Bush is beginning to sound desperate

President can't control news from Iraq

ANALYSIS

By Howard Fineman

MSNBC contributor

Updated: 4:50 p.m. ET Oct. 7, 2004ST. LOUIS - George Bush's real political enemy now isn't so much John Kerry as it is the flow of the news. Not long ago, Kerry's decision to attack the president as commander-in-chief (remember all those Swift Boat vets in Boston?) was dismissed by analysts (including me) as na?ve at best, folly at worst. Well, it may turn out to have been the move that wins this race.

 

Presidential campaigns take on a life and shape of their own in the last stretch and this one now has. It's the president desperately trying to tear down Kerry as the news tears down the president. Good things are happening in the war on terrorism ? the voting in Afghanistan, for example ? but they are all but unnoticed in the rising flood of stories from and about Iraq.

 

As things now stand, Bush is left with only one argument and justification for having launched a war that has cost 1,000 lives, $150 billion and whatever goodwill America had won in the aftermath of 9/11. His last-resort reason: Saddam Hussein might have developed weapons that he might have given to terrorists that might attack the United States. And even that reasoning is undermined by the new report of the Iraq Survey Group, which says that Saddam's capacities, whatever they might have been, were withering, not "gathering," under the weight of inspections.

 

We now know to a relative certainty that there were no WMD, no relationship with al-Qaida to speak of, no close ties to other major terrorists, and that, in the view of Paul Bremer ? Bush's own man in Baghdad and a fellow Yalie ? the Bush administration pretty much botched the occupation.

 

One new poll out shows that half the American people now think the war in Iraq was a mistake; as that number rises, and it will, Bush's fortunes will decline, as they are now doing. History shows that only one challenger in modern times has been behind in the AP poll on Labor Day and come back to win. That challenger was Ronald Reagan. Now Kerry is no Reagan, not by a long shot. But if people conclude that Bush was profoundly wrong to have gone to Iraq, Kerry doesn't have to be Reagan.

 

This campaign so far has been almost exclusively, increasingly, about the war in Iraq. On one level, Kerry's "position" is a contradictory bundle of confusion. He says the war was a mistake, but he's the guy calling for a gung-ho strategy in Fallujah to root out terrorist nests. As the president has pointed out, Kerry is claiming he can win the support of allies even as he dismisses the contributions of existing ones and calls the entire war a diversion ? and even as France and Germany already have said that they aren't going to rally to our side if Kerry wins. But if the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, Kerry's "vision" ? or lack of it ? matters less.

 

Many observers have said the Bush team was too smart by half in insisting that the first debate be about foreign policy and defense ? that is, Iraq. I am told that this wasn't done out of arrogance or ignorance; it was done that way in part to leave them plenty of time to repair any damage if Bush screwed up. But the problem is that the White House isn't really in control of events. They can wheel in d*** Cheney to make the case for "pre-emptive war" better than the president did ? but they can't control what goes in Iraq, or, just as important, the media coverage of what goes on in Iraq.

 

Cheney won the veep debate on style points ? he was suitably grave and grown up ? but as the event fades into obscurity it's clear that John Edwards did what he had to do: Remind voters again and again that Iraq is a flat-out mess.

 

The focus on Iraq is harmful to the president for another, less obvious reason: It keeps him from shoring up his weaknesses on domestic issues. Most polls show the Democrats and Kerry leading on the most important of those issues: health care. Bush needs to be fighting on that turf. He was planning to do just that in Pennsylvania this week, in a speech about medical malpractice in Wilkes-Barre. But that speech was scrapped in favor of an all-out attack job on Kerry. The switch was revealing and, for Bush, ominous.

 

The second and third presidential debates will shift the focus ? the second, part way to domestic matters; the third, all the way. Bush's aim will be to paint Kerry as an unpalatable liberal who accumulated nothing but bad Big Government ideas during his 19 years in the Senate. Kerry will answer, essentially, "I'm a Democrat." In normal times that would not be a good enough answer, but if the tide of dissatisfaction with Bush as commander-in-chief rises high enough, being a Democrat ? in other words not George Bush ? may be good enough.

 

Howard Fineman is Newsweek?s chief political correspondent and an NBC News analyst.

That sums up nicely what tonyi has been trying to do and the position Bush is now in. Are you even voting for Badnarik tonyi?

THe Iraq issue has become so muddled and opaque as a result of both sides' constant spin that there isn't any traction to be had by either side in the demographic that matters the most....The undecided.

 

Look at the results of the first debate. I would think that Kerry's performance (or Bush's lack thereof) would of been much more influential than any degredation of Bush's Iraq stance, and yet it had a marginal impact at best electorally.

and yet it had a marginal impact at best electorally.

586139[/snapback]

 

On the contrary. Check out electoral-vote.com, and compare the current numbers to what they were before the debate. There was an obvious swing, one of about 40 electoral votes.

and yet it had a marginal impact at best electorally.

586139[/snapback]

 

On the contrary. Check out electoral-vote.com, and compare the current numbers to what they were before the debate. There was an obvious swing, one of about 40 electoral votes.

586148[/snapback]

 

Instead, how about you check out any poll conducted by a credible news service and/or polling institution.

and yet it had a marginal impact at best electorally.

586139[/snapback]

 

On the contrary. Check out electoral-vote.com, and compare the current numbers to what they were before the debate. There was an obvious swing, one of about 40 electoral votes.

586148[/snapback]

 

Instead, how about you check out any poll conducted by a credible news service and/or polling institution.

586155[/snapback]

 

It uses the polls that you speak of and just puts it on a map and adds up the electoral votes for the state. Go on the webpage, it tells you what poll it is using right there. Most are American research group and Gallup.

www.electoral-vote.com is plenty factual/credible, FF.

 

Except for their projected outcome!?

www.electoral-vote.com is plenty factual/credible, FF.

 

Except for their projected outcome!?

586158[/snapback]

 

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but yeah, I don't know whats up the the prediction, says Nader will get more votes than Bush... but for current information I think it is as good as you'll get. I don't see any other site with a map like that, that uses the polls.

I stand corrected....Kind of.

 

I didn't properly convey context in that I was referring more to what I anticipated would be a massive swing in both electoral and popular voting after such a one-sided debate.

 

My point soley was that it wasn't nearly commensurate of a shift in relation to how badly Bush performed. As examples, look at Dukakis in 88 or Gore in 2000. Massive swings in response to much less significant disparities in performance and/or presentation.

 

But I'm big enough to admit a possible error in one of my massivly impressive and intellectually perfect posts. Once in awhile. :whistle

I stand corrected....Kind of.

 

I didn't properly convey context in that I was referring more to what I anticipated would be a massive swing in both electoral and popular voting after such a one-sided debate.

 

My point soley was that it wasn't nearly commensurate of a shift in relation to how badly Bush performed. As examples, look at Dukakis in 88 or Gore in 2000. Massive swings in response to much less significant disparities in performance and/or presentation.

586161[/snapback]

 

But unlike those years most people already know who they are going to vote for and nothing is going to change it. Unless one of the guys come out and say something really in poor taste the only people who will change are the undecideds, which are not THAT great in number. And it shows just how close many state races are sine only a small shift in the popular vote polls still lead to about a 40 electoral shift in those polls. And Bush was suppose to be the great uniter....

Wait, as I recall fish fillet, you were one of the people saying there would be no swing:

 

 

Kerry just can't get any traction on Bush in likeability and trustworthiness.

 

Two things I've come to recognize after last night.

 

1)It's Bush's to lose

 

2) Performing better than Bush (like last night) isn't going to help Kerry in the slightest.

 

 

 

http://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...topic=32118&hl=

 

Fact is that people, for whatever reason, like Bush. And thier fondness of him trumps Kerry's refinement all day long

Now you think there should have been a massive swing?

btw, all the sites use the same polls..gallup etc. In September, this website and race2004 had Kerry getting clobbered. They are unbiased.

btw, all the sites use the same polls..gallup etc. In September, this website and race2004 had Kerry getting clobbered. They are unbiased.

586173[/snapback]

 

Wow right now race2004 has a big difference than electoral-vote.

btw, all the sites use the same polls..gallup etc. In September, this website and race2004 had Kerry getting clobbered. They are unbiased.

586173[/snapback]

 

Wow right now race2004 has a big difference than electoral-vote.

586176[/snapback]

 

Youre right. They both use the same ones but assess differently. I think race2004 averages polls and electoral vote uses the newest ones. Electoral vote has changed how it does it a few times. Also, electoral vote is just whoever leads, no swing states really or very small. race2004 is more likely to make a state undecided.

btw, all the sites use the same polls..gallup etc. In September, this website and race2004 had Kerry getting clobbered. They are unbiased.

586173[/snapback]

 

Wow right now race2004 has a big difference than electoral-vote.

586176[/snapback]

Well, while both sites do a good service, the guy who runs electoral-vote is definitely biased to the left--have you read some of the stuff he/she writes? Currently he talks about bush possibly using a radio receiver device during the debate.

 

He also tends to cherry pick polls...recently i saw a polling company had done a poll of registered voters and one of likely voters at the same time in ohio. The likely voters poll had bush up by a few points, while the registered voter polls had kerry up by a few. he went with the registered voters poll. According to the stuff he writes, it seems he prefers polls of RV over LV (wonder why?).

 

imo that site's electoral tally is not credible. The other ones look fair, though.

btw, all the sites use the same polls..gallup etc. In September, this website and race2004 had Kerry getting clobbered. They are unbiased.

586173[/snapback]

 

Wow right now race2004 has a big difference than electoral-vote.

586176[/snapback]

Well, while both sites do a good service, the guy who runs electoral-vote is definitely biased to the left--have you read some of the stuff he/she writes? Currently he talks about bush possibly using a radio receiver device during the debate.

 

He also tends to cherry pick polls...recently i saw a polling company had done a poll of registered voters and one of likely voters at the same time in ohio. The likely voters poll had bush up by a few points, while the registered voter polls had kerry up by a few. he went with the registered voters poll. According to the stuff he writes, it seems he prefers polls of RV over LV (wonder why?).

 

imo that site's electoral tally is not credible. The other ones look fair, though.

586198[/snapback]

 

Well from what I can tell, they both seem to blog against Bush.

 

I never really considered it though in terms of one cherry picking or not. The primary reason is that in mid September, they both had Kerry not doing pretty well, so I just as well assumed. Its weird on how to choose polls. There are so many coming out all the time.