With 6 months to go, how's the race for
the White House shaping up?
by JohnHuang2
There is no denying the man has had a rocky couple of months. Terribly rocky. The news on Iraq has been dreadful. Book after book has hit the stands, accusing Bush of not concentrating enough on the terror threat before 9/11 and of concentrating too much on the terror threat after 9/11. Public hearings by the 'non-partisan' 9/11 commission, featuring such esteemed non-partisans as Richard (Osama) Ben-Veniste and Jamie Gorelick, had non-partisanly ruled the airwaves for weeks with charges that Bush, pre-9/11, was too inattentive to Richard Clark who urged preemptive war and, post-9/11, was too attentive to Paul Wolfowitz who urged pre-emptive war. To top it all, that Prime-Time press conference two weeks ago. Bush blew it -- he showed just how woefully out of touch he is with Noam Chomsky and the New York Times. The press -- neutral at all times, of course -- neutrally blasted Bush for refusing stubbornly, even after repeated opportunities, to apologize and take full responsibility for what Osama had done.
Nope, like I said, there is no denying the man has had a rocky couple of months. Terribly rocky. The man just can't seem to get a break. Did you see him on Good Morning America Monday? He looked awful. Host Charlie Gibson threw this question at him: "Senator (Kerry), you have said a number of times . . . as recently as Friday with the 'Los Angeles Times,' (that) . . . you did not throw away the Vietnam medals themselves. But now this interview from 1971 shows up in which you say that was the medals themselves that were thrown away." Kerry insisted he only threw ribbons, no medals. And that there's no controversy here and that the controversy was whipped up by "Republicans" and Republican surrogates, like the Boston Globe and ABC News. Gibson, reminding Kerry he was at that anti-war rally on the steps of the U.S. Capitol 33 years ago, took issue with Kerry's latest firmly-held version of events. "I saw you throw medals over the fence and we didn't find out until later..." No you didn't, Kerry shot back. Pressed further, Kerry eventually relented. Yes, he threw medals, after the ceremony, but those medals were not his, Kerry explained. They belonged to somebody else. Yep -- just like that SUV in his driveway.
Then, on Tuesday, came more news from Iraq. There were reports of heavy fighting in Fallujah and in the southern city of Najaf, with up to 64 Iraqi "insurgents" killed, raising the April death toll for Iraqi "insurgents" to well over 1,200. The news was more than heartbreaking for Kerry. (No word on whether the media plans public release of images of enemy war dead, fearing the damaging photos might portray the Great Satan as winning)
Clearly, Kerry's in trouble.
Don't take my word for it. Have you seen the polls? Two months ago, in a two-way match-up, Gallup pegged Kerry's support at 55 percent, Bush's at 43 percent. Then came the torrent of damaging news for Bush, which damaged Bush into a 5-point lead over Kerry, 51%-46. Or a 6-point lead, 50%-44, with anti-consumerism advocate Ralph Nader riding high at 4 percent. The Kerry camp, unable to blame the Supreme Court, blames the Kerry collapse on Bush and his $50 million ad campaign. (This is the same Bush whom Kerry says suffers a terrible "Credibility Gap" so wide that people believe everything Bush says about Kerry in campaign commercials). Bush's ads are to blame, say the Kerryites. Oh sure. And we're supposed to believe the Dan Rather-Peter Jennings-Tom Brokaw-Judy Woodruff $500 billion 'Iraq-Is-Vietnam' ad campaign against Bush had nothing to do with Kerry's drop in polls -- right? Yeah, right. Give me another one.
(To be fair, Kerry says the reason his poll numbers stink is because people just don't really know him yet. That getting to know him will take time. This is true. There's the Kerry who's for the war. There's the Kerry who's against the war. There's the Kerry who can't decide -- no doubt about it, getting to know all 3 Kerrys is going to take some time).
The steady stream of bad news for Bush has been nothing short of disastrous for Kerry, the presumptive Democrat sacrificial lamb, sucking the oxygen out of the Kerry campaign. All 2 or 3 molecules. Take the latest book, Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward. The book has rocked Washington with explosive revelation after revelation. High among the staggering disclosures are that Bush started planning to invade Iraq days after taking office -- oh wait, that's O'Neill's book. No, Woodward reveals that Bush started planning to invade Iraq days after 9/11. Oops, that's Clarke's book. No, even more shocking, Bush started planning to invade Iraq almost a year after taking office, weeks after toppling the Taliban and winning the war in Afghanistan, says Woodward. More mindboggling still, Bush wanted the war planning done in secret, rather than being prudent and making it public on Al-Jazeera, whose pro-al-Qaeda bias is so despicably blatant, you'd think you're watching CNN. (For the record, the Pentagon has stacks of 'just-in-case' plans to deal with any enemy. It's called contingency planning. Democrats were stunned to learn Saddam was an Enemy).
Scandalously, not only was Bush engaged in the reckless act of planning the war before launching the war, but Bush, accused of affiliation with a militant group called 'neo-cons', planned for war even while pursuing a diplomatic solution just in case diplomacy failed. (Bush had a back-up plan. OMG -- Bush is out of control! Get me a drink!)
But the baffling revelations didn't stop there. Other shocking disclosures in Woodward's book include information that the President has advisers, and that these advisers advise the President and that these advisers don't always agree on everything. And that the President makes the final call. (For Washington, the most striking disclosure in the book: Bush surrounds himself with advisers who have made a career of Saddam-bashing. Bush apparently tolerates this sort of behavior!)
Democrats, who accuse Bush of ceding too much power over U.S. foreign policy to . . . the U.S., have seized on the Woodward book as proof that Bush had planned for war all along. Democrats have also seized on news of violence in Iraq as proof that Bush had not planned for war enough. (Violence in a war zone. What a concept).
Meanwhile, the Washington Post, which accuses Bush of lacking skillful use of language, says the reason Bush remains popular and war support hasn't crumbled, even in the face of setbacks, is because of Bush's "skillful use of language." Dana Milbank reports that "With skillful use of language and images, President Bush and his aides have kept the American public from turning against the war in Iraq despite the swelling number of U.S. casualties there." (Hubby to wife: 'Martha, I would turn against the war and root for al-Qaeda if it weren't for Bush's skillful use of language.')
He adds that "Political strategists and public-opinion experts say a good part of this resilience of public support for Bush," whom the Washington Post says lacks basic oratory, "and the Iraq war," which the paper calls a Quagmire, "stems from the president's oratory." (Especially his oratory at that press conference, which the media called a debacle marking The End of support for Bush. *The End* has since been rescheduled, pending the next book!)
Experts say it all has to do with Bush's rhetoric. Specifically, the lack of nuance in his rhetoric. So, say experts, if Bush were to use more nuance -- in other words, talk more like Kerry -- Bush would be hurt and people would vote for Kerry who will give them all the nuance they don't want. (Are these experts brilliant, or what?)
But all this could turn on a dime, writes Milbank. "Though the administration's words and imagery have helped to keep a majority from turning against the war, strategists" -- you know, the guys who make a living off of being wrong -- say that majority could easily turn against the war "if Iraq's stability deteriorates further with the June 30 handover of power." (In other words, in Milbank's brilliant formulation, a majority could easily turn against the war if that majority finds out there is a war. Now why didn't I think of that?) "War support could also fall sharply if Kerry were to sharpen his criticism, as he did in a television ad last week," adds Milbank. So if Democrats want war support to "fall sharply," all they'd need do is put John Kerry on TV sharply criticizing the war. (Honey, quick! Wake up the kids! John Kerry protesting a war! That's never happened before!)
Ominously for Bush, "It is likely that Democrats' challenges to Bush on Iraq will grow more fierce," notes Milbank. (Democrats are set to scream really, really loud against the war on TV). "They have intensified (criticism) in recent weeks," he adds, citing Ted Kennedy's "speech earlier this month." (Ted Kennedy's speech did wonders for the anti-Iraq-war side. Although it caused support for war to swell, that's just temporary -- just you wait and see! People just need to get to know Ted Kennedy better. And his dazzling military strategy).
I hope I've made everything clear now ;-)
Anyway, that's...
My two cents.. "JohnHuang2"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~