia--the Democrats will indeed have the obligation to run the legislative branch. And they will have a rather narrow window in which they can attempt to re-brand themselves as the responsible party of Washington.

Democrats know that this election was more about Bush than them. They won mostly because they were not the other guy. Americans didn't flock to the polls because they yearned to see Representative Nancy Pelosi as House speaker or Senator Harry Reid as Senate majority leader. They wanted Bush out of the White House. But since he was not on the ballot, voters went with the next best thing: booting his comrades out of Congress. So the Democrats--even though they did campaign on a platform promoting various legislative initiatives--take office without a full mandate. But with this win comes the chance to persuade the American public that Democrats do stand for something, do share the values of many Americans and can get the job done. Yet the Democrats will have the political equivalent of ten minutes to prove this.

That's not an impossible task, but there are obvious obstacles. Foremost is the conservative, pro-Republican media attack machine. By the time you read this, the right-wing media will probably be intensifying its campaign to demonize Pelosi and the other Democrats who will assume leadership positions or committee chairmanships. Remember, when Newt Gingrich and his allies took power in the House in the so-called Republican revolution of 1994, the conservative media infrastructure was not nearly as large and as integrated with the GOP as it is today. Now, Mission One for this system is to discredit Pelosi and her fellow Democrats. So expect a ceaseless the-end-is-near attack from this gang.

The other obvious obstacle is Iraq. In their victory speeches on election night, Pelosi, Reid, Representative Rahm Emanuel, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Senator Chuck Schumer, the head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, each said the election signaled that the American people crave a course correction in Iraq. Yet the Democrats offer no clear alternative path. Though most tend to favor phased disengagement, they do not agree on how to do this. There will be great pressure on the Democrats to solve the problem Bush created in Iraq--even when there are no good or easy solutions. A failure to craft a coherent and convincing alternative for Iraq could quickly hobble the newly empowered Democrats.

The good news is this: In the House, they can start approving legislation immediately and can initiate investigations. Pelosi has already promised that within the first hundred hours, her Democrats will approve bills that raise the minimum wage, increase funding for homeland security, lower interest rates on student loans and permit the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices. If she pulls this off--with or without a Democratic Senate (where opposition party members can easily block legislation)--she will be able to demonstrate to the public that the Democrats are serious and worth supporting.

She will also have to make certain that the Democrats proceed with the appropriate inquiries. The goal is to hold the Bush administration accountable without appearing vindictive. (See Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay for a lesson in how not to do this.) My hunch is that many Americans--especially those outside the party faithful whom the Democrats will want to keep on their side for 2008--will prefer to see Democrats producing legislative accomplishments rather than acrimonious investigations. But there are plenty of probes that can proceed. Representative Henry Waxman, the new chairman of the government reform committee, should investigate thoroughly the failed reconstruction in Iraq. An estimated $45 billion of the $80 billion spent on Iraq reconstruction has gone down the drain of fraud and waste. What taxpayer would not like to see this fully investigated?

Pelosi and the Democrats--including those in the Senate, if they gain control there--ought to pick their investigations carefully and strategically. (Yes, this means staying away from any talk of impeachment.) But a prudent approach will hardly limit the opportunities. Take global warming. An investigation of how the Bush administration has suppressed scientific data showing the problem of global warming, coupled with hearings on the administrations refusal to do anything significant to redress this threat, could play well.

Let's face it: Pelosi and Reid are not the best media representatives for the Democrats. Democratic representatives and senators routinely hail each for effectively leading their party caucuses, even as they acknowledge these leaders' limitations as the party's spokespeople. And Pelosi is going to have to continue to keep her party together and disciplined on strategy and tactics--traditionally not an easy task for Democrats. (To take advantage of this moment, liberal and conservative Democrats are going to have to play nice with each other.) Pelosi and Reid get credit for the wins on election night, but neither of them is going to sell the Democratic Party using charisma and charm. They can only do so with substance. And many American voters will not grant them much more than a first impression. The Democrats have a shot at winning over the public. But there's a lot they're going to have to get exactly right.

Posted by David Corn at November 8, 2006 01:11 PM

Payback

From my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com....


Payback's a bitch.

There is no way to spin the election results. They were a repudiation of George W. Bush, his party, his agenda, and his war. The commander in chief argues that he is fighting a war in Iraq that is essential to the survival of the United States. The electorate sent a message: we don't buy it. Political genius Karl Rove and GOP chieftain Ken Mehlman, with their scare tactics (defeatist Democrats will surrender to the terrorists; Nancy Pelosi will destroy the nation) and below-the-belt ads, were not able to defy popular sentiment. Comeuppance was the order of the day. Because of Bush, R became a scarlet letter. In Rhode Island, incumbent Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee, a moderate who voted against the war in 2002 and against Bush in 2004, enjoyed a 66 percent approval rating; still. voters sent him packing. Children, pay attention. If you're a president who misleads the nation into war and then mismanages that war, you might sneak past a reelection but then bring ruin upon your party. The Bush-wreaked reality trumped the Rove-designed rhetoric--finally. The voters chose not to stay his course. The market worked.

The Democrats won control of the House and came close with the Senate. As of 1:00 AM, in Virginia, Reaganite-turned-Democrat Jim Webb was barely ahead of Senator George "Macaca" Allen--though a recount seemed likely. In Missouri, the Senate race was a virtual tie. If the Democrats should win in each, the Senate would be theirs. However, Tennessee--where Democrats were trying to elect Representative Harold Ford Jr., an African-American--was a bridge too far. But even without the Senate, the Democrats will now be able to counter Bush and advance a platform of their own.

At a victory party at a Capitol Hill hotel--attended by thousands of Democrats, many wearing a badge proclaiming, "A New Direction for America"--a senior House Democratic staffer said, "The word has come on down from on high: no gloating. Those of us who were around in 1994 remember Republicans telling us that we were no longer needed and could get lost--literally. We've been told not to handle this differently." But it's certainly true that the House Democrats have assumed power in a slightly less triumphant manner than did the GOP in the so-called Republican Revolution of 1994. Though Democrats did have an agenda for the campaign, they know that the election was a referendum on Bush and the rubber-stamp Republicans, not their pet legislative ideas. As Senator Chuck Schumer, the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee proclaimed, "the message of this election came down to one word: change." That is, boot Bush's compatriots out of office. To do this, voters had to go Democratic.

The voters have "reluctantly given us the keys," said Terry McAuliffe, a former head of the Democratic Party. And, he added, the Democrats will have to prove themselves--quickly. How to do so? By briskly passing legislation on popular issues--boosting the minimum wage, increasing homeland security funding, lowering interest rates on college loans, empowering the federal government to negotiate with pharmaceutical comapnies to achieve lower drug prices for Medicare. Even if such legislation dies in a Republican-controlled Senate or is vetoed by Bush, the Democrats can shape the the coming presidential election. (Another major win in a night of wins for the Democrats was the election of Representative Ted Strickland as governor of Ohio. "You can't win the presidency without Ohio," McAuliffe noted. And with a Democrat running the state, the Ds will have an advantage there in 2008.)

As for the Republicans, this election will unleash the furies within that party. In sorting out this defeat, GOPers will find themselves confronting their internal conflicts. Social conservatives will square off against economics-first libertarians. The party could split along other line--between those who stick with Bush and those who want to cut and run from the abaltross-in-chief. It could all get quite acrimonious, especially with 2008 politics influencing the blame-game. Republicans could end up looking like Democrats.

But the bottom-line is clear: the Bush presidency is over. At least, as Bush and Dick Cheney have envisioned it. They can no longer act imperiously. They have lost the public. And there is now an opposition that can check and investigate their actions abroad and at home. But the Democrats still have to complete the sale. At the victory bash, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi declared, "We need a new direction in Iraq." She didn't say what it would be. The Democratic victory--as sweet as it is for the Democrats--is very much an unfinished work.

Posted by David Corn at November 8, 2006 12:51 AM

Voting

I voted. There were no problems. During the primary elections a few months ago, Montgomery County in Maryland experienced a small disaster with electronic voting machines, primarily because election workers were not adequately trained in how to operate teh devices and election cards were not distributed to the polls. That did not happen today. But there were two moments that caused me to wonder about the security of the voting process.

First, when I approached the desk to receive a voting card, I was asked my name, address and date of birth. The women on the other side did not request any identification--nothing with or without a photo. Anyone who cared to impersonate me--and who knew my address and birthday--could have done so. This was unsettling. After all, when I retrieve packages from the Post Office, I have to show identification. I realize that conservatives have long complained that no-ID voting creates the opportunity for voter fraud. That's undeniable, though it would take an extensive and well-coordinated campaign to engage in fraud-by-impersonation on a significant scale. And Democrats have a point when they contend that voting should be as easy as possible. Nevertheless, it's tough to argue that citizens should not have to show any form of identification to gain access to the ballot box.

Second, after selecting my choices on an electronic touch-screen machine, I pressed the "Cast Ballot" button on the screen, and I received a message: Your vote has been cast. It probably was. But how could I know for sure? I received no receipt. All that happened was some digitalized 1s and 0s were shuffled around inside the machine and zapped to another machine, courtesy of proprietary software not open to public inspection. I have not concluded--as have others--that electronic voting machines are routinely rigged (by Republicans) to change results. But I have for years believed that since they can be rigged--and the evidence is compelling on this front--people are right to fret about the integrity of the voting system.

Sure, all systems are vulnerable to underhanded chicanery. Old-fashioned ballot boxes can be stuffed. But the goal should be to minimize the ability of any would-be tamperers to engage in dirty-trickery that can affect a decisive number of votes, and electronic voting does not pass this test--not yet. When we used to write X's on paper ballots or pull levers on voting machines, voters still had to have faith that all the votes would be counted honestly. Given that it would take a concerted effort of a number of people to falsify the results with those vote-counting methods, it was not hard to have a decent level of confidence in the voting process in most localities. But when we press a finger against the "Cast Ballot" image on a screen, we require a higher degree of faith that the counting system is working as it should and that it has not been tainted by a tiny group of persons. Presumably, a modest programming alteration in some cases could lead to phony results. As I walked away from the machine, I worried about my vote--more than a citizen should have to.

Posted by David Corn at November 7, 2006 11:47 AM

Election Day

Vote.

More, later. (I'm hoping the lines are not too long and the electronic voting machines--and the election workers in charge of them--are not wigging out.)

Posted by David Corn at November 7, 2006 12:31 AM

Do Bush and Cheney Want To Lose?

From my "Capitol Games" column at www.thenation.com....

Is it possible the White House doesn't want Republicans to win the congressional elections on Tuesday? I know this sounds crazy. But consider the evidence.

1. Last week, George W. Bush vowed to retain Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense until the end of his presidency. (He said the same about Dick Cheney.) The debacle in Iraq is responsible for Bush's political decline and the GOP's poor electoral prospects. And Rumsfeld is the poster boy for that debacle. (Days ago, the Army Times called for his resignation.) Bush had no obligation to say whether Rumsfeld would remain at the Pentagon for another two years. He went out of his way in the homestretch of an election to tether himself to the fellow who symbolizes the mess in Iraq. Why do that--unless he has a political death wish?

2. On Friday, Dick Cheney said that the administration would indeed stay with its current course in Iraq and move "full speed ahead." He said, "We've got the basic strategy right." He added, "It may not be popular with the public--it doesn't matter in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. And that's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office. We're doing what we think is right." Perhaps. But the previous week, his boss held a press conference and tried to convey the impression (though false) that the administration was going to rejigger its Iraq policy by introducing and aiming for "benchmarks." Bush's benchmark comments were not sufficient to win the confidence of the electorate. Days later, a New York Times/CBS News poll noted that only 29 percent of Americans approve of how Bush is handling the war in Iraq. So if 71 percent do not have faith in the White House's Iraq policy, why would Cheney make a point of declaring--defiantly--that he and Bush are committed to racing down that unpopular road? It was as if he were shooting the bird at the American public.

3. Speaking of which, on the weekend before the election, Cheney's office had an announcement: Cheney would spend Election Day on his first hunting trip since he shot a friend while trying to kill quail on a private ranch last February. Was this the right time for the White House to remind voters of Cheney's hapless moment? Couldn't Cheney wait until after the election before picking up a gun again? Why won't he be in a toss-up state stumping for a Republican candidate on Election Day? Or knocking on doors? And why does he get the day off? Election Day is not a federal holiday.

All of the above is quite puzzling behavior for a president and vice president facing the possibility their agenda, their war, and their party are about to be soundly refuted by American voters. Do they already know all is lost? On Sunday, I spoke with a former senior Bush administration official who has publicly predicted the Republicans will retain a one- or two-seat majority in the House and keep control of the Senate. But his manner indicated he didn't believe it. "This is what I have to say," he told me. "This is my public position." I asked what his private view was. He rolled his eyes.

Of course, the Republican Party is doing all its can to beat back what appears to be an anti-GOP wave--and that includes airing far-below-the-belt negative ads. Bush and Cheney have been campaigning in conservative areas--in spots where they won't do harm to Republicans. (On Monday, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Florida elected not to campaign with Bush in the Sunshine State.) And GOPers are talking up the vaunted get-out-the-vote machine created by Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman that is now in motion. So it is bizarre that in the closing days of this critical election Bush and Cheney would so dramatically remind voters of what they don't like about the Bush-Cheney administration. If these episodes are not indicators of a secret desire to lose, they are additional signs that Bush and Cheney are woefully out of sync with the public. This prompts a question: if the electorate does rise up against Bush, his party and their war, will Bush and Cheney be able to process that? If not, the republic may be in for a rather bumpy ride.


Posted by David Corn at November 6, 2006 11:32 AM

Perle's Non-Mea Culpa: A Video Comentary

Being a neoconservative seems to mean never having to say you're sorry. A new Vanity Fair article quotes several leading neocons who were cheerleaders for the Iraq war but who are now blaming George W. Bush, not themselves, for the debacle there. Below is a video commentary from me about this:





Click HERE


To see that column on my pre-invasion conversation with Perle (which I mention in the clip), click here.

By the way, after comments were suspended on this site due to a hack-attack, a loyal reader created a mirror site that reposts what appears on davidcorn.com and allows comments. You can join in the conversation here. And once this video commentary is up there, please let me know what you think. But be gentle.

Posted by David Corn at November 4, 2006 10:37 PM

Let the Blame Game Begin!

Another blog posting of mine on The Guardian's Comment Is Free group-blog....

In the final days of the congressional elections campaign, as the Democratic and Republican parties throw tens of millions of dollars into advertising in key House and Senate races, it's not too early to kick off the blame-game.With the pre-tally predictions favoring the Democrats, it's natural that the Republicans would start to worry about recriminations first. Dick Armey, the former Republican House majority leader, has been assailing Christian conservatives for forcing his party to neglect its small-government agenda in favor of divisive social matters, such as gay marriage and abortion. He has singled out James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, and has called such "self-appointed Christian leaders" as Dobson "thugs" and "bullies." (Dobson is also in the news of late for supporting Ted Haggard, the head of the National Association of Evangelicals, who was accused by a male prostitute of being one of his clients.)

At the same time, Armey has also pointed a finger at George W. Bush for mounting a war of "questionable necessity" that has alienated voters from the president's party. Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House Speaker who had to resign in part because of an extramarital affair, accused the Republicans he left behind in Congress of having "drifted away from reform and changed back to a standard political party"--meaning one marked by incompetence and corruption.

On this blog, Quin Hillyer, an editor of the conservative American Spectator, essentially accused Karl Rove of botching the mission. His argument is that the Republicans should have attacked the Democrats more vigorously. The sexually and racially charged ads deployed by the Republicans were apparently not enough. Nor were the repeated claims from Bush, Dick Cheney and other Republicans that Democrats are cut-and-runners who would undermine the country's national security (when they're not busy responding to invitations to gay weddings).

For years now, Bush has been trying to blur the national security issue and convince Americans the war in Iraq (which is not popular) is part of the war on terror (which is popular). He began the campaign season doing just that, making speeches on this point and pushing legislation regarding the detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists.

But he hit two snags. First, the legislation was opposed by leading (pro-war) Republicans: senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham. Bush lost his clean shot at the Democrats, who also opposed the measure.

Second, the war has become increasingly more ugly. This trumps all. The Republicans in Congress have hung themselves by following Bush like lapdogs. They have held few hearings about Iraq policy or the fraud and waste in the Iraq reconstruction program. They have tied themselves to Bush's mast and yielded control over their own fate. Attacking Democrats for disagreeing over the rules regarding the questioning of terrorist suspects could not distract voters from the war.

Hillyer also says the GOP should have made a fuss over Democratic attempts to block conservative judicial nominees. Yet only die-hard Republican voters care about that. And Republicans have them already. (If not, then all is indeed lost for Rove.) He also argues that the Republicans ought to have boasted more about the economy.

Yet despite the boosts in conventional economic indicators, a large majority of the public still feels the country is heading in the wrong direction. That could be because of Iraq. It also could be due to the fact that the growing economy has not yielded much of an increase in wage levels. (Corporate profits are far head of wage increases.) And at the same time, the traditional economic markers do not capture the growing sense of insecurity among American workers. Unemployment may be low, but these days many workers realize that their jobs (and/or benefits) could disappear in a flash. Bush and his party have nothing to say about this widespread and fundamental unease.

No doubt, the Republicans could have played their cards in a better fashion (and we don't know yet that they haven't). But even in politics, reality can shove aside rhetoric. And this election season, Bush could no longer keep the war-and his mismanagement of it-off center stage. If the Republicans do end up losing the House or the Senate, there will be an orgy of finger-pointing (or firebombing) within GOP circles that could well inflame already-present conflicts, such as the tension between libertarian conservatives, who want to minimize government, and social conservatives, who want to legislate morality.
On the Democratic side, there's no reason yet to form firing squads. But should the Democrats not win back at least the House of Representatives, there will be plenty of D-on-D violence. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic Party, will have a lot of explaining to do-to no avail. So will Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House. And the Democrats will look more hapless than they have ever been. Whatever happens on Tuesday will be a prelude to much political intrigue and change in Washington.

Posted by David Corn at November 3, 2006 05:55 PM

What a Pretty Picture; New Bloggingheads.tv Episode

From Reuters:

A senior U.S. general compared Iraq on Thursday to a "work of art" in progress, saying it was too soon to judge the outcome and playing down violence and friction with Iraqi leaders as "speed bumps" on the road.

"A lump of clay can become a sculpture, blobs of paint become paintings which inspire," Major General William Caldwell, chief military spokesman, told his weekly Baghdad news briefing.

"The final test of our efforts will not be the isolated incidents reported daily but the country that the Iraqis build."

Now, flashback to the posting on this site from two days. I published an email from a source who works in the US embassy on communications matters. He wrote:

So far, the book by the former Washington Post Iraq reporter, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, seems the most accurate picture of what is happening here. He writes about everyone coming to Iraq with good intentions and then being trapped in a surreal cocoon and becoming part of the problem. I spend every day trying to make sure I avoid that bubble syndrome, but I fear it is already happening. We are speaking to an audience [in Iraq] we do not understand. All the communications trickery and flack magic in the world cannot fix that.

So I'm thinking, what will Iraqis think when they hear the senior US general in Iraq comparing the horrific chaos there to a "work of art" in progress? On the gaffe-meter, shouldn't this remark rate higher than John Kerry's botched joke?

COMING SOON. Or maybe it's up by the time you read this--another edition of Bloggingheads.tv featuring me and former White House aide (for Bush the First) Jim Pinkerton. We disagree on the meta-significance of the Kerry remark. Pinkerton claims it reveals the limousine-liberal bias of a guy who married an heiress. I note Kerry is a guy who chose to serve in a combat hot-zone and he merely screwed up an anti-Bush gag. We make no predictions about the elections, but concur that they're all about Iraq--and that ain't good for Bush. Pinkerton celebrates the Wall and missile defense. I get practical: do they work? (How many billions of dollars have been thrown down the rathole for missile defense in the past 23 years?) We both hail NASA's decision to fix the Hubble telescope. It's one giant leap for scientists--and a worthy diversion from NASA's fixation on manned and womanned space travel. Hey, anyone remember Bush's grand announcement in the 2004 State of the Union Speech about his humans-to-Mars initiative? He certainly hasn't talked much about that since then. He must have really meant it, right? Check out our chat when it's up.

Posted by David Corn at November 3, 2006 10:02 AM

Is John Kerry the Problem...or the Iraq War?

Below is a posting of mine from The Guardian's Comment Is Free group-blog....

During the 2004 presidential race, George W. Bush had a problem. If voters viewed the election as a match-up between Bush and the Iraq war, things looked bad for the Republicans. The war wasn't going well; Bush had hyped the threat from Iraq; there were no signs of final victory, the public was justifiably unenthused by the ongoing military action.

But the Republicans won that election because the face-off was not Bush versus his unpopular war but Bush versus Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee. It was far easier for the Bush campaign and its allies to pummel Kerry than to defend the no-end-in-sight war. And now the Bush White House - facing what may be a political tidal wave that washes Republicans out of control of at least one house of Congress - has reprised that act, with the media providing much-needed assistance.

As the final week of the campaign began, the Bush White House and Republican spinners were not focusing on Iraq, gay marriage or illegal immigrants. They were zeroing in on a muffed joke that Kerry had made during a campaign rally on Monday. The Massachusetts Democrat had told students that if "you study hard, do your homework and make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." "He meant to say, according to his prepared text, that if you don't work hard in school, "you end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.")

The Republicans had a field day with Kerry's quip -- even if there was some truth to his actual remark. After all, US troops are "stuck" in Iraq, and many young Americans join the military because they do not have the career opportunities that would come with a better education. Still, Republicans in search of an issue attacked Kerry, claiming he had suggested US soldiers were dumb, and they demanded an apology, which Kerry, who is not up for reelection this year, eventually provided (after canceling several campaign appearances with Democratic congressional candidates).

What was absurd about this chapter was that Kerry's comment drew more media attention than a New York Times story that disclosed an October 18 classified briefing of the US Central Command reporting that Iraq was edging toward "chaos."

A week after that briefing, Bush had declared publicly that the United States was "winning" in Iraq. This revelation -- and the contradiction between Bush's rosy statement and Central Command's pessimistic view -- should have been driving the news. Yet Tony Snow, Bush's press secretary, spent far more time at the White House daily briefing, assailing Kerry than responding to questions about the bad-news briefing.

And when Vice President Dick Cheney appeared at a Wednesday campaign rally for Senator Conrad Burns -- an endangered Montana Republican linked to convicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- he did not feel compelled to address the Times story. Instead, Cheney's brief remarks about the Iraq war focused mainly on Kerry's comment. He used Kerry's misdelivered joke to attack all Democrats for wanting to leave Iraq "before the job is done" and thus validating the "al Qaeda strategy."

For two days, the Kerry matter dominated cable news coverage of the elections. On Thursday, it was the lead story in The Washington Post. That edition of the Post had nothing on the front page about what was happening with the actual war in Iraq.Republicans have little to say about Bush's policy in Iraq, for there is little to the policy. Bush's attempt last week to assuage public concern by announcing there will be "benchmarks" in Iraq fell flat, for the White House could not define the benchmarks and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki immediately dismissed the notion of creating hard-and-fast markers. Days later, Maliki even assailed US military efforts to set up security checkpoints in a Shiite stronghold in Baghdad. So when it comes to Iraq, Republican candidates are left mainly with rhetoric, certainly not results.

Meanwhile, Republicans are buckling under the weight of serial scandals -- beyond the congressional page affair. A Republican congressman running for governor in Nevada (Jim Gibbons) was accused by a cocktail waitress of assaulting her. A Republican congressman running for reelection in upstate New York (John Sweeney) has had to answer questions about a leaked police report alleging he beat up his wife. (He claims the report is a fake.) A Republican congresswoman running for reelection in Wyoming (Barbara Cubin) told an opponent with multiple sclerosis who is in a wheelchair that she wanted to slap him. And campaign aides to Republican Senator George Allen - who has imperiled his own election by using a racist term and engaging in other bone-headed moves -- tackled and punched a blogger who had asked Allen an indelicate question about his first marriage. (The divorce records are sealed.)

Generalizing about congressional elections is a risky enterprise. But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that with the war in Iraq and these less weighty episodes, the wheels have popped off the Republican bandwagon. It may be that Karl Rove and other Republican strategists are able to beat back the tide-just barely. But it's unlikely that the GOP attacks on Kerry will make the difference. If anything, this assault only filled up time for a few days and allowed Republicans to feel like they were back in the good ol' days of 2004. But nostalgia, they should keep in mind, is usually a short-lived phenomenon.

Posted by David Corn at November 2, 2006 11:04 AM

Winning in Iraq?/No GOP Civil War Yet?

Today, Tony Snow said at the daily White House press briefing that his boss was right last week to say that the United States is "winning" the war in Iraq. Is that so? A few days ago, I sent an email to an acquaintance working within the US embassy on communications matter and asked for his/her thoughts on recent developments. The reply:

So far, the book by the former Washington Post Iraq reporter, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, seems the most accurate picture of what is happening here. He writes about everyone coming to Iraq with good intentions and then being trapped in a surreal cocoon and becoming part of the problem. I spend every day trying to make sure I avoid that bubble syndrome, but I fear it is already happening. We are speaking to an audience [in Iraq] we do not understand. All the communications trickery and flack magic in the world cannot fix that.

Does the White House understand that?

FANNING FLAMES. I spoke to Mike Rogers, who runs BlogActive.com. In mid-October, Rogers outed Senator Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, as gay. (Craig's office said the allegation was "absolutely ridiculous.") Rogers tells me he has been busy since then calling social conservatives--such as leaders of mega-churches--to tell them about Craig and other leading Washington Republicans who are thought to be gay. "I'm trying to reach out across aisle," Rogers says, "and build coalitions with huge right-wing mega-churches across the country and call out the guys who covered up the Foley scandal. I'm telling these conservatives about the men who are living what the conservatives call the 'homosexual lifestyle' but who are asking the religious conservatives to follow them into the polling booth." In short, he's trying to provoke a clash between the social cons who oppose gay rights (and who, in some cases, demonize gays) and a Republican Party that is a home to in-the-closet gay legislators and staffers.

To prove his point, Rogers, a gay activist, has been playing for the social conservatives what he says is an audiotape of a man who claims to have firsthand knowledge of Craig's sexual orientation. Rogers will not make this tape--or the name of the man--public. But he is doing all he can to convince religious right supporters of Craig and the Republican Party that they are being led by hypocrites. Is Rogers trying to exploit the antigay bigotry of Christian conservatives to undermine the GOP? And does this sort of pot-stirring play to (and thus reinforce) the biases of the antigay right? Rogers says no: "People have a right to their private lives; it's the hypocrisy they don't have a right to."

A gay-hunt within the Republican Party certainly would not help the GOP. And some non-Republican gay politicos, in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal, have been trying to foster such an internal squabble, just when the GOP has been trying to mobilize its base for the coming congressional elections. (As I've previously reported, these people circulated a list of gay staffers on Capitol Hill.) With only days left until Election Day, it does seem the GOP has avoided a nasty public fight on this front (and also avoided more disclosures about other Republican legislators and pages). But this internal conflict--or contradiction--is not going away. Rogers says he's working on other GOP outings for the future.

Posted by David Corn at November 1, 2006 12:51 PM