The New York Times today runs a front-page story under the headline "G.O.P. Questioning Bush's Campaign," about complaints by Republicans that the Bush team made tactical errors in the closing days of the presidential campaign. The story relies heavily on two sources. One is Bill Dal Col, "who ran the losing Senate campaign of Representative Rick Lazio in New York." It isn't until the 23rd paragraph of the story that the Times discloses that Mr. Dal Col "was the campaign manager for Steve Forbes, who lost to Mr. Bush." The other main source in the story is Roger Stone, who is identified only as "a Republican strategist." The Times doesn't tell us at all that Mr. Stone spent the presidential campaign season this year advising real estate developer and casino tycoon Donald Trump on Mr. Trump's Reform Party presidential bid. The Bush campaign probably did make some mistakes, but Mr. Dal Col and Mr. Stone are pretty thin gruel for the Times to offer up. Also carping in the Times story is Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's losing campaign in 1996. If Dal Col, Stone and Reed are such political geniuses, why didn't their candidates win?
Update: Another Republican quoted in today's "G.O.P. Questioning" story, John Ellis, writes:
In today's NYT, Richard Berke quotes me at some length concerning how the Bush campaign approached the final six days of the campaign. I do not take issue with any of the direct quotes, but I take exception with the characterization of what I told Mr. Berke and the context in which those quotes appear.
As I repeatedly explained to Mr. Berke, the principal reason for the Bush campaign's confidence going into the final weekend was that polls of "likely voters" conducted by the Bush campaign and major news organizations showed Bush doing well nationally, well enough in swing states and surprisingly well in a large number of traditionally Democratic states. As I also explained repeatedly to Mr. Berke, the reason for this was that both campaign and news media polling organizations were employing "likely voter" screens that were too tight and therefore undercounted Democratic strength.
I never said to Mr. Berke that the Bush campaign did not "have to worry much" about Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Iowa. Indeed, Governor Bush campaigned in two Pennsylvania media markets during the final weekend of the campaign. Pennsylvania is a swing state which the (people I talked with in the) Bush campaign believed it might win. Wisconsin and Iowa were traditionally Democratic states where Bush campaign and local polling showed GWB running surprisingly well.
When I spoke to Mr. Berke on Sunday (yesterday) afternoon, I never imagined that I would appear under a jump-page headline that said "Allies Fault Bush Campaign's Endgame." This leaves the distinct impression that I fault the Bush campaign for its endgame strategy. I did not, do not, will not. Indeed, based on the data available at the time, I agreed with the Bush campaign team's assessment of the race.
Had I known that Mr. Berke would use me to further an analysis which I believe is inaccurate, I would never have agreed to speak with him.
Why Peres Lost: A front-page story in today's New York Times about a hijacked plane that landed in Israel says Israeli "politicians and analysts" warn that Israeli retaliatory strikes against Arab terrorists may backfire. "They cited the assassination of a Hamas mastermind, Yihye Ayash, in 1996 that provoked a wave of terror and cost Shimon Peres the prime ministerial election." When will the Times ever realize that it is not Israeli actions that "provoke" terrorism, but the mere existence of the Jewish state and of Jews, which the terrorists are determined to eradicate? The notion that Mr. Peres lost the prime ministerial election because he was too tough on terrorism is a typical Times misreading of Middle East history. In fact, Mr. Peres lost because he was seen as too dovish and soft on terrorism, and because the Israeli public wanted a prime minister who would pursue a peace with the Arabs at a more deliberate and cautious pace and with a greater emphasis on reciprocity and Arab compliance. It's just bizarre for the Times to claim that Mr. Peres lost the election because he approved the assassination of Ayash. Probably not even Mr. Peres would use that excuse.
Peace in Jordan: A cut-line that runs today with a photograph accompanying the Times obituary of Leah Rabin says, "In 1994 she accompanied Prime Minister Rabin, right, and Shimon Peres, walking behind them, on their return home from Washington after the signing there of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty." The Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty was signed in a valley between Israel and Jordan; what the two countries did in Washington was issue a preliminary declaration.