After Swift Boat fiasco, will backlash against new smear campaign hurt Bush?

Less than three weeks after two Bush campaign officials were forced to resign due to fallout over discredited attacks on John Kerry's military record, Bush campaign allies are once again attempting a series of smear attacks.

Two new ads will be run by "MoveOnForAmerica.org", a 527 organization. The first ad attacks John Kerry for fighting in 1982 to overturn the wrongful conviction of an innocent man who had spent ten years in prison, by pointing out the man later committed crimes.

Perhaps worse for the Bush campaign, the ad refers to Wille Horton, a well-known figure from a George H. W. Bush smear campaign against Michael Dukakis in 1988. "Willie Horton" has since become, in the minds of many voters, synonymous with "dishonest smear attacks". This is surely an unfortunate issue for Bush campaign allies to invoke.

The second ad uses Hitler images in an attempt to tie Kerry and Al Sharpton to extremism.

The over-the-top ads seem to be so poorly done that they are being dismissed by diehard Bush supporters as liberal propaganda, intended to paint the Bush campaign in a bad light. Nonetheless, the proprietor of Move On For America is Steven Marks, a longtime GOP consultant, former Jeb Bush employee, George Bush supporter and Bush family friend.

Indeed, Move On For America's Virginia headquarters appears to be in the same office complex where the Bush/Cheney Campaign headquarters is located.

The Bush campaign, which an ill afford to be tied to further smears, appears to be taking a significant risk by allowing its allies to engage in such tactics. Bush's greatest strength, and perhaps the centerpiece of his campaign, remains the popular impression that he is a straight-talking, compassionate man.

The Swift Boat smear campaign attacking John Kerry's military history resulted in more than half of those polled believing Bush was behind the campaign. Further evidence of involvement by Bush friends and supporters in smears thus threatens to do direct damage to Bush's bid for re-election.

Looks like Bush's speech didn't do much for undecideds:

CLAYTON, Mo., Sept. 3 -- Half a dozen undecided voters who gathered here to watch President Bush's acceptance speech made it clear before he took the podium that they had serious doubts about his leadership and his political choices. After listening to 62 minutes of carefully crafted oratory, Christopher A. Jackson found himself leaning ever so slightly the president's way.

But, then, after listing all that bothered him about the speech, Jackson announced that he still wasn't sure.

"I honestly don't trust the guy," said Jackson, 41, a businessman and registered independent.

In Goffstown, N.H., Kate Tullgren, 18, said she was undecided and might vote for Bush. Yet she greeted the speech with whispered sarcasm and scowls of incredulity. When Bush mentioned judicial appointments, she said, "What about Roe v. Wade, buddy?"

. . .

The reactions of undecided voters in three battleground states who agreed to watch Bush's convention speech with Washington Post reporters suggest that Bush still has work to do to win their allegiance. Some expressed skepticism about portions of the speech, and others found themselves nodding in agreement with some of the president's comments. But none said that the president had overcome their doubts in his nationally televised address.

As several people have pointed out recently, the two main issues for this election are Iraq and the economy. And whenever either one comes up, Bush comes out the loser.

No wonder Bush wants so desperately to keep the focus on the Kerry of 35 years ago with lies and smears.

If you read anything today (and if you haven't read this already), I urge you to check out Juan Cole's "The CEO Test for Bush":

Bush's basic characteristic is not steadfastness, as the convention attempted to argue, but rashness. He is a gambler who goes for the big bang. He loses his temper easily, and makes hasty and uninformed decisions about important matters. No corporation would keep on a CEO that took risks the way Bush has, if the gambles so often resulted in huge losses.

Read the whole thing. It's obviously designed to put things in terms that anyone can understand. Would you, indeed, keep a CEO on the payroll who had run the company into the ground, and whose only argument for keeping his job is that he doesn't change his mind?

Not only has the rate of American soldiers killed in Iraq increased dramatically since the "handover of sovereignty" at the end of July, but the violence and bad news in general continue unabated:

A suicide attacker detonated a car bomb Saturday outside the Iraqi police academy in the northern city of Kirkuk as hundreds of trainees and civilians were leaving for the day, killing at least 20 people and wounding 36, authorities said.

And this isn't good:

Rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr declared U.S. forces can never defeat his Mahdi militia in a defiant speech read out to 2,000 supporters during the first Friday prayers since the end of a brutal three-week standoff with troops.

How's the oil coming?

The strategic northern Iraqi oil pipeline from Kirkuk to the Turkish port of Ceyhan was ablaze Thursday after a huge explosion, which is seriously affecting oil exports.

(excerpts via the Iraqi Coalition Casualty page: http://icasualties.org/oif/)

Not really. Today's news of 144,000 new jobs (seasonally adjusted) in August means the Bush economy is still not creating enough new jobs to keep up with population growth. In other words: jobs are still becoming more scarce. So if it seems like the job market isn't great, you're right. It's not.

In fact, here's a little reminder of the kind of job growth we've seen under Bush, and the kind of job growth we used to have when a Democrat was in the White House (total nonfarm, seasonably adjusted):



And the unemployment rate (total, 16 yrs and older):



And here's why the unemployment rate isn't even higher: lots of people have given up looking for work. In fact, note the quick downturn in labor force participation at the end of the graph, which accounts for the "drop" in unemployment rate in August (labor force participation rate, seasonably adjusted):



No matter how Bush tries to spin it, and no matter how he tries to change the subject, the Bush economy sucks, and yes, it is his fault: he's refused expert advice that he do something besides cut taxes for the very well off.

America can do better.

With the Republican "no mention" convention in full swing, what's there to say? It's the most stilted, forced, negative thing one could think of. In short: it's "Anyone but Kerry".

It kinda had to be this way. The Republicans have no vision for the future, and they have no past record of accomplishment to point to. They're a party co-opted by extremists and held in power by corrupt, sleazy and/or criminal tactics. Even now, they're trying to distort the polls and the Kerry campaign to paint Kerry as a loser. Unfortunately, it's a tactic for which too many Democrats are falling.

So, not much to blog until Friday. Until then, a new article in Salon regarding a witness to Bush's AWOL years, a related tape of a former Bush family friend who pulled strings to get Bush into the National Guard (hey, Bush brought this on himself, right? He deserves it -- he made Kerry's service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his underhanded smear campaign), the burgeoning FBI investigation into the Pentagon Neocons and plenty of whisky sours should get us through.

Here:

When asked "Can we win?" the war on terror, Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world."

Well, Mr. President, I think we'd have a lot better chance of winning the War on Terrorism if we actually fought it. If we had spent the last three years mopping up al Qaeda, securing our ports and allocating decent resources to our first responders, rather than taking a vacation after a good start in Afghanistan and detouring into Iraq (which had absolutely nothing to do with those who attacked us on September 11, 2001), we might indeed have a shot at finishing this organization.

It is cynical beyond belief that this administration, which has shown very little interest in actually fighting terrorism, is trying to use September 11 as a vehicle for re-election. They want to use the deaths of 3000 Americans for political gain, just as they used them as an excuse to push a pre-existing plan (invasion of Iraq).

Utterly shameless.

It would appear, from the way things are shaping up, that the Bush campaign intents to run from here on out as though Bush hasn't been in office the last four years, nothing that's happened is his fault, and this is a straight-up election between two guys, with Bush being a basically good guy and Kerry a loser.

Don't you fall for it. George Bush is a failed president, and we re-elect him at our peril. John Kerry, by contrast, has a proven record, from his Vietnam service, his courageous stand against the Vietnam War, his term as a Leutenant governor, a prosecutor and his 20 years in the United States Senate.

• George Bush has presided over the first presidency since Hoover to lose jobs overall. This is largely due to his ideological refusal to do anything but cut taxes mainly on the wealthy.
  
• George Bush and his administration exaggerated the danger posed by Iraq to invade that country. They ignored responsible post-war plans, and nearly 1000 American servicemen have died there as a result -- more than were killed in the first four years of Vietnam -- and the country has basically fallen into chaos.
  
• George Bush has ignored sound science and pushed back on responsible anti-pollution initiatives, with one result being that a chemical extremely harmful to fetuses (mercury) is more prevalent today.
  
• After a decent start in Afghanistan, George Bush has basically ignored the threat posed by al Qaeda. In terms of money and resources, attention, and real improvements to security, this administration has failed utterly. We are now in greater danger than before 9/11.
  
• George Bush and Congressional Republicans have presided over the biggest deficits in our nation's history. Their spending spree has been record-setting and utterly irresponsible.
  

And what about John Kerry? We've all heard about his flip flops and bad decisions, right? Would it surprise you to know that almost all of what you've heard is outright Bush campaign lies?

• John Kerry didn't oppose the $87 billion for troops in 2003. John Kerry proposed a bill to provide the money by not running up the federal deficit. He voted against a different way that would have provided the money by running up the deficit. Bush himself threatened to veto the money, after taking our troops to war, if Congress tried to pay for the funds by not running up the deficit.
  
• John Kerry has not voted to raise taxes hundreds of times. That is an outright lie from the Bush campaign.
  
• John Kerry has not voted against dozens of weapon systems we need to fight the war on terror (such as F-18's, Bradley fighting vehicles, etc.). That is another outright lie from the Bush campaign.
  
• John Kerry has never proposed to "gut" the federal intelligence agency budget. That is yet another lie from the Bush campaign.
  

And what about Kerry's actual record?

• John Kerry was one of the first to push for control of the nuclear arms race in the 1980's.
  
• John Kerry was absolutely instrumental in discovering the truth about Vietnam POW's and normalizing relations with that country.
  
• John Kerry has spearheaded several extremely important and high-profile Congressional investigations into government corruption and criminal activity, including Iran-Contra.
  
• Kerry was chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations, and in that role he investigated and rooted out the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in the early 90's, a huge terrorist money-laundering organization which served clients such as Osama bin Laden. Kerry spearheaded a difficult effort that did tremendous damage to worldwide terrorist organizations.
  
• John Kerry has sponsored or co-sponsored 56 bills that have passed the U.S. Senate, a very high rate of passage that demonstrates Kerry is a fighter who knows how to get things done.
  
• Kerry's attendence record for Senate votes exceeds 95%, which is excellent, and demonstrates his focus and determination for getting his job done right.
  

I urge anyone who has formed opinions regarding John Kerry based upon negative advertising by the Bush campaign to double and triple-check everything you have heard. The Bush campaign has waged the most dishonest and negative campaign in history, one that would never get past false advertising laws if they applied to campaign advertising. John Kerry is a courageous and decisive leader who has always stood up for defending this country, who sees and can deal with the complexities of leadership (as opposed to Bush's simple-mindedness) and who has the good humor, integrity, honesty and intelligence to lead this country back to greatness.

Bush has nothing to offer this country but lies. America can do better.