Belated Dissenters

"Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House, told students and faculty at the University of South Dakota Monday that the United States should pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there, just as it did post-war in Korea and Germany.

" 'It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003,' Gingrich said during a question-and-answer session at the school. 'We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it.' "

Now he tells us. If Newt has called this an enormous mistake in his many Fox News appearances, or called for a major military pullback, I, for one, have missed it.

Eric Boehlert revisits 2004 and John Kerry's complaint that he had to stretch his money over a longer period because the Democratic convention was first:

"In retrospect, the notion of delaying nomination in order to have more money on hand to respond to GOP attacks looks like a pretty smart one. But at the time, the pundits teed off on Kerry and his plan. It was 'silly' 'bordering almost on fraud' (Brit Hume), 'ridiculous' (David Broder), a 'dangerous move' (John Harwood), 'the stupidst move that John Kerry could possibly make' (William Safire). The strategy, the pundits cried, 'reeks of indecisiveness' (Houston Chronicle) and was a 'farce' (Los Angeles Daily News). Here's how CBS's Bob Schieffer played the story: 'When I heard that John Kerry may delay accepting his party's presidential nomination until a month or so after its convention in order to get around campaign laws and spend more on his campaign, my question was: Are these people nuts?'

"Incredulous talking heads were certain the idea was a loser because it placed too much emphasis on campaign funds and because it looked like Kerry was trying to bend the campaign rules. That's all well and good. But where, during the month of August when the Swifties lobbed their fantastic tales (the confused vets could barely keep their shifting, 35-year-old stories straight), were Broder, Harwood, Hume, Safire, Schieffer and the Houston Chronicle and the Los Angeles Daily News? They all lectured Kerry about accepting the nomination in July and about playing by the existing campaign rules. But when the Swifties tore up the campaign rules, most journalists stood quietly by."

Fair enough, but as I recall, Kerry at first decided it would just give the Swift Boaters more attention if he responded, and it wasn't a question of campaign cash.

A number of bloggers have responded to my column the other day about the press ending its honeymoon with John McCain. First up, Betsy Newmark , who says this is a good thing from a Republican point of view:

"Well, we always knew that it would happen; it's just happening a little ahead of schedule. Now that the media is waking up to the idea that John McCain could actually win both the Republican nomination and even the election in 2008. And they're realizing, that there is more to McCain than the guy who so helpfully bashes the administration on some issues. Why, the guy is actually pro-life and supports the war in Iraq. Gasp! We can't have that, so liberals and the media are already gearing up to cut McCain down to size and soften him up for 2008. . . .

"What they don't realize is that such attacks help McCain in his race for the Republican nomination because there is nothing Republican primary voters agree so much on as their dislike for the media. In fact, in addition to my differences with McCain on issues such as tax cuts and campaign finance reform, one of my main suspicions of McCain has been the sense that he would take positions solely to maintain his popularity with the press. So, McCain will benefit, at least in terms of the GOP nomination, by losing his 'base,' the press."

Lifelike Pundits is on the same wavelength:

"I am sure that somebody in McCain's office is clipping all these anti-John McCain articles by the likes of Krugman, Huffington and Dionne for use in his 2008 primary run. They're the equivalent of endorsements as far as the base of the Republican party is concerned."