I was wondering how the Republicans are going to match the star power of the Democratic convention. Not matter what you think of Hillary and Bill Clinton, you have to admit that they draw viewers and give pundits something to talk about. The Republicans? It's a bunch of no names after the first night. Let's see if you can guess the names of the speakers if I give you their titles. Challenge your friends!

Edit: shortened the title

Looking at the exit polls, Obama's support with both whites and African-Americans has been dropping through out the primary process:

Whites:
NH - 36%
NV - 34%
SC - 24%
FL - 20%

African-Americans:
NH - Not enough to sample
NV - 83%
SC - 78%
FL - 73%

Note: Iowa had no break out by race

Looking at what conservatives have done over the last few months, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that conservatism has fallen on such hard times that all it can offer up our national discourse is trivia.  Let me cite some examples:

Here is what I think should be the goals for Democrats for the 110th Congress:

• A Democrat as President
  
• A large majority in the House
  
• A filibuster proof majority in the Senate
  

With that, the Democrats can then pass sweeping legislation that will grealy benefit this country.

How do the Democrats achieve those goals? By:

• Making Bush the most unpopular President ever
  
• Demonstrating the Iraq war was a disaster from the get go
  
• Showing that Republicans put loyalty to power over loyalty to the American people

What tools do the Democrats have to achieve those goals?

• The power to investigate the corrupt and inept Bush administration
  
• The control of the legislative agenda
  
• The fact that the Iraq war was a disaster from the get go

Three high-profile battles are going on right now - the Bolton nomination, the nuclear option and Social Security reform.  I thought I would write up where I think each of these battles stand and what are the potential scenarios for each one.

To me, a cardinal rule of politics is don't let yourself be cast as the villain in "political theater" that has caught the public eye.  Today, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist did that when he rejected  Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's compromise on President Bush's blocked judicial nominees.  This is the third ongoing popular "political theater" where the Republicans have cast themselves as the villains.

Promoted from the Diaries: Outstanding Analysis - Ben P

Every day, Bush is looking more and more like a lame duck.  You have to give the Bushies their due - they have been extraordinarily successful in keeping Bush popular despite achieving poor results and ramming through an unpopular agenda.  However, their methods are running into trouble and I think it is only going to get worse for them.  Below I discuss why I think the Bushies have been so successful, the four problems they have encountered in 2005 and how the Bolton nomination fits in. I attribute the Bushies' success to their ability to do six things:

1) Totally dominating the media:

Whether it is tax cuts, invading Iraq or Social Security reform, whatever Bush wants to talk about is THE topic and is given wall-to-wall coverage throughout the media, with most pundits agreeing with Bush's position.

2) Keeping Bush's statements vague and misleading:

The epitome to me is when Bush was asked during a prime time press conference what was the potential cost of invading Iraq in terms of American lives and the economy and Bush replied that it is less than another 9/11.  Bush's answer is so vague that he can never be accused of lying or understating the cost.  It also implies that invading Iraq is a part of the war on terrorism and will help prevent another 9/11, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism.  Because the Bushies dominate the media, Bush doesn't get hammered for his vagueness.

3) Portraying Bush as a "tough guy" who takes "bold" actions that are true to his values:

I think huge part of Bush's appeal to the conservative white male vote is his perceived toughness.  Bush describes the world as a scary place with lots of people who hate us, but that he is tough and strong enough to take them on.  It's a black-and-white world, with Bush wearing the white hat and a pair of Colt 45's.  Bush's constant political victories just feed into that tough guy image.  Bush's initiatives are almost always described as "bold", again adding to the image of the tough guy willing to take on the world.

4) Holding Republicans together with an agenda of tax cuts and corporate welfare:

I think most Republican politicians are extremists but I recognize that they aren't extreme on all the same issues.  A big key to the Bushies' ability to enact their unpopular agenda has been that they have kept the Republicans together around the ideas of tax cuts, corporate welfare for their supporters and the promise that everyone will eventually get their win.

5) Shutting down scandals:

I think that the Bush administration in the most corrupt and unethical administration in the last 75 years.  However, the Bushies for the most part have been able to keep their corruption and unethical acts out of the media.  A big key is the Republican Congressional leadership's refusal to oversee the Executive branch.  Whenever a scandal has come up, the Bushies say vague, good sounding things and without someone with subpena power to force out new revelations, the scandal dies from a lack of oxygen.

6) Keeping social conservatives happy while not scaring off the general public:

The classic is Bush talking about the "culture of life", which social conservatives take as meaning Bush supports their agenda.  To the general public, it sounds uplifting and noble.  The general public has no idea that it means to social conservatives the end of abortion, birth control and the right of families to pull the plug on life support of obviously brain dead loved ones.

[editor's note, by Ben P] So what's gone wrong so far in Bush's Second Term? More after the break . . .

At this point in 1992, Clinton's opponents had convinced the public that Clinton was a draft dodger and a philanderer.  Clinton's "I never inhaled" was standard material for late-night comics.  The word "Clintonian" had become a part of the national vocabulary for making a misleading but factually true statement.  And the Whitewater "scandal" was already all over the media, which would eventually result in the appointment of Kenneth Starr as an Independent Counsel.

At this point in 2000, Gore's opponents had convinced the public that Gore had problems with exaggerations and truthfulness.  The accusation that Gore had claimed to have invented the Internet was standard material for late-night comics.  And the Buddhist Temple "scandal" was already all over the media and may have eventually resulted in the appointment of an Independent Counsel.

So far, Kerry's opponents have made four major attacks against Kerry - that Kerry is a flip-flopper, that Kerry is "too liberal", that Kerry didn't deserve his medals and that Kerry accused his fellow vets of committing atrocities.  The "flip-flopper" and "too liberal" attacks have wilted due to Kerry's rock-solid performance in the debates.  The "didn't deserve his medals" attack has melted in the face of massive amounts of evidence supporting that Kerry is indeed a war hero.  I don't think the last attack is sticking because (1) it is easy to disprove and (2) people know that atrocities did occur in Vietnam.  Drudge's "Kerry had an affair with a reporter" attack was such a massive flop that it should provide Kerry some protection on that front.  Nothing Kerry has said has become fodder for late-night comics.  There have been no "scandal" charges made against Kerry.