Edgewise

Still more debate notes, context-free

Cecil: he must have a pedometer on

"I'm worried about this country..." (or my reelection chances?)

canadian drugs "I haven't yet" ... "a third world"

"I went to Washington to fix problems."

If they're safe they're coming
"President Clinton did the same thing"

show me one accomplishment toward Medicare that he accomplished

We did something that you don't know how to do. We balanced the budget."

go figure....

most liberal" lie again

"He's going to tax everybody here..."

"...the award he won from the National Journal..."

"scare everyone"

Bush is pulling a Gore.

"must... not... smirk" (did they botox his snout?)

Random debate liveblogging

Cecil: is he going to shout for 90 minutes? Contrast with kerry calm? who's rattled?

"...of course we'll get bin laden" (contrast with "i don't think about him much")

Bush repeats the 75% lie about al qaeda

Re reaction shots: "he's trying so hard not to smirk..." --Cecil

"...didn't guard the ammo dumps and now our kids are being killed by those ammoes..."

bix: bush is hitting puberty by the sound of his voice cracking

joho: the "he broke his promise" line, repeated over and over, is beginning to work i think

"We were safer before president bush came to office."

"I fully understand the threat!" (methinks protest too much)

"the internets"

"more facile?"

Missouri in the cizzoalition!

No attacks since 9/11? anthrax?

Iraq is now a haven for terrorists!

"This war is a long long war"

Presidential debate bingo

Play along at home: Presidential Debate Bingo! via the #johodebate channel on irc.freenode.net.

"Are we having a rebuttal thing?"

Laying it on the line

Much like with long-term investments, I tend to anticipate in my gut how an election will turn out and then I generally stick with that view through various ups and downs. 2000 was an anomaly because my gut told me both candidates were going to lose, which oddly turned out to be true.

Matt Gross is asking bloggers to make predictions of how the election will turn out and my prediction is going to be fairly close to what it would have been during the Swiftvet nonsense and before:

Kerry 51%, Bush 46%, Nader 1%, misc 1%

I think large turnout in liberal states will boos Kerry's popular vote total above the 50% mark and that Bush will have trouble breaking the 47% approval he's been hovering around lately. I actually thought Kerry more likely to win with 49 or 50% but I don't see Nader getting 2 or 3% and I'm not sure where those other votes are going to go. I suspect a number of weak Bush supporters will sit on their hands instead of voting, so that may boost Kerry's apparent percentage.

In the electoral college, I think the victory for Kerry will be more decisive:

Kerry 304, Bush 234, Nader 0

(I calculated the totals using MyDD's interactive poll watcher electoral vote tool.)

I've beens ensing Kerry would hover near or break 300 all along, so I'm going to stick with that. The specific way I get to it in the swing states includes conceding Florida and West Virginia to Bush, but asserting that the Democrats will take Wisconson, Ohio, Arkansas, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, and - really going out on a limb here - Louisiana.

The nice thing about this predicton is that I can give back LA, NV, and even OH and we'd still eke it out 270 to 268.

I'll be doing my part to ensure Oregon stays blue when I go up there a week from now with fellow Edgewiser Cecil to encourage voters in Medford to get their ballots in.

Reality catches up with the President

It's amazing to how many things have gone wrong for Bush since the first presidential debate just last Friday:

• Poland announces troop withdrawals right after Bush makes a big deal about us not forgetting Poland
• Fox News has truth problems on foxnews.com, effectively silencing the anti-Rather campaign
• Bremer drops the big one right before the VP debate
• Then Cheney goes up against Edwards and manages to pull defeat from the mouth of ever-so-slight-victory -- confirming our worse fears about him (that he can lie with a straightface) in the process.
• No WMDs surface in Iraq, and the Bush campaign uses that to argue the war was justified, playing right to Kerry's strongest critique -- that this is an administration that won't face the truth.
• Horrible attacks hit yesterday in both Iraq and Egypt.
• And then this morning, when everyone expected strong job numbers to give Bush a lift, a paltry figure (92K) trickles down instead, ending his administration's job cycle not with a bang, but with a whimper.

It's starting to seem like all Kerry has to do tonight is run through the week's headlines. Of course, momentum can swing back to Bush just as quickly as it's swung over to Kerry. But for right now, the pressure's all on the President. And a smooth, just-folks style won't be enough to counter this flood of grim news.

He has to show us he's the one to solve these problems. And before he can do that, he has to convince us that he has a clue what these problems are.

It's bizarre really -- after all his efforts to avoid repeating the mistakes of the father, he's ended up with a different version of the same dilemma.

Will two George Bushes lose reelection by seeming unacceptably out of touch with reality?

AP calls the election for Bush

Daily Kos :: Unbelievable - AP Election Day story ALREADY filed (screenshot downthread)...

Another mistake, more innocent than the last few (Fox fakes, AP debate coverage filed in advance) no doubt. Tinfoil hat time.

If nothing else, even in their boilerplate the AP bends. over backward to avoid the appearance of liberal bias. We're about 20 years behind in working the refs.

New theory explains Bush's non sequiturs

Alex DeLarge of Martini Republic surmises that Bush, like Vonnegut's protagonist Billy Pilgrim in Slaughterhouse Five has "come unstuck in time."

Making the leap to door-to-door volunteering

In about a week and a half, I'm going to make the leap to door-to-door volunteer work in a battleground state. I've done phone banks and such a little bit over the years, but this kind of face-to-face thing is new to me, let alone face-to-face in a foreign land.

I was a little lost at first -- not sure how to start out looking into this. In case there are other newbies out there like me, on the brink, interested in volunteering, not sure where to start, I thought I'd write out the steps I took and the little I've learned so far.

Anyways, after that first debate last week, I finally got a little hope in me. Like a lot of us, I started entering all the polls and sending out daily email blasts to folks in the media. In the rush that weekend, with some great encouragement from my better half, I realized that before this is over, I have to volunteer in a swing state for at least a few days. I think entering all those obscure polls and watching the media spin tilt gave me this rare feeling I need to keep alive - the feeling that with a little effort we can all collectively have a tangible, positive impact on getting the country out of this mess.

Starting Local
I had no idea which state to go to or what three days would do the most good. So I went down to my local Democratic headquarters to ask. They didn't know much about out-of-state efforts and directed me to the Kerry site for more info. Then they surprised me by saying they could use a hand too. I'm in the Bay Area and I guess I just figured, this being Kerry country, they'd be all taken care of. Turns out, my town can still use feet on the ground in just about every neighborhood. They were looking for captains and just plain ole volunteers, and I chose the latter. I called the captain for my neighborhood and found out that this Saturday the whole town is getting a Democratic precinct walk. So I've signed up, and I'll be taking my six-year old Kerry-supporting daughter with me as we walk our neighborhood, asking Democrats if they're planning on voting. All-in-all it was much easier to get involved in than I would have guessed - and I can do the whole thing on foot, starting out from my front door.

Bottom-Line
If you're thinking of volunteering, you may not have to leave town, or even leave your neighborhood. Even if you live in a pretty liberal burg like me, you might be surprised to find that they can still use your help. I figure, sure, Kerry's got California locked up, but I'm happy to contribute to Kerry getting a majority of the popular vote.

Battleground-Bound
Anyways, I still wanted to do some swing state work so I went to the Kerry site and poked around their "travellers" section. I found it pretty useless. Lots of drop-down menus, but no answers to the big vague questions I had. (Later on I found this page on the Kerry site that lists contact info for headquarters in each state - I suspect it's another pretty good place to start.)

I was kinda stymied, and decided I should start by narrowing down my options. At first I'd thought about flying out to Ohio or PA but in the end I decided I'd stick to places I can drive in one day, which meant Nevada or Oregon. Love the Oregon. Loooove the Oregon. So I went with Oregon. Googling "kerry edwards oregon" got me oregonians4kerry.org. The home page screams "We Need Volunteers!" Alright! I'm a volunteer! Phone numbers for city-specific headquarters are up on the home page. This site is very volunteer-focused and in a minute or two I had phone numbers and emails for real people who could answer my questions. This page in particular is packed with great info.

I called one of those numbers and got someone on two rings. Nice guy. Extremely positive and helpful. In about three minutes we'd worked through my options. I didn't realize that a huge weekend is coming up for Oregon. Oregon votes by mail. The ballots go out on October 18th, so the weekend of the 16th and 17th are huge door-to-door opportunities. It sounds like there will be hundreds of people out in Portland. I told him I wasn't sure if I should work in Portland, Eugene, or Medford (picking three major stops along route 5). He told me Medford's a great choice because they don't have the ready pool of students and such. Plus, it's a shorter drive.

Bottom-Line
If you get frustrated like me on the K/E site, just narrow your options a little, pick a state, google the site for that state or call the state's headquarters. Get an actual person on the phone and away you go.

So that's it. I'm set. Tomorrow I'll call the Medford HQ to let them know we're coming and find out exactly when/where to go. And next Friday night, two friends and I will be up in Oregon, getting ready for three days of door-to-door work on the ground. Hot dang! Can I say "Dang"? I can? Well hot diggity dang!

-Cecil

Rocket Man Edwards

It's the little things that get your attention sometimes. Like John Edwards saying "Yes Maam" to moderator Gwen Ifill in the Veep debate last night. That's a southern boy speaking. Contrast that with Dick Cheney constantly saying "Gwen" and "Gwen" having to respond each time with "Mr. Vice President."

But for me the defining moment of the debate was the very last when Edwards rocketed out of his chair at the end of the event to get the "grip" on Dick Cheney who was struggling to heave himself out of the upholstered swivel chair. Edwards was like a spring unloosed. I'm sure that hour and a half stuck in a chair behind a table was for Edwards the equivalent of fighting with one hand tied behind his back. Cheney, on the other hand, seemed to relish the crouched position, perhaps from too much time spent in the cave.

Edwards reaching swing voters?

I've never been much of a fan of pundit Andrew Sullivan. He's a master of cognitive dissonance and he often goes for the cheap shot (referring to the antiwar left as a potential "fifth column" on the eve of Iraq War II, for example), but I think he may be onto something in his analysis of the veep debate last night.

In a series of entries, most recently this one, Sullivan makes the case that Cheney delivered the red meat to his base, but that Edwards spoke more effectively to undecided voters.

William Saletan has a similar take in Slate:

Cheney and Edwards apparently went into this debate with different theories of what it was for. When moderator Gwen Ifill asked them to discuss their differences, Cheney said "the most important consideration in picking a vice president" was having "somebody who could take over." Edwards answered the same question by outlining Kerry's platform, virtues, and accomplishments. Cheney seemed to think most viewers were tuning in to judge the vice presidential nominees. Edwards seemed to think they were tuning in to hear about the presidential nominees.

If Cheney guessed right on that question, he probably won. But if he guessed wrong - and I suspect he did - Edwards kicked his expletive.

Reminds me of when Bush was asked to compare Cheney to Edwards and snapped "Dick Cheney could be president."

Cheney plays into Edwards' liar meme

And the Kerry site has the goods:

Veep candidates asked to compare themselves

Ifill asked Cheney to compare himself to Edwards.

He says that though he doesn't talk about himself much he is also the son of a mill worker, or something like that.

He's been laid off and hospitalized without healthcare.

He left out a few other points of difference:

"I've been arrested for drunk driving."

"I had other priorities during Vietnam."

"Also, I eat babies. Edwards doesn't."

Halliburton Halliburton Halliburton

Edwards evokes the Enron image again (I paraphrase): I pay all my taxes. Halliburton took advantage of every loophole with multiple offshore entities

Cheney's response: the worthless drug-discount card.

The 'trial lawyer' issue

OK, Ifill set one up. If Edwards can't knock this one out of the park....

Kerry voted to reduce taxes 600 times

Hmmm, sounds like Edwards had a good answer ready for the Kerry-voted-for-tax-increases-98-times memes (which includes procedural motions and so on, as I recall). I guess if you overcount the same way, you can find 600 votes to cut taxes by Kerry. Throwing back their lousy methodology in their face is a good idea.

Cheney's pate is glowing bright red.

Cheney opposed Meals on Wheels for seniors?

Wow, I didn't know that. I know he opposed the MLK holiday and Nelson Mandela's freedom, but I enjoyed Edwards' litany o fCheney's paleoconservative congressional voting record. Wish Edwards hadn't jumped in to defend how much he talked about Israel in response to Ifill's quip.

Still, Cheney starves old people. Whodathunkit?

Well that's all you've got

I don't think Edwards is tearing up Cheney the way I hoped he would, but i did enjoy just now when Cheney said he'd need more than 30 seconds to defend Halliburton's crimes and Gwen Ifill told him, in effect, "tough luck."

Best Analysis of a Politician Ever

Digby deconstructs the "two faces of Bush" meme.

Rathergate a 'reverse judo backflip'?

At Blue Lemur (White House fueled CBS 'memo-gate' by withholding document; Was it all a set-up?) there's more evidence that the "forgery consensus" about the Texas Air National Guard scandal was carefully cultivated from the top. It sure put Bush's questionable behavior and avoidance of fulfilling his cushy responsibilities off the table through November.

I read yesterday that Michael Moore was offered the same Killian documents when researching his movie and declined to use them. If only Rather had been as careful about the verifiability of his assertions and the provenance of his documentation as Moore!

Update (for balance): Here's a nonpartisan typewriter site's analysis of the Killian memos that supports the premise that they werre generated with Microsoft Word. (If true, that does not negate the reverse judo backflip theory, of course.)

Will the Hip-Hop Nation Stand Up?

I think it will.

I have been among the eldest citizens for years (though my attention has drifted lately). I have felt it was a unique dialectic of candor that would turn out to be redemptive for the United States.

The OG's ("Original Gangstas") of my own generation are on tour right now for the election, and I also have faith in them. But Hip=Hop's own OG's have been in motion too, mostly focused on voter registration, and mostly beneath the notice of the mainstream press.

A big jump in new registrants has been reported, and it may be found that Hip-Hop has been part of that. Here would be the pollsters' "Registered, but Unlikely Voters" par excellance! Many of the voter-rolls news reports have expressed skepticism that the new registrants would actually turn out to vote. That skepticism would be ironically consistent with the indefatigable underestimation of Hip-Hop that has sustained itself undaunted year, after yaer, after year.

So now we may get to see if Hip-Hop really is in the house-- espcially looking to Ohio, Pennsylvania, and to Florida--where Hip-Hop is part of a powerful cross-current in Hispanic identity right now.

I am hoping that the Hip-Hop nation is going to "represent." As we say, "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."

Brace for it

It's been a pretty solid 20 hours (and counting) for John Kerry. But the Cheney/Bush team are industrious folks. We don't know exactly what's brewing. Not yet. But you can hear the shouting behind closed doors at the White House. And the clippity-clop clippity-clop in the evening fog. Something nasty this way comes. Brace for it.

The good news? It's starting to look like Kerry may be unusually skilled at taking a punch and staying up on his feet.

And in still more good news: Dow up 112 points after last night's debate victory. Clearly, the market loves John Kerry.

Bipolar polling

I just took a Pew Center online poll designed to gather the views of people involved in the Dean primary campaign. It seemed like a decent polls but when we were asked for our opinions on some key issues, I felt that the either/or choices offered were subliminally slanting the issues in a media-inflected way that tends to favor the rightward drift in US politics of the last few decades.

The poll included a space for comments at the end, and this is what I wrote:

I felt that some of the political dichotomies were presented with a right-wing biased frame, although they were consistent with the current realm of media "centrism," such as it is.

I feel that I am conservative and liberal, and that as I am pragmatic and willing to compromise to achieve as much good as possible, that I am also moderate as well. I am neither a left-wing socialist/communist extremist nor a right-wing authoritarian/fascist extremist.

In my view the Democratic party is coalition of liberals and conservatives, and the Republican party is a coalition of plutocrats, social reactionaries, and right-wing extremists, and populists who seem not to understand how power, money, and capitalism truly work.

Thus, I would appreciate it if surveys tried to go beyond simple conventional bipolar political axes and tried to range more into the issues of communitarianism, statism, authoritarianism, and libertarianism.

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.

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.]"

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.

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.)

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.

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)

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.)

Best blog coverage of the RNC

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

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.

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 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.)

RNC: Quick takes

Arnold? Pretty entertaining. But I kept waiting for him to tell us why it was we should reelect Bush. Sure, we got plenty of reasons why America's great. And let there be no doubt: If the USA and all the positive things it can stand for in this world are ever on the ballot, they've collectively got my vote. (also: Wooo!) But what I was looking for were a few positive attributes or policies or actions related to this particular president. I got a grand total of one: "he's quite decisive." And you know what? So is that gorilla that learned ASL. When she wants an apple, boy, she really wants an apple. But I ain't letting Koko hold The Button.

The so-called "Bush twins"? They put the "train wreck" in "holy crap! I just saw a train wreck!" Even the Fox "All-Stars" (and speaking of them: [insert vomity noise here]) thought these two were a disaster. I'm sure it doesn't really matter to the actual election. And I'm not gonna tear them apart, because it ain't their fault. But yeeesh. Whoever wrote and approved those speeches managed to make Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie look like Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama. In comparison. Which is not an easy thing to do. Because Paris Holton and Nicole Ritchie really aren't very deep. Or at least, they don't seem very deep on the TV. And neither did the so-called "Bush twins." Tonight. Was my impression.

GWB's introduction of Laura? So boring the people (I assume being paid to stand behind him and look like they're casually playing softball) couldn't even be bothered to stop playing softball long enough to look over. Now that's charisma!

Mrs. Bush? Not bad, actually. A little dull. Sure, she stretched the truth at points ("my husband is actually at home doing stem cell research right now! using real live babies!") But credit where credit's due: she was pretty specific, she was fairly positive, she seemed reasonably sane. A solid B+. Too bad she's not running for office.

And ye shall judge them by what they say about John McCain

Got an email from the Kerry campaign Monday night pointing out this bit of unpleasantness:

One of the groups making the case that decorated war hero John Kerry is actually a cowardly, unpatriotic, Viet Cong-loving liar have also put up a lengthy post making the brutally detailed case for why decorated war hero John McCain is actually -- whoa! surprise! -- a cowardly, unpatriotic, Viet Cong-loving liar. (Why? Oh lots of reasons. I gather they don't want McCain moving into the GOP VP slot. And the head of this group is angry with both McCain and Kerry for making peace with Viet Nam. And on and on.)

And you know, when I come across stuff like this, bits of trash that redefine southward -- yet again -- just how low some people appear eager to go, well it just sorta makes me hope there really is a hell. That's all.

Scoop: Presidential race still tied. Developing...

Here's a quick replay of the last several months:

Kerry up by 4 -- oooh, Bush is really in trouble now. Bush up by 1. Sounds like Kerry's on the ropes! Kerry up by 2, whatever will Bush do?

And all this drama driven by polls that generally have margins of error around 3 or 4 points.

And then there's my current favorite-- ABC News and the Post have a new poll just out. And among likely voters, it's 48 to, you guessed it, 48.

Their headline: "Advantage Incumbent." Now I know they're getting this by looking at the internals -- which side is more enthusiastically behind their candidate, that sort of thing.

But you know what? I don't care. 48 to 48 isn't "advantage: incumbent." It's a tie. And you know what else, it's been a tie for months. Swift Boat Vets, Farenheit 911, Dem convention, Olympics, whatever. It's a tie. And no matter how much big media wants to force a more dramatic horse race out of this, wishing don't make it so.

I'm pretty sure.

(btw, if you're interested in a little supporting data, check out Rasmussen's poll with numbers for the last 31 days. It's just one poll, but it's pretty representative. Neither candidate ever gets more than 4 points ahead. This poll has a margin of error of +/-3. In other words, it's a tie.)

Geekiest protest sign ever

I saw this picture or Ross Mayfield's weblog (he got it from Boing Boing).

Bush's 20 Electoral College "Bonus Votes"

Here's a bit of arcane, but consequential US Civics:

One of the ways the Electoral College is skewed is that states don't get Electoral votes in proportion to their population. There are 435 votes allocated by population, according to the number of seats the state has in the Hose of Representatives. Then each state gets what are, in effect, two "Bonus Votes," based on its two seats in the US Senate. (DC is allocated a total of three.)

So, for example, Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Delaware. Vermont, and DC (in its unique way) each have just one seat in the House of Representatives. Based solely on population, then, they would have a total of eight Electoral Votes among them. But with the addition of the two Bonus Votes for each, they have a total, not of eight votes, but 24

Using the projections of ABC News, Bush is currently leading for 222 Electoral Votes, and Kerry for 221 (the other 95 are "Toss Ups."). But Bush is leading in 26 individual states, Kerry in only 16. So, Bush gets an extra 20 of the Bonus Votes--52 of them to Kerry's 32.
Without Bonus Votes, the projection of
Bush 222 Kerry 221
would become
Kerry 189 Bush 170

In 2000, Bush received 271 Electoral Votes, Gore 266 (there was one abstention). Subtracting the Bonus Votes, the Presidential results in 2000 would have been:
Gore 224 Bush 211

Iraq and Afghanistan - democracies?

Regarding Bush's Olympics ad referring to Afghanistan and Iraq as democracies: Don't you actually have to have at least one successful election before you can call something a democracy?

Isn't it just special that George Bush refuses to remove the ad, contrary to the wishes of the Olympic brass and the Iraqi soccer team, while Kerry removed the McCain ad at McCain's request? Do you suppose that might have any bearing on the "character" issue?

John Kerry eats human brains

Tonight on The Daily Show, John Kerry finally puts all those "was he wounded? did he bleed? really? really?! how much did he bleed? and does he really bleed at all? or is he an undead? a zombie? a creature of the night? a crypt thing?" questions to rest by letting host Jon Stewart puncture his right shoulder with a ballpoint pen. Tonight! On The Daily Show.

(x-posted over at dailykos).

Who's more negative - officially speaking?

With the subject of negative ads rearing its ugly head again, I was wondering who is in fact running the most negative campaign (I know, I know - just humor me). With all the so-called 527s obscuring the message, wholly-independent Republican groups and surrogates of Kerry alike, I figured the best way to get to the heart of the matter would be to go directly to the official sites of each campaign and compare them, to see who is being "officially" more negative.

The Kerry/Edwards page shows a big picture of John Kerry, waving to the faithful at a rally, with the caption "Serving His Country." Rah, rah, very nice, very positive. Yawn. There are calls to volunteer, links to biographical information, and in the right column, there are boxes containing the latest official ad from the campaign and one with the caption "Our Plan for America" peddling a book that presumably outlines what a Kerry/Edwards administration would attempt to do. Yawn. Good thing I'm not driving right now.

No problems so far. If you scroll down the page you see blurbs about tour stops, testimonials about Kerry and - oops, there it is! Over on the right, just above the box pimping Kerry gear, there's a box called "bush-cheney: wrong for America" that accuses them of one of the most negative campaigns ever. That's a bold statement! Clicking on that link, sure enough, there's a media center dedicated to debunking Bush's claims to things such as success in Iraq and health care reform, and reminding us of his ties to oil and pharmaceuticals. Okay, that's not very nice.

Now, let's look at the Bush/Cheney site. Hmm right there, where the Democratic site has a picture of John Kerry there is a picture of...hey, its John Kerry! Wow, they must really respect the guy.

No wait, it's a link to the Bush campaign's latest ad. And it says nothing about President Bush - it claims that Kerry is saying he wants to ease the middle class tax burden, but that his record suggests he is lying and that we shouldn't trust him. Repeat after me: "98 tax increases." Over there, right next to it is "John Kerry: the raw deal," saying something about 98 tax increases. To the left, where they have links to biographical info and all, there is a link to the Kerry media room. A simlar place to the one on the Kerry site. Oh, did I mention 98 tax increases? If I didn't, just let me say: 98 tax increases. But I digress...

We scroll down and see - oh look, there's a cute little caricature of John Kerry holding two signs, one saying "against" and the other "for". It links to this hi-larious little John Kerry flip-flop game that also has lovely charicatures of Hillary, Ted and Howard. It cracked me up!

Beside it, you will find the Kerry gas tax calculator. It duly notes that John Kerry "has supported a 50 cent per gallon tax increase," and then it has these cool calculators where you can find out how much your gas expense would increase based on the type of car you drive, what state you live in, and how much you drive per day. Cool! Of course, Kerry isn't proposing a gas tax now, but still I....Whoa!! I'd be paying THAT much??? No thanks, Mr, Kerry!

Curiously, on the entire home page (as of today, 8/24/04) there are no pictures of either Bush or Cheney (the latter, probably a wise decision) and there are no testimonials or anthing like that. No, wait, there is a chat with George's nephew, George P. Bush. He has a Mexican wife, you know. But still, Kerry has a testimonial from a former democratic president. Bush has one from a relative! Couldn't he get someone more official-sounding? Next thing you know, he's going to trot out his dad! But again, I digress.

So let's see, the Bush/Cheney features negative stuff four times at the top of the page and a couple more lower down. But Kerry has a link to negative press too, so there you have it - it's a tie! They both can be negative!

Maybe the problem is that liberals don't have a sense of humor. Hey liberals - lighten up, will ya?? Now, I'm gonna go back and play that Kerry Flip-Flop Olympics game again. That thing just cracks me up!!!!

Keeping it "real"

A group called RNC Not Welcome in NYC (or noRNC for short) and CounterConvention present Fuck New York (video/quicktime object) (warning: language not work-safe + some may find the satire offensive as it blends racialized language with preppy stereotypes are borders on minstrelsy).

Kerry response to swift boat smear

This remarkably powerful ad from Kerry/Edwards -- and the associated petition -- are well worth your time.

Media Monkeys & Red Star Republicans

....as in See No Evil, etc. Has anybody noticed that the Bush campaign stops all seem to take place in the same room? And that the media show only the podium-shots of Kerry and Bush as if they were both addressing actual crowds of people? Have you also noticed that the Bush "campaign speeches" include a laugh-track and a boo-track? News outlets have commented on Bush "rallies" that require participants to undergo a loyalty inspection before entering. But who's pointing out that those side-by-side Kerry/Bush photo ops at the public podiums are patently one-sided? The Kerry rallies have huge crowds of people who congretated in public places to hear him--whether they support him as a candidate or not. The Bush events are not public appearances. They're Mao Moments. Remember those? The cut-and-pasted head of Chairman Mao floating in the Yellow River to prove that he was alive and swimming? The hordes of Mao-izens herded into the streets for a Mao Moment photo-op? Maybe Republicans should be wearing red stars on their lapels instead of the American (equal parts red and blue) flag.

It's happening again...

Remember when the media spent all that time covering Monica Lewinsky and Whitewater and Travelgate? And then, how after 9/11, looking back, most of us, regardless of party (far far right excepted) thought: "hunh. that may not have been the best way for the media to have used its time -- yapping on about that [expletive] for nights on end, all while al qaeda was gathering strength?"

Remember that? Like, a month ago?

It's happening again. For the last week I haven't been able to switch on a cable news channel (most of all Fox, with their recently revised slogan "we interview John E. O'Neill over and over again, you decide") without seeing a lengthy segment on those darn Swift Boat Vets for Truth. And it's just so clear, y'know? That, of course, those crazy media yahoos haven't learned a thing.

We're at war. An expensive war. A war with casualties. A war with consequences. Whether you're pro or con the war, I think almost every sane American would agree this war -- the one currently underway -- is more important than debating the exact degree to which John Kerry was wounded in his early twenties. Also likewise more important: the state of the economy, the state of our civil liberties, abortion laws, the state of our schools, the state of the environment. And on down the line. Hell, I'd rather hear about those darn activist judges than this [expletive].

Whichever side you're on, how could a reasonable person think this is the most important topic on the table? That it's worth 2 weeks of news time two+ months before the election? They couldn't. It ain't.

With everything at stake here, if we spent two solid weeks worth of news cycles debating GWB's national guard service, I'd lose my lunch. I'd lose my mind.

My only comfort: with the Olympics in full swing, you've got to figure there are only about 6 or 7 people actually watching this trainwreck. And we're all voting for Kerry.

Doing their homework for them

Imagine if the press corps, instead of simply parroting the right's latest talking points and mocking jibes instead did a little research.

I suspect that even googling around for the word "sensitive" in the context of the war on terror and the sideshow in Iraq would have turned up some of the examples that LiberalOasis highlighted earlier this week.

Purple states turning blue

Diarist Andy at Kos notes that Kerry is now leading Bush in Pennsylvania polls by more than the margin of error, and threatening to do so in a few other battleground states.

Uniting liberals and conservatives

The Left Coaster lays out the conservative case against Bush.

I have always been proud to be known as liberal and I agree with many of the goals of the traditional and new left, but I have also always been sympathetic to many of conservative ideals (as stated) and the drives that underlie them.

I've been dismayed to see the Republican party taken over by crony capitalists who pay lip service to conservative principles while running this nation's economy and reputation into the ground, enriching themselves and their allies at the expense of most of us, so it is refreshing to see the "grownups" in the conservative movement beginning to take steps to repudiate the people who have highjacked their ideology and are taking it down into the sewer.

Revision watch

OK, over at the White House's official transcript it appears that the "misstatement" was spoken as written:

Third, this bill meets our commitment to America's Armed Forces by preparing them to meet the threats of tomorrow. Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. We must never stop thinking about how best to defend our country when we all must always be forward-thinking.

Who wants to bet on when the draft will be retroactively edited to say something that makes more sense?

Freudian much?

This latest Bush gem sounds like a parody (but apparently it's simply a flub - what did the speech have in this place as written, I wonder?):

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

(via cf)

When they talk about "Bush hating" remember this

The headlines over on the drudgereport (again -- can't stand to give him a link, though I suppose -- blech -- I am giving him "press" by even commenting on this) currently reads "Slaughters Animals. Burns Down Tiny Village." Who does such things? Why, according to Drudge, John Kerry. (These are those charges from the band of brothers out to drag Kerry through the mud -- Drudge is sleazing these micro-charges out one by one to get maximum bang out of this book).

"Slaughters animals?"

"Burns down tiny village?"

All I'm saying is: (1) Drudge is repulsive. OK, old news, I know. And (2) when it comes to player hating, the big names on the left, even the dread Michael Moore, are (fortunately) rank amateurs.

Is Vietnam over?

Jeff Jarvis notes that Vietnam is no longer a dirty word for Democrats. Vietnam split and weakened the party and divided the whole country. We've been living with that cultural cold war ever since.

This reminds me of my suggested campaign theme (or meme) for Kerry: Kerry the Redeemer:

Kerry has stood on both sides of the divide, and in him we can elect someone who will put that history behind us and move forward with a reintegrated society, a sort of truth- and- reconciliation movement of the mind.

I just want to savor the moment

Tonight, at least, Pat Buchanan is a Kerry booster. (What is up with that, by the way? For the last several weeks I've noticed him shifting into a Bill Kristol-style-almost-neutral-observer-who-happens-to-be-a-hard-righter mode. Is it a carrer move? Or, as someone over at dailykos.com speculated, is it a by-product of his longstanding dislike for the Bush family?)

Meanwhile, Joe Scarborough is getting shouted down by Andrea Mitchell and Howard Fineman for making a big deal out of the fact that Kerry talked over his applause. (Both Feingold and Mitchell repeatedly shaking their heads and saying 'can we talk about the content of his speech' -- amazing!)

Obama is (still) the bomb-a.
Moroca rocks.
Tucker Carlson has moved into Teddy Ruxpin territory. He's admitting that it's entirely possible that Bush will lose. Barbara Boxer should give him a hug.
Even Fox is being relatively gentle.

Kerry was likable.
His daughters were extraordinary.

It's a good night to be a Democrat.

Republicans in denial

Interesting Edwards thread over at Talk Left (TalkLeft: Edwards Shines).

Lots of bluster about how Bush's base will support him and Kerry's are undecided, or something. Then some corrective posts looking at where an incumbent should be by now and how the electoral college is stacking up, which just made me want to reply

Shhh.... Don't tell them they're losing!

Bob Dole and the return of the old nasty

Back before the '96 election, Bob Dole gave the GOP response to a Clinton State of the Union. And it was just shattering in its glowering negativity. In fact, his response was such a nasty, nutty, powerfully awful speech, it struck many as the very moment Dole's campaign was plaster-wrapped and buried at sea.

The last few years, we've learned that there are other sides to Bob Dole. He's a complex man. There's a funny side. A likable side. Even a huggable side. Some days, he's like the Teddy Ruxpin of Republican hatchet-men.

Until recently, the old-school, more sinister Dole had been stored away somewhere while the huggable Dole took over center stage. But tonight, Darth Dole returned.

It was an interesting night. On the one hand, there was John Edwards. Now I'm not saying he was Obama-tastic. But he was smart. Positive. Genial. "Hope is on the way" he said. Cool. I'm for that.

On the other hand, all the right-wingers struck me as kind of extra edgy. Ralph Reed practically ground his teeth into a fine powder, talking about what John Edwards didn't talk about -- John Kerry's record in congress, and oh boy, don't get me started on that one, cuz I could just go on for --

When I found Bob Dole on a panel with Gen. Clark and David Gergen, I thought, great! That Bob Dole has such a lovably wry sense of humor. This should be fun. And then he reached through the TV and poked me in the eye with one long bony finger. Ow. Damn.

And I wondered, what's the deal? Why so angry, Bob? Why do you and your Republican buddies all around cable-ville look so extra tense tonight? In other words, why is tonight, the night Edwards made his big network debut, somehow different from all other nights? Different and yet, strangely familiar....

And I developed this theory: Sure, these the folks on the pretty-far-right don't like liberals. But, and this is just a theory, they can't stand hunky, Southern, smiling liberals. I mean: Wow. It drives them nuts.

Kerry and Gore, I don't think Ralph Reed can get too worked up about Kerry and Gore. But hunky Bill Clinton and super-hunk Southern smiley John Edwards drive the Bob Doles and Ralph Reeds of the world insane. "Those Southern liberals," (I'm just guessing) Ralph rages. "With their liberal liberal ideas." "Being all hunky" Bob (theoretically) chimes in. "And born in the South too. Come on! It's ridiculous!" And then together (perhaps): "They're driving us nuts!"

And it not just any kind of nuts. It's a very special sort of Bob-Dole-slow-burn, super-angry kind of nuts. A nuts that has a history of freaking the American people out and, you know, making Republicans lose elections.

And I thought: Cool. It's like the man said. Hope is on the way.

Backfire

You have to wonder: at what point will the GOP attacks on Kerry's wife backfire? When will it start to seem petty and crude to the independent voter? Could it be, perhaps, when they start making a big deal out of inter-personal "I don't like Ted Kennedy" type comments she made back in 1976? (I don't have the heart to link to this trash, but it's all the hoo-hah on ye olde Drudge right now.)

Or was it when they got all fired up about her saying "shove it" to a right-wing reporter? (As an aside, isn't "shove it" like two clicks south of "sit on it, Potsy" on the expletive scale?)

I don't know. Those two items might not be quite at that point. Not yet. But there's a point out there somewhere, I'm pretty sure. Or at least, I have to hope.

And I'm just curious, you know? Wondering where it is.

Luntz says "Kerry will win"

Tom Schaller posts an interesting scoop over at the Gadflyer, recounting a "tipsy" conversation with Republican pollster and message crafter Frank Luntz (thank goodness for blogger ethics):

"What do you think?" I ask him, in a tone that indicates that I'm not talking about last night's Sox-Yankees brawl.

"Kerry will win," he says. I feel myself jump back slightly.

"Wow," I say. "How can you be so sure?"

"Bush's numbers on the war are bad, and it's spreading."

I follow-up: "So, it's that simple -- 'It's the war, stupid'?"

"Well, not that simple...but basically, yes."

"Ok, then, so what's the save-all scenario for Bush? Is there some way he manages to pull it out?"

"Only by making Kerry look bad, inconsistent."

"The flip-flopper thing," I say, seeking clarification.

"Yes," Luntz said. "But even that may not do it."

The sober case for Kerry

Hyperbole aside, Thomas Oliphant's balanced paean to Kerry in the American Prospect Online makes a solid case for the Democratic nominee-presumptive.

In other news, Kucinich has endorsed Kerry.

Pelosi's bold prediction

CNN.com - Pelosi predicts Democrats will take back House - Jul 15, 2004:

At a news conference with Rep. Bob Matsui, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Pelosi cited strong showings in various polls and victories in the last two special elections to bolster her assertion.

"We're putting our credibility on the line," she said. "We think if the election were held today there would be no question that the Democrats would take back the House."

Nancy Pelosi has been a breath of fresh air in the House. Kos has more on this over at his new Our Congress site.

and also

for the weblog for my forthcoming book

We'd like to thank you Herbert Hoover

...for really showing us the way

Chimps disavow president

George W. Bush is NOT a chimp

Is 'Fahrenheit' Swinging?

I think the people who say Fareihnheit won't reach many of the undecided have forgotten about the kids.

For one thing, millions of kids have going to the movies built into their weekend schedules. They don't have to be pried loose from their homes by special interest in a parcticular film. And given that you are going to a see couple of movies over the weekend, this one will be a fairly plausible choice.

The other thing? Young people tend to be majorly swing voters in the sense of being "undecided" about whether or not they will go out and vote.

A one-story state?

It seems to me that it's easy enough to dismiss or reject Michael Moore's worldview and interpretation of facts and documentary evidence (hint to pundits: "documentary" means "based on documents"), but isn't the nation entitled to at least have a counterstory to consider? Or is it unpatriotic to propose such a different storyline?

Since '96 I've been calling elections based on competing narratives. 2000 was tie between "the son vs. Saddam" story and "dudley doright."

Moore makes the point well in this ABCNEWS.com item (Michael Moore Discusses Documentary):

TAPPER: If the government of Iraq permitted a terrorist named Abu Nidal who is certainly responsible for killing Americans to have Iraq as a safe haven; if Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers in Israel who did kill Americans; if the Iraqi police — now this is not a murder but it's a plan to murder — to assassinate President Bush which at the time merited airstrikes from President Clinton once that plot was discovered; does that not belie your claim that the Iraqi government never murdered an American or never had a hand in murdering an American?

MOORE: No, because nothing you just said is proof that the Iraqi government ever murdered an American citizen. And I am still waiting for you to present that proof.

You're talking about, they provide safe haven for Abu Nidal after the committed these murders, uh, Iraq helps or supports suicide bombers in Israel. I mean the support, you remember the telethon that the Saudis were having? It's our allies, the Saudis, that have been providing help and aid to the suicide bombers in Israel. That's the story you should be covering. Why don't you cover that story? Why don't you cover it?

TAPPER: I've been told that's all the time we have. Thank you very much for this spirited debate, I appreciate your time, good luck with the movie, Michael Moore in New York.

Of Thee I Sing

We have just come back from the grand Grand Lake Theater after seeing Farenheit 911, the Michael Moore paen to America. Yes, it is. And perhaps also to mothers who weep when their children die in wars that are unnecessary. The people are flocking to see this movie because everyone is talking about it, not because Michael Moore wants to bring down a president.

And now I understand that everyone is talking about it because there is a lot in it to digest. We "see" once again the flaming towers but not because Moore shows them to us again. Instead he gives us the sounds of September 11th. He gives us the feeling of chaos and death as if we stood there ourselves. Then like a sock in the stomach we see--not just hear--the chaos and death of Iraqi people. I could not watch. Just as the American news shows have declined to show most of the carnage we are now wreaking on the Iraqi people.

Moore also shows us our president and the people close to him at play in the enclaves of money and power. He shows us our elected representatives in Congress turning a deaf ear to their disenfranchised constituents when they attempt to protest the ratification of a sham presidential election. We see (once again) the ruined neighborhoods of Rustbelt America, it's young people, and the U.S. Marine recruiters come to offer them "jobs." In Iraq. And we see the weeping mothers--one in Iraq and one in Michigan--who have lost their dear ones and are angry at America.

I came home thinking about my own feelings of shame and fury. In a way, I blame myself. As an American I have to feel responsible for what my country, my government does. Like the German who wasn't yet born when the Nazis held Europe in a death grip I feel compelled to apologize for what my country has done. It's in this way that I can empathize with David Brooks, reading his words today in the Times, and see why he might feel bad about Michael Moore traveling the world on a "mea culpa" tour saying things like, "Our stupidity is embarrassing."

Well, it is. And David Brooks is feeling it. I can tell when I watch him spar politely with Mark Shields on the Lehrer News Hour. David is an intelligent guy with a heart, obviously. And an ardent idealist, I'm guessing. Which is where we meet on the commons. Americans are ardent idealists. At least they like to believe that about themselves. Americans are not, as Brooks summarizes Michael Moore's view, "kind of crappy." But they think their government--and their president--is.

Michael Moore isn't the only one who thinks we've been hoodwinked by phantom weapons of mass destruction, and manipulated by fear into funding a military campaign to fight ghosts. Every person who goes to see his movie is afraid that he's telling the truth. And he delivers the goods so we can decide for ourselves.

The Sweet Spot

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a very big deal by any standard. "Steven Spielberg has said the film could reap $100 million." (article) But the specific electoral impact is going to be enormously magnified, because it is soo perfectly aligned with the sweet-spot of Bush's popular support.

The Alignment
This scene is already famous:
NYT, 6/20/04 "[T]he most devastating segment of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' may be the video of a befuddled-looking President Bush staying put for nearly seven minutes... continuing to read a copy of 'My Pet Goat' to schoolchildren even after an aide has told him that a second plane has struck the twin towers. Mr. Bush's slow, hesitant reaction to the disastrous news has never been a secret. But seeing the actual footage, with the minutes ticking by, may prove more damaging to the White House than all the statistics in the world."

The Sweet-Spot
In the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, people rated the two candidates on eight key characteristics, Bush leads on four and Kerrey leads on four. But the four where Bush has the edge are precisely the ones that won't survive seven endless minutes of My Pet Goat.

Kerry Leads on Four:
He is honest and trustworthy Bush 39-Kerrey 52
He understands the problems of people like you 36-56
He shares your values 46-48
He stands up to special interest groups 43-45

Bush Leads on Four:
He can be trusted in a crisis Bush 53-Kerrey 41
He is a strong leader 51-43
He takes a position and sticks with it 57-36
He will make the country safer and more secure 54-40

a modest proposal

"Recalling Anguish in 2000, Kerry Is Mum on His No. 2" reads the NYTimes piece (Sat. June 19) by David M. Halbfinger. "I don't think John went through life fantasizing about being on the ticket as vice president," an associate comments.

Why not? Because being vice president, according to one former incumbent of the job, "Isn't worth a bucket of spit." The job description? Breaking tie votes in the Senate. And whatever else the president decides you can do. So, breaking tie votes in the Senate and being the president's gofer. Unless you're G.W. Bush and you decide you'll be the vice president's gofer. So you probably can see where I'm going with this...

Used to be, vice presidents were the election runners up; that would have made G.W. Bush Al Gore's vice president in 2000. Oops. Either way, it's an amusing idea but I don't think the deep-pocket campaign funders would go for it. The point is, vice presidents used to get elected and now they don't.

I propose we the people once again elect the vice president of the United States. And since nobody really wants the office why not skip the whole "running mate" thing and let each presidential candidate propose one name. But the people decide who will get the job.

All this hoopla about choosing a vice presidential candidate would be history. And presidential hopefuls might even confer with each other about their choices. That would be fun. Actually, they probably wouldn't bother.

Besides checking tickers (original, artificial and device-assisted) and citizenship (do we still want just pure-bred American?) the vetting process wouldn't be so important. How many ties in the Senate is one vice president gonna have to break?

If only...

If only we could get some of Rove and Norquist's sweet sweet money into our grubby little proletarian hands: Political Wire: Dirty Political Blog Tricks

kos sez:

Man, if we are working for Rove, I don't think the guy is getting his money's worth.

Zen and the art of Walker Bush

link nipped from Mark A. R. Kleiman: The Zen of Bushism:

The Zen of Bushism

Evan Eisenberg explicates Bushido: The Way of the Armchair Warrior.

Knowledge is not important. The armchair warrior strives to attain a state beyond knowledge, a state of deep, non-knowing connection to the universe: in particular, to that portion of the universe which is rich, powerful, or related to him by blood.

The unenlightened speak of "failures of intelligence." But the armchair warrior knows that "intelligence" - the effort of the mind to observe facts, apply reason, and reach conclusions about what is true and what ought to be done - is a delusion, making the mind turn in circles like an ass hitched to a mill. The armchair warrior feels in his hara, or gut, what ought to be done. He is like a warhorse that races into battle, pulling behind him the chariot of logic and evidence. When the people see the magnificent heedlessness of his charge, they cannot help but be carried along.

Read it all.

Presidential popularity compared -- I could lose myself in this chart for a week

Kos linked over to this extraordinary chart that shows the ups and downs of presidential popularity for Bush I and II, Reagan, Carter, and Clinton. I've been hoping to find something like this for weeks, to draw my own side by side comparisons without, er, benefit of media interpretation. In that same spirit, I'll let you draw your own conclusions. But I highly recommend clicking through for a peek -- just fascinating stuff.

The two anti-parties

Some believe that the Democratic party is united like it hasn't been since Roosevelt, but note that Bush's base seems to be holding steady around 45% as well, so is this unusual unity or just a core, a base, hanging together even when going off the cliff together?

I ask this because I'm starting to think that the dialectic between Republican and Democrat has played out so far that each party has essentially turned inside out twice, switched regions, traded demographics, and exchanged voting blocs with the ultimate result that neither party fully exists except as a bulwark against the other its identity has evolved to oppose.

For example, the unity of Democrats now is anti-Bush unity and more largely anti-Republican unity. If Kerry wins, get ready for fragmentation several orders of magnitude larger than the Dean diaspora of this spring.

Similarly, I may now be able to find articles written by Clinton-hating conservatives, asserting that Bush is a disaster and Republicans are blinding themselves to apparent truth and send them to my utterly reasonable at times liberal progressive conservative and reactionary father and possibly convince him not to vote for Bush, but I still won't be able to convince him to vote for Kerry.

I was having lunch with Kos on Friday, as part of the work on my book (he claimed to recognize the name "Edgewise," which was kind of him!) and we talked about the low turnout in US elections and the way campaigns are run to expel all of the undecideds (sort of like the way juries get picked, come to think of it) and then turn out the base. We can keep Bush's negatives up, we in the Democratic (meaning anti-Republican party), but we can't prevent the Republicans (anti-Democrats) from driving up Kerry's negatives to a similar degree, regardless of the underlying 'facts on the ground'.

My father's father ran for congress in Philadelphia as a New Dealer in the 30s and lost to "an illiterate Republican." Arlen Specter replaced another Democractic family member of mine in his climb to the senate. My father somehow reacted against the corruption of machine politics and became a Republican when he moved to New York. His drift, voting for Nixon in '72 and living to regret it, then voting for Reagan, against Clinton, for Bushes with no regrets, matched that of his demographic profile as a northeastern Catholic.

When I point out problems with his Republican bedfellows, he simply outlines his view of a failed, corrupt, decadent, socialistic, nonwhite-favoring Democratic party "that left him."

So there is my dad in the anti-Democrat party. Maybe he'll vote for Nader. I can only hope. Then there's me in the anti-Republican party, ambivalent about my own bedfellows but crystal clear on what I'm against.

Is this the end or is this how parties always renew themselves?

(Note: Kos said a lot of other interesting things too, and I took some notes but mostly I'm going to have to go on memory. Regardless, I will publish an official version of the Interview over at the Power of Many blog.)

Air Fair

My buddy Sean Hannity loves to talk about John Kerry's private plane and multiple SUVs as a way of blowing smoke over any sort of talk about environmental or oil issues. In fact, his smoke screens alone have probably added significantly to global warning, but I digress...

In today's Chronicle, there is an article I've been waiting for, about the President's use of Air Force One for political campaigning. I was interested in this before it was ever related to campaigns. Every time I hear that he flies to Crawford for a weekend getaway, I think about the cost in fuel, security and other matters, and I wonder how much it cost me. John Kerry's private plane costs me nothing. I just learned that Air Force One costs taxpayers an estimated $56,800 per hour to run.

George, could you please spend less of my money running away from Washington, and a little more of it running Washington responsibly?

McCain: A win-win for Democats?

I've been open to the Kerry McCain ticket, but it struck me this week that McCain may actually be (even) more useful to the Kerry campaign right where he is -- a Republican, and at least nominally part of the Bush campaign -- someone who can't be completely dismissed by the Right, much less independents -- ready and willing to come to Kerry's defense when the Administration's attacks on Kerry cross the line.

McCain is Kerry's Powell

Political Wire: McCain Speculation Continues

No, Kerry won't nominate McCain (note: I am notoriously always wrong when I make predictions about McCain)... but the speculation lends him gravitas, what the folks in the early 19th century called "bottom." Let the speculation continue.

Make the convention suspenseful by keeping the veep nominee secret till the nominating speech, eh?

Dolchstoss 2, Electric Boogaloo

There's being right and there's winning the argument and they are two different things.

Those of us who feared the worst of the (unpreventable, post 2000 election, I'm afraid) adventure in Iraq were right in 2002 but we weren't winning the argument.

The blame-Cassandra tack that the administration-policy apologist dead-enders are taking now, I'm afraid, even if it were right, wouldn't change the dynamic of who's winning the argument.

When Cheney denounced Kerry on a split screen showing the Palestine Hotel collapsing in Baghdad....

With the unceasing the drumbeat of stories driven by power corrupting and near absolute power corrupting nearly absolutely....

When rumors of a renewed draft move from the lunatic fringe to bloggers linking to the Congressional record...

When a de-facto draft ("stop loss order") locks volunteers and reserves into catch-22's of endless duty...

When the age-old male simian pecking-order masquerade of psychosexual domination and humiliation, familiar from prisons, military organizations, religious orders, and sailing ships for centuries, inevitably occurs dressed in the trappings of digital technology, radical new relationships (historically speaking) among the sexes, body modesty, hedonism, and the cruel streak that lies at the core of many an American soul (my own included, the one that subtly tries to remind all not from the "new world" that they are not really full citizens), shocking and scandalizing the strangers whose country we have intervened in, whom we've never bothered to get to know very well, despite their geographical proximity, if nothing else, to the very cradle of our own civilization...*

When even the survivors of Iraq - the only heroes of this sorry war - come home most with scars of one kind or another or with a greater attunement to violence and the nature of chaos...

When Bush's shakiness on TV no longer makes him look like a man of the people and instead makes him seem like someone who still hasn't gotten the hang of his job after three years of on-the-job training from the best team corporate money can buy...

Against that backdrop, it's clear to me now that Cecil was right^ when he said that Bush lost the election last week. Bush has jumped the shark. And I think that Cecil even nailed exactly the moment, in the same sense that Dean's unidirectional "scream" turned out to be the nail in the coffin (called 18% in Iowa) that many predicted.

So now, watching Republicans and their supporters stuck defending one or another of the shards of their policy~ and it's like watching Gore in 2000 or say Begala anytime and saying "yes, you may be right but that's a terrible way to frame it - have you no idea how most Americans think?"

The winds of popularity puffed up the empty materialist anti-democratic neo-Troskyism of the PNAC crowd but no amount of hot air is going to move those sails against this tide.

Shit, I'll never write as good as Max:

MaxSpeak, You Listen!: DER DOLCHSTOSS, CONT'D

* I mean, what is this, like in those science fiction novels where the colonies on the outer planets eventually go to war against Earth because they've become so alientated from it? Have we returned to Mesopotamia another Ozymandias?

^ note to self: insert link to Cecil's recent post, add sort-by-author-feature, remove this note self

~ and hearing them complain about how hard it is to govern when you control all the reins of power - all those tricks where you blame the compromises for the failures of the ideology don't work anymore, do they? Don't get me started! I always thought it was the left that was more comfortable in opposition and ill-prepared to govern. I think I finally get it: Clinton was a conservative of the liberal school. Today's Republican ascendancy is so far radically to the right that it essentially took on the trappings of an extreme left-wing insurgency in regaining power over the last two-thirds of the last century. The roles really did reverse on that plane, hence my old "liberal conservatives and conservative liberals" post. I think nowadays Republicans envy the centrism of Clinton-Kerry liberals, so much like their own predecessors Willkie and Eisenhower. It's nice to seem reasonable and to coopt the middle. Similarly, I think the left envies the conservative movement it's discipline and zealotry.

-30-

Navelgazing

Do we talk about Bush a lot on this blog? Yes we do:

Search for 'bush' on Edgewise

Fabulous George

On McLehrer today Zbigniew Brzezinksy (sp?) reported from the late water's-edge consensus (cold war, new world order, remember?) to remind us all that our government has undermined the crediblity of the words "weapons of mass destruction" and that we should be careful not to debase "sovereignty" as well starting on June 30.

He then referred to the administration's form of language as "Aesopian," saying that it appeals to his core but does not communicate well to the world community.

How interesting, I thought. Zbig is talking about fables, tall tales from this Bizarro world (the one I woke up in on electiion day 2000, the one with a script written by Philip K. Dick in which the star of Philip K. Dick movies becomes the governor of California by using the arts of showbusiness fame to move polls) that the president and his true believers inhabit.

Fables, I thought. He is pointing out that the language is fabulous.

Hey, wait.... Isn't fabulous one of George Bush's favorite words? Let's ask Google.

Rumsfeld is toast

The other day we watched Rumsfeld struggle through a press conference, pointing to some weak press release (no doubt on a Friday evening amidst 100 other unrelated press releases, but still how come no one picked it up in January? or is he lying? who's checking this?), floundering without successfully wielding hardly any of his trademark fighting techniques.

(Speaking of fighting techniques, anything new from the My New Fighting Technique is Unstoppable guy lately?)

Anyway, I asked B, do you think Rummy will resign? She scoffed at the idea, but this morning's times has George Bush leaking his displeasure on Don and tonight's McLehrer has him adamantly denying that Rumsfeld should be mad eto resign, while others from McCain on left say it's too soon to say.

They don't want to soldier on without their best spokesmodel, but they have to stanch the bleeding. In an administration in which the buck never seems to stop, this is going to a tough one to pin on Powell. Delay heightens the risk of a second fishing expedition to supplement the Plame one (what's going on with that), the 9/11 commission, hell even Anthrax guy.

One thing I'm not looking forward to is a panicky cornered-ferret Bush administration in its death throes.

Your Monkey Man one-liner of the day

Here's a quick one-liner from my good pal, the Monkey Man:

"George Bush isn't a big picture guy -- (oooh oooh! aaaah aaaah!) --
he's more of a big picture book guy."

And there it is: Your Monkey Man one-liner of the day.

Bush-Clarke: Seventh-Inning Stretch

At first sight, a Newsweek poll suggests that the counter-attack against Richard Clarke has been surprisingly effective:

Half those surveyed in the poll after Clarke's testimony Wednesday said they thought he was acting for political and personal reasons, while a quarter said they feel he's acting as a dedicated public servant.

...while Bush himself has been surprisingly impervious.

While 65 percent said Clarke's testimony has not affected their views of Bush, 17 percent said it made them view him less favorably and 10 percent said more favorably.

However, the way that arithmetic works out, the 17% is really quite a lot. Almost all of the 10% “More Favorably” may be assumed to come from Bush voters, while to 17% “Less Favorably” would include a substantial number drawn from his current support.

However, public views supporting President Bush's handling of terrorism have dipped from 65 percent to 57 percent in the last month, according to the Newsweek poll.

Nevertheless, the crucial question is which of two messages will end up as the net "take-away" of Clarke's critique.

The weak one is that Bush didn't care enough about terror: It's mushy, vague, "who can know?", etc.

Two-thirds said the Clinton administration did not take the threat of terror seriously enough, while six in 10 said the Bush administration has taken the threat as seriously as it should.

The message that needs to come through is that the Iraq war displaced terror as the main concern. That's not very mushy. There is no doubt in people's minds that Bush did focus on Iraq; we did go to war. Even Fox News has been magnifying that. So then it turns on whether the war helped harmed our security against terror. (Even the CIA, in a under-reported study that could be resurrected, said it increased the risks.)

For Bush it is crucial that that question should not be effectively posed in the first place; it is not a good question for people to even be considering. It is immediately plausible that the war was an obsessive-compulsive blunder. And if it is a blunder, it is a colossal blunder.

So in every article I read, I look for the second critique. I find in about 60% overall. I am just hoping that it starts to tip over to become the central point

Howard Dean's humanity

When I read in the Times that Dean's teenage son said to him (I can just imagine thte exact tone of voice) "I can't believe you ran for president!" and Dean said that it made him laugh, I liked all the more, all over again.

Last night the local DFA organizers in Berkeley and Oakland met with our Kerry and Kucinich counterparts and found kindred spirits with a wide range of overlapping goals. They still need to learn that we continue to cohere against all odds, have plans that go beyond November. We will help them. They are welcome to join us. This is coalition politics now. Human politics. Humble politics. The politics of listening.

And it's nuance by a nose

I've boiled down the messages of the last three viable presidential candidates in this election. Eventually, I got it down to one word each, so here they are:

Dean: Truth
Kerry: Nuance
Bush: Lies

Kerry the redeemer

I think I've got the storyline that wins the election for Kerry. (Caveat: I've been out on limbs before.)

Taegan Goddard notes that Kerry has thus far successfully targeted veterans.

Here's how I see it. Kerry served. He did his duty. Like all thinking people of his age group in that time, he had doubts about that war, but he went to war in his turn. What he saw there convinced him that the criticisms of the war were correct and after completing his service with distinction, injured and awarded, he used his unique platform to oppose the war as someone who saw it up close.

The George Bush people want to contrast Kerry's abiity to see both sides of a problem with Bush's death grip on his received wisdom, but I think this is Kerry's great strength. He did the right thing in terms of the traditional values of the WWII generation, and he also stood with integrity against the war when out of uniform.

Face it, this country is still riven by the divide that erupted in the '60s. And even though only one in five people associate Jane Fonda with Vietnam protest, the division in our society has continued to play out through other cultural proxies, but Kerry will be the healer off this festering wound.

Kerry has stood on both sides of the divide, and in him we can elect someone who will put that history behind us and move forward with a reintegrated society, a sort of truth- and- reconciliation movement of the mind.

I think we're going to win if we remember not to cower in fear when they brandish their talismans of hate at us.

This is the way the wheels come off

Great comment from a reader of Kevin "CalPundit" Drum's new Political Animal blog / column at The Washington Monthly:

A lot of my family are conservatives and they are turning on W. Some are just upset about deficit spending, but most are learning that lying about your sex life is nothing when compared to lying about why we should go to war. Plus, we've got family that was in Iraq for the invasion and will be going back soon, so war in Iraq is a very personal thing for the whole family. On the other hand, Clinton's sex life isn't our business.

Is it just me?

Or has Jim Lehrer been kicking Bush's ass all week?

Bush and Kerry blogs

Cool/Lame has built a simple-brilliant website that compares the last five entries from the Bush and Kerry blogs side by side. It's called Bush and Kerry Side by Side or Bush/Kerry for short.

[via Scripting News]

Clark pumpkin templates

update circa late 2004: with autumn upon us, a lot of people appear to be dropping by to read this entry on Clark Pumpkin Templates from late 2003.
1. Welcome!
2. Vote Kerry!
3. While you're here, I thought I'd take this opportunity to suggest that for up-to-date political content, you might visit us at Edgewise, for current musings on that spot where people and the internet connect, please visit The Power of Many, for poems, tunes, and general shtick, please visit Cecil Vortex.com, and for a wide variety of all-free, all-MP3 audio entertainments, please drop by Monkey Vortex Radio Theater.

OK, them's the plugs. Now on with "Clark Pumpkin Templates" -- an Edgewise Classic....
-Cecil
***************

I don't want to be too harsh here. And I should say up front that I'm still intrigued by Clark's candidacy.

But these pumpkin templates they're pitching on the Clark04 site are just plain goofy.

Scroll down and gasp at pictures of real, live (OK, probably dead) Clark pumpkins. Look closely.

One of them features a sign that reads "pumpkins for Clark."

PUMPKINS FOR CLARK.

Now I'll stipulate that carving goofy pumpkins can be a great way to make friends.

(And if you disagree, just look at this.)

But even so, and still, and furthermore:

PUMPKINS FOR CLARK?

Makes you wonder if someone in the Clark campaign might be just a few pumpkin seeds shy a full packet of pumpkin seeds. If you know what I mean.

Bush Knockout Punch?

This could be a Sleeper.

Just guessing, but a decisive blow to Bush's reelection may emerge, during the Spring and through the Summer, from devastating declines in reenlistment in the Guard, Reserves, and regular Army.

This will be very hard for him to defend against: It is hard facts, not interpretation. It will be a dramatic, progressive, relentlessly ongoing story. It will cut across pro-war and anti-war sentiments, perceived by _both_ sides as a marked decline in Security, Strength, and Readiness--and simply as a bungle.

It will set "Support Our Troops" _against_ "Support the President." And it will be dollar costly in the incentives required to recoup from the decline--not to mention the prospect of a resurrected draft.

Time will tell.