Good news and pathetic news

[ProSense]

Celeste Pikey, a 60-year-old disabled retiree and lifelong Republican from Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, illustrates the party's problems.

``The Republicans used to be for the people,'' said Pikey, a poll participant who spoke in a follow-up interview. ``They're not for the people anymore,'' she said, citing Republicans' handling of health care and the war in Iraq.

Unhappiness with Bush is so pervasive that 49 percent of registered voters say they would vote for Massachusetts Senator John Kerry if the 2004 presidential election were held today, to 39 percent who say they would vote for the president. Pikey, who backed Bush in the last two elections, says she would now vote for Kerry.

Overall the poll shows the president's approval rating at 39 percent, statistically unchanged from 38 percent in January.

The poll of 1,357 adults, including 1,234 registered voters, was conducted April 8 to 11 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aQMbbEisDy5c

Pathetic news, WH taking Kerry's statements out of context:

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): "When I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security...." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10174)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): "(W)ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060412-8.html

Georgetown 2003 (Best anti-war speech):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=77407&mesg_id=77407


Ocober 9, 2002 was also a great statement (I reread this speech it's fascinating):

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Kerry has said the WMD intelligence was manipulated, but always maintained that the threat was not imminent. In terms of Bush's lie, I could see Kerry focusing on this. In terms of Kerry's vote, I could see the MSM focusing on the WMD. The question is why isn't the media focused on the fact that the threat wasn't imminent?



More pathetic news: it appears the GOP's strategy is try to divide and conquer. After the piece in the nation, comes this press release:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20060413/pl_usnw/rnc_response_to_howard_dean_s_misguided_attacks315_xml



edited for grammar.

[TayTay]

1. I don't sense the same media gullibility this time.

Those talking points from Rethug Central are awful. The actually point to an intelligent reconsideration of the facts as the situation on the ground changed. Kerry's initial comments on Saddam Hussein and his thirst for WMD are not inaccurate, but his opinion changed as the facts became known.

The WH is slipping. This is the worst 'attack' ever. It doens't resonate at all. In fact, I liked seeing all the quotes.

[karynnj]

2. They really are having fun taking things out of context

What's strange in Kerry's case, they make the case that he was deceived by their lies (or at least not able to completely rule them out -which would have been impossible before the inspectors were in.) It's out of context in that they mention none of his reservations or their own promises.

The point is that neither a Governor of Vermont or a Junior Senator from Massachusetts had an intelligence agency reporting to them. No one in the Senate had the information Bush did and Kerry who was not on the intelligence committee didn't get the information that made Graham vote against it

It's also funny that they are also making the case we've made that Howard Dean before the war was every bit as concerned about Hussain as Kerry - as Kerry said, he just didn't have to vote. I believe that both Kerry and Dean spoke against the war before it started. If Dean and Kerry jointly pointed out the Bush lies and promises about the course he would take, this could be a unifying moment for Dean and Kerry.

A joint statement emphasizing that before the war, based on all the information from the inspectors, they spoke against going to war could change the focus from the vote in October to the action decided by Bush alone in March. As a bonus, it could quell some of the intra-party fighting started when Dean used Kerry's vote to appeal to the part of the party that anyone would have thought would be Kerry's. (Dean's action being standard politics)

[WildEyedLiberal]

3. I hate to tell that lady...

... Republicans were NEVER "for the people." Ever. Sorry sweetie.

[TayTay]

4. Yeah, but large numbers of them were deceived into thinking this

It's nice to see people coming back to the fold.

49% for Kerry today, eh, and 39% for the Idiot. Well, still not the best, but it's better than it was. People are slow to admit they made a big mistake.

[ProSense]

5. I said it was good news, as in a positive sign

not a miracle. LOL!

[TayTay]

8. You did. I just get inpatient sometimes.

Why, oh why can't the greater world see what I see. Why can't someone die and make me the Queen of all Knowledge so I can impart this wisdom to all I see? (Okay, I have thought about being the Queen of all Knowledge, but it's not in the cards for me.)

[ProSense]

9. .

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[karynnj]

11. This also shows that the negative publicity

in 2004 and sense still hurts - there are a huge number of people not voting for either. I don't know if these are Bush people who still don't see themselves voting Kerry or snarky liberals who are still mad at him - but who in reality would vote for him in a real election.

It's interesting because it's soon after his Iraq op-ed. He is higher than the last time they did this when both he and Bush were lower than the real election - and Kerry was slightly, but insignificantly ahead. The problem is that 2008 is not against Bush. Though the Democrats need to tie whoever the candidate is to Bush. (Oddly this might be hardest with Romney - in which case we try to convince the country we allow the state which knows the 2 men best to decide.)

[JohnKleeb]

7. They are so

"for the people who look like Mr. Pennybags from Monopoly" she didn't complete her sentance.

[wisteria]

6. Your right, the Republican strategy is pathetic. It is nothing but

creative editing to justify the lies of the President.

The other poll news is bitter sweet. I hope these poll numbers now for Senator Kerry translate into votes in 2008 if he runs.

[sandnsea]

10. Sadly, the out of context stuff

Isn't just used by the White House and the right.

We'll never win that argument until the entire party starts quoting what BUSH said in 2002, and that's that the vote was NOT a vote for war, but was to enable him to keep the peace. BUSH said he had no plans to go to war, when we now know that he did, he was lying. Since he had plans to go to war, we can also conclude that he had no intention of allowing diplomacy to work or going as a last resort. But as long as the meme is Democrats "voted for the war", then what Bush said in 2002 becomes irrelevant.

In my mind, THAT is the greatest blunder of the campaign. That should have been the first thing they reframed, what BUSH said about the vote and war in 2002.

[karynnj]

12. I really think Kerry and Dean should jointly

respond to this in exactly that way. It's important that Dean, who didn't have to vote, admits that before the inspectors were in that he DID say those things - because Bush lied to everyone. It also was much clearer in March 2003 than it was in Oct 2002 that Saddam was not a threat. (Several months ago Richard Cohen (WP) quoted his own early 2003 columns to say the Senators should have known because of El Baridai's report in (I think) February - he absolutely seemed to forget the vote was 5 months earlier.) Focusing on the real timeline is never too late.

I agree they should have reframed it - but it would have required the Deaniacs and the rabid anti-war people to focus on the truth.

[Dr Ron]

14. Unlikely to happen

"We'll never win that argument until the entire party starts quoting what BUSH said in 2002, and that's that the vote was NOT a vote for war,"

Unfortunately, it was Dean who initially did the Republicans work for them by claiming that the vote was a vote for war in order to attack Kerry in the primaries.

[Dr Ron]

13. Post on DNC attack on Dean

From The Democratic Daily--see original post for links:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2622

In follow-up to my recent post on Howard Dean’s call to release the documents on the mobile labs and WMD, the RNC has issued a response.

The RNC took several of Dean’s pre-war statements to claim hypocrisy, showing Dean believed there was WND prior to the war. Note that they do the same to Dean that they did to Kerry during the 2004 election–twisting statements to claim Dean supported going to war.

There is some justice here considering how Dean also did this to Kerry during the primaries. Such things during the primaries are to be expected, but far too many Dean supporters continue to falsely claim Kerry supported the war. Perhaps this will teach them that it only helps Republicans when such tactics are used.

In response to the RNC’s claims, the fact that Dean and Kerry were concerned about the presence of WMD prior to the war does not justify Bush’s actions. First of all, the belief that WMD was present was based upon intelligence reports which have been shown to have been distorted by the Bush administration. Dean’s call of the release of these papers is an effort to prove yet another case of Bush being dishonest in his report of the evidence.

Secondly. the belief that there was WMD did not justify going to war. War would have only been justified if there was evidence we were actually threatened by WMD. There was no need to go to war once the inspectors were allowed back into Iraq.

The fact that both Howard Dean and John Kerry were concerned about the threat of WMD disputes the common GOP claim that they would have been weak on defense. The Republicans can’t have it both ways–claiming that they are weak on defense and also supported going to war. Dean and Kerry would have responded to any proven threat of WMD, but not by going to war unnecessarily.


In my earlier post I did disagree with Dean on one point:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2620#comments

Can’t He Be Both?

Salon’s War Room reports on a private breakfast with Howard Dean in which Dean discussed his demand that the Bush administration declassify a Pentagon report that reportedly disproves President Bush’s claim that mobile labs found in Iraq were evidence of WMD:

“We are going to call for, probably today, the declassification of the report,” Dean said at a private steakhouse breakfast today with reporters. “Everybody can see what’s in that report, so everybody can make their own judgments about whether this president and this administration is incompetent or whether he was dishonest. It has to be one of the two.”

Incompetent or dishonest? I have to disagree with Howard Dean here–it doesn’t have to be just one of the two.