HughHewitt.com

The president gave a very good speech after being introduced by an absolutely great video. I was 50 feet away, and have no idea how any of it played on the small screen, but watching the president put on the body armor and stride to the mound in Yankee Stadium, October, 2001 was an inspiring reminder that in war, the presidency becomes the focus of the world, and that courage and resolve are the necessary qualities. Sure, there were pleny of interesting moments in the speech, but it was the concluding commitment to "whatever it takes" to win the war that defines George Bush. I continue to believe that bedrock reliability as to his courage wins 40 states.

And the combination of that reliability with the generally repellant qualities of John Kerry may make the NOvember 2 Bush win even larger. Could Kerry have given a more off-key, bitter, and self-destructive speech than the one he delivered last night in Ohio? The collapse in Kerry's standing in his internal polling must be total to have triggered such a melt-down.

I discussed the options available to Kerry on yesterday's program with John Podhoretz and Terry Eastland --very smart guys who have been around presidents and campaigns for dozens of years. We all agreed that Kerry would never embrace the "Michael Moore option" of running on anger and paranoia because it is a recipe for electoral disaster. But that's what Kerry grabbed on to last night, in a speech that may go down in American history as the worst ever delivered by a nominee. It is reason enough, I think, to reject debates with this fellow, whose apparent problems and insecurities about the past are every day becoming more apparent. Wild accusations that every responsible memebr of his party's leaqdership know to be false must be sending shock waves through that group this morning. Can you imagine Joe Lieberman reading Kerry's remarks? Or even Bill Clinton? Kerry's lost it, and that he did so on a night when George Bush reminded America why our enemies fear his leadership.

There were a couple of moments in the hall when protestors attempted to disrupt the speech. The crowd was much more anxious than the president, who just kept moving forward. There was a message in his response, which again underscored his authentic courage and determination. Geogre W. Bush is a war-time president who is not easily distracted or deterred. It was the perfect ending to four days of superbly organized political theater, theater that was powerful because it was true.

Even a bad jobs report this morning wouldn't have changed the fundamentals of this election, but a rebounding number and the continued solid expansion of the economy has put Kerry in a box. Kerry could have chosen to lose with dignity, running a Bob Dole race. Instead he has decided on a march through the fever swamps. It will be an ugly 60 days as a result, but perhaps on the other end, the Democratic Party will get the jolt it needs to exile the Moore nuts from its midst. The GOP is in a commanding position, but the country needs two responsible parties, and right now, the Democrats have become unhinged. When Kerry colklapse and takes Daschle, Murray, Boxer annd others with him, perhaps the message will get through that the country will not tolerate this nuttiness in a time of war.

September 2, 2004

Two years ago my Navy lieutenant cousin introduced me to Colonel John Boyd's OODA loop, and "net-centric" warfare. While I am off to interview Karen Hughes, let me point you to these links and suggest that the GOP is way inside the Dems' OODA loop, and understands how the new information tidal wide has changed politics by making political combat much, much more net-centric, and much more fast-paced. To use a techie term, the Dems are getting their rears handed to them on the management of buzz and momentum because they believe CNN matters and nonsense like "Zell was too 'hot' last nigth" can somehow stop an opinion wave from following in Zell's wake and creating even more damage to Kerry's campaign.

One of the pioneers of the theory of net-centric warfare is John Arquilla. His article on "swarming" is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand what is happening to John Kerry in the political environment of 2004, but not happening to George W. Bush:

"Swarming is a seemingly amorphous but carefully structured, coordinated way to strike from all directions at a particular point or points, by means of a sustainable 'pulsing' of force and/or fire, close-in as well as from stand-off positions. It will work best -- perhaps it will only work -- if it is designed mainly around the deployment of myriad small, dispersed, networked maneuver units. The aim is to coalesce rapidly and stealthily on a target, attack it, then dissever and redisperse, immediately ready to recombine for a new pulse. Unlike previous military practice, battle management is now mainly about 'command and decontrol,' as networked units all over the field of battle (or business, or activism, or terror and crime) coordinate and strike the adversary in fluid, flexible, nonlinear ways."

While Bush-Cheney 2004 is not coordinating with Swift Boat Vets for Truth, is not sending out talking points to the talkers on radio row, is not hard-wired into Brit Hume's head, and most certainly does not run the center-right of the blogosphere, all of these forces are swarming around Kerry and delivering many serious blows to his credibility and his strategic plan. They are "inside the Kerry campaign's OODA loop," and the result is paralysis and recrimination within Kerry's staff.

The Bush campaign, by contrast, has been preparing for the lefty 527s' attacks for a year, has been reaching out to new media for longer, and has a sophisticated cyber-campaign that vastly overmatches the Kerry effort in size and complexity, though the GOP is keeping its edge quiet. They are playing much better defense when they have too, and generally seem to have thought through the acceleration of the news cycle. Bob Schrum's game is an old four-corners, a rally-here-and-an-appearance-there wagon train of a campaign. When it came under attack from all sides in August, it simply froze and got whipped as a result. Prediction: You cannot put that train together again, even though it will struggle on. Attacking Zell instead of responding to the charges in person in a big sit-down interview is just another in a long string of miscalculations by a team that clealry wasn't ready for prime time. And Joe Lockhart is supposed to make a difference? Matthew Continetti has taken the pulse of the Kerry campaign, and it is weak indeed.

If Zell's speech had been the disaster that the old media left and the new media left are proclaiming it to be, why will radio row on the center-right be replaying it for 60 days? The chorus of people who are complaining that Zell was too harsh are violating one of the key rules of politics --never let them see you bleed. Zell spoke directly to the widdespread appearance of Moore's Disease within the Democratic Party leadership, and sharply underscored the undeniable 20-year record of anti-defense votes cast by Kerry. The attamept to turn a serious challenge to Kerry's national security credentials into a sort of Pat Buchanan "culture war" speech of 1992 is very amusing and a clear signal that the Dems are scared to death that the Zell remarks will be played again and again before 11/2.

"Watching that speech from inside the hall, I was genuinely afraid at one or two points. The audience was so enthused by his frankly fascistic remarks that at any moment I thought the distinguished Senator might point up and say "see, there, right there is one of these unpatriotic liberal journalists busy abusing the freedoms our soldiers fight to protect -- he must be destroyed for the safety of the Republican" and that Matt Welch and I would need to fend for our lives against the onrushing hordes."

What in the world are they teaching at Harvard when the recent graduates are throwing around the term "fascist" in connection with a U.S. Senator with populst roots in the Democratic Party who wore the uniform of the United States Marines. If Zell is a fascist, then Matt thinks 60% of America is fascist, and Matt is thus another victim of Moore's Disease.

Which I had begun to suspect when I read Matt's take on the Bush daughters: "The honest and decent side of me would like to say that attacking a president's alcoholic, brain-addled daughters is no way to engage in political debate." The honest and decent side did not win out.

But that's pretty much the effect of the Moore plague on Demos far and wide. Read this slapper from JMM:

"The whole week was double-ply, wall-to-wall ugly. The tone was set early on ... Allowances should be made for rhetorical excess ... But, even so, the Republican Party reached an unimaginably slouchy, and brazen, and constant, level of mendacity last week ... [President Bush] is in "campaign mode" now, which means mendacity doesn't matter, aggression is all and wall-to-wall ugly is the order of battle for the duration."

-- Josh Marshall"

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Arnold and Laura, Rudy and McCain, Dick Cheney --"wall-to-wall ugly" indeed. What Klein is trying to sell, what Josh is trying to sell, what every unwatched talking head on CNN is trying to sell is the idea that Zell Miller was too harsh on John Kerry. They had better begin to ask themselves the contrast between Zell in 2004 and Kerry in 1971. Zell did not accuse Kerry of war crimes, of Genghis Khan-like conduct. Zell targeted Kerry's votes and the rhetoric of the left. The left is squealing because the left was exposed before tens of millions by a Democrat.

Speaking of 1971, I re-read the 1971 testimony today to prepare for an interview, and was struck again by these paragraphs from Kerry's testimony (available in full at www.wintersoldier.com):

"Senator AIKEN. I think your answer is ahead of my question. I was going to ask you next what the attitude of the Saigon government would be if we announced that we were going to withdraw our troops, say, by October lst, and be completely out of there -- air, sea, land -- leaving them on their own. What do you think would be the attitude of the Saigon government under those circumstances?

Mr. KERRY. Well, I think if we were to replace the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime and offer these men sanctuary somewhere, which I think this Government has an obligation to do since we created that government and supported it all along. I think there would not be any problems. The number two man at the Saigon talks to Ambassador Lam was asked by the Concerned Laymen, who visited with them in Paris last month, how long they felt they could survive if the United States would pull out and his answer was 1 week. So I think clearly we do have to face this question. But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face politic al assassination or something else. But my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country --

Senator AIKEN. I think your 3,000 estimate might be a little low because we had to help 800,000 find sanctuary from North Vietnam aFter the French lost at Dienbienphu. But assuming that we resettle the members of the Saigon government, who would undoubtedly be in danger, in some other area, what do you think would be the attitude, of the large, well-armed South Vietnamese army and the South Vietnamese people? Would they be happy to have us withdraw or what?

Mr. KERRY. Well, Senator, this, obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal. We have to consider the happiness of the people as pertains to the life which they will be able to lead in the next few years.

If we don't withdraw, if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic bombing raids from Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what you will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually at warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will not have any kind of representation.

The war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America, and we can't go around -- President Kennedy said this, many times. He said that the United States simply can't right every wrong, that we can't solve the problems of the other 94 percent of mankind. We didn't go into East Pakistan; we didn't go into Czechoslovakia. Why then should we feel that we now have the power to solve the internal political struggles of this country?

We have to let them solve their problems while we solve ours and help other people in an altruistic fashion commensurate with our capability. But we have extended that capacity; we have exhausted that capacity, Senator. So I think the question is really moot."

Of course, there were at least 160,000 South Vietnamese who fled by boat --not 2,000 or 3,000-- and more than 500,000 southeast Asians became refugees. Between two and three million were murdered by Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia, and hundreds of thousands went into prison camps, and the regime's human rights record remains terrible.

These are the facts of the aftermath of the withdrawal of America from Vietnam, the withdrawal that Kerry advocated for and for which he ought to be given credit. When Zell Miller speaks hard facts about Kerry, and the left whines that these are "harsh," keep in mind that no treatment of Kerry can be remotely as harsh towards Kerry as he was towards his fellow vets or as callous towards him as he was to the fate of millions.

FRANKEN: Our guest this hour does something a little like what we do except from the right. I know right-wing talk radio sounds like an oxymoron, but Hugh Hewitt has always lived the impossible, just as I have. I may not agree with a word Hugh says, but I respect him for being a man -man enough to come on my show unlike O’Reilly or President Bush and I hope your radio has shock absorbers because we’re ready to rumble. The Al Franken Show is on the air.

LANPHER: And I’m Katherine Lanpher and we are turning now to Hugh Hewitt who is a conservative radio host and the author of It’s Not Close.

LANPHER: If It’s Not Close They Can’t Cheat: Crushing the Democrats inEvery Election and Why Your Life Depends On It. He joins us here for our live coverage from the Republican Convention. Welcome.

HEWITT: All talk radio is alike. Looking for the billboards just before you go on the air - politics different, but technique is the same.

LANPHER: People who are listening, we just a little intense search here for papers before we went on the air.

HEWITT: We never do that on our show [laughing]. I’ve been doing this for 15 years. I started in Los Angeles after leaving the Reagan Administration in 1989,

HEWITT: KFI and then I did PBS television for 10 years and came back 4 and-a-half years ago to star the Hugh Hewitt Show

HEWITT: Different - couple of different jobs. I was Special Assistant to Bill Smith and then went into the White House Counsel’s office and finished up at OPM.

HEWITT: and I was his counter intelligence special assistant and OPM is the Office of Personnel Management. I thought all Air America listeners would know the acronyms of the government?

LANPHER: You remembered your former employer. Well done. [laughter] Hey, you call Gordon Liddy “G”.

FRANKEN: I call G. Gordon Liddy “G” because we are close friends but it doesn’t tell your listeners William French Smith means something. Bill Smith means nothing. Uh……let’s talk, Hugh about this convention so far. Umm. . .we heard a lot about 9/11 on the first night and we heard a little the second night, have not heard the name Bin Laden. Um . . . why? Why do you suppose that would be?

HEWITT: Well, a couple of things. If I’m a speechwriter, I make sure that I don’t step on the President’s lines and I make sure that I leave it up to the President to decide exactly what to say about Bin Laden, and if -

HEWITT: I sure . . . I sure would not use it first because if if he does, it will be his line to use and his statement -

HEWITT: What do you mean disingenuous? I used to be a speechwriter in a long ago far away-

LANPHER: But the question isn’t whether you’re going to steps on the President’s lines, the question is why aren’t hearing the name Bin Laden?

HEWITT: Because then you’d also have to say the names Zarqawi, the name of the fellow in Indonesia that I cannot pronounce. You’d have to say the name of every terrorist who wants to kill millions of Americans. It’s not just Osma bin Laden. It’s much bigger.

LANPHER: But the answer that I heard in what you said was that it is politically sort of periless right now for them to mention a man they haven’t caught?

HEWITT: I’d like to give the President to give the key message on terrorism and the war on terrorism. Rudy game the message on how to come back from it. Arnold gave a great speech last night on what it means to be a immigrant in this country and stand for freedom. The Vice President

FRANKEN: characterization about the speeches. But McCain did talk about the war on terror and we did hear a lot about Saddam Hussein and we sort of skipped Bin Laden and talked about 9/11. We saw 9/11 widows and we heard . . . Giuliani talk about these people jumping from the building. We didn’t hear anything about the guy who was the head of the group that killed 2,000 Americans.

HEWITT: As we sit here, there are 200 children and adults held hostage by Islamists extremists in Chechnya who may be dead in fact by the time we talk. It had nothing to do with Bin Laden. It had everything to do with the war on terror. I think that’s maybe why the Democrats don’t get the war on terror. They don’t understand. It’s not about Bin Laden in a cave. It’s about Islamism that has spread across the globe that wants to kill you and me even though we disagree on everything.

FRANKEN: There are definite groups and there have been for long time. And uh . . . but the fact of the matter is that is was Al Qaida that attacked us on 9/11 and those are the guys that - when you bring up 9/11 who we should be talking about and not necessarily - and not talking about connecting it to Saddam Hussein by not - and - uh, and forgetting about Bin Laden who be allowed to escape at Bora Bora and who we just screwed up.

HEWITT: Now, this is why we are going to beat the Democrats like a bongo drum. Because you do believe that I think you sincerely believe that and Kathryn certainly believes that that the American public understands it that the attacks in Madrid were not orchestrated by Bin Laden, but were orchestrated by Moroccans who believed Bin Laden ideology and the attacks by Zarqawi in the Kurdistan poison factory - all of it is war on terror.

FRANKEN: Kurdistan poison factory by the way is a factory that we could have taken out, but the people chose not to according to NBC News. And they chose not to so that they [laughing] would have a reason to go to war in Iraq. Let’s talk about 9/11 and about this President’s and the 9/11 Commission which the President opposed. The President opposed the Commission and then flip-flopped and said okay. Uh, the President has flip-flopped on so many things for example, the whether the war on terror can be won or not and just did that in the last couple of days. But let’s talk about what he did in the 8 months he was in office prior to 9/11 and whether he actually took some responsibility for what happened. Do you think having read the PDB on August 6 which says that Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S. and by the way, do you think that was a historic document? Do you think that’s considered like Condi Rice said?

FRANKEN: I would think that every Republican - this is why we’re going to beat you like a bongo drum?

FRANKEN: Is that . . I would think that you would know these lame defenses that Condi Rice [laugh] gave in the 9/11 testimony. She said that August 6 PDB which said Bin Laden determined to strike U.S. was a historic document. Now in the 9/11 uh - Commission report, they said that the guys who wrote it meant it to be a warning and I say that if it’s meant to be a historic document, it would have said Bin Laden used to be determined the U.S. but not anymore. That would have been it. And given that in the body of the document it said that Al Qaida was thinking of hijacking planes, don’t you think that the President when the first plane hit the first tower would have put two and two together and said maybe I shouldn’t have gone into that school?

HEWITT: I believe, Al that if that’s going to be the Democratic campaign, we’re going to win 50 states. Because the Amer-

HEWITT: The American people are very mature about what the President believed that day. They don’t mind that he stayed with the children.

FRANKEN: I’m not talking about staying with the children. Maybe you missed my question. I didn’t ask you if that was going to be our campaign. And this is a lot of what I find that people on the right do and right wing talk show hosts do - like that is they say like if that’s what Democrats think we’re going to beat you like a drum. I asked you a simple question. I didn’t say that was our - we have so many things to talk about. Economic policy to talk about. We have the fact that this is the first president since Herbert Hoover not to have created a new single net job. If, if numbers do not lie, if you extrapolate from that this president has run this country from its very inception to the present day, not one American would have ever worked. We all be hunter gatherers. We have plenty of other stuff to talk about. I just asked you a specific question about something specific and you went from if that’s going to the Democratic campaign, we’re going to beat you in 50 states. Now, why don you just, just answer the question I asked you. Don’t you think that anyone who had read that August 6 PDB would not even have gone into the classroom because he hears that a plane has crashed into the World Trade Center and he’s read a PDB 35 days before saying Al Qaida determined to strike in U.S. and Al Qaida is going . . .is looking at hijacking planes.

HEWITT: in 50 states - the complexity of what you just asked. It’s not a simple question. It’s a question of ought the President to have been so prepared by the PDB that the moment that news arrived that a plane had struck a tower, he ought to immediately conclude it that Osma bin Laden who had been left unmolested for 8 years of the Bill Clinton Presidency, should have risen from his chair and not gone into the school and immediately ordered a cavalry-

HEWITT: No, and I’ll tell you why. One that morning I was doing a morning show at that time and I heard about it and I called - there my producer standing behind me, Duane, we’re going to have to go to somber music, heavy news, there’s been a disaster in New York. A plane has stuck the World Trade Center and it reminds me of the bomber that hit the Empire State Building in the middle of World War II. It was only after the second plane hit that it became apparent to me and I think to the world immediately - and Giuliani said this that the city and the nation were under attack.

FRANKEN: Yeah. Again if you had read - maybe you’re not following me. You hadn’t read the August 6 PDB. Let me remind you what it said. Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S. and Al Qaida is looking to highjack American planes. The World Trade Center had been hit in 1993 and by the way, the Clinton Administration had rounded up those terrorists.

HEWITT: But Al, did the PDB say that they intended to use airplanes as missiles? No. There has never been a warning that missiles would be used - that airplanes would be used as missiles.

HEWITT: No, no, no, not in the PDB that you’re talking about. It was not that - Mr. President be aware - he should have know about Genoa as well, uh?

FRANKEN: Genoa had preceded this. And at Genoa he was told that Al Qaeda might use them as missiles.

LANPHER: Speaking of putting things together, we’re still putting together a show and we need to take just a quick break.

Posted at 1:55 PM, ETD

HEWITT: With me now Matthew Dowd, the Chief Campaign Strategist for Bush-Cheney 2004. Welcome. It’s good to have you on the program.

HEWITT: We were talking during the break and I’ll get to the polls through the ups and downs and all that sort of stuff, but your history is so strange. You used to be one of them!

DOWD: [laughter] Yeah. My name is Matthew Dowd and I’m a recovering Democrat. I worked for Democrats. I worked for Lloyd Bentson in Texas and Bob Bolluck and met the then Governor Bush after he got elected and become a huge Bush fan and now I’m a Republican.

HEWITT: Given that you made that transition, there are a lot of Reagan people like that who came over because of the Gipper, what was it about the President when he was the Governor that made Matthew Dowd say I want to work for this guy.

DOWD: Personally, when you meet him, he’s a very kind man, tolerant person and he’s very thoughtful and just from a personal level, you can’t help but like him. But then you watch him in office and what he did on education and what he did on tort reform and what he did on tax cuts, you just see him as a good person with good public policy and he made me a fan.

HEWITT: I want to talk about marriage for just a moment because people attribute to the President a certain cynicism in his belief that marriage has to be protected. Is it genuine and how passionate is he about that issue?

DOWD: He’s very passionate. Obviously, this is a tradition that’s been going on thousands of years that marriage is between a man and a woman and he went to the constitutional decision very reluctantly because he believes the Constitution is very sacred and he would not have like to done that, but when you force somebody’s hand and you have rogue judges in other states that are doing the things that they were doing, there was only one alternative to do and, you know, he’s a believer that if you believe in the sanctity of marriage, then you ought to be willing to do something about it. You can’t just say it. You ought to be willing to do something about it.

HEWITT: Yesterday we had Terry McAuliffe here. He sounded and looked a little panicky a lot of other people share in the reaction. John Kerry didn’t sound so good at the American Legion today either. What does it tell us about what they are reading in the poll numbers and just in momentum?

DOWD: Well they are probably seeing the same things that we are seeing and I think the reason is because they had a convention and they didn’t say anything. The only thing they said is what everybody already knew and could care less about it. The fact that they spent four days talking about John Kerry’s service 33 years ago and nothing about his public policy record. So, this deterioration began in the aftermath of their convention. It’s kind of like Chinese food. It filled up people for about a day and then everybody was hungry and just John Kerry doesn’t compare well next to the President.

HEWITT: And given the idea that they are shaking up their staff today, what’s that tell you? Have you ever been in a campaign that moved senior staff around 62 days out?

DOWD: The signs of a struggling campaign that – evidence the first two signs. The first is calling for a debate every week,

DOWD: The next one is staff shake-ups, and the third one. if you hear the third one --which is " that the only poll that counts which is election day,"-- you know there’s a problem.

HEWITT: What about the idea that the debates have already been agreed to. McAuliffe was selling that yesterday. That you’ve already agreed to three debates; that there could be this screwy format, domestic, international...have you agreed to 3 debates?

DOWD: Naw. There’s been no agreement. We haven’t even announced our debate negotiation team. After Labor Day there will be a real discussion. There will be debates. There will be more than one. The Kerry folks will sit down with us and we’ll work it out. There will be plenty of time and the American public will be able to see both these men together.

HEWITT: I’d like to have my studio back in California play a line from Arnold’s speech last night. I think it was a very important line. It made me stand up and say that’s it. Can you play that for us, Adam?

ARNOLD on tape: They come here as I did because they believe. They believe in us. The come because their hearts say to them, as mine did, "if only I can get to America."

HEWITT: I just love that line. If only I can get to America. There are a lot of Latino-Americans out there, a lot of Korean-Americans, Asian-Americans all sorts of hyphenated Americans who wonder about the Republican party and with whom the Campaign 2000 did not do well. Is it that kind of inclusiveness that’s going to penetrate into those communities?

DOWD: I think so and this is the same kind of inclusiveness that you saw throughout this country in the last 200 years. My ancestors came from Ireland in 1850s in the aftermath of the potato famine and a lot of those folks were Democrats when they first got here, but I think people like Latinos are exposing themselves and looking at both parties and they are seeing the Republican party as really the party of opportunity.

HEWITT: Now, I was a guest on Al Franken Show today and they brought up "My Pet Goat" again and the President shouldn’t have gone into that school and all that kind of stuff. Does that help them in any way, shape or form in the polls? Do Americans believe that or resent that?

DOWD: I think Americans resent that. Americans know that this President is serious about terrorism. If they want to have a discussion about who is stronger on dealing with the terrorists, we’re happy to have that discussion. I just think what they are doing is feeling sort of this conspiracy theory strange stuff that goes along the web and on the Democratic base. It’s unfortunate but I don’t think it helps them to get to 50% of the vote.

HEWITT: How is this cycle different from the last one? For example, blogging – we have 10 bloggers up behind you. The information cycle is moving much more quickly. Have you had to change the way you approach the strategy?

DOWD: Sure. The Internet and the web has dramatically altered as well as the diversity of the media. It used to be that you relied on three networks, and now its radio, cable, it’s the web. I give you a for instance: at this same month in 2000, we had 200,000 peoples email addresses. Today we have 6,000,000 people's email addresses. It’s a 30 times increase in that, and people would rather hear from their neighbor about what they believe about the two candidates as opposed to a television commercial today more so than before so it has dramatically altered political campaigns.

HEWITT: An announcement from the Kerry Campaign that they are putting 45 million dollars into television – I think in September. That’s more than one-half of their budget. Again, translate that for us.

DOWD: I laughed about it when I first heard because they are trying to use process stories to cover up for a lack of an agenda and a lack of vision. They announce these process stories that that’s somehow going to change the landscape. They are welcome to spend the money that they want. I would be surprised, and I think they make these announcements, follow the trail. I don’t think it’s going to match with what the they announced yesterday.

HEWITT: Now the 527 money on their side is enormous. Is that having an impact in the battleground states? Does it move numbers?

DOWD: Well, they are. They’ve outspent the 527s that were anti-Kerry vs. the 527s that were anti-Bush at a 25:1 ratio. So, they’ve outspend the ones that are advocating against Bush by a huge margin. I don’t think it’s having that big of an effect. Obviously, money and politics it’s been there and it can have some effect, but I think the problem that they have is that it’s all been this sort of crazy negative vitriol. I don’t think average voters respond.

HEWITT: John Kerry has not sat down with a serious journalist on camera since Chris Wallace, the Sunday after the convention. That’s a long time isn’t it Matthew Dowd to go without a conversation?

DOWD: It sure is and I think that shows you the lack of substance that he has to offer. I think every time you turn around he says vote for me on healthcare because I served in Vietnam 33 years ago, vote for me and I’ll provide middle class tax cuts because I served in Vietnam 33 years ago. So, I think the problem is that he doesn’t have a record to run on and he doesn’t have a substance of what he wants to do to change this country.

HEWITT: Last question. We are out of time. Can you see it other than a close election? I know you have to campaign like it’s a close election, but a lot of people are beginning, and I’ve been saying 40 states at least for a long time. Can you see that it might be a real referendum to give the President support in the second term?

DOWD: We’ll we’re running as if its going to be very close, very tight as close as 2000. It’s possible. I think it somewhat depends on what happens this week and what the President says about his agenda for the next four years. It’s possible. I think we’re still planning on having a very, very close race.

HEWITT: Matt Dowd, Chief Strategist for the Bush-Cheney Campaign. Thanks for coming by and please don’t go over the fence again.

Posted at 9:00, ETD

My WeeklyStandard.com column is on Arnold's speech. I got a very interesting reaction from an Arnold confidant to the passage on the 14th Amendment's possible effect on Clause 5 of Article II of the Constitution, by the way. Can it be that no one has mentioned this to Arnold? In an age when marriage can be declared by four judges in Massachusetts to have been transformed by various devices into an institution open to two people of the same sex, a nullification of the presumed impediment to Arnold's eligibility is hardly a reach. Hire some lawyers with imagination, Governor

John Kerry has not met with a reporter on camera for an extended conversation since August 1, when he sat down with Chris Wallace of FoxNews. That's 31 days and counting. The problem is the Swift Boat Vets have not vanished, and the questions they raised have not been answered. A day after Terry McAuliffe told me he had never heard of the CIA man and the magic hat, McAuliffe told the bloggers that Kerry went into Cambodia twice, once with the CIA man. Powerline has the video posted. This is the reason Kerry is keeping far away from reporters with microphones on and cameras rolling. He doesn't have a straight story yet. Lileks gets it

"[N]o pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

Kerry needs to respond to this set of charges --in person, on camera-- but he can't. The Swift Boat Vets have him cornered, windsurfing in floral suits, a picture certain to connect him to the 60 year old guys on the line in Lordstown, Ohio. Cheney, they understand:

"On this night, as we celebrate the opportunities that America offers, I am filled with gratitude to a nation that has been good to me, and I remember the people who set me on my way in life. My grandfather noted that the day I was born was also the birthday of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And so he told my parents they should send President Roosevelt an announcement of my birth. Now my grandfather didn't have a chance to go to high school. For many years he worked as a cook on the Union Pacific Railroad, and he and my grandmother lived in a railroad car. But the modesty of his circumstances didn't stop him from thinking that President Roosevelt should know about my arrival. My grandfather believed deeply in the promise of America, and had the highest hopes for his family. And I don't think it would surprise him much that a grandchild of his stands before you tonight as Vice President of the United States."

Betsy's Page has a great take on tonight's featured speaker. (Hat-tip to PoliPundit.) The Boston Globe comes close to saying that Bush can put Kerry away tonight, but I doubt it given that 60 days is forever in this era of sudden catastrophe. But the president does get a chance to remind even his teeth-grinding enemies why so many Americans are committed to his success in a way that John Kerry can never hope to match among his base.

September 1, 2004

Posted at 8:00 PM, EDT

I'll ask Lynne the WebXena to transcribe the conversation with Al Franken some time tomorrow. Al skipped some logic classes at Harvard. That will be self-evident when I get the exchange posted.

I interviewed Matthew Dowd today (and that transcript will follow as well.). His key point: There are three signs of a collapsing campaign. First, the candidate who is falling like a rock challenges his opponent to weekly debates. Second, the candidate who is sinking shuffles his senior staff. Third, the candidate who is the walking dead says that the only poll that counts is the poll on election day. Dowd pointed out that Kerry has already scored two of the three. Heh.

Posted at 12:50 PM, EDT

I'll be on Al Franken's radio show slightly after 2 this afternoon. It'll be interesting.

"With accredited bloggers at both conventions, this can fairly be called the first presidential election to be blogged. And that just might matter -- though if it does, it will be as much because of big-media vices as it is of bloggers' virtues....

Does this mean that blogs will work in the Bush campaign's favor? Not inevitably, and there are plenty of lefty blogs doing their best to beat Mr. Bush. But so long as the mainstream media are lazy, and biased -- and strongly in favor of a Democrat -- the fact-checking and media-bypassing power of the blogosphere is likely to disproportionately favor Republicans. That's not so much a reflection on blogs, alas, as it is a reflection on big media."

The bloggers at the RNC, like all journalists at the RNC, are not here to discover "breaking news." Follman's critique is just a giant cheap shot because it singles out one slice of the media for a set of criticisms that could be applied to all media.

Follman sounds like a "new media" guy that wants desperately to be old media, and like the black-balled would-be frat or country-club member, is going to try and get in by targeting blows at those similarly situated. Self-loathing is never attractive, even in cyberspace.

I've had many requests for the transcript of my interview with Terry McAuliffe from yesterday, so I've posted it below:

HEWITT: Sitting across from me Terry McAuliffe. Strike me dead. It’s so good to see you here Mr. Chairman. It’s good to have you at the Democratic National Convention and at the Republican National Convention

MCAULIFFE: Who would have thought that I’d be going around with a credential at the Republican Convention.

HEWITT: Do you believe that John Kerry took a CIA man into Cambodia and kept his hat?

HEWITT: You have no idea that he made that story to the Washington Post and that he made it again in 2004 to the LA Times?

MCAULIFFE: If John Kerry said he did something, I’ll take John Kerry at his word.

HEWITT: Do you think that he ran guns to anti-communists in Cambodia which he told the U.S. News & World Report on May of 2000?

MCAULIFFE: I don’t know. You’d have to ask John Kerry about that. I don’t know what he did in Cambodia or didn’t. That was a war 35 years ago. I want to talk about this year.

MCAULIFFE: I think he probably did and probably George Bush when he was in the Alabama National Guard was driving the boat.

HEWITT: Obviously though, George Bush never made that claim but John Kerry has made numerous claims about his record in Cambodia. Does that matter to you?

MCAULIFFE: Oh sure, everything matters what people say. Absolutely. George Bush also said that he showed up in the Alabama National Guard and never showed up.

MCAULIFFE: Hugh, wait a minute. They’ve released the documents and all we’ve got is more questions. He had one dental appointment. Big deal.

HEWITT: Now, should John Kerry meet with the press and answer all the questions about the Cambodia stuff?

MCAULIFFE: I think John Kerry ought to go before the press and answer any questions they put out there. I’m always for that. Absolutely. I also want George Bush to answer some questions why he said he now miscalculated the war in Iraq. He says that we can’t win the war on terror. I have a lot of questions for Bush.

HEWITT: Why hasn’t John Kerry met with the media since the Chris Wallace interview on the Sunday after the convention for extensive questions? He’s had a couple passerby’s on the airplane but nothing on film and he hasn’t met with the press.

MCAULIFFE: This is all news to me, Hugh. I don’t know. I will be glad to ask Senator Kerry why he’s not met with you or any other the other . . .

HEWITT: Not me, but anybody. But Chairman of the party aren’t you concerned he’s hiding from the press?

MCAULIFFE: John Kerry is out campaigning every single day. There are press on his plane, 40 press, there’s a backup plane loaded with press, he talks to them on the rope line going in and out of the plane. I’m on the plane. I see him talking to press every single day.

HEWITT: He hasn’t answered any of these questions about Swift Vote Veterans ads. People want to ask about the CIA man in Cambodia in 2003. Don’t they have a right . . .

MCAULIFFE: First of all, he shouldn’t have to answer questions about Swift Boat ads when you now have all the major publications have now come out and have now said first of all, that these guys are lying and not telling the truth. One gentleman admitted the other day last week what he had said was not actually himself seeing it, it was based on hearsay, so he was caught in a lie. There’s another gentleman come out and say that there was no enemy fire. He got a citation and his medal for enemy fire at the same incident as John Kerry. These Swift Boat ads are riddled with lies.

HEWITT: But Senator Kerry told the Washington Post in the June interview with Laurie Blumenfeld that he had taken this CIA man deep into Cambodia and . . .

HEWITT: Do you think anyone else who would have gone with him would have stepped forward by this . . .

MCAULIFFE: You’re going to ask him yourself. I just know the issues which relate to Cambodia.

HEWITT: Would you agree with me that he ought to sit down with a reputable member of the press and answer as many questions as possible?

MCAULIFFE: I’d like George Bush to sit down and answer questions too. They both should.

MCAULIFFE: Listen to this. We have three presidential debates where people are going to ask whatever things they want. So, Hugh, the moderators have already been determined. I think you ought to call them and if this has really got you so stoked up, then you ought to call them and have John Kerry in front a national – 100 million people ask him at the debate. How’s that?

HEWITT: There are lots of Americans who are interested in this and there is plenty of media who would ask if he would only come out from hiding. Don’t you think that presidential candidates should be meeting with the press on at least a weekly basis?

MCAULIFFE: Hugh, he’s not hiding. This man has had the most extensive travel schedule. The press are on his plane. He’s with press constantly. I don’t know why you think he’s hiding.

HEWITT: When was the last time that he took questions on camera from journalists?

HEWITT: Does that tell you that the campaign is collapsing and he’s afraid to meet . . .

MCAULIFFE: Were you like this with Ronald Reagan when you could never get near him for eight years and he used to bring his car into the back door . . .

HEWITT: [laugh] I was his lawyer. I couldn’t . . . I was in the White House Counsel’s office.. Let me switch . .

HEWITT: John Edwards yesterday said that he should sell the Iranians nuclear fuel. Do you agree with that, Terry McAuliffe?

HEWITT: That we ought to do a deal with the Iranians that if they don’t get to produce their own nuclear fuel but that we will sell it to them in exchange for strict controls. Do you think that’s an answer to the situation on terror?

MCAULIFFE: If John Edwards said that’s what John Edwards feels and I’m sure that he talked to John Kerry about it.

MCAULIFFE: If John Edwards is promoting that on behalf of the Kerry/Edwards team, I’m clearly going to let our two candidates talk about how we should be handling the issues as it relates to Iran and the nuclear issue. I would also at the same time, as long as we’re talking about this, why is George Bush as it relates to North Korea continually allowed them to continue to build a nuclear stock piles in Korea . . .

MCAULIFFE: Well, they clearly were not continuing down the path that we have today. They are a much more dangerous country today than they were in 2000 when George Bush came into office.

HEWITT: Is it your impression that North Korea honored the agreement that Madelyn Albright negotiated and Bill Clinton signed?

MCAULIFFE: I think it’s always important, Hugh that you have discussions with world leaders. I think it’s always important that we have people who are little -- the leader of North Korea’s a lot of questions and you can’t trust him, but I think it’s always good to sit and at least have conversation with them because you can never get to an agreement until you have some type of discussion and dialogue. I think dialogue is good.

HEWITT: Before the 2002 election I remember watching you on with Russert and you said that you were going to crush Jeb Bush in Florida –

MCAULIFFE: I never said 15 points. That’s just not true, Hughie. I think you’re puffing a little bit.

HEWITT: It was a fake number – you said you were going to blow him out – take him out.

HEWITT: Okay, I’ll go back in a minute. Do you think you’re predictions about this cycle are as accurate as that cycle.

MCAULIFFE: Let me – Hugh, let me not make this too complicated. I’m Chairman of the Democratic party. When a commentator asks me about an election let me be clear so that you have no illusions. I will say that we are going to win every single race –

MCAULIFFE: I’m the ultimate optimist. We’re going to win every race. I think I should go on Sunday before a major election and go on Tim Russert and say, Tim, I think we’re going to lose this one Democrats – are you nuts? That’s what the Chairman of the party does.

HEWITT: But you can say something like it’s a tough race but we could pull it out as opposed to we’re going to bury him or whatever it was –

MCAULIFFE: I think he lost by 8 points. And let me tell you, I put a lot of money into that race.

MCAULIFFE: Let me tell you. Jeb Bush was never over 50% until 10 days before until they had a debate. As you know, Mr. McBride admitted that it was not his finest moment when they asked him how much the costs of his education plan would be and he said I don’t know.

HEWITT: So extrapolating out from that – Terry McAuliffe, would it be fair to say that if you’re prediction was that wrong about Florida 2002 that we ought not to really pay attention to your prediction about Florida in 2004?

MCAULIFFE: We’re going to win Florida. Just take the polls today. I mean we’re up. You know what? We’re going to win all 50 – let me make it easy for you, Hughie. We’re going to win all 50 states.

MCAULIFFE: We’re going to win the House. We’re going to win the Senate. We’re going to win everything. You bet!

HEWITT: John Kerry called the President – I want to get it right – craven, stupid, and pathetic. Good choice of words for a nominee?

MCAULIFFE: I haven’t seen it. What’d he call the President of the United States?

MCAULIFFE: I mean here’s a president that just said that we can’t win the war on terror and we’ve got a 140,000 troops in Iraq –

MCAULIFFE: He said that he miscalculated the war in Iraq. I think that George Bush has come up with some bad, stupid things.

MCAULIFFE: Unless you show it to me, I’m just not going to comment to something that you say on the air. You’re a lawyer. I’m a lawyer.

August 31, 2004

Posted at 7:05 PM, EST

To Terry McAuliffe's credit, he sat down for an interview with me. To his discredit, he will not answer questions, he pretends ignorance of well-known controversies surrounding Kerry's repeated tale-telling of secret missions into Cambodia, and he got surly when pressed to answer questions. I am amazed at his thin-skinned reactions and attempt to get me upset by sneering "Hughie" at least three times after it became clear that I would not be deterred or intimidated.

This is yet another signal of a party in panic --and perhaps a panic that extends beyond Kerry's meltdown. Is McAuliffe's hysteria a signal of a knowledge of what is going on in the polls in the Senate and House, or he always that easily upset and flustered? You can listen to the interview in the archive of today's show at www.krla870.com.

Posted at 4:15 PM, EDT

HEWITT: It’s a real pleasure to welcome now Karl Rove, Assistant to the President, to the program. Karl, welcome. Thanks for doing the Hugh Hewitt Show.

HEWITT: I want to start with one of the questions that I get most often from my public: on election night how does the President’s team prevent the networks from doing anything like happened on election night 2000?

ROVE: Well, I think they’ve -- I hope they don’t need much cautionary comment from us because the last time around it was so dismal. You could draw a line across the country when they mistakenly called the trifecta and have on the one side of the line the polls that had closed and on the western side of the line the polls that were still open and you’ll find something unusual if you group all those state together. The states whose polls had closed by the time that the networks called the trifecta tended to improve their turnout from 1996 . . that is to say that more people turned out to vote. The states West of that line when they mistakenly called the trifecta Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan for Gore, the turnout dropped from 96 by and large. The differences strictly that people thought that their vote didn’t matter anymore.

HEWITT: Have they had conversations with the campaigns, both Democrat and Republican about moral responsibility?

ROVE: Well, there was a commission appointed by the industry afterwards led by Ben Wattenberg that was quite critical. I think it was actually appointed by CNN and was critical of the network coverage and I think it has served as a cautionary note, and I think 2002 also served as a note because a lot of them ran these exit polls and thought they knew what the outcome was of some of these elections would be. For example, Mr. Zogby forecasted that Wayne Allard in Colorado, Senator Allard would be handedly defeated and it turned out that he handedly won. So I think and I hope that there has been an understanding on the part of the networks that they are supposed to observe politics not deeply influence its outcome.

HEWITT: Second most often asked question Karl Rove is about military ballots coming from overseas. Is there a plan to make sure that every ballot gets counted this time.?

ROVE: Yes, the Secretary of Defense has made it a priority to make it easier for military to apply for an absentee ballot and to speed up the delivery of those ballots through the system and that’s going to be very helpful and then in all of the states that there are significant military installations and with troops deployed overseas and likely to be larger than number of absentee ballots, we’ve been encouraging and lots of nonpartisan groups and Veterans service organizations have been encouraging local elected officials to give this a priority and to make certain that every cast by our military abroad is cast with ease and counted with accuracy.

HEWITT: Yesterday, John Fund gave a little talk where I was at and he noted that the Democrats have already lined up with a division of about 10,000 lawyers – sort of a strike force and that the country should be prepared for not one but many Floridas. Do you agree with that assessment, that warning?

ROVE: I think Democrats have decided that they are going to try and effect in court the election. Yes, they’ve already begun filing lawsuits trying to knock down either Federal or state provisionsthat do things such as for example, provisional voting. This is where if a voter is challenged, they are as to whether they are able to vote, they can vote, but the vote is set aside so that it can be researched and a decision made as to whether or not that vote was cast by a person who was both capable of voting and was that person. They are trying to knock that out in states. In other states for example, in Missouri they are trying to get rid of the requirement that there be positive identification at the polls. You remember last time in Missouri Democrats went to a pet judge and got that judge to literally to allow polling places in certain parts in St. Louis City to be kept open after the time that state law requires polls to be closed. We had to go find a judge to enforce the law that said that all polls must close at a fixed time and the people that are standing in line at that point would be allowed to vote. It is clear that that Democrats have got an organized and deliberate effort to let’s say to extend and distort election laws in ways that would benefit them.

HEWITT: Do you have a team that ‘s sort of looking at sort of the campaign after the campaign already?

ROVE: Well, I don’t want to get into details but this is a problem that we’ve been aware of for quite some time.

HEWITT: In the new GQ John Kerry calls the President’s team “craven, pathetic and stupid” and that sort of continues the unprecedented campaign bilification that’s out there. I know it’s the Bush policy never to whine about this stuff, but historically is there any precedent for this kind of presidential campaign?

ROVE: Well it’s sort of sad and I knew there was something weird when he started getting up on stages and invoking my name and taking a couple of whacks at me. I can’t imagine that this President ever standing up and invoking the name of an operative from the Kerry campaign. I think it’s sad and demeaning. I also think that it is a sign of something deeper and I hate to be personal about it, but Senator Kerry stood up on a stage in Pittsburgh and attacked me saying that I’d gone to great lengths to avoid service in Vietnam and then on the flight between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia at his next rally, a reporter asked him what do you know about Karl Rove’s draft status and he said I don’t know anything. So, here he stood up and took my good name as a cheap campaign ploy and knocked me around a little bit and admitted that he didn’t have a bit of evidence or knowledge how old I was or where I was during the Vietnam . . when he was in Vietnam, I was in high school.

HEWITT: Yep. I know that because we are roughly the same age. Is this strategy or inability to control emotion?

ROVE: I don’t know what it is. I just think it’s a sign of how petty and small that campaign can be. That’s their problem. We’re not going to worry about it there’s nothing we can do to affect it and nothing that this President is going to spend thinking about.

HEWITT: Last night, Senator McCain brought up Michael Moore and the crowd booed lustily. Has Michael Moore hurt the Democrats?

ROVE: I think he has. I think he is so outrageous. He is so out there in the fever swamp and he says so many things that are preposterous and he’s so ugly and vicious that the Kerry campaign would be, in my opinion, wise unsolicited advice worth exactly what they paid for but I think they’d be wise to muzzle their spokesman. But instead, they like having him out there. They put him in the president’s – the president’s so-called presidential box at the Democratic National Convention. What kind of endorsement of this guy is that? I just . . he’s had a popular film, made a bunch of money, more power to him, but he’s ugly and vicious and a propagandist who without respect for the truth or honestly and the Kerry campaign seems to think that they get a lot out of him out there.

HEWITT: Karl Rove you are a student of history and there are a lot of attempts to draw parallels to the election of 2004 some people say 1864 some say 1968 or 1972. Is there a precedent out there that parallels the dynamic that works this issue?

ROVE: Well there are lots that come close but it is a pretty unique election. If a country is as narrowly divided as the country has been . . . that is to say that the parties are a rough parity and we’ve been in that situation before in American politics. If the country is at war like we have been say in 1944, 1864, but there’s also a different dynamic in that this is a different kind of war. We are not fighting a nation state that has a capitol to defend and a people who suffer and assets in the forms of towns and factories and bridges and airports that can be destroyed or put at risk. We’re fighting a shadowy network of an international conspiracy that flows across international borders and it’s a different kind of war . . . requires us to think and act in a different kind of way. It requires us to fight it in a different way and it’s going to be a difficult one because it requires such resolve and focus and discipline. We’ve been at war for a long time before we were willing to acknowledge it where they struck us in Beirut in 1983, they struck us in Somalia in 1993, they struck us in the World Trade Center in 1993, they struck us in the East Africa bombings, they struck us on the USS Cole, they struck us at the Cobart Towers in Saudi Arabia, they declared war . . they openly declared war Al Qaeda did I think in 1998 and it has taken a while for us to acknowledge that we are in a war against a different kind of enemy that is going to require a lot of resolve and determination on the part of America and our allies.

HEWITT: As you study the data, has the reality of that war had a fundamental impact on American politics that is not showing up at the polls in terms of realigning blocks and changing the way that people vote in politics?

ROVE: I think it probably has. I think that this idea . . I was struck last night and I hate to make to make too much of polls and I hate to make too much of antidotes but last night when those three powerful women were talking about their connection to 9/11 and they panned across the crowd, I noticed that a lot of people, particularly a lot of women, were clearly moved by emotion. I think this idea of soccer moms, moms who are concerned about what kind of world their children and grandchildren are going to live in is going to reshape American politics.

HEWITT: Karl Rove, a few practical questions in our time left here. Do you read the blogs?

ROVE: I sometimes do. I don’t have enough time. I ‘m rushing to hither and to way too much, but I have a fellow on my staff who is very attentive to the blogs and pulls off interesting items for me to read.

HEWITT: Has the new information technology changed the pace in which you have to run a campaign?

ROVE: Oh, huge, hugely so. It’s also, ironically enough made campaigns in a way very old-fashioned too because it has given campaigns the ability to put into the hands of individual supporters data that helps organize the campaign, persuade people and mobilize people to register and then turn them out. It really is amazing how. . . it’s like my wife, she has got on the Bush campaign, we’ve got a thing called the Virtual Precinct and it’s a way to basically organize your own precinct of people all around the country. So my sister and brother-in-law in Reno, and my brother in Reno ,and my brother in Denver, my sister in Denver, my nieces in Cheyenne and Denver area, wife’s cousin in Hattiesburg, and her aunt in Hattiesburg, her cousin who’s at Fort Brag, her sister whose in Austin, they are all part of our virtual precinct and my wife’s job is to use these tools on the webpage of the Bush campaign to help make certain that she keeps in touch with all these people, makes certain that they are all registered, and gets them the right forms to request a ballot or registration form if they are not, and it is really pretty amazing how it has helped reinvigorate the sort of grass roots of the Republican party.

HEWITT: That’s remarkable. Let’s look at the debates in the fall, Karl Rove. Have you folks agreed to that false dichotomy of a debate on domestic issues and a debate on international . . .

ROVE: We have not yet announced our debate negotiating team and we we’ll deal with those issues in public after we name them.

HEWITT: Alright. Some particular demographics. Michael Barone yesterday in conversation said that the President is behind where Reagan was in ’84 and Clinton was in ’96 in the 18-34 demographic. Agree or disagree and how do you strengthen the connection with that demographic?

ROVE: I think that’s probably accurate and, of course, Michael who is a very smart guy, where we’re ahead in other demographics, but that is one that we want to work on very much. We’re not that much behind where either one were in ’84 or ’96, but I would remind you that both of them went on to pretty convincing victories. Clinton I think had a 7 or 8 point lead and 1984 I think it was approaching a 10 or 11 point lead so you know, we’re in a much more closely fought election but we’re working very hard on the younger voter.

HEWITT: I try to. That’s how I trick people into thinking that I know what I’m doing [laughter]. I talked to John yesterday and he said that John Kerry did not mention Israel in his acceptance speech. Will the President and is the Jewish American vote in play?

ROVE: It is very much in play, and I’m not going to get into the specifics of what the President is going to say or not say in the speech, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you were right. Yes, it is very much in play. They recognize what a -- how important his leadership in the war against terror is for the United States and the world and particularly for Israel for this scourge to be defeated and they applaud his moral clarity. They also appreciate the fact that he has had the readiness and the willingness to speak the truth about the rise of anti-semitism in Europe. This President has spoken out publicly against the rise anti-semitism and the burning of Synagogues and anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe, and he has also made it a point to talk with European leaders about it which makes some of them distinctly uncomfortable.

HEWITT: Karl, I don’t know if its an urban myth or not, but you were once quoted as having said that “four million of the nation’s eight million evangelical voters did not show up in 2000.” What’s the situation vis-à-vis that vote in this election?

ROVE: This is a pretty interesting observation made to me by a fellow by the name of Ed Goeaz whom I think you may know who is a pollster and Ed looked at the results of the 2000 election and roughly 15% of the vote came from self identified Evangelicals, fundamentals, charismatics and Pentecostals when they make up about 19% of the adult population. If you work the numbers, that’s roughly 4 million people who might have been expected to be at the polls if they turned out in the same number that they are of the population and, if . . . I think that community is far more energized. I think there may have been multiple number of reasons why they didn’t turn out to vote last time around but I know that they feel that many of them feel very strongly about the leadership of this President on issues of values and are more likely to participate this time than they did last.

ROVE: Well, Catholics are about a quarter of the electorate and they were about a quarter of the vote last time around. Uh, the difference among Catholics and among those who attend mass at l once, at least one or more times a week than those who don’t and among those who are more regular mass attenders we do better and among those that are not as regular mass attenders the Democrats do better. It’s an important group and it’s so large and diverse we’re talking about Latinos, Irish, Italians – you’re talking about a pretty diverse population of people.

HEWITT: Last question, Karl Rove. I don’t want to abuse your time. The oh my-my states: Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota seem to me to be at the center of this campaign -- not really a unique observation -- how do you win those three because if you win those three, the election is won, correct?

ROVE: Yeah. I think the board is a little bit bigger than that. I mean like Pennsylvania for example I’d put on that list of key states – I don’t know how you “oh ma-pa “ [laughter] but Pennsylvania which there are two new polls out, Gallup and Pew and show the President leading in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin the new Gallup poll shows us with a 3 or 4 point lead in the state. We’re going to keep emphasizing this President’s message of determined leadership on the war on terror, the right view of going about strengthening our economy and talking about the big issues and the big contrast between these two candidates who just campaign aggressively like we’re running for Governor of each of those states.

HEWITT: Karl Rove, always a pleasure. Thank you. I look forward to seeing you in the hall sometime this week.

Posted at 10:00 AM, EST

I interviewed Karl Rove this morning on everything from the networks' conduct on election nights 2000 and 2004, to Michael Moore, and the absentee ballots of the military serving overseas. I will post a transcript once I can get the WebXena a CD, and of course will play the interview to open the program today.

Rove was available at 7:15 AM, so we were back on radio row at 6:45 AM to prep and get the lights blinking. Not a blogger in sight. Radio row never sleeps, but the rest of the media does.

A grand slam by Rudy last night, and a home run by McCain, and the game-within-the-game heats up. 2008 is not that far off, and lined up for the consideration of the amassed national media and the money men and women are those two, plus Governors Owens, Romney, Pataki and Pawlenty, Senators Allen and Frist, and a couple of cabinet members to be announced. (Most who will speak on the subject don't think Governor Bush can run to succeed President Bush, but no one says that on the record.) Unless someone says "absolutely not," they are thinking about it, and the delegates have little else to chat about, so the speculation is constant. The perpetual hot stove league of politics gets furnace-like at conventions. One idea put forward by a very credible figure who I won't name unless I am given permission to do so later: Cheney steps down mid-second term and W selects a successor. That will put a premium on hard-work in the states this fall.

The Kerry interview in GQ is on stands now, and it is pretty bizarre, as well as venal. Kerry brands the Bush operations as "craven," "pathetic," and "stupid." These are terms for surrogates and the punditry, not the nominee. Unless the nominee is defeated and embittered. Which Kerry is increasingly behaving as. So now he's about to jet off to the American Legion to try and appear to be other than avoiding interviews, but he continues to avoid interviews. If the nominee isn't tough enough to talk to Tim Russert or Chris Wallace, is he tough enough to deal with the terrorists? David Brooks this morning writes about the courage issue. Kerry isn't displaying much in his refusal to meet the charges of his old comrades-in-arms head-on, with cameras-rolling and the questions unrestrained by preconditions. Then there is this transparent lie:

"GQ: What do you think about what the Republicans did to Max Cleland? JK: It's one of the reasons I'm running. I was so angry. It's one of the reasons Teresa switched her party. I think politics reached a new low, an unbelievable, irresponsible, I mean just horrendous level when it goes after a guy like Max Cleland. It's the lack of decency, a lack of common decency when you can attack someone like Max Cleland for not being patriotic. You may not like his vote. But then go ahead and argue about his vote. But don't say he's weak on defense and he's not a patriot and won't stand up for America. Which is what they said. I think it's one of the most disgraceful moments in American politics. And it motivated me within two weeks of that election to go on Meet the Press and say, "I'm going to run for President." Because we got to change what's happening in this country. Absolutely. You better believe it."

I am not referring to the lie about challenging Cleland's patriotism. Zell Miller, who campaigned alongside of his good friend Cleland has repeatedly said that is a bogus charge, but one which the fever swamp loves to repeat. I mean the stuff about "one of the reasons I'm running." Yeah, right. John Kerry saw the nasty GOP mistreating Max Cleland and was moved to get into the presidential race.

He also cites Conor Larkin as one of his literary heroes. Larkin was the IRA killer-patriot in Uris' Trinity, who drank to excess, blew town for New Zealand when the going got tough, came back and got himself martyred. And he likes Huck Finn as well. And Tom Sawyer. And the only Dylan tune he can name is Lay Lady Lay. And the left thinks the president can't communicate.

Kerry's off in a strange world of his own making. In the real world, at least a dozen innocents were blown up in Israel this morning --a country that Kerry didn't mention in his acceptance speech. In the real world, Iran should not be shipped nuclear fuel, which John Edwards proposed doing yesterday, and which left Roger Simon speechless when I told him about it yesterday.

There's a serious party with a serious nominee, and there's a silly party led by a narcissist and inspired by a repugnant propagandist. The contrast will continue to emerge with devastating political impact tonight.

August 30, 2004

Posted at 5:55, EST

You already know that the lines into the building are long; that the stress level among the public safety pros is high; that the humidity is unpleasant, and that there are some access issues for the bloggers. But...the RNC has made a wise move in placing the bloggers immediately adjacent to radio row, recognizing that the web is on par with the old media of radio and print. The DNC had us in the balcony. It has been said over and over that the Kerry campaign wasn't ready for the impact of the web on the campaign. The Bush campaign hasn't been tested yet, but there are signs of much more sophistication when it comes to the bloggers.

Technorati has a new Election Watch 2004 up and running. Be sure to visit and bookmark. The side-by-side comparison of liberal and conservative stories is entertaining and informative.

I spent a few hours with John Podhoretz, David Frum, Richard Wirthlin, Brent Bozell, Michael Barone, Richard Viguerie, Bob Barr, Linda Chavez, George Marlin, Cal Thomas, Brad Miner and Senator Zell Miller at an American Compass book club-organized author roundtable. (The club's five books for one dollar --including my book!-- is an incredible offer that the club is using to launch its membership.) You learn a lot around very smart people. Some takeaways from the conversations:

*from Barone: Bush lags behind Clinton in '96 and Reagan in '84 in 18-to-30 year olds. Bush can turn this around, especially with the opportunity society proposals, but he does have to focus on it.

*from Wirthlin: John Kerry's salute will prove to be the greatest strategic error of his campaign

*from Chavez: Republicans are underestimating the sheer scope of the labor effort. The numbers were indeed stunning in terms of monet and manpower devoted to beating Bush.

*from Frum and Podhoretz: New media has won. Old media knows it. And old media are very unhappy.

*from Fund: The lawyers mobilized on both sides to litigate the election will provide not one but many Floridas if it is close. Pray that it isn't close.

*from me: The reason the new media is so powerful is that people with opinions no longer need to persuade people to be allowed to persuade people. The gatekeepers are finished.

*from Bozell: don't underestimate the power of a handful of bloggers, recalling that it was three East Gedrman students who in essence organized the 1989 revolution via a mimeo machine and a battered car.

Meta-message: Kerry's devastated and the pros know it. The Vietnam issue isn't gone at all, but still eating away at his numbers. The buzz about his inability to respond effectively is turning into a buzz about how that inability equals an admission. The Kerry defeat will join liberal mythology of victimization --first Gore, then Cleland, then Kerry, the three musketeers of whining, examples that fathers teach their children not to emulate when it comes to the aftermath of defeat.

Why is it so harmful to Kerry? Wirthlin judged "the salute" to have been too obvious and too great a stretch from the reality of Kerry's rather complicated Vietnam story to the picture he was trying to present. The salute remained on the public's mind even as the public was reminded of Kerry's '71 testimony and the truthful charges of exaggeration were surfaced and authenticated. Candidates cannot overreach in that fashion without alienating the electorate, and Kerry has.

Wirthlin's widely recognized as one of the greats when it comes to understanding the electorate (as is Barone.) The campaign is far, far from over, of course, but Bush is in a tremendous position as the prime time convention opens.

Lileks suggests I had a chance to even touch the bottle I brought to the party. Hah! Read Fraters to figure out who --other than James and the giant Ute-- got the good stuff. I barely got an oreo. That's right. James served oreos, swiss cheese, cigars and carrots, and took us all on a tour of his Hummells.

Posted at 9:40 AM, EST

Dueling with Laura Flanders on Washington Journal this morning wasn't very taxing. She's enthused about yesterday's demonstrations. So am I. She won't answer questions about Kerry's Vietnam boasts. Neither will Kerry. She doesn't want to talk seriously about the realities of the war against Islamist extremism, and neither do any of the Michael Moore Democrats, who are in the ascendancy on the Democratic side of the aisle.

Last night, at David Dreier's party, all of the delegates, journalists, guests and who-knows-who-else assembled, were in the sort of high spirits that one expects when momentum is on your side. (On the Sunday night of the DNC, John Kerry had bounced a ball into home plate at Fenway, and the small talk was of Kerry's abysmal campaigning style). This morning the papers across America are full of pictures of the nutty left, led by Michael Moore. The Dems do not seem to understand how this plays outside of Manhattan, perhaps because they honestly don't have any idea. The country knows there is a war going on, and that the Democrats aren't talking about it. The Republican convention will talk of little else as the media talks about John Kerry's disappearing act. That's a deadly combo for Kerry's hopes in the fall.

Posted at 6:30 AM, EST

John Kerry has sent John Edwards out to offer the Iranian rulers a "great deal," according to the Washington Post: They get to have reactors while others supply the fuel, but only if they promise not to produce bombs. And if they don't sign on to pretending not to build nukes? "Heavy sanctions." Really. Do you suppose the mullahs are more intimidated by the prospect of Kerry-Edwards or of Bush-Cheney? Here are a couple of key graphs:

"Iran has insisted that it be allowed to produce nuclear fuel, which would give it access to weapons-grade material. Under Kerry's proposal, the Iranian fuel supply would be supervised and provided by other countries."

"Experts on Iran have long speculated that some sort of 'grand bargain' that would cover the nuclear programs, a lifting of sanctions and renewed relations with the United States would help solve the impasse between the two countries. But campaign aides later said Edwards was not suggesting an agreement that covered more than the nuclear programs. In the December speech, Kerry criticized Bush for failing to 'conduct a realistic, nonconfrontational policy with Iran.'"

But if anyone does bite on the Kerry-to-Tehran "grand bargain" nonsense, they ought to be asking the questions that were not asked of North Korea in 1994, which led to the crisis in that country. Kerry-Edwards are proposing to appease Iran --it is that simple. It did not work with North Korea and it will not work with Iran.

Does the combo of a flawed "grand bargain" with Iran and the GOP party in NYC knock the Swifties off the radar. Not a chance. Read Beldar this morning. And James Taranto, who is spot on in understanding what the Democrats have done to themselves, a problem compounded by the demonstrations yesterday. And while you are at OpinionJournal, be sure to read Fred Barnes on the challenge, and the opportunity, ahead of the president this week.

Off to C-SPAN to educate the bleary-eyed on blogging. The Los Angeles Times has started a "blog watch," which will in turn have to be watched. Poor Patterico. His labors grow. I will aim this morning to plug the four "Ps": Patterico, Powerline, PoliPundit, and PrestoPundit. Strengthening the new center-right media means building the awareness of the great blogs on that turf.

August 29, 2004

Posted at 6:20 PM, EST

I am scheduled as a guest on C-SPAN's Washington Journal tomorrow morning, to discuss blogging the convention. I have been asked repeatedly: Why bother? The answer for a blogger is the same as for a radio talk show host, a print journalist or a television anchor --and I have been all four. Journalists of all sorts attend political events even where the outcome is known for the same reason they attend the State of the Union or campaign events where the stump speech is given: To stand in the middle of the mighty river "Information Flow" and see what you pick up from hundreds of different conversations. Today I wandered around mid-town Manhattan assembling the credentials, three times coming across the Billionaires for Bush protestors, who are a pretty funny bunch, though their message gets a little lost with the Heinz fortune in the background. On 42nd street a huge banner is up proclaiming that "Democracy Is Best Spread By Example, Not War," which just begs for a sign opposite with just the dates 1941-1945, or perhaps a huge picture of Neville Chamberlain. And you really can't get a feel for how large the police/army presence is until you walk a few miles and are never out of sight of at least four or five of NYC's finest. You just have to be here to get the story in full.

I am off to dinner soon with some of the convention bloggers, though I am unsure how many. This follows a late night at Jasperwood --which followed a book signing which followed four hours at the Minnesota State Fair-- in the company of a fine assortment of folks gathered by James. Except for the fact that it turned out to be an accidental blogging intervention, where five or six folks with superb design sense tell me this site looks like --well, they don't like it. At all. Content's great, etc, but they just hate the "look and feel." "Look and feel this, James" I said as I hurled the remains of a bottle of single malt at his pal the giant Ute. Well, not really. I meekly accept their judgment, and will redesign after the election. What really bummed me is the discovery that I have been paying way too much to keep the technology side of this running. The Elder let out a strangled peep when he heard what I had paid over the past few weeks to get various glitches worked out. Oh well. The cigars and cheese were good, and the conversation excellent. No sense worrying about disastrous technology choices that make even amateurs collapse in laughter. Blogging has taken off because there is just so much talent that has found a way to get some air, and because it is a great way to find people who are genuinely smart, entertaining and decent, and spend some time with them.

Why blog the convention? Why televise the convention? Why send reporters to the convention? Because it is where the news is and will be all week.

August 28, 2004

Posted at 5:15 PM, EST

There is a battle underway in the Twin Cities between a pampered, bullying lefty deputy editor at the Star Tribune by the name of Jim Boyd and the Powerline bloggers. For relative newcomers to the blogosphere, Powerline is among the most respected political blogs in the country, credentialed to the RNC and widely and frequently cited by journalists working both in and outside of cyberspace. This isn't surprising because the three proprietors of Powerline are extremely smart, highly credential and successful lawyers with the work habits and intellects that accompany success at the highest levels of the law. They are also fine and good men, widely and rightly considered to be pillars of their community. They are serious intellectuals, of a center-right variety.

On August 18, two of the Powerline three authored a piece on Kerry's Cambodian charade, which ran in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and a series of events began to unfold, summarized here. Boyd was incensed by the article's relentless factual case against Kerry, but rather than answer the charges --which as every sentient journalist now understands cannot be answered because Kerry wove a tapestry of half-truths and lies about his excellent adventures in Cambodia-- Boyd lashed out in what to my eye was an actionable defamatory screed directed at the Powerline writers. Though they are public figures, the Powerline gents could sue the Star Tribune with a decent chance of proving the necessary degree of malevolence on Boyd's part, but instead they have challenged Boyd to defend his hack job and rebut their column.

Tomorrow's Strib carries columns by both the Powerline authors and by Boyd, and I have read them both in the advance edition of the Sunday paper. The Powerline piece is, again, sober, fact-filled and devastating both as to Kerry and to Boyd. Boyd's piece is not a response at all, but another windy exercise in frat-boy name calling, the sort of response a tabloid's gossip columnist might churn out. It really does include a "I could prove you wrong if I had the space" claim by Boyd, a genuinely hilarious admission that he hasn't got even one error on which to hang his hysteria of last week. The Boyd column is an embarrassment to himself and to his colleagues on the editorial pages and to the entire paper. In an age of accountability, he would be fired. Because the Strib's editorial pages have long ago given up on even a remote association with intellectual honesty, he will instead be treated to sympathetic slaps on the back and mutterings about the right wing --and left secure in his poisoned view of the world as were southern slave owners were in the face of the abolitionist movement, and the appeasers upon hearing from Churchill throughout the '30s that they had judged developments on the continent wrongly. Clinging to discredited certainties is a sure sign of a fool or a fanatic. Boyd doesn't have the talent to be the latter.

But poor, embarrassed Jim Boyd has performed a service, even in his humiliation. His exposure as a blustery, bullying and ultimately bitter hack is another warning sign in a month of such warnings to old media. The rules have changed. The monopoly is broken. You can't ignore the truth or the people who publicize it, and if you slander them, they have the tools of both rebuttal and exposure. As I wrote last week, it takes a considerable amount more talent, learning and drive to succeed at the highest level of the law than it does to be a time-serving fast food outlet for cliches of the left at a largely ignored editorial page of a second tier paper. Boyd mixed it up with the wrong guys, and even if his friends won't tell him the truth, he must already know that his paper saw what he did and gave the Powerline men another column as a result.

My language is harsh because Boyd is a bully who used his position to attempt to cudgel an opposing point of view into silence. He has been smacked down as a result, and it couldn't have happened at a better time. Had he simply apologized, his further exposure wouldn't have been necessary, but tomorrow's piece is another arrogant slander not just of the Powerline people but also of the real journalists who did the real journalism on Kerry's record and who won't sign on to Boyd's agenda of protecting Kerry from his own frauds. I am hoping many link to Boyd's self-indictment tomorrow and that his transparent posturing gets the ridicule it deserves. Journalism is shedding its bias, but not quick enough if the editorial page equivalents of Jayson Blair get to keep spinning out defamations of good people.

Posted at 11 AM, EST

"America then and America now was and is undeniably the greatest force for good in the world. Its troops, then and now, fought and still fight to protect and defend the United States and to stop evil men, regimes, and ideologies from murdering millions of innocents. In those fights, there will be terrible tolls, and many innocents will die or be injured, but American armies fight wars --then and now-- with more concern for the innocent and with more discipline and accountability than any armies in history.

At one point in his life, John Kerry rejected the core principles of the preceding paragraph. He has never confessed that error and asked for forgiveness of the people he slandered at that time. That's why he won't be the president. That's why Peter [Beinart] is wrong. And it is why the restraint that Professor Hanson wishes were still in place is not there and won't return to campaign 2004. The men John Kerry slandered are now fighting for their honor --again. Karl Rove didn't tell them to do so, and they aren't going to stop because Peter Beinart thinks they deserved to be branded barbarians.

It was a branding. It is still a brand --a dishonest, slanderous one. Men fight for their honor, and the ads aren't going away as a result."

Mr. Gerson has a problem. He cannot ignore the story that has dominated the last month, but he also must realize that the president does not want to divide a nation at war by replaying the divisions of the Vietnam War --although such a tactic would probably be immensely effective. Bush could in fact use his speech to make the points these columns and my essay make, and cripple the Kerry candidacy beyond repair, but at a cost of taking an already polarized electorate to a depth of partisan rage that would linger even more than Florida 2000.

So how to handle these events in the president's speech? Perhaps by saying something like this:

"All of us have watched this past month as the differences from long ago have risen to divide us again. As I have often said, I honor John Kerry's service and his valor. I also honor the service and the honor of the men who served with John Kerry, both those standing at his side in this campaign and those who challenged him this past month. Everyone who served, and everyone who loved someone who served, deserves our nation's thanks. I am proud of my service, as John Kerry is of his, as all Vietnam vets should be of theirs, as all veterans should be of all time spent in uniform. Defending your country and your fellow citizens is the highest calling, and all of America thanks all of its soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines past, present, and future."

"Now we must put aside the debates of an old war to focus on the new war. When England was suffering through the nightly bombings of the blitz, Churchill did not debate the pros and cons of the strategies of World War One. His every energy, his complete focus was on winning the life and death struggle then underway."

[Now I borrow a paragraph sent to me by Tarzana Joe, a frequent literary contributor to my radio program, and a fine playwrite]

"History shows us that many men are killed at the start of a struggle
because the generals and leaders are busy fighting the last war. Technology or tactics change and the men who rose to leadership in the old ways are
reluctant to stray from what they know well. But in this new war against
terrorism, we can not afford to make that mistake again. Because the cost
of that mistake today will not be defeat in a single battle or delay in a
campaign--but the potential loss of thousands of innocent lives. Critics
have said America is doing something it has never done before. My
friends...and my opponents...we must open our eyes to a changed world.
Because if we insist on fighting the last war, we will surely lose this one. And for the sake of the world--that we will not do."

Gerson, John McConnell and the rest of the White House writing crew have no doubt spent months helping George W. Bush prepare for Thursday night's speech, but I hope they are in rewrite mode, because they can't ignore the sudden explosion of this long-concealed anger over Vietnam-era slanders. Kerry lit the match, Brinkley provided the powder, and the vets of that era who were slandered are retuning fire. The president can't, it seems to me at least, avoid the topic in the biggest speech of his political career.

A final two pointers this morning: Powerline's write-up on the trouble Douglas Brinkley finds himself in should be a fair warning that the "new" material Brinkley puts in the soon-to-appear paperback edition of his book will be thoroughly scrubbed by the blogs. (And since Brinkley has released the Kerrry campaign from what the Kerry campaign has claimed was the impediment to the release of Kerry's wartime journals, when will the journals be posted on the web?) Second, take a look at an evolving timeline of John Kerry's life and various events and statements. It is really helpful in keeping various details straight, but it contains a reference to a Harvard Crimson interview, that for some reason I think as been discredited in some way. Would someone send me a link or an explanation of how that interview has figured in the campaign?

Email of the Day:

"TIP JAR"

Order Hugh Hewitt's new book from Amazon.com today.

September 3, 2004