PAUL KRUGMAN, YESTERDAY'S DEBATE & MY NEW SUPPORT SCALE

Professor Krugman goes after the mock civility police on the right (perhaps including fellow Times columnist David Brooks), and hammers the RNC on its highly uncivil, Democrats-support-terrorists TV ad.

The campaign against "political hate speech" originates with the Republican National Committee. But last week the committee unveiled its first ad for the 2004 campaign, and it's as hateful as they come. "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists," it declares.

Again, there's that weasel word "some." No doubt someone doesn't believe that we should attack terrorists. But the serious criticism of the president, as the committee knows very well, is the reverse: that after an initial victory in Afghanistan he shifted his attention — and crucial resources — from fighting terrorism to other projects.

What the critics say is that this loss of focus seriously damaged the campaign against terrorism. Strategic assets in limited supply, like Special Forces soldiers and Predator drone aircraft, were shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, while intelligence resources, including translators, were shifted from the pursuit of Al Qaeda to the coming invasion. This probably allowed Qaeda members, including Osama bin Laden, to get away, and definitely helped the Taliban stage its ominous comeback. And the Iraq war has, by all accounts, done wonders for Qaeda recruiting. Is saying all this attacking the president for attacking the terrorists?

The ad was clearly intended to insinuate once again — without saying anything falsifiable — that there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. (Now that the Iraq venture has turned sour, this claim is suddenly making the rounds again, even though no significant new evidence has surfaced.) But it was also designed to imply that critics are soft on terror.

Go read the rest.

One note: Krugman's big critique of the "some are attacking the prez..." line -- that the Dems are actually attacking Bush for not attacking the terrorists -- was articulated PERFECTLY by General Wesley Clark in yesterday's presidential debate. I'm still a Dean man -- his performance tonight was solid, he did a nice job of defanging the Kerry-Gep tag team -- but I have to say, Clark's two big speeches on Iraq and foreign policy in the debate were pure dynamite, and they blew the roof off the joint. I wish Clark wouldn't propose nonsense like the ol' flag-burning amendment, but this is the second straight debate in which he's impressed me. I think that shouting-fest he had with that Fox talking head last week lit a fire under the General's ass. I don't care if Gep and Kerry are running strong in Iowa and NH, respectively: This race will come down to Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. Everyone else is static.

With that in mind, I present my new 2004 TFM Primary-ometer (TM). I will present a relatively sequential choice of prospective 2004 Dem tickets, highlighting my preference at any given time. They will range from Dean with anybody (D/a), to Dean with Clark (D/C), to Clark with Dean(C/D), to Clark with anybody (C/a), to somebody else (se). To get a better idea of where my preference would go, and why, here's the rub: The higher the confidence I have in a particular candidate (Dean or Clark), the more likely I am to favor that candidate with any running mate. If my confidence in a particular candidate (Dean or Clark) is less than absolutely full, however, I am more likely to favor that candidate provided he runs with the other top-tier man. And away we go:

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

D/a D/C C/D C/a se

Why? Because this week, more than any before, I see the reality that we need a ticket that's both strong and experienced on defense and foreign policy. That RNC ad is really telling in that the Bushies really want Dean to come out of the pack with the nomination. I think Dean is the strongest candidate because he's energized the base more than any other, and they won't flock from him as the GOP base did from Bush I, but the Bush II people think Dean is the easiest candidate to paint as a weak pinko liberal, and that's the only way they can win next year. I think Dean is smart enough and strong enough to handle such attacks, he understands the rapid-response strategies of the Clinton-Gore team back in 92. But TFM is looking for an ace in the hole, a running mate that would turn Dean from a candidate that will turn Florida, Arizona and New Hampshire from red to blue states, to a potential landslide winner. And lookee here, we have a southern 4-star general, telegenic, smart and so on. Does that trivialize Clark? Yes. Would some people say he's overqualified for the VP slot? Sure. But a Dean/Clark ticket would be a juggernaut that BushCo would be unlikely to beat. I almost chose Dean with anybody, because another southerner who's strong on defense, like Max Cleland or Bob Graham, would be a great addition to the ticket. However, there was something about Clark tonight that really made me realize that he probably belongs on the ticket. For now.

Anyway, long way to go!

I'll either make this a weekly or every-other-week thing, or I'll never do it again.