1. I cannot top what has already been said about “weapons of mass destruction related program activities,” but I can compile it in one convenient location.
2. The first presidential campaign I really followed was 1992. The first moment of the campaign I remember was watching the State of the Union with my dad, as an assignment for my eighth grade social studies class. I remember one of us saying to the other, “If we can’t beat this guy, there’s something wrong with us.”
Last night I had the exact same feeling. But Bush the elder didn’t have the “I was in office on 9/11” trump card, or a loyal base, or a liberating lack of scruples about the federal budget. And still it took Perot’s two step for Clinton to win. So who’s to say.
A myth. I posted a downticket analysis of 1992 on Jane Galt that showed that Perot’s effects on the election were minimal. He took voters equally from both candidates, or showed no pattern at all.
If you want to get subtler, about effecting the dynamics, coverage, or perception of Bush, ok, but I think that is way above most people’s pay grade.
The Daily Show was pretty phenomenal last night. They showed clips from the 2003 address with exact amounts of anthrax and sarin and whatever, and John Stewart said, “now that we’ve invaded, let’s see what we found,” and played the “dozens of WMDRPA” clip from this year.
“Dozens of weapons of mass destruction related…program…activities? What the [expletive deleted]? What is that, craft services for the scientists? You know, if he had explained it like that before the war, we never would have…oh.”
The whole episode was great.
Geez, even the abbreviation is ridiculous. Maybe we could start pronouncing it as an acrocnym, “dowimderpa” or some such.
Between that, the steroids “WTF?” moment, and the omission of the $40 billion needed for Iraq, they really opened themselves up. They’re lucky it’s getting overshadowed by the democratic race….Maybe the strategy for putting it so close the caucuses is that after the 33rd draft they gave up?