Edgewise

Kerry seemed 'on'

In the spirit of balanced analysis, let me offer this counter-point to xian's crafty post-debate "spin."

Yes, fine, I'll grant his central thesis: Sure. OK. Bush was off.

But leave us not forget: Kerry was on.

Really, the guy had a job to do, and dang if he didn't nail it. He was smart, strong, likable, dare I say...presidential. He even managed to stomp on Bush without coming across as superior or "aloof."

And even more: he left remarkably little SNL fodder in his wake. No sighing. No lock boxes. As I think we all learned in 2000: hard-shelled mockery can help write history, and tonight Kerry kept himself on the smart side of that swinging blade.

Now ole smirky boy...seems like it might be possible for them to have a little sport at his expense. Oh yes indeed...

Bush seemed 'off'

Watched the debate tonight. Bush seemed to be off his game. His timing was off. I had the distinct impression he was waiting for the audience-response he gets at his handpicked rallies and was nonplussed when his repeated lines and that hangdog mugging he does were met with silence.

Kerry did good. Tonight was important. Mark my words.

developing: President Bush is a habitual onanist

On the eve of the first presidential debates, some say President Bush has developed an unhealthy addiction to onanism. Sources close to the President have recently noticed that his hands are never more than 6 feet from his guy-parts. Never. Not during cabinet meetings. Not playing with his dog. Not watching "Jimmy Kimmel" on the TV. Never.

David Bronsky, an independent voter in the battleground state of Ohio, wonders what it's all about. "What's the point?" he asks. "And what other reasonable explanation could there possibly be? Besides a profound addiction to onanism?" He pauses to sip his morning coffee, then shakes his head. "There is none. There is no other reasonable explanation. He should get help."

Let's be clear: As a citizen, Bush can spend his spare time however he wants.

But as president, well it's a matter of character.

From the Washington Times, no less

Found this on the redoubtable Buzzflash. Considering the source, Arnaud de Borchgrave of the Washington Times, it's a remarkably cogent summary of the situation. Also a little off-message, especially the bullet point that "the war on terror" is a political fiction - "a misnomer tantamount to rhetorical disinformation." Bleepin' A, Arnie!

The fine line between clever and stupid

Bush bringing Allawi from Iraq to the US to do a joint press conference with him: Not politicizing the war.

Kerry accusing Bush of misleading the country about the true scope of problems in Iraq, and disputing statements made at the Bush/Allawi joint press conference: Politicizing the war.

Any questions?

Bush: "Taliban no longer is in existence."

“That's why I said to the Taliban in Afghanistan: Get rid of al Qaeda; see, you're harboring al Qaeda. Remember this is a place where they trained — al Qaeda trained thousands of people in Afghanistan. And the Taliban, I guess, just didn't believe me. And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence.” [Bush, 9/27/04]

There's estimates that 90 percent of the country — at least a very large percent of the country, is under the occupation of the Taliban and the warlords.” [Rep. Paul (R-TX)., Remarks to House Committee on International Relations, 9/23/04]

Taliban Violence Threatens Elections: The pre-election period has been marred by repeated attacks against voter registration workers and facilities, mostly carried out by Taliban forces. The Taliban has vowed to sabotage the election — the first national poll in Afghanistan in three decades of war and turmoil, and the country's first-ever presidential election. [Washington Post, 9/17/04]

"There is no Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe." — Gerald Ford, 1976

[The first three quotes come from a mailing from the Kerry campaign.]"

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people, singing John Lennon songs, here.

(this has been out for a little bit, but I'm late to the party, and I figgered there might be others who are likewise a lil bit behind the times. nod to xian for pointing this out to me over the weekend.)

We get trolls

My response to reader Gooch, comnmenting on Vietnam not irrelevant to today (although his post is, not suprisingly, entirely off topic for that entry):

I think you have "indisputable facts" mixed up with assertions, opinions, conjecture, and wild-ass exaggerations.

Your so-called FACTS:

1) I am a Democrat.

If you say so. To prove it to me you'd have to show me your party registration, and even then I wouldn't put it past you to register as a Democrat to give your pro-Bush propaganda more heft.

2) Saddam Hussein sponsors global terrorism.

Define global. Bush stretched 9/11 to cover all countries that harbored terrorist organizations of global reach. Please site one such group that was harbored by Iraq. Thank you.

3) George Bush removed Saddam with extreme prejudice after an attack on our soil by an Islamic terrorist group.

Putting aside the macho lingo, what is the connection between Saddam, our soil, Islamic extermism, and terror?

3) John Kerry, "our" candidate, can't make up his mind, and most recently has condemned Bush for protecting our country by attacking terrorism at its roots

No, he has condemned Bush for endangering our country by falling asleep at the wheel in Afghanistan and instead pursuing a politicized foreign policy designed to win seats in Congress and intimidate opposition by branding them as terrorist sympathizers.

Where were the roots of terrorism in Iraq?

And have you seen the CIA map that's been going around lately showing the countries Al Qaeda was operating in in 2001?

(That "our" gives you away, btw.)

THOSE ARE INDISPUTABLE FACTS.

Writing in all caps doesn't make you right, fella.

Of the two, I trust Bush to fight terrorism and protect my family.

That's your call, of course.

Dispute this, if you will:

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." (Kerry, December 16, 2003)

I was for Dean and that was a slam at Dean to win a very tough primary. I am not a child and understand how politics work. Your move.

"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war.[...] I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism" (Kerry, September 20, 2004)

I agree with the above.

"I have always had ONE -- ONE position on Iraq." (Kerry, September 21, 2004)

Kerry supported giving the president the ability to threaten credible use of force in order to push the UN and our allies into supporting a tougher inspection regime that would ensure that Saddam could not develop the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction to our soil (and not merely his "hope" or his weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

What the hell is this man thinking, and how on earth did we choose him as our candidate? Surely we could have done better.

If you trust Bush why are you concerned that the Democrats didn't field someone you'd like better? Where's the problem?

These facts are indefensible, no matter your affiliation. Kerry is a pathetic choice for a candidate in this critical time of war, and we have failed miserably with our choice.

What do you mean "we" Kimosabe?

Fellow Dems, vote for Bush, or don't vote at all. Don't disgrace the Democratic party by endorsing a fraud like Kerry. Our ideology must be set aside to protect our national safety and our very families. Think. Please.

Fellow Republicans and Zellocrats, vote for Kerry or don't vote at all. Don't disgrace conservative values by supporting a fraud like Bush. Think "peas."

Cecil's response is in the comment thread, as is my original version of my own reply.

Allawi may have been a terrorist

Hey, but at least he was "our" terrorist, kinda. He seems to have played every side of the street, according to a dossier rounded up by Ken Layne. The rundown on Allawi makes Chalabi sound relatively straightforward.

I suppose in the interests of stability, if not democracy, a CIA-installed strongman ruling Iraq does make some kind of sense. Meet the new boss, oh you liberated Iraqis, same as the old boss.

Patient Earth & Dr. California

Out here on the Left Coast things are looking curiouser and curioser. Detroit is threatening to sue us for requiring cars in California to pollute less. Do they really care that much? Yes, because four other states peg their auto emission standards to California's, and three more intend to follow suit. And why does California get to regulate its air quality instead of the feds? Because we passed a Clean Air law first.

But that's not the main story. The reason the California Air Resources Board passed the higher emissions standard was to address the problem of global warming. With 35 million people driving two cars each (statistically) Californian's contribute a lot of global warming gases to the world's air. But Detroit (as well as the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Bush Administration) is not convinced about this climate-change thing.

As reported in The New York Times the president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers representing everybody but Nissan and Honda doubted the reality of global warming. "I come from Maine" he said "and we had one of the coldest winters on record....It was very very cold." So, not to worry folks!

Rain in Maine doesn't help us much out West, however. In an attempt to briefly describe what rising temperatures would mean in California, the Times reporter, Danny Hakim, fashions a poetic - if weirdly inaccurate - vision of our demise:

"Higher temperatures impede the state's battle with smog and can worsen forest fires," he writes. "They also contribute to the early melting of mountain snow, which can lead to winter flooding and less water runoff for crop irrigation in the spring, threatening the state's $3.2 billion wine industry."

I think Danny may be worried about his supply of Napa merlot. He should be more worried about where his next salad is coming from. Forget the wine industry. That "runoff" from the melting Sierra Nevada snow in the spring fills the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers which feed thousands of miles of cement aquaducts and reservoirs of the gargantuan water network irrigating California's 6 million acres of farmland. The state's farm industry (largely fresh fruits and vegetables and cow products) is worth at least $20 billion a year.

Then there's the rising sea level problem which could, according to the article, "threaten coastlines and ... contaminate the state's fresh water supply." I'm not sure how rising sea level threaten's the water supply. I suppose it could make groundwater wells along the coast saltier. Believe me, it's the snow pack we watch with hawk eyes.

California is just the canary in the coal mine here. The California Air Board is taking the threat of a heating planet seriously. One of its members put it like this, "The patient here is the earth and its habitants. The treatment option is here before us today."

Friday pick-me-up

A little down about the state of the election? There's a nifty collection of current polls plus some comparisons to a few prev. elections, here. Puts things in some helpful perspective.

And really, given the fantastic month Bush has had and the mess that we're told the Kerry campaign is, given all those heart-tugging John E. O'Neill media moments we can't seem to get away from, and how French Kerry looks, and how supposedly nobody wants to have a beer with him, and all the wind surfing he does, and how that's really bad for the economy and undermines our troops and whatnot, and don't get me started on the flip-flopping -- oh lord, the flip-flopping, and what's the frequency, Burkett?, and given all that:

what does it say about our incumbent war president and the state of his awe-inspiring campaign, run by that super-genius Karl Rove and his army of evil media scientists that they can't seem to stay above 50% -- even in the Fox poll! -- and that the race is back to being statistically a tie by most measures?

Have a nice weekend,
-Cecil

How does he know? They told him so.

From Thursday's Bush/Allawi press conference:

Q: do you believe, given the situation on the ground and Fallujah and other northern cities in the Sunni triangle, that elections are possible in four months?

BUSH: I do, because the [Iraqi] prime minister [Allawi] told me they are. He's interested in moving this country forward. And you heard his statement. And I believe him.

...and then a little later, when asked whether "the real voices of the Iraqi people themselves contradict the rosy scenarios you're painting here today?":

BUSH: I agree, I'm not the expert on how the Iraqi people think, because I live in America where it's nice and safe and secure. [ed note: what code is it today? I forget....]

But I'd talk to this man [Allawi]. One reason I'm optimistic about our ability to get the job done is because I talk to the Iraqi prime minister.

And if you boil all that down, basically his answer is "because he told me so." Ugh, right? I mean, isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place? You know, some people told the President and his employees something they all wanted to hear, and they took 'em at their word? And again: Ugh.

(btw, in case you're curious, the other reason he's optimistic about the situation in Iraq is that "people will choose freedom over tyranny every time, that's what I believe." Which happens to be what I like to believe too. Only, unfortunately, "the people" don't always end up getting to make that choice, y'know? Or else, like, we'd never end up with tyrannies.)

Sorry..couldn't help it...

China's Hu takes Army reins
Former President Jiang Zemin resigned his post as head of military Sunday
CSM, 9/20/04

"Jiang,...was China's top ruler until 2002 - when he gave up his post to President Hu....Yet Jiang, still regarded as the most powerful politician,...had retained a firm grip on the Central Military Commission.
"Jiang's half-in, half-out official status...has caused confusion and a "paralysis of policy.'"

------------
We really need to start with one statement so simple it could not cause any possible confusion:
Hu's on first.

Zogby says the race is too close to call

At least Zogby gives you some analysis instead of raw, nearly context-free numbers alone.

Interesting how even with an average lead near the margin-of error, Bush is often behind in the state-by-state electoral tallies du jour.

Worst possible outcome: electoral-college tie that enables Hastert to declare reelection by a majority of state delegations.

Bush's reelect numbers good... in Iraq

From today's press conference with Allawi (quoted in a Daily Kos diary):

Secondly, I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America. (Chuckles.)

Bush could retroactively earn that honorable discharge by volunteering now to serve in country.

Vietnam not irrelevant to today

I heard from Harry Shearer's Le Show that the U.K. is about to rotate a third of its troops out of Iraq (mostly Basra, I imagine) in a "routine" changing of the guard, and that the 60 civil engineers from New Zealand are leaving soon as
well.

Shearer also mentioned that the Col. Tim Collins, whose exhortation to his men was so widely distributed online, has now retired from the Royal Irish Regiment and is speaking freely about the war in Iraq, saying its about as morally correct as "common assault" and complaining about the lack of a plan to deal with the power vacuum that resulted inevitably from toppling the Ba'ath regime.

Bush has not just recapitulated his father's presidency as farce but has now also rekindled the horrors of imperial overreach ("Vietnam syndrome").

I recall that one of the ways Kerrry beat Weld was in debate, when challenged on his then-blanket opposition to the death penalty, where he said "I know something about killing [or words to that effect]," and went on to suggest the idea that state-sanctioned killing degrades us all.

Swift Boats and Killian memos actually aren't irrelevant to today's adventures in the middle east. The Kerry campaign needs to remind us that Kerry learned from Vietnam not to spawn war for no good reason, and that the right-wing pro-Vietnam war-evaders internalized entirely the wrong lesson and have now done something worse than any of the "Democrat wars" (as Dole so bitterly put it) of the previous century.

This entry appeared in a slight different form originally in the Well's politics conference, called How Will Bush's Bombing of Iran Backfire?.

The Magic Bullets of Baghdad

Army Defends Baghdad Battle That Left 16 Dead, LA Times, 9/16/04
U.S. commanders acknowledged Wednesday that their helicopters fired seven rockets and 30 high-caliber machine-gun rounds onto a crowded Baghdad street this week during a battle that killed 16 Iraqis...
Military officials here have adamantly denied Iraqi charges that U.S. forces...fire indiscriminately...
[US] soldiers are fighting a guerrilla force that wears no uniform and quickly blends into the civilian population...
Col. McConville...said soldiers in the helicopters were aiming at "insurgent or terrorist forces firing at our aircraft," and not at civilians gawking and poking at the disabled vehicle.

-----------------------------------
DKo: This mastery of marksmanship is nothing short of miraculous. "No uniforms." "They blend into the civilian population." Yet we manage to aim exclusively at them and never at the blended-in civilians.
"Hold your fire, soldier! That man is gawking. And the kid next to him is poking."
More amazing still is that we achieve this not with rifles, but even with rockets and high-caliber machine guns fired from a helicopter! A sixth sense, it must be. Or maybe even a seventh.

Gone to Alabama, with a monkey on my back

Russ Baker reports on the fortunate son/black sheeps' doings in Houston and Alabama that surrounded his apparently incomplete service in the Air National Guard in the Nation.

Apparently he was having trouble flying the planes he was trained on, getting into trouble, and unwilling to take a physical exam:

One middle-aged woman whose general veracity could be confirmed told me that she met Bush in 1968 at Hemisphere 68, a fair in San Antonio, at which he tried to pick her up and offered her a white powder he was inhaling. She was then a teenager; Bush would have just graduated from Yale and have been starting the National Guard then. "He was getting really aggressive with me," she said. "I told him I'd call a policeman, and he laughed, and asked who would believe me."

Still, I say it's not the drugs, it's not the shirking of duty, it's not Vietnam, it's not the National Guard: it's the dishonesty.

It's the dishonesty, sonny

It's not who did or didn't go to war, who did or didn't support Vietnam, who was or wasn't injured abroad or defending the homeland. It's the trail of lies in the form of memoirs, advertisement, and puffed-up resume line items (Daily Kos :: New US NEWS undisputed analysis: Bush was AWOL):

Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge.

Only people with connections can purchase their honor.

Mark A. R. Kleiman has a good summary of the state of the "Bush refused a direct order" story: (Killian memos/Bush TANG summary)

Still Fostering Abuse, Publicly, Shamelessly, Even Now

Rumsfeld Downplays Detainee Mistreatment, AP, 9/10/04
"Amid allegations he fostered a climate that led to the prison abuse scandal, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Friday that the military's mistreatment of detainees was not as bad as what terrorists have done.
"'Does it rank up there with chopping someone's head off on television?' he asked. 'It doesn't.'"

-------------------------
DKo: Rumsfeld is calibrating a new standard for tough, but decent US forces--and for fair and balanced public judgment of the things they do. We must aspire to a higher plane than the TV hostage executioners. They were so publicly gruesome about their murders. It was shocking to put that sort of thing on television. We wouldn't allow it.

When I was a kid, we had a way to give credit to this degree of ennoblement: Mr. Secretary, people have said you weren't fit to live with pigs, but I said you were.

I'm more conservative than Bush

You know, I don't think we should be using the word "conservative" to describe right-wing extremism. Too many people, even people with a fair number of progressive, even liberal political views, see themselves as conservative, and see conservatism as a good thing that means something like preserving what's good and not changing things too fast.

Frankly, the Democrats are the conservative party now. Yes, they champion a left-of-center set of policy prescriptions, but then again the center has drifted right quite a bit in the last thirty years. Most Democratic positions are moderate and consensus driven. The Republicans are boldly radical *and* reactionary at the same time.

Hell, I'm more conservative than the Republican Party and I'm a left-wing freak from the Bay Area.

(Reprinted from the 'Kerry vs. Bush, the Battle is Joined' topic in the Well's politics conference, because, you know, I own my own words there.)

Handy Retort #3

Another snappy answer for Cecil's collection: "Wrong leadership is not strong leadership." (TM Orcinus, which is having a helluva fine blogging week and where you should read the entire post, including the very long litany of "Just remember: It wasn't Democrats who...")

Best blog coverage of the RNC

Brokentype: So Long RNC (via Ftrain linky love).

Handy Retort #2

Have you been following the whole forgery thing? (Short version: new docs surfaced yesterday with more national guard-related badness for Bush. Today's news has some experts saying these docs are really forgeries because of particulars re the typeface.)

OK, so what if one of your Republican buddies stops you in the hallway tomorrow and says: "see, those docs are forgeries. He's innocent! Innocent! Innocent! and blah, blah, blah" -- what then? Try this:

"Great. They're forgeries. Now show me the forgeries that prove that his presidency doesn't suck."

(do you spot a theme developing here...?)

What else are they hiding?

Jeez if Whitewater billing records were fair game, doesn't selective leaking of military records in response to media requests while continually claiming that everything has been released warrant a closer look? (The Washington Monthly):

Obviously they've had these sitting around for a while, and just as obviously they've held them back even though they claimed in February that they had made available every known document related to Bush's National Guard record.

So what else are they hiding? And when are they going to approve AP's FOIA request to view all relevant microfilm records directly?

The Poor Man has some further thoughts.

Handy Retort #1

Going into the home stretch here, we're all going to need to have some snappy retorts on-hand. For example, if you're pro-Kerry, the next time a Republican brags to you about the polls and the convention, and blah, blah, blah, try this:

"Yeah, Bush is really running a great campaign.
It's just his presidency that sucks."

Got any to add, on either side of the line?

Bush is petrified of debating Kerry

Looks like Bush and his team are trying to back out of one of the three already-agreed-upon debates: Political Wire: Bush May Skip One Debate:

President Bush "may skip one of the three debates that have been proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates and accepted by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA)," the Washington Post reports.

What is he afraid of?

1000 feet below sleaze-level

Remarkably, Dick Cheney lifted up a stoop today with his bare hands. And then he actually stooped beneath that stoop. That's how low this is.

Short version: a vote for Kerry is a vote for a major terrorist attack on the United States.
Well, that'll help me make up my mind. Cuz, you know, I'm against a major terrorist attack on the United States.

Despicable.

And when I said it was tied...

...I meant it was tied.

Rasmussen gave Bush a commanding lead of 4 points after the convention, back on September 2nd and 3rd.
How tied is it today? They're showing 47.3% to 47.3%. I mean, that's just nuts.
See for yourself, here.

Texans for truth

If it's a character issue, that makes it fair game, right? (George W. Bush: AWOL in Alabama)

The Right to Bear Arms. EVERYWHERE!

Increasingly, we are fighting a war to defend the right of American troops to enter Iraqi cities. Per this 9/5/04 NYT article...

One by One, Iraqi Cities Become No-Go Zones
"In Iraq, the list of places from which American soldiers have either withdrawn or decided to visit only rarely is growing: [Samarra,] Falluja,...Ramadi,...the holy Shiite cities of Karbala and Najaf to the south....
"Negotiations with rebel leaders [in Sadr City] foundered last week on precisely the issue of the freedom of American soldiers to enter the area....Iraqis...increasingly see them as a cause of the violence. Take out the Americans, the Iraqis say, and you take out the problem....
"Even in the once-friendly Shiite areas, the Americans are giving way to local demands that they stay away."

-----------------------------
DKo again...
Some analysts say that Bush is holding back only until November 2, to keep US casualties down prior to the election. After that, if he wins (and if he loses?), we will go back in force to "take down" these cities. We will say we have to, because only US forces can assure free elections.

If anyone wants to put insurgents--and the current government--on the spot regarding free elections, there will be a completely independent UN force, specifically dedicated to election monitoring, and America will stop inciting chaos with its presence.

Could you just roll that back a little, please?

I love the abrupt juxtaposition of styles in this AFP article, where the gray grit of war slides suddenly into comfy corporate pastel.
I leave it to you to decide where the transition seems to occur. This is an unbroken quote from the article.

"Four Turkish nationals have been executed at the hands of hostage-takers in the war-torn country.
"Several other Turks have been kidnapped and then released, mostly after their employers agreed to pull out.
"Dozens of other foreigners have been taken hostage in Iraq by insurgents seeking to force their governments or employers to leave the country.
"PWC Logistics provides comprehensive supply chain solutions to companies throughout the Middle East."

Statehood for Iraq?

Today, US Maj. Gen. Peter Chiarelli put "an American face" on the most fateful decision shaping the future of Iraq. Per this AP story...

Commander: Fight with Al-Sadr Not Over AP, 9/2/04

"The fight with renegade Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is not over and the U.S. military must retake his stronghold in Baghdad's Sadr City slum, a top U.S. commander said Thursday.
"Maj. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, commander of the Army's 1st Cavalry Division, said action is necessary before the volatile cleric has a chance to rebuild his Mahdi militia."

"The job will take a matter of weeks, Chiarelli said, giving no timetable for the start of an operation."

The greatest speech of George Bush's life

Sure he started slow, but I think you really have to say, Bush did a pretty good job Thursday night. No, wait, that's not fair. I'll go farther. He was fantastic. Really, he did about as great a job as a human being, made in the image of the almighty God could possibly have done. And given that I think it's safe to say that if you were watching the big show, and you were an undecided voter, and you were open to Bush and the case for his reelection, you're gonna be swayed by what you just saw. Which means great news for Bush, right?

So where does all that leave us? Bush has now taken his best shot. He was incredible! He walked into Madison Square Garden with all the conviction and charisma of a caucasian Martin Luther King, Jr., the charm, vision, and confidence of a born again Isaac Asimov, and yes, the flawless comic timing of an older yet wiser Jeff "you might be a redneck if..." Foxworthy. Wow!

But what if, come two weeks from now, this thing is still all tied up? I ask because that's pretty much what big-time pollster John Zogby expects. Tonight Zogby released a new poll that was taken through the course of this week -- so that's after 24/7 swift boat coverage, and during the wall-to-wall Kerry bashing. You may hear a lot on Friday about how Bush/Cheney took a big leap forward in this poll, and it's true. They went up a few. Kerry/Edwards went down a few. And the result? Bush/Cheney is now up by all of 2 points. In a poll with a margin of error of 3.2 +/-. In other words, it's a tie.

And in the coming weeks? Here's what Zogby expects to see:

...the battle is now engaged. I have written before about the metaphor of the bouncing rubber ball. Take a rubber ball and bounce it as hard as you can. Then, the laws of physics take over. The President has gotten three preceding bounces -- each one shorter in height and duration. I think this week is the fourth bounce of the ball: this time only into the higher forties and perhaps only lasting a week or so.

OK. So if Bush just gave the best speech of his life, and if Zogby ends up right and two weeks from now Bush/Cheney are still below 50%... what then?

To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy: If you find yourself polling under 50% on September 15th, you might be a one-term president.

Kerry campaign's response to Bush's speech

Here's the press release: U.S. Newswire : Releases : "Kerry Campaign Response to President's Convention Speech"

Looks like the gloves are off.

You're welcome, Dick. Oh, and thanks to you too, dad.

Did anybody laugh like I did when Dick Cheney was graciously recognized by President Bush? He had that sideways smirk on his face, and then when he stood to wave he opened his mouth and said ... um ... well, I have no idea. I was trying to read "thank you" or something like that from his lips, but it just looked kinda like a "baaaaa" or a burp or something. I'm sure it was from his heart, whatever it was.

Also nice to see the warm bond between father and son. I could feel the warmth when George introduced his father and after the speech when they vigorously shook hands.

Excuse me, I have to change the channel. The Fox pundits are getting on my nerves.

Beaming Republican faces

I'm not watching the RNC convention. ("Why bother?" I thought, since I pretty much know the Repo script and it's just as simplistic as Starlight Express, though with a plot that has far less contact with reality). But Cecil's posts made me curious, so I poked around. From reading about the convention at Tacitus, Instapundit, Power Line, Real Clear Politics, and various other places, it sounds to me as though William Saletan summarizes Wednesday evening pretty well:

The 2004 election is becoming a referendum on your right to hold the president accountable. That's the upshot of tonight's speeches by Vice President Dick Cheney and Zell Miller, the Republican National Convention's keynote speaker.

The case against President Bush is simple. He sold us his tax cuts as a boon for the economy, but more than three years later, he has driven the economy into the ground. He sold us a war in Iraq as a necessity to protect the United States against weapons of mass destruction, but after spending $200 billion and nearly 1,000 American lives, and after searching the country for more than a year, we've found no such weapons. Tonight the Republicans had a chance to explain why they shouldn't be fired for these apparent screw-ups. ...

"A senator can be wrong for 20 years without consequence to the nation," said Cheney. "But a president always casts the deciding vote." What America needs in this time of peril, he argued, is "a president we can count on to get it right."

You can't make the case against Bush more plainly than that.

If the convention speeches are any guide, Republicans have run out of excuses for blowing the economy, blowing the surplus, and blowing our military resources and moral capital in the wrong country. So they're going after the patriotism of their opponents.

There's much more, including the inescapable logic that the Bush plan is to make our country more like a banana republic than ever before.

Unfortunately, after the speeches, the talking heads (yes, I read through their transcripts too) were very polite and accommodating to their Repo masters. For instance, before Chris Mathews' interview with Miller—the one that had Miller wishing out loud that we could return to the days of legal duelling—the Hardball bunch spent half an hour parroting the Repo line, from Mathews calling the speech "an indictment of John Kerry" to Brokaw and Russert criticizing Kerry's Senate record. The Internet has also reacted very predictably, with opinions that were set before the convention began. (The Daily Howler is all over last night's lies. QandO has a roundup of online reactions that criticizes both sides. And an extensive collection of links to blogviating about Miller's speech is at Daly Thoughts.)

By not watching, I didn't miss anything except more of the same, and perhaps a little more high blood pressure. But I hope a lot of undecided voters were watching. Miller's dishonest and antiliberty ravings would scare thoughtful lovers of democracy; the metabehavior of the press and bloggers won't change voter attitudes at all, but perhaps the actual behavior of those in power will. And so the hope in progressive minds has to be, "oh, I do hope the Republicans are getting tremendous ratings."

Zell Miller Theory #741

In last night's keynote speech, did you catch the way Pseudocrat Zell Miller kept saying (paraphrased) "I'm doing this for my family," and "this is about the safety of my family," and "I put family above party." And then later, when he said "and the man I want to run this country is George W. Bush"? (or something equally insane)

I mean, it's all right there, isn't it? It's clear as day.

George W. Bush has kidnapped Zell's family and is holding them hostage somewhere on the White House grounds. Tonight's speech was actually a carefully crafted piece of code -- a desperate cry for help to us, his beloved fellow Democrats. (For example, "John Kerry will destroy us all" is ZigZag for "I think Cheney's got a gun.")

And the price Bush is asking for the Miller family's safe return? But of course: it's Zell's immortal soul.

Hey, military industrial complex? Is that Dick Cheney in your pocket or are you just glad to see us?

(1) That headline is a random thing. Apropos of nothing. Except the truth.

(2) More on point, the next time we Dems feel mistreated by the unflattering, doofy pictures the media sometimes shows of our favorite candidates, take a moment and remember this, won't you?

The three pictures above are (l to r) from the current home pages of ABC News, Fox News, and MSNBC, respectively. That's right -- on his big night at the RNC, even Fox News couldn't make Cheney look like someone you'd want to have watch your pets while you were out of town.

(disclaimer: some minor doctoring on the MSNBC shot to get rid of some text that was over the flag. The man's globular head, pained expression, and apparent lack of upper teeth come to you 100% guaranteed unretouched.)

UN Peacekeepers Needed to Separate US Forces from Iraqis

The worst violence in Iraq is consistently touched off in places where there is contact between the opposing forces.

If UN peacekeepers (perhaps recruited from predominately Christian nations) could just contain the Americans in unpopulated areas, violence could be curtailed.

Another possibility would be to allow US troops into the cities and evacuate the Iraqis.

Without the presence of Iraqis in Iraq, even the disruptive Arabic language problem that now confronts Americans would be resolved. Walmart would be spelled "Walmart." And there would at last be U's after all the Q's