Newsweek: Party Of One - Dems not dented *'s Wartime Appeal?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4616152/

Weeks before Richard Clarke's assault, the anti-Bush universe was alive with anticipatory chatter. "Clarke's book is going to be devastating," a member of Sen. John Kerry's circle cheerfully predicted early last month. The launch date depended on the 9/11 commission, which announced on March 8 that it would examine counterterrorism (meaning public testimony from Clarke) on March 23 and 24. Wheels whirred into motion. CBS slated Clarke for the "60 Minutes" broadcast of March 21; his publisher, owned by the same company, advanced his "pub date" from April 27 to March 22. As for Kerry, he needed to be invisible.

In Washington, the idea is to be out of the room when someone else is assaulting your enemy. Kerry knew the Bush crowd would try to dismiss Clarke as just another attack dog in the Kerry presidential campaign, especially since Clarke's best bud in the Bush administration was Rand Beers until he quit to become Kerry's top foreign-policy adviser. Besides, as one of Kerry's advisers likes to say, "When you see a train wreck, you step aside." So (just by coincidence, aides say) Kerry decided to take a ski vacation—and linger in Sun Valley, Idaho. He returned to Washington in time for a fund-raiser with Democratic ex-presidents—the day after the hearings ended. After Kerry left Idaho, he conceded that he'd finally read Clarke's book, yet Kerry remained circumspect. He allowed as how the administration was "not sufficiently focused" on terror before 9/11. "But I want to let the commission do its work and let this play out a little bit," he told NEWSWEEK.

<snip>

As much as they were quietly enjoying the White House's distress, Kerry and company don't want the election fought over this issue. "The fact is, if this campaign focuses primarily on the question of war and national security, Bush will win every time," said Jordan. "We have to be talking about the economy, jobs and health care."

And this is just one more reason why. They need to shut his disgruntled mouth up in a hurry. This campaign is not going to cede national security to George W. Bush.

"But, by a 2-1 margin (in Newsweek's poll), voters say that the president and his administration 'have taken the threat of global terrorism as seriously as they should have' — and, by the same 2-1 margin, say Bill Clinton and his administration did not."

Online 69% think Bush is more to blame than Clinton for 9-11

Do you think that President Bush and his administration have taken the threat of global terrorism as seriously as they should have or have they not taken the threat seriously enough? * 12038 web responses

RESPONSES WEB Newsweek Magazine

Have taken seriously 20% 61%
Have not taken seriously enough 78% 34%
Don't know 2% 5%

Do you think that former president Clinton and his administration took the threat of global terrorism as seriously as they should have or did they not take the threat seriously enough? * 12043 web responses

RESPONSES WEB Newsweek Magazine

Did take seriously 65% 26%
Did not take seriously enough 31% 65%
Don't know 5% 9%

Given what each administration knew at the time, do you think the Bush administration is more to blame for not preventing the September 11 attacks or is the Clinton administration more to blame, or are both equally to blame? * 12054 web responses

RESPONSES WEB Newsweek Magazine

Bush administration 69% 17%
Clinton administration 11% 24%
Both equally 14% 43%
Neither 4% 10%
Don't know 1% 6%

could be a KEY moment in history

seriously

if the hoi polloi are given the truth about this, after the media does what they did to him last week, then bush is shrimp toast

if the junta, aided and abetted by the likes of the Russertsow, gets its way, democracy is toast, cause he's going to weather anything, if he gets past this

that said, there's always the huge nosedive the economy's going to take when gas prices start to take effect, and hamstring the bogus recovery, leading to Carter-like stagflation

dunno if that'll happen before the election, but it's coming, and with a vengeance

To the question "Has what Clarke said about Bush made you feel more favorably toward Bush or less favorably toward Bush" 10% of the Newsweek respondents said "more favorable (sic)."

On second thought, not even a moron could listen to Clarke's words and arrive at a more favorable impression of the shrub. The poll takers have an unassailable knack for finding RWMF liars.

I hate when quick polls are released on the heals of breaking news. These polls are useless. People respond with kneejerk reactions before they have a chance to carefully consider the issues. This article is equally useless.

War-time president my ass! He's increased terrorism in the world and simultaneously decreased freedoms.