I agree, although I think that the context has changed enough, with Bush being weak, the Democrats being a lot tougher, and the public much less wary of criticism of the Iraqi occupation, that Murtha is standing on a lot firmer ground.  We'll see...

Murtha's comments come at a crucial moment when the "centrists" in American politics and the American electorate - those people whose support made it politically viable to go to war in the first place - are by and large concluding that not only is the war going badly, not only were we misled into war by the President, not only are the casualties more than we were ever led to expect, but that the war was a failure of policy in the first place, we made a mistake as a nation in supporting this policy, and we need to change the policy. These are the sentiments Murtha is expressing with tears in his eyes.

This is why, try as they might (and have) to impugn his character by calling this Marine war hero a terrorist sympathizer, a spineless wuss, and an associate of Michael Moore and the "loony left," it won't work this time. Not for lack of trying, or because of his biography, but because of the historical moment we find ourselves in right now.

Where the heck is the "Brave" democratic leadership on this?   Hiding in closed meetings, apparently.  Pelosi does nothing to support Murtha, rather tries to dissociate herself (this excerpt from San Jose Mercury News):

Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said: ``Jack is reflecting a lot of the frustration that Americans have with the slow progress.''
Skelton has recommended that troops be withdrawn gradually, based on Iraqis' ability to take over their own security. Under Skelton's plan, one U.S. battalion of about 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers would be withdrawn for every two Iraqi battalions that are ready to act independently.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, told colleagues at a closed meeting Thursday morning that she, too, would advocate an immediate troop withdrawal, according to several who attended. But by day's end, Pelosi -- a liberal who has sharply criticized Bush's handling of the war -- chose merely to praise Murtha and say he deserved to have ``his day.''


It would be nice of the Dem leadership, if they actually did have backbone (DO I WISH!) to perhaps, Oh I don't know, maybe SUPPORT someone with new-found political cohones like Murtha, instead of saying "Oh, he's having his day" as if Pelosi isn't sure enough that the political winds are in her favor enough to support one of her own....and one who can stand up, at least now if not 3 years ago.

I wish I could outdent that last paragraph....don't know enough HTML....

John Murtha is the "patriarch" of all the men and women in our military family.  He was a soldier's soldier.  In my mind attacking him is like attacking all our men and women who have served and are still serving...

i do think it will be difficult for the bushies to smear Murtha, but i don't think it is because of Murtha's record.  i think it comes down to a question of what the rovian smear actual does in voter's minds, and i don't think it will work anymore.

my view of that mechanic is that with how the media presents these sorts of debates (equal time and access, unrefereed, without any level of fact-checking), viewers are most likely to agree with whichever "side" they already agreed with.  the left presents facts that support their position; the right presents misinformation, character attacks, and outright lies to support theirs; and with no que for which claims have more credibility, the viewer/voter makes a gut decision about which one is more convincing.

mccain, let's face it... he's a little creepy.  john kerry, let's face it... he looks like a wimp (and letting the "flip-flopper" charge go unchallenged didn't help).  when you have the hero of 9/11 on the other side (not guilliani, the other one), i don't think it is hard to see why these tactics work.  "well, they might fudge the facts, but they wouldn't dare tell a lie THIS big.  larry king would correct them."

what has changed is that bush looks bad.  they have made these charges so many times in the past, that it is getting to that point where people have to stop and think, "wait a minute, this former marine who reenlisted at 34 to go to vietnam probably isn't a granola-eating, greasy-haired hippie.  maybe i should listen to this guy, even though he's saying the same thing as michael moore."  it isn't any more compelling than mccain or kerry's records, but it provides them an excuse to finally buy into the other side's message...

where they are already leaning.  2,000 dead, and what gained?  and what plan to end this thing and bring our guys home?  i just don't see how the republicans can continue to sell this war by saying "terrorist" and "michael moore" as many times as they can.  i don't think that people are as angry as they were after 9/11, and i don't think they want any easy excuse to ignore people who are providing an alternative strategy (alternative to killing more arabs).

from CNN/USA Today: 52% think bush is not "honest and trustworthy," compared to 46% who think he is.

from ABC/WaPo: 55% believe the president INTENTIONALLY misled the public to get us into iraq.

what i read from that is that, if smear work like i think they do, these attacks on Murtha are only going to hurt the bushies.  they don't have the credibility left to name-call.  if they want to get out of this by telling the Big Lie (either way, i think that's their only option), they should turn on the gas about what has been done and how we are going to end the war.  i don't think americans want to believe that we screwed up in iraq, so if they start hearing reasons why they can believe that we've made good progress and should stay the course, they might believe it.

but the credibility fight is over... bush just isn't the straight-shooter who we can count on anymore.

i really hate to think what would have happened if bush had been on the ground in new orleans the day after hurricane katrina hit.  directing rescue workers, listening to people's stories, ferrying people to safety in Marine One (really putting his shoulder to the wheel).  i think that was the turning points, when the John Stuart impression of bush entered the public consciousness as how we really think of him... out of touch, mean-spirited, and totally absent when we really need him.

Yup, you forgot Max Cleland.  And, painful though it may be to acknowledge this, the Dems have been trotting around for four years behaving like castrati.  Now they're not.  If they continue to act like grownups with a lion's share of responsibility for demolishing the Big Lie, they'll make sure Murtha isn't out there alone and that Republicans pay in blood and votes for every attack.

I think Matt is misreading the context of the point EJ Dionne was trying to make. While it is true that Republicans will smear anyone who opposes them, John Murtha is not John Kerry. As Dionne says, Murtha regularly supported Republican policies. Kerry flip-flopped. Furthermore, Kerry had a reputation for being dovish and he was caught several times exaggerating his war record. Hero or no hero, he made himself vulnerable.




The point is that Republican attacks on Kerry worked because underneath the superficial biographical detail of Kerry's Vietnam service, he had spent almost his entire career as an antiwar activist and dove in Congress. People could look past his four months of combat service and believe that at his core, Kerry just wasn't tough enough to be commander-in-chief. Of course the truth is another matter, but in politics its perception that counts.

Old Joe McCarthy must be so proud of this White house.

Now they're going after Murtha on ethics charges. What a sleazy joke! As if the Bushies know or care anything about ethics.

is that he looks and sounds like a guy who spends his Friday nights at the VFW listening to country western music and drinking beer. I'm from the mid-west - I know this guy. When you're sixteen, and you drive your car into a cornfield, he's the one who shows up with a tractor and pulls you out.  It's not his resume, it's his demeanor. All the guys you list that they've taken down are polished - Murtha isn't. 
The kind of men who are susceptable to that particular GOP smear, look and sound an awful lot like Murtha. The GOP is going to have to tread very carefully, or they'll offend a lot of their supporters. 

Now they're going after Murtha on ethics charges. What a sleazy joke! As if the Bushies know or care anything about ethics.
So only Republicans can be guilty of ethics violations?