all aboard!

One more thing before I call it a night. Way back before Iowa, I was a Wes Clark backer because of the "electability" issue. I was in the "anybody but Bush" camp and thought, rightly, that in this election cycle only a decorated veteran had a prayer to beat the Great Pretender. I had been told by my cousin from Boston (she's voting for Kerry, but still carrying a torch for Howard Dean) that Kerry was less than desirable... OK she said he was "a bastard". I thought that she was being a bit harsh, but hey, she lives in his home state, she must know something I don't. Of course, at that point I only knew of one "bastard" running for President.

I didn't know much about John Kerry, aside from the fact that he was a great admirer of JFK and was the consummate Washington insider, steeped in the New England liberal tradition. He didn't really appeal to me on a personal level, in fact, before the Iowa caucuses I made fun of him by circulating a picture of Herman Munster ("separated at birth").

But I can clearly recall the moment I climbed on board the Kerry bandwagon. He did an interview on his campaign bus with George Stephanopoulos right before New Hampshire and I was struck by his command of the facts, his personable style (a far cry from the patrician droning which is endemic to his Senate performances), and his real engagement on issues that really mattered: Jobs, Health Care, the Environment, National Security, and Taxes. I thought, "this guy's for real."

I think alot of people probably experienced the same thing tonight. From where I sit, this thing's really a horserace now. May the best "bastard" win...

unanimous

This is one of the most revealing exchanges, both in terms of policy and personality:

> KERRY: Jim, the president just said something
> extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in
> this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and
> sending people into Iraq, he just said, "The enemy
> attacked us."

Kerry nails Bush on a subtle but damning distortion, specifically, that the war on Iraq was, at the time of the initial invasion, part of the “War on Terror”. The Bush campaign has been trying desperately to connect the two to bring legitimacy to the invasion of Iraq. Polls show that most Americans believe that Iraq had some connection to 9/11. So Kerry attempts to clear up that misconception:

> Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden
> attacked us. Al Qaida attacked us. And when we had
> Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora,
> 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With
> the American military forces nearby and in the field,
> we didn't use the best trained troops in the world to
> go kill the world's number one criminal and terrorist.
>
> They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a
> week earlier had been on the other side fighting
> against us, neither of whom trusted each other.

When I heard this “outsourcing” message last week, I almost fell down. This really hits home.

> That's the enemy that attacked us. That's the enemy
> that was allowed to walk out of those mountains. That's
> the enemy that is now in 60 countries, with stronger
> recruits.
>
> He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger.
> That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the
> country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We
> would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N.
> inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually
> weakening.
>
> If the president had shown the patience to go through
> another round of resolution, to sit down with those
> leaders, say, "What do you need, what do you need now,
> how much more will it take to get you to join us?" we'd
> be in a stronger place today.

This is a crucial point for the Kerry campaign. Kerry gives the President an opening to explain. But does he take the opportunity to justify his position? Let’s find out...

>
> LEHRER: Thirty seconds.
>
> BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden
> attacked us. I know that.

Yea, I thought so. Just like the schoolyard bully and know-it-all that he is. He covers up this distortion by simply gainsaying his opponent. No explanation. I guess he doesn’t think we deserve one.

> And secondly, to think that another round of
> resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm,
> disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a
> significant difference of opinion.
>
> We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to
> turn a blind eye. And, yes, he would have been stronger
> had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of
> making weapons, and he would have made weapons.

Hm. No, he didn't have the "capability". Maybe he once did, but the UN says he didn't have the capability during the run-up to the war, the State Department said he didn't have the capability, even Scott Ritter says he didn't have the capability.

Mr. Bush has never had any patience for diplomats. Maybe this is Oedipal resentment, I don't know.

Where's the beef? Read on:

>
> LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Senator.
>
> KERRY: Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had
> a greater capability of making weapons at the moment
> the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while
> he's been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty
> divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming
> back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea's
> gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous.
> Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is
> more dangerous. Darfur has a genocide.
>
> The world is more dangerous. I'd have made a better
> choice.

Concise. Smart. Knowledgeable. And you know what... he’s RIGHT.

In a word, Presidential.

I predicted a split decision to Kerry. I think I was wrong. Unanimous decision. Round one to Kerry on points.

Link

Say it, already

> KERRY:
> ... 95 percent of the containers that come
> into the ports, right here in Florida, are not
> inspected. Civilians get onto aircraft, and their
> luggage is X-rayed, but the cargo hold is not X- rayed.
>
> Does that make you feel safer in America?

I honestly thought at this point John Kerry was going to channel Ronald Reagan:

"Do you feel safer than you were four years ago?"

well, do you?

Link

oh, it's ON.

> KERRY:
> ...The president moved the troops, so he's got 10 times
> the number of troops in Iraq than he has in
> Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is. Does that mean
> that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than
> Osama bin Laden? ...I don't think so.

mm-hm. I don't think so. You go, John Kerry.

Link

we got 'em on the run... into Iraq

> BUSH: (re: “the enemy")
> ...They showed up in Afghanistan when they were there,
> because they tried to beat us and they didn't. And
> they're showing up in Iraq for the same reason. They're
> trying to defeat us.

So, it follows that if there’s no US force there, there would be no enemy in Iraq, right Mr. President? They’re only there because it’s a target-rich environment... duh.

Link

the grand coalition

> KERRY: The United Nations, Kofi Annan offered help
> after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that
> and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to
> transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run.
>
> Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries:
> Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's
> not a grand coalition. We can do better.
>
> LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.
>
> BUSH: Well, actually, he forgot Poland.

Oh, Poland. That's right. Never mind. Guess we can't do better than POLAND.

Link

one of my favorite lines from tonight's debate

> KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87
> billion, I made a mistake in how I talked about the war.
> But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq.
> Which is worse?

Bam. Take some of that home to Crawford and slap it on the grill.

Link

vote early and often

this year's "butterfly" ballot

from wearable dissent

Link

electabilitationologistically speaking

from Electablog:

> But in the end, the Party happily abandoned Dean's fire
> and Edwards' charm. Why?
>
> Kerry had a national reputation. Kerry had military
> experience. Kerry had gravitas. All these played a
> role. But there was really only one reason that
> mattered to anyone in the Democratic Party in those
> days of small town bus rides and gymnasium stump
> speeches.
>
> Kerry could win.

Link

don't you guys have something better to do?

from Tapped

> THE PLEDGE WEDGE. The Hill has the scoop on just why
> Rep. Todd Akin’s absurd court-stripping “pledge
> protection” bill was such a top-shelf House priority
> this busy legislative season

why the heck is this a priority?
it's politics, plain and cynical.

Link

fairness, schmairness... just as long as our guy wins, right?

from Reuters:

> "This type of report is not binding. You can criticize
> and comment all you like but the constitutional
> authority over our elections rests with Congress and
> the states," Laura Zuckerman, spokeswoman for Rep.
> Steve Buyer, an Indiana Republican who sponsored an
> amendment this year to ban federal officials using
> money to invite U.N. observers.

read the OSCE report (169K pdf)

I'm telling you, those UN election monitors could be racking up some beaucoup frequent flyer miles...

Link

schadenfreude

> scha'•den•freu•de, n. (German)
> Pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.

from Slate:

> Flirting With Disaster
> The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in
> Iraq and Afghanistan.
> By Christopher Hitchens
> Posted Monday, Sept. 27, 2004, at 11:35 AM PT
>
> There it was at the tail end of Brian Faler's
> "Politics" roundup column in last Saturday's Washington
> Post. It was headed, simply, "Quotable":
>
> "I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next
> month." Teresa Heinz Kerry to the Phoenix Business
> Journal, referring to a possible capture of Osama bin
> Laden before Election Day.

I don't know if I buy all of Hitchens' argument, but I do think we all ought to get real. An "October Surprise" would require the admin to be really smart as well as sneaky.

Link

soft bigotry of low expectaions

poor John Kerry...

from Reuters:

> Kerry will likely showcase his new hard-hitting language about
> chaos and casualties in Iraq by accusing Bush of mismanaging the
> war and diverting U.S. attention from the hunt for al Qaeda leader
> Osama Bin Laden.
>
> But analysts say Bush has recently neutralized Iraq as a political
> liability, through campaign ads and stump speeches that have boiled
> the issue down to a series of scripted messages about strength and
> optimism.

bring 'em on.

Link

chalk up another win for the good guys

recent legal defeats for Patriot Act powers should make one pause and reflect on the implications of a 2nd term Bush Supreme Court appointment (or three).

From Reuters:

> Surveillance powers granted to the FBI under the Patriot Act, a
> cornerstone of the Bush Administration's war on terror, were ruled
> unconstitutional by a judge on Wednesday in a new blow to U.S.
> security policies.
>
> U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, in the first decision against
> a surveillance portion of the act, ruled for the American Civil
> Liberties Union in its challenge against what it called "unchecked
> power" by the FBI to demand confidential customer records from
> communication companies, such as Internet service providers or
> telephone companies.

Link

another former Republican for Kerry

Mr. Eisenhower appeals to New Hampshire's conservatives :

From the Manchester Union Leader (N.H.)

> As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is
> automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50
> years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current
> administration's decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I
> changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some
> utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic
> Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

Link

make me one with everything

from the Toronto Star:

> Mel Brooks has bypassed northeastern film hub Toronto in favour of
> New York because of new film subsidies and some important
> gastronomical considerations
>
> The famed comedian said the $45 million (U.S.) remake of his own
> film and broadway smash, The Producers, won't be shot here because
> of our bagels.

& this:

> Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. George Pataki credited new state
> and local tax credit programs with attracting Brooks's film to New
> York

note to Mayor Gavin Newsom:

1.) light a fire under the SF Film Commission to promote the city
2.) use your good looks and charm get some production tax incentives on the legislative agenda
3.) roll back fee increases for rentals on Treasure Island facilities
4.) fly in fresh H&H bagels for all location scouts

Link

Ohio election official backtracks, but not entirely

Even though Mr. Blackwell, a Republican, has agreed that that 80 lb. card stock canard is out the window, the provisional ballot thing is still floating around... here's his spokesman, Carlo LoParo with a pollyanna retort to the lawsuit now on file in U.S District Court:

from Cincinnati Enquirer

> “... quite frankly, finding your current polling place is not that
> difficult," LoParo said. "If an individual walks to the wrong
> polling place, they can easily walk to the correct one."

this would be reasonable if it wasn't so flippant.

Link

Al Gore on the debates

The thing I like about Al Gore is his willingness, if not eagerness, to look at himself with a satirist's eye. I attended a conference in Salt Lake City two years ago, just after he had emerged from his self-imposed "walk in the wilderness", and he spoke for about an hour without notes about everything from his newly-shaved beard to his reputation for being wooden. Hilarious and quite a catharsis for someone who had never seen this human side.

The former Vice President makes some very relevant arguments. The one that resonated with me went like this:

from NYT

> The biggest single difference between the debates this year and
> four years ago is that President Bush cannot simply make promises.
> He has a record. And I hope that voters will recall the last time
> Mr. Bush stood on stage for a presidential debate. If elected, he
> said, he would support allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs
> from Canada. He promised that his tax cuts would create millions of
> new jobs. He vowed to end partisan bickering in Washington. Above
> all, he pledged that if he put American troops into combat: "The
> force must be strong enough so that the mission can be
> accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well defined."
>
> Comparing these grandiose promises to his failed record, it's
> enough to make anyone want to, well, sigh.

Link

skeletons in the bushes

from The Guardian UK

> George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a
> director and shareholder of companies that profited from their
> involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. The
> Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in
> the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a
> director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
>
> His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets
> were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led
> more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being
> brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave
> labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

Link

on the record

for those of us who want to get past the soundbites, misquotes, and contextual trickery
from Mark Sandalow of the SF Chron:

> "Mixed signals are the wrong signals,'' Bush said last week during
> a campaign stop in Bangor, Maine. "I will continue to lead with
> clarity, and when I say something, I'll mean what I say.''
>
> Yet, heading into the first presidential debate Thursday, which
> will focus on foreign affairs, there is much in the public record
> to suggest that Bush's words on Iraq have evolved -- or, in the
> parlance his campaign often uses to describe Kerry, flip-flopped.

Link

fumbling, bumbling ineptitude

from NYT:

> "Since terrorists attacked the United States on 9/11, the F.B.I.
> has been trying to assure the Congress and the public that its
> translation program is on the right track," said Senator Charles E.
> Grassley, Republican of Iowa. "Unfortunately, this report shows that
> the F.B.I. is still drowning in information about terrorism
> activities with hundreds of thousands of hours of audio yet to be
> translated."

Link

more on new voters

from New Donkey:

> I think it's increasingly clear that if Kerry (and other Democrats
> in battleground states) are two or three points behind on November
> 1, they might still win. Getting to the point where the "ground
> game" can be decisive, however, means succeeding in the "air war"
> of convincing persuadable voters to smile upon the donkey.

Link

cheers, wonkette

let's hope the debates are this entertaining
did someone say "hi Bob?"

Link

under the radar?

> The analysis by The New York Times of county-by-county data shows
> that in Democratic areas of Ohio - primarily low-income and
> minority neighborhoods - new registrations since January have risen
> 250 percent over the same period in 2000. In comparison, new
> registrations have increased just 25 percent in Republican areas. A
> similar pattern is apparent in Florida: in the strongest Democratic
> areas, the pace of new registration is 60 percent higher than in
> 2000, while it has risen just 12 percent in the heaviest Republican
> areas

These impressive new voter registration drives have the potential to impact swing states Ohio and Florida, especially if the campaigns can get these new voters to the polls. As we know, this year there are some very compelling reasons to vote.

These first-time voters don't show up on ANY national opinion polling, since the professional pollsters need to validate samples based on prior election behavior. Most new voters are generally younger and more liberal. This could sneak up and bite the pollsters (& perhaps the incumbents) in the butt on election day... We can hope.

Link

roll on, straight talk express

from David Corn at
The Nation:

> The Bush campaign eagerly embraced McCain early in the summer
> when Bush was slipping in the polls due to the mess in Iraq. So when
> McCain (rather than Kerry) says Bush hasn't articulated a plan for
> Iraq, can the White House dismiss this serious statement? It sure
> cannot be pooh-poohed by Bush's mouthpieces as partisan
> rhetoric. Might such a remark cause Bushies to wonder whether
> McCain infiltrated the Bush campaign in order to better zing the
> man whose lieutenants once bitterly and scurrilously attacked
> McCain's family and questioned McCain's loyalty to veterans?

Link

air america on the air in the bay area, finally...

from Art:

> Air America started airing today in the Bay Area on 760AM, KQKE.
> Now all of you without satellite radio can listen too. :)

Link

git offa my land, ya varmint!

a wakeup call for property owners

the supremes will decide this one (from Washington
Times)

this brief summary from Institute for Justice,
a public interest law firm:

Link

deliciously conflicted persuadables

from AP / Knowledge Networks

> Persuadable voters leaning toward either Kerry or Bush say the main
> reason they might eventually vote for the incumbent is they have
> doubt about Kerry's ability to lead. Or they don't know enough
> about him.
>
> On the other hand, they said the main reason they might vote for
> Kerry is they disagree with Bush's positions, especially on Iraq.

Even though a solid majority say we are on the wrong track and do not approve of the President, Kerry must make the most of the debates to stand a chance. He must come across as:

1.) credible
2.) trustworthy
3.) likable
4.) decisive

in other words, "presidential".

Link

ticky tacky technicalities

this from an impartial observer:

> The League of Women Voters of Ohio on Thursday called on Blackwell
> to clarify his position. League national president Kay Maxwell said
> she knows of no other states that are requiring the 80-pound paper
> stock for voter registration cards. "This is the first I've heard
> of it," she said on Thursday in Columbus.

somebody should book the U.N. election monitors a tour through all the battleground states which have partisan election officials, just in case...

Link

from MoveOn today

> Dear MoveOn member,
>
> President Bush based his famous and false claim that Iraq was
> seeking uranium from Niger on a set of crudely forged documents.
> For the last two years, no one has uncovered who falsified these
> documents, which lie at the heart of Bush's case for war. Now,
> CBS' 60 Minutes program has uncovered new and important revelations
> about the Bush administration's reliance on the documents. But,
> in an unprecedented and astonishing move, CBS bumped the report
> back until after the election, saying it would be "inappropriate"
> to air the piece when it might interfere with the political season.
>
> It's outrageous that a major TV news outlet would censor an
> important piece of news for political reasons.
> Especially since this report has met CBS' standards for accuracy
> -- it's true.
> One can only assume that CBS is buckling under pressure from the right
> -- and that's just plain wrong.
>
> Call CBS and its parent company, Viacom, now:
>
> Sumner Redstone, Chairman, Viacom
> (212) 258-6000
>
> Les Moonves, Chairman of CBS; co-President & co-CEO, Viacom
> (323) 575-2345
>
> Andrew Heyward, President, CBS News
> (212) 975-3247 or (212) 975-4321
>
> If you don't get through, you can write to CBS*
>
> You can also contact CBS' local affiliates**
>
> Urge CBS to reverse its decision and air the 60 Minutes piece
> on Iraq before the November 2nd election
>
> Let them know how important it is that they not censor the news.
>
> Please let MoveOn know you're calling -- we'd like to keep a count***

*
**
***

CBS contrition?

'60 Minutes' Delays Report Questioning Reasons for Iraq War

from NYT

also of potential interest:

Guess Who's a GOP Booster?
The CEO of CBS's parent company endorses President Bush

from WSJ

upward tick

(actually a downward move for the President)
from the latest Economist Magazine YouGov poll:

20-22 September

How would you vote today?
Bush 45%
Kerry 46%
Nader 1%

(Bush down 2% from prior week; Kerry's 1st lead since 8/23)

---
How things are going in the US
Satisfied 38
Dissatisfied 58

(satisfieds down 3 pts from prior week)

---
How Bush is handling his job today
Approve 43
Disapprove 53

(approvals down 2 points)

---
MoE: +/- 2%
Registered Voters Only
Sample size: 1792

Link

Ron Jr. on the warpath

from the Sunday Herald (Scotland):

> “The reality of this administration is so ugly that most Americans,
> even those who are more or less opposed to the administration,
> really don’t want to come to grips with that.
>
> “This is an administration that has cheated to get into the White
> House. It’s not something Americans ever want to think about their
> government. My sense of these people is that they don’t have any
> respect for the public at large. They have a revolutionary mindset.
> I think they feel that anything they can do to prevail – lie, cheat,
> whatever – is justified by their revolutionary aims.”

Link

start memorizing, Montag...

from AP:

> NEW YORK - A group of organizations representing publishers and
> authors sued the federal government Monday, saying it is blocking
> the works of authors in countries such as Cuba, Iran and Sudan from
> reaching the United States.

Link

talk is cheap, but I like cheap...

From Reuters:

> "Given the importance of voice as a dimension along which important
> features may vary,"... men and women should not agree to a blind
> date without first having at least one telephone conversation.

Link

that's why we pay them the big bucks

From NYT:

> There were other indications that the government was ratcheting up
> preparations for the election. Director Robert S. Mueller III of
> the F.B.I. conducted a telephone conference with the heads of the
> bureau's 56 field offices telling them to re-examine terrorism
> cases for fresh leads.
>
> Speaking at the briefing, one administration official said the
> F.B.I. was trying to cultivate fresh sources and seek assistance,
> "especially from the Muslim community.''

Seeking assistance from the Muslim community, hm... Boy, now there's a bright idea...
Gosh, I feel much safer knowing Director Robert S. Mueller III of the F.B.I. is on the case.

Link

can't we all just get along?

Anna Quindlen makes a modest proposal:

> Everyone keeps saying that this is a historic race. Right now it's
> historically nasty. But how historic could it really be if two
> presidential candidates were brave enough to reach across the
> divide and say the people deserve better than this? That goes for
> the press, too. It's cheap and easy to say the public cannot handle
> anything more than sound bites. It's worth remembering that the
> press decided to make the Gennifer Flowers scandal a story, but the
> voters decided not to make it an issue. They know how to pay
> attention if they're offered stories to which attention must be
> paid.

We can only hope. I'm afraid, however, that in this time of bellicosity and bravado, the steady, quiet voices of reason and intelligent discourse are bring drowned out by talking heads and pumped-up cartoon super-patriots. I fear for our country when our elected officials are not being held accountable for lies and distortions made for political gain. Anger is the natural reaction to betrayal, and this is what many of us are feeling right now. How do we cope with anger? Expressing the anger sometimes hurts more than pushing it down, and what avenues are left within the repressed strictures of patriotism and "support for the troops"? If anger is unpatriotic, then call me Benedict Arnold. I, for one, will be venting my anger in this forum and on election day. Those of us who decide to opt out of the political process have no right to complain about the result.

Link

extreme geekology, election style

From Mystery Pollster:

> What is it that we are trying to measure? Is it what the endless
> sports metaphors in the media suggest, a “race,” a “marathon,”
> featuring a “sprint to the finish,” in which candidates may be
> “neck and neck,” or one might be “surging” or, say it ain’t so,
> building an “insurmountable lead?”
>
> No, it isn’t.
>
> What we are really following is an ongoing decision making process
> involving upwards of a hundred million voters. There are no
> “points on the board” yet; just millions of individual voters
> pondering a decision most will effectuate for another six weeks.

Ever since 1980, when the networks went to air with exit polling that ultimately dissuaded voters in the Pacific time zone from doing their civic duty*, I've been interested in the effect of polling on media coverage and election day voter turnout.

With most polls showing support for the candidates (outside of post-convention bounces and extraordinary news events) to be within the margin of error, the question must be asked: What the heck is "margin of error" and how can pre-election day polling be so heavily reported, but so unreliable a predictor of the outcome of elections?



*Epstein, Laurily K. Gerald Strom. 1981. “Election Night Projections and West Coast Turnout.”
American Politics Quarterly. 9:479-491

Link

Something for the Deaniacs - you know who you are.

From Time:

> Were Dean the nominee, the Bush campaign would probably be going
> after him not as a flip-flopper but as a lefty. Lefty isn't
> exactly a term of endearment. But at least it evokes issues rather
> than character. Character debates sank Al Gore and threaten to sink
> John Kerry now. A debate about issues, on the other hand —
> especially the biggest issue of all, Iraq — is something Democrats
> could win.

I admit to a certain amount of prejudice on the electability issue, but in the desperate days of high approval ratings and "Missions Accomplished", there was a palpable feeling of irrelevence and marginalization on the part of Democrats. I've always been aghast and against the crusading adventurism and testosterone poisoning that washed over us in the wake of 9/11, but I was, for a time, infatuated with the idea of Wesley Clark as Democratic nominee (as bizarre as that now sounds), if only to be able to have a "big dog" to bet on against the reigning champ. However, in the final analysis, John Kerry is not only "electable" (whatever that means - remember Reagan before the Carter debates and how that one debate - "There you go again" - made him instantly "electable"?), but principled as well. There is consensus now that both men have imperfect histories and unique blemishes, but I believe issues (especially the situation on the ground in Iraq) have taken center stage now. You know I'll be watching the debate on Thursday and relishing in the knowledge that Kerry is the underdog and Mr. President has everything to lose. Prediction: Split decision, Kerry. Simply being on the same stage and looking "presidential" will constitute a victory for the challenger.

Link

snarky

"Are ya feelin' that way too... or am I just, am I just a fool?"

Link

Jenna's excellent adventure

suck 'em up, people... you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
from Wonkette

Link

more FL election chicanery - from NYT

I'm sure the UN elections advisors currently cowering in their Baghdad bunkers would love to get some sun right about now...

> Carter fears Florida vote trouble
>
> Carter has monitored more than 50 elections worldwide
> Voting arrangements in Florida do not meet "basic international
> requirements" and could undermine the US election, former US
> President Jimmy Carter says.
>
> He said a repeat of the irregularities of the much-disputed 2000
> election - which gave President George W Bush the narrowest of wins
> - "seems likely".
>
> Mr Carter, a veteran observer of polls worldwide, also accused
> Florida's top election official of "bias".

Link

a potential blow to source confidentiality - from NYT

What??? How is it possible for justice to be lead so astray in this country that Robert Novak is still walking around a free man? And how ironic that this scandal could have the potential to rob journalists of their sources by removing all protections of confidentiality. Thanks, Bob, I hope you're happy now.

> A Leak Probe Gone Awry
> When the Justice Department opened an investigation a year ago into
> the question of how Robert Novak obtained the name of a covert
> Central Intelligence Agency operative for publication in his
> syndicated column, we expressed two basic concerns. The first was
> the need for an independent inquiry led by someone without Attorney
> General John Ashcroft's ultra-close ties to the White House. That
> was addressed belatedly with the naming of a special prosecutor,
> Patrick Fitzgerald, to pursue the accusations that unnamed Bush
> administration officials illegally leaked the woman's undercover
> role in an effort to stifle criticism of Iraq policy by her
> husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV.
>
> Unfortunately, our second, overriding fear has become a reality.
> The focus of the leak inquiry has lately shifted from the Bush
> White House, where it properly belongs, to an attempt to compel
> journalists to testify and reveal their sources.

Link

from atrios - right on!

I got a good chuckle out of this one...

> Powell Alienates Key Ally Allawi, Calls Him Liar

Link

you've got to be kidding me...

from Time:

> You Say Yusuf, I Say Youssouf...
> The Cat Stevens incident has its origins in a spelling mistake  
> By SALLY B. DONNELLY
>
> The Yusuf Islam incident earlier this week, in which the former Cat
> Stevens was denied entry into the U.S. when federal officials
> determined he was on the government's "no-fly" antiterror list,
> started with a simple spelling error.

All those rumors about his supposed donations to a Muslim charity with ties to Hamas... are those just rumors?

Link

tell us the truth, daddy

> Key Bush Assertions About Iraq in Dispute
>
> By Adam Entous
>
> CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - Many of President Bush's assertions
> about progress in Iraq -- from police training and reconstruction
> to preparations for January elections -- are in dispute, according
> to internal Pentagon documents, lawmakers and key congressional
> aides on Sunday.
>
> Bush used the visit last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad
> Allawi to make the case that "steady progress" is being made in
> Iraq to counter warnings by his Democratic presidential rival,
> Sen. John Kerry, that the situation in reality is deteriorating.

Link

...and they call this "fair and balanced"???

Is this how Wallace intends to interview Senators, by insulting them?

from "Fox News Sunday" 9/26/04:

> BIDEN: John Kerry would have listened to his Marines at the time
> when in fact they said we should have finished the job then. John
> Kerry will listen to his military on the ground. John Kerry will
> listen to the people who know, not the politicians in the White
> House.
>
> WALLACE: Sen. Biden, thank you so much. I think you ought to stick
> to the decaf. You're really keyed up today. Thank you so much.

Link

fiddling as Iraq burns - Bob Herbert from NYT

> George W. Bush was a supporter of the war in Vietnam. For a while.
>
> As he explained in his autobiography, "A Charge to Keep: My Journey
> to the White House":
>
> "My inclination was to support the government and the war until
> proven wrong, and that only came later, as I realized we could not
> explain the mission, had no exit strategy, and did not seem to be
> fighting to win."
>
> How is it that he ultimately came to see the fiasco in Vietnam so
> clearly but remains so blind to the frighteningly similar realities
> of his own war in Iraq?

Link

in a nutshell:

Jeff Danziger's especially sharp pencil:

Link

what would Martin say?

Heard this on NPR not too long ago. The context is Vietnam, but the lessons have not been learned.

> Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence
>
>
>
> By Rev. Martin Luther King
> 4 April 1967
>
>
>
> Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967,
> at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in
> New York City

Link

essential: 9/24

Gosh, Mr. Secretary, thanks for putting this in terms we all can understand.

"Dirty Tactics": Political calculations on the battlefield

Porter Goss: Understatement of the Week

Equal Opportunity Victims

& Speaking of victims

He's our strongman - but he makes some sense

And a laugh to end on:

thanks, Gil

Michael Moore's latest:

> Mr. Bush and his 10 ever-changing positions on Iraq
> A flip and a flop... and now just a flop
>
> Dear Mr. Bush,
>
> I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq?
> You, your Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all
> changed your minds so many times, I am out of breath just trying to
> keep up with you! Which of these 10 positions that you, your family
> and your cabinet have taken over the years represents your CURRENT
> thinking:

Link

not the brightest in the box...

Forwarded Message

----------
> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:15:30 -0400
> Subject: Bushies and bulbs
>
>
> 1. one to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed,
> 2. one to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light
> bulb needs to be changed,
> 3. one to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb,
> 4. one to tell the nations of the world that they are either
> for changing the light bulb or for darkness,
> 5. one to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Haliburton
> for the new light bulb,
> 6. one to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor,
> standing on a step ladder under the banner: Lightbulb Change
> Accomplished,
> 7. one administration insider to resign and write a book
> documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark,
> 8. one to viciously smear #7,
> 9. one surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George
> Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along,
> 10. and finally one to confuse Americans about the difference
> between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

Wonkette

Quite a threesome on the cover of the NYT Magazine today...

I gotta admit, though, she's pretty hot. No wonder she slides into all those jive turkey Republican parties. They love bad girls who drink too much and underdress.

Link

percolating

Gauging the Outrage...

There has been a rift developing in my family for some time. It is now a gaping chasm. My brilliant, compassionate, idealistic mother has lately taken to heaping scorn and resentment upon immigrants, gays, lesbians, liberals, and non-english speakers, especially the French. She refuses to admit that her opinions have blossomed as the result of listening to right-wing talk radio, but I find this an unbelievable objection. She has fallen victim to the politics of rage.

Without delving too deeply into her personal history, let's just say that she has undergone a profound political transformation from Progressive (I was one of only two kids in my first grade class to "vote" in a mock election for Hubert Humphrey... the other was my friend, the only African-American kid in the class) to fire-breathing, irrational, resentful, xenophobic, right-winger.

After a series of acrimonious and pitched telephone debates (more like simultaneous scream sessions), she and I have resolved to never again speak of matters political. This pains me greatly, since I have always considered her a fair-minded and reasonable individual, possessed of far-reaching interests and experience. Incidentally, I have realized that part of my disappointment comes from not being able to debate (and most of the time, sway her) at this unique and highly charged time in our political lives.

How could someone become so jaded and disaffected that she rejects forty years of progressive social policy on the basis of personal dissatisfaction and bitterness? She does not even see the irony in the fact that it was these very same policies and programs that helped our family pay for medical care and my college education. I find it appalling that this person would now deny the very benefits we reaped to those now in need simply because she feels they are less deserving.

I cannot help but think that, to a certain degree, this is a time in her life when she has nothing to lose by her opinions. This turnabout, in a way, is her own form of protest and self-expression. It must feel empowering now to see her grown son reduced to a spitting, frothing mess when confronted with her newfound intolerance. Her views are shocking... as it must have been for her parents to see their daughter marry outside their faith, move to San Francisco in the sixties, and then divorce. Shocking.