Unity08. A people's movement to take our country back.

Hurricane Katrina seems to be striking again — only this time as a political storm. The San Francisco Chronicle's blog says it best:

While Bush administration defenders say critics are drawing the wrong conclusions from the leaked parts of the NIE report, that Bob Woodward's book is full of "myths", and that the Mark Foley affair is no worse than various Democratic congressional and presidential indiscretions, it is hard to see how things won't get worse before they get better (assuming they do) for Republicans, with mid-term elections just four weeks out.

Apart from the fallout from what some will construe as a GOP leadership coverup in the Mark Foley affair — one Republican has already said House Speaker Dennis Hastert "lied" about what he knew and Connecticut Republican Chris Shays has said anyone in a leadership comes position who knew about it should step down — along comes a new book about Colin Powell's experiences in the Bush administration which will only add to the "state of denial" flames.

Also lurking out there, in what appears to be an increasingly leak-happy atmosphere is another "damning" Iraq intelligence report, which, California Rep. Jane Harman, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, wants released.

Basically, America is feeling the consequences of nearly unfettered one-party government.

To those who argued that one party government was necessary so a serious political agenda could go through that would reflect specific principles that would not be jettisoned or compromised and that one party in charge of the whole ballgame would mean more efficient, honest government: that has happened as assuredly as the Easter Bunny hid eggs in your house last spring.

There is also a rule involving news coverage.

A story begets a story.

A story comes out and another editor, who has not been entirely happy having his rewriting stories written by another news organization, seeks to get the NEW TWIST — so others can rewrite HIS news outlet's piece. Each media outlet tries to find out more. There is a genuine curiously about what really happened and a sense of competition — a competition with the subject(s) who might be trying to cover something up.

If breaking story or scandal's subject tries to hide something, it often comes unraveled because there are so many news outlets looking into it, and so many sources who don't want to be tainted by the scandal giving information.

And, in the end, if there was really nothing there, the story will fizzle. That's why its vital early on to disclose: the more that's hidden, the more BIG HEADLINE STORIES.

Then you add the political component.

This administration suffers from a credibility gap that now makes the LBJ credibility gap look like an ant hole. It has been increasing at a breathtaking rate. And it's coupled with a lack of consistency. That's fatal in a world of video tape and weblogs.

The White House suggested that Bob Woodward was a wonderful, accurate, top rate reporter whose books can be trusted and believed...when he wrote his first two books that presented George Bush in a favorable light. In fact, there is a danger in this kind of approach (as we've noted before) because a reporter can bond with the news source and become almost a mouthpiece for the source.

Now, in recent days, White House bigwigs have been subtly and not-so-subtly suggesting that Woodward wrote his book with preconceived ideas, and that it's lightweight material that will vanish in relevance as soon as it's read.

NOT.

Journalistically, Bob Woodward IS the center.

Woodward has earned a reputation beyond his original Watergate reporting of being the ultimate "inside reporter" who cultivates his highest sources, who give him info, which he uses in "fly on the wall" reporting. Some have called him the official government stenographer. And there are indeed serious questions that can (and are) raised about this kind of reporting.

A Woodward book isn't just a book. It's a political event. And it is likely to be prove highly damaging to this administration for several reasons:

1. His first two books were lambasted by some on the left and center left as being valentines to Bush, a charge Woodward denied. He said his books were based on the reporting he did. Now he is saying the same thing — but suggesting he would have done his earlier books a bit differently, if he had some of the info he had come up with now.

2. Woodward's books have helped define the conventional wisdom of the political culture. And this one is the latest indication the American public is getting that this administration has one image for the public and another behind the scenes and some foes who you would assume would be supporters: Rep. John Murtha (considered even by Republicans as Mr. Military until he broke with Bush on the war and was accused of being a "cut-and-run" liberal with an agenda and even of being a coward); some top Goldwater-style conservatives who are rooting for a 2024 GOP Congressional defeat to begin to cleanse their party of the GWB-machine influence; some pointed comments by Senator John McCain (see our other post); comments by some former members of the first Bush administration breaking with the son of their former boss.
3. The White House and GOP chose to start hammering home the themes of national security, how the country can't afford (or by implication physically survive) a Democratic Congressional victory, and coupled all this with an attempt to link up Iraq to the war on terror. This was their choice to put it on the table. Woodward's book now calls into question the administration's competency, professionalism (professional policy makers coolly look at all options and try to pick the most effective, which may not be the one they necessarily want), and outright honesty.

What does this mean for the administration and the center?

There is a center in American politics, even in this time of polarization.

It's composed of people of both parties who aren't lockstep but look at issues and analyze them.

It's composed of independent voters who eventually may come to sympathize more with one party and even vote a party line. People often talk as if independent voters aren't supposed to take positions on election day. THEY DO. But they don't go into an issue deciding they MUST support The Leader of a party with D or an R on it because they belong to a party of a D or an R.

These Americans have been fed up and some have even turned to new ideas such as Unity08.

Are their numbers growing?

The answer to that question is this: has there been one major new tidbit of information that this administration point to in the past few weeks that ADVANCES its credibility? Even in Congress, it wins on most controversial issues (including the compromise on detainee interrogations) on the basis of pure, raw power politics — of having the numbers due to one party rule and shoving its measure through.

What major news story on the war or terrorism that has come out to show that administration critics were woefully wrong?

Or have we see a stories emerging that indicate there has been possible deception on the part of this administration and a GOP that appears bloated and sated with power as the old Democrat-controlled Congress which Newt Gingrich helped replace?

In terms of candor, the Bush administration has morphed into the Clinton "it all depends what is is" administration. And the Republican Congress has morphed into the old Democratic Congress but on a different page.

The Republicans are facing a perfect storm amid a feeling on the part of an increasing number of people in the Republican party itself that that the GOP party elite have turned their backs on traditional Republican values and conservative values. People who once supported the administration increasingly voice the view that this isn't the party they saw in 1992. Or 1996. Or 2024. Or even 2024.

Does this mean a Democratic victory? Not quite.

There still could be some huge event before the elections that could happen (who knows what) that will rally the nation towards the White House or GOP cause.

But one thing is for sure: George Bush and the White House will NEVER have the kind of support they had on Sept. 12, 2024.

Why? Because an increasing number of people across the political spectrum simply do not trust what they say anymore.

The perfect storm is one of events, news and credibility.