PLEASE PASS THE PUKE

Monday 9/29/2003 8:34:02 AM

The news in the CNN/Gallup post-debate poll is not as gruesome as portrayed, but it's still pretty bad.

Because Arnold has had a completely free ride on radio and television, we've got no choice except to use paid media to get out the news about him. More about that below, but first the poll:

1. The widely reported landslide 63% YES number is based on a turnout projection which, if wrong, makes a mockery of the results. Gallup claims a 4% margin of error for its subsample of 581 adults deemed most likely to vote. However, if the sample itself is skewed, these results are not accurate within any margin of error.

2. The results within the randomly selected sample are much closer (55% Yes) and reflect an improvement for Davis since the August poll by the same organization, which showed the recall passing by 64%.

3. The Schwarzenegger vs Bustamante race is within six points among registered voters, exactly the combined Huffington+Camejo Naderish dream-wrecking total.

4. The poll was conducted Thursday through Saturday, a brief time window that may have introduced some sampling error by failing to interview enough "hard to reach" respondents. Most pollsters would prefer to interview Mon-Thu.

Still, the results are bad. Taken together with the widely leaked CTA poll, they seem to say that even with an all-out GOTV by the Dems, the recall would pass narrowly and that Bustamante would lose by the amount of votes sucked away by Huffington and Camejo.

Huffington has a lot to answer for here. She dominated the debate in a way that seemed to force Californians to choose between Arnold and her, and it's obvious what their choice was. Then that idiot Camejo got up and ran his mouth, sucking even more of the air out of the room. This left a few minutes for Bustamante to discuss the issues in a reasonable way that essentially went unnoticed.

As I predicted in August, all of the major dailies except the San Diego Tribune are urging a NO vote on the recall. These endorsements were published after the CNN/Gallup poll.

The only way to win this is to drive up The Big Guy's negatives hard and fast, creating uncertainty and doubt.

1. The recall election is bad for California. The leading replacement candidate is an illegal immigrant who should have been deported for violating the terms of his visa. California's governor should be a person of high moral character. But Arnold Schwarzenegger bragged about locker room gang bangs and caught a venereal disease.

2. The governor should be independent. But Arnold Schwarzenegger took $7 million from oil companies, card rooms, landlords and huge corporations. After cheating the immigration laws and becoming a citizen, he has failed to use his citizenship rights and didn't even vote in a dozen elections. No wonder he doesn't know anything about state government; if you don't vote, you don't need to know anything.

3. The governor should represent all Californians. But Arnold Schwarzenegger thinks holding a woman upside down in a toilet bowl is fun. "How often do you get to do that," he asked. California's mothers and daughters deserve better than this. Schwarzenegger doesn't respect women, and he doesn't respect the immigration laws.

The Big Guy's a whoremaster, and I don't see why we don't say so. He should be lumped with all the other lowlifes who crawl out from under the linoleum when you have a recall. Voters are still divided on the wisdom of the recall, and, if they begin to question Arnold enough, will vote against it.

GET OUT GREENS

A private poll cited by Matier and Ross in the Chron has Bustamante seven points behind The Big Guy.

And what are Huffington and Camejo drawing away from the Democrats?

Exactly seven points.

The GOP is ready to hang McClintock with piano wire, but nobody in our party says one goddamn word about these treacherous Naderish scabs, who rat on everything they profess to believe in every time they open their mouths.

ARNOLD RESPECTS WOMEN. NOT.

The woman Team Big Guy produces to prove that Schwarzenegger only holds women upside down over toilet bowls when they get out of line is named Bonnie Reiss.

Trouble is, she is on Team Big Guy's payroll. And she works for California card clubs and Nevada gambling joints in direct competition with the Indian casinos.

Republicans can't stand for Democrats to have money. We are supposed to sit back and take it while they flood the airwaves with saturation propaganda. The tribes put Cruz Bustamante in contention; they made it a halfway fair fight.

On another matter, I hate Arianna Huffington. The votes that will go to her are coming right out of Bustamante's pocket. I don't object to her running against Arnold, and I have to admit she has scored some points, but I do object to her supporting the recall of Davis, running against Cruz, and slamming the Tribes. There are three ways to beat Arnold:

1. Beat the recall
2. Elect Cruz
3. Push Schwarzenegger down into third place, where he belongs.

Huffington isn't helping with any of these. The Tribes are helping with all three.

During the debate, Huffington served the useful purpose of dramatizing The Big Guy's dismissive attitude toward women.

Pop Quiz: Who said this?

"How many times do you get away with this, to take a woman, grab her upside down, and bury her face in a toilet bowl? I wanted to have something floating in there," the magazine quoted him as saying this year. "The thing is, you can do it, because in the end, I didn't do it to a woman; she's a machine! We could get away with it without being crucified by who-knows-what group."

1. Alan Alda
2. Bob Dole
3. Gray Davis
4. None of the Above

A TALE OF TWO DEBATES

Because I personally believe Arianna Huffington should be held upside down in a toilet bowl, I find little to criticize in The Big Guy's debate performance. He's dangerously uniformed about state government, but we knew that.

Arnold's problem, as is so often the case, was in the post-debate spin. He got beat by the man who wasn't there, Gray Davis. As I have said from the beginning, the burden of proof in the recall is on the proponents, and they haven't met it yet.

The new prominence of wino-hirer Darrell Issa should provide Davis with a convenient villain to wind up the No Campaign with. GOP Car thief hires winos to subvert election...I like it, sort of rolls right off the tongue.

The Big Guy, after becoming a politician four weeks ago, is already , hack-like, talking out of the side of his mouth, pretending he's James Carville or somebody.

Wesley Clark did better in his maiden debate because, unlike Arnold, he's willing to crack a book now and then.

'Crisp, "forceful, with an air of military command, and 50 times more specific than Schwarzenegger despite holes in his platform," Gen. Clark easily spun back a
mischief-making GOP press release out during the Democratic debate last night pointing out that Clark had said kind things about Bush during the early days of his administration. As it turns out, the Bush he was praising was the victor of Desert Storm. In any event, I don't think we let the author of GOP news releases define what a good Democrat is.

This morning, Holy Joe Lieberman, who votes with the GOP a third of the time, followed up on the Rep's attack, accusing Clark of not being a really loyal Democrat such as he apparently imagines himself to be.

Showing the Clark Campaign is no longer suffering from indecision, Mark Fabriani shot back immediately correctly calling Lieberman's campaign, "increasingly desperate."

The truth is, any sane political party is always glad to attract star athletes.

Never accused of being soft on the GOP, Harry Truman asked Ike to run as a Democrat twice.

Although critical of Clark for previously voting for Republicans, John Kerry himself floated a rumor that he and Republican Senator John McCain would run on the same ticket. Plus, he's married to one, just as GOP poster boy Arnold is married to a Democrat.

The Republican Party has never regretted accepting former Democrat Ronald Reagan into its ranks.

Millions of Democrats--Wesley Clark among them-- gave landslide victories to Nixon and Reagan. If they see themselves in him and move back our way....well, you do the math.

BETTER TO BE LUCKY THAN SMART

LIBERAL ADVANTAGE IN NH A MYTH

According the Newsweek Poll, Clark is winning everywhere. If this poll were weighted for propensity to vote and if the Democratic sample were larger, Clark would not be necessarily on top of the field. Still, it's a nice start, and Clark's moderate politics will play better in the early primaries than generally thought.

Newsweek polled about 1001 adults. Of these, I'm guessing about 700 were registered voters and fewer than 300 were Democrats. Had these numbers been screened further to exclude unlikely voters, the sample sizes would be smaller still. It would be nice if Newsweek would publish a bit more detail about its methods. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the margin of error for the Democratic choice is much larger than the 3% claimed for the study as a whole.

But Clark won, and it's better to be lucky than smart. This poll, averaged with the two most recent polls from Gallup/CNN and ABC/Washington Post, puts Clark in double digits for sure. Like Ike, Clark’s been none too sure what political party he belongs to, and his policy positions are still murky. But it is clear he will campaign as a centrist.

What do Clark’s middle-of-the-road politics mean for his chances in the NH Primary? Do liberals always beat centrists in NH? No. On the contrary, center-right Democrats usually win. This is not a question, as the NYT's Robin Toner frames it, of "heads ruling hearts;" most NH dems are closer to the center than the left.

In 2000, Al Gore beat Tom Bradley.

In 1992, Paul Tsongas and Bill Clinton—conservatives both--got more than half of the vote against a field that included liberals Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown.

In 1988, the "pro-business" Michael Dukakis beat Gephardt, Harkin, Simon, Babbitt and Hart.

In 1980, in the clearest matchup between liberal and conservative, an embattled Jimmy Carter beat NH neighbor Ted Kennedy.

In 1976, Carter edged out a liberal field that included Mo Udall, Bayh (the elder) and Fred Harris.

Even in 1972, the more conservative Muskie beat George McGovern.

True, liberals are the party’s shock troops.They walk precincts, raise money, organize the grass roots. So Democratic primary candidates tilt leftward to woo contributions and campaign workers, not votes.

Among the many factors goosing Clark's popularity among Dems, my favorite is this one from Rush Limbaugh : "Clintonesque Clark: Sock Puppet of Bill and / or Hillary Clinton"

Dems of every political stripe agree on one thing: If Limbaugh is against Clark and Clinton is for him, then I'm with Clinton. So keep talkin', you Nazi slug.

STUMBLING OUT OF THE GATE

Clark got his fourth star not only by being good at giving orders but by being good at taking them. Right now, his campaign is managing itself.

Clark is personally to blame for his current difficulties If he is as quick a study as he is supposed to be, he will realize this and not blame his advisers for what came out of his own mouth.

He should simply say, everyone who watches television knows what my position on the Iraq War is. The real issue is not what I would have hypothetically done if, hypothetically, I had been a hypothetical U.S. senator. I'm not running for senator. The real isssue is the commander in chief. We need a new one.

The temptation to go to the mattresses for a few days to figure out policy positions should be resisted. The only big decision Clark has to make is to obey his campaign manager.

There's a war on, and the General needs to stay out there firing at George Bush. By now, at least, he knows what campaign consultants mean by "staying on message."

HOW SOON THEY FORGET

The Clark firestorm is such that it made a television news organization forget the name of the front-runner in Iowa:

Clark is already polling ahead of Graham, according to the latest Zogby Poll, though he remains behind front-runners John Kerry, Tom Daschle and Howard Dean.

One is accustomed to seeing errors in reporting or interpreting poll numbers, but they usually spell the candidates' names right.

The TV dudes even seem to have gotten the pollsters name wrong, since the most recent data comes from Gallup/CNN and ABC/Washington Post, not Zogby.

Averaging the two polls, both concluded last week, shows Dean, Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman in a statistical tie.

The top four candidates draw an average of 14.9% from Democratic voters.

Edwards, Graham, Kucinich, Mosely-Braun are also tied, drawing 4.4% of the vote.

Clark, at 8%, is poised either to drop back into the bottom tier, or to crash into the ranks of the leaders.

SLICK WILLY KNOWS HOW

Bill Clinton is our resident expert on how to beat the Bush family at the election game. His support for Clark, even more overt than Bush's support for Schwarzenegger, is based on very simple arithmetic: the Democrats need Southerners and moderates in order to win the election (see map, above).

To do this, our nominee has to be inoculated against GOP puke-bucket politics.

In 1988, the GOP smeared Dukakis as a liberal. They won.

In 2000, they smeared Gore as a liar. They won.

But when the 2004 campaign story is written, Wesley Clark will be known as The Man They Couldn't Smear. Clark's moderate views and his history of voting for both Democrats and Republicans will protect him from the issue-based attacks used to strip away Michael Dukakis's early 17-point lead. And GOP character-based smears will fail because an attack on Wesley Clark is an attack not only on a decorated war hero, but on the U.S. Army itself.

Those who criticize Clark must explain why the Army--perhaps the most respected institution in America--again and again chose to commend and elevate Clark at every step of the way.

Only two U.S. presidents in this century, Carter and Eisenhower, graduated from one of the U.S. military academies. Clark would be the third member of this elite club. Whatever they feels about his politics, Americans will see in Clark the embodiment of the ideals of duty and honor that are taught at West Point.

Those who attack Wesley Clark's character need to explain how West Point, which graduated him first in its class of 1966, failed to note these supposed flaws.

Like Carter and Eisenhower, Clark will appeal to voters looking for unquestioned integrity. Clark's long career includes no drunk-driving arrests, sex scandals, or "youthful indiscretions."

Clark's youthful indiscretion got him wounded in four places and a Silver Star.

George Bush is a helluva mudslinger; just ask Ann Richards. But he lacks the moral character to be commander-in-chief and Wesley Clark's candidacy will make that clear.

HURRICANE WESLEY

Gallup finds an astonishing level of confidence in the U.S. military, far and away our most respected institution.

Trust and integrity are two big reasons why the brilliant telegenic four-star general Wesley Clark looks ready to sweep all the pieces off the table.

Clark himself believes he will be president. He has the strongest sense of mission of any candidate in either party.

He also caught a huge break from the 9th Circuit, which, unless it reverses its own three-judge panel, has effectively killed off the Calif. recall story just in time for his announcement.

RECALL DIGRESSION: Even if the Oct. 7 date comes back on, I think the drama is mostly out of the recall campaign. Pretty hard to escape the conclusion that a recall election has got to be the worst possible way to choose a governor. Opposition to the recall itself--quite apart from who is being recalled--will likely grow as a result of the additional chaos and confusion brought on by the court decision.

This thing is an ugly mess and somebody has got to get blamed. I don't think attacks on the "liberals" will exonerate the GOP. My choice for villain: Darrell Issa and his signature-gathering winos. "First he tried to steal cars. Then he tried to steal California. Tell him NO on...(can't finish the commercial until we know the date).

If there is more time, that benefits the from-hunger campaigns like McClintock's who need more time raise scratch. It hurts the ones with the largest burn-rate. And since every day away from the studio costs The Big Guy like 50 Gs a day in lost income, you have to wonder whether he even stays in, since I don't think it has turned out to be as much fun as he thought it would be. Simon says he might run, offered another chance. More of that famous GOP unity.

BACK TO THE IMPORTANT NEWS: The key to the Clark candidacy is how well he is able to exploit what should be a free media bonanza during the next four to eight weeks. If his poll numbers continue to climb this month and next, the money will follow and we've got ourselves a nominee.

Even a losing Clark effort would further erode G.W. Bush's reputation as commander-in-chief and soften him up for Dean or whichever Democrat beats Clark. At this point, however, I wouldn't bet a dirty nickel on Clark's losing.

Rank and file Dems, no less than the party leadership, want a winner. Since Bush is being propped up by one thing and one thing only--the belief that his macho policies have made us safer--how can he win if that advantage is neutralized? By trumpeting his wonderful economy?

The GOP isn't going to wait to start dishonoring Clark. There are plenty of Army officers who hate him and will speak on the record. But Clark will also have more support from within the military than any Democrat has had since forever. His remarkable bloodless victory in Kosovo looks better every day that another G.I. stops a bullet in Iraq.

There has been much speculation about who has the most to lose from a Clark candidacy. Is it John Kerry? Howard Dean? John Edwards? I save none of the above. I say George Bush has the most to lose from a Clark candidacy.

Interesting line of attack coming, I believe, from Team Ho-Ho, is that Clark has too many ex-Clinton, ex-Gore alums. They say that like that's a bad thing. Call me wacky, but if I am Clark, I will rather have those guys than, for example, former Dukakis or Mondale staffers.

Prediction: Former Kerry staffer Chris Lehane joins the Clark Campaign before Oct. 7.

Prediction: Al Gore endorses Clark before NH.

Nice gambit by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of TX. She has baited the moronic House Republicans into a brawl over French vs. Freedom Fries, and they grabbed at it. I say she put them in a clown suit.

A TALE OF TWO POLLS

A word to the wise guy: Gallup says that the current welcome sag in Bush numbers comes almost exclusively from GOP voters deserting him for an unnamed generic Democrat.

All by himself, Bush is bringing the Reagan Democrats back home.

What this should tell our party strategists is that there is more to life than GOTV, more to life than winning primaries, and more to life than "energizing the base."

God loved the Democrats; that's why he made so many. But conservatives outnumber liberals, so our base is not large enough to win with.

Without swing voters, we don't win. They are already prepared to vote for a Dem; the trick is to nominate one who won't give them reasons not to. This does not mean GOP Lite, but it does mean a candidate whose positions are not wildly out of alignment with public opinion.

Winning elections requires throwing rocks, so we need a candidate who does not live in a glass house. In Wesley Clark, we may have exactly that. And despite Ho-Ho's current travails, I think the GOP may find it hard to put a glove on him. I am more and more convinced that Rove's famous "Heh, heh. That's the guy we want" remark about Dean may have been a head fake. I'm not sure he knows how to run against him.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup did indeed find Wesley Clark roaring into contention, even before his announcement. Apologies to Judy Woodruff for assuming she can't read.

In a survey completed last Wednesday, Clark is in a statistical tie for second place, narrowly behind Dick Gephardt. The sample is smallish and the margin of error at least 4.5%, but at the lowest end of the margin of error, he has bested all of the second tier and more than doubled his August numbers.



CANDIDATE Sep 9-10 Aug 25-26
Dick Gephardt 16 13
Howard Dean 14 12
Joe Lieberman 13 23
John Kerry 12 10
Wesley Clark 10 2


So who do like this morning for the 2004 ticket? Clark-Dean.

VOTER JOB REVIEW: BUSH, YOU STINK

Is Clark already in double digits?

That's what Judy Woodruff said yesterday. If true, it's pretty damned big news, since every previous poll shows him, including Gallup's most recent, at 2-3 percent. I suspect she misspoke.

The main story was about Bush's job ratings circling the drain. This appears to be true; an average of three August and September polls by Gallup, ABC and Zogby shows:




Approve Disapprove


Sept. 51 46

Aug. 57 41



I think Clark would like to be Sec. of Def., if he can't be the boss, so he has been careful not to speak ill of any Democrats who might be in a position to appoint him, even including that rabbit-punching doctor from Vermont.

All I know is, Bill Clinton is up to something. Actually I know what he is up to--it's beatinggeorgebush--but I'm not sure how he plans to do it.

Meanwhile, he's headed to a black church in LA to help Gray Davis bring the Democrats home. This week's Field Poll found the recall losing among nonwhites, but only by a narrow 51-49 margin. Latinos, Blacks and Asian/Other make up 27% of the Field sample. The No Campaign is doing better, 54-46, among voters with a postgraduate education (27% of the sample) These two demographics are key not only to California Democrats but also to the 2004 ticket.

The replacement campaign is going to be nasty, with the three main contenders hurling airplane bags filled with hurl at each other. As the negatives of the possible replacements increase, support for the recall should drop.

Clinton stops at Tom Harkin's big bun-fight on Sat. before heading out here. ABC's The Note likes to make snide and unfunny jokes about the best president since FDR, but I gotta give 'em credit for this line:

Bill Clinton to come to Iowa this Saturday to give one of his biggest political speeches since he left the White House (scheduled for 45 minutes!!!) in front of the Senator's annual steak fry with his supporters from all over the state on a farm near his hometown of Indianola.

If the weather is nice, we predict the speech will last for a buck 20 minutes.

Hey, pal. That's a buck tree eighty to you. Either way, fahgitaboutit. Gonna be a monstah.

For readers of tea leaves: Clinton pal Chuck Rangel is for Clark.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The Al Gore endorsement, when it comes, is going to matter. A lot.

FINNEGAN'S WAKE

The LA Times' own reporter Michael Finnegan needs practice in reading its own polls.

A far better analysis from the same large newspaper comes from the polling staff, but AP chose the shorter inaccurate summary.

False Claim #1: Support for the recall is "virtually unchanged." Not true. The race is now a statistical dead heat; in the August poll, the Yes side had a slight lead, outside the margin of error. The numbers are 50-47 today compared to 50-45 two weeks back.

False Claim #2 Shifts in candidate approval are "at or near the margin of error." Nonsense. There's a huge difference between within the margin of error and not within the margin of error. That's why networks say "too close to call" or "we are projecting that..."

False Claim #3 Latinos support the recall because they support Bustamante. I didn't see any cross-tabs that say this. And Cruz himself is getting only half of the Latinos. Won't they be surprised when he gives Calif. back to Mexico (per that wacky watermelon-huntin' bastard-begetting adulterer, Rep. Dan Burton, R-Lunatic Ward).

The truth: Bustamante's support has dropped, Schwarzenegger's is unchanged, and McClintock's has skyrocketed. Arnold's image ratio has improved slightly, as has Gray Davis's, but the most dramatic moves are Mclintock, who goes from 1.5:1 to 2:1, and Bustamante, who is headed toiletward. Hint: Look for three-point differences. That's what significant means.

4. There is significant support for the recall among Latinos. This is not Bustamante voters pulling for Davis to lose, although there is probably some of that. I think these voters are just as likely to be Arnold guys pulling for Steroid Boy. Mainly, they are just angry Mexican-Americans, nearly always first in line to get screwed over by a bad economy and lookin' to blame somebody.

5. High-turnout voters, esp. those over 45, oppose the recall. On the other hand, GOP voters make up a slightly disproportionate share of the likely voters.

6. Five combined points for Huffington and Camejo--hey, thanks a whole bunch, you pigs. Cruz could use those votes, but down deep your "liberal" greens like rich white ladies better than sons of farmworkers. Enjoy hell, you bastards.

HO-HO'S GOT MOJO

Howard Dean has the New Yorker's ability to push to the head of a line and make you believe he really was in front of you all along.

The latest Dean-Clark ticket rumor is a great example. What the hell happened to Clark-Dean?

But that's just the kinda guy Howard is.

He did the same thing with Bob Graham, which contributed to the continuing impression that the Democrat with the best electoral base and the best resume is somehow "less than" Howard Dean. When Dean claimed he was the only candidate who had served as governor of state, the Graham Campaign shot back that former Gov. Graham had created more jobs in Florida than there are people in Vermont. Nice jab, but how come their guy is at about 1 percent?

The reason is, Howard Dean just plain sucks the air of the room everywhere he goes. And it's not just with granola voters around college towns; he's been knocking them dead at SEIU and in D.C, where he just grabbed the lion's share of city council member endorsements.

And in TN, Dean whomped the field in a straw poll, getting more votes than Gephardt, Edwards and Kerry combined.

The ritual beating by the national press corps has started--a compliment, because it's rare for a Dem to be taken seriously this early--and I think the Doc's doing just fine.

I'm for getting this thing over with and letting Dean get his hands on Junior.

In the recall race, conservatives are asking the obvious question not asked by Mervin Field:

If Republicans are so worried about party unity, why doesn't Arnold get out? McClintock is far more qualified and a more reliable GOP vote, they correctly observe.

Speaking of spolisports, Arianna Huffington, I-Perfidious, says she might get out if it looks close at the end. And if, presumably, she thinks she's slimed Davis and Bustamante sufficiently. Don't forget, she had lots of practice attacking Feinstein, so it comes naturally to her to try to destroy our party.

I saw some movie actress on the tube describing the halitotic Huffington as a "good Democrat." Yeah, right. Just like Richard Perle.

CLINTON HAS A DOG IN THIS FIGHT

The biggest news today is not Ueberroth's exit from the Calif. race, nor the results of the new Field Poll.

It is Bill Clinton's blessing of former NATO commander General Wesley Clark as a Democratic Party star.

The slightest word from Pres. Clinton resonates loudly with all Democrats from top elected officials to the rank-and-file. For example, the Dean Campaign really got its sea legs only after Clinton warned Kerry, the DLC and others away from attacking him too much by saying, "they should see what a good job he did as Governor of Vermont."

It appears that an even more enthusiastic blessing is the in the works for Clark. The risk-averse and media savvy general may well have delayed his announcement while the terms of Clinton support were negotiated.

If Hillary were to put her donor list at the disposal of Clark, this would explain the general's otherwise puzzling comment that fundraising "would not be a problem." The only other explanation--that Clark is stupid, and thinks campaign contributions grow on trees--is hard to swallow. This is not Tommy Franks were talking about here, but Wesley Clark, first in class at West Point and a Rhodes scholar.

If this comes to pass, it will represent the first brokered nomination since 1968. With a close ally running the DNC, and a probable Clark endorsement by Al Gore, Clinton is in position to deliver the nomination to Clark and to a win-hungry political party. The Democratic nomination process is in the hands of elected and party officials--the super delegates--as never before.

Obviously, Clark would have to win some primaries, but, with cash in hand, tit is far from unlikely that he will.

Clark at the top of the ticket is the very best way the Democrats can fully inoculate themselves against dog-wagging by a White House that has shown itself extraordinarily willing to exploit terrorism and war for everything from campaign contributions to poll numbers.

Potential running mates abound, among them Dean, Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

A MILLION MAILERS MARCH

One of my three readers has asked me to tell the other two that the following advertisers are sponsoring Rush Limbaugh's appearance on ESPN:

ESPN Advertisers-First Rush Limbaugh air 9/7/03
Old Spice Screen Gems Columbia Pictures
Circuit City Office Depot Bridgestone Tires
989 Sports Citgo McDonalds
Jaguar Ford Underarmour
Lee Jeans Wrangler Chevron
Visa Coors Lincoln Financial
Neutrogena AT&T Wireless NCAA.org


I do not include email addresses because surely if you can find beatinggeorgebush.blogspot.com, you can also find the Chevron web site.

Limbaugh is a grotesque extremist who should never be allowed mainstream status without protest. He is a member in good standing of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

The idea that some kind of right-wing conspiracy was behind the Clintons' troubles has almost become a laugh line in American public life, but ...[Sid Blumenthal's Clinton Wars shows that] it was a big smear campaign funded by a few well-heeled right-wing zealots, aided by Newt Gingrich and several of his Republican Party cronies.

We allowed "vast right-wing conspiracy" to become the stuff of late-night comics. The right time to jump stink is the first time you smell it, but we let this one get away. It is not the fault of the media that the facts about the vast right-wing conspiracy are not known; it is the fault of Democratic Party PR, which failed to harnass the grass roots.

We need a million e-mailers march.

A million letters to the editor, a million letters to advertisers, a million letters to station managers and a million letters to Congress would change things, and--with email--wouldn't require grass roots Democrats even to buy stamps.

What is vitally needed is a feedback mechanism. Like most of my recommendations, this one is borrowed from a successful conservative model.In this case, the idea comes from the National Right to Life Committee. Volunteers were given two postcards. The first postcard was to be sent to a local legislator (with a constituent zip code in the return address); the second was to be sent back to the headquarters. Each month, letter-writers received a thank you and a tally of the number of cards that had been sent. Knowing that they were not alone, participants were ready to do the same thing the next month.

With email and electronic data bases, this is even easier to do today. However, what is important is will, not technology. Anti-abortion activists transformed the Republican Party Platform. They caused two presidents, Reagan and Bush, to completely reverse their support for therapeutic abortion. And they did it with ball-point pens and 3x5 index cards.

The Right to Life movement started with a handful of people with no money and grew to become the shock troops of the GOP. Like Castro, who began with fewer than 12 men, any movement can shake the world if it believes in its purpose and if its members are sufficiently resolute.

NAILING THEIR FEET TO THE FLOOR

The anti-Bush vote increased again this week. We are within striking distance.

Since the GOP has the money to hire the best campaign consultants in America, we would do well to look at their tactics and emulate them. Successful GOP campaigns almost always have three elements in common:

1. Deny Democratic access to money. During the Civil War, General Sheridan set the Shenandoah Valley on fire in order to enlist the forces of famine and want on behalf of the Union cause. Similarly, the attacks on Cruz Bustamante's finance base, like those on Clinton-Gore fundraising, are designed to starve our campaigns of life-giving resources. Without TV advertising, the Bustamante Campaign will melt. And without money, there will be no TV commercials.

2. Energize the GOP base, esp. gun-toting white males, with a view toward producing disproportionate participation by these voters. Gun ownership is a white-hot button that both pushes swing voters to the right and drags GOP votes out of the trees. Ironically, the "too-liberal" Gov. Dean, an NRA member, may turn out to be the MOST electable Democrat because of his relative insulation on this issue.

3. Appeal to swing voters with issues that Dems cannot easily appropriate. The plausible-sounding tort reform plank of the Contract with America is an example. The Dems could not co-opt this issue without alienating its trial lawyer contributor base.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich nailed our feet to the floor. Now is the time to return the favor.

Averaging the three latest polls, the vote-against Bush number has increased to 38.5%, while the vote-for number is 33.5%

Bush is still winning the head-to-head matchups, but much of this is simply because he is better known than his Democratic opponents. Against a candidate who enjoys the same kind of name recognition--Hillary Clinton--the vote is a statistical tie:

Bush 50
Clinton 47

One way to break this tie is to get more Democrats to the polls. This only works, however, if they remember to vote Democratic. For this reason, it is essential not only to rally the faithful, but also to convert the wobbly.

Here is one way to do it:

In California, a Democratic Legislature just sent a bill to Gray Davis banning the sale of soft drinks in elementary schools. He signed it. This would not have happened if the Reps were running thing. We need to let some people know.

GOP-controlled school boards and legislatures cannot support fruit juice and milk instead of coke and root beer, even though the idea is popular with parents and swing voters. That's because when there is a collision between corporate interests and the interests of children, Republicans have to protect their contributor base.

On the federal level, Bush's handpicked Education Secretary signed a deal that gave the Houston schools a soft drink sales quota. In exchange for agreeing to push soda pop, the schools received substantial donations from Coca Cola. These deals are common throughout the land. One Texas school even rented its roof for use as a Dr. Pepper billboard, large enough to be seen by planes landing at Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport.

Meanwhile, thanks to the GOP's blind embrace of big business, kids consume roughly twice as much sugary soda as milk. Twenty years ago, the ratio was reversed: kids drank twice as much milk as liquid candy. Not coincidentally, obesity and tooth decay among young people has gone up significantly during the same period.

This issue is easy to understand. Unlike, for example, prescription drugs, it is not easily obfuscated. Want schools to help your kids rot their teeth? Just vote Republican.

In 1988, Lee Atwater made Dukakis pay for positions he wouldn't or couldn't squirm away from. The most deadly attacks were those on prisoner furloughs, a small but easily understood issue similar in scope to the coke machines in schools issue.

This year, it's the GOP who has its feet nailed to the floor on an unpopular issue. We should make them pay at the polls.

ART TORRES WHERE IS YOUR MELON, DUDE?

Screw Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment.

Rule Number One for every Democrat is

Don't talk trash about another Democrat

A battle line has been drawn and the whore Huffington, as stated here earlier, is on the wrong side. So is Joe Lieberman, for sliming Howard Dean while others such as John Kerry and Dick Gephardt wisely directed their fire at G. W. Bush.

We are on a roll here; let's not screw it up. Either a NO Recall Vote or a YES Bustamante vote will represent a gigantic kick in Karl Rove's teeth. And he needs his teeth kicked in, in case you've forgotten.

In fairness to Torres, his comment was a tactical insight, spoken out of the corner of his mouth, campaign consultant-style. But it was not reported that way.

"I just think he opened himself up to a line of attack that he didn't need to," Torres said, adding that the donation still appeared to be legal.

"He didn't need those headaches."

This is real simple. Team Big Guy takes money from The Irvine Company, which owns 1/5 of Orange County. They turn down gifts from the odd misguided labor union.

Davis and Bush raise money from unions and Native Americans, hardly an over-privileged group.

Two candidates (and I predict the lying trollop Huffington will be next, despite her denials) have written SEVEN-FIGURE CHECKS to try to beat Cruz.

The Native Americans who run casinos in California deserve every penny they've earned, and they are fully entitled to give some of it to another poor boy made good named Bustamante.

Without money from the tribes, Bustamante would be defenseless against the inevitable GOP smears.

Arnold's friends at The Irvine Company own 1/5 of Orange County, and, no doubt, a good chuck of Sen. Ross Johnson, R-Irvine, who is suing to keep Cruz from using the money that is lawfully his to spend. According to these guys, only Republicans are allowed to compete in the LA media market.

If you're worried about election law loopholes, worry about the one that makes it okay for grossly unqualified action figures to try to buy their own state.

Torres, please reaffirm your support for Bustamante, loud and clear.

PARTY UNITY BY PATRICK

Nice think piece by Pat the Brawler discussing the effect of intraparty fights on the general election. Without spending much time on his own three divisive attacks on the GOP, Buchanan traces the history of such contests back to Teddy Roosevelt's 3rd party assault on Taft.

I make no apology for citing Buchanan or other right-wingers. Respect your opponent, and learn from him, or, in the case of Bey Buchanan, her. I even agree with Tom McClintock about one thing (see below).

Brief Pat the Brawler summary: Intraparty battles are bad for the party that wages them.

Examples: Truman, Johnson, Ford and Bush Sr. all came to a bad end after taking a whipping in NH. Carter, in trouble already in 1980, needed the Kennedy challenge like a case of psoriasis.

On the other hand, a vigorous intraparty battle sometimes produces the best candidate, esp. for the out-of-power party. The catch is, the party really needs to bury the hatchet, fast.

Kennedy made a monkey out of HHH in the primaries and then bested LBJ at the convention. The choice of LBJ was unpalatable, but obviously wise, and Kennedy did it. Reagan, after beating Bush, showed similar wisdom in choosing the hated "liberal" to join him on the ticket.

On the contrary, Goldwater, McGovern and Mondale made no attempt to reach out to the rest of the party and faced crushing general election defeats. I have no doubt that Goldwater-Rockefeller, McGovern-Humphrey and Mondale-Hart tickets all would have fared better than what happened in the event.

Indeed, Gore-Bradley would probably have won as well, if only by squeezing the Nader vote down. Of course, I believe Gore would have won with almost any running mate other than that putz Lieberman.

While speculation about Dean's running mate should probably be deferred until we've had at least one election--as State Sen. McClintock says, I'm old-fashioned enough to think we should have a campaign first, then let the voters decide--there is little doubt that what Dean needs on his campaign team, and ultimately on his ticket, are party regulars whose presence will reassure those whose full and active support is needed to win.

The Anybody But Dean forces include not only those who honestly believe we need a different nominee, which is an honorable reason to oppose him, but also those who don't want him in control of the Democratic Party because his number is not in their Palm Pilots. This is a base and ignoble motive for opposing Dean, but politics is not always filled with nice people, and the Doc needs to get some of these wheelhorse types on his fast-moving train.

I think Dean can win the general election just as he appears to be winning the nomination, by beating on George Bush like an old carpet. But it won't be any day at the beach.

Maybe somebody can stop Dean--John Kerry produced some nice visuals again today--but whatever, let's get this thing wrapped up by St. Patrick's Day.

A DOLLAR SHORT AND A DAY LATE

The progression of John Kerry's polling numbers relative to those of John Dean should have stirred the Massachusetts senator to action long before now.

As early as 7/4/03 it was clear that the Kerry Campaign was in trouble. The NBC/Wall St. Journal poll, confirmed by Gallup and others, showed Kerry transforming a 17-3 May lead to a statistical tie just two months later.

Still, the campaign smugly sat on its millions and watched Dean clean its clock.

Crane Brinton's Anatomy of Revolution describes as one of the inevitable stages of any insurgency a late and ineffective attempted counterrevolution. We are in that stage now.

Kerry's sole slender hope is that the amorphous Anybody But Dean movement will choose him as their standard-bearer.

Kerry is an unlikely centrist. Ironically, he is further to the left than Dean on most measurable issues. And while this hasn't helped him with young suburban liberals, it will hurt him with the more conservative electorate in SC, where he is now reduced to looking a firewall.

I hate to see John Kerry go. But we need to unify the party around one candidate and he ain't it.

A lot of effort has gone into making stupid and ill-informed comparisons between Dean and McGovern, the war hero who should have been president instead of the criminal Nixon. A more apt comparison might between Dean's spectacular fundraising and George W. Bush's well-financed "invisible primary," during which he forced out nearly all of his early competition even before the first ballots were cast.

Dean has the money, the brains and the crowds. Personally, while I worry some about the foreign policy dimension of the Dean campaign, I think it's possible that he will give George Bush all he can handle, just as he has done with John Kerry. With early support from the out-of-work Clinton-Gore defense and diplomatic team, Dean can wrap himself in expertise just as the far less qualified George W. Bush did.

The trick is for the Anybody But Dean crowd to get wise to itself. Either beat the guy, or shut up and support him.