Right Blogistan is abuzz today, quoting and riffing upon this article by Peter Schweizer in yesterday's USA Today. Unable to refute the science of global warming, the anti-conservation right is hoping to kill the story by shooting the messenger.  It doesn't matter much that he is one messenger among thousands of environmentalists and scientists.  He is the one who has a movie - he is the one who has a name - and he is the one who is carrying the narrative right now.  I fear that his credibility among those we are trying to reach may become damaged.

Our side has virtually nothing out to deflect Peter Schweizer's bullet. Over the coming weeks and months, his narrative will be replayed in every major media outlet that will have it - and that probably means all of them. And, unless something changes, it will be played without response from our side.

Ok, this isn't anything anyone here doesn't know already.  But it's worth stressing, and it's worth putting into a bit of a framework.

If you thought Joe Lieberman was singing from the Republican Hymnbook from 2002 to early 2005, just wait until you see the next three months. He will be their choir director, and the media will dutifully pump the organ.

Lieberman's message is dangerous because it is conventional wisdom already, and the media is poised to re-inforce it to the nth degree. If it is to be countered, and if the Connecticut miracle is to be the theme, rather than the downfall, of the 2006 elections, then the contrary message must be just as pervasive, just as simple, and must take the place of the reigning conventional wisdom.  Thoughts below the fold:

I wrote Rosalind Kurita in on my Democratic primary ballot yesterday, but I watched the streamed video from Harold Ford's victory celebration. It was the first time I've seen him speak for any length of time, and I was rather impressed with his political skill.  He introduced Bill Clinton with high praise, and Bill took the stage.

Clinton's speech, as so many of his do, had me nodding my head and wishing the rest of us could articulate so clearly the difference between the worst of the Republicans and the best of the Democrats.

Did you know that James Dobson's Focus on the Family  is not just a religious-right hate group? Maybe you did, but I bet you don't think about it very much.

In fact, according to an apology from one of its co-founders, "When we began Focus, in 1977, the seven founders had only two objectives: 1. To help Americans raise their children, and 2. to help us maintain our marriages."

Though Focus on the Family often gives poor advice on child-raising, and has an unfortunate tendency to reinforce negative gender stereotypes in giving guidance on maintaining marriages, the fact remains that building families was their original mission. It is still their core mission. They exist to meet needs. It is because so many people needed exactly what Focus offerred that they gained so much popularity and political clout in the first place.  

Best I can tell, moderates and liberals have not done a good job providing institutions designed meet the needs of individual families.  On the flip, I suggest that we pick up some of that slack, and do it in a way that is consistent with our values.

Passing the buck: a way of life for Bush

One of my biggest beefs with Bush is this problem he has with his own fallability. I want to start with his answer to Kerry's charge that he didn't provide enough troops for the occupation and didn't heed Shinseki's advice. At a time when it is absolutely clear that there were mistakes in the post-war planning, Bush's response is to inform us that he met with his generals and put the question to them: "do you have what you need?" Kerry's response to this was dead on, but he should have prefaced it with the attack that goes to the core of Bush's weakness. "Mr. President, Harry Truman said the buck stops here. You cannot place the blame for your failure to plan for a post-war Iraq on the men and women in our military." Or something else that more eloquently expresses the fact that Bush was, in his subtle and conniving way, maneuvering to shift the blame for his failures to his generals. This isn't just a rhetorical dodge. Asking the generals what they need only makes sense in terms of the invasion. The occupation is a complex political process that is has to be handled by the state department and defense together. As Kerry correctly pointed out, the generals' job was to win the war - the Presidents' job was to win the peace. What with all the fluff that will be rehashed in the media from this debate, don't expect to hear too much more about this very important point.

Bush shows his true lack of humility or sense of responsibility by identifying his three biggest mistakes as being appointees. We all know he means appointing people like Paul O'Neill, John DiIulio, and Paul Bremer (among others) who have the temerity to publicly disagree with the President. This is true hubris. I'd like to see that message come out from our side in force. Bush's biggest mistake in his own eyes is not appointing enough yes-men!