Eric Alterman, I believe, was on Sam Seder (Air America) today and noted the importance of stories. IOW, a problem with Democrats is that they rely on facts and policy, not story lines ... consider John Kerry not wishing to deal with the Swift Boaters because he didn't think people would take them seriously. Bush has a story. You can have both -- Obama and Edwards have both stories and facts on their side. It was also noted on the show that Bush's base supports him, not particular policy moves. Thus, if Bush argued that pulling back from Iraq was fine, they might just support him. This makes sense ... recall mention by John Dean and other of that "authoritarian" tendency, which relies on trusting authority.
As to yesterday's post, note my use of the qualifier "installing controversial nominations." On principle, I am not a big fan of "recess" appointments, surely the use brief adjournments to install nominated persons that were shown to have had confirmation problems. The reality of Senate holds -- of some value when dealing with local positions where senatorial courtesy is of some value -- shows that delays aren't always a matter of the significant opposition. But, a controversy really underlines the whole point of confirmation. Still, some argument can be made probably that -- especially for minor positions -- recess appointments are not that bad, relatively speaking. Still, there are various positions and individuals where it is blatant. And, overall judgment, including after important elections like '06.
Finally, Sen. Hatch admitted error (see yesterday), though the cat is already out of the bag, and he did prove his loyalty (if that was the purpose). TPM analyzes how exactly he bs-ed so badly, though his readers disagree if it was bs or simply a lie. The post underlines the dangers of both, though one is slightly less odious.