Tucker Eskew

And Coming Up Next...

I'll be on Buchanan, er, Scarborough Country on MSNBC here in a few minutes, opposite Dee Dee Myers. Did the interview earlier today from inside the War Room at campaign HQ.

I ran the "war room" at Reagan-Bush '84, before anyone called it that...We actually Xeroxed and collated news articles (to monitor media coverage, i.e. newspapers, back then, "cut 'n' paste" was a literal exercise, as was copying)...it took us all day to do what the Warriors at BC04 do in a few minutes. They're a great group of googling monkeys, as those ABC Note-wags would say...

Hate To Say I Told You So...

...All Right...

>>if you throw out your campaign playbook for the day because of one headline, better make sure it's gonna hold up. <<

The Associated Press tonight lays further waste to the Kerry Kamp's media-manufactured-message of the moment...

I'm stunned the Other Side wants to keep talking about Iraq. It plays into the President's strongest suit among undecided voters... Without it to talk about, what would the Kerry message be right now? I guess there's plenty of negative reporting about the President to choose from, but those headlines still don't comprise a compelling case to replace a strong leader in a time of war.

"Why is it even close?"

Reporters and supporters alike ask me that question.

Why is it even close if George W. Bush is the visionary, positive, successful, bold, and strong leader his supporters say he is?

Why is he so "polarizing?" they want to know.

I don't have time now to share with you all my thoughts on this question, but the simplest answer is that greatness doesn't always translate into popularity, especially in the short-term. And the leaders I immediately think of as great were polarizing figures: Lincoln, Churchill, Reagan, and Thatcher to name a few.

Some of them enjoyed re-election, some didn't. With war ongoing and an opponent who can't close the sale, we're headed toward victory for a great leader.

Me and Zell's Buddy Chris

Just finished Hardball. Matthews thinks we're going to win. Me, too.

The discussion was heavy on strategy, light on policy. But I enjoyed it. I attributed the President's ultimate victory, when asked for a one-word reason, to his vision.

Hardblog

Let's play Hardball.

I'm on tonight, and coincidentally it's the first time I've been on-set there since the host called me Tucker Carlson and Carter Eskew. Maybe tonight he'll call my Kerry Kounterpart "Tad Friend."

Housekeeping Note

A reader suggested yesterday that I turn on the 'trackback' feature. Sounds like a good idea - like this entire experiment, I'll give it a try.

Ohhhh. That's Gonna Leave a Mark.

NBC News reports tonight that one of their embedded crews was with the 101st when it entered the Al Qaqqaa facility reported to contain the 380 tons of weapons -- the weapons whose presence within Iraq would seem to confirm the nature of Saddam's threat, but whose disappearance was blamed solely by Kerry on the man in the Oval. Turns out, our troops (and NBC) took the facility the day after the liberation of Iraq on 4/9/03, and voila! The weapons weren't there when the military arrived.

Our troops were on top of the site from the start and the material in question wasn't there.

So, lesson seems to be, if you throw out your campaign playbook for the day because of one headline, better make sure it's gonna hold up.

Nice to see the news cycle contain some self-correction within the Big Media, making John Kerry’s latest ripped from the headlines attack exceptionally wrong, typically opportunistic, and unusually revealing. His apparent joy (masked as false sorrow and blame-laying) at the bad news will fade. His hopes for another change-of-subject news cycle will not.

Fox in Box

Tune your box to Fox for “The Big Story” at 5:10pm EST. I’ll be on today, talking about the presidential campaign and the War on Terror.

Headline ripper

The Other Side reads this Times story and decides, "That's our topline message of the day."

Our team reads it and predicts (accurately) that those guys will assume the worst (about our military), ignore the reality (that Saddam had lots of weapons and was a threat), and sidestep their own previous sidesteps (around their convoluted position on the War).

So, the Stentorian Senator wants to talk about Iraq, Saddam's weapons, and our safety in the world.

Ok, fine by us at the campaign.

[Meanwhile, inside the US government, I know that hard-working military, intelligence and homeland security experts will continue to bust their tail-ends in the daily struggle to make us safer. They're succeeding, folks, because we're on offense and we're fighting the worst of them over there, on their turf.]

But most of you are focused on the election and I gotta say we're on offense at the campaign, too. Lots of positive signs in states that went for the Other Side last time.

More later. Sorry I don't have time to respond to most of the input and commentary.

Noted: I'm on GMA in the Morn'

I'll face off with a counterpart from the Other Side Sunday morning on Good Morning America. Looks like we've had a good day in the news cycle, and I know the grassroots operations are cookin' out there. Thanks to all of you doing so much for the campaign.