Susan Estrich -- Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign manager in 1988 -- has some ideas for how Senator Kerry's campaign can be meaner to President Bush, but I don't think they'd be that effective.
Will it be the three, or is it four or five, drunken driving arrests that Bush and Cheney, the two most powerful men in the world, managed to rack up? (Bush's Texas record has been sealed. Now why would that be? Who seals a perfect driving record?)
I'm pretty sure that's pure speculation. As far as I know Bush had one DUI, and that came out in the last election. I don't think this sort of revelation would hit as hard the second time around, particularly since the President has been dry for quite a while.
After Vietnam, nothing is ancient history, and Cheney is still drinking. What their records suggest is not only a serious problem with alcoholism, which Bush but not Cheney has acknowledged, but also an even more serious problem of judgment. Could Dick Cheney get a license to drive a school bus with his record of drunken driving? (I can see the ad now.) A job at a nuclear power plant? Is any alcoholic ever really cured? So why put him in the most stressful job in the world, with a war going south, a thousand Americans already dead and control of weapons capable of destroying the world at his fingertips.
That's a reasonable question I suppose, but generally a VP can only help a ticket, not hurt it. Cheney's two DUIs were in the early 1960s, when the eventual VP was ages 21 and 22. Two plus one equals three, not four or five. Also, the difference between Kerry's Vietnam/Cambodia problem and the President's DUI problem is that Bush has stopped drinking and renounced his former lifestyle whereas Kerry has made his stories about his military service the centerpiece of his campaign.
It has been said that in the worst of times, Kissinger gave orders to the military not to obey Nixon if he ordered a first strike. What if Bush were to fall off the wagon? Then what? Has America really faced the fact that we have an alcoholic as our president?
Right, that would certainly be a first.
The rest of her ideas are even less substantial.
Or maybe it will be Texas National Guardsmen for Truth, who can explain exactly what George W. Bush was doing while John Kerry was putting his life on the line. So far, all W. can do is come up with dental records to prove that he met his obligations.
All he can do is prove he met his obligations? Well gosh, that's incriminating. This attack is pretty stale by now, and the Democrats have hardly been "too nice" to drag it out over and over.
Or could it be George Bush's Former Female Friends for Truth. A forthcoming book by Kitty Kelly raises questions about whether the president has practiced what he preaches on the issue of abortion.
I'd love to hear some stories from the girlfriends John Kerry had in the 1980s before he even bothered to divorce his first wife.
Are you shocked? Not fair? Who said anything about fair? Remember President Dukakis? He was very fair. Now he teaches at Northeastern University.
Who? I remember a Governor Dukakis.
The arrogant little Republican boys who have been strutting around New York this week, claiming that they have this one won, would do well to take a step back. It could be a long and ugly road to November.
Oh brother. "Little Republican boys"? Gee, that's so demeaning. Last I checked there are plenty of "little Republican girls" who support the President as well, but maybe Ms. Estrich doesn't think they're important?
It must be sad and frustrating to constantly fall onto the wrong side of history, but throwing a temper tantrum isn't going to make it better.
I don't really think this little diatribe falls under the heading "Desperate Times for Kerry".
A more fitting title would include something about Susan Estrich... since you seem to be harping more on her than Kerry this time.
I read Estrich's pitiful little article earlier. Desperation can be a beautiful thing, can't it?
Considering the tone of Zell Miller's speech, it can be argued that it is the Bush campaign that is desperate.
JT: Not with a double-digit lead, they're not. (I know, I know; polls are, well...polls).
MW: Glad others are noticing this girl's columns. I read it in Newsmax the day it came out, and this lady's writing absolutely personifies the attitude I see in the Kerry campaign. It's almost like she's re-living her own failed campaign in '88.
Mark: MW's in good company. I wrote about her too, and I titled it with Kerry's name. She seems to be a good barometer for how camp Kerry's acting and reacting.
I think it's funny that polls now mean something to most of you anti-Kerry folks now that Bush has the lead in them.... but back when they were dead-even, they didn't mean anything... like when MW and others were predicting a landslide win for Bush, etc.
Mark: Did you read?
(Quoting myself): "Not with a double-digit lead, they're not. >>>(I know, I know; polls are, well...polls)".
I believe polls are unreliable in predicting anything long-term, that's why I disclaimered my own comment. The recent polling data does suggest, however, that camp Bush is anything but desperate, which is the only thing I was leaning on the polling for.
Cheers.
Jim,
The 11-point lead came after the convention. Prior to the convention, Bush was trailing in many polls. So, I continue to think Zell was called to service out of desperation.
The lastest Zogby poll has Bush leading 46-44. Zogby has had a pretty good record in polling.
JT: You may be right, but I suppose we might not never know. I'm not saying politicians are always honest (or dishonest), but what I saw out of Miller the other night was good old fashioned military anger (it's one of those things that's hard to forget). He seems to genuinely be dissapointed in his own party.
Besides, it would be political suicide to come on like that unless He really had a good reason.
Also, I think people expected Bush to be trailing in polls for awhile...he's been painted as a dunce and a liar in TV adds for almost the last year.
Between the Swiftboat vets warring with Kerry, some recent terrorist attacks around the world, and the substance of parts of the Republican convention resonating with a lot of people, I think that maybe some undecideds are starting to decide.
As for us "anti-Kerry folks" and polls, I concur with Jim. Bush neck and neck with Kerry, Kerry ahead of Bush, Bush ahead of Kerry...whatever. I hate polls but I did post about the latest ones on my blog Friday simply because I want to enjoy it while it lasts. The race is going to get more contentious. Unlike Bush, Kerry is no gentleman, and I'm sure he'll continue calling the sitting president "unfit for command" in the middle of a war. Real classy.
JP: Yeah, you're probably not the person my comment was aimed at. And yes, I did read your comment.
Here's a picture of Susan Estrich (from the Country Store blog) that I think would go well with the reading of her article.
http://www.countrystore.blogspot.com/2004_08_29_countrystore_archive.html#109430619435119805
Having browsed a fair bit of your site now, I believe can make out some sort of strategy on your part MW.
Let me ask you: why do you always pick out the most idiotic arguments to counter? If there is an issue on which Left and Right disagree, you will seemingly seek the most moronic proponent of the Left's position, dispatch him/her with ease, leaving the final result of you (seemingly) having dealt with the issue, and dealt with it decisively. The lady in this article is clearly grasping at straws. Her entire article is clearly nothing more than conjecture. Why do you give this such prominence? I'd personally just ignore it. A similar tactic is deployed by yourself and Reed on evolution. Why do you never discuss the views of people like Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Michael Albert et al., people with half a brain?
You also seem to selectively choose sources which back up your personal views while engaging in 'intentional ignorance'. One example of this is your argument for abortion. Your steadfast foundation for abortion being wrong is a judgement passed by a single court in South Dakota I believe. This judgement is clearly correct since it agrees with your personal views on abortion, yet court judgements which go the other way are wrong because they do not.
This is how it seems to me.
Trep: I don't try to pick the most idiotic, I try to pick the most prominent -- I pick the arguments people are actually using. Do you even know who Susan Estrich is? Her position on Kerry's campaign is quite important and quite representative of many establishment Democrats. I agree that she's grasping at straws, which is why I pointed it out.
Noam Chomsky is a blowhard whose linguistic contributions are being rejected, even aside from his loony political nonsense. I pay attention to the people worth paying attention to, the people contributing to the mainstream debate, the people who are heard by those I'm trying to convince.
As for abortion, I didn't point you to the SD decision as a form of authority, as you seem to believe for some reason. I pointed you to the article I linked to in the post about the SD court decision.
The way "it" seems to you is based on either your intentional or accidental misunderstanding.
OK charges withdrawn (for now) =P
'Noam Chomsky is a blowhard whose linguistic contributions are being rejected, even aside from his loony political nonsense. I pay attention to the people worth paying attention to, the people contributing to the mainstream debate, the people who are heard by those I'm trying to convince.'
Fobbing me off with ad hominem attacks is pretty lame. How is the correctness (or otherwise) of his linguistic work of any relevance to his political views? You accuse of him of 'loony political nonsense' yet do not discuss a single thing he has written about. Why do you repeatedly make statements with no argument to back them up? This isn't a poster for a political rally.
Also why do you only choose to denegrate him? Of course this is necessary for ad hominem attacks, but he remains one of the foremost human rights campaigners of modern times.
'I pay attention to the people worth paying attention to, the people contributing to the mainstream debate'
This correctness of this statement is not immediately obvious to me. Where do new ideas come from if you enforce this restriction? Galileo wasn't mainstream. Albert Einstein wasn't mainstream. Quantum mechanics wasn't mainstream. Even Jesus wasn't mainstream. Just because they're not towing the official line, it doesn't mean they're not right or worth listening to.
Trep: Sorry, I didn't figure it was even worth my time trotting our arguments about Chomsky. He's an evil, despicable person. He's a fascist/communist who's done more to undermine world prosperity and civil liberties than just about any other intellectual I can think of. I thought this was pretty well-known, but if not then I can point you to this article as a primer.
Plus, we aren't talking about "new ideas" in this case, I was simply pointing to Estrich as a source for my assertion that Kerry's campaign is desperate and collapsing. That assertion depends solely on the mindsets of the influential Democrats that make up the party establishment. If some other minor person has a different view, it doesn't really matter, because they aren't in the establishment and won't affect what Kerry does.
'Do you even know who Susan Estrich is?'
Heh, 'Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign manager in 1988'. I also googled her, which yielded links to other sites which mentioned her. Your demographic for this site is surely the more thoughtful members of the public, all of who will easily be able to tell that she is just spouting off. That is why I questioned the prominence. Anyways, it doesn't matter. Forget I said anything.
Ignore my other posts please MW. Let's just stick to politics, something I know a bit about. Is there a word for someone who voices opinion on subjects they nothing about? Anyways: I did have to laugh at the article you directed me to.
The thing that first bothered me about the article is that at no point do they quote from the great man himself. I am reasonably familiar with his work and feel sure that they do not, because they cannot quote. Since none of the abuse they level at him is true. Let me continue on another post.
Ignore the 'don't quote form him bit', I am still reading the article! Heh. teach me to post early won't it?
OK I have read the article through, and there is quite a lot there. Would you be prepared to give the time and space to discuss this in some detail, since the devil is in the detail (as always)? I know you say he is not mainstream and do not therefore consider him important, but I'd very much like to say a few things. Also you mentioned this is a primer: is it sufficiently representative of most arguments against Chomsky? That is, if I can refute what Horowitz is saying, will I have swayed you at least some way from the portrayal of Chomsky which is given?
'Trep: But part of the point of banners is to piss people off'
OK, if that's all you see in it then fine.
Well even if you don't read what I have to say, would it be OK if I put up several long posts about the article? Maybe others will find it illuminating?
Quickly found an article which disputes Horowitz. Not too detailed, but certinaly enough to warn of unquestioningly accepting Horowitz. I can do more detail than he bothers with if required.
Here's the link to that article.
'Plus, we aren't talking about "new ideas" in this case'
Yeah, all the examples I gave were of new ideas weren't they. Let me give another example. Supression of ideas and propaganda. Everyone knows propaganda, North Koreans more than most. The mainstream idea there is that Kim Jong Il is god. Clearly I would be slapped down (to put it mildly) if I suggested anything contrary to the mainstream version. But I would still be correct. So you cannot a priori assume that there is a positive correlation between popularity and truthfulness. An idea could be new, it be supressed etc. This of course matters for nothing if you are only/mainly interested in swaying Democrats (if I haven't misunderstood you).
One last post! For those of you interested in the other side of the story Under The Same Sun is a pretty OK site. Obviously there are loads of others. Let me know if you're interested in any more.