The Open-Minded Moral Majority

From Trilbe

Okay, I am not a fan of people who try to ban movies. But these guys should get some sort of PRIZE for their objection to "Kinsey"!

Kinsey & Ebert, At the Movies

I love that article because these people aren't just upset because they think that "Kinsey" is some kind of sick sex movie that's going to make teenaged girls end up pregnant and teenaged boys end up gay. No, they didn't use that tried-and-true Religious Right argument for censorship. This editorial took some time to CREATIVELY attack a dead guy!

But control was a problem for Dr. Kinsey. While he was very controlling of his methods and student researchers, he did not exhibit much control of his own sexuality. His death in 1956 is attributed to "orchitis," which flowery word refers to a testicular infection that according to noted Kinsey debunker, Judith Reisman, Ph.D., "followed years of sadistic, orgiastic 'self-abuse.'"

Sure, it was a tad sensationalistic but I was intrigued by their allegation of "sadistic" self abuse so I looked up "orchitis" on eMedicine.com. According to an MD, from Northwestern University, you get orchitis from having the mumps. It is, apparently, either produced by a viral infection from the mumps or a bacterial infection from having sex with another person. Usually (seventy percent of the time) it's viral, resulting from the aforementioned childhood disease. http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic344.htm

Sadly, there was nothing about "sadistic, orgiastic self-abuse" in the medical info. Which is too bad, because I was hoping there would be something there that could tell me what, exactly, "sadistic, orgiastic self-abuse" is. I mean, it sounds fascinating! Oh, well...

Anyway, reading this "review" inspired me to go back and dig up an AP article that I saw a few weeks ago about "Kinsey".

Groups Protest Film About Sex Prof

That AP article inspired me to forumlate a few points that I would like to share with you:

Point 1. If you don't like the director's vision, then make your own freakin' movie.

"A film could have been produced that would have shown that side of Kinsey but also shown the hell that he released," Peters added. "That's part of Kinsey's legacy -- AIDS, abortion, the high divorce rate, pornography -- and there's not anything in the film to connect him with it."

Okay, jackass, if you think that some psychologist's sex SURVEY invented a devastating, new worldwide disease epidemic then why don't you make YOUR OWN MOVIE about it. Actually, I think that premise would make a heck of an interesting film!

Seriously, though, it's one thing to be a critic and say, "Hey, I didn't like this film because of X, Y or Z." But who the hell is that guy to decide that because he didn't like the movie nobody else should have the chance to see it? It's like every movie that comes out now has to be evaluated by some Cinema Sheriff before anybody else can see it.

Point 2. Let's stop comparing everybody we dislike to Nazis.

"Instead of being lionized, Kinsey's proper place is with Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele or your average Hollywood horror flick mad scientist," said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women of America's Culture & Family Institute.

Dude, get a grip. He didn't inject India Ink into the eyeballs of small children. He asked people if they've ever had anal sex. Also, why is some GUY, Robert Knight, the head of a group called "Concerned WOMEN of America"?

Point 3. It's still a free country, so you are allowed to mock Christianity.

Focus on the Family, an influential Christian ministry based in Colorado Springs, Colorado, said in a review of the film that "Kinsey" mocks Christianity and condones immorality.

I don't know if this film mocks anybody or not, because I haven't seen it. But, assuming it DOES mock Christianity, when did the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave become a mockery-free zone? So, I've got a little beef with Matt Stone and Trey Parker for mocking my boy, Sean Penn, in a movie I haven't seen. But should I go out and try to shut their little film down because I don't think I like what I've heard is in it? Sure, in America, I have the RIGHT to protest the movie and walk a picket line. But, if I did that, then I would be a total asshole like these Generation Life jackasses.

Point 4. If you don't know anything about FILM, then you don't get to be a FILM critic. And because you're not a qualified film critic the Associated Press shouldn't be broadcasting your film critique around the globe.

"If this was a true documentary, they would have included more negative information," Swindell said. "They're sugarcoating the issue, trying to make him look like a genius who all of humanity should be grateful for."

Honey, it's not a documentary. Liam Neeson is an ACTOR! The stuff that's happening on the screen is drama, it's not a Frontline special.

On another note, I don't actually have a problem with this:

Swindell, interviewed by telephone from Boise, Idaho, said the planned Generation Life protests are intended to discourage people from seeing the film, at least until they do their own research on Kinsey's life and works.

She said protesters would be handing out anti-Kinsey pamphlets and carrying signs with slogans like "Criminal, Not Hero."

If their "protest" is really a campaign to educate people then I think that's actually pretty cool. I mean, if they have a beef with Kinsey's research methods and data, or whatever, and they want people to think about the movie and to read and gather more information and then form their own opinions about the issues that the film raises then I think that's very responsible and intelligent.

But if their "educational" campaign consists of handing out information on how Kinsey invented AIDS and about how he was killed by "sadistic, orgiastic self-abuse" then that's not helping. I mean, if you've got a genuine beef with somebody you shouldn't need to make shit up about them in order to make your point. Like, if they think that Kinsey's being bisexual skewed his research then they should just tell people that. Some people will agree with them and others will disagree. And we'll all benefit from having an open and honest dialogue about it. But nobody benefits from censorship.

The Left and Condi

From Trilbe

"THE LEFT AND CONDI: I guess I should say that Condi Rice's race and gender are not the most important things about her career and abilities. But I'm still amazed at how little credit this president gets for promoting a black woman to such a position, and, more importantly, by his obvious respect and admiration for her. His management style is clearly post-racial, and his comfort with female peers is impressive. You know, Bill Clinton was celebrated for his progressiveness, and ease with African-Americans. But it's inconceivable that he would have given so much power and authority to a black female peer. Why does Bush get no respect on this score? I guess it reveals that much of the left's diversity mania is about the upholding of a certain political ideology, rather than ethnic or gender variety itself. Depressing."
- Andrew Sullivan
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_11_14_dish_archive.html#110078963758727771

From: Trilbe Wynne
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:49 PM
To: 'andrewmsullivan@aol.com'
Subject: Re: The Left and Condi

Dearest Andrew -

As a black person, my issues with the Bush Administration are based on policy. They are not based on the fact that he likes and respects a particular black person. Nixon, as we all know, was personally racist but his domestic policy agenda did many things that helped the African-American struggle for civil rights. Things like supporting Housing and Urban Development initiatives and founding the Equal Employment commission. So, despite Nixon's personal attitude, I can appreciate what his administration did for black communities and give them points for having good domestic policies.

But the Bush Administration's policies are not helpful for working people, and thus are not helpful for the black community. African-Americans lost jobs and health insurance during the first four years of the Bush Administration. Abortions among black women and poverty among black children rose during those years. We've lost many of the economic gains that we made during the Clinton era. That is why we, Liberals, don't give the Bush Administration "credit" for promoting Condoleeza Rice. My personal opinion is that Dr. Rice is a smart woman who has worked hard. She deserved the promotion that she received. So why should we think of her well-deserved promotion as a case of George W. Bush having done "Condi" a "favor?" That isn't "post-racial" thinking.

Personally, I'm happy to see that Condoleeza Rice is doing well and has risen so high. But her personal success doesn't really matter in the overall scheme of things any more than Clarence Thomas' appointment to the Supreme Court did. Or, to put it another way, how is Mary Cheney's personal career success helping the gay community in your fight for civil rights?

Trilbe Wynne

The Good News

From Trilbe

Yeah, it sucks that we're gonna have 4 more years to look at George W. Bush and ask ourselves, "This guy is our PRESIDENT?" But there is a silver lining. Bush's "re-election" or "election" or whatever means that we'll have 4 more years of Barney Cam!

Sure, the rest of the Cabinet is hideously unqualified. But the First Dog is top notch! They may not be putting any energy into fixing the problems of No Child Left Behind, but the Bush Adminstration IS taking care of the truly important things. Like getting the overworked Presidential Pooch a new assistant. It's hard work being the Top Dawg!

Note: There is actually some video of W talking to Barney about "hard work" in the film Barney Cam II: Barney Releoaded. I kid you not! Do yourself a favor and check it out.

Administration For Dummies

From Trilbe

The election is over and the Bush Administration is hard at work now, preparing for the next 4 years. So, let's take a few minutes to re-familiarize ourselves with the Cabinet members. And to remind ourselves why each member of the team is the worst possible choice for the job!

Dubya - The President of the United States of America

Dick - The Vice President of the United States of America

Andy - The White House Chief of Staff

The Colinoscopy - The Secretary of State

Asscroft - The Attorney General of the United States of America

Mike O. - The Director of the Environmental Protection Agency

Ridgy - Secretary, Department of Homeland Security

Rummy - Secretary, Department of Defense

Blackie - Secretary, United States Department of Education

The Sassy Asian Chick - Secretary, United States Department of Labor

Tommy T. - The Secretary of Health and Human Services

Vene Man - The Secretary of Agriculture

Dondo - Secretary, United States Department of Commerce

Spence - The Secretary of Energy

Snow - The Secretary of the Treasury

Prince - The Secretary of Veterans' Affairs

Buffalo Gale - The Secretary of the Interior

Norm! - The Secretary of Transportation

Joshy - Budget Director, The White House Office of Management and Budget

Walters - Director, The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy

Zoellick - United States Trade Representative

This is all from Punk Voter. They rock!

Some Election Day Humor

From Trilbe

I don't know about you, but I'm starting to get a stress headache!

If you're as nervous as I am, check out this video and have a relaxing laugh. It's Triumph the Comic Insult Dog and it's hilarious! I especially love the part, at the end, where he questions Ralph Reed's sexual orientation. Classic!

Final Polls -- Fundamentals favor Kerry

From JFH

Nothing has swayed me from my prediction last week: 311 EVs for Kerry (I've added Wisconsin). The winning formula: Gore states + NH + OH + FL. Kerry does better than final polls indicate because of strong overall turnout, strong turnout among underpolled voters, undecideds breaking for challenger, and far fewer Nader votes vs. 2000.

I just don't see any fundamentals favoring Bush at this point; I don't read anything from the final battlegrounds about trends in his favor; if there are any modest trends, they all seem to point Kerry.

Bush's only hope is if the assumptions above just don't pan out for some reason: Unless we are at some kind of irreducible minimum of undecideds who really aren't going to vote, so maybe there won't be any further break to the challenger than we've already seen. Likewise, many Nader 2000 voters may stay home, but most of those voting will switch to Kerry rather than stick with Ralph. And on turnout, it's possible that the newly registered young cell phone voters will not GOTV once they realize that it's harder than just pressing a button on their cell phones (in other words, hopefully, we won't have a replay of the vaunted Deaniacs' disappearing act in the Iowa caucuses!).


Here is a polling summary from Prof. Alan Abramowitz.

His conclusion on the national popular vote:

Even in the samples of likely voters, Bush is well below the 50 percent mark generally needed by an incumbent. In fact, when Gallup allocates the undecided vote, their likely voter sample goes from a 49-47 Bush lead to a 49-49 tie. In the broader samples of registered voters, Bush is actually trailing in most of the recent polls. With a very high turnout expected tomorrow, the registered voter samples are probably more representative of the actual electorate than the likely voter samples.

His conclusions about Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania:

George Bush's situation in all four of these key battleground states is dire. His support is well below 50 percent in all of them and he is currently trailing John Kerry in 3 of the 4. A clean sweep of all four states by John Kerry is a distinct possibility.

Here is an assessment of more swing states. The candidates are absolutely deadlocked in Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Mexico.

The imminently fair and balanced FOX NEWS poll has Kerry up by 2% nationally and by 5% in Florida.

And from the inimitable quotemeister, Prof. Larry Sabato, we have this conclusion:

As we conclude this amazing election campaign, we have just one question for our readers: When has an incumbent candidate ever won when he is tied with his challenger on election eve? The answer is never--at least in the age of polling that began in the 1930s. So George W. Bush needs to beat history, and the polls, to win the election tomorrow. It is possible that the vagaries of the Electoral College will enable Bush to eke out a victory, and it is also possible that the Republican Party's get out the vote effort will equal or exceed the Democrats' GOTV efforts. But if the Democrats are even half-right about the potential of their GOTV in producing additional new voters, then Kerry will win, perhaps more comfortably than anyone now suspects.

But then Sabato goes on to predict (sort of) an Electoral College tie.

Bush in the polls: WYSIWYG

Kerry seems to have pulled even in all the tracking polls, and while Bush is at 49% in a couple of them, he is under 47% (incumbent dead zone) in the others. Either way, Bush will be lucky to actually poll a higher percentage on Election Day, while Kerry, as a challenger, is likely to improve a point or two.

Latest Tracking Polls
ABC News LV: Bush 49, Kerry 48 (10/24-27)
Rasmussen: Bush 49.5, Kerry 47.9 (10/26-28)
TIPP 2-Way: Kerry 46, Bush 46 (10/25-28)
Zogby: Kerry 47, Bush 47 (10/26-28)

There are no Battleground states in which Bush has trended upward this week. I now think Kerry will win all Gore states (including Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico), plus Ohio, Florida, and New Hampshire, for a total of 311 Electoral Votes.

Same prediction is here.
Check out this analysis of OH, PA, FL, and MI here.

You can help GOTV in Battleground states by calling voters on Election Day.

A Real Class Act

From Trilbe

"Just the one-fingered victory salute." - George W. Bush

http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov

Alan Keyes on Citizenship

From Trilbe

Alan Keyes is completely irrelevant at this point. Unfortunately, because he's irrelevant, I haven't seen anyone report on his bizarre idea about U.S. citizenship.

MODERATOR: Gentlemen, at this point, I'd like to ask you to give me one or two sentence answers on the following questions. Mr. Obama, do you support either amnesty for undocumented workers, or a form of a guest-worker program? Do you support either of those?

OBAMA: Not in its current form. I think we have to secure our borders. We have to have employer sanctions in place, and if we had those two things in place, then I think setting up a pathway or regularized status for undocumented workers is appropriate.

MODERATOR: One or two sentences on that.

KEYES: I want to make very clear, we need to have guarded borders. We need to make clear that the states and localities are not gonna extend privileges to aliens. We need to change our basis for citizenship, because I think (inaudible), as it's called, where you're a citizen just because you're born here, is something that is contributing to this problem, and needs to be changed. And I think, if we take all those steps, in order to make sure we're enforcing strictly and can enforce our immigration laws, so that we've applied to both borders what's necessary for immigration and national security, we can then move forward with an amnesty, the way we did with Reagan.

OK, so who’s going to win this thing?

from Jon

This week’s drumbeat of bad news out of Iraq will serve to fire up the Democratic base, turn out new voters, and sway the few remaining undecideds predominantly to Kerry. While the Republicans will do okay on turnout, the final week so far has been pretty demoralizing, and their voter suppression efforts won't be enough to send the election into the courts.

So, I predict Kerry wins nationally 52% to 48%, with 301 EVs.

Kerry wins Gore states – Wisconsin + New Hampshire + Ohio + Florida.

The final week bad from Iraq

from Jon

Here in the last week of the campaign it’s all bad news all the time about Iraq.

1. The massacre of the Iraqi security trainees
2. The missing 380 tons of high-powered explosives
3. Allawi blaming U.S.-led occupation forces for the massacre
4. Pentagon leaking plan to increase U.S. troops in Iraq by 22,000
5. Reports apparently from the Senate Appropriations Committee that Administration is going to ask for another $70 billion for Iraq.

Whew!

It’s a litany of failures. Kerry has been hammering Bush for the explosives, but he ought to be talking about the entire list. In fact, the Administration’s spinning of the explosives story has been masterful, taking advantage of lame media coverage, even though I don’t think it has staved off all the damage.

See the excellent coverage here on the whole explosives story, the coverage of it, and the Bush spin.

Abortion through a different lens

from Jon

An interesting way to respond to pro-lifers. Abortion rates have gone up under George W. Bush. Why? The most common reason given for having an abortion is that the mother is unable to financially support the child. For poor women, economic downturns and lack of affordable health care make it hard to support children; hence, a higher abortion rate over the past four years.

From the cite linked in the headline:

Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow without health care, insurance, jobs, child care and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs, health insurance and support for mothers.

Diplomats and Military Commanders For Change

From Trilbe

Here is another sign of how terrible the Bush Administration's foreign policy has been. A group of career diplomats and retired military guys have joined together to try to limit the Bush Administration to one term. They're bipartisan and they all have impressive resumes.

Their Mission
Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change is an unprecedented bipartisan coalition of 27 career chiefs of mission and retired four-star military leaders who have launched a nationwide campaign to press for the need for change in U.S. foreign and defense policy because they are deeply concerned by the damage the Bush Administration has caused to our national and international interests.

DMCC is dedicated to insuring an informed public during a critical election year. On the basis of foreign and defense policy experience spanning half a century, members desire, through their participation in public forums, to share their expertise and express their deep concern over the current state of this country's diplomatic and security challenges. Never in recent years, in the view of the group, have those challenges been as serious as they are today.

http://www.diplomatsforchange.com/mission/mission.shtml

The Presidential Prayer Team

From Trilbe

I know that my column is turning into "Trilbe's Christian Right Watch." But this is just too good to pass up! Pray the Vote is the official website of the Presidential Prayer Team. No, this is not a parody. It's real.

The lead item on their homepage is an interactive map that you can scroll over and see how many people are "praying the vote" in each state. [We've got 1,087 people praying here in Illinois!] The website also has instructions on how you can "Adopt a Troop" to pray for, which I think is really quite sweet.

I tried to adopt a single, black or Puerto Rican, male troop to pray for. Because, you know, the brothers always die first. LeRoy, the wise-cracking black guy, and Corporal Gonzalez, the pessimistic but brave latino, always get killed during the first half-hour. While Joe, the all-American hero (translation - cute white guy), narrowly survives. Anyway, the search criteria wouldn't let me get that specific. Oh, well. . .

Here is this week's devotion:

As Election Day draws near, pray for every polling place in America to function well with no computer, mechanical or human errors affecting the results. Pray that all ballots, whether early, absentee or at the polls, will be safeguarded giving fair and accurate results. As some states have now begun early voting, pray for that process to be smooth. http://www.praythevote.com/

And, Lord, please heal the torn-up ballots that Republican Party activists ripped up and discarded in Oregon and Nevada. Amen.

I don't generally like to mock someone's prayer. But it seems to me like you're demeaning the higher spiritual nature of religion when you're doing it online and when you're praying to ward off computer malfunctions. I've, personally, always felt that prayer was a way of elevating the human condition and connecting with a higher power. But praying to safeguard absentee ballots just feels like superstition to me.

But, hey, who am I to judge? If it makes them feel better to pray for the success of early voting, vaya con dios!

Operation Ohio

From Trilbe

Operation Ohio is the best get-out-the-vote campaign I've seen all year!
How cool is this:

Want to get a phone call from one of your favorite writers? Vote.

If you are a registered voter under 25 living in a swing state, you are eligible to receive a phone call from an author on November 2 reminding you to vote.

Authors participating include Tobias Wolff, Michael Chabon, ZZ Packer, Dave Eggers, Ann Cummins, Glen David Gold, Gabe Hudson, Aimee Bender, Julie Orringer, Vendela Vida, Jim Shepard, Andrew Sean Greer, Anthony Swofford, Heidi Julavitz, Neal Pollack, Michael Cunningham, Jonathan Lethem, Ann Packer, Heidi Julavitz, Daniel Handler, Jennifer Egan, James Frey, Nick Flynn, Jonathan Ames, Michelle Tea, David Amsden, Adam Johnson, and many others.

Wisconsin report

from Steve in Madison

VISITS, VISITS, VISITS. Clearly the campaigns' internals tell them that WI will be in-play right down to that last vote. Kerry is in Green Bay today and tomorrow and Madison on Thursday. Edwards in Racine and Dubuque Iowa today. Bush on a western WI swing tonight and tomorrow. (Same heavy traffic applies to Iowa as well). Surrogates for candidates also on impressive pace as are the constant arrivals of volunteers, DC hands, and people whose states are not in play. (In particular we see a lot of IL folks headed north to "make a difference" in southern WI... there was a story in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel on Sunday about the 5 buses full of volunteers for field work).

I'm sure there'll be a big push to make Thursday's Madison rally at the State Capitol square (with the Foo Fighters) to be one of Kerry's biggest crowds. In 2000, we packed in 25,000 on the Friday before the election w/ a Bon Jovi appearance. Then they're doing an early vote trek 2 blocks to the city clerk's office (I'm sure that even though he's a Democrat, the clerk is going to be a wee bit upset with hundreds of people looking to vote on TH afternoon). WI statewide demographics are pretty straightforward.

Madison and Milwaukee cities turn out close to half of the total Democratic vote. The other significant cities (Racine, Kenosha, Janesville, Green Bay, Wausau, LaCrosse, Eau Claire) end up being about 50-50 when their suburbs are taken into account. The Republican base lies in the Milwaukee and Minneapolis suburbs as well as in an arc of German Lutherans in eastern WI.
Ironically, the nordic Lutherans on the western arc of the state are much more Democratic in orientation.

Ultimately this election will come down to places like the battleground cities of Green Bay and Wausau, which are 2 of the 10 biggest markets for political ads this cycle. Speaking of TV, it has been ridiculous in the Madison market, mostly from Bush and Democratic 527s, but Kerry has picked up pace the last 2 weeks as have a couple of Repub 527s. There is virtually no ad traffic outside of political at this point, and I wonder how anyone can consider themselves "undecided" at this point.

On the ground, the Republicans talk a big game and it will be fascinating to see if they really do turn their vols out next weekend. On our side, the September 14th primary showed the kinds of resources that will be brought to the table. ACT had nearly 800 paid staff on the ground doing generic GOTV efforts to promote turnout in African-American portions of Milwaukee, to complement nearly 200 from the victorious congressional candidate. This had the desired impact of increasing African-American turnout there by 25% over the traditional primary vote. I've heard that ACT alone will have double that amount of staff on the ground next weekend. And this does not count the Kerry/Coordinated campaign and all other labor/allied organizations. Nader is on the ballot and may ultimately be a factor if this race is decided in the low 1000's. He got 95,000 votes (or about 2.5%) in 2000 and those came heavily from Madison and Milwaukee. As well all know, most of our Nader friends tell us that they're not making the mistake again this time but surely he'll still hold at least 10,000 votes in WI.

The Polls: Nine days to go

from JFH

Check out Professor Alan Abramowitz' summary of the race. His conclusion: "[B]ased on this analysis of recent polls in the battleground states, if either candidate has a slight edge, it's John Kerry. And that's without even factoring in the expected late movement of undecided voters to Kerry.

RealClearPolitics' Battleground Summary shows Bush leading in averaged recent state-by-state polls. The EC count would be Bush 306-232. But wait! Bush's average lead in both Florida and Ohio is less than one point, and it is exactly one point in Minnesota. (Take away Florida and Minnesota from RCP's count and we get another tie scenario!) Take away all three, given the expected break of undecideds toward Kerry, and Kerry wins 289-249.

According to RCP, Bush leads by three points in Iowa and two in Wisconsin, two Gore states that are still winnable for Kerry. And there was an interesting poll that came out yesterday in Arkansas, showing the candidates tied.

On average, Bush is at 48% or lower in FL, OH, WI, IA, MN, and NM. And the only Battleground state in which Bush hits 50% is Missouri.

These are not good numbers for an incumbent this close to Election Day.

This week's news frame isn't good, either. Bush made another off-message comment about whether we can win the war on terror yesterday, and in Iraq, freshly minted Iraqi security forces were ambushed and executed, and we find that a huge cache of expolosives has fallen into the hands of insurgents and terrorists. The latter is a near-perfect real world symbol in the closing days of the campaign of the Administration's bungling of Iraq AND the war on terror.

Oh and by the way, the Big Dog is going to hit the campaign trail for Kerry today.

October Surprise: The link between Iraq and terrorism

From JFH

As the 1980 campaign was winding to a close, with the one-year anniversary of the Iranian hostage crisis about to coincide with Election Day and the incumbent president stunned by his challenger's recent debate performance, the Carter Administration announced on the Sunday before the election a possible breakthrough in negotiations with the hostage-takers. Alas, it turnout to be a dead end, and only served to remind voters of the inability of Jimmy Carter to deal with the hostage crisis.

Maybe today's piece in the NYT will serve as a similar catalyst in this campaign's final week. It seems that 380 tons of powerful explosives that were known to be under lock and key in Iraq before the war have now gone missing. They've undoubtedly been used in the insurgency and could well be used in a future terrorist attack on the U.S.

So basically, the previous weapons inspection regime had this cache of weapons under lock and key. The Administration knew about its existence before the war. We failed to secure the site after the war, and now its contents have been looted and distributed to insurgents and possibly terrorists. Finally, the Administration has known about this for some time, but has covered it up rather than report it, due to the campaign.

The story encapsulates all the problems and missteps of the Administration's Iraq war. With eight days to go, it will surely become more and more difficult for voters to conclude that they are safer under George W. Bush.

NYT and WaPo: Polls not looking good for W.

From JFH

Sunday's WaPo lede:

President Bush turned his Marine One chopper into a campaign prop Saturday and used it to drop in on huge crowds at three stadiums around Florida, at a time of concern in his campaign about his failure to gain a decisive lead in the most crucial battlegrounds.

GOP officials who talked to Bush-Cheney campaign leaders said the leaders have grown more worried about Ohio, Florida and other key states where Bush lacks a lead with just 10 days until the election. One Republican official described the mood at the top of the campaign as apprehensive. " 'Grim' is too strong," the official said. "If we feel this way a week from now, that will be grim."

The Republican official said polling for Bush showed him in a weaker position than some published polls have indicated, both nationally and in battlegrounds. In many of the key states, the official said, Bush is below 50 percent, and he is ahead or behind within the margin of sampling error -- a statistical tie.

"There's just no place where they're polling outside the margin of error so they can say, 'We have this state,' " the official said. "And they know that an incumbent needs to be outside the margin of error."

The Sunday NYT reports that the campaigns are agreed on the final eleven battleground states; we’ll just call them the Big Ten (get it?).

Bush 2000 States
Florida (27)
Ohio (20)
New Hampshire (4)
Colorado (9)
Nevada (5)

Gore 2000 States
Pennsylvania (21)
Michigan (17)
Minnesota (11)
Wisconsin (10)
Iowa (7)
New Mexico (5)

Ok, so the Times says “analysts and aides to both campaigns say Mr. Kerry has the best chance of winning New Hampshire, Ohio and Florida.” I’ll buy that. Kerry has led in NH most of the year, but its EVs are likely to be inconsequential. He has been in the lead in Ohio since the debates and is neck and neck in Florida. (But if “neck and neck” lasts for another week, the tie will likely go to Kerry on Election Day, because last-minute deciders almost always break for the challenger.)

Of the Gore states, the Times says “analysts and aides said Mr. Bush has the best chance of winning Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Mexico.” OK, for the sake of argument, let’s buy that, too. Bush has led in Iowa and Wisconsin fairly consistently, although very narrowly – and the President, on average, hasn’t polled at the 50% mark in either state. New Mexico hasn’t been polled as extensively, but the candidates have each led in more than one recent poll. I don’t think anyone buys Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Minnesota breaking for Bush. But the Times fails to consider the implications of its analysis: If all turns out the way “analysts and aides” from both campaign currently see it: KERRY WINS 289-249!

Redeem the Vote

From Trilbe

When there's nothing else on TV, I sometimes watch the Country Music Televion cable channel. No, I'm not a big country fan. I just find the channel very informative. It gives me insight into a lifestyle that I wouldn't normally be familiar with, and I find that valuable. By watching CMT, I've learned lots of interesting things about a variety of topics. Like, Hank Williams and Nascar and Jesus.

Anyway, I was watching CMT and I caught wind of the Christian Rockers' Redeem the Vote movement. Bless their hearts, Christian Rock has a super-corny knockoff of Rock the Vote. I'm not surprised to see that they're getting involved in getting people to the polls this year. But I am a little freaked out that they've recruited Jesus to be their spokesman.

Yup, they have Jim Caviezel talking about how we all need to vote to "presereve the God-given freedoms that we all hold dear." What freaks me out about this is that I thought he was really cute, until now. It's kind of sick, but I looked at him all bloody and beaten, with bad hippie-hair, and still thought "He's so adorable. I would like a cute, Catholic husband like Jim Caviezel." But now that he's trying to encourage Republicans to vote I'm, like, "Ew! Not attractive! Not attractive!" Where are my freakin' priorities? Shouldn't I, an aging spinster, put hotties before politics?

It's like when I found out that Stephen Baldwin was a born-again-Christian Republican. I watched him talk about "voting for the candidate that has the most faith" and just lost all interest in him. It's like someone flipped a switch, from "Hot" to "Not". I don't dislike Stephen for being a born-again Christian. I actually thought it was pretty sweet that he was working with kids and trying to make being religious not quite so dorky. "I've been to MTV and all of that worldly stuff," he says. "It's death. It's meaningless. All of this is Christian - modern - edgy."

I thought that was cool. I mean, I'm religious and I think I'm Christian - modern - edgy. But I don't think it's cool is for Mr. Stephen Baldwin and Mr. Jim (cute, Catholic boy that I would otherwise love) Caviezel to take part in a movement to force their religion (which also happens to be my religion) into public policy. The stated goal of Redeem the Vote is to "encourage new voters to express their voice in the 2004 election which will determine the direction of cultural issues that impact their lives." That's code for "end Roe v. Wade and return prayer to public schools." And that's not cool.

A Personal Note About Christian Pop Artists:
I really need them to stop camouflaging their music. Do not sing a song about Jesus that could be construed as being about your boyfriend. It's creepy. When I found out that Debbie Boone's "You Light Up My Life" was about Jesus, it's like they stole part of my childhood! And there's just something wrong when a 17 year-old Pop Princess, who has a hot club single that I adore, has a website with a bulletin board filled with high school kids ranting about how they're tired of teachers telling them that they're descended from monkeys. Hot, club singles shouldn't be about Jesus! Can't we all agree on that?

Also, Christian pop guys should make more of an effort to not look gay. I'm sure a lot of them are, actually, gay men who are in serious denial. But if they aren't going to actively be gay then they shouldn't get their hair frosted. It leads to confusion, and that's bound to lead to trouble.

Unexpected Endorsements

From Trilbe

First of all, I love the fact that The American Conservative has endorsed John Kerry. It just shows that it doesn't matter whether you're left, right or center, George W. Bush has been a disaster as a President. Awful to the point where it would be funny, if people weren't dying as a result of his idiocy. I'm glad The American Conservative decided to put the truth and their core values ahead of partisan politics.

Also of note:
Not only are the paleo-cons backing John Kerry, some members of the Bush family are also supporting Kerry over GWB.
Bush Relatives For Kerry

There are some Democrats who crossing over and endorsing W. But take a look at their reasons for doing so (see below). We have Ed Koch saying that the President has terrible policies, policies that he disagrees with, but he's voting for the President because of his "resolve and courage." Then we have Zell Miller who is voting for a "God-fearing man with a good heart." St. Paul's Democratic Mayor, Randy Kelly, says that he's voting for Bush, despite the fact that he doesn't like the President's policies, because he thinks it might be dangerous to make a dramatic change "during turbulent times." But my personal favorite is Youngstown's Democratic Mayor, George McKelvey, who's voting for George Bush because Michael Moore is such an asshole.

To be fair, I am over simplifying what those guys said. But if you follow the links and read their entire statements you will find that they've all, pretty much, said that they don't like George Bush's policies but that they are terrified by the threat of terrorism and that they sincerely believe that George W. Bush wants to wipe out terrorism by making lots of war in the Middle East. They aren't even one-issue endorsements, they are one-side-of-one-issue endorsements. Judge for yourself. Then compare them to the crossover endorsements that John Kerry has received.

"I intend to vote in 2004 to reelect President Bush. I will do so despite the fact that I do not agree with him on any major domestic issue, from tax policy to the recently enacted prescription drug law. These issues, however, pale in importance beside the menace of international terrorism, which threatens our very survival as a nation. President Bush has earned my vote because he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism."
Ed Koch

"I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel."
Zell Miller

"George Bush and I do not agree on a lot of issues," Kelly said in a statement. "But in turbulent times, what the American people need more than anything is continuity of government, even with some imperfect policies."
St. Paul's Democratic Mayor, Randy Kelly

"[T]he Hollywood leftists who've hijacked the Kerry campaign believe that Michael Moore would be a more effective secretary of state than General Colin Powell. I'm confident that FDR, Truman, and JFK would show Moore the door with their shoe leather on his backside. That's the Democratic Party I knew and loved."
Youngstown's Democratic Mayor, George McKelvey

Keyes falls to -11 in polls

In an astonishing development that has pollsters here in Illinois scratching their heads, Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes (R-MD) has fallen into negative territory in the polls, the first time in the history of scientific survey research that a number below zero has been recorded.

A recent Survey Illinois poll of likely voters had Democrat Barak Obama with a commanding 111% to -11% lead over Keyes.

"I know this result isn't logical," said a Survey Illinois spokesperson, "but neither is Alan Keyes' candidacy."

Keyes' numbers are expected to fall further after his strange debate performance last night that prompted one commentator to say that even a trained seal or dolphin could have done better last night than Keyes. Earlier in the week, a Republican mass mailing went out without Keyes' picture on it. One party insider, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Keyes was present for the photo shoot but his likeness didn't appear on the film, prompting speculation that he actually is some sort of alien from outer space.

Attempts to find the person or persons on the Republican State Committee responsible for actually putting Keyes on the ticket continue to be futile.

The American Conservative endorses Kerry

From JFH

The New Republic has been posting its past presidential endorsements this week and I was reminded when reading that liberal journal's rejection of Jimmy Carter in 1980 (it endorsed John Anderson) just how damning it is when a candidate is rejected by his own ideological compatriots. Now comes the rejection of George W. Bush by the paleocon American Conservative, which I assume has long had it in for the neoconservative foreign policy types that dominate the Bush Administration. Nonetheless, that the magazine would reject Bush for a liberal Democrat is very telling.

Here are some highlights:

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy.

In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It’s the same throughout the Middle East.

Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and
necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.

The daily bad from Iraq

From JFH

From today's NYTimes:

Senior American officials are beginning to assemble a new portrait of the insurgency that has continued to inflict casualties on American and Iraqi forces, showing that it has significantly more fighters and far greater financial resources than had been estimated.

When foreign fighters and the network of a Jordanian militant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, are counted with home-grown insurgents, the hard-core resistance numbers between 8,000 and 12,000 people, a tally that swells to more than 20,000 when active sympathizers or covert accomplices are included, according to the American officials.These estimates contrast sharply with earlier intelligence reports, in which the number of insurgents has varied from as few as 2,000 to a maximum of 7,000.

This week, the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, in releasing its annual global military survey, said perhaps 1,000 Islamic Jihadists have entered Iraq to join the fight, and it estimated that it would take five years for the American military to prepare Iraqi forces to take over fully from the forces of the United States and its allies.

Bush and the Supreme Court

Two Supreme Court justices are over 80 and eight of nine are over 65. SCOTUS is split 5-4, usually tilting conservative. The next president will almost certainly get to appoint one or more justices.

In his first term, Bush’s nominees to the federal bench have been uniformly conservative, usually chosen by the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. Not a single nominee has ever said anything in support of abortion rights, and most have denounced Roe v. Wade. He has clearly tried to move the federal bench rightward in a way that would please social conservatives at the expense of civil liberties.

Electoral College Tie Scenarios

From JFH

Are flying around the web today. Here, too.

I'd say, the most straightforward are these, in descending order of probability:

1. Kerry wins all the Gore 2000 states, plus New Hampshire and Nevada.
2. Kerry wins all the Gore 2000 states, plus New Hampshire and West Virginia.
3. Kerry wins all the Gore 2000 states, plus Nevada and Colorado ballot measure passes, apportioning the state’s EVs based on popular vote, handing Kerry four of the state’s nine EVs.

That doesn't take away from my longstanding Kerry EV formula:

Gore 2000 states + (Ohio OR Florida) = Kerry wins.

BTW, good news from Ohio today.

New poll says Bush voters Ignore reality

From JFH

Found this on another interesting blog. It is truly mind-boggling for those of us who live in the “reality-based community.” These findings are from a study of the differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in September and October:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

The report outlines numerous other misperceptions of Bush supporters on the president’s foreign policy. Why the resistance to information on the part of Bush supporters? Because they aren’t living in the realm of reality -- the president asserts, they believe. Another link to last Sunday’s NYTimes Magazine piece on W.’s messianic complex.

Arguments for Banning Gay Marriage

from JFH

Found this via my favorite conservative Andrew Sullivan’s excellent blog.

Oregon, which has a state question on the ballot to ban gay marriage, dutifully prepares a handout for its citizens that summarizes arguments for and against state questions. Just click here and read it. That’s all I’m asking.

On second thought, I’m going to just print it out for you:

Argument in Favor
CULTURE WAR!
Traditional values are under attack, and sexual perverts are attempting to strain the definition of marriage far beyond what God has ordained. The Word of the Lord must be legislated as Oregon public policy. In the Holy Bible, Saint Paul says that Christians should remain single and abstain from sex. The New Testament says that people should get married only if they are too weak-willed to abstain from sex:

"It is well for a man not to touch a woman…. It is well … to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (I Corinthians 7:1, 8-9)

Marriage is not sacred. Marriage is for wimps and sissies!

Oregon public policy should define marriage in accordance with divinely inspired Scripture. Therefore, marriage licenses should be granted only to those persons who have been certified by professional psychiatric examination to be too weak-willed to abstain from sex.

Oh, by the way, although Jesus never said a single word condemning homosexuality, if heterosexuals can't get married, homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry either—well, unless they're too weak-willed to abstain. Sissies!

The sissy institution of marriage must not be perverted by sinners who are capable of abstaining! The sacred union of church and state must prohibit the immoral union of men and women capable of the discipline of sexual abstinence. We are not saved by either faith or good works. We are saved by religious-right legislation!
Freedom of religion and equal treatment under law is simply the special right to sin, because our tradition is the one and only truth! And our tradition (that is, our personal moral opinions) should become law.
AGREE WITH US OR BURN IN HELL!
(This information furnished by M. Dennis Moore, Traditional Prejudices Coalition.)

Argument in Favor
MARRIAGE IS SACRED!
The Bible says that marriage is for procreation. God made Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve made Cain and Abel, not an empty nest. Marriage is for procreation. If you're not pro-Creation, you're anti-God. And once a marriage has been solemnized, sex is serious business. The solemnity of sex must not be abused for sinful pleasures. Sex is for procreation, not recreation. And marriage is for breeding purposes.

Therefore, it should be Oregon public policy that:
Homosexuals may not marry.
Infertile persons may not marry.
Men with vasectomies may not marry.
Women with hysterectomies may not marry.
Post-menopausal women may not marry.
Persons planning to use birth control may not marry.
Non-virgins may not marry (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).
Inter-racial couples may not marry (Deuteronomy 7:3).

And couples who fail to conceive within two years ought to have their marriage licenses revoked.

Additionally, the Bible says that: Divorced persons may not marry (Luke 16:18).
And if a man dies without leaving a male heir, it is his brother's responsibility to impregnate the widow(Genesis 38:6-10). If he refuses, he shall be fined one shoe (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).
This is the sacred word of the Lord, steadfast and unchanging.

Traditional morality must become Oregon public policy. All of it. And the older the tradition, the better. The separation of church and state be damned. In order to protect the sanctity of marriage and the sacred institution of heterosexual procreation, unequal treatment and discrimination must be legislated consistently against all persons who cannot or will not breed as God intended. It is God's will that we multiply and fill the Earth and finally subdue it when the population explosion self-implodes. Praise God!

Love is not good enough a reason to marry, because marriage is only for
HETEROSEXUALBREEDING.COM

(This information furnished by M. Dennis Moore, Defense of Heterosexual Breeding Coalition.)

Argument in Favor
THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY IS UNDER ATTACK!
Frightening new unprecedented social changes are threatening old traditional values. And these attacks on tradition have been escalating--for millennia!

First there was Original Sin when Eve disobeyed God! Then the Flood! Then Abraham abandoned the traditional practice of human sacrifice! Then Jews instituted the modern covenant of circumcision! Then Moses brought down from Mount Sinai a bunch of new-fangled Laws on stone tablets! And later Jesus abolished them and preached instead the radical new Golden Rule!

Polygamy fell out of favor! Women were no longer mere pieces of property belonging to men! Next these uppity women demanded the right to vote! Families could no longer own slaves! Prohibition saved the family from destruction by Demon Rum! The nineteenth-century extended families on American farms were destroyed by the 1950s social engineering of the "Leave It to Beaver" suburban cookie-cutter nuclear families! Blacks refused to ride in the back of the bus! Women demanded equal pay for equal work! Single parents demanded respect! Gays and lesbians demanded an end to hatred and oppression! Flower children protested traditional mass-murder warfare and genocide! Divorce skyrocketed! The silence surrounding child abuse was broken!

Frightening social changes continued! And then the religious right began a righteous backlash! First they accused gays and lesbians of being promiscuous! And when this failed, they began accusing them of having long-term committed monogamous relationships and wanting to get married!

Where will it all end? After 6,000-some years of frightening attacks on old traditional values, will history never cease to unfold? Will God never stop throwing all of these radical social changes at us?
My friends, there is a simple answer. All you have to do is VOTE TO TURN THE CLOCK BACK!
It's really that simple!
Now, which one of these radical social changes will this measure turn the clock back to? Oh, come on, let's just
LEAVE IT TO BEAVER!
(This information furnished by M. Dennis Moore, The Beaver State Defense of Beaver Coalition.)

OK, so the thing of it is, this satire actually was published alongside all the other arguments in favor of banning gay marriage and when you read them one after another, there really isn't much distortion in the satire. Fabulous.