meditations

A change in the weather

Spring is upon us here in Seattle, and everywhere there are signs of a new season. Not just in the blossoming of tulips, but in the entire climate of the country. Today Howard Fineman runs an article on MSNBC on Bush's crumbling support within his conservative base. Fineman has long been so reverent towards Bush that it's hard to expect him to generate any real criticism of the administration, and his article generally gives short shrift to Bush's real problems with the conservatives. For example, on our massive budget deficits (aptly described by Joseph Stiglitz as the worst fiscal policies in the history of the republic) Fineman says, "Believe it or not, there are conservative voters (and Americans generally) who care about the huge and growing federal deficits." Thanks for the heads up Howard! Still, that he would run this article at all, at this stage of the campaign, says a lot.

So too does a recent poll out of California, showing Bush's approval ratings there have fallen to 38 percent. It's worth reading the entire article, as some of the poll's subindices are even more striking; for example, even in conservative strongholds of the Central Valley and Southern California only 50% say they believe what the president says is true.

Unless Rove et al. can start bringing these numbers up, and fast, California will be completely uncompetitive in the election, meaning any time and money Bush spends there --- and he has to spend some, if only to help others on the Republican ticket and to satisfy major donors --- will be wasted. With $170 million raised they can afford the money, it's the time that's critical. Every day in California or New York (another large state where Bush is completely uncompetitive) is a day not in Florida or Ohio.

Wonder why the White House has seemed so tone deaf and off key lately? They've got problems, they know it, and they're scrambling to get ahead of a series of events, both present and future, which work against them.

The Elegance of Simplicity

Might it be that these folks are finally learning to play the game?

I've long been disappointed, if not outright critical, of the hyper-partisan left-wing of the democratic party. And when I say "long" I mean Loooooonnnnggg, going back to the loonies who thought George McGovern was a sensible candidate. It's this portion of the party that drove me to be a permanent independent.

Most of the time, MoveOn.org struck me as cut from this cloth: possibly right on the issues, but so strident and extreme they were never going to gain critical mass. But check out their latest campaign ad. It's one of the most powerful political ads I've ever seen, in large part because they don't yell or screech, they just let a senior member of the Clown Show hang himself.

It's a stunningly powerful ad. One which will go a long way to swerve undecideds and they should run it in every battleground state.

March Madness of a Different Kind

Some thoughts after seeing the first round of political ads:

It's shaping up to be a very strange political campaign, completely unlike anything before. While Rove, and before him Lee Atwater, are long time practitioners of the "slime and defend" strategy (particularly when the candidate is named Bush) it's never been practiced under these circumstances. This time they're running the campaign of a sitting president and are doing so at a point in the cycle which is unprecedented. One really has to wonder what is motivating these guys. While they have money to spend --- and there are few places extra cash burns a hole in your pocket faster than a political campaign --- they're running counter to almost every conventional wisdom of defending an incumbent.

By being so nakedly political, and so early, before most voters have formed their opinions, Rove et al. are risking, if not outright throwing away, their two biggest assets in this election: the power of incumbency and Bush's generally high marks for character which, deserved or not, are all he's got as his stands on almost every specific issue have polled poorly.

One has to wonder why the Republican machine is taking this approach. Whatever else you might think of them, these are exceptionally seasoned and disciplined political pros, armed to the teeth with devoted acolytes, lots of money and all the things that buys, in particular great IT and extensive polling. There are only three reasons I can think of:

1. It isn't really happening. It just seems that way to those of us who favor regime change. We live in a very divided country --- the only near precedent is the years before the Civil War, which is pretty scary... although any metaphor that would equate Shrub with Franklin Pierce has a certain attraction --- and Bush's message plays well in the red states and to his base nationally.
2. It's the law of unintended consequences from Bush/Cheney's fundraising orgy. They have the money, they want to spend it, and so every aspect of the campaign gets accelerated. That this particular administration is so out of touch only serves to increase their motivation here.
3. They're running scared and already have a sense of desperation.

Of course, these aren't mutually exclusive, but despite being a natural pessimist, I really think (3) is the driving factor. If you dig beneath the irrelevant "how does Bush match up with Kerry nationwide?" polls, there is a lot of evidence that in the real measures of the election Bush is not just behind, he's way behind. I'll be posting an analysis of the latest polls and the electoral vote consequences in a day or so. Come see what you think.

Slight confusion on the talking points

Caught a few of the Sunday morning "talking heads" shows, and it seems the election campaign is starting in full force. Both sides were out with their talking points in hand, crisp, focused, to the point and on message.

But I'm a little confused: one Republican spinner after another said, "John Kerry is one of the most liberal members of government, a far leftist." Then they said, "John Kerry is a waffler, he's on both sides of every issue."

Sorry, but how can you be both "at the extreme" and "on both sides of every issue"? Isn't that sort of a contradiction in terms?

Willie Horton had other commitments

It's only March, and already it's pretty obvious we are going to have a long, ugly Presidential campaign. There are a lot of reasons to believe the White House is running scared (more on this soon) and it doesn't take a political genius to see this is going to play out a lot like the '88 campaign.

The administration can't run on jobs and can barely run on the economy: consumer confidence has tanked in the last couple months, so "morning in America" ads are likely to backfire and make Bush seem out of touch with people's worries. Moreover, they can't run on most other issues because Bush's positions have consistently polled terribly. Bush himself, his character and response to 9-11, have done well, but (1) those numbers have also fallen significantly and (2) running on character is a pretty weak strategy when you havea four year record to defend.

What then to do with that $100 million burning a hole in your pocket? Go Negative! Ryan Lizza gives a preview of the newest Bush campaign ad, which accuses Kerry of coddling terrorists, as depicted by a "swarthy, somewhat sinister-looking man with darting eyes." Some wags are already calling this the "Muhammad Horton" spot.

Prediction: Not having seen the ad yet, it's hard to be sure, but this seems likely to flop badly. The basic rule of television is that your audience becomes more sophisticated over time and harder to manipulate. Nixon's Checkers speech is stunningly naive by present day standards, and it's hard to believe many people who don't already have it in for Kerry will fall for this. 1988 was a long time ago.

If team Bush goes negative, they give up the high ground of incumbency and also endanger the one real ace in his hand, the generally high marks people give him personally. This is going to be very interesting, and very ugly.