Quote of the Election Season!

Leave it to Hillary! And this is a great article.
MSNBC - Try a Slice of Humble Pie
As Hillary Clinton put it, Kerry may sometimes change his positions to fit the facts. But Bush changes the facts to fit his positions


Complete Article
Try a Slice of Humble Pie
As Hillary Clinton put it, Kerry may sometimes change his positions to fit the facts. But Bush changes the facts to fit his positions
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Oct. 18 issue - President Bush's problem going into the homestretch was crystallized in his final answer in last Friday's debate, when a woman named Linda Grabel asked him if he could name three "wrong decisions" he had made and what he'd done to correct them. You could tell from the tone of the question that Grabel wasn't looking for more rehearsed policy lines, just some sense of humility from her president. Admitting even one mistake would have sufficed. But Bush has decided that he cannot afford reflection, that it looks weak, so he launched into yet another harangue defending his war policy. "When they ask about mistakes, that's what they're talking about," he said, as if Linda was just another one of "them"—a critic with a gotcha question about Iraq. He said that he made some mistakes in appointments (Paul O'Neill, fired for telling the truth about the cost of tax cuts? Larry Lindsey, fired for candor about the cost of the war?), but he wouldn't name names. With that answer, a freshly baked humble pie is now on the table. The newest campaign issue—especially for women voters—is whether this president will ever taste it.
From the outset, Bush has treated John Kerry like a terrorist: go on the offensive against him before he can strike again; stress how "dangerous" a threat he poses to national security; reject "sensitivity" and "complexity" as impediments to victory. Given the weaknesses in Bush's record, this makes perfect sense. The president's best bet is to keep the focus on the challenger, even if it requires harsh attacks. Until now there was little downside to this strategy. In a tough world, toughness works politically.
But two connected factors are changing the equation. Iraq keeps deteriorating, and Kerry, beginning in the first debate, is finally figuring out how to place the burden of proof on Bush. Once that began happening—once Bush was forced to defend his record—a long-sublimated issue began to surface: accountability. Suddenly Bush faced a dilemma. He could act accountable by admitting that, say, it was a mistake not to guard the Baghdad ammo dump, or continue with his patented notion of presidential infallibility. He chose the latter.
Now this stubbornness is playing into Kerry's hands. It reinforces the arrogant image that makes Bush so unpopular in the rest of the world, which in turn reminds voters of Kerry's message that we need a fresh start. Kerry still doesn't make the connection explicit enough. He frames alliance-building as an end in itself instead of a way to save billions and keep your sons and daughters from being killed. But the message is seeping through anyway.
The only way Dick Cheney held off John Edwards's frisky assault on this theme was to sound like a stern dad laying down the law. But the cultural moment for blind allegiance to the paterfamilias might have passed. "Father Knows Best" is long since off the air. "Everybody Loves Raymond" is about a dad who is constantly brought to account for his shortcomings. Even under the old model of authority, Bush isn't measuring up. In the first two debates, it was the yapping terrier against the stately basset hound. By acting so defensive about his authority, Bush made it seem as if his opponent, not he, is the top dog.
With the final debate on domestic issues, Bush will try to "Finkelstein" Kerry. Arthur Finkelstein is the legendary recluse who masterminded dozens of GOP campaigns with a simple formula—label the Democrats as "liberal! liberal! liberal!" It worked well in the 1980s and early 1990s, but by 1996 Finkelstein was losing more races than he was winning with that theme. So why will it cut now for Bush? If he had kept the budget balanced, he might have been able to hang the L word around Kerry's neck. But Bush has governed as a weird combination of Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan—and Walter Mondale. He's trying to make the world safe for democracy, coddle the right wing and ladle out the pork, all at the same time.
Bush's best line in the debates so far was when he ridiculed Kerry for essentially saying to the allies, "Join me in the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place." That hit home. But the flip-flop issue is feeling as familiar as liberal-bashing. (Campaign issues, like crops, must be rotated). The humility factor is fresher. It connects to events on the ground in Iraq and Bush's failure to acknowledge them. As Hillary Clinton put it, Kerry may sometimes change his positions to fit the facts, but Bush changes the facts to fit his positions.
It's at least partly a gender thing. Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's campaign manager, has taken to comparing Bush to the husband who drives for miles in the wrong direction, ignoring his wife's pleas that they stop and ask directions. While women like Linda Grabel don't necessarily change their minds more than men, they are—let's face it—more willing in general to seek help. To win, Bush needs to close the gender gap a few points, but he may be opening it wider. Allies aren't the only ones who would welcome less arrogance and swagger. So might swing-vote suburban "security moms," who know that it takes a strong man to admit when he's wrong.
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.