Survey Says

There seems to be a censuses across the left. My previous post, "It's the truth, stupid" a plea to the left to fight the good fight against Bush was right on. Posted on the 3rd, the New York Times' Paul Krugman agreed on the 7th:

What is clear is that whenever political debate turns to Mr. Bush's actual record in office, his popularity sinks. Only by doing whatever it takes to change the subject to the war on terror - not to what he's actually doing about terrorist threats, but to his "leadership," whatever that means - can he get a bump in the polls.

...

Campaigning exclusively on domestic issues won't work. Mr. Bush must be held to account for his dismal record on jobs, health care and the environment.

...

To win, the Kerry campaign has to convince a significant number of voters that the self-proclaimed "war president" isn't an effective war leader - he only plays one on TV.

This charge has the virtue of being true. It's hard to find a nonpartisan national security analyst with a good word for the Bush administration's foreign policy. Iraq, in particular, is a slow-motion disaster brought on by wishful thinking, cronyism and epic incompetence.

But thats far from all, Publis of Legal Fiction agrees with a post entitled "A Time To Fight" and quickly followed up with "It's Iraq, Stupid". I am a huge fan of his stuff, I had notes written in PA about a post I would make about the message that re-electing bush would send to Europe and the Middle East, but Publis says it before I did, and in all likelyhood more eloquently with:

Can you imagine the message America will send to the world if Bush is re-elected? I think much of the world hasn't completely given up on America because it thinks we didn't know what Bush was really like in 2000. If we re-elect him, the world will give up on us. And it should. A second Bush term means that America has endorsed the botched war on terror; endorsed the Iraq debacle (invasion and/or execution); endorsed Abu Ghraib; endorsed abandoning international institutions; endorsed runaway deficits; endorsed stem cell research restrictions; endorsed the lack of any coherent domestic or fiscal policy; endorsed an economic policy that is blatantly concentrating wealth at the top; endorsed the complete lack of health care policy; endorsed the various unfunded mandates; endorsed the lies; endorsed Cheney; endorsed horrible environmental policy such as increased logging and mountaintop removal; endorsed the torture memos. And on and on.

On the 5th The Decemberist chimed in with "Why Is It Suddenly Hard to Articulate the Case Against Bush??":

"The voting public long ago lost most of its faith in Bush; to reinforce that loss of faith it is necessary to tell a story about the Bush presidency, one that rings true, makes sense, and gives people an explanation for their personal and economic anxiety. The basic premise of that story must involve a failure of leadership, and that failure is a story of incompetence.

With the entire blogsphere to choose from, I could have picked more, bigger, and more direct agreement. But who cares about them, apparently the Kerry campaign also agrees, on the 7th the Kerry campaign begun the "W Stands for Wrong" slogan. A more encouraging agreement I could not ask for.

It's quite the responsibility writing a blog so influential, so critical as 30to1, but thankfully, I am up to my task. One wonders if the President is up to his (couldn't resist ;D).