The Washington Post's Bob Woodward has written a new book - this one exploring the process the Administration has gone through with regard to Iraq.
In classic Woodwardian style, it is full of direct quotes and indirect assessments but, in the 5,650-word excerpt there's one important phrase missing: "Mid-term elections." This first installment, contains NO indication that the possible effects on the looming mid-term elections were ever considered in arriving at an Iraq strategy.
President Bush is presented as a man who listened to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney - who were urging military action; but also listened to Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice:
"Powell's presentation was an outpouring of both analysis and emotion that encompassed his entire experience -- 35 years in the military, former national security adviser and now chief diplomat. The president seemed intrigued as he listened and asked questions but did not push back that much."
At another point, Woodward points out that during his dramatic speech to the United Nations on September 12, the phrase in which the President was to proclaim his intention to ask for a new Security Council resolution was left off the TelePrompTer.
President Bush recognized the error and, "With only mild awkwardness he ad-libbed it, saying later, 'We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions.'"
You think I'm the only one saying this stuff? A couple of days before the election, Mullings pointed out that with Walter Mondale (at 74) and Frank Lautenberg (at 78), wins in New Jersey and Minnesota might "well prove to be Pyrrhic victories if they only serve to highlight the lack of young leadership in the party."
In yesterday's NY Times, Adam Nagourney in his piece headed, "Democrats Seek New Message and a Messenger" wrote (without, we assume, any intended irony): "The only relatively fresh face in the party leadership is Representative Nancy Pelosi, 62..."
In that same piece, U.S. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) who (a) chaired the Democrats' campaign for the U.S. House and may see an historic number of losses in a mid-term election; but (b) does not, apparently, meet Mr. Nagourney's test of a "relatively fresh face" said "The reports of our demise and disarray are greatly exaggerated. I don't know that we need to change what we stand for."
Actually, Ms. Lowey may be correct. In order to CHANGE what the Democratic party stands for, one would first have to DEFINE what the Democratic party stands for.
The LA Times polled the 450 members of the Democratic National Committee to get a sense of who they wanted to be
their nominee. There was no clear favorite, but deep in Mark Z. Barabak's piece is this bit of Democratic optimism:
"Asked who they believed would be the strongest candidate against Bush -- regardless of their personal preferences -- more than 25% of respondents cited no one in particular. Just about two in 10 picked Gore. Kerry was named by 16% and Edwards by 13%. No other candidate polled in double digits."
Someone get Nita Lowey on the phone and ask her if she'd like to change her assessment.
Get your money back: John B. Judis and Ruy Tiexeira wrote a book titled, "The Emerging Democratic Majority." This book was not published in 1964; nor in 1992. It was published THIS PAST AUGUST! Here's the blurb from Publisher's Weekly:
"Judis ... and Teixeira ... argue that, if current demographic and political trends continue, a new realignment of political power is inevitable, this time sweeping Democrats to power."
This was not excellent timing. At a minimum, they should have indicated the Democratic Majority would Emerge by 2006, or 2010. As Bill Murray said in "Ghostbusters II," to the author who had written a book saying the world was going to end that very year, "That's cutting it a little bit close, isn't it! I mean - just from a sales point of view..."
On the Secret Decoder Ring page today: Links to the Woodward excerpt, the Nagourney piece, and the LA Times poll. There is NO link to that idiotic book, but the text of the Ghostbusters scene is there. As is a VERY COOL Mullfoto, and a pretty amusing Catchy Caption of the Day!
� 
