Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

The Best Political Ad of 2006?

It's rare when a single television commercial can spell the end of a political campaign or career. Media consultants spend years looking for that kind of silver bullet -- a spot so powerful that it fundamentally alters the calculus in a contest.

Democrat Chris Carney launched just such an ad recently in his campaign against Don Sherwood, the four-term GOP congressman from Pennsylvania's 10th District.

In the ad, Joseph Lech -- a Republican who says he "supported Don Sherwood from the very beginning" -- questions how as a father he can support the congressman now that the married Sherwood has admitted to an affair.

"He campaigned on family values and he didn't keep his promise," says Lech. "He took that opportunity and he blew it."

The ad goes on to shows an image of court papers filed by Cynthia Ore, the young woman who was Sherwood's mistress. The papers have phrases like "repeatedly choking" and "attempting to strangle plaintiff" highlighted. Sherwood has acknowledged the affair but denied Ore's allegations of abuse. The suit was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

"This incident with Don Sherwood cuts at the core values of this district," Lech says in the ad, adding that he has spoken to his daughter (a picture of whom he holds up to the camera) and she is "disgusted" by it. "How can I tell her that I support Don Sherwood and feel good about myself?" asks Lech at the ad's conclusion.

So devastating was that ad that Sherwood was forced to immediately reply with an commercial of his own in which apologizes for "disappointing" his constituents. "Should you forgive me, you can count on me to keep on fighting hard for you and your family," he goes on to say.

It doesn't look like Sherwood will get the chance to redeem himself. A poll done by Lycoming College late last month showed Carney with a 47 percent to 38 percent lead, and even Republicans acknowledge that this race is over despite the decided Republican tilt of this northeastern Pennsylvania district where President Bush won 60 percent of the vote in 2004.

The Carney ad got The Fix to thinking about ads that changed the course of past campaigns. The first one to come to mind was in Montana in 2002 when the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ran a spot featuring footage of state Sen. Mike Taylor (R) rubbing lotion on a man's face. (The clip was from a twice-weekly segment Taylor, who owned and operated beauty salons, did for a Colorado television station.) The ad, which was produced by David Dixon of Dixon-Davis Media, alleged that Taylor had abused a student loan program for personal gain, but the real message was clear: Can we trust someone like this in the Senate?

Taylor left the race shortly after the ad aired, saying it had destroyed his image and called into question his sexuality. He eventually rejoined the race -- promising to restore integrity to Montana politics. Voters reelected Sen. Max Baucus (D) overwhelmingly; Taylor received just 32 percent.

One other ad from campaigns past is worth mentioning. In 2000, Kentucky state Rep. Eleanor Jordan (D) was touted as the strongest challenger 3rd District Rep. Anne Northup (R) had ever faced. Jordan was running a strong campaign until the National Republican Congressional Committee ran a commercial featuring footage of Jordan on the floor of the Kentucky legislature demanding that the body vote on a measure because "I have a fundraiser at 6 o'clock and I want to get out of here." Jordan never recovered, losing the race to Northup 53 percent to 44 percent.

At the moment, Carney's ad is the leading contender to join that hall of fame for political ads. Others in the running from this election cycle include Connecticut Rep. Nancy Johnson's (R) recent ad on national security, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's spot in Maryland's Senate race ("[Steele] likes puppies but he loves George Bush") and Rep. Harold Ford's (D-Tenn.) ad from his church are all in the running.

Are we missing any great ads from this cycle or cycles past? Feel free to post your own nominations in the comment section below. Also be sure to check out Mixed Messages, washingtonpost.com's political ads database, which includes some of the most effective and controversial ads of the election season.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 9, 2006; 9:49 AM ET
Categories:  House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Line: Senate Landscape Shifts Toward Democrats
Next: All Signs Point to a 2nd Kerry Presidential Bid

Comments

See the Ad that Fox News' John Gibson Calls, "the Greatest Political Ad of All Time." This Ad Is So Powerful, a Sitting US Congressman Threatened TV Stations with Legal Action If They Dared to Play It...

Sex Studies Ad: http://nelson.sitebuilder.completecampaigns.com/common/media.php?id=6442

Posted by: David | November 3, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Does KOZ ever check any facts, or is it all just bitter invective?

Posted by: jim | October 26, 2006 6:48 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I saw a poll reported in the Roanoke Times yesterday that shows George Allen ahead by 3 percent in Virginia. The poll you refer to is out-of-date I think. Are other references out-of-date?

Posted by: Tom | October 16, 2006 4:56 PM | Report abuse

You write everyday and manage somehow to evade the correct definations of most of the words ; That you Read or Type ; why is it Li`be`reals manage to do this with such consistencies ? My Father was a Democrate until he just could not stand the Improprieties any longer ! ""It`s Wrong ; That`s Not Right ; He`s Lying""; just aren`t the solutions for America`s Issues ; Stoppitt or at least offer some Complete Solutions ; spend some of the monies you have on telling America what you plan to do for "We The People" ! Finger Pointing won`t "Get Er Done" ! Stoppitt Now !! Nick

Posted by: Nick Brunk | October 16, 2006 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Vernon Robinson's attack ad, who's trying to unseat incumbent Democrat Miller for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 13th District of North Carolina:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ugpb7qchIU&eurl=

Posted by: JohnnyMcNugget | October 12, 2006 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I still remember an ad that Al D'Amato used to depose Jacob Javits as NY Senator decades ago--a lingering shot of an empty wheelchair, intended to reinforce in voters' minds that Javits had been diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease and it would be a waste to elect someone that might die in office.....

Posted by: Mid-Life Free-Fall | October 11, 2006 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I liked the Erskin Bowles ad from 2002 (first time around) where the ad opens in a bowling alley and some old man says Erskin Bowls??? Haha and then you see Erskin saying "why yes I do" or something along those lines. I liked that ad. It was fun.

Posted by: not bluto | October 11, 2006 1:46 PM | Report abuse

ok, see that link

http://www.iggytv.com

Posted by: Iggy | October 10, 2006 8:07 PM | Report abuse

KOZ:
As a retired teacher, I appreciate your analogies using children. I especially like this one: Rich self-righteous kid goes up to kids from the "wrong side of the tracks" on playground and calls them evil, ignorant, etc......They may have had to put up with it, since the money and power seem to be in the hands of the rich kids, but they happen to have the oil.

Posted by: Joan | October 10, 2006 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Barry Commoner. 1980 Presidential campaign. Does anybody else remember the first time they heard the words Bull Sh*t on the radio? I'm not sure it was a great ad because he got under 1% of the vote. But it's stayed with me some 26 years later.

Posted by: cjumper | October 10, 2006 1:10 PM | Report abuse

I believe Ned Lamont had some great ads:

http://www.nedlamont.com/page/content/resources/

I especially liked the messy desk and old fashioned ads.

Posted by: George | October 10, 2006 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: F&B | October 9, 2006 11:40 PM | Report abuse

To add to my 3:36pm post:

"""...the White House plans to amplify national security issues, especially the threat of terrorism, after North Korea's reported nuclear test, in hopes of shifting the debate away from casualties and controversy during the final month of the campaign. These efforts are aimed largely at prodding disaffected conservatives to vote for GOP candidates despite their unease.."""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100901218.html

There it is right there in black and white:

Playing the FEAR card for POLITICAL PURPOSES.

Ya know, Im sick of being right abt the Bush Admin's power lust and total disrespect for America.

Posted by: F&B | October 9, 2006 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Just too stupid to get the context. Tin ear and tin foil hat.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 5:50 PM | Report abuse

'but in reality this war is not my problem. I only know a few soldiers personally, there is a low casualty rate, the economy is doing well, my house price is up, my 401K is moving again, my grocery store is stocked. what makes you think this war effects me? '

The bottomless selfishness, greed and depraved indifference of this individual continue to shock and repel me... there's your typical R -- in it for himself and everyone else be damned. Too bad there's no draft. But I doubt if the service would even take him, too lazy and cowardly to fight.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 5:47 PM | Report abuse

It is up to the politicians to generate this sense of sacrifice. Pork-balling and self-centered efforts at agrandization don't point the way to honorary citizenship. Have you heard any pols running for election making any claims about sacrifice? Mostly they deride any effort to make this endeavor noble. but in reality this war is not my problem. I only know a few soldiers personally, there is a low casualty rate, the economy is doing well, my house price is up, my 401K is moving again, my grocery store is stocked. what makes you think this war effects me? Half the population thinks its "his" war.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 5:19 PM | Report abuse

If we are going to sacrifice ourselves abroad, to take on tyrannical organizations like the North Koreans, I want to see sacrifices here. And I dont.

Ive given money to buy body armor. I dont own a car anymore. where is the sacrifice here? Where are those people saying I dont need an SUV, I dont need tax breaks when we are at war and we cannot put armor on all the troops and vehicles? I just see a lot of people thinking it is not their problem.

Posted by: Will | October 9, 2006 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Then you deny that Libya reacted as it did because of some aspect of the Iraq policy? how about syria/Lebanon? how about Egypt, Saudi? these activities were all recent enough after the invasion as to encourage a cause/effect analysis. Maybe not, it is far from mathematically sound.

did you ever consider that the badly behaving nations are acting just like an over-tired toddler would behave. when the other sibling is having too much attention, they throw a tantrum to bring the subject back to themselves. I have seen this form of ping-pong a lot lately and now chavez is trying to get in on it. N Korea is simply trying to stay on the front page of the NYT as often as possible - difficult these days.

but why would you claim that raising the US image is an effective approach? do we really care what Iraq and Korea think of us. their people do not have free access to any actual truthful news (many would say the same about NYers.) were you referring to France et al? Let's just stick with Poland, Denmark, Australia, etc. they don't seem to be easily fooled by slanted press coverage. One thing the enemy culture does seem to understand is death and defeat. Let's honor their request.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I thought the 1964 retort was, "In your gut, you know he's nuts".

FYI, Survey USA polling shows viewers of yesterday's MO Senate debate on Meet the Press thought McCaskill won: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=7190352e-b960-4dde-a2cf-a287b260444a&q=32275

44% came away with a less favorable opinion of Talent: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=7190352e-b960-4dde-a2cf-a287b260444a&q=32276

44% came away with a more favorable opinion of McCaskill: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=7190352e-b960-4dde-a2cf-a287b260444a&q=32277

JEP, just finished watching all the 1988 ads. The Willie Horton ad wasn't even the only scare tactic one. Both sides had some in 1984. I agree the current junta has perfected the tactic and elevated it to an extreme, especially of recklessness and irresponsibility. But there are scare tactics on both sides.

Feingold did well in the 92 primary with humorous ads that showed him rising above the mean, negative fray of the other two candidates. Just before the election, one of them realized what was happening and endorsed Feingold. I'm not sure whether it was a TV ad or interview, but I do recall that Feingold led a little tour of his house, complete with him opening a closet and saying "Look, no skeletons!".

Feingold and Wellstone were friends, meeting in socks in a room littered with books in 1989 laughing at the idea that either one could be elected to the Senate. I'm sure Feingold took a page from Wellstone's 1990 ad campaign (Wellstone's victory inspired Patty Murray and other progressives to run for office in 1992 and subsequent years). There are multiple Wellstone ads from 1990 using the strategy of running once and counting on the novelty of them to get replayed constantly in the free media. There were "Fast-Paced Paul" and the 60 second "Looking for Rudy" among others. There was a spot where Wellstone very earnestly and directly spoke about his vision of politics as a higher calling whose purpose was to improve peoples' lives. Another criticized Sen. Boschwitz on his record on children's issues and showed kids writing him campaign checks, suggesting that if kids could give to his campaign, he might pay more attention to them. At the end, another highlighted endorsements by the state's two biggest newspapers, followed by a light-hearted clip of Wellstone himself delivering the papers to Minnesotans' front doors. One ad criticized Boschwitz for missing key votes in Congress, then contributing to a mess that was brewing in the state's GOP with a gubernatorial candidate who had to withdraw at the last minute, ending with Wellstone in the senator's chair jokingly suggesting that he was better looking.

Most unusually, there was a POST-election ad in which Wellstone thanked the state for electing him, and invited the public to a free celebration before he went to Washington. Now that's class! I believe Fast-Paced Paul won an award for being so effective. These ads are around the internet, you can see them if you search a bit...

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 9, 2006 4:51 PM | Report abuse

For anyone interested in how the Bush administration went about deciding to go to war in Iraq, I highly recommend Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine." In many ways, the administration truly did/does have the perspective often articulated by KOZ -- specifically that "rogue nations" have to be intimidated into not using WMDs against the US, and that our invasion of Iraq (even absent credibile intel) would serve that purpose.

To answer your question KOZ, the reason I don't think the "individual determination" to use force in Iraq was a good one directly addresses the problem I see with the One Percent Doctrine. Quite simply, invading Iraw HAS NOT created a deterrant for other rogue nations - like N. Korea, Iran, etc - to use or work towards acquiring WMD, biological and chemical agents, etc. To the contrary, I believe our failures to date in Iraq have emboldened those nations to take the steps they are now taking. Moreover, what many muslims view as our occupation of that country (whether that's a correct view or not) has also lead to further radicalizing of other muslim countries citizens and leaders. Finally, I would also add that reports post-invasion have shown that Saddam had been so weakened by sanctions that he didn't even control geographically 1/4 of Iraq - so I would respectfully disagree that the use of force was the only alternative when we used it. From my vantage point, it sure seems like the diplomatic solution was working quite effectively.

Now, what is my solution to addressing these rogue nations more generally? To be honest, I don't have anything approaching a "good answer" to that problem...and I don't think anyone else does either. There really is no "silver bullet," above and beyond slowly working towards improving the image of the US in the world while continually using special forces and our expanded human intelligence capabilities (which were never geared towards terrorism prior to 9-11)to try and go after the terrorist networks that exist accross the world. Truth be told, truly working towards energy independence - so that we can stop sending huge sums of money to an area of the world that largely wants to kill us - would probably be the most effective strategy.

Posted by: Colin | October 9, 2006 4:35 PM | Report abuse

For anyone interested in how the Bush administration went about deciding to go to war in Iraq, I highly recommend Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine." In many ways, the administration truly did/does have the perspective often articulated by KOZ -- specifically that "rogue nations" have to be intimidated into not using WMDs against the US, and that our invasion of Iraq (even absent credibile intel) would serve that purpose.

To answer your question KOZ, the reason I don't think the "individual determination" to use force in Iraq was a good one directly addresses the problem I see with the One Percent Doctrine. Quite simply, invading Iraw HAS NOT created a deterrant for other rogue nations - like N. Korea, Iran, etc - to use or work towards acquiring WMD, biological and chemical agents, etc. To the contrary, I believe our failures to date in Iraq have emboldened those nations to take the steps they are now taking. Moreover, what many muslims view as our occupation of that country (whether that's a correct view or not) has also lead to further radicalizing of other muslim countries citizens and leaders. Finally, I would also add that reports post-invasion have shown that Saddam had been so weakened by sanctions that he didn't even control geographically 1/4 of Iraq - so I would respectfully disagree that the use of force was the only alternative when we used it. From my vantage point, it sure seems like the diplomatic solution was working quite effectively.

Now, what is my solution to addressing these rogue nations more generally? To be honest, I don't have anything approaching a "good answer" to that problem...and I don't think anyone else does either. There really is no "silver bullet," above and beyond slowly working towards improving the image of the US in the world while continually using special forces and our expanded human intelligence capabilities (which were never geared towards terrorism prior to 9-11)to try and go after the terrorist networks that exist accross the world. Truth be told, truly working towards energy independence - so that we can stop sending huge sums of money to an area of the world that largely wants to kill us - would probably be the most effective strategy.

Posted by: Colin | October 9, 2006 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"Smells like a skunk to me. "

As a total aside, a buddy and I were biking through St Paul several weekends ago. We nearly ran over not one, but two - that's TWO skunks! That's Saint Paul, MN, the city scheduled to host the 2008 GOP convention.

Conclusions are left for the reader to draw on their own.

Posted by: bsimon | October 9, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk,

You were making a fairly reasonable point until you felt necessary to fall back on name-calling.

I would gladly have discussed the matter of 'rogue nations' in a sensible manner, but rewarding rogue posters is not a workable tactic.

Posted by: roo | October 9, 2006 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Two ads that changed races:

1. The ad that Russell Feingold ran in an ugly 3-way primary for his first Senate race. His two well-financed opponents ran horrendous ads slamming each other (and ignoring Feingold as a minor candidate). His ad showed him ducking and weaving as two candidates threw mud at each other. He got the message across that he wasn't one of them.

2. Paul Wellstone's ad, run once, in his first senate race apparently changed the outcome though I never saw it.

3. The Kerry Swift Boat ad certainly deserves mention. It was a very close race. I believe it made the difference. It even added a verb to the language: to SWIFT boat someone.

Posted by: Mike | October 9, 2006 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Like children, rogue nations must be treated differently than civilized (adult) ones. would any serious person really want to enter into a debate on facts or ideas with the likes of drindl or FB or JEP. Instead of solid progress or a marketplace of ideas, you get zingers and soundbites based on conspiracy, insults, innuendo and lies. Just look at all the insults slung by drindl, all the conspiracies advanced by JEP, all the false innuendo by FB. thier world is like a episode of the X-files complete with the smoking man - G. Bush.

It is the same with Iraq, PLO, Iran, Syria, N Korea, etc. any agreement is not worth the paper it is printed on. any concession on our part is just another gimme with the bargained for chip uselessly garnered by the enemy. In fact, simply agreeing to talk to them in an adult forum gives their ridiculous positions a modicum of gravity. surely you have observed this over time.

so when my 4 yo starts hitting his sister, it is not a good idea to say "I will give you an ice cream if you stop hitting her". guess what happens next. the ice cream is gone and some chocolate is next on the list. hitting has been rewarded and the lesson is well learned. I know you Libs with the mentality of a 4 yo don't get this and have a tendancy to jump up and down and scream and then expect to be treated like adults, but only the other kids are paying any attention.

TJM, I appreciate your attempts at a rational debate, but as you can see, there are only a few here capable. I agree with most of your statements, but would challenge you to find a way to eventually draw a line. when does one do this? After the big boom down the street is the usual Dem answer. the Rs want to preclude that from happening with a more proactive stance. Dems want to fight in the streets of NYC, in the courts of America. Rs prefer to send the battle over there. to stop the attack before it happens. to punish, not reward abherrent behavior. not to lend prestige to erratic claims.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 3:58 PM | Report abuse

"Other than Willie Horton I'm not sure fear played such a huge role in the campaigns that year."

My point exactly.

Back in 88, it was the only "be afraid" ad on the tube, and because it worked so well, now every Republican ad touts terrorists as something Democrats can't deal with, just like Dukakis and Horton.
Probably the most egregious and graphic example was Max Cleland's cameo with bin Laden.

It is no longer the exception but the rule for Republicans running for office, to scare voters into voting for them, instead of dealing with real issues or policies.

But this is really nothing new, Hitler used fear of everything from Jews to Gypsies, just to keep his lemmings in line.

History has many other examples.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 3:37 PM | Report abuse

TJM, im sure Drindl can respond to the question you posed to her, but I just happened to be reading Donald Gregg's comments that are making the rounds (he was George HW Bush's security advisor under Reagan):

"Why won't the Bush administration talk bilaterally and substantively with NK, as the Brits (and eventually the US) did with Libya? Because the Bush administration sees diplomacy as something to be engaged in with another country as a reward for that country's good behavior. They seem not to see diplomacy as a tool to be used with antagonistic countries or parties, that might bring about an improvement in the behaviour of such entities, and a resolution to the issues that trouble us. Thus we do not talk to Iran, Syria, Hizballah or North Korea. We only talk to our friends -- a huge mistake."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2006/10/bush_made_a_big_mistake.html

Posted by: F&B | October 9, 2006 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I was talking about our trolls, TJM... luckily none of them has nuclear weapons.

Calling other countries' leaders 'mindless mouthpieces for ideologies' is pretty hilarious coming from the mindless mouthpieces for ideology in this admin, eh?

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Steve,

I well remember the "In Your Heart You Know He's Right" bumper stickers. But the retort I remember was "Yes.... Far Right"

Of course, today, Barry Goldwater would be considered a dangerous liberal by the religious right.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 9, 2006 3:30 PM | Report abuse

drindl wrote:
"tjm, Sophisticated arguments won't work on people who are just mindless mouthpieces for propaganda..."

The Bush Administration is quite fond of declaring nations with which it disagrees aren't worth talking to, that they're "mindless mouthpieces" for some ideology or another, that sophisticated arguments won't work on them. Looking around the world, do you think that attitude has had good or bad results?

Posted by: TJM | October 9, 2006 3:27 PM | Report abuse

colin: I appreciate your civility. I didn't make any personal viewpoints on abortion or other moral issues. I simply pointed out the difficulties contained in the Dems point of view. Ultimately it is not up to me to decide what is right and wrong, this is part of the process which I am willing to accept. I personally think that 16 yo boys are pretty capable of making thier own decision about sex. I wouldn't advocate using a position of power to influence that decision. similarly, a person's sexual proclivities don't bother me one bit, particularly between adults.

so use of force has been determined individually here. Korea was determined not to be a good candidate for force, as was Iran. that seems to line up nicely with your theory, so what is the problem? In Iraq, the other avenues had been exhausted, what was left?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"Dismissing your argument isn't naiveté"

"Dismissing" ANY arguement potentially constitutes naiveté. Are you really so certain there was no collusion, at any level? Or are you just arguing your point forensically?

Just for a moment, instead of arguing against the idea, try considering it just long enough to see if you own internal "truth detector" doesn't light up.

Just consider for a moment that it is quite possible that there are people around Kim who might have "outside" connections, that there may be a shadow group deciding diplomacy for NKorea.

I'm not asking you to believe it, just entertain the thought for a moment.

If you claim that is just somehow improbable, you aren't the historian you imagine yourself to be.

And if you look carefully, I posed questions, not assertions.

If you ascertained something from them, good. But I am simply pointing out, in question form, that if it smells like a skunk, looks like a skunk and lifts its tail when you get close, that it might just be a skunk.

And who ever said Karl Rove actually masterminded this?

"assume that Karl Rove is not behind the timing of the DPRK's nuclear test"

I ASKED in my opening statement if Kim was working for Rove, just to get the question in your mind, that obviously worked.

I have as yet actually asserted nothing, I have only suggested, in questions, some connections that might be there or not.

CAN YOU PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO COLLUSION?

It would be just as hard, or harder to prove there is no conspiracy, there is actually more evidence OF a conspiracy than against one.

"The only piece of "evidence" you cite for your contention is that out of the twelve months of the year, the DPRK chose to test in the one before American elections."

So now go ahead, tell me the timing was just co-incidental; and then lets get our "Kim" story straight.

Is Kim just plain stupid enough to accept this diplomatically dangerous date for the experimental detonation, or is he a genius who knows everything that goes on around him and calculated his decision for its greatest diplomatic effect?

If he's stupid, then he certainly could easily be fooled by brighter bulbs.

If he's a genius, why would he make such a strategic blunder that aids his biggest foes?

So which is it, is Kim a political genius or a diplomatic doofus, we will all appreciate the waffling appraisals.

Smells like a skunk to me.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 3:25 PM | Report abuse

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself-FDR
The only thing we have is fear-Rove

Posted by: Brian | October 9, 2006 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Is it Lowell Weicker?? (snicker)

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 9, 2006 3:09 PM | Report abuse

One of the best ads
Reagan's
There is a bear in the woods....

Posted by: Brian | October 9, 2006 3:08 PM | Report abuse

One of the best ads
Reagan's
There is a bear in the woods....

Posted by: brian | October 9, 2006 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"but you would have to agree the trend towards trash is not a trend, it is a centuries-old standard of politics."

Yes, I definitely have to agree with that. Dirty pool is all over 19th and even 18th century US politics. And that's only considering the US... In many ways you have to admit it's gotten gradually better. Presidential candidates tend not to compete on the basis of who can give away more free alcohol and get more people drunk these days, like in 1840. Especially when Bush is a teetotaler.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 9, 2006 3:07 PM | Report abuse

For those who don't get it...

'The bomb-grade plutonium that was on ice from 1994 to 2002 is now actual bombs. Try as you might it is difficult to imagine a policy -- any policy -- which would have yielded a worse result than the one we will face Monday morning.'

'Yet a number of senior U.S. officials have said privately that they would welcome a North Korean test, regarding it as a clarifying event that would forever end the debate within the Bush administration about whether to solve the problem through diplomacy or through tough actions designed to destabilize North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's grip on power.'

This is cheney. He wants nuclear confrontation, he honestly does. The man is insane. And what 'tough actions' do they think they can take now? There are not too many options, are there?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 3:05 PM | Report abuse

The "Together" ad (Ohio, DSCC) is cute. For that matter, Bob Shamansky's Rubber Stamp ad of Pat Tiberi is amusing.

JEP, I'm still not sure I agree. 1988 was the year of "No New Taxes" and continuing the 'great Reagan legacy'. Other than Willie Horton I'm not sure fear played such a huge role in the campaigns that year. If you go to that Living Room Candidate site I linked to above, and watch the ads from 1968, I think you'll see more fear in those ads--crime, chaos, youth, nuclear weapons, Vietnam, Communism/Cold War... My recollection of 1988 is that it was more about dumb juvenile stuff like Bush being a wimp or Boston Harbor being dirty (which was the Administration's fault). Bush certainly painted Dukakis as an effete, out of touch liberal elitist, and slammed him on taxes and the death penalty, but I think of that year as more mean and juvenile than scaring people about the other candidate. It was a very negative year, maybe one of the first when more people were voting against the other candidate than for their own.

I'll go watch some of the 1988 ads and see if they change my mind.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 9, 2006 3:02 PM | Report abuse

tjm, Sophisticated arguments won't work on people who are just mindless mouthpieces for propaganda...

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Best ad I've seen so far is a VoteVets ad against Santorum's rejection of new kevlar for our soldiers in Iraq:

http://www.ifilms.tv/votevetsweb/burns.html

Posted by: writingpoli | October 9, 2006 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, as I said earlier, I think the odds are that we get a nuclear North Korea no matter what we do. The question is what happens next. With diplomacy the DPRK gets nukes. Without diplomacy the DPRK gets nukes *and* the prestige of being a victim of Yankee oppression. People like Hugo Chavez discover that supporting Kim Jong Il wins them points, not criticism. Wouldn't you agree that, while both cases are dangerous, the latter case is far more so?

Posted by: TJM | October 9, 2006 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Just thought people here would be interested in this article:

Polls: GOP losing grip on married moms
POSTED: 12:39 p.m. EDT, October 9, 2006

After winning over moms in back-to-back elections, Republicans have lost their advantage among married women with children this year.

The Republican Party has seen the support of people like Jeannette Hopkins evaporate.

A 30-year-old married mother of two and a Republican, Hopkins voted for President Bush in 2004. But she says she probably will support the Democrat in her congressional district this fall "because of the way that everything's been handled" with the GOP in charge of Congress and Bush in the White House.

"We're in a really scary place right now," Hopkins said recently. She vented about what she called the gone-on-too-long Iraq war, a sluggish economy, the bungled Hurricane Katrina response and a continuing terrorism threat.

...

"People have no money. The economy is not going well," said Michele Huber, 29. A married mother of three, she gave the country a "poor to fair" rating as she speed-walked in a suburban Cincinnati park with one of her children, a niece and a nephew in tow.

A Republican, she voted for Bush in 2004. She said she was not sure whether she would again if she had the chance...

...

Outside a Wal-Mart in Fort Wright, Kentucky, two moms hauled their kids out of their minivans. One of the women voted for Bush. One did not. Neither was pleased with the direction of the country.

"We're not happy," said Christy Blaker, 32, as she loaded a McDonald's-munching Emily, 4, and Becca, 18 months, into a shopping cart. ...

...

Across the parking lot, another stay-at-home mom, Tina Wagner, 31, voiced similar fears while two of her three children, Grace, 4, and Faith, 15 months, fidgeted. Hope, 6, was in school.

A Republican, Wagner voted for Bush in 2004 but expressed disappointment about his job performance in the two years since.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/09/married.moms.ap/index.html

More evidence that regular people are tired of being force-fed the Bush Admin's fraudulent policies.

Posted by: F&B | October 9, 2006 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"but more importantly the Willie Horton one was foreshadowed by the overtly racist "southern strategy" Nixon (aided by Roger Ailes) used in 1968.."

I agree, it is reasonable to put "fearmongering" and "race baiting" on the same page, but you would have to agree the trend towards trash is not a trend, it is a centuries-old standard of politics.

But the constant drumbeat and drip-drip-drip of this pervasive "be afraid, be very afraid" electioneering strategy can be traced to the "Bush in 88" Willie Horton ad.

Public Fear; It worked so well that time in 88, it is now their favorite political tool.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 2:49 PM | Report abuse

JEP, it's not "naive" or "enabling" to assume that Karl Rove is not behind the timing of the DPRK's nuclear test. It's just Occam's Razor. The only piece of "evidence" you cite for your contention is that out of the twelve months of the year, the DPRK chose to test in the one before American elections. Upon this single fact you pile the assertions that (a) some member of Kim's inner circle *might* be corrupt, and (b) this entirely hypothetical member *might* succeed in contacting the White House and arranging a quid pro quo, this despite the fact that communications outside North Korea are tightly controlled and travel outside the country all but nonexistent. You then disclaim the burden of proof for this rickety structure, and imply that it's on us to show that each one of your "maybe"s is an unequivocal "no". Dismissing your argument isn't naiveté. Until you can present actual evidence, it's just being reasonable.

Posted by: TJM | October 9, 2006 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I should expound--a subkiloton explosion means that either:

1) The detonation failed, fizzled
2) The detonation was not nuclear (or at best a 'dirty bomb')
3) NK's technology is about as good as Israel's

Posted by: roo | October 9, 2006 2:43 PM | Report abuse

A recent Sherrod Brown ad pointing out the close connection between Mike DeWine and W deserves special kudos. For anyone not in Ohio, the ad paid for by the DSCC is HILARIOUS! With the background noise of children singing, viewers can't help but look at the TV and the goofy image of DeWine and Bush is just too much. In the ongoing battle for the Senate seat in Ohio, this ad stands out from the rest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVs3A7oNtX8

Posted by: REF | October 9, 2006 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"...this is the clinton mentality - we need to be loved."

No, that's the Christian mentality, last I read.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2006 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I agree drindl. Why such insanity today? Definitely more disconnected than usual even. But I admit his 1:33pm post had me lol.

Speaking of good ads, or at least a good race. Harold Ford Jr. said this during Sat night's debate, in response to Corker calling him part of a "Ford political machine:

"I don't know why Mr. Corker keeps bringing up my family. Let me be clear: I love 'em and there's nothing you can say, Mr. Corker, that will bring any distance between my family and I ... It's you and I running for the Senate. It's our ideas, our plans to make the future better for everybody. Let's stick to you and I. And if you come up with a recipe to pick family, say it. Otherwise be quiet and let's run for the Senate."

http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/politics/article/0,1426,MCA_1496_5051668,00.html

Um. We have a winnah.

Posted by: F&B | October 9, 2006 2:35 PM | Report abuse

JEP: I have to disagree with you a bit on the paramount importance of the Willie Horton ad. The daisy ad in 1964 is notorious for playing on peoples' fears, but more importantly the Willie Horton one was foreshadowed by the overtly racist "southern strategy" Nixon (aided by Roger Ailes) used in 1968. I see the 1988 ad, and many others before and since, as just continuations of the same strategy from 1968.

I thought McCaskill was dumb to go willingly into the abortion discussion. But Talent's stubborn insistence that he'd still vote for the war in Iraq knowing there were no WMDs, standing by his statements of how well the war is going esp. in light of the latest NIE, and complete obfuscation of what our "mission" there is, or was, or was supposed to be, was just shocking. But clearly, he is quite experienced and adept at it. I was surprised that Russert got wrong--and Talent didn't correct--that he was not in Congress at the time of the Iraq war vote. Jean Carnahan had the seat in October 2002. He also did a good job of papering over his stem cell flip-flop with a straight face and making it seem rational. I don't think either candidate came out with a clear win, and having closely watched MO elections for 14 years, I strongly agree with Chris' assertion from Friday that it's likely to end up the closest Senate race in the country. There's hardly a single poll finding a gap exceeding the margin of error--there may not be one at all. The race will come down to lots of micro issues, and there's no real way to predict who will win until election night.

An interesting trivia tidbit--both candidates ran for this Senate seat the cycle after narrowly losing bids for Missouri Governor; Talent in 2000 and McCaskill in 04. It reminds me of the old rule in Ohio politics that you had to run for and lose a statewide office before you won one.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 9, 2006 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"Elton John's "Sorry seems to be the hardest word" would play softly in the background.

It might not help them regain their majority, but it would show a sense of humor."

LOL.. still...

I posted once that these Republican candidates are going to need a disclaimer like the drug ads on TV, at the end of each commercial there would be a statement like...
"this candidate has been arrested twice for DUI, once for spouse abuse, and suffered an election lasting more than four hours..."

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 2:33 PM | Report abuse

drindl,

That there was a detonation is not under dispute. The 'subkiloton' is the key word there--the technology required to manufacture a <1kt bomb is much more sophisticated than something in the 10-20 kiloton range.

Posted by: roo | October 9, 2006 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"the battle for public opinion"

A few years back, you might have needed to differentiate between "the world" version of "public" and "American" version of "public."

Not so these days.

One "public" (the latter) disapproves of Bush almost 60%, the other (the former) disapproves of Bush 80%.

(Republican trolls will add that up as 40% approval from Americans and 20% approval from the rest of the world, which, according to the book-cookers, actually constitutes a 60% popularity rating for W!)

Bush's failed diplomacy has seriously damaged "public opinion" towards the US, especially on the world stage, worse than any foreign leader could ever manage.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I think the GOP should make a compilation ad that could air nationally. Get a great economy of scale that way!

It would be 60 seconds and each member would just say "sorry" and the graphic would spell out their sin ("harrassed page," "took bribe," "spouted racism," "cheated on wife," "didn't do oversight of Iraq,"...)

Elton John's "Sorry seems to be the hardest word" would play softly in the background.

It might not help them regain their majority, but it would show a sense of humor.

Speaking of, new on EWM:
"Not all Republicans make good pets."
http://www.eyewitnessmuse.com/diary.php?p=231


Posted by: The Muse | October 9, 2006 2:22 PM | Report abuse

do you suppose this zouk character is on drugs? or off meds? the ranting today is totally disconnected and irrational, i mean, more so than usual...more juvenile, more puerile. it's sad but soemhow kind of fascinating, like a car wreck.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 2:21 PM | Report abuse

roo-- not what I read. But there is some controvers,y agreed.

'The world this morning is a little scarier than it was yesterday, if the reports about North Korea are to be believed. The U.S. Geological Survey reports the nuclear test was enough to set off a small earthquake--magnitude 4.2--with the epicenter at a depth of "0 km." (Most quakes happen several miles down, sometimes hundreds of miles.) '

However,

"Jack Date of our Washington bureau provides this from someone who asked only to be identified as a senior intelligence community official:

"The Intelligence Community detected a Sub-Kiloton explosive event in North Korea. We cannot confirm if it was a nuclear explosion. For an initial test a yield of several Kilotons has been historically observed."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/

So there seems to be some doubt. Also I wonder why this senior official won't be identified, then? And why this admin and many others around the world are taking it seriously? I mean the Asian stock market tanked...

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 2:16 PM | Report abuse

So if we just surrender to all the bad guys we will win the PR war. great idea.
do you work for the NYT? this is the clinton mentality - we need to be loved. We wouldn't want some dictator with 100% control of the press putting out true reports of our refusal to bend over and take whatever they dish out now would we? If only their mommy had hugged them more. I suppose Kerry would just say "I surrendured to them before I got tough with them."

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"But there is no doubt that they did so without collusion. Kim Jong Il would never go for that.."

Oh, so now Kim Jong Il is omniscient, all powerful, and actually knows he has been played like a fiddle?

Who ever said it was collusion with Kim himself? Is it possible there are other players in this game, who have the power and the resources to deceive Kim?

Kim's obvioulsy surrounded by some very dangerous people, particularly his military advisors. Isn't it possible one or some of them have other "loyalties" outside Kim's delusions?

How can you be so certain any one, or even a group of these NKorean Generals and civic leaders, many who gained power under Kim's father, haven't misled the NKorean leader into a circle of deceit?

And how can you be so certain those same generals and advisors could not have some greedy agenda for their own benefit?

I would guess corruption in NKorea is just as greed-based as it is here.

So to assume there could not possibly be any "connection" because "Kim would not let that happen", is naive at best and enabling at worst.

You might quite astutely argue that Kim has lots of bullies working for him to keep the citizens in line, and that would preclude such treason.

Quite true, Kim's bullies keep his public fearfully submissive.

But who keeps the bullies, especially the top ones, in line?

Can you just assume Kim has no money-hungry traitors in his entire extended civil and military staff?

Seriously, do you really believe Kim knows EVERYTHING that goes on under his nose?

Sounds like your argument suggests this, and it is just naive, Kim's got internal loyalty issues just like Bush, or any world leader does.

Hitler's own generals tried to blow him up, remember?

Do you think Kim have more authority in Korea than Hitler had Germany?

To suggest Kim is above being fooled by those around him is ignoring all of history's lessons. And one of Shakespeare's most efficient lines.

"Et Tu, Brute'?"

Kim's "Brutus" could be anyone in his close ranks, and he, like Caesar and many other of history's leaders (Reagan?), might find it is someone who is considered closest to them, who actually threatens them the most.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 2:08 PM | Report abuse

The mortgage bomb in the future... check out just how badly you can now be screwed by lenders, because of deregulation passed in the last five years:

'Mortgage rates have been trending down, but that won't do much to benefit those who signed up for low-teaser-rate adjustable-rate mortgages in the past few years.

An ARM charges an initial discounted rate for a period of time, after which it adjusts to market levels. When some types of ARMs with teaser rates of 2 percent or less reset, the rates are likely to jump to more than 6 percent - and even as high as 9 percent.

That can mean a doubling in monthly payments owed for those homeowners saddled with the loans.

The jump in payments could be even bigger for some people. They could have a loan balance that's larger today than it was when they got their mortgage - a situation called negative amortization. And it's common with what are called "payment option" ARMs.

That's because the initial teaser rate is a "payment rate," not an interest rate. That means the market-rate interest on the loan starts to accrue from the get-go and monthly payments aren't enough to cover it, let alone pay down any of your principal.

There may also be a trigger ceiling, meaning when the balance reaches a certain level - say 120 percent of the original balance - the introductory terms will end and the rate will reset upward, according to Christopher Cagan, director of research at First American Real Estate Solutions, a mortgage information provider.

End result: A much higher interest rate on a bigger loan than the homeowner ever intended.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 2:07 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- no offense, but what are you talking about today. We get it - you think a more muscular foreign policy is ALWAYS the answer to foreign policy issues and you hate Clinton. Message received - no need to repeat it anymore. Some of us simly disagree, and instead feel that (1) determinations regarding the use of force need to be made on an individual basis (First Gulf War, Afghanistant good. Iraq stupid), and (2)Clinton did both GOOD and BAD things as president.

Incidentally -- I notice that when you want to rail against Democrats, you bring up support for abortion rights and gay rights as immoral and negative, yet you also have said that you're libertarian on these issues yourself. It seems somewhat disingenuous to me that you seem to switch your stance on these issues where it suits your purpose. Personally, I have no trouble stating that I think abortion is wrong, but that government has no business being involved in the decision. Some consistency from you on these points would be refreshing.

Posted by: Colin | October 9, 2006 2:06 PM | Report abuse

The nuclear test was quite possibly a failure--either that or not nuclear at all. The detonation was so small that it is unlikely for North Korea to possess the technology to have purposefully created it. This from my more physisistically aligned acquaintances.

drindl--thanks for starting to add the sources, quotation markers etc.

Posted by: roo | October 9, 2006 2:05 PM | Report abuse

NSA programs actually do something to protect us. One of the few government programs that do. this is the program you want to shut down? while leaving SS on cruise control into bankruptcy. the evidence of your lack of any vision is mounting. I can only presume that income redistribution is more important than defending this country. a good point to make right before an election which lays out your values crystal clear.

Andy r - I want a deadline for withdrawal but not a firm deadline, kind of like a negotiable deadline. that is thought out?? In who's labotomized brain? the scholars of the world will not be joined anytime soon by this woman.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 2:00 PM | Report abuse

BY ROBERT NOVAK Sun-Times

Disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley had two excellent job offers in the private sector this year when Rep. Tom Reynolds, National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, talked him into seeking a seventh term.

Although Reynolds says Foley was merely deciding whether to run again, the talk in Republican circles on Capitol Hill was that he was ready to leave Congress. His inappropriate e-mails to a former page were known to the Republican leadership late last year. The 16th Congressional District was considered so safely Republican that any GOP candidate could carry it but now likely will be lost with Foley still on the ballot.

--So Robert Novak [who would know] admits that Foley's Peccadillos were well known to the leadership. Wotta surprise.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 2:00 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk:
Yeah, diplomacy might not have worked in North Korea. But obviously lack of diplomacy hasn't worked, either. The difference is that going the non-diplomatic route give the DPRK another stick with which to beat us over the head in the battle for public opinion. They get to claim they're being oppressed by the big, bad Americans, and that gives them access to a built-in fanbase all around the world. If we bend over backwards to follow all of the diplomatic rules, North Korea is clearly the one being unreasonable, and we gain capital toward our purpose of making the DPRK an international pariah. If we "get tough", Kim Jong Il wins points by "standing up to us", and we *lose* political capital.

Posted by: TJM | October 9, 2006 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Diplomacy is just not something they understand, TJM. It's too complex, to win requires understanding and being smarter than your opponent. So we're at a disadvantage from the beginning. Like dumb beasts, all the base R's can understand is butting their heads against something. Or finding a hornet's nest and smashing it with a baseball bat.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 1:57 PM | Report abuse

diplomacy worked so well with Arafat and N Korea back in the clinton salad days???? why don't you Libs ever learn from mistakes? you clearly have no understanding of world affairs. Maybe you should just sit back, have another latte and let the adults take care of you. just like you always wanted for everyone else in your socialist nanny-state.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 1:50 PM | Report abuse

drindl:
I'm not going to argue that there's been any rational foreign policy under this administration, because there plainly hasn't. However, I don't think that there's much of anything anybody could have done to keep the DPRK from getting the bomb sooner or later. By being "too tough" I mean that the U.S. has needlessly antagonized North Korea and failed to live up to its treaty obligations. Speaking more softly might at least have bought us some more time.

Posted by: TJM | October 9, 2006 1:42 PM | Report abuse

GOP = Grand Old Phonies

Posted by: Mike234 | October 9, 2006 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"5 - whan all else fails - create another unweildy government program.."

Did you mean that the office of Homeland Security?

Or the NSA spying program?

Or were you speaking about Negraponte's new job title?

Which of Bush's many new, unweildly government programs are you talking about here?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2006 1:39 PM | Report abuse

On the McCaskill Talent debate, I thought McCaskil looked pretty good. She had good answers that sounded resonable and thought out. Talent did OK but he got slammed by Russert at every turn. My favorite was when he tried to make it sound like Iraq was going well and that our job was almost done. The guy really does not have a grasp on reality.

Posted by: Andy R | October 9, 2006 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The ads portraying Max Cleland, who lost his limbs while fighting in Vietnam, as a wimpy terrorist sympathizer, practically a buddy of Osama bin Ladn, was disgusting, but it worked. As did the Jesse Helms ad with the white hand. One that backfired was one by the late Gov. Pat Brown of California, when he ran for reelection against Ronald Reagan: in one ad Brown is seeing asking a young black child if he knew that an actor killed Lincoln and that Reagan was also an actor. Just dumb. The daisy-plucking ad used by LBJ´s campaign against Goldwater was over the top but it was also effective. Best bumper sticker duel I can recall: Goldwater´s ´In Your Heart You Know He´s Right,´and the retort, ´In Your Guts, You Know He´s Nuts.´

Posted by: Steve | October 9, 2006 1:39 PM | Report abuse

'who seemed to be using the press release to argue that the Bush Administration had been too soft on North Korea. I think they've been too tough.'

Umm, you sound very reaosnable but I don't get that. If they've been 'too tough' why do we now have this nut with bomb? HUH? It isn't a questionof toughness, it's a question of rational policies, of which R's have none presently.

Oh and Tina -- the mushroom cloud condi warned about! it's here! She was right! Only it wasn't Iraq, was it? the real threat was NEVER addressed. Oops.

Hey G&B -- it's not difficult to ignore zouk. He's just thrashinng around on the floor foaming and soiling himself. Embarrassing.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"last gasps of real diplomacy before the U.S. began yet another unilateralist effort"

If Bush had been willing to simply send a surrogate to talk to NKorea, the tests would probably have been abandoned, or at least postponed.

Why won't Bush deal directly with NKorea?

Is there some sort of "diplomatic pride" that demeans us by talking to our enemies?

James Baker is quoted just this morning as saying that we need to talk directly to our adversaries around Iraq, in order to find stability in the region, but Bush's diplomatic ego and his secretary of defense Rumsfeld will have none of it.

Since when did serious diplomacy make a nation weak?

If our diplomacy is so weak, that we can only answer with military response, we are no superpower at all, just a big, blind dunderheaded dolt, swatting at fleas with a baseball bat and breaking our own bones in the process.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 1:34 PM | Report abuse

That is not what I would call ignoring zouk.

you can continue to try to ignore every point that is made, same as Dems nationwide. continue chanting. you may want to emply some of your usual approaches although I think they are running thin these days.
1- conspiracies whenever plausible
2 - pretend clinton was a saint
3 - no subject - just random insults
4 - trying to locate some principles
5 - whan all else fails - create another unweildy government program

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Good posts TJM, and I agree with your 11:57am response to my post. I believe that they purposefully did nothing that would have prevented NKorea from testing the nuke so they could take advantage of the situation by playing the fear card at home... But there is no doubt that they did so without collusion. Kim Jong Il would never go for that.

Oh, and good job ignoring Zouk, all. Ive noticed an interesting pattern to his posts: #1 ignore reality on whatever topic, #2 blame clinton, #3 change subject, #4 appeal to "principles", #5 when all else fails, harp on "BigG" (to which he has never supplied a definition). That is his contribution to "debate" very sad.

Posted by: F&B | October 9, 2006 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Litmus Test of Calcification: It's been about 2100 days since Bush took office. Does he bear more than 0% responsibility for the bomb North Korea just tested? Yes or No.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 9, 2006 1:26 PM | Report abuse

From the party that thinks - "first grope doesn't count". the searching around for a moral base is quite amusing. when will you have the same values you had yesterday? Sending emails to 16 yo's is bad but abortions without any advice for 13 yo's is good. homosexuality is to be encouraged, unless you are running against a Dem. Being black is noble unless you run for R office. In those cases, bigotry is to be encouraged. the party of "whatever" is desperately trying to hit upon a zinger, any one, which will resonate sufficiently to get them through the next month. no sense wasting any time or effort on a foundation that might last more than a month. too bad the economy is doing so well. too bad the foreign policy you advocate is so clearly pointless. so you are left with "we will raise all teenagers wages by a buck if elected". Maybe you should try to lower the voting age to 12, same as you want to lower the age of consent, to capitalize on this policy. you will surely get the vote of those Wendy's workers who can't get the free government condoms.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 1:25 PM | Report abuse

drindl said:
"TJM--I wasn't talking about the $95 million per se -- but the fact that BUSH REMOVED THE NUCLEAR INSPECTORS FROM NORTH KOREA. WHY?"

It's in my second paragraph. The withdrawal of inspectors was meant to be an act of protest highlighting claims of North Korean intransigence. It was a step on the road to withdrawing from the Agreed Framework altogether and going the unilateral route. I agree that this was a reckless and bellicose maneuver. My objection was to JEP, who seemed to be using the press release to argue that the Bush Administration had been too soft on North Korea. I think they've been too tough.

Posted by: TJM | October 9, 2006 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I thought McCaskill and Talent were both middling on their TV debate yesterday. Talent dodging one way, McCaskill dodging the other way. I'm not a huge fan of Tim Russert, but he's very good at cutting to the chase on tough questions, and not letting the candidate finesse it without reasking the question. He doesn't always get the cut-and-dried answer he wants, but he asks it clearly and enough times to make it clear that the candidate is dodging. The one thing I wish McCaskill had done was respond to Talent's incessant repetition of the phrase "artificial deadline for withdrawal." All she needed to say was "I'm not looking at an artificial deadline. I want a GENUINE deadline."

Posted by: Staley | October 9, 2006 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I think the current ad by Devual Patrick who is ruuning for Governor in Mass. is very uplifting and has a great positive message and soundtrack.

Posted by: brenda | October 9, 2006 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"The outbreaks have sparked demands to create a new federal agency in charge of food safety."

Now there you liberals go again, trying to make the government bigger...

What business does the government have in the meat industry, anyway?

The meatpackers should be allowed to police themselves, no matter how many people get e-coli.

We sure don't want the government sticking their noses into our feedlots.

Of course, you all realize this is an exercise in sarcasm. Unfortuantely, it is an accurate rendition of the redneck mantra.

If there's one place these fake Texans want to diminish the size and power of government, it is in its oversight of food and ag industries like milk, meat and produce.

And if there's any one industry that needs closer scrutiny than the Ag industry, in order to keep the public safe, I can't think of it.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Government regulatory agencies aren't 'working' right now because they aren't supposed to. The are staffed by industry insiders, the foxes guarding the henhouses. Anybody with a brain knows this.

Oh, I forgot. I'm not dealing with someone with a brain.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 1:17 PM | Report abuse

There are two ads drawing attention in the Mass gubanatorial race right now. One, in which Healey attacks Patrick for having once defended a cop killer, brings to mind the infamous Willie Horton ads and suggests maybe it will backfire on her. Certainly, she has just forfeited the votes of any defense attorneys (not that she had any).
The second is one in which she implores voters to vote for her to avoid the unamerican, evil possibility of (gasp!) one party rule! Against the backdrop of the last six years of one party GOP (mis)rule, this is so hypocritical that it is funny. Overall, the ads by Healey, especially in contrast to Patrick's reasoned, calm ads, scream desperation and give me hope that Healey is history.

Posted by: elizabeth | October 9, 2006 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Chris, My favorite campaign ad. I don't remember the year or the candidate, but the office was the Washington State Land Commissioner. The opening camera panned over a Hawaiian beach and focused in on a guy taking a nap in a lawn chair. The, it said to vote for "whomever" becasue they would go out and commission the land, valiantly! It was wonderful! It was the best use of humor, sticking a pin an an unnecessary and bloated government office I have ever witnessed. "whomever" lost, but so did the office of land commissioner.

Posted by: MikeB | October 9, 2006 1:10 PM | Report abuse

TJM--I wasn't talking about the $95 million per se -- but the fact that BUSH REMOVED THE NUCLEAR INSPECTORS FROM NORTH KOREA. WHY?

What earthly reason coudl there have been for that? Doesn't it look to you like everything they do is about trying to start a war? You can make a lot of profit in a very short time in a war, can't you? Ask rumsfeld and cheney...

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"If Sherwood loses, then it just gives the Democrats more confidence in using "weapons of personal destruction" to ruin a Republican's career."

I thought Sherwood ruined his own career?

Or is he not to be held responsible for choking a woman, because he is a Republican Congressman?

Were the Democrats there to hold her arms while he choked her?

Do you even care whether or not a woman was actually abused by one of our authority figures?

Or is the fate of the Republican Party this election cycle more important to you than human rights and women's rights?

How could the Democrats damage Sherwood any more than he has done to himself?

Its the latest quick-response strategy from the Republican's brainwashed base; Blame the Dems first, then ask questions later.

And, by the way, was Bush SR. lying about his mistress? Politicians do lie, you know, R's and D's alike, but unfortunately for the R's, whoever is in power usually has to take responsibility for whatever comes of that power.

If so, the cult Republicans have no "pre-clinton" moral ground to go back in time to stand on, now that they've lost all contemporary moral credibility.

All their old delusions are based on stale lies and long-exposed cover-ups.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Shocking- Dems have one Federal agency that isn't quite working as promised - the solution: create another. same answer every time. And you socialists think this is a good idea?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 1:08 PM | Report abuse

There's a difference between a party with principles not doing a good job executing those principles and a party with no principles. Anyone who thinks that turning the reins of power over to Democrats will raise the country's moral bar should take a cold shower. -Star Parker

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Dems doing something to fight the contaminated food epidemic caused by republican deregulaation:

'On Friday, an Iowa company announced that it was recalling 5,200 pounds of ground beef suspected of having E. coli. The government said no illnesses have been reported from consumption of the beef.

The outbreaks have sparked demands to create a new federal agency in charge of food safety. Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, both New York Democrats, are sponsoring legislation authored by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., to create the unified Food Safety Agency.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

KOZ - from the Post today regarding McCaskill and Talant:

On Friday, a USA Today/Gallup survey of 577 likely voters, showed McCaskill leading Talent 48 percent to 45 percent, with 7 percent undecided. The margin of error was plus or minus five percentage points.

Sure, the poll is withing the margin of error but for an opponent to be leading an incumbent, even withing the margin of error, at this point shows how clueless Talant might be, at least in the eyes of the voters. Besides, this was a Democratic seat until Talant's election - it looks like after one term the voters might be going back that way.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

KOZ - from the Post today regarding McCaskill and Talant:

On Friday, a USA Today/Gallup survey of 577 likely voters, showed McCaskill leading Talent 48 percent to 45 percent, with 7 percent undecided. The margin of error was plus or minus five percentage points.

Sure, the poll is withing the margin of error but for an opponent to be leading an incumbent, even withing the margin of error, at this point shows how clueless Talant might be, at least in the eyes of the voters. Besides, this was a Democratic seat until Talant's election - it looks like after one term the voters might be going back that way.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2006 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Check out the ads by the DNC in Michigan against Challenger for Governor Dick Devos. One of the funniest ones has a comment saying- do you think there's a province in China looking for governor? As CEO of Amway (a Michigan co.) Devos invested millions in China, while jobs at amway decreased over his tenure as CEO.

Posted by: Daria | October 9, 2006 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The $95 million of drindl's post question went not to North Korea directly, but to KEDO, the "Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization". KEDO is controlled primarily by the American, Japanese, and South Korean governments, and its purpose is to construct light water reactors in North Korea to replace the DPRK's heavy water reactors in accordance with the Agreed Framework of 1994. The idea behind this replacement was that it is much more difficult to use light water reactors to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

The waiver of inspection requirements came following North Korea's restrictions on the IAEA's access to its nuclear facilities. According to the 1994 treaty, this behavior was supposed to result in a suspension of aid, but the KEDO countries had not yet taken that step. The Bush Administration claimed at the time that calling attention to the DPRK's noncompliance as it released the money was meant as a first step toward the U.S. withdrawing from its treaty obligations altogether--and sure enough, in the fall of 2002 the Administration did just that.

The short version of all of this is that the action in the press release that drindl cites was in fact made in accordance with a longstanding treaty, and was one of the last gasps of real diplomacy before the U.S. began yet another unilateralist effort. North Korea has repeatedly cited American failure to live up to the KEDO obligations as a reason for going ahead with its nuclear program. I fully agree that Bush's North Korea policy has been a disastrous wrong turn, but this press release represents the last bit of sanity, not a dereliction of duty. That part came later.

Posted by: TJM | October 9, 2006 1:00 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk - The facts are that the voters don't trust the keystone cops you guys installed as President any more. Get real! Bush and company have lied about the economy, lied about Iraq and Afghanistan, lied about the effects of outsourcing and guest workers, lied about their sexual proclivities, lied even about George's "faith", they handed out their last favor to some wealthy country club swine of a friend and are about to have the tires on their bandwagon removed and be the subject of investigations that will (hopefully) freeze Bush and his band of nut cases from doing *anything*.

It's a dangerous world out there and everyone is taking a very close look at George Bush right now and figuring out that he is just crazy enough to get them all killed. So, they are voting, not so much for the Democrats, as they are voting to get rid of the biggest mistake most of them ever made.

Posted by: MikeB | October 9, 2006 12:58 PM | Report abuse

'If Sherwood loses, then it just gives the Democrats more confidence in using "weapons of personal destruction" to ruin a Republican's career. '

AS THEY SHOULD HAVE. Because that is ALL republicans have been doing for years now. It's time to take off the gloves and expose the R's for what they are --lying hypocrites. Time to make the same dirty ads they do, talking about their newts, their foleys, their their sherwoods. Time to talk about how R's running on 'values' is a tragic little inside joke.

TIME TO EXPOSE THE ROT AT THE CORE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"finally we have a President who understands this and is willing to do something difficult about it."

We're still waiting for that difficult action!! It seems that GWB would rather attack odious but non-nuclear dictators than deal with the countries and terrorists who constitute REAL threats to our nation's security.

Posted by: Venicemenace | October 9, 2006 12:54 PM | Report abuse

The Swift Boat ads have to rank up there with ads that doomed a campaign -- surprised it did not get a mention in your piece, Mr Cillizza.

I have another New Mexico ad to mention -- the one that just started running out here that mentions that while Heather Wilson voted against extra money for Natl Guard, she voted herself a pay raise six times. What makes the ad particularly effective is that throughout the narration, there is a photo of HW with the caption, "Heather Wilson. She's changed." I do not know if it will have the cataclysmic effect of some of the other ads mentioned above, but I found it a strikingly effective piece of work, standing out over all of the other nasty ads being run by both sides in this race.

Posted by: Douglas | October 9, 2006 12:54 PM | Report abuse

'But let us examine the idea that this North Korean test will help the president and by extension his party change the subject back to homeland security.

It was in January of 2002 that the president spoke these words: "North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. ... I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. "

So, how will we "not permit" North Korea to threaten us?

Certainly not through immediate military action. No, the president said this morning he was committed to a diplomatic course through the United Nations.

Perhaps voters will find this wise, but given the president's original bellicose promise "not to permit," it will be harder to make the case that only he and the Republicans can protect the homeland.'

Remember how Bush WOULD NOT PERMIT kimjong to threaten us... and what became of that, hmm?

INCOMPETENT. IMPOTENT. LIAR.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Did Joel Klein ever apologize to Bill Clinton for his book "Primary Colors"? It came out in 1996, and if Bob Dole had won the election, would Klein have taken credit for taking down a president? Gary Hart had his problems and pulled out of a White House race as well.

If Sherwood loses, then it just gives the Democrats more confidence in using "weapons of personal destruction" to ruin a Republican's career. Then the challenge becomes on the Democrats to beware of their own sexual affairs with staff members or whatever blows their skirt up, so to speak.

I think the historic reporting of Gary Studds, and others is that neither side should be messing around. Foley is out, his career is over, but I doubt the entire party will suffer for the bad behavior of one or two. I can't place guilt on all Democrats for the bad behavior of their own members. I think that is the message.

Posted by: Tina | October 9, 2006 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Repairman;
"That was possibly the most important single TV ad of the 88 presidential campaign."

Id call it the most important single TV ad of a whole political generation...

It was a glimpse into the future of "fear for sale", and showed where Republican political strategy was heading, which is where we are right now.

Let us not forget who worked right alongside these fear-mongering Willie Horton strategists in that campaign.

W was 2nd in command under Atwater, he was Daddy Bush's bully enforcer, then Lee got caught with his pants down in Rolling Stone.

Where was Rove at that time?

Anyone remember?

Was Karl involved in the Willy Horton fearmongering ruse, or was that all Atwater?

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 12:45 PM | Report abuse

clinton had at least ten chances to get OBL - he took a shot on one occasion. Perhaps he was firing away from Monica instead of towards Osama - regardless, after the criticism, he crawled back and never acted again. even after a Navy warship was blown wide open. 8 years, 10 or 11 opportunities, no competing interests to distract and yearly incidents or attacks - yet no results. you say dick clarke but clinton himself ignored him, now plays him off as some sort of sage. attacked Kosovo - from 20,000 feet - without UN or congressional approval and no threat to us interests??? simply put, police can't get terrorists, soldiers need to do it - the important distinction between the two in attitude and action taken.

Versus what - 8 months in a new administration (remember those days - Dems were so angry about the election loss nothing happened in congress).

do you know how long it takes to build a nuke? when do you think these programs started? what signals were sent in the 90s that they could do as they please? which signals should be sent? how does a country do this - by appeasement? I think not.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 12:44 PM | Report abuse

'October Surprise, Kim Jong Il Tests Bush
President Bush calls North Korea's nuclear test a "provocative act." Might the test actually be a gift for a Republican party in need of a boost?'

From ABC -- this is how insane the media has become. A madman acquires a nuclear weapon and they suggest that this is a 'gift' for republlicans?

Jesus christ, how monstrous. How absolutely monstrous that anyone could think like this. So much for the 'liberal media'. incredible.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree that Baucus' 2002 ad portraying Taylor as a 70s hairdresser was reprehensible. What I really didn't get about it--and I think it's emblematic of the paranoia among elected officials but especially Democrats--is that Baucus was going to win in a landslide anyway. Like Nixon in 72. Why bother doing such stupid, outrageous, damaging, or costly things when you don't even need them in the first place?

But, to suggest that Democrats rather than Republicans are the ones guilty of gay-baiting is truly ridiculous and laughable.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 9, 2006 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Somebody mentioned the Newsmax story, and it is here for you to read and make up your own minds:

Brazile Spread Rumor About Former President Bush By Ronald Kessler

When running for president, Michael S. Dukakis fired campaign aide Donna Brazile, who later became Al Gore's campaign manager, for spreading a rumor. The rumor was that then-Vice President George H.W. Bush was having an affair with his executive assistant. These details are laid out in a new book by Bush's daughter, Doro Bush Koch.

For the book, "My Father, My President: A Personal Account of the Life of George W. Bush," Doro Koch interviewed 135 people ranging from Dukakis and former President Clinton to Tony Blair, President Bush, Laura Bush, Gov. Jeb Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney. In addition, she obtained written recollections from another 167 people.

Only a few news accounts in 1999 mentioned the firing of Donna Brazile, now a Democratic strategist, for spreading the rumor about Bush and Jennifer Fitzgerald, Bush's executive assistant when he was chief liaison to China and later director of Central Intelligence.

Asked about the rumor back then, George H.W. Bush told Newsweek in June 1987, "The answer to the big 'A' question is N-O." Koch's account is the first to quote Dukakis himself about the incident.

"To hell with that," Dukakis told Koch. "I just said, 'Look, we're not going to have any part of that.'"

"I love that he [Dukakis] fired her, and that he wasn't going to stand for that," Doro Koch said in a NewsMax interview. "And one of the funny things that happened to me, and I didn't interview her for the book because I just didn't have time, but I bumped into Donna Brazile one day. And she came up to me and she said -- this is so typical of my dad -- she said, 'I love your father!' I said, 'Really?' And she said, 'Your dad, he forgave me for all that, and I'd do anything for him. Do you want me to write a blurb for the book?'" .....

As Koch tells it, the idea for her book came from Patty Presock, perhaps former President Bush's closest assistant in the White House. Presock kept separate files for some of Bush's most personal correspondence and notes, with the idea that they might someday form the basis for a book. ........

For the first time, "My Father, My President" gives a detailed account of how President Bush authorized then-Deputy Chief of Staff Andy Card to fire Chief of Staff John Sununu. The book also reveals that a CBS producer boasted he would knock Bush out of the race against Dukakis by getting Bush to lose his cool during an interview with Dan Rather, who was briefed before the interview by a Democratic advisor.

"My dad is a relationships guy," Koch said. "He still maintains a really good relationship with Gov. Sununu, which I think is amazing. I mean people whom basically Dad has had to fire, and they still love my dad."

The book says that when Ronald Reagan was undergoing surgery, presidential power was temporarily transferred to Bush, who was vice president. During that time, Bush stumbled and momentarily blacked out while playing tennis, leaving the country without a president for a few seconds.

Asked if her father regretted anything, Koch said, "He regretted saying 'Read my lips -- no new taxes.' Then he had to go ahead and agree to a deal that would raise taxes for the good of the American people, but to his own political peril."

She said Bush felt that if he had had the communication skills of a Ronald Reagan, he might have been able to explain his decision better.

Cold War Ends Without a Bang

Asked what her father was proud of, Koch said, "Dad is not someone who will tell you, 'Well, I'm most proud of this.' But I think Dad is very proud of ushering in the end of the Cold War without a conflict. And to this day, he maintains all these relationships with world leaders and people he knew when he was president, and I'm sure he's proud of that."

Koch said her father has chosen not to write an autobiography because, rather than looking back, he's always looking for the next project.

"His mother taught him a lot of the very basic lessons in life," Koch said. "And one of them was, 'Don't talk about yourself.' I think that must have had something to do with it."

Despite being a politician, Koch said, "My dad has sort of maintained his moral compass throughout and has been able to hold on to what's important in life. Obviously, going in I admired him. But coming out of it, I admire him just tenfold. Lou Gehrig, who said he was the luckiest man on the face of the earth, is my dad's hero. And my dad feels that way as well."

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2006 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah, I forgot, he hasn't done anything about the genocide in Darfur either.

Posted by: Zach | October 9, 2006 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Appreciate you bringing up the Taylor ad. Another example of the Democrats gay-baiting and raising allegations of perversion to win elections.

Posted by: Fletcher | October 9, 2006 12:36 PM | Report abuse

I like Robert's question about TV ads that had the opposite effect--tanking a politician's candidacy. While it certainly wasn't the only factor, Michael Dukakis' spontaneous decision to get in a tank driving around with a dopey smile and helmet definitely made him look like a joke and damaged his candidacy. What's a shame is that he was partially trying to remind people that he was a Korean War vet. But he was a terrible campaigner who should never have been allowed to make such decisions for himself. In that same race, I think you'd have to note Bush's (Atwater's) racist Willie Horton ad. That was possibly the most important single TV ad of the 88 presidential campaign. Its premise wasn't really even accurate (the furlough program it criticized was created by a Republican governor), but what mattered is that it reinforced hesitations people already had about Dukakis.

Similarly, no question that the racist Helms "white hands" ad played a major role in reelecting him against Harvey Gantt, as someone else noted above. Even though affirmative action has nothing to do with quotas, which the Supreme Court banned in the early 1980s.

The "daisy" ad is quite infamous, and you can see it on the site I linked to above. There was also a Humphrey ad in 1968 that was considered mean, but that I find kind of entertaining. (That Dukakis could've used in 88) All it did was put Spiro Agnew's name on the screen, and you hear a guy laughing hysterically at the idea of the guy as VP. Then at the end an announcer comes on and says something like, "It would be funny if it weren't serious". Too bad Humphrey lost that one 43.4%-42.7%.

I watched the 2 minute Allen ad. I also thought Susan Allen looked ridiculous in it. She was there for her looks?? Come on, that's like Bill Clinton blowing his presidency for Monica Lewinsky! ;)

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 9, 2006 12:35 PM | Report abuse

KOZ, who went after the terrorists? Clinton fired missiles at Bin Laden and tried to get the guy. He attacked Kosovo to protect Muslims from genocide. He left the White House trusting President Bush would listen to Dick Clarke.

Bush didn't listen. He did do the right thing and go into Afghanistan but then decided to finish Daddy's job in Iraq instead of killing Bin Laden. Now the whackjob in Iran is a hero of the Arab street and both Iran and North Korea are going to have nukes.

Posted by: Zach | October 9, 2006 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Now there's a conspiracy theory of monumental proportions.'

It's all about that same thing -- M-O-N-E-Y."

That is the very conspiracy I was alluding to, the ultimate conspiracy of greed that underpins the Republican platform.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 12:33 PM | Report abuse

'scuse me, I meant Boehner...

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"Chris Cillizza seems to be more interested in sex instead of who is the best person for the job in Congress."

No, that's Hastert, Foley and Boner.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 12:29 PM | Report abuse

See JEP, it isn't a conspiracy at all --

'Why would Bush and Cheney ever want to remove our nuclear inspectors AND give NKorea $95 million?

Now there's a conspiracy theory of monumental proportions.'

It's all about that same thing -- M-O-N-E-Y.

Carlysle, Bush senior's company, was involved in the deal too. And I would be Cheney made $ on it as well. Just the same way that Bush's grandfather got rich dealing with the Nazis, Bush senior got it from selling the security of the US.

A whole family of traitors and their assorted cronys. And to beleive there are still people in this country rock-bucket stupid enough to believe their lies.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 12:27 PM | Report abuse

did anyone notice how clearly out of her league Talant's opponent was in the MTP debate? I think some of the nut-jobs on this site must have written her material. I suspect that her numbers will drop off precipitously now. how embarrassing.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 12:27 PM | Report abuse

"So rumsfeld made money on the N. Korea deal."

Like I said, a conspiracy theory of monumental proportions.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"But, what really gets me angry is that the Swift Boat attack was utterly predictible."

Didn't someone post here a few days ago that Foley's replacement, NEGRON, was one of the organizers of the Swif Boat creeps?

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I would just say that if you're going back further historically, I don't think you can discuss these silver bullet ads without talking about the ones Bill Hillsman made in Minnesota for Jesse Ventura in 1998 and Paul Wellstone in 1990.

For interested political junkies, this site has presidential campaign ads you can watch back to 1952: http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/index.php

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 9, 2006 12:21 PM | Report abuse

'My my, but aren't Donald Rumsfeld's fingers in so many pies. It seems that when he's not busy shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, he's otherwise occupied selling nuclear technology to North Korea. Lovely.

Here's a 2003 item from Fortune Magazine:

(FORTUNE Magazine) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rarely keeps his opinions to himself. He tends not to compromise with his enemies. And he clearly disdains the communist regime in North Korea. So it's surprising that there is no clear public record of his views on the controversial 1994 deal in which the U.S. agreed to provide North Korea with two light-water nuclear reactors in exchange for Pyongyang ending its nuclear weapons program. What's even more surprising about Rumsfeld's silence is that he sat on the board of the company that won a $200 million contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors.

--So rumsfeld made money on the N. Korea deal. Aamazing how it's always the same set of players, and they're always cashing in, at the expense of America's security. Takes your breath away, doesn't it? The hypocrisy, and the treason is astonishing.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/1518

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I would just say that if you're going back further historically, I don't think you can discuss these silver bullet ads without talking about the ones Bill Hillsman made in Minnesota for Jesse Ventura in 1998 and Paul Wellstone in 1990.

For interested political junkies, this site has presidential campaign ads you can watch back to 1952: http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/index.php

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 9, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

If you think Rs are going to stay home because a single congressman was found out to have sent salacious emails and forget all about the real danger the world is in with a few rougue regimes about to realize their nuke ambitions, you are guilty of wishful dreaming. the clinton years demonstrated that you can sit home and fiddle with interns but the bad guys out there continue on with their plans. finally we have a President who understands this and is willing to do something difficult about it. The next few weeks will be about issues, not sex, and this will be to the Ds detriment. too bad, because the sex scandal temporarily took the heat off of your total lack of ideas or policies. now those unfortunate facts will return. Iran is not much different from Korea of about 10 years ago. yet the Lib solution is the same. If enacted, you can plan on similar results. the good people of America understand this and will do the "right" thing in Nov.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Great post... I checked it out a bist closer, and lo and behold, Drindl is quite accurate here.

"In 2002, George Bush released $95 million dollars to N. Korea, at the same time he waived the requirment for inspectors. This is why we are where we are. In other words, he removed the inspectors from N. Korea -- got it? Any of you wingers out there got an explanation for this?"

I normally expect an answer to these posts of Drindl's, from at least one of our "R" trolls, but this one will be very hard to justify.

I checked it out, these facts are correct, Drindl has, once again, actually done some homework to support her contentions.

Bush actually DID remove what little oversight the Clinton administration had installed, and gave up the cash the NKoreans needed to make their bomb.

BUSH DID IT, not Clinton.

REPEAT; BUSH REMOVED OUR SAFETY VALVE ON NKOREAN NUCLEAR PROGRAMS DELIBERTATELY!

Can anyone suggest "why"? seriously, what was Bush2's reasoning? Or was Boss Cheney the manager for this one?

Why would Bush and Cheney ever want to remove our nuclear inspectors AND give NKorea $95 million?

Now there's a conspiracy theory of monumental proportions.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

KoZ, withholding funds for missile defense was the right decision for purely engineering reasons. The proposed system simply didn't work, and it wasn't going to work. It was unable to distinguish between actual nuclear warheads and even the simplest decoys--we're talking traffic cones spraypainted silver, here. Any nation willing to go to the monumental expense of developing nuclear arms and intercontinental delivery systems would surely spend the trifling amount of money necessary to fit those weapons with decoys. The desire to be safe from nuclear attack is a noble one, but nobody benefits from throwing billions of of good dollars after bad.

Posted by: TJM | October 9, 2006 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I accept that you know more R's than I do. I no longer know too many, for a number of reasons. My relatives in Oklahoma, Missouri and Arkansas, however, are all born-again christians... good hearted and seriously devout. And as you say, they are deeply troubled and uncomfortable right now.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Yes but our highly calcified 'friends' on this board do not at all represent the majority of R's. They represent the propaganda side admirably but that isn't the view of the rank-and-file.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 9, 2006 12:12 PM | Report abuse

drindl,

I agree with you - Kerry was a long way from being my first choice and he was an atrociously bad campaigner. But, what really gets me angry is that the Swift Boat attack was utterly predictible. Those accusations have been out there for 30 years. It approaches criminal negligence not to have seen that coming and be prepared for it.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 9, 2006 12:11 PM | Report abuse

See, judge? The arch-moron zouk comes stumbling out of his hole, babbling the barely coherent talking-point inanities, as if to prove my point. Hopeless.

Clinton put inspectors in N. Korea, Bush took them out and now they have a Bomb.

End of story. No amount of irrelevant gossip from 10 or 20 years ago will change that. The trained seal can clap louder and louder but he can't drown out the truth. Suckers and losers.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Drindl you're going to have put up with me saying I must know more R's that you do. And they ARE having doubts. This isn't about getting them to vote D (dream on!). It's getting them to stay home on election day. And that is where these battles will probably translate into even larger D gains than what the polls say.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 9, 2006 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Reposdt from Drindl's

"In 2002, George Bush released $95 million dollars to N. Korea, at the same time he waived the requirment for inspectors. This is why we are where we are. In other words, he removed the inspectors from N. Korea -- got it? Any of you wingers out there got an explanation for this?"

TJM's post "There are relatively few things that are downright impossible in politics. One of those things is that Karl Rove could succeed at influencing the North Korean government to do anything at all to help the Bush Administration, particularly as regards the DPRK's nuclear ambitions." is just naive, at best, and at least denial.

TJM just states the ignorant R opinion, Drindl references actual events. Also, Rove doesn't have to be "managing" Kim to get the daily intelligence estimates he kept from the public until election time.

Anyone who thinks Karl Rove would not keep this information from the public for political purposes has forgotten what Rove's official WH title is.

So who is smart and who is naive?

Carlyle group plays big in the Korea situation, aren't they the ones who sold SKorea those land mines within a few days of the BushII inauguration?

So now I ask, simply "Who knew about the NKorean nuke tests and when did they know it?"

And why wasn't the press and public privy to this information until just before it happened?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2006 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I really liked kinky freidmen's ad the cowboy way it really made him an outsider and was funny http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/multimedia/_video/CowboyWay/

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2006 12:07 PM | Report abuse

1994, Clinton stated, "This agreement will help achieve a vital and long-standing American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula." We now know the $4.6 billion bribe gave the Communists the two nuclear reactors they used to create their current arsenal.

Within two months of the Taepo Dong missile scraping across Nippon in August 1998, President Clinton sent North Korea a multi-million dollar aid package and reopened bilateral negotiations.


Bill Clinton pledged his support for a missile shield in theory during his 1996 re-election campaign, then withheld critical funds and scheduled deployments in his second term.

During the 2004 campaign, John Kerry adviser Rand Beers said North Korea was able to acquire a nuclear weapon, not because naïve leftists insisted on bribing its playboy despot, but because "Bush and his closest advisers were preoccupied with missile defense"

John Kerry and Hillary Clinton also advocate rewarding Korean belligerence with direct talks.

clinton's legacy - making the world unsafe for democracy ( and he is the least spineless of them all) Perhaps another ten years of R domination of foreign policy can repair the damage done by the Carter wing of the Democave party.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Spitzer fabuloso! Very strong. One tough guy--a fighter, exactly what we need now. Yes, he is presidential.

Judge-- you know I doubt the R base can be reached by any means. I think they're just too far gone -- like the poor brainwashed souls of N. Korea. I think the propaganda has permanently damaged their brains, if they had any to begin with, tho I kind of doubt it.

Ever listen to the ads on winger talk radio? They're all sucker ads -- for phony 'performance-enhancement' drugs, or get rich quick con schemes, or 'hair-restorers'. These people are born suckers and losers.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 12:02 PM | Report abuse

No facts will ever get in the way of your attempts to frame the issue. Dems have always supported "negotiations" with Korea and looked the other way. Dems have always been against a missile defense shield. Sex scandels, conspiracy theories and chasing intersn has always been higher on that priority list. the vacancy sign on the Left foreign policy door is now being broadcast for all to see. It is about the nukes, babies. you surrender monkeys can take full credit for your abdication of responsibility here. this is going to turn out very bad for you anti-war doves as the truth of your policies is revealed for all to see.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Anyone recall Feingold's ads? I believe it was he who had the ad where he tours his house, at one point opening a closet, saying "Look - no skeletons." Also the Ventura ads for his Gov candidacy went a long way towards his victory over the Rs & Ds.

Posted by: bsimon | October 9, 2006 11:58 AM | Report abuse

I'm certainly willing to consider that the Administration might have known that the test was coming and taken advantage of its timing. I'm just saying that outright collusion is about as close to being impossible as anything I can imagine in the world of politics.

Posted by: TJM | October 9, 2006 11:57 AM | Report abuse

TJM, but what COULD have been the WH's October Surprise was holding on to knowledge that NKorea was going to do a nulear test in the fall. Knowing that information was coming out, and using it to Rile up the Conservative Fear/security constitunts was probably part of their master political plan.

I bet that WAS the October surprise. But now that everyone and their mom thinks that Bush is a total liar, that Iraq is going to have to be divided into autonomous states, that the highest levels of the Republican Congress withheld knowledge of a congressional sex predator, that Rice and Bush blew off the CIA's warnings abt 9/11... etc... their little Fear tactic has totally backfired.

People are saying, well dang, if they knew anything about this nuclear test, why didnt they DO anything about it? It's been since 1/29/2002, OVER FOUR YEARS since the Axis of Evil speech. What the hell is Bush's problem? Does he WANT NKorea and Iran to have nukes?

It looks like Bush's policy towards EVERY SINGLE ISSUE is, let's make it the WORST possible situation, and then have the next President sort it out.

Posted by: F&B | October 9, 2006 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Ah, but appealing to the lowest common denominator is exactly what I had in mind, drindl! Hastert's determined to stay on; good! My approach targets any R anywhere. Guilt by party association. Is it outrageous? Sure but it will work on those who don't begin to understand how things happen in DC.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 9, 2006 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I dont recall many positive ads but the negative ones seem to stick out:

- DeWine's fabricated 9/11 ad has to be the worst political ad in the cycle

- Allen's recent 2 minute "apology" ad was absolutely dreadful. his wife standing there smiling like she was a playboy bunny there for her looks but with nothing to add

- Reynolds' recent idiotic apology ad that he did everything he could abt Foleygate while revelations keep popping up

The single all-time worst ad has to be (of course):

- Karl Rove's blending of Osama Bin Laden and Max Cleland, a multiple amputee b/c of wounds suffered in Vietnam.

There are so many more.

Oh wait, I have to say, that the best ads ive seen as of late are Eliot Spitzer's. He has a few ads out lately where in about 20 seconds he lays out not just policies, but 3 specific things he will do that will both save NY State money and use those savings to fund healthcare for all children in the state without raising taxes. Powerful ad. Not platitudes (John Kerry), not generic proposals (Reid/Pelosi), but specific plans. Im going to do this, this, and this and it will allow me to do THIS without raising taxes. Brilliant. I saw him do the same thing at the NY Gov debate in Ithaca. You could tell people's jaws just dropped when he said that. They were that shocked that someone had a good idea that was well thought out and sounded like it would actually work. Imagine that. He may have to be President one day. Sorry for the Spitzer tangent, but just thought id add my $.02 abt good, effective ads.

Posted by: F&B | October 9, 2006 11:40 AM | Report abuse

In 2002, George Bush released $95 million dollars to N. Korea, at the same time he waived the requirment for inspectors. This is why we are where we are. In other words, he removed the inspectors from N. Korea -- got it? Any of you wingers out there got an explanation for this?

'Here is a question that President George Bush did not address in his statement to the nation this morning: why did he drop the ball on inspectors in North Korea? (From the Nitpicker):

The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.

Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.

In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.

President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the national security interests of the United States". (emphasis mine)

I don't know about you guys, but I'd like some answers as to why the Bush Administration failed to require any inspectors in North Korea before we handed over a big, fat chunk of our money. And why we failed to initiate any real diplomacy in the four years since we handed over that big chunk of American fundage. And why it seems like we are always on a reactionary footing in our foreign policy under the Bush Administration, instead of taking a pro-active, problem solving approach? And I hope to hell someone asks Tony Snow about this today, since the President scuttled out of the room without taking questions after his speech this morning.

Heckuva job, Bushie'.

http://firedoglake.com/

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 11:33 AM | Report abuse

There are relatively few things that are downright impossible in politics. One of those things is that Karl Rove could succeed at influencing the North Korean government to do anything at all to help the Bush Administration, particularly as regards the DPRK's nuclear ambitions. Even China, which almost singlehandedly sustains North Korea's existence, was not able to persuade Kim Jong Il not to perform the nuclear test as planned. Karl Rove may be a nasty person and a frighteningly capable political operator at times, but this is simply beyond his capabilities.

On a related note, one of the most obnoxious manifestations of American arrogance is the tendency to consider global politics to be merely an extension of U.S. domestic politics. It's really not all about us, people. The sooner we start learning that, the sooner we can stop ticking so many people off around the world.

Posted by: TJM | October 9, 2006 11:32 AM | Report abuse

A buddy of mine took a class from Madeleine Albright at Georgetown U. She apparently made several comments to the effect that she wished that she and Clinton had done something substantial about North Korea instead of ignoring it in favor of the Middle East. Perhaps, then, we can all agree that neither Clinton nor Bush has had any real success in dealing with North Korea instead of trying to figure out who was less ineffective.

Posted by: Adam | October 9, 2006 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Judge, I think you misunderestimate the sheer stupidity of the R base-- I mean those who have not defected. The intelligent R's are bailing and becoming independents or just staying home.

I mean, look at the comments we get right here on this board. They are such brainwashed sheep they instinctively try to blame Clinton for all of bush's failures -- even when it's clearly impossible to do so.

But that's the triump of the rightwing propganda program. All they have to do is push these people's buttons -- and the talking points pop right out.

JimD--Kerry was not a good campaigner. He was never my first choice. But that has been the problem -- Dems have not been fighting hard enough--they've been trying this silly 'high road' approach. It's time for them all to do what Carney is doing. It's a knife fight. Pick up a knife.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Hey Sam the "Man", you are more like Sam the boy as far as your reading comprehension is concerned.

The GHWB rumor story is being raised by Republicans, not Democrats, supposedly as "proof" that Dems love to spread scandalous gossip right around election time. Although it does not succeed in proving anything here in 2006, I do think it speaks favorably of Dukakis to have given a campaign aide the axe for that kind of dirty-politicking. Nevertheless you, Mr. Man, failed to correctly interpret the context of that point made by Drindl. This lack of ability to understand context probably explains your foolish take on the Foley situation.

You see, the reason why these Republican moral failings are such a big deal is that the GOP has a holier-than-thou attitude about everything, trying to legislate their religious beliefs, crediting their election victories to so-called "values" voters, and trying to remove a Democratic president because of moral failings. When this party of santimonious politicians is exposed for their hypocrisy (covering up a predatory member so he could hold onto his seat and generate $$) people are outraged.

Deal with it.

Posted by: Venicemenace | October 9, 2006 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Still waiting for a general attack ad based on Hastert. A vote for Your R Candidate is a vote for this pedophile-enabler. Can you live with your conscience if you help return this guy to power in DC? Should do a nice job of depressing the GOP base vote everywhere.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 9, 2006 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The difference is that Democrats don't claim the ultimate moral high ground. We don't CARE if people have affairs, but we do care when those same people try and preach 'higher than thou' moral superiority. Here is a lesson for all the Santorum Moral high ground repubs, practice what you preach.

Posted by: Andy R | October 9, 2006 11:07 AM | Report abuse

'NRCC chief Tom Reynolds -- who's supposed to be spending all his time helping other GOP Reps keep their jobs -- is now losing by an eye-opening 15 points to Dem challenger Jack Davis, according to a new Zogby International poll done for the Buffalo News. The poll shows Davis leading with 48% of likely voters, to 33% for Reynolds -- a lead that has steadily widened over the last 10 days. The poll also found that of the substantial majority following Foleygate, 57 percent disapproved of Reynolds' handling of it, while only 25 percent approved.'

Reynolds also cancelled a couple Sunday morning talking heads shows he was scheduled on yesterday...

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 11:07 AM | Report abuse

JEP, You said this so well of the latest October surprise.... "We, the American public, are being played as emotional pawns, using our lowest survival instincts to place stumbling blocks in front of our highest ideals."

A memorable political ad... Daddy Bush's "Willie Horton" smear tactic against Dukakis comes to mind. But Johnson's "Daisy Girl," even though it ran only once,is near the top of the mark of most memorable and effective.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 9, 2006 11:06 AM | Report abuse

drindl,

I remember the LBJ ad too (I was 12 at the time and, even then, a news junkie). I seem to recall that it got aired several times on news shows even though it ran as a paid LBJ ad only once. That is how the Swift Boat slander got spread so far and wide. The ad became a news item and received much more attention that way.

Speaking of the Swift Boat issue, the leading Swift Boat spokesman has been an enemy of Kerry's since the 1970's. He debated Kerry on Dick Cavett. He wrote at least one book on the subject. Kerry should have seen this coming. The special forces operative Kerry pulled from the river that day plus all but one of the surviving members of Kerry's boat testified in support of Kerry's version of events - which also happens to be the Navy's official version. Why he did not have ads ready to respond to that, I will never understand. Unfortunately, Kerry did repeat some lurid and unsubstantiated tales of atrocities he heard from other Vietnam veterans to a congressional committee. Clips of his testimony were devastating in undercutting his image. As someone who protested the Vietnam War and later became a career naval officer, I have a somewhat unusual perspective on the Vietnam controversies. The demonization of the military, the occasional violence and the small percentage of protesters openly rooting for the Viet Cong discredited the anti-Vietnam war movement with many veterans and with many "middle Americans" (to use a 70's era buzzword). I cannot understand why Kerry and his advisors were so obtuse as to not realize that those issues still resonated with many people. Look at the controversy Clinton's 'draft dodging' and anti-military statements caused in the 1992 election.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 9, 2006 11:06 AM | Report abuse

--I see you drank your koolaid like a good girl this morning, Cheryl. blame it on Clinton. You cultists are such morons it makes me laugh. Pathetic.

'yes, please blame Bushie for the N Korea mess. Ignore all the failures of those diplomatic deals with Albright which were never enforced. I think there is enough evidence to show Clinton just left N Korea for the next administration. We are better off with Clinton or her husband in the White House. They left a weak nation vulnerable to attacks, and heaven help us if she gets elected in 2008. The McGovernites and anti-war pacifists would take control of the ship of state and stir us into a worse mess.'

How much worse could it be, you fool? We've got a nuclear holocaust hanging over us. Chris I really can't believe the sheer stupidity of these people. breathtaking.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Good grief, the bozos in here are dragging back some rumor of Daddy Bush having an affair. Wow. I bet with Clinton was humping on Monica, those same Democrats/liberals/Clinton lovers rationized that is was just consenting adults, not the fact some old duffer was humping on a young White House intern.

The ad is just as disgusting as all the garbage the Democrats complained against with the Clinton affairs with Genneifer Flowers, and hitting on Paula Jones, and finally getting smacked around with an impeachment. Chris Cillizza seems to be more interested in sex instead of who is the best person for the job in Congress.

It will be real interesting if the voters decide the Democrats investigate sex when it involves Republicans, but when their own members are having affairs, (like Tom Dashel, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Ted Kennedy, or President Clinton) it is all written off as "private, not related to doing their job". So there seems to be no real standard for Democrats after all.

Posted by: Sam the Man | October 9, 2006 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Good grief, the bozos in here are dragging back some rumor of Daddy Bush having an affair. Wow. I bet with Clinton was humping on Monica, those same Democrats/liberals/Clinton lovers rationized that is was just consenting adults, not the fact some old duffer was humping on a young White House intern.

The ad is just as disgusting as all the garbage the Democrats complained against with the Clinton affairs with Genneifer Flowers, and hitting on Paula Jones, and finally getting smacked around with an impeachment. Chris Cillizza seems to be more interested in sex instead of who is the best person for the job in Congress.

It will be real interesting if the voters decide the Democrats investigate sex when it involves Republicans, but when their own members are having affairs, (like Tom Dashel, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Ted Kennedy, or President Clinton) it is all written off as "private, not related to doing their job". So there seems to be no real standard for Democrats after all.

Posted by: Sam the Man | October 9, 2006 11:00 AM | Report abuse

It's all coming home to roost now. All the failed policies of the con movement. Notice all the poisoned food? First the spinach, now the ground meat and lettice. All contaminated. Why? One word -- deregulation.

Because of deregulation -- and industry insiders in positions of power inside the very agencies that are supposed to regulate those industries -- there is virtuall no enforcement of exisitng food safety regulations -- which have been gutted in any case.

Anything you eat could be contaminated. There is no longer any food any can consider safe to feed to your kids. Bon appetit.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 10:58 AM | Report abuse

I recall NC Sen.Jesse Helms' ad with the white hands crumpling up a job rejection notice because affirmative action dictated the job go to a minority. Helms himself was being challenged by Harvey Gantt, a black man. I believe it was 1990, and the election was fairly close. Gantt came back in 96 to challenge him again, but it didn't seem like he had the same energy and that election wasn't as close. A political ad hall of shame candidate.

Posted by: carrboro nc | October 9, 2006 10:57 AM | Report abuse

North Korea is a threat. What did the Dems what to do? Bomb them too? What about innocent life? I bet if Bushie knew exactly where Kim Baby was, that he might wake up with his ancestors.

yes, please blame Bushie for the N Korea mess. Ignore all the failures of those diplomatic deals with Albright which were never enforced. I think there is enough evidence to show Clinton just left N Korea for the next administration. We are better off with Clinton or her husband in the White House. They left a weak nation vulnerable to attacks, and heaven help us if she gets elected in 2008. The McGovernites and anti-war pacifists would take control of the ship of state and stir us into a worse mess.

Posted by: Cheryl | October 9, 2006 10:53 AM | Report abuse

From the rightwing rumor mill, Newsmax:

'When running for president, Michael S. Dukakis fired campaign aide Donna Brazile, who later became Al Gore's campaign manager, for spreading a rumor. The rumor was that then-Vice President George H.W. Bush was having an affair with his executive assistant. These details are laid out in a new book by Bush's daughter, Doro Bush Koch.'

Watch for this to go around. 'See, Dems are always using trumped-up stories to trash good republicans.' -- Doesn't matter how far back they have to dig, or how silly the story is. You know they're desparate when they have to go back in time for ammunition.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and I see North Korea now has a nuclear weapon. Good going, bushie and karl -- good going. A communist lunatic with the ultimate weapon.

Wow. Some October surprise. Remember how bush criticized the Clinton admin for their engagement with N. Korea? Remember how bush was going to 'get tough? Well, I see that after 5 freaking years of bush's doing NOTHING AT ALL, the world now faces a madman with the Bomb.

It was estimated that the test this weekend was half the size of what we dropped on Hiroshima -- which meant it was capable of killing a couple hundred thousand people, depending on the population density of the target area. A place like NY, might be millions.

Like I said, nice going, republican party. Thank you so much you savagely incompotent morons.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 10:43 AM | Report abuse

votevets.org produced this ad to air in VA. I don't know if it has gone up yet, but I think it is one of the most powerful; ads i have seen in a while.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ngLMU_6J0

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2006 10:42 AM | Report abuse

From Al Kamen's piece about a Canadian Book in today's WaPo...

"Speaking of leaking, everyone is raising questions -- irrelevant, but interesting nonetheless -- about the most curious timing of those revelations about then-Florida GOP Rep. Mark Foley's correspondence with a 16-year-old male House page."

You dont find NKorea's timing on their nuclear phallus test curious?
When did Rove know about these tests?
Why are they coming in perfect timing to scare ignorant, faithless Americans to vote for Republicans and then go back into their cobwebbed cold-war bomb shelters?

Doesnt ANYONE else wonder how Rove was so certain, back a few months ago, that there would be more than enough enough terrorism fear to go around come this election cycle?

Enough to protect any Republican incumbent?

Will the Foley fallout outweigh the nuclear fallout?

We, the American public, are being played as emotional pawns, using our lowest survival instincts to place stumbling blocks in front of our highest ideals.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I believe Patricia Maddrid's ad "Intel" is very effective. It links her perfectly with George Bush and the war in Iraq. It also portry's Wilson as a "flip flopper".

Posted by: Alex | October 9, 2006 10:40 AM | Report abuse

For a generation liberals have endured condescending rhetoric from conservatives about their alleged "moral superiority." It's nice to see them hoist on their own petard. They deserve it after all the damage they've inflicted on the country.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | October 9, 2006 10:32 AM | Report abuse

How far back you going, Chris? What about 'Daisies' the Lyndon Johnson ad that ran in 1964? A little girl counting daisy petal, an explosion, a mushroom cloud -- vote for Lyndon Johnson. Only ran once and became the most famous political ad ever.

I was only 14 it made me cry.

Of course, that was back when the memory of Hiroshima was still fresh and people understood that a nuclear war would be the end of human existence. I honestly don't think that they do understand that anymore.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 10:28 AM | Report abuse

What about ads that tanked so bad that they fundamentally discredit the candidate that runs them?

Posted by: Robert | October 9, 2006 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Harold Ford's ad, where he talks about airline security while sitting in an airplane, is powerful, too...and it hit immediately after the London nonsense had us dumping our water bottles and shampoo.

Posted by: Indiana Observer | October 9, 2006 9:54 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company