Paralele//Paralele

Il suspectez pe Dan Andronic de autosuficienta, dar nu si de prostie. E posibil prin urmare sa fi realizat esecul tacticii mediatice exersate de premier in scandalul Norica Nicolai. Mai mult, nici contraatacul feminist a la Hillary condus pe 2 flancuri-Norica Nicolai storcand cateva lacrimi celor care o cred victima a misoginismului lui Basescu si scrisoarea celebrei dar inexistentei Organizatii a Femeilor Liberale, condusa de aceeasi "victima- nu a dat roade. Ce urmeaza? Pai retragerea..sau cel putin asta sugereaza ultimul post al lui Dan Andronic, care incearca sa testeze si reactiile "prostimei" din blogosfera, evident insa intr-o nota de nevinovatie induiosatoare..ca deh, domnul consultant doar vrea sa ne afle parerea, asa ca sa-si poata faca si el una..Vedem maine! Mai multe despre Organizatia Femeilor Liberale aici

Intreaga poveste aici

www.newsin.ro

Campania pentru PE stârneşte unele nemulţumiri în interiorul PNL, o parte dintre liberali reproşându-şi vicepreşedintelui Ludovic Orban, coordonator al staff-ului electoral pe probleme de imagine, că îşi gestionează singur acţiunile electorale, consiliat de firma soţilor Săftoiu.

Surse liberale au relatat pentru NewsIn că cel care este însărcinat cu problemele de comunicare, Ludovic Orban, acţionează independent de staff-ul electoral al partidului, unii dintre colegii săi de partid comentând că acesta nu ţine cont de recomandările făcute de consultanţii oficiali ai partidului, firma lui Dan Andronic, Multimedia Political Communication. Concret, consultanţii PNL le-au sugerat liberalilor, ca şi în campania prilejuită de referendumul pentru demiterea preşedintelui, să nu îşi axeze mesajul electoral pe atacuri la adresa lui Băsescu, ci pe buna guvernare. Sfatul consultanţilor nu a fost luat în considerare de vicepreşedintele Ludovic Orban, care, de altfel a apelat la serviciile de consultanţă ale firmei deţinute chiar de către foştii consilieri prezidenţiali, soţii Săfotiu. Este vorba despre firma Capital Promotion.

Surse liberale mai susţin că Dan Andronic s-ar fi plâns de câteva ori chiar preşedintelui PNL Călin Popescu Tăriceanu de faptul că Orban, unul dintre cei mai vocali lideri ai PNL, lucrează cu o altă firmă de consultanţă. În mediile liberale s-a vorbit despre faptul că vicepreşedintele este preocupat mai mult de propria sa platformă electorală, ministrul transporturilor pregătindu-se şi pentru candidatura la Primăria Capitalei.

De altfel, nici Orban, nici vicepreşedintele Crin Antonescu, şeful politic al campaniei, nu prea au mai venit la partid, iar echipa de campanie nu s-a mai reunit în şedinţe. Sâmbătă, la acţiunea electorală programată să aibă loc la Deva, vor participa Tăriceanu, eurocandidaţii, iar Antonescu a confirmat participarea în ultima clipă. În acelaşi timp, Orban va rămâne la Bucureşti pentru a organiza acţiuniile la nivelul organizaţiei PNL Bucureşti, aşa cum a făcut şi weekendu-urile trecute, punând în scenă mai multe manifestări la care au fost invitaţi şi cântăreţi precum Loredana Groza.

Per ansamblu însă, liberalii susţin că, deşi există o relativă "schismă" la nivelul echipei electorale, sunt mulţumiţi de modul în care s-a derulat campania partidului. Şi pentu că tot s-a vorbit despre implicarea Nadiei Comăneci, liberalii s-au limitat în cele din urmă la alţi sportivi precum Gina Gogean, Gabi Szabo, Leonard Doroftei sau Victor Piţurcă, aceştia fiind prezenţi la manifestările din ţară. Chiar şi eurocandidatul PC Mihai Leu a fost prezent la una dintre acţiunile electorale ale PNL.

Săptămâna viitoare, pe final de campanie, liberalii vor organiza o manifestare la Suceava. Tot săptămâna viitoare, în perioada 17-18 noiembrie, Mihai Răzvan Ungureanu va fi prezent în ţară şi va participa la o acţiune electorală organizată de liderul filialei Iaşi, Relu Fenechiu.

Stirea a aparut mai intai pe Rompres (deci 100% credibilitate), si a fost preluata de Cristi Sutu aici si de Victor Ciutacu aici. Eu nu pot decat sa confirm plecarea Ancai din stafful lui AN si sa completez prin trecerea sigura in stafful PNL. Langa Andronic. Stiu ca suna ciudat, dar..incurcate sunt caile Domnului..Acum cateva saptamani si Adriana Saftoiu facea pasul spre PNL, via Ministerul Transporturilor (o tempora, o mores). Uite un partid care intelege tot mai mult beneficiile consultantei politice. Bravo mah! p.s. sa nu uitam ca anca alexandrescu e in spatele firmei de monitorizare a presei Monitoring Media, care detine contracte in cvasiunanimitatea institutiilor romanesti. buna achizitie dom'le. si se mai intrebau unii ce va face conu Dinu cu banii

FRED THOMPSON: FIRST LOBBYIST FOR PRESIDENT



By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN



Published on FoxNews.com on September 10, 2007.



There’s a new first in the 2008 presidential campaign.



We’ve already seen the first woman candidate, Hillary Clinton and the first
African American with widespread support and a serious chance at winning the
presidency.



But now there’s another groundbreaker: the first lobbyist candidate — Fred
Thompson.



Thompson was a lobbyist for 20 years before he was elected to the Senate,
representing the Tennessee Savings and Loan Association, the deposed Haitian
President Aristed and the National Planning & Reproductive Health
Association.



Although Fred bills himself as strongly against government interference and handouts,
he also lobbied for Westinghouse in its bid for government subsidies for a
nuclear power plant in Oak Ridge. After retiring from the Senate in 2002,
Thompson went back to lobbying, earning $750,000 since then from Equitas, the
British insurance company that wants to limit payments to the families of those
who died due to asbestos exposure.



Now Fred’s campaign is attracting other lobbyists, who are bundlers and donors
to the Thompson campaign.



Most Americans feel strongly that a presidential candidate should not accept
any money from lobbyists. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of
Americans find it unacceptable for candidates to finance their campaigns with
contributions from lobbyists — and 80 percent want candidates to return any contributions
they do receive from lobbyists.



But Fred definitely doesn’t agree with them. His promising campaign is
positively overflowing with advisers and donors who are lobbyists, former
lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms. Aside from Thompson, there’s his
wife, Jeri, who worked for the PR/lobbying giant Burson-Marsteller and law
firm/lobbyists DLA Piper after she met Fred. Then there’s Ken Reitz, a senior
campaign adviser, who works for 360Advantage — owned by two lobbying firms
Burson-Marsteller and Quinn Gillespie & Associates. Reitz is the former CEO
of Burson and became famous for creating the National Smokers Alliance — a faux
grassroots group opposing tobacco regulation that was funded by the tobacco
companies.



Fred’s first campaign manager, Tom Collamore, was a former tobacco lobbyist. He
is one of the many Thompson staffers who was shown the door after disagreeing
with Mrs. Thompson. Fred’s chief counselor is Michael Toner, an adviser to
Bryan Cave Strategies, which represents Shell Oil and other corporations. Then
there’s Tom Daffron, COO of the Jefferson Consulting Group that lobbies on
homeland security issues. Ed Gillespie, co-founder of the Quinn Gillespie &
Associates lobbying firm is also a close adviser.



Then there are the bundlers and donors. Public Citizen identified six Thompson
bundlers as registered lobbyists, but the number associated with lobbyists
significantly increases when the names of employees of lobbying firm, who are
not necessarily registered lobbyists, are added:



Bundler/Lobbyists (amounts collected are not available)



• Richard F.Hohlt, a lobbyist for tobacco, nuclear energy, Chevron, and Fannie
Mae

• Rachael Jones Hensler, lobbyist for the Nickles Group

• William Hilleary, lobbyist, Sommerstein, Nasy & Rosenthal

• Robert L. Livingston, lobbyist, The Livingston Group

• W. Timothy Loche, lobbyist, Smith-Free Group

• David Lugar, lobbyist, Quinn Gillespie

• Mach F. Mattingly, lobbyist

• Tom Collamore

• Michael Toner



Registered Lobbyist Contributors:



• Katie Huffard

• Chris Lamond

• Jeffrey Bloemaker

• Patrick O’Donnell

• William Timmons

• William Hilleary



Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics



Other:



• Johanna Hardy, Dir., Legislative Affairs, Rolls Royce

• Kirk Clinkenbeard, Potomic Advocates

• John Dowd, partner Akin, Gump which has lobbying practice

• Sarah Newman, employee, Cassidy and Associates



Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics



So the "Fred Thompson for President" campaign — based on his promises
to shake up Washington — is being run by and paid for by corporate insider
lobbyists.



Do you think Fred will make any big changes if he’s elected?

Recunosc ca nu am raspunsul ci doar franturi. In primul rand vorbim de consilier, de consultant, de advisor? Numeroase denumiri, putine repere pentru o definitie. Apetenta politicienilor pt acest concept atat de "abstract" e si ea variabila. Numai in ultima zi am citit pe bloguri 2 opinii oarecum diametral opuse: cea a lui Andronic (consultantul politic de serviciu, pompierul care stinge incendiile atat pe stanga, cat si pe dreapta) si cea a lui Ioan Mircea Pascu (cunoscut ca Puiu, pretios, distant, suspect de elitist, nu te miri ca nu mai exista in politica romaneasca). Si acum franturile mele: sa fie bun pe comunicare publica (teorie si practica), sa aiba buna intuitie politica, bun pr-ist, dispus la efort prelungit (peste 24h pe zi:), sa aiba conexiuni in presa, sa "simta", cu cat mai tanar cu atat mai bine, sa citeasca presa si sa se uite la talk-show-uri non-stop (aviz d-lui Andronic), sa fie obsedat de politica (vorba lui Alexandru cu pastilele)..nu are nevoie de expertiza in domeniul celui pe care il consiliaza (nu zic ca nu e ok, dar pt asta sunt tehnicii din respectivul aparat, minister sau whatever), nu are nevoie de studii la Harvard, Yale sau LSE. Dupa cum se lesne vede, e nevoie de mai multe calitati decat de "asa nu-uri". Parerea mea! ..vorba omului de pe strada, ca tot ne credem toti si analisti, si consilieri politici..

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20031117Koop.html

Karl Rove and Mark Penn Could it be that two of the brightest minds in politics may simply have it all wrong? by Jeff Koopersmith

Nov. 17, 2003 -- NEW YORK (apj.us) -- Karl Rove and Mark Penn, the brightest and most effective political strategists for the Republicans and Democrats respectively, may have it all wrong.

Rove, the "W" kingmaker, and Penn, whose genius has created more 'emperors' nationally and internationally then all political strategists put together (including Bill Clinton), just don't seem to get it.

Next year is a watershed election.

The voting population of the United States has never been more polarized.

For Penn, this should mean that Democrats must seize this opportunity to offer a clear and semantic differential between the two choices. This means that Democrats must embrace -- rather than reject, as Penn suggests -- much of the old-school liberal Democrat ideal.

For Rove, this should mean that Republicans must co-opt traditional liberal ideals as much as possible, while preserving the votes of the religious right as much as achievable.

Neither ascribes to these thoughts.

---

Bill Clinton and Mark Penn

Penn counsels his clients, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and the Democratic Leadership Council, that Democrats must adopt policies similar to the GOP. This is the strategy that worked for Bill Clinton -- and one that Mark Penn prescribed.

Yet Penn's success for Clinton may have blinded him to the fact that even his own polls show an increasing desire from American voters for a change -- and I believe a monumental shift.

One need only look at the almost 80% of Americans who now embrace the concept of universal health care, or notice the steeply declining support for the President's adventure in Iraq, to realize that the majority of Americans -- at least 50% plus one vote -- are ready for a sea change.

Yet Penn has been counseling Democrats across the nation to reflect a pro-war attitude, maintain themselves as tax-cutters for the middle class much as Bush does, and embrace the concepts of putative family values in order to decrease the differences between Democrats and Republicans which he finds are most damaging.

Has Mr. Penn forgotten the most important item in a watershed election -- leadership qualities which show the courage to suggest solutions that are not popular "today" but will be in November 2004?

Of course, Penn is correct -- in so many ways it's tough to criticize him. Yet the linchpin of his strategy may be flawed in that it does not address the underbelly of American thought on politics best summed up by the words, "I'm just sick of American policy -- especially the underlying greed and power mongering."

There is no man in politics I respect more than Mark Penn. He is a friend, a colleague, and as "kids" we worked together and played together as young Turks on the political stage -- his, far wider and more lucrative than mine.

Mark Penn's slight case of political myopia might come from his long term service to the largest and most prestigious corporate clients on earth. This naturally makes him more conservative, and certainly might impact his analysis of those Americans who have no access to him, his clients, or his services. I do not know. But Penn is intelligent enough to rethink his strategy, still being pursued by Lieberman, a Penn client, and one of the most politically skillful US Senators.

I know that Penn and Lieberman believe that a strategy consistent with garnering support in the South and some Midwestern states with early primaries is a key, but adopting pretense over leadership has been suicidal for the Lieberman campaign -- and the numbers show it.

The risk Penn and Lieberman are taking is that Bush will be so bloodied by the time the major primaries occur that anything smacking of neo-conservatism will be rejected handily by Democrat voters. Lieberman could suffer because Bush is in anguish.

Some of this is becoming apparent already. Mr. Lieberman, for whatever reason, continues to tweak his own conservative message appropriately. In some respects he is becoming almost a magically and unappetizing-to-the-press liberal.

As America wakes up to the fraud rampant in the Bush White House, Lieberman could find himself electorally hung by his own strategy.

What Penn and Rove have both misjudged is the media.

And they've done it twice.

For Penn, it must have been an assumption some months ago that the press by and large would stick with Mr. Bush -- especially on Iraq-related issues -- for the foreseeable future.

---

Karl Rove

For Rove, the same was true.

However, the end of a much extended media honeymoon for the President began to emerge about two months ago. It's over -- and Rove will have to alter his tactics, most likely toward dirtier tricks, in order to save the Administration. Those tricks will include even more lies.

For Rove and Bush, the signal that the bloom was off the rose came the day White House press secretary Scott McClellan discovered that the news media has just about had it with the lies and poses from the Administration, a result of the fiasco surrounding leaks about covert CIA operations calculated to destroy the credibility of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson. The Ambassador dared to tell the truth about alleged "yellowcake" from Niger that never existed. Or it could have been a mystical collusion among news directors and publishers that caused an almost 180-degree change in media attitudes toward President Bush. Whichever -- the gauntlet is down, and only FOX News (and perhaps the Wall Street Journal editorial page) continue to be high-profile whores for the Republican Party line.

Prior to this column, I would have written that Penn should pay more attention to the press -- and should realize that the public was as well. It seems that the masses are not the asses that some suggest. Americans were already rating journalists well below telemarketers, lawyers and Ba'ath party members in polls taken this summer.

The compelling reason? Why, American politics, policy, and politicians, led of course by the President of the United States.

Had Penn seen this more clearly, he might have adjusted his strategy -- guessing that American voters would "come into the light" and realize that corporate America -- which owns the media lock stock and barrel -- might also at the same time realize that America has had it with right wing pap and propaganda.

And they have.

It is clear that the "new" media -- unwilling to sacrifice commercial success -- must have received a series of "thumbs down" on Bush from their mightiest advertisers which serve as a green light to unload on the White House. Couple that with three years of pent-up fear to criticize Bush (and the hostility such fear foments within the journalistic community) and you have the ideal recipe for the sort of accusatory questions aimed at the White House unseen since Monica Lewinsky.

Karl Rove, on the other hand, must be simmering. He too called it all wrong. He, first among others, convinced the President that he was invulnerable. Rove too misread the public. He didn't see the overwhelming frustration with the cost of medical care that has driven even the most conservative voters into a near socialistic frenzy -- eager for government sponsored universal health care -- including prescription drugs.

Rove also underestimated the patience of the mainstream media -- mostly because Rove was formerly a local player in a wacky state like Texas for most of his life. He had no idea how to handle the elite press corps -- and still does not. The use of Ari Fleischer as press secretary for the first two and one half years is proof of this. Fleischer, who appeared pompous and sphincteresque for much of his term, also helped to move the press corps to the left from the right where they'd stuck themselves during the Lewinsky affair. It was Fleischer that handed the left a media gaggle filled with anger over the White House's apparent lack of any humility whatsoever -- a press that tired of the nonstop lies.

Now Rove finds himself in a box. He is unable to retreat for every stupid statement the President has been forced to make by relying on moderately competent (and some extremely incompetent) advisors.

He is also, it seems, unable to retreat from this own sometimes abysmal advice.

Mission accomplished, indeed.

---

So there sits the former Texas governor -- too ridiculous to have created this mess himself, yet just foolish enough to have accepted these buffoons as trusted counsel.

I feel for George W. Bush. All he has done was what he was told to do.

Rove, if he had been smart, would have early on co-opted at least some of the strongest Democrat ideals. He would have moved the President to support universal health care, but in a way that would have maintained the current profit margins for the health care industry.

This is quite possible - easy, really.

Rove could have also been more capable in his assessment of the Bush cabinet. It also must have been clear to him that Dick Cheney would be under continuous fire with his double-dealing and apparent conflict of interest as a result of his having been at the top of the Halliburton food chain, his support (and participation in an infomercial) for the disgraced accounting firm Arthur Andersen (which is accused of fudging the numbers on Halliburton's sales to move the company's stock price), and of course his amazing skyrocketing income (Cheney went from less than a $150,000-year lifetime average to nearly $100 million in a few years as his seeming and seamy reward for Iraq War I).

Rove appears at least to be planning his typical and expected campaign for Bush 2004, known as BC04 (Bush-Cheney 2004) to White House insiders. Rove is a micromanager in a macro-media world. He plans the same old same old: "Bush is great on tax cuts." "Bush's war in Iraq was the best thing possible for the free world." "The Patriot Act will save America from terrorists." "Bush is God-fearing, tough as steel, a decent man."

The only problem is that most American voters don't believe any of these statements. Many of those who did don't believe these claims anymore.

And things are bound to get worse rather than better. Most American families received between $200-350 in tax "decreases" from the federal government. In short, this "windfall" wouldn't even buy yearly breakfast cereal for the average family of four.

Meanwhile, voters will be treated, by the Democrats, to a list of the tax savings granted to the wealthiest Americans by holier-than-thou Bush -- some of them in the multi-millions.

Americans, in the majority, are fearful of the Patriot Act.

As Attorney General John Ashcroft pushes even harder to invade our privacy to the extent that the nearest airline desk clerk will even know your credit rating, Americans will balk and move quickly away from the theft of freedom the Justice Department and the President have planned.

The Patriot Act might well stop the average American who owes too much on his credit cards from flying to Vegas to try to win some fast cash to pay his mortgage -- but it won't stop the nearest terrorist from getting on a jumbo jet headed for the Sears Tower. They aren't that stupid.

Americans will begin to question what the Patriot Act is really about, and may conclude that it's about Bush and his cronies learning more and more about our private lives and has nothing or little to do with national security.

In addition, most Americans -- about 98% -- come from families who immigrated to the United States. They are already uncomfortable with some of Bush's plans to halt migration, although this restlessness has not been properly focused by the loyal opposition.

The Rove tactic, as can be seen these days in California, will result in a realization that the right is attempting to pit the left against Mexican-Americans -- this time California's dissident Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante -- because he wants to give undocumented workers driver's licenses and health care for their children. Californians are learning quickly that programs featuring near slave labor for Mexican crop pickers are humiliating -- to Californians.

The war in Iraq is an albatross. There is little Mr. Bush can do in the period of a year to change the situation. Americans have lost faith in his course. As more and more young men and women die at the hands of Iraqi and imported terrorists, the President's numbers will fall in well-deserved proportions.

And let's not forget about the Bush "team": other than the forced departure of Paul O'Neill, Bush has not seen fit to clean house.

Perhaps Rove is smart enough to realize that a well-deserved gutting of the Bush cabinet should wait for at least until after the State of the Union address in January. Yet it seems that the President -- via his personal remarks regarding Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Vice President -- is hell-bent on keeping his original team together.

The best move he could make would be to rid himself of Rice and Rumsfeld in a bold step that would also take Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle with them, although Perle is virtually marginalized already -- not by Bush, but by the press who long ago crucified Perle for his almost mad rush to war planned a decade before.

The President's personal character is also under attack.

David Corn, the most respected editor in progressive media (under his leadership, The Nation's Washington bureau is now turning out consistent, meaty "must-reads"), is about to launch his new book "The Lies of George Bush." Though Corn balances his presentation, the lead sentence is enough to send chills down Rove's spine:

"George Bush is a liar."

It gets worse for the President. Mr. Corn lays out a carefully crafted and completely documented and compellingly readable case that our President is a pathological liar -- even without the help of the other liars around him.

It is almost a case for evil.

The biggest mistake Rove may be making is not being terrified by the ticking clock and the increasing bad news.

A year, in the world of national politics, is like the blink of eye. If one does not anticipate -- well in advance -- what is coming down the pike, one loses. Rove seems not to be fearful.

The Administration continues to fudge unemployment numbers. They claim unemployment rates are hovering just over 6 percent, when in truth unemployment may be approaching 10 percent or more when one counts those forced into "self" employment or simply pushed off the roles as their insurance runs dry.

Twenty-five million jobless Americans will not a Bush elect.

As the Bush deficit -- primarily fueled by the war in Iraq -- increases, the stock market will rebel. There is little if any hope that markets will recover from where they fell when business leaders woke up the day after election day 2000 finding George W. Bush as President, and said to themselves "Oh God, what have we done!?"

A good percentage of Americans are also tiring of living in, and trying to do business from, what foreign media sometimes calls "the most hated and feared nation on earth." Slowly but surely the "bring it on" ethos of schoolyard bully diplomacy turns more and more sour with each passing day, even to the least urbane of us.

After the ice-cold reception Mr. Bush received at the United Nations and subsequent meetings with our "former" allies, and no doubt following his upcoming road trip to Great Britain -- where he will be met by and hidden from as many as a quarter million protestors -- things won't get better quick enough, if ever, to save his reputation internationally.

On foreign policy, Bush earns a D plus -- much as he did all through school.

Howard Fineman of Time writes:

"Even friends are becoming problematic. One of them is David Kay, whose preliminary report found no conclusive evidence that Saddam had had weapons of mass destruction, or programs to make them." Administration officials still expect to strike gold, so to speak. "I'll tell you what," said one Bush political insider. "We really need to find some f-kin' WMD!"

That best tells the story of the downright terror present today inside the White House.

Rove thinks that even if everything is gloomy by next summer that a well-thought-out block-by-block and bloc-by-bloc campaign will do the trick.

He counts on Christian conservatives (Ralph Reed is co-chairman of the inner campaign circle), the wealthy, the greedy, the corrupt, the employees who rely on the war machine for their jobs, the dis-environmentalists, the SUV and Hummer lovers, and the wackiest trailer-park denizens who believe if they vote Republican they'll get rich.

Yet these groups made up only a little over 44% of the electorate in 2000. Nearly 47% will vote Democrat in 2004, and another 2% will vote, simply, against Bush, no matter who the opposition is.

Rove's stealth target is Hispanic Americans. The Bush Administration is making a nearly embarrassing plea for the Latino vote.

One wonders how this is possible inasmuch as Bush, as governor of Texas and with Rove in the left seat, presided over some of the most disgraceful Hispanic America poverty in history. Tens of thousands lived in the most abject poverty imaginable under Bush's governorship: open sewers, no running water, filth and garbage abounding. And Bush did little or nothing about it until the press uncovered it. Then he did little.

Now Rove is prepared to go after Latinos. One could almost puke at the "stuff yourself" use of cute Spanish phrases and mispronunciations rife within the Bush campaign -- this while Bush plots with Ashcroft on ways to stop "illegals" from crossing the border to work in near slave-like conditions to make the growers of California even wealthier. Rove is after 45% of the Hispanic vote. He thinks he can get it by playing on tough anti-Castro rhetoric, tougher foreign policy, and family values high on the pecking order in Catholic families.

Of course Rove is deluding himself and the President. Hispanics have seen, all too clearly, how Bush's promises to them have been ignored in Texas and nationally. They have watched as tax cuts result in fewer classrooms as Mr. Bush leaves almost every child far behind. They have watched as the Bush Administration quietly and even noisily attacks affirmative action -- affirmative action that offers the same leg up to Latinos and Latinas as it does to other minorities who have suffered under rampant institutional and now socialized racism.

Rove also likes to talk about Jews and their votes -- and the Republican National Committee and the Bush campaign have capitalized on Jewish-Americans' love for Israel.

It is true that Mr. Bush supports Israel, but it is untrue that he supports it from love of its people. Israel provides him the excuse to mount war in the Middle East. As time goes on, Jews in America will see he is using them for far different purposes than he pretends. More importantly than this, Jews here are Americans first. They are not willing to surrender principles merely because Mr. Bush supports Israel.

Most Democratic candidates evidence equal and long-lasting support for Israel. Yet Bush lets Jews down on almost every other count. He is environmentally negative, a disgrace on education, a neoconservative with nothing but a "pragmatic" agenda of downsizing and privatization -- seemingly with no time to worry about the poor or those who simply cannot cope. He fosters racist concepts -- perhaps without realizing it -- as he unleashes the worst of his minions to attack everything dear to Jewish tradition. He is a being exposed as the poseur he truly is minute by minute, day by day. His "road map to peace" was the first indication of his willingness to present a half-assed plan to make peace between Israel and Palestinians -- a further example of his ineptitude and lack of will. Jews have noticed -- and pandering to the wealthiest of Jews will not turn them against their values.

The one trick Rove does maintain in his Machiavellian sleeve is the Born Again Christian bloc who turned out in droves in the 2002 election -- largely from much dishonest use of church propaganda machines spewing what some might label the most hateful and bigoted material imaginable about Democrats and their ideals. Rove plans to increase their turnout, which TIME magazine claims was 21% of the popular vote in '02.

Rove and Ralph Reed -- a far brighter strategist -- play on evangelical greed, and to certain extent ignorance. There is little doubt that those labeling themselves "born again" are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. But those who use this devotion to God like Rove and Reed are nothing that approaches a true Christian appeal. George W. Bush's newfound love of God might play well to his fellows. The question is whether they are gullible enough to believe that God thinks a dualistic philosophy dividing the world between good and evil with no areas of gray is the right way to go.

In the end, the Bush campaign could fail because of George W. Bush himself -- primarily as a result of his arrogance and failure to seek counsel from opposing points of view.

Today, if Mr. Bush called in ten of the best political strategists, from both sides of the aisle who had nothing to gain or lose from their advice accept the pleasure of giving it, they would tell him to unload the dead and dying weight in his administration.

This above all else would prove the man.

If he asked for the resignations of Ms. Rice, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Ashcroft and their top aides and advisors, and also asked Mr. Cheney not to be his running mate, President Bush could sail into a second term. He would, in doing so, admit his fallibility and the clear truth that those around him have led him astray and presented him with the poorest advice. They were unprepared for their jobs. Worst of all, they have let Mr. Bush down, and, in doing so, let the nation down.

It wouldn't be the first time a President bit the bullet and admitted he had made a few unwise choices. It wouldn't be the first time that overzealous servants were punished for their fanaticism.

If the President does not demand some heads, in the end it will be his own that he will sacrifice.

In the short run the American people can be trusting, even easy to fleece.

In the long run -- not a chance, Mr. Bush. Not a chance.

Just ask Newt Gingrich.

Just ask Kenneth Starr.

Just ask Henry Hyde.

Just ask the House Managers -- all of whom have departed for a place just south of Infamy and just east of Ridicule.

---

JEFF KOOPERSMITH is a political consultant, opinion research authority, policy analyst, and self-described "renegade lobbyist."

Mai multe despre el, aici pe blogul lui Cristi Sutu. Omu' a dat deja prima lovitura astazi cu anuntul depunerii motiunii de cenzura impotriva Guvernului Tariceanu II

Rimeaza cu Kaiser Soze, dar nu a fost chiar diavolul in persoana. Poate doar pentru stangistii din Democratic Party, care s-au recunoscut invinsi in fata maiestriei sale de 3 ori consecutiv: Bush vs Gore 2000, Republicani vs Democrati in 2002 (Congres) si din nou Bush vs Kerry in 2004. A fost deci un veritabil killer electoral, dar, spun unii, un banal consultant pe "timp de pace". De fapt el nu si-a gasit locul in birocratia de la Washington, inconjurat de vulturii neocon Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz sau Cheney. Va invit sa consultati acest link unde veti gasi mult mai multe informatii despre marele Karl Rove, pe cat de laudat, pe atat de controversat.