The Final Threat

The instances of systematic attempts to take voting rights away from Democrats, specifically minorities and vulnerable populations (like the elderly) in swing states, are growing into the proportions of a national strategy.

Is this how Bush wants to win? The same tainted way he won the last time?

This is so widespread and intense that the news media can't handle it. They still try to balance the GOPers organized attempts involving party officials with isolated instances of minor frauds and infractions by individuals on the Democratic side. Read Paul Krugman's New York Times column for the scoop.


The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Voting and Counting

A Fresh Start

Now that the Kerry-Edwards campaign has adopted the slogan A FRESH START FOR AMERICA, we thought we'd reprise our columns on the subject. This is the more recent one:


Now it begins in earnest, and it appears the Karl Rove lies and distraction machine has had its effect. It again becomes possible that the administration that presided over the most disastrous four years since World War II with the most profoundly destructive implications for the next fifty years, may be rewarded with another term.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign is fighting back with a clarity not seen since the primaries. But we return to our belief that the theme that could mean victory is simply FOR A FRESH START.

To energize the base and to win swing voters and inspire non-voters, we need to inspire emotionally while we make sense on the facts. We need to be positive at the same time as we relentlessly expose the damage that Bush has done, that must not be rewarded with four more years.

There is power in words, and these words---A FRESH START-are optimistic at the same time as they imply Bush's failure and the need to repudiate his administration. In themselves they do not attack anyone personally. Whether the implication is "throw the bums out" or a more neutral "time for a change," these three words say it.

Yet these words are primarily oriented towards the future.

They express what this campaign is already saying, especially since the Willy Horton Writ Large GOP convention. They don't concentrate on blame, yet the action required is crystal clear: for A FRESH START, vote for Kerry-Edwards.

If you are convinced this is an effective combination of words to use, it may be up to you to use them---in your letters to the editor, or any other communications you have in support of saving the future by getting Bush out of power. It may have to be a slogan, an idea that percolates up from a few individuals and possibly gets noticed by the campaign. But even if it doesn't, even if it clicks with one voter enough to earn one vote, it will have made an important contribution. Especially in a race which may be extremely close.

And here is what we said this past summer; not only here but in memos to various politicos, postings on the Kerry site and correspondence to move on.org:

Kerry-Edwards: A FRESH START Second Unsolicited Advisory to the Kerry Campaign


Media parrotheads are calling for a soundbite, a slogan, a defining blurb to come out of the Dem convention; without it, they say, Kerry can't ride the media waves to the presidency. Maybe, maybe not. But we do have a very simple image to suggest that could help. And it just might help win the election. It's simply this: A FRESH START. Not just the concept, which is said and implied in many ways now, but the exact words. There are many ways to say it, but most of the formulations have been overused or are too abstract: time for a change, a new day, a new America, etc.

But this is better. Why? Words matter, and these are good words. A FRESH START is fresh, it's more concrete and action-oriented. It has emotional resonance, connotations that are both exciting and warm. Break it down: A: An indefinite article. It doesn't directly blame. It doesn't start an argument immediately by claiming too much (such as "this candidate is THE perfect answer to make everything better," which puts a lot of people off.) FRESH: has good associations, to fresh food, fresh air---something brand new, untainted. Fresh air is bracing, so it's exciting. Fresh bread is warm.

FRESH is POSITIVE, in its literal meaning and its emotional message. But it also distinguishes from something that is not fresh, that's old, that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Something that's fresh doesn't directly imply a change from something that's stale or decaying, but it is the desired alternative to something stale or decaying. It has associations of health, of flavor, that it will FEEL GOOD. START is an action word. Start your engines! It is exactly paired with FRESH in its music. The literal meaning of A FRESH START has everything to do with now and the future.

FRESH is immediate. START implies action that goes on into the future. But of course it won't work just because the words are good. The words have to be right: they have to convey the right message succinctly and dramatically. And A FRESH START does just that.

All the polls show that the American electorate is clearly heartsick over the Iraq prison scandals and the Bush handling of the Iraq war. They know the reasons given for the war weren't true, and they suspect they were lies. Bush's credibility is in shambles. The public has soured on his economic policies, his leadership, the total bill of goods he sold. They've seen enough of the corruption, the crude rule of the Haliburtons, the political extremism. They are ready to repudiate him and his administration. BUT he is still the president, and Americans are still in harms way in war zones. This presents difficulties for some voters. How can they get rid of Bush without appearing to be one of the haters, or even unpatriotic?

The answer is: A FRESH START. It repudiates the past without laying blame. It honors the tradition: when people in power make serious mistakes, it's time to give the job to someone else. Everybody understands that. It doesn't have to be personal. It just means A FRESH START.

This is a way for making Bush accountable without being negative. As such, it is event-proof. Bush deserves to be replaced for what has already happened on his watch. He doesn't deserve to be rewarded, and he can't be trusted with the job. It does several other things for the Kerry-Edwards ticket specifically. It allows them to be positive, which is especially important for Edwards.

A FRESH START is entirely future-oriented. It expresses a lot about the foreign policy objective of repairing our alliances and relations with other nations, as well as about domestic policies of new approaches to health care, education and the economy, and environmental and energy policies.

In all cases, A FRESH START means new people with new policies. This is especially potent on relations with other countries. Everyone understands that Bush can't repair the relationships he and his people so arrogantly destroyed. It will take somebody new to credibly say, let's forget about the recent past---let's start over. That's just common sense. But perhaps its strongest point is that it communicates new leadership even more than new policies. Republicans will argue about what Kerry supported or didn't support, and they will ask exactly what he will do differently in Iraq, and it will all get contentious and, for many, abstruse and over-complicated.

But you can't argue with the meaning of A FRESH START. It means a new president who is markedly different from the old president, and does not have the baggage of that past.

But of course it works equally well on issues (like health care) that are based on a new policy direction or different approaches. And for those predisposed to want a different direction, and those who want Kerry to bring a different direction, they will read all of that into A FRESH START. A FRESH START allows Kerry to be the candidate of change and hope. A FRESH START appeals to the Democratic base: those who want nothing more than to get rid of Bush. But it can also appeal to independents ready to jump who are troubled, if not appalled. To those who are almost ready to hold Bush accountable for mistakes, regardless of how they feel generally about his policies or his personality.

But the real key is that it can also appeal to OTHER INDEPENDENTS AND EVEN REPUBLICANS who need a nudge to use the secrecy of their ballot to vote for A FRESH START, for somebody new, without the emotional turmoil of admitting they were wrong to back Bush, or without the appearance of being disloyal to their party or ideology or religious congregation.

A FRESH START doesn't require anyone to admit that they fault Bush specifically. They might fault others in his administration. They may not fault anyone---they just want all this bad stuff to go away, and they're afraid that with Bush it could continue. They don't want to see the awful pictures and terrible headlines. They want it all to be over, but they don't want to appear disloyal to a president in wartime. A FRESH START is unthreatening language. It is optimistic, forward-looking, and very American.

A FRESH START works even for those who don't really believe that a change in administration will make much of a difference. But at least it will be a change, a chance that things will be better. Even when people are afraid to criticize, they can be persuaded by the sensible American idea that if things aren't going well, it's time to give somebody else a chance. That A FRESH START is a good idea, is something a great many people can agree on.

A FRESH START is a tag line to be used relentlessly until everyone knows it, until comedians are making jokes about it. But it is also a concept around which the candidate can build positions, and can show his personality. It turns the fact that many Americans are just starting to know Kerry into an advantage---he is new and therefore fresh, and imagery can reinforce this naturally by showing his family, his friends, his background---all new to the public.

When FDR was first elected, Will Rogers commented that if he had simply burned the White House down, the country would have cheered and said, at least he got a fire started. The electorate isn't that desperate yet. But there is a layer of something like desperation, and certainly deep dissatisfaction and disquiet, that is ready to be tapped. How do you do it without forcing anyone to feel guilty? How do you overcome the fear of change? Just a nudge might do it, just three words: A FRESH START.

Finally, we note that A FRESH START FOR AMERICA is not only the banner over the rally crowd or on the front of the lecturn, but Kerry and Edwards both used it in the debates, speaking of a fresh start on Iraq, and recently Kerry has applied it to a fresh start on health care.

Non-Plussed

It comes as no surprise that our society is overspecialized. But when it comes to understanding real life, and making informed decisions on political decisions which will affect many aspects of many lives--our jobs, health and well-being, whether children live or die, how our limited time on earth will be spent---we need more than a single limited purview.

Everyone is talking (everyone says) about Ron Suskind's article in the New York Times Magazine which basically says that Bush doesn't listen to facts, doesn't question or analyze, and often denies reality; instead he is guided by what he sometimes calls faith, sometimes calls instinct, sometimes intuition. Suskind further says that he draws certainty from doing this, and it is this sense of certainty that attract a great many people (apart from those who believe as a matter of fundamentalist faith that Bush was sent by God and so everything he does is divinely ordained.)

But the political pundits can't handle it. It's not in the policy purview. Charlie Rose interviewed Suskind, and often was debating him on the touchy subject of being guided by faith, or a Messanic impulse. He kept saying weren't other presidents guided by faith. He just didn't get that this president substitutes what he thinks is the guidance of faith for any other sort of decision-making process. And the absolutism of the conclusions are stunning. But this is too outside the usual political talk for Charlie to quite comprehend it.

Chris Matthews had the same problem, but with him it was worse, because when he "interviewed" Suskind, he obviously hadn't even read the article (just knew everybody was talking about it.) So he talked more than Suskind, throwing out his prejudices as to why Suskind was wrong. He just couldn't accomodate that kind of information.

Now we think even Suskind didn't go far enough in his analysis, but who could blame him? If he had taken the next logical step and thought about the psychology of this, he wouldn't even get on TV let alone be published in the Times Magazine. No, for that you'll have to go blogging.
Try this on for size:

BLUE VOICE

We aren't sure this is the correct analysis but it's pretty interesting.

A Different October Surprise

Sometimes it starts with just a peep here and there. A small story at the bottom of the page, an item one blog picks up. That's what's happening with the story of the CIA report, completed weeks ago, that "names names" in analyzing preparadness and response on 9-11. Why hasn't it been released? the stories ask. Why is it being held back until after the election? Shouldn't we see it now?

So the solitary cries become a chorus. Meanwhile an unnamed CIA guy makes the CNN ticker with the leak that the report is damaging to Bush. There's a war of unknown ferocity going on between the White House and the CIA. A number of damaging reports have already been leaked. Could this one be far behind?

Would it suddenly appear on the front page of a major newspaper, say ten days from now?
Maybe it's the CIA's October Surprise.

Score One for the Net

Sinclair television's plan to air a 42 minute anti-Kerry commercial disguised as a documentary has run up against the solid wall of the Internet.

Our activist brother discovered the power when he was able to post an alert on the Kerry.com website, having grabbed the company's address and phone numbers from its website, and a list of the TV stations it owned across America from a page posted by the Columbia Journalism Review. Two minutes of googling, five more of blogging, and a front was opened to attack Sinclair with protests, with calls to local stations, and especially calls to their advertisers.

The bigger and more powerful blogs like kos, atrios, marshall's talking points memo, mahablog and others were on the case within hours. Most detailed lists of stations and some with their advertisers appeared. People reading these sites and blogs who lived in the Sinclair cities started calling. Others got involved, including members of Congress and some activists with money.

Advertisers starting pulling out: the number is now up to at least 80. Local stations were weeping, because this is their revenue stream. Law suits started. Sharesholders started to protest. The news director of the Sinclair Washington station came out publicly against the order to show the anti-Kerry ad, and he was fired.

But all of this made Wall Street nervous. Sinclair stock began to tank. Sinclair losts an estimated $100 million in revenue.

Now Sinclair has announced it is not airing this "documentary," but its own news program examining the influence of documentaries, blah blah. No one exactly believes them, so the pressure is still on. But to avoid a lawsuit by Media Matters, they have stated flatly that they won't air it. Meanwhile, the folks who made the award-winning "Going Up River" docu on Kerry, mostly positive, have partnered with one of those money guys, and offered to buy time to show it on all Sinclair stations.

This has happened in the space of about ten days.

Score one for the Internet.

The Surge?


In five of the six electoral vote tallies surveyed by T. Goddard's Political Wire, Kerry is leading. In four of the five, he has more than enough electoral votes for victory.

Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

New state polls show Kerry leading in the battlegrounds of PA, Ohio, Oregon, New Hampshire and--yes!---Florida. Minnesota is tied.

Meanwhile Bush's lead has shrunk to just 3 points in Arkansas (5 in another poll) and another state seems to be in play: North Carolina, where Bush's lead is just 3 points.

Meanwhile, the national head to head polls are trending towards a tighter race, meaning that Kerry is showing gains.

Ups and downs

Reasons for optimism: Zogby poll shows Kerry closing on Bush's recent lead, now tied; battleground states continue to trend towards Kerry; Bush's approval numbers still hover around 50% (in CBS/NYT poll it's at 44%) and no recent president has been re-elected with less than 50% approval, because late deciding voters trend towards the challenger. There is little or no good news for Bush, Kerry did well in the debates and so innoculated himself against charges of flip-flopping. There are untold numbers of new voters and members of various minority groups likely to vote for Kerry; new registrations especially in swing states trend towards Democrats. Kerry's core voters are now strongly committed to voting, and there are thousands of activists committed to getting out that vote.

Reasons for pessimism: Bush is ahead by an average of five points in likely voter polls, despite everything: losing all three debates, the bad news, the horrendous record. Undecideds may not break towards the challenger in what is perceived to be a time of war, when people may feel threatened. GOPers may have successfully suppressed Democratic and minority registration in key states (i.e. vote fraud) enough to almost nullify gains. Karl Rove, the evil genius, may have successfully warped the national consciousness into submission.

The conclusion is that the race is still close and the outcome is still uncertain, two weeks before the election. But what depresses some Kerry advocates---and it does seem that some are sinking back into the September depression---is the belief that the evidence against Bush is so extreme that in a sane country Kerry would be WAY WAY ahead in the polls, and therefore, not only do we face the possibility of an utterly ruinous second Bush term, but his election (or reappointment) would be the final and most terrifying evidence that America is functionally insane.

Endorsements and Polls


Kerry is beating Bush in newspaper endorsements in Florida 22-3. Tomorrow (Monday) early voting begins in Florida. Kerry is ahead in that state in some polls, a touch behind in others.

Newspapers in other battleground states (such as Dayton, Ohio) endorsed Kerry today. The latest Zogby poll shows Kerry with a ten point lead in battleground states.

However, the new CNN/Gallup Poll shows Bush opening an eight point lead among likely voters. This poll is meaningful only in how CNN and other media sheep choose to play it in terms of the emphasis of their coverage. Among registered voters in this poll, the change from last week is insignificant, and the race is still essentially tied.

Because of the varied ways in which these polls measure "likely" voters, and because new voters are by definition not likely ones in these polls, and because more questions are arising about the accuracy of polls especially due to the prevalence of cell phones (many lower income families use only cell phones) which are not accessible to pollsters, expert observers are counselling that the registered voter poll is more likely to be indicative. A poli sci prof that one of the blogs we read quotes (they go by in a blur) counsels further that if Bush is not ahead by four points, he loses.

The internals in these polls continue to look bad for Bush, good for Kerry; the battleground states polls also continue to look good for Kerry. The bad effect of the Bush-ahead polls is to suppress enthusiasm and therefore turnout. Can't let that happen.