So I've finally decided to pick up and read the copy of Al Franken's The Truth, with Jokes that I got as a gift this past holiday season. And having just recently read some of the blog coverage of Franken's recent visit to Burlington, Vermont, I was struck by a section of the book I read last night, and haven't been able to sleep since.

Let me start with the relevant passage of the book. In Chapter Six, "With Friends Like Zell," Franken describes what may have been one of the most politically costly mistakes made by the 2004 Kerry-Edwards campaign.

His discussion begins with Kerry's own foreshadowing of one particular Republican attack:

As Kerry himself knew, the Bushies stood ready to pounce on anything that Kerry said--in public or private, even to himself--and fashion it into a crude shiv with which to stab him in the back, neck and face. That's why, when he sat down with Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine to discuss his foreign policy views, Kerry seemed to regard the interview as, Bai wrote, "an invitation to do himself harm."

But once Kerry got going, he opened up and made the mistake of saying something that was perfectly reasonable but also, in the context of a campaign against an utterly shameless liar, dangerously misquoatable.

Here, Franken quotes the section of the interview wherein Kerry delivers a line that became a key point of Republican attack: ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.'' Franken recounts how this statement was intentionally misinterpreted by Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and countless other right-wing media flacks, not to mention Bush himself, and then gets to his own analysis:

These attacks worked on two levels. The obvious level was the literal. If Kerry thought terrorism was just a nuisance, then he was obviously the wrong man to lead the fight against it. But there was another level. The subtext of the constant attacks on Kerry's toughness was that the Bush team was tough and Kerry wasn't. It's what blogger Joshua Micah Marshall called the Republicans' Bitch-Slap Theory of Electoral Politics. By slapping Kerry around continuously, the President was sending America the message that "Kerry is my bitch." Kerry, by focusing on his positive, nuanced agenda (including a modest, but eminently sensible health care plan that involved the word "reinsurance"), rather than fighting back with equal or greater ferocity, was whispering the opposite message: "I am Bush's bitch." That's not a very "war president" kind of thing to whisper.

After a brief interlude (some of the Jokes we're promised in the book's title), Franken gets back on track:

The point is, every good candidate should have a positive agenda. But you also have to fight back.... And that's where Kerry came up short. In politics, you can never turn the other cheek. Especially when you're fighting the Christian right.

Nothing demonstrates the "viciousness gap" between the Bush and the Kerry campaigns better than their respective national conventions.

In Boston, the Democrats made the horrible mistake of responding to a very ironic attack from the Bush team, the claim that Democrats had nothing to offer but "partisan anger." Instead of hitting back with the obvious countercharge that, no, it's Republicans who were the party of partisan anger, the Democrats decided to internalize the message of their abuser and try to be nicer.

The Republicans, on the other hand, ran a convention so partisan and angry that its fundamental dishonesty passed nearly unremarked.

Even though Democrats almost to a man believed that President Bush was an unrivaled horror show who was driving the nation off a cliff, it was easy to watch the Democratic Convention and conclude that the Democrats thought everything was hunky-dory in America, and that their only motivation was the sunny belief that their nominee could do an even better job than the incumbent.

This was no accident. In fact, it was the result of uncharacteristic message discipline on the part of the Democrats. Below the stage at Boston's Fleet Center, an elite team of wordsmiths had the thankless job of "cleansing" the speeches before they reached the teleprompter. Here's how someone who worked in the speechwriting office described it to me, on the condition that I not reveal his or her name:

One of our primary responsibilities was to take out negative comments. We were very concerned about casting the party in a positive light. If there was a line like "Bush has overseen a cataclysmic downturn in the economy and is running the country into the ground," we would have to change it to something like "Kerry will strengthen our economy and put the country on the right track." We'd flip all of the attacks into positive messages. Specifically, we didn't mention George Bush by name. I'd be surprised if there were a single speech that went into the teleprompter that had the President's name in it. Some speakers said it, but they were going off-message. We weren't even allowed to say "White Hosue." I remember somebody asking about that, and being told to write "some in Washington."

I asked him or her (okay, it's a "him") how he felt when he saw the unflaggingly venomous Republican Convention.

Boy, I hope we didn't fuck up. That was my reaction.

But fuck up they had. After the Democratic Convention, Kerry's standing in the polls went up by 4 percent, the smallest post-convention bounce in the history of the Newsweek poll. Compare that to Bush's bounce of 13 percent.

Strong words.

Now, fast forward nearly two years from the conventions, to late April 2006. Having in fact overseen a cataclysmic downturn in the economy (including $3 gas, if you're lucky) and run the country into the ground, Bush now also stands accused of personally approving: an unchecked program of warrantless domestic surveillance; unlimited detention without charge or access to legal representation for people he deems to be "enemies of America"; torture; lying the nation into a disastrous war without end; and the unilateral nullification of all or part of some 750 duly-enacted statutes passed by Congress and signed by him. Charges serious enough under any circumstances to warrant impeachment.

And yet, watch Mr. "Fuck up they had" struggle with his own inner "bitch" in an interview conducted by blogger "Brattlerouser," before Franken's appearance in Brattleboro on April 28th:

Brattlerouser: Is [Newfane Selectman and impeachment advocate] Dan DeWalt going to be on today?

Al Franken: Yes he is. And I'm interested in that, I'm just not necessarily for impeaching the President... yet.

[...]

Brattlerouser: So I know that you're in the heart of the impeachment movement of Vermont. Around Brattleboro, it passed in Newfane, it passed in Brattleboro, and it passed in Dummerston, Marlboro, and Putney all the towns around here... Rockingham, it will be brought up in the Vermont State legislature now. There's a section 306 [actually section 603] of the Rutland Resolution (sorry folks if I butchered explaining the Rutland Resolution. I was just saying anything that came to my head) which I think goes into the Jefferson Manual saying a state legislature can ask their representatives to raise awareness and start an investigation.

Al Franken: Right. I think the House legislature does it. It has to start impeachment.

Brattlerouser: Yeah.

Al Franken: Who knew about that? I didn't know about that!

Brattlerouser: I know that the Illinois and California legislatures are now bringing it up and the Vermont leg. Is trying to squeeze it in before they adjourn in late May/early June.

Al Franken: Well, I feel two ways about this. It shouldn't be easy to impeach a President. Are these resolutions about to impeach him or to start the impeachment proceedings?

Brattlerouser: I think to start the impeachment proceedings.

Al Franken: Yeah, I guess those are two different things and I can see how that could make people nervous because it's very very very serious to impeach a guy. There should be high crimes and misdemeanors and of course to what Clinton did, there's no question that what we think Bush has done is a high crime and misdemeanor. I think there's really no question that this guy lied to us and mislead us into war. The question is though, he didn't lie to us under oath. So, I'm just a little uncomfortable with it.  I mean this is very serious stuff that he did; lying us into war is probably the serious thing that you can get. So, why I feel every which way about it.

Person at table asked, "What about domestic spying?"

Al Franken: Well that also, that could be very well be something. You know, because of this Republican Congress, there's no way they're going to investigate it. They just won't allow it. Now on the other hand, he sort of did... some members of Congress he did alert them and inform them to  some degree, not to the degree that I think conforms to the law. I think he is supposed to inform every member of the committee...

Cross talk

... We absolutely have know [sic] idea what he's doing because this Congress won't do the proper oversight. So, this is being enforced by the fact that this Republican Congress has been acting like a rubber stamp and won't do their job. So this forces the citizens' hands. It's just that I feel two ways about this. I definitely have strong feelings that this President lied to get us into this war has probably broken the law and that Congress should be doing it's job, investigating both the warrant less wiretaps, it should have been doing its job investigating torture and essentially getting rid of habeas corpus (Franken laughs). You know, if Congress had been doing its job there would be no question to this.  And I'm not talking about doing the job of starting the impeachment proceedings. I'm talking about doing the job of looking in to all these. You know, the Senate was supposed to look into the White House Administration of whether or not they manipulated intelligence, which was clear that they did, and they didn't do that. So what's a citizen to do, other than to demand this? So, I'm very very sympathetic with it. it just causes me to worry that every time a President becomes unpopular that impeachment proceedings will start and it shouldn't be about unpopularity it should be about him breaking the law. But I think there's a very strong argument that this guy has broken the law because Congress won't do the job and it leaves us very little recourse.

Brattlerouser: I know that if the Democrats do get control of the House & Senate that John Conyers will run the House Judiciary Committee and Pat Leahy will run the Senate Judiciary Committee. Do you think that had it not been the citizen impeachment movement in Vermont and in other states, towns, and cities if it hadn't been going at the pace that it was do you think there would not be enough momentum to push these proceedings once they have control of the House & Senate?

Al Franken: Assuming they do.

Brattlerouser: Yeah, well obviously that's true!

Al Franken: Well, you know, I WANT to control the House & Senate and I want it more than impeachment. That's sort of the least of the reasons why I want it. I want it so we can reverse so much of the damage that's been done and so that we can do actually oversight into things that we're contracting, I mean, and oversight into contracting like FEMA, and oversight into all these things. And then we should reverse things like the Bankruptcy Bill, the Tax cuts for the very top, the idea of universal health care for kids RIGHT AWAY! That's one thing I think we should be for. I'd rather be for that. I'd rather say, `We're for universal health care for children, from day 1 that we go in, rather than saying we're starting impeachment proceedings. And I understand the very strong constitutional arguments that you can make on impeachment proceedings but that could happen once we take over without our announcing it so strongly. My fear is it will create a backlash and that will create turn out among the right and I just, I mean maybe I'm too cynical, but I REALLY REALLY want to take over one or both of these Houses. So we can start... #1 I want some people power for other things. I think that the war contracting and profiteering has been a disgrace and Congress has completely been a rubber stamp and completely refused to do its job in this regard. Nothing is getting done on health care other than you know, the exact opposite things that we need, like the prescription drug program being implemented the way it is through insurance companies rather than through Medicare. Medicare can't be allowed to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies. All of these, it's just one corrupt thing after another. One thing we need to get rid of is tax incentives for companies that outsource jobs to other countries. Companies get tax break for just assembling a factory and then sending it overseas. That's ridiculous! And we got to get rid of that. So, while I do think there's a really strong case for impeachment, I kinda think that, that would come if we got our oversight capacity back and that eventually might come but more important are these other things to me.

"I understand the very strong constitutional arguments that you can make on impeachment proceedings but that could happen once we take over without our announcing it so strongly. My fear is that it will create a backlash and that will create turn out among the right and I just, I mean maybe I'm too cynical, but I REALLY REALLY want to take over one or both of these Houses."

That's what he said. And hey, it's not like I can't sympathize. But remember, this is the guy who said that we had to fight back. This is the guy who said "cleansing" the speeches at the convention to portray a positive image -- i.e., not "announcing it so strongly" -- was a "fuck up."

Does anyone have any doubt but that the senior Democratic strategists behind the 2004 convention messaging would have offered the exact same defense for their restraint that Franken's now offering for his? That, yes, all of what you say is true and needs to be said, but "my fear is is that it will create a backlash and that will create turnout among the right and I just, I mean maybe I'm too cynical, but I REALLY REALLLY want to take over the White House?"

And note well, by the way, who went right down the same path on the question of impeachment: Mr. Bitch-Slap Deep Think himself, Josh Marshall. Marshall gives his own position short shrift in that initial piece, but takes a beating for it. Which is perhaps why he issued his full defense in The Hill rather than on his blog, not that that stopped me from offering a rebuttal.

Have Republicans not said, in precisely the same fashion as they levelled the "partisan anger" charge, that they wish for nothing more than continued Democratic discussion of the idea? Have they not said that impeachment talk is supposed to be proof that Democrats have no positive agenda? What are we to make of this? Can anyone tell me why, in light of what both Franken and Marshall have pointed out (and so many already believed about the Kerry campaign), this Republican charge is different, and it really is in our best interest to roll over for this one? Unlike, of course, those that have come before. No, no -- those were "fuck ups!" This time it's good advice! People aren't giving Bush and the Republican Congress Politburo historically low -- subterranean -- approval ratings because they can't abide by what they've done to the country. No! They're rejecting them because of their failure to speak positively about an agenda of jobs and health care! Bush has overseen a cataclysmic downturn in the economy and is running the country into the ground. Pelosi and Reid will strengthen our economy and put the country on the right track.

Fellas, we love you, and you're on the side of the angels, no doubt. But wake up. You're caught in an infinite feeback loop, and this time, I don't know how many more chances we're gonna get to break free.