MATTHEWS VS MILLER: Here is the exchange between Chris Matthews and Senator Zell Miller last night after Miller's speech. J. McIntyre 3:36 pm Link | Email | Send to a Friend
KERRY'S OUTSOURCING: In his most recent dispatch from the convention, Charlie Cook argues that the Kerry camp needs to hit back at Bush faster and more effectively. He may be right, but that's not the point.
What is interesting is that Cook goes on to contrast the Kerry camp's slow reaction time with the rapid response from one of the many liberal interest groups that consistently attack the President:
One Democratic organization with fast reaction time is America Coming Together, the 527 group that peppers the news media with extremely pointed and timely attacks on Bush. Yesterday, for example, ACT's Jim Jordan, Kerry's original campaign manager, sent out a tart press release pointing out that the Bureau of Labor Statistics had just issued numbers showing July job losses, city by city. Jordan pointed out that Columbus, Ohio, which the president was visiting yesterday, had lost 2,400 jobs in
July, bringing to 11,300 the number of jobs that Ohio's capital had lost during Bush's presidency.
Jordan next pointed to Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, Pa., where Bush is set to attend a midnight rally after tonight's acceptance speech. Combined, those cities lost 4,300 jobs during July, bringing their total losses back up to 4,800. Next, Jordan pointed to Milwaukee, where the president is planning to go tomorrow and where 7,000 jobs were lost in July, for a total of 12,300.
The Kerry campaign almost seems to do better when it outsources tasks.
Read that last sentence again. Is the Kerry camp really "outsourcing tasks" to a 527 run by John Kerry's former campaign manager? Wouldn't that be, um, illegal coordination or something? - T. Bevan 9:15 am Link | Email | Send to a Friend
ZELL GIVES 'EM HELL: You'll have to pardon my French, but I had no idea they made cans of whoop ass that big. Last night Zell Miller opened one up on John Kerry, eviscerating Kerry's thirty-year record on national defense in about 15 minutes. It was the toughest political speech I've ever heard, delivered with a passion that was as deep as it was obvious.
And therein may lie a problem. Let's be blunt: Zell wasn't just angry last night, he was mad as hell. And he didn't waste any time taking out the brickbat and swinging away. But as I watched from the floor I kept wondering, "is this speech too much, is Zell being too angry and too tough?"
Anger can be an effective tool in politics, if used selectively. One thing you don't want to do, however, is to let anger become a central and consistent part of the campaign, which is something the Kerry folks have been struggling with for a long time now.
But there is also a big difference between being seen as angry and being seen as mean. Politicians walk that line at their own peril, and the question is whether Miller crossed it last night.
Personally, I don't think he did. Miller's anger was directed at his party in general and at John Kerry's abysmal voting record on national security in particular. Miller didn't attack Kerry as a person, only the votes he's cast and the statements he's made as a publicly elected official. All fair game.
Democrats are certainly going to play the anger angle against Zell as best they can - which in addition to being the smart thing to do may be the ONLY thing they can do to try and fend off Miller's devastating assault last night. Jay Carson, a Democratic spokesman, is quoted in today's NY Times saying of Miller, "This angry old man is scaring the children.''
The Dems will get an assist from some members of the mainstream media, many of whom I'm sure were shocked - shocked! -and appalled by what they saw and heard from Miller last night. (Incidentally, Ann Curry from the Today show just reported in her news wrap that Miller suggested John Kerry wanted to arm US soldiers with spit balls and Campbell Brown said Miller called Kerry "unpatriotic." Is that really what he did, ladies?)
When the Wall Street Journal interviewed the bloggers attending the RNC a couple of weeks back and asked us which speech we were most interested in hearing, I was the only one who said Zell Miller. The reason I chose Miller is because there are few things in campaigns that can be as potentially explosive and devastating as having a member of the opposite party endorse your candidacy. The fact that Miller was so angry and so animated on the stage last night only added power to what was already a remarkable event in this race: a Democrat, albeit one in the Scoop Jackson/Harry Truman tradition, publicly repudiating his party's nominee for President of the United States and endorsing George W. Bush. |
