The Blue Line

The Open-Minded Moral Majority

2004-11-29T21:06:00.000-06:00

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

2004-11-18T18:59:00.000-06:00

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

2004-11-04T21:39:00.000-06:00

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

2004-11-04T21:13:00.000-06:00

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

2004-11-02T14:39:00.000-06:00

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

2004-11-01T17:00:00.000-06:00

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

2004-10-29T17:14:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-29T14:22:00.000-05:00

From Trilbe

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

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

Alan Keyes on Citizenship

2004-10-29T11:17:00.000-05:00

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?

2004-10-27T17:10:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-27T17:07:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-27T17:05:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-25T21:38:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-25T21:10:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-25T20:07:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-25T17:23:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-25T07:25:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-25T01:34:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-25T01:12:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-23T01:23:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-22T21:32:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-22T17:17:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-22T17:03:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-22T17:01:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-22T17:00:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-22T15:14:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-22T07:56:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-22T07:14:00.000-05:00

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.

Bush and Iraq

2004-10-21T07:31:00.000-05:00

From JFH

Apparently, there are those who do believe we need to fight an all-out "holy?" war to stop Islamic fascism, so, they would argue, the Administration's latest rationale for going to Iraq (to spread democracy and freedom throughout the region) makes sense.

(Aside: Actually, this was the neocons' argument all along, even before 9/11, for taking out Saddam, but American and world public opinion would never have supported an invasion solely for that purpose. Then 9/11 came along and the Administration tried to link Saddam with Al Qaeda and all of the sudden gave far more creedence to intelligence reports about WMDs than it had before.)

For the sake of argument, let's assume we DO need to fight an all-out war to stop Islamic fascism. What on earth makes anyone think that this Administration can do that effectively, given its record so far?

CLEARLY, the Bush administration was woefully and dangerously unprepared to do so when it went blustering into Iraq with not enough troops, no plan for what to do after Bahgdad fell, and certainly with no serious long-range plan to "win" that kind of war.

These people literally -- and I remain incredulous of this -- thought that Ahmed Chalabi would solve it all for them -- Iraqis would bow down to him and the U.S. and a democracy would magically materialize that would then be the beacon of freedom for the entire region. And we have a president who proudly doesn't bother himself to learn anything about any of this, but who thinks he has been touched by God and so therefore makes decisions based on his "gut" rather than any kind of reason, and so he charges us into this mess.

There have been several good articles that have come out in the past week that are definitely worth a read for anyone interested in this question of what is going on in Iraq right now and what the prospects for success are.

But to really get the context of Bush's messianic self-image, read the Suskind article from the New York Times Magazine first:

Without a Doubt

Then there is this three-part series by Michael Gordan:

The Strategy to Secure Iraq Did Not Foresee a 2nd War

Poor Intelligence Misled Troops About Risk of Drawn-Out War

Debate Lingering on Decision to Dissolve Iraqi Military

Then from the Knight-Ridder newspaper team that has done some excellent reporting from Iraq comes this series; the link is to the Miami Herald, which you have to subscribe to, but it's free (and you might as well arrange your Florida election news source early!)

Iraq reconstruction efforts overcome by ongoing violence

Iraq's future path uncertain because of insurgency

Post-war planning non-existent

The question of whether Kerry would have gone into Iraq in the first place is moot; the real question is does a new reality-based foreign policy team have a better chance of getting this thing back on track than the bunch that fucked it up in the first place? And even if the answer to that question is that Kerry has no chance to salvage it because it is FUBAR, should we "reward" this president with another term of office for doing this?

Kerry endorsements

2004-10-21T07:26:00.000-05:00

from JFH

Check out Kerry endorsements/indictments of Bush record from The New York Times and The New Republic.

Heresies

2004-10-20T21:53:00.000-05:00

I am so over these people who are NOT Catholic giving those of us who ARE Catholic instructions on how to BE Catholic. I've been Catholic my whole life, pal. I took CCD! So I don't really need Jonah Goldberg giving me religious instruction.

"Of course, this is the standard answer from liberal Democrats who profess to be good Catholics but who are also pro-choice. From what I understand, it's a fairly weak argument, but that's between Kerry and his church."
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/goldberg/goldberg200410150936.asp

Oh, puhleeze! I fast and pray every Lent. I observe the Holy Days of Obligation. I've gotten past things like, "Every animal? In the world? On a boat?" I give the organization a good amount of ca$h each year. I even defended them for their moral lapse with, "The religion is all about forgiveness, so the Church's first reaction was to try to forgive those priests and give them a second chance. They made a mistake, now we need to forgive them for their mistake."

So, I can't even find sufficient words to tell you how much I do NOT want Robert Novak to critique MY practice of MY religion.

"He says he accepts the Catholic doctrine that 'life begins at conception' but will not impose it on others. It then becomes something like rooting for the Red Sox, which should not be forced on Yankee fans."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20041020.shtml

First of all, only a Fascist would want to force rooting for the Red Sox onto Yankees fans. Secondly, Novak's not Catholic so why does he care which Catholics are following what Church rules? And finally: Fuck off, Bob Novak! I'm a Good Catholic!

And as a good Catholic, I don't really deserve the grief I'm getting this election season. Catholics have endured "message homilies" from the pulpit for centuries, I'm sure. The Latin mass was before my time, but I'm quite certain the priests regularly followed-up on the Latin Devotion with words in the vernacular about how the faithful need to dig down deep, because marble statues ain't cheap. Or, you know, back in the Dark Ages it was probably something about the evils of secular men making fire or about the harmful effects of bathing.

But the Bush Administration's Faith-Based Outreach has created a monster! They've managed to convince the modern Church—MY Church—that they should ignore the Separation-of-Church-and-State Truce and browbeat the faithful into voting for Church-approved—i.e., Republican—candidates who will legislate our faith into public policy.

This really sucks, you guys! I didn't grow up with this kind of thing, so I am at a loss as to how to effectively handle it. I'm a Black Catholic. I grew up in a Black neighborhood, attending a Black Parish. This means that I never had to deal with "conventional" priests. Since there aren't that many Black Catholics we, basically, got all of the "reject" priests. I'm not saying they weren't good priests--I had GREAT priests growing up. But the priests who got sent to the tiny, struggling, black parishes were the misfit priests who either didn't "fit in" or who'd done something to piss off the Church Establishment.

This means that when I was growing up, back in the 70s, we had hippie priests who were all about the world peace movement and fighting racial intolerance. Even though they didn't wear the standard priest garb you could still spot a Catholic priest in black neighborhoods in the 1970s. They were all fresh, young, white guys who had impressive wardrobes full of African daishikis and Greg Brady-esque bell bottom hip-huggers. Their only footwear usually consisted of a few pairs of Jesus sandals that they got when they were missionaries in Mexico or Central Africa. They even wore them during the Chicago winters, with tattered, wool socks.

Hippie-priests liked to greet you with a friendly, "What up, [insert name or nickname here]?" They knew EVERYBODY'S name in the whole neighborhood. Including all of the non-Catholics. And they would use the neighborhood nicknames, despite the fact that priests sound completely insane saying something like, "What up, Reefer?" And nothing made our priests happier than exclaiming "Right on!" while doing the fist-in-the-air move. Or having deep conversations with us kids about Caesar Chavez or about The Man keeping The Black Man down or about Monk--Thelonious Monk.

Most of our priests actually looked like Jesus. With their long hair, unkempt beards and woven sandals. They were so adorable that even the non-Catholics in our neighborhood took care of our priests. They were just so darned earnest and lost-looking that you couldn't help loving them!

Mrs. Jackson, my parents crotchety, ancient next door neighbor, was an old Southern Baptist. But she loved her some Father O'Reilly, child. "Lord," she would say, "It's a shame you don't pay them po' white boys enough to buy a decent pair of shoes." She would crochet ugly pieces of clothing for the priests--which they would wear--and bake them sweet potato pies.

I know tons of people who grew up Catholic but who left the Church because they found it oppressive and unbending. Let me tell you, THAT Catholic Church is NOT the one I grew up in. I've always had great, liberal priests. My priests at college were cool, young, environmental-activist type guys who wanted to be missionaries in Central America. Then I lived in Gay Lakeview as my first "grown up" apartment and we had rainbow-friendly, don't-ask-don't-tell priests up there. And now I go to a downtown Chicago church that's run by the swinging Franciscan Brothers.

They're mostly scholarly priest/monks who've gone to Loyola or De Paul, or who've gotten advanced degrees from Georgetown. So we have Father So-and-So come up from Notre Dame to speak to study groups. Or Brother So-and-So who's visiting from some hell-hole in Central Africa and who wants to share interesting, and little-known, facts about tribal culture. We have addiction healing groups. And seminars on how to fight urban poverty. It's, like, Religion for Progressives. And I like it.

Sure, my priests started pushing The Passion of The Christ, like, a year before the movie came out. But it wasn't a political thing. They were just excited because they're priests, so they hadn't seen a movie--in a movie theater--since back before the seminary. They were just excited to have an excuse to leave the rectory. And thrilled to be "down" with something current.

That's my Church. I love that Church. I love being Catholic. I love our pretty Basilicas. And I love the ritual. I love going to mass in foreign countries and saying the same prayers that I say at home in a spicy, foreign tongue. It's uplifting. I don't want to push my religion onto anybody else, I'm just saying that I find my bliss every week somewhere between "Glory to God in the highest" and "Go in peace to serve the Lord." So, imagine how upset I am that our PROTESTANT President of the United States is fucking with my Catholic Bliss!

I thought it was funny when the Bush people let the National Park Service put a "Creationist" book about how the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's Flood into the Canyon bookstore. "The Bush Administration has decided that it will stand by its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces." Aside from the Church-State issues, I think it's charming that people are actually finding ways to show that the human imagination is so much more powerful than science. That's kind of a triumph of the human will, if you stop to think about it.

I find it interesting when churches come up with things like this. But I don't know that it's appropriate to integrate religion with the national park service. Is it really a good idea to have a "fake" science book on display at a public, educational site where schoolchildren go to learn? I don't think so. At that point it isn't really about religion, it's about education. I mean, you can look at the Grand Canyon and be awestruck by the majesty of God and the wonders of His Earth. But that's not why we spend tax dollars to support the public park system in this country. Right? The purpose of the Grand Canyon isn't to serve as an evangelical tool to recruit new believers. That would be wrong, wouldn't it? Since the U.S. government is prohibited from endorsing any particular religion.

I don't want to sound like some wild-eyed Randian athiest here, shouting about how we need to have "science" at a major geological site. I'm actually just a good, sweet Catholic-American girl. I try to be faithful and true to my religion, and I support the Separation of Church and State. I like to think that the Separation protects my practice of religion just as much as, if not more than, it protects others from the encroachment of religion. I mean, look at Christmas. It's a complete NIGHTMARE now that it's a secular thing that "we all share."

This "sharing" has turned what used to be a major religious holiday for my people into the gaudiest, most-commercial, most-materialistic, most-annoying thing since Elvis and Priscilla. That's not good. I don't want my children to think of Christmas as "the me, me, me time when I get stuff, stuff, stuff." At Christmastime I want my little Catholic children to be thinking about Baby freakin' Jesus! I don't think that's too much to ask. But that's not even possible now that Christmas is this public thing that we all share. When religion is a public act, we compromise. We make it fit the needs of everybody. So it loses its original meaning and becomes something new.

Well, I don't want to share. I don't want to compromise. And, frankly, I don't give a fuck about the needs of Southern Baptists. Let them have their own church, that's SEPARATE from mine. The same goes for Lutherans and Jews and Buddhists and Muslims and the rest of the world's religions. I don't want my religious devotion to turn into a public display, like those poor Hopis who dance at the Grand Canyon. I don't want to have to sing the Kyrie Eleison while spectators applaud and make comments about how quaint it is.

So I fight for the Separation of Church and State, to try to keep my religion pure and protected from the encroachment of "the public" and free from the compromises that comes as a result of the blending of public policy and religion. But now, in addition to fighting against people like Pat Robertson and the Southern Baptist Convention, I also have to fight against other Catholics.

KRESTA: Does an outspoken Catholic like yourself have any advantage in Chicago, electorally speaking?

KEYES: I don't know. I think that remains to be tested. I would think and hope that on the issues of great moral concern, which I think are going to be so fundamental to this election, yes, it's going to be an advantage because people of Catholic conscience—not only Catholic conscience, people of Christian conscience—I don't see how they could vote for Barack Obama.

I have said this publicly, and of course nobody understands--"Oh, how can you say that?"--and I'm thinking, any Christian person would say that. That's our standard.

KRESTA: Christ wouldn't vote for Barack Obama.

KEYES: He would not.

KRESTA: Right. OK.

KEYES: There's no possible way. And that's a simple matter of logic.

http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/media/interviews/04_09_09kresta.htm

Okay, you're right. That's just Alan Keyes. And everybody knows he's psychotic, so who cares what he thinks? But then I'm watching EWTN, the Catholic cable channel, and I catch their Election Special. And what do I see? I see Father Pavone telling me how the Separation of Church and State is a MYTH that needs to be destroyed. AND he goes on to talk about "activist judges!"

Okay, let's just forget for a moment about the fact that I want the Wall Between Church and State to PROTECT my Church, let's focus on the fact that I just saw a PRIEST using Segregationist code words that mean "judges who say that darkies are entitled to Constitutional protection." You have got to be fucking kidding me! THIS is not why I give them money. I love her, but Mother Angelica is not getting another dime outta this girl!

Then I go to the EWTN website to send Father Pavone an email and I see that they have an article on there about how John Kerry is a bad Catholic because he believes exactly what I believe!

"Senator John Kerry makes a strong distinction between his personal life as a Catholic and his public life as a politician. He cites the separation of church and state as the rationale for this duality.

"I think Kerry is right about the separation of church and state in terms of one not trying to dominate the other or one not interfering with the legitimate roles of the other. But when it comes to moral issues that touch upon basic human rights, such as the right to life, then we Catholics are not free to go against our consciences formed by our Catholic faith. We cannot separate what we believe privately about human life from our public statements and positions. Otherwise we contradict ourselves."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/kerrdile.htm

I've read the Church's statements on abortion and I agree with them—I probably wouldn't choose to be Catholic if I didn't.

It's just my personal religious choice, and I don't want to judge anybody else by my personal standards, but I wouldn't have an abortion and I wouldn't counsel anyone to have an abortion. I give money to support adoption programs and homes for pregnant teens. You never really know what you're going to do in extreme circumstance, but I like to think that if it were my life vs. my child's life that I would sacrifice my own life, because I wouldn't have an abortion. This is something that I take very seriously. I respect and accept the teachings of the Church on this matter.

I accept it right up until the point where they say that I am now required to force my religion onto people who don't share it.

"Consequently, if a Catholic publicly and obstinately supports the civil right to abortion, knowing that the Church teaches officially against that legislation, he or she commits that heresy."
http://www.defide.com/resp/response.pdf

Oh, no they didn't! I just know that my CHURCH didn't just tell me that it isn't enough to be true and faithful to my religion, but that I also have to oppose someone else's CIVIL RIGHTS! What kind of shit is that?

I cannot, in good conscience as a Catholic-American, force my religious beliefs onto someone who doesn't share them. I would not, even if it meant sacrificing my life, accept anyone else's religious beliefs. I BELIEVE all of that stuff I learned as a Catholic child, about how Christians were persecuted and fed to the lions. The Church has done a great job of convincing me that faith is something that is worth dying for.

So how can they expect me to turn around and deny someone else their faith? I believe in the tenets of the Catholic Church. I believe that God is real and alive and that He gives me tests and challenges. And because I belive these things I can't take the act of faith lightly. I don't take my own faith lightly, nor do I take anyone else's faith lightly. I'm as serious as a heartattack about this stuff. I won't oppose another person's civil right to their religious faith. I can't do it. And I can't believe that's a sin.

It would be like a devout Roman doing an evil thing like throwing a Christian to the lions because he believed that his religion told him to do so. Chrisitanity doesn't teach us to throw people of other faiths to the lions. I like to think that, by teaching us this story about the early Christians, they were teaching us to NOT throw people of other faiths to the lions.

So, if the Catholic Church really does decide to declare it a heresy for Catholics to allow people of other faiths to keep their beliefs, then I couldn't be Catholic anymore. I'm not saying that lightly or as a threat, I mean it. I don't know what I would do if I were forced out of my religion. I think it would be devastating. I've fought a lot of ridicule and judgmental questioning from friends about it, for my entire life. My religion is part of who I am. It's TOO MUCH a part of who I am for me to do what some of these Bishops are asking me to do.

The Kids Are Alright

2004-10-20T17:31:00.000-05:00

MTV has been working to Rock the Vote for years. They've had election-year specials on the issues. They've had vans and buses going from state to state, trying to register the 18-30s. No one has talked more seriously about the draft this year than MTV, including our elected officials. They don't really show videos anymore. But during election season MTV rocks!

This year, MTV's PRElection survey has chosen Kerry by a landslide:
http://www.mtv.com/chooseorlose/pre_lection/

Overall Votes:
John Kerry 59,660 (61.1 percent)
George W. Bush 38,025 (38.9 percent)

Of the 205,604 people registered for the PRElection, 48 percent (approximately 97,685) cast votes. About 60,000 voted via mobile phone, and 38,000 voted online.

Almost 120,000 used the PRElection to register to vote for real. During the three-week voting period, an average of nearly 6,000 people per day (total 116,479) registered to vote for the presidential election through the PRElection, making the PRElection one of the most used voter-registration tools this election year.

84 percent of PRElection participants say they are 100 percent certain they will vote.

The little guys at Nickelodeon also picked Kerry, but with a tighter margin of victory:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041020/ap_en_tv/nickelodeon_president_4

Nearly 400,000 children and teens voted, and the results were released Wednesday. Kerry received 57 percent of the vote; President Bush (news - web sites) got 43 percent.

Linda Ellerbee, who writes and hosts "Nick News," says their voting usually reflects their parents' views — but not all the time.

"Every so often you get a kid that says, `My parents are voting for X, but I'm voting for Y,'" she said. "It's amazing, the point when kids start forming their own ideas about issues."

"Kids aren't dumb, they're just younger and shorter," she said. "In fact, last election, a boy came up to me and said, `We picked George Bush (news - web sites) to win, and he didn't really win. Al Gore (news - web sites) won the popular vote, so we were kinda wrong.' Quite an observation."

Rationale For War

2004-10-19T20:52:00.000-05:00

I just read Jon's piece, "Bush's shifting rationale for war implies even longer stay for U.S." and it's tragic. It makes my heart hurt. People are dying and it isn't a political issue or an electoral issue, it's life and death.

We have a President who lives a charmed life. He didn't need to have the best grades or work the hardest to achieve his wealth and status. He even "won" a Presidential election, without getting the most votes. He's filthy rich and he lives in the most famous mansion in the world, surrounded by luxury and security. He will never have to work another day in his life. And he will never, ever have to sleep in the hot, fucking desert or shoot and kill anyone.

George W. Bush is just a lucky guy, who's been in the right place at the right time, throughout his entire life. But even though he's one of the luckiest people in the world, he doesn't have the decency to show respect for those who are less fortunate than him. He refuses to acknowledge any mistakes. He refuses to apologize for sending honest, decent people fight a war that could have been avoided.

It ultimately doesn't matter what "rationale" the White House comes up with, or what good may or may not result from this war in Iraq, some people are dead who would still be alive today. Some people have been severely injured and will spend the rest of their lives living with reminders of Operation Iraqi Freedom. These people deserve the truth. They deserve something better than to have their government spin new "rationales" to support a war.

For people like me, minorities with modest resources, the U. S. military offers a great opportunity to build a comfortable, middle-class life. There aren't a lot of career options for people who can't afford to go to college--and let's face it, not all of us are smart enough to go to college. But if you don't get a degree the world doesn't offer a lot of opportunities. So, by our standards, Army life is pretty great.

It's better than telemarketing or working at Blockbuster. You can travel. If you work hard you can advance, regardless of race or origin. The military gives you healthcare and a pension plan. It teaches you useful skills and discipline. And if you want to go to college later, the military will help you pay for it. Besides all of these personal benefits a lot of people, even though they're poor, love the United States and are proud to serve in the military. Especially Puerto Ricans.

By virtue of being an American commonwealth, Puerto Ricans are both Puerto Rican and American--and are fiercely proud of being both. Puerto Ricans look around the world, at less fortunate Latinos and Latinas who live without freedom or economic opportunity, and are proud to fly both the U.S. flag and La Bandera de Puerto Rico. So, there are always a lot of Puerto Ricans serving in the United States military.

Over 18,000 Puerto Ricans served in World War I. The "dark ones" were segregated, but they still fought and died for this country.

Then, more than 53,000 Puerto Ricans served in World War II, including 200 Puerto Rican women.

The Puerto Rican 65th Infantry Division, the only all-Hispanic Division to serve during the Korean War, earned four Distinguished Service Crosses and 124 Silver Stars.

Prior to the full-scale escalation of the Vietnam War, Special Forces Advisor Sergeant First Class Isaac Camacho was taken prisoner in November of 1963. He was the first Hispanic POW of the Vietnam era. Then, twelve years later, on April 30, 1975, the U. S. presence in Vietnam officially ended when Master Sergeant Juan J. Valdez climbed aboard the last U.S. helicopter that left the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. Vietnam was an ugly war, and Puerto Ricans were among the first in, and the last to leave.

Currently about 53,000 Puerto Ricans are serving in the U. S. military, including 22,680 on active duty, approximately 3,500 of which are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 30,940 in reserve on La Isla. Puerto Rico has the third largest population serving in the Iraq war. La Isla de Puerto Rico has sent more troops than Poland, more troops than Italy, and are outnumbered only by the United States and Great Britain.

So, as with all American wars, Puerto Ricans are dying tragically in Iraq. Puerto Ricans are dying while trying to become students or mechanics. They're dying while trying to build the kind of "normal" middle-class life that most of us take for granted. I don't want to use their sad, personal stories to make a political point. That's not my purpose here. I just want the President of the United States to appreciate their sacrifice, to stop spinning and to just tell the truth.

Bush's shifting rationale for war implies even longer stay for U.S.

2004-10-19T17:03:00.000-05:00

by JFH

In today’s LA Times, Ronald Brownstein and Kathleen Hennessey examine the Administration’s shifting rationale for war in Iraq, and include a useful list of quotes at the end. I guess potential Bush voters can select the ones they like the best.

But the Administration’s latest principal rationale for going into Iraq seems to be to bring democracy to the country in the hope that a democratic Iraq will tilt the region away from extremism by encouraging the spread of freedom.

That would seem to require a plan!

And not just a plan for the next few months, but a long-term plan, because no one thinks Iraq will become a functional democracy any time soon, and especially not if the U.S. hands over security quickly and high-tails it out of there. Yet the Administration’s current “plan” appears to be to somehow secure the country in time for January elections and, at the same time, “train” enough Iraqi forces to hand over security relatively soon thereafter.

How exactly is that going to work? It isn’t.

This from Knight-Ridder’s excellent series on the morass that Iraq has become:

After nearly 19 months of combat, more than 1,000 American soldiers dead and $119 billion spent, the central question about Iraq isn't whether it will become a beacon of democracy in the Middle East but whether the United States can prevent it from becoming a black hole of instability. The answer may depend on whether Americans are willing to stomach what many military analysts believe will be a guerrilla war for years to come.

"Crossfire" host announces that he's clueless

2004-10-19T07:45:00.000-05:00

Here’s what dweeby “Crossfire” host Tucker Carlson said yesterday about Jon Stewart’s appearance on the show Friday,

"I thought that he looked ridiculous and I think the tape makes that clear."

Huh? Check it out for yourself.

First of all, I can’t stand watching political debate shows on TV, so I haven’t watched “Crossfire” since the 1980s, but I watched the tape and Jon Stewart has it exactly right: Shows like “Crossfire” are to political debate what WWF is to real sports. And it is the utter idiocy of shows like “Crossfire” that have led to the popularity of shows like Stewart’s and Bill Maher’s, both of which accidently convey more relevant information than the likes of “Crossfire.”

Alan Keyes vs. The Pursuit of Happiness

2004-10-18T23:32:00.000-05:00

As Jon pointed out earlier, Alan Keyes had another bizarre rant about how gay people are the root of all evil. I would, seriously, like to sit down and chat with Big Al for about an hour or so, Black Catholic to Black Catholic, about why he's on such a mission to prevent gay people from having rights. They only have, like, 3 civil rights anyway. And they didn't even have those until last year. So, why feel threatened?

Honestly, gay people would probably improve the state of marriage. Everyone knows you can't have a decent wedding unless there are, at least, 6 gay men involved in planning it. For crying out loud, just take a look at how irredeemably tacky heterosexuals have made marriage when left to our own devices! Gay people would be doing the rest of us a service by agreeing to wed.

And I don't want to be nit-picky, but there's way more stuff in the Bible about the evils of failing to desanguinate meat, than there is about not being gay. Why focus on, what, 4 or 5 rather strange verses instead of the thousands of parts that talk about love and beauty? Honestly, Alan, If you're going to enforce minutiae from the Old Testament, then why not go after Burger King for serving meat with dairy? Or berate women for going out in public while on their periods? Actually. . . I would love to see hapless Alan after a group of radical, menstrual, Lesbians got hold of him!

Or, since he's so old school, perhaps Alan would like to offer gay men their choice of virginal young girls to keep them from sexing up other men:

GENESIS 19:4-8
4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5 and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." 6 But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, 7 and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. 8 "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."

I don't generally like to point out the "creepy parts" of the Bible, because I am a practicing Catholic, you know? It's my religion and I don't want to make fun of it or, honestly, even think too hard about anything but the "feel good" bits. Sure, some people might call that "denial," but that's a story for another time.

Anyway, Alan Keyes has read the same Bible that I have. So where does he get the cojones to be all self-righteous about the "men lying with men" part while ignoring the "give up your virgin daughters" part? Isn't that a little bit hypocritical? Here's Alan, running around the country saying that, literally, civilization will come to an end if gay people are allowed to live their lives in wedded bliss. But not a word about giving up your virgin daughters to stop the Sodomites.

"[We] will determine whether or not self-government continues in America, or whether, like previous republics, this one perishes--perishes because it can no longer maintain the moral environment, the moral foundations, the moral culture, that is needed to sustain it."
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/98_12_11wlmpatt.htm

"I believe--and it is a requirement, in fact, of my faith that I believe--that homosexuality, the actions involved in it, are sinful actions. And for anybody to insist that I take some other view is to try to dictate my religious conscience, to tyrannically establish in this society the dictatorship of one view with respect to religious matters, and that is an issue over which, if I may say so, I will fight you as everyone has had to fight anyone who wishes to establish such a dictatorship in America."
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/media/interviews/04_09_01reporters.htm

Okay, Alan, we get it. You're upset. But why? Gay people have been around forever, right? I mean, if gay penguins can have a satisfying long-tem relationship, then who's gonna be hurt because Bruce, your hairdresser, meets a nice floral designer and decides to settle down? Where's the crime, Alan?

You would think that Alan "Declaration of Independence" Keyes would be on the side of people who are trying to live the pursuit of happiness.

Keyes says incest awaits kids of gays

2004-10-18T07:31:00.000-05:00

From today's Sun-Times:

U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes told a rally Saturday that incest was "inevitable" for children raised by gay couples because the children might not know both biological parents.
"If we do not know who the mother is, who the father is, without knowing all the brothers and sisters, incest becomes inevitable," Keyes told the Marquette Park rally held to oppose same-sex marriages

Polls, polls, polls

2004-10-17T23:33:00.000-05:00

I still think the formula for Kerry is: Gore states + 10, and Kerry gets the ten by winning Ohio OR Florida OR some combination of New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, and Arkansas.

After the debates, Kerry appears to be on his way to holding the Gore states. Pennsylvania and Minnesota appear to have moved back to Kerry, while Iowa and Wisconsin are about to get back to blue. In the latter two, Kerry is either tied or two points behind in most polls, and that's a trend in his direction over the last couple of weeks.

At this point, Bush is either trailing in the states that Kerry needs to take away, or not far enough ahead to be a likely winner on election day in any of them. If an incumbent is two points or less ahead among likely voters in the final pre-election polls, (s)he is in trouble on election day, as undecideds typically break against incumbents decisively. If turnout is heavy, meaning more "unlikely" voters go to the polls, the Democrat typically does better. All indications are that turnout will be heavy this year.

The two latest Florida polls have Kerry leading in one that's from a non-partisan firm, and Bush leading in one that's from a Republican firm. Both are polls of likely voters. Because of the hurricanes, likely voters may be the better group to look at, because many registered voters may end up not turning out because they are attending to more immediate concerns. Still, Bush is, at best, only a couple of points ahead, and that's if you believe only the Republican pollster.

In Ohio, more mixed results over the past few days, but even the Republican poll that shows the biggest Bush lead of six points among likely voters, also shows a trend toward Kerry; Bush's lead was ten points prior to the debates. Another non-partisan (but push-button phone) poll has Bush up by only two at 49%, while a third non-partisan poll done for the Chicago Tribune has Kerry up four.

Kerry probably has New Hampshire's four EVs, as he either leads or is tied with Bush in all four polls taken since October 4. Polling ties go to Kerry, based on the undecideds rule.

In two polls taken in October in Nevada, each candidate leads one.

By themselves, no one cares about New Hampshire and Nevada because the two states only total 9 EVs, so Kerry would need another Bush state, such as Colorado, with 9 EVs. Gallup and Zogby both show the candidates neck and neck, although the push-button phone pollster Survey USA has Bush up eight. If that's true, Bush should hold Colorado, but lots of evidence there that Kerry is doing well, as is Senate candidate Ken Salazar in his race against Peter Coors.

[Of course, Kerry could win by losing Colorado if the state question there passes requiring Colorado to apportion its EVs based on popular vote. That would hand Kerry 4 EVs and possibly the election, at least until SCOTUS gets involved.]

Arkansas seems to be either tied or Bush up by six, with most observers believing the latter. But with a popular Democrat up for reelection in the Senate and the possibility that the Big Dog might come to the state if his heart heals up in time, there is hope here for Kerry.

OK, that may not seem like a lot for Kerry to hang his hat on, beyond Ohio and Florida, so let's put Missouri back on the board. Bush had opened up a consistent six point lead there before the debates, and it looked like the Dems might concede the state, but two recent polls show Bush leading by only about two points, back in the danger zone for an incumbent.

On the other hand, Charlie Cook argues that we should be looking at national polls, and if one candidate wins by more than a percentage point nationally, chances are that candidate will with the Electoral College. However, if the candidates are within a percentage point, the outcome will basically be left to chance, and all this prognosticating about this state or that is a waste of time:

If the margin in this race is more than one percentage point, the Electoral College vote won't matter, if it is inside of one percent, then there are too many states that are too close and the state level polling, even the good ones, won't be of much use, much less these three-dollar state polls that are flying over the internet.

"Did you hear what Kerry said that about Mary Cheney?" -- Some possible responses

2004-10-17T23:27:00.000-05:00

(1) "I know! I guess the Republicans just don't know how to take a complement!"
(2) "No, but I did hear that 10 more soldiers died this week in Iraq."
(3) "Yes, and did you hear what the President said? He said Mary Cheney should have fewer rights than me and you... unless, of course... are you gay too?"
(4) "You know what? I think it took Mary Cheney as much courage to come out of the closet publicly as it took John Kerry to face bullets in Vietnam. And I bet he admires that in her. In fact, I know he does, cause he said so at the debate!"
(5) "If you're gonna tell me you're offended... let me tell you something, at least John Kerry didn't lie about her war record and denigrate her service to the country. He simply stated something Dick Cheney already told us, and he complemented her for it."
(6) "Mary Cheney? Isn't she Dick Cheney's LESBIAN daughter?"
(7) "I didn't watch the debates because I was busy trying to figure out how to pay for the increase in my medical insurance."
(8) "I sure CAN believe John Kerry would point out that Mary Cheney is a person, who didn't choose to be gay just to piss off her dad, but is gay because she was born that way. And if Lynn Cheney has a problem with that, she has a serious problem."
(9) "So what's so bad about being a lesbian?"
(10) "Abso-fucking-lutely. It's about time we had a president who isn't afraid to be politically incorrect! It's about time we had someone who'll call a spade a spade, a liar a liar, a tax cut for the rich a tax cut for the rich, and a lesbian a lesbian!"

Three Strike and You're Out, Pal

2004-10-14T22:12:00.000-05:00

Before I go any further, what was up with the President's smirk last night? W had some kind of bad, home-on-the-range suntan and a crazy smirk. Jon thinks it was Botox. But I think it was kind of like when you're out in a club and you meet some nerdy guy who's trying to look like a player in front of his friends. I don't know what caused it, but W had this "hey, baby" demeanor that really creeped me out. I was actually sitting there thinking, "Wow, his angry chimp expressions in the first debate actually had more class than THIS." Who would have thought he could look LESS presidential?

Anyway, it was his third debate and he was freakish and strange in all three "at bats" so he shouldn't be allowed to be President. Don't we have a Three-Strikes Rule? Apparently not, so I'll just move on. Here are my top-ten favorite moments from last night's debate.

FAVORITE MOMENT ONE: THE FLU BUG
QUESTION: Suddenly we find ourselves with a severe shortage of flu vaccine. How did that happen?

BUSH: We have a problem with litigation in the United States of America. Vaccine manufacturers are worried about getting sued, and therefore they have backed off from providing this kind of vaccine.

One of the reasons I'm such a strong believer in legal reform is so that people aren't afraid of producing a product that is necessary for the health of our citizens and then end up getting sued in a court of law.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/13/debate.transcript/index.html#q2

My first thought when I heard this was, "Jesus H. Christ, I don't WANT a flu shot! I'm GLAD they don't have enough. Obviously, the flu shots have killed or injured some people and the manufacturer got SUED. It sounds like they haven't quite worked out the kinks in that stuff. So I will be sticking to the EmerGenC until they figure out how to make a safe product."

I meant to FactCheck his answer and find out how many people the flu vaccine has killed, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

FAVORITE MOMENT TWO: LEARN TO DRIVE THE BIG RIGS
QUESTION: Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?

BUSH: I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/13/debate.transcript/index.html#q4

So, let me get this straight, if you're a CPA who also has an MBA and you lose your job, because Ernst & Young can pay a CPA/MBA in India $10,000 dollars a year instead of paying you $100,000 dollars a year, then the solution lies in your going to community college?

I have to admit that I don't have an answer for this question, but I don't think that the solution lies in "learning to drive the big rigs" at truck-driving school. Maybe he should have suggested that we all get supplemental training in bartending. Because there will always be a need for bartenders, especially when the economy is bad and people start drowning their troubles in booze. What a jackass!

"And so the person you talked to, I say, here's some help, here's some trade adjustment assistance money for you to go a community college in your neighborhood, a community college which is providing the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century.

"And that's what I would say to that person."

FAVORITE MOMENT THREE: THE LEFT BANK
BUSH: You know, there's a main stream in American politics and you sit right on the far left bank. As a matter of fact, your record is such that Ted Kennedy, your colleague, is the conservative senator from Massachusetts.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/13/debate.transcript/index.html#q5

I know that this was pre-scripted. I know that there's no way this came out of George W. Bush's brain. But it's funny! I chuckled a little. I especially love how they even worked in a little slam on the French, with a reference to the "Left Bank." What can I say? I'm not changing my vote, but I respect quality comedy.

FAVORITE MOMENT FOUR: I'M CATHOLIC, IS THAT SO WRONG?
KERRY: I grew up a Catholic. I was an altar boy. I know that throughout my life this has made a difference to me.

And as President Kennedy said when he ran for president, he said, "I'm not running to be a Catholic president. I'm running to be a president who happens to be Catholic."

My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, "What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead." And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people. That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.

But I know this, that President Kennedy in his inaugural address told all of us that here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own. And that's what we have to -- I think that's the test of public service.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/13/debate.transcript/index.html#q7

Okay, so I'm biased. I love that moment because I'm Catholic. I grew up in the 70s, with activist priests and an American Catholic church that was committed to fighting for social justice. The hot, young priest in my area of the city was a guy named Father Michael Pflaeger who led protests against racism and economic inequality. I had a crush on him, but that's a story for another time.

Anyway, I grew up in the era of Sister Helen Prejean, who wrote articles like "Would Jesus Pull the Switch?" My Catholic heroes were Dorothy Day, Mother Teresa and St. Joan of Arc. We were taught that the Catholic ethic was to serve God by serving mankind, and that having a social conscience was a part of having a religious conscience. Twentieth century Catholics were workers, Union supporters and Democrats. I am politically progressive, partially, because of my religious background. It felt good to hear someone say it.

Also, I'm glad he invoked Kennedy. I want some Camelot, don't you? I want to see the President cycling with Lance Armstrong. Not bass fishing with Roland Martin. I want to see rockstars and moviestars and, for chrissakes, EUROPEANS return to the White House. Everytime we see a White House event on TV these days, it's full of either loud Texans or Dick Cheney's slimy business pals. Yech!

FAVORITE MOMENT FIVE: THE BUGGY AND HORSE DAYS
BUSH: One of the reasons why there's still high cost in medicine is because this is -- they don't use any information technology. It's like if you looked at the -- it's the equivalent of the buggy and horse days, compared to other industries here in America. And so, we've got to introduce high technology into health care. We're beginning to do it.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/13/debate.transcript2/index.html#q8

Are they still using leeches down in Crawford, Texas? Because I have a lot of complaints about the healthcare system in this country, but I wouldn't say that the problem is "lack of technology." I went in to get checked for a lung condition and they had me hooked up to EKGs and lung-imaging and things that I don't quite understand. You should see my inhaler. It looks like something that I could jet-pack into the office with, it's so very Jetsons. Not to mention the fact that everyone and their mother, literally, is getting MRIs and IVF and gene therapy. Fifty-year olds are having triplets.

Maybe that's why he's against stem-cell research. He thinks they extract the stem cells using parasitical worms and pagan chants. He needs to turn off Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman and watch some of the medical shows on The Discovery Channel. Or at least E.R., for crying out loud.

FAVORITE MOMENT SIX: TEXAS IS BETTER WITHOUT ME
BUSH: Well, to say that the borders are not as protected as they were prior to September the 11th shows he doesn't know the borders. They're much better protected today than they were when I was the governor of Texas.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/13/debate.transcript2/index.html#q12

Tee-hee!

FAVORITE MOMENT SEVEN: BE COOL, STAY IN SCHOOL
QUESTION: The gap between rich and poor is growing wider. More people are dropping into poverty. Yet the minimum wage has been stuck at, what, $5.15 an hour now for about seven years. Is it time to raise it?

BUSH: Let me talk about what's really important for the worker you're referring to. And that's to make sure the education system works. It's to make sure we raise standards. Listen, the No Child Left Behind Act is really a jobs act when you think about it.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/13/debate.transcript2/index.html#q13

Boy, the President is REALLY focused on education! Everytime somebody says something about jobs or outsourcing or income, he starts going on and on about how crappy the grade schools are or about how much you can learn at community college.

Actually, I think he has a good point here. If W had paid more attention, back when he was still in school, we would all be a lot better off. We would have a President who could say words like "nuclear" and "Silvio Berlusconi."

FAVORITE MOMENT SEVEN: HUNTING
KERRY: I am a hunter. I'm a gun owner. I've been a hunter since I was a kid, 12, 13 years old. And I respect the Second Amendment and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/debate.transcript3/index.html#q16

John, skeet shooting at prep school doesn't count as "hunting." When you tell Americans that you're a "hunter" you are, in effect, telling them that you wear ugly outfits while getting piss-drunk with a bunch of jackasses and killing defenseless creatures for no real reason. Even the dimmest American knows that YOU, bless your heart, don't go "hunting."

So just tell us you're a gun "collector," or some shit like that, and call it a day. If you tell us that Teresa is a gun "collector" even the NRA will leave you alone--hell, they might ENDORSE you! They know you won't cross your billionaire wife by legislating against something she loves.

FAVORITE MOMENT EIGHT: A RICHARD GERE MOMENT
BUSH: I love the fact that people pray for me and my family all around the country. Somebody asked me one time, "Well, how do you know?" I said, "I just feel it."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/debate.transcript3/index.html#q18

Remember when Richard Gere freaked everyone out at the Oscars by talking about sending prayer waves to Deng Xiaoping? Magazines were writing about that for, like, months afterwards. It was even one of the E! Channel Freakiest Celebrity Moments, or whatever. So why didn't anybody think it was nutty when, during a political debate, the President talked about receiving prayer waves? Instead, everybody was "touched by his faith." Good grief!

FAVORITE MOMENT NINE: JOHN MCCAIN LOVES ME BETTER
BUSH: My opponent keeps mentioning John McCain, and I'm glad he did. John McCain is for me for president because he understands I have the right view in winning the war on terror and that my plan will succeed in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/debate.transcript3/index.html#q19

I'm going out on a limb here. I've chosen this as one of my Favorite Debate Moments because I think that John McCain is going to be the "October Surprise."

I used to think that Ossama bin Laden was going to be the Bush people's "October Surprise," aka, "last-minute dirty trick." I thought they'd caught him long ago and were holding him in some undisclosed location. I was sure that they were being sly, and saving their biggest sucker punch for the last minute. However, after watching all three debates, they have convinced me that this Administration is actually pretty incompetent. I am finally convinced that they are genuinely too inept to find a rather distinctive-looking 6'7" tall man who has to take dialysis several times each week.

Now I think that Republican John McCain will provide the "Republican October Surprise" this year. I think he is going to say or do something in the final days that will give John Kerry a helping hand. He and John Kerry have worked on a lot of legislation together. They've been "Senate Buddies." And they are both Vietnam Vets who have had their military service screwed over by George W. Bush. When (okay, IF) that happens then this will be a particularly poignant statement in hindsight.

FAVORITE MOMENT TEN: NO SPEECHIFYIN'
BUSH: When I asked Laura to marry me, she said, "Fine, just so long as I never have to give a speech."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/debate.transcript3/index.html#q20

This is my final Favorite Debate Moment. It's kind of weak, but I like this moment because I think it's sad that our President has such poor diction that the woman he proposed marriage to automatically assumed that she would have to spend the rest of her life speaking for him. I guess this is one of those moments that truly illustrates the word "poignant." It's poignant because it's amusing, but painfully sad. It is oh so very sad that this man is the leader of our nation.

There's something (relevant) about (mentioning) Mary

2004-10-14T16:40:00.000-05:00

And on the subject of Mary Cheney. The Republicans are claiming that Kerry's mention that Mary is a lesbian was somehow a low blow in the debate. I disagree completely. Here's Andrew Sullivan, gay conservative, on the subject:

All Kerry did was invoke the veep's daughter to point out that obviously homosexuality isn't a choice, in any meaningful sense. The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to "victimization" is if you believe someone's sexual orientation is something shameful.
In many speeches on marriage rights, I cite Mary Cheney. Why? Because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of people like president Bush and Dick and Lynne Cheney who don't believe gays are anti-family demons but want to win the votes of people who do. I'm not outing any gay person. I'm outing the double standards of straight ones. They've had it every which way for decades, when gay people were invisible. Now they have to choose.

The Debates: Winner-Take-All

2004-10-14T16:26:00.000-05:00

I think Kerry won last night’s debate, hands down, despite the fact that Bush turned in his best performance. Unfortunately for the president, that's not saying much.

Inexplicably reprising Al Gore’s “three faces” debate performance from 2000, Bush tried on an odd “just keep grinnin’” persona that worked only marginally better than his strange “charge around the stage and yell” persona from the town hall debate. Both, of course, were far superior to the president’s disastrous and troubling first-debate "furious George" persona. Kerry, by contrast, was solid on all three occasions. Calm and collected, much warmer than expected, in command of facts, and generally, far more presidential than the president.

An observer who is neutral on the issues can now look at Kerry and say, “I can believe this guy as President,” while looking at Bush and saying, “I can’t believe this guy is the President!”

After the debates, Kerry seems a much warmer, likeable, albeit serious, person than I had thought of him before, and also compared with Bush. I did not see warm and likeable. I saw cold and strange. Anyway, there have been three winning challengers in the era of presidential debates (Carter 1976, Reagan 1980, Clinton 1992), and all three helped themselves in the debates by being seen alongside the president and measuring up against the incumbent. But none of those three so clearly "out-presidentialed" the president the way Kerry did.

Substantively, Bush didn’t really lay a glove on Kerry where it mattered, which was tagging him with the liberal label, which is apparently going to be the president’s stretch-run strategy. So the caricature he will draw of Kerry the liberal will not have much resonance with those who saw the real Kerry during the debates. I think Kerry goes on to victory from here. It just doesn’t seem credible to me that undecideds will not break his way and that the GOP GOTV machine will outwork the Democrats. Oh, and P.S. -- I've always thought Karl Rove was overrated.

Here are some snippets from around the blogosphere:

Noam Scheiber: I've never thought the chances of John Kerry winning this fall were very good, since it's become clear these last four years that George W. Bush and his advisers are more cynical and ruthless than pretty much any group of politicos in the country's history. I figured that even if the race got close--or, God forbid, Kerry surged to a late lead--Rove et al. would pull some dirty trick and that would be that. This may still happen--the forthcoming anti-Kerry "documentary" being exhibit A in this brief. But, after last night, I'm not sure it matters. Kerry won so decisively I don't see many ways for Bush to recover.

Tom Schaller on Bush’s three faces:
Bush Version 1 was The Pouter;
Bush Version 2 was The Shouter; and
Bush Version 3 was The Doubter.

Version 1 and 2 have been thoroughly discussed, so let me clarify the third label by reminding people to go back and look at how Kerry hammered him on assault weapons and on employment. Bush reflexively started incongruously talking about No Child Left Behind in response to the latter; heck, I'm surprised he didn't try to work in NCLB as somehow a solution to the assault weapons problem. A giant, unfunded federal mandate for testing, but not resourcing our children's schools - it's the panacea to all America's problems! He has serious doubts about almost all of his policies, and it shows. That's why he's only comfortable talking about himself and how great a leader he is, in the abstract. When he looks more carefully, even he doubts the claims he's been trotted out there to make. (Eye dart, semi-wink, phony smile.)

Matthew Yglesias: A clear win for John Kerry. The reason, I think, is that even though both sides won some rounds, Kerry won the important rounds, on health care and jobs. Especially on jobs. It's easy for the professional media to overlook the extent to which jobs overshadow talk about, say, the deficit since, by definition, media professionals are not unemployed. Nor do media professionals live in the areas of the country that are afflicted by job losses. But in Ohio, West Virginia, and elsewhere that stuff's a huge deal and all Bush said to people who are hurting is that they should go back to school. It's pretty insulting for a president (especially this president) to suggest that the reason folks are struggling is that they're too dumb.

From the American Prospect's Tapped: BOTOX? Curiously, George W. Bush's trademark smirk was replaced by a half-frown tonight during the debate. If you looked closely, the right corner of Bush's mouth turned down, as though the muscles had gone slack. Bush's trademark smirk was replaced by a half-frown tonight during the debate. If you looked closely, the right corner of Bush's mouth turned down, as though the muscles had gone slack....Could it be that the Prez got a hit of Botox to freeze his "sneer muscle" before the debate? Just curious.

An Even Crazier Republican

2004-10-13T19:42:00.000-05:00

You already know that Alan Keyes isn't the only certifiably crazy Republican candidate this year. You may recall that Jon introduced us to Oklahoma Senate candidate, Tom Coburn, earlier this month. I'm sure Jon's article made you wonder the same thing I did: where does a potty-mouth, who uses phrases like "crap heads," gets the nerve to call himself a Christian? Some God-fearing person should write Mr. Tom Coburn a letter!

Sadly, as crazy as they are, neither Coburn nor Keyes is the craziest Republican running this year. That title goes to James L. Hart, Republican candidate for the 8th Congressional District in the great state of Tennessee. Mr. Hart is running on a platform of solid, 19th Century science: Eugenics.

Who is James L. Hart?
James Hart wants to bring jobs and industry back to America! He says that America is losing jobs "Because genes have a more devastating effect on civilization than nuclear bombs, and the reason for Detroit's decline is that there are less 'favored races' in Detroit with an average IQ of 85 and more 'favored races' in Japan with an average IQ of 104."
http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/

James Hart wants to fight for you! You are white? Aren't you? And by "white" I mean, of course, not Jewish, or athiest, or a woman. If not, then James Hart doesn't actually want to fight for you. Sorry. "The proletariat is composed of less 'favored races' and less favored socio biological classes. These worthless bums from the slum could not tie their own shoes let alone run the government."
http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/

James Hart is all about the benjamins, baby. Although he is probably unfamiliar with the phrase "all about the benjamins." Anyway, his "first task as congressman will to be vote to issue usury free dollars, only then can I cut your taxes."
http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/

James Hart has an almost Clintonian mastery of public policy details: "Do you realize that without unions and tariffs to protect us American workers would still be working for 11 cents a day like a Chinese coolie?"
http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/

James Hart wants to end Washington's fiscal irresponsibility. "As the workers generally frown on tax increases and the proletariat slum denizens vote for those who give them entitlements, the brilliant financial genius in Washington came up with the veritable Aladdin's lamp of funding for unlimited government spending."
http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/

James Hart is so crazy that he even has a "manifesto!"

The President Gets a Do-Over

2004-10-11T20:20:00.000-05:00

This year's second Presidential debate wasn't nearly as entertaining as the first one. I mean, whether you love him or hate him, you have to admit that George W. Bush was hilarious in the first debate! I probably shouldn't laugh, because it really isn't funny that the Leader of the Free World was on the "TV screens" looking like a chimp. But, come on, he said "it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can" about some poor woman who'd lost her husband in Iraq. Oh, God, you're right. That isn't funny, it's sick!

Anyway, the President was a lot better put together during the second debate. He wasn't nearly as flustered or bizarre. Which, I guess, is good. At least he isn't a total chimp. After all, he was able to pull himself together and look smarter in the second debate. But should the President of the United States really need a do-over? I mean, for crying out loud, we weren't asking him to split the atom. All he needed to do was answer questions and look smart for 90 minutes. People who can't do that don't even qualify for jobs at Wal-Mart. I'm serious! If you stood at the entrance to Wal-Mart with an angry chimp expression on your face and you couldn't tell people which aisle the lawnmowers are in, your ass would get fired. Am I wrong?

But I digress, here are my top-ten favorite moments from the second debate.

FAVORITE MOMENT ONE: CHARLIE GIBSON, YOU'VE BEEN SERVED!
KERRY: We're going to build alliances. We're not going to go unilaterally. We're not going to go alone like this president did.

GIBSON: Mr. President, let's extend for a minute --

BUSH: Let me just -- I've got to answer this.

GIBSON: Exactly. And with Reservists being held on duty --

(CROSSTALK)

BUSH: Let me answer what he just said, about around the world.

GIBSON: Well, I want to get into the issue of the back-door draft --

BUSH: You tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Tony Blair we're going alone! Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland we're going alone.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript/index.html#q6

I hope you watched the debate and got a chance to actually see that exchange, because the transcript just can't do it justice. I'm not saying this to be mean, I seriously felt that our President was about to curse out Charlie Gibson. If you missed it, click here and watch the sparks fly!

Also, listen to him butcher Silvio Berlusconi's name. If I were John Kerry, I would have followed up on this by walking over to the President and saying, very slowly and super loud, "Sill-Vee-Oh" "Burr-Luh-Skoh-Nee" and just walking away.

Again, we're not asking him to produce cold fusion. We just want him to be able to refer to his colleagues by name.

FAVORITE MOMENT TWO: IS MY TIME UP YET?
BUSH: Is my time up yet?

GIBSON: No, you can keep going.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: Good. You looked at me like my clock was up.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript2/index.html

I have very personal reasons for liking this moment. First, because his facial expression was that of the confused terrier that I loved so much in the first debate.

Secondly, I found the quaint phrase "my clock was up" charming. Stupid, but charming. And because it made me yell at the TV. "Yes!" I cried, "Your clock is up! Go back to Texas!"

FAVORITE MOMENT THREE: CAN'T SEE THE FORESTS FOR THE TREES
QUESTION: What specifically has your administration done to improve the condition of our nation's air and water supply?

BUSH: We proposed and passed a healthy forest bill which was essential to working with -- particularly in Western states -- to make sure that our forests were protected.

What happens in those forests, because of lousy federal policy, is they grow to be -- they are not -- they're not harvested. They're not taken care of. And as a result, they're like tinderboxes.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript2/index.html

Trilbe's First Follow-Up Question: You "improved the condition of our air and water supply" by reducing the number of trees? Did you mispeak? Or are you serious? And by "serious," I mean to say "seriously insane."

Trilbe's Second Follow-Up Question: Tree "harvesting"?

Trilbe's Third Follow-Up Question: Forests are fire hazards because they have so many trees?

Trilbe's Final Follow-Up Question: Are you drunk, Mr. President?

FAVORITE MOMENT FOUR: THE PRESIDENT HAS WOOD
KERRY: The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just not right.

BUSH: I own a timber company?

(LAUGHTER)

That's news to me.

(LAUGHTER)

Need some wood?

(LAUGHTER)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript3/index.html

This moment follows shortly after the "tree harvesting" moment, so I found it doubly amusing. Tee-hee! I also like his asking "Need some wood?" because it shows that, when W doesn't get re-elected this November, he can do Viagra ads like Bob Dole.

FAVORITE MOMENT FIVE: I KNOW SUPERMAN
KERRY: Chris Reeve is a friend of mine. Chris Reeve exercises every single day to keep those muscles alive for the day when he believes he can walk again, and I want him to walk again.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript3/index.html

Some of you may not like this, because this is an example John Kerry being a jackass.

NOTE TO DEMOCRATS: When you are lagging in the polls behind a guy who can't say "nuclear," because more Americans think "he's just a regular guy" don't, I repeat, do not refer to movie stars familiarly, using a nickname.

And then don't tell us that he's a close personal friend of yours. Yeah, it's cool that you're down with the handicapped guy. And, yeah, America loves Mr. Christopher Reeve. But he's a movie star. And if people can picture you hanging with Superman and calling him "Chris" next they're going to see you going to Kaballah with Madonna and Guy, or talking about chicks with Matt and Ben. And, FYI, that's not good.

FAVORITE MOMENT SIX: THE SUPREMES
QUESTION: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

BUSH: I'm not telling.

(LAUGHTER)

I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.

(LAUGHTER)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript3/index.html

Do you mean "voting for you" the way that the Supreme Court did in the 2000 election? Are you sure you want to remind America that you got elected by judges voting for you and not by the American public?

FAVORITE MOMENT SEVEN: IT GETS WORSE!
Note: This is a continuation of his answer from above. It was crazy enough to deserve it's own "Favorite Moment" spot.

BUSH: I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript3/index.html

First, I was charmed by his saying that the Dred Scott case, which obviously preceded the Civil War, happened "years ago." I got an image of his people preparing him for this question by telling him a fairy tale. "Dred Scott happened long ago, George. Way back in the before time..."

Secondly, I hate it, but the Constitution does define slavery in terms of property rights there's even some crazy math in there about how slaves are factored into electing our Congressmen. Now, I'm not nit-picking here about details like, has the war thus far cost $120 billion dollars or $200 billion dollars? Or, have we lost 1.6 million U.S. jobs or 800,000 U.S. jobs? I could even cut him some slack if he'd mixed up "Dred Scott" with "Brown v. Board of Education," and thought that "Dred Scott" was something that happened "years ago," back in the 1950s. But shouldn't the President of the United States know what's in the Constitution? Again, I'm not asking him to cure cancer, just pass an 8th-grade civics test.

Finally, I was charmed by the fact that he has assured us that he will pick anti-slavery Supreme Court Justices. Whew! That's comforting. After all, he's from Texas so that wasn't necessarily a given.

FAVORITE MOMENT EIGHT: UH-OH! SOMEBODY ASKED ABOUT ABORTION
QUESTION: Sen. Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.
But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.

But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.

Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro-abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.

You'll help prevent AIDS. You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies. You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript3/index.html

Now, you all know that John Kerry is my guy. He's my candidate and I'm voting for him. But, bless his heart, John Kerry has trouble giving clear, concise answers. That's why I was so amazed by his answer to this question. It was an unambiguous, easy-to-understand answer to a complex question. That's what made the President's response to it, my Favorite Moment Nine, so darned precious!

FAVORITE MOMENT NINE: WHAT'S THAT "FREEDOM OF RELIGION" NONSENSE ALL ABOUT?
KERRY: ...I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith...

BUSH: I'm trying to decipher that.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript3/index.html

FAVORITE MOMENT TEN: MISTAKES? NO SIREE!
QUESTION: President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript3/index.html

I swear to Christ I would called him the debate winner, despite his apparent unfamiliarity with the Constitution, if he'd answered this question with something like,

Mistake One: "I ordered the brisket for lunch, once. I had received some bad intelligence that told me the brisket was good. But that Frenchie we got workin' in the kitchen can't make a good brisket to save his ass! I hear he tried once and then just surrendered. Hee-haw! Anyway, when I found out that the brisket was bad, know what I did? I ate it. That's right. You don't change sandwiches in midstream! I ate the brisket. That's what a leader does. He eats the brisket, even when it's bad."

Mistake Two: "I once lost a poker game to Barney, the White House dog. But that little sucker has a poker face you wouldn't believe! He's black, you know. And I guess I'm just not good at tellin' you what they're thinkin'. I guess that's why I'm a Republican. Hee-haw! Anyway, this is another example of U.S. intelligence failure. An Intelligence Czar could have warned me that the terrier was drawing a Royal Flush!"

Mistake Three: "Well, a pretzel almost killed me."

Forget about the dead people in Iraq. Forget about the record deficits. Forget about telling the terrorists to "Bring 'em on!" All he had to do was answer the damn question and admit three small mistake here, and I would have considered him the winner of this debate. But he didn't. Instead, he said this...

BUSH: I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them little, like appointments to boards you never heard of, and some of them big.

And in a war, there's a lot of -- there's a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say: He shouldn't have done that. He shouldn't have made that decision. And I'll take responsibility for them. I'm human.

But on the big questions, about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I'll stand by those decisions, because I think they're right.

That's really what you're -- when they ask about the mistakes, that's what they're talking about. They're trying to say, "Did you make a mistake going into Iraq?" And the answer is, "Absolutely not." It was the right decision.

The Duelfer report confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program. And the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

We knew he hated us. We knew he'd been -- invaded other countries. We knew he tortured his own people.

On the tax cut, it's a big decision. I did the right decision. Our recession was one of the shallowest in modern history.

Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV.

(LAUGHTER)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript3/index.html

Justice

2004-10-11T19:25:00.000-05:00

My least favorite part of voting in Illinois is the section at the back of the ballot where we have to vote for or against about a million-and-one different judges. Some people, like my dad, clip articles about judges from the paper all year and then make a list, based on those news clippings, at election time. Like, my dad will read an article about a certain difficult court case that he felt was decided well and he'll clip the article and make a note of the judge's name. And, of course, if a judge or close family member gets embroiled in a scandal he will also clip that article.

I, on the other hand, read the articles and then immediately forget the judge's name. Then when it comes time to either retain or release judges, I just use my best guess. Well, that's not 100% accurate. I do have a formula for selecting judges, but it's really stupid. See, since most of the Cook County Juges are white, male and overwhelmingly Irish-American, I vote for judicial diversity. I vote for women. And I will vote for pretty much anyone with an ethnic name. Like, what do Justice Rajiv Patel, Justice Avi Rosenberg, and Justice Takweesha Jackson all have in common? Answer, they're all getting Trilbe's vote! Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that the O'Malleys and the Ryans and the Sullivans are a great bunch of guys. I'm just trying to give Avi an "Atta boy!" for having the chutzpah to run, know what I mean?

Well, this year is going to be different! I'm going to be a better citizen. I have the IVI-IPO list of recommendations and I'm going to use that to choose judges. And this year I'm going to check my ballot to make sure that there are no hanging chads. I don't think my judicial votes were even counted in the last election because I'm sure I used my stylus incorrectly.

Kerry wins on points but can't get the KO

2004-10-10T23:51:00.000-05:00

My take on Friday's debate is that Kerry blew a great opportunity to knock George W. Bush out of the ring. Will Saleton outlines it in painful detail here, as does John Judis here. I couldn't believe that Kerry let Bush get away with the ridiculous argument that the Duelfer report in any way bolsters the administration's rationale for going to war in Iraq. Nor did Kerry mention Paul Bremer's remarks from last week, nor did he mention Friday's dismal jobs report. He also let the rightward leanings of the women who asked questions about stem cell research and abortion throw him off, resulting in muddled answers on issues where his position is clearly favored.

But both ABC and CNN post-debate polls showed narrow Kerry wins among debate viewers, and the latter poll had more Republicans in it than Democrats. Perhaps those polls suggest not so much that Kerry won the debate, Judis argues, but that he is actually winning the race.

Can Kerry close the deal on Wednesday? The original conventional wisdom on the debates was that domestic policy was Kerry's strength, but it turns out that foreign policy is where this election is being fought and it's where the President is the most defensive. Bush seemed to do better in the domestic portion of Friday's debate -- ironic, since he really has no domestic policy -- but seemingly relieved to be off the subject of Iraq and into an area where he can fall back on liberal-baiting. I think Kerry has his work cut out for him on Wednesday.

W's week from hell: a summary

2004-10-08T07:52:00.000-05:00

Excellent summary of Bush's week from hell:
BAD WEEK....It's been a bad week for the White House. I think it's worth summarizing just how bad:
Thursday:
George Bush gets his butt kicked by John Kerry in the first presidential debate.
Saturday:
Partly due to Bush's dismal debate performance, polls indicate that Kerry is catching up. Bush's lead appears to have been reduced to 2-3 points.
Monday:
Donald Rumsfeld admits that Saddam Hussein didn't have any substantial ties to al-Qaeda. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two." After his statement is reported, he tries unsucessfully to claim that he was "misunderstood."
Later Monday:
The CIA agrees with Rumsfeld. The linchpin of the administration's case for collaboration between Saddam and al-Qaeda has been Saddam's alleged "harboring" of terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but a CIA report concludes that it probably didn't happen. "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything," said an official who read the report.
Tuesday:
Paul Bremer admits that the administration made a big mistake by not having enough troops in Iraq. "The single most important change -- the one thing that would have improved the situation -- would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout" the occupation. When his statement becomes public, Bremer complains that his remarks were "off the record." For its part, the Bush administration tries to claim that Bremer was lying, but is forced to backtrack almost immediately when it becomes apparent that Bremer did ask for more troops as far back as July 2003.
Later Tuesday: Dick Cheney initially appears to fight John Edwards to a near draw in the vice presidential debate, but before long attention shifts to Cheney's numerous and obvious lies during the debate. This is likely to be the consensus post-debate talking point.
Wednesday:
Weapons inspector Charles Duelfer releases his final report. He says that
Saddam Hussein destroyed all his WMD after 1991, had no WMD programs in place after that, and that his capacity to build WMD was actually deteriorating after 1998, not increasing.
Thursday:
Polls show that Bush has lost nearly his entire lead. The race is now a dead heat. AP/Ipsos actually shows Kerry ahead.
That's a bad week. I wonder how George Bush will be feeling when he takes the stage tomorrow? A little bit nervous, perhaps?
Add to that today's disappointing jobs report. -- jh

And now this on the so-called link between Saddam and al Qaeda

2004-10-08T07:41:00.000-05:00

Just happened across this State Dept. list posted Nov. 10, 2001:

Countries Where al Qaeda Has Operated:

Albania, Algeria, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium Bosnia, Egypt, Eritrea, France, Germany, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan, Yemen

There is, of course, one glaring omission.

The President's Secret Weapon

2004-10-07T15:21:00.000-05:00

The best quote of the day has come from Sam Seder. Sam reported earlier this morning that John Kerry will spend all day Thursday preparing for his Friday debate with the President. The Kerry campaign is getting ready to face what they expect will be the Bush campaign's secret weapon: complete sentences.

Yes, the President will impress America--and win the debate--by using complete sentences, correct grammar and even a genuine fact!

Actually, I think his previous debate flubs were all a ploy to lower America's expectations. It's all just an act! His chimpiness and confusion were the result of hours of practice. My theory is that his whole persona is just an elaborate performance.

Let's look at the facts:
He's not really from Texas. His wife is, but he isn't. George W. Bush was born in New England, spent his summers at the family compound in New England, went to boarding school in New England, college in New England and then graduate school in New England. When did he have time to develop that hokey accent? His brothers don't have it. That accent, I tell you, is totally fake!

And do you honestly think that his overbearing, patrician mother would let him get away with saying "newk-yew-luhr"? Right! Like Barbara Pierce Bush wouldn't backhand W and tell him to "stop sounding like the help."

Speaking of Bar, how do we even know that W is really the religious maniac that he pretends to be? As Mo Rocca told Larry King, "I think the only time [Barbara Bush]'s liable to use the words 'Jesus Christ' is when the bartender at Kennebunkport mixes a lousy vodka stinger."

Our President spent 4 years at Phillips Academy/Andover followed by 4 years doing college-level cheerleading at Yale and then finished up with a business degree from Harvard. I'm not saying that pedigree had to make him a genius. I'm just saying that cheerleaders have to be able to spell and to pronounce things correctly, all while yelling through a megaphone. George W. Bush isn't as inept as he pretends to be, he was the captain of an Ivy League cheerleading squad, for chrissakes!

The Polls: Hotline sees definite Kerry trend

2004-10-07T12:08:00.000-05:00

The Hotline's state-by-state polling analysis has Kerry in the lead for the first time in quite a while, primarily because a new American Research Group poll of Ohio voters shows Kerry's first lead in the state in two months.

Remember, Kerry needs to win all the Gore states (260 electoral votes), plus pick up ten electoral votes from the Bush-2000 states. With Pennsylvania back in the fold according to the latest polls, and Wisconsin and Iowa trending that way, Kerry appears poised to keep the Gore states. That leaves Florida OR Ohio as the key Bush-2000 states Kerry needs to carry to put him over the top, and he certainly seems to be trending in the right direction in both states. (Kerry seems likely to carry New Hampshire, which narrowly went to Bush in 2000, but it has only four electoral votes.)

OHIO
An American Research Group poll conducted 10/4-6 surveyed 600 likely voters. Margin of error +/- 4% (release, 10/7). For this poll, the likely voter sample was made up of 38%R, 38%D, 24%I/Other. In '00, the state's electorate broke down 37%R, 38%D, 26%I/Other.

Likely Voters
Kerry 48%
Bush 47%
Nader 1%
Undecided 4%

Independent likely voters
Kerry 51%
Bush 43%
Nader 2%
Und 4%

Previous poll 9/20
Kerry 46%
Bush 48%
Nader 1%
Und 5%

WISCONSIN
A Dem poll for Kerry and a GOP poll for Bush, but both show a tighter race.

A Lake Snell Perry (D) poll conducted 10/3-5 for ACT surveyed 600 likely voters. Margin of error +/- 4% (Hotline sources).

Kerry 48%
Bush 44%
Nader 1%
Undec 7%

A Moore Information (R) poll conducted 10/5-6 for their own consumption surveyed 500 likely voters. Margin of error +/- 4% (release, 10/7). For this poll, the voter sample was made up of 38%R, 39%D, 22%I/Other; In '00, the state's electorate broke down 32%R, 37%D, 31%I/Other.

-----Now
Bush 47%
Kerry 45
Undec/Oth 8

-----9/22
Bush 48%
Kerry 45%
Undec/Oth 7%

FLORIDA
Four new polls. Two with Kerry leading; two with Bush leading.

Mason-Dixon --- 10/4-5 +/-4
Bush 48%
Kerry 44

Quinnipiac --- 10/1-5 +/-3
Bush 51%
Kerry 44%

American Research Group --- 10/2-5 +/-4
Bush 45%
Kerry 47%

Hamilton Beattie (D) --- 10/1-4 +/-3.5
Bush 47%
Kerry 49%

Get some post-debate laughs here

2004-10-06T07:53:00.000-05:00

Check out the mp3 called “Hard Work” on Harry Shearer’s site.

Also go to his September 26, 2004 show and click on “John Kerry’s debate prep” to get a clearer understanding of why Kerry did so well in the first debate.

Post-debate polls: Edwards wins

2004-10-06T07:48:00.000-05:00

ABC reported that Cheney “won” the debate, 43% to 35%, but its sample was 38% Republican vs. 30% Democrat, and the rest Independent. If you look into the details, you find that Cheney won bigger among Republicans than Edwards did among Democrats, BUT – most importantly – Edwards won among Independents by about 43%-34%, which is just about the same result as CBS’ poll of undecided voters who watched the debate. They went for Edwards 41%-28%. Check out the Chris Bowers and Andrew Sullivan blogs for the details.

Debate reaction -- Edwards "cleaned Cheney's clock"

2004-10-06T06:58:00.000-05:00

Conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan thinks Edwards won, hands down.

At Slate, pro-Kerry William Saleton says Edwards cleaned his clock, and Kerry-supporter/hater Micky Kaus calls it a draw.

At The New Republic, Noam Scheiber agrees with Saleton, and Ryan Lizza points out that Bush now suffers by comparison with all three candidates.

Edwards on points

2004-10-05T23:56:00.000-05:00

The Republicans were between a rock and a hard place for last night’s debate. Had Cheney performed as poorly as Bush, it would have had a reinforcing effect that would have hurt the ticket and would have put considerably more pressure on the president to perform even better on Friday than he already needs to do. On the other hand, Bush’s vice-president performed so much better than the big guy himself did last Thursday that Bush still suffers by comparison. When is the last time that a vice-president so overshadowed a president in the debates? Now, on Friday, Bush has to outperform both Kerry and Cheney. He can’t just do a little better than last week; he’s got to do a lot better.

As for Edwards, he sat shoulder to shoulder with Cheney, and performed very well. He didn’t look or act like a lightweight and he was more than willing to throw a punch. I thought he was even more appealing sitting down than when he is standing up because it forced him to tone down the act a bit.

Cheney will probably get high marks from relieved Republicans who viewed last night’s debate, and Edwards will likewise get high marks from Democrats worried that he wouldn’t look weighty enough or would be too nice and Lieberman-like.

As for the undecideds – people who clearly don’t like the incumbents or else they would already be committed to them – I would guess Edwards acquitted himself well, going up against a formidable figure, scoring lots of debating points, and coming off as a plausible vice president. Cheney looked tired, drained, and like the president last week, not enthusiastic about being there. He also didn’t answer any of the major charges made by Edwards.

Does Bush really think our allies don't know Iraq was a mistake?

2004-10-05T16:59:00.000-05:00

From Noam Scheiber's Daily Journal of Politics at the New Republic:

This has been bugging me since the debate last Thursday. The president keeps insisting there's no way to get more allies helping out in Iraq if you keep insisting the war was a mistake, as John Kerry does. ("I can imagine him walking into the leaders of the world saying, 'We need your help, but Iraq is a mistake,'" the president said yesterday.)

But isn't the reality exactly the opposite? Pretty much every potential ally in the world thinks Iraq was a mistake. As long as that's the case, don't you stand a greater chance of winning them over by acknowledging this rather than treating them like idiots? If I'm France or Russia, I'm going to be much more receptive to a pitch that says, "Look, we know we screwed up, but we need your help so Iraq doesn't become an even bigger problem than it already is." The alternative pitch--"Hey, everything's going great. We'd still do it the same way if we had it to do all over again. Oh, and by the way, would you mind kicking in a few thousand troops?"--doesn't strike me as so compelling.

What did Bremer ask for and when did he ask for it?

2004-10-05T16:58:00.000-05:00

And in the news today, L.Paul Bremer, who was the first American administrator in Iraq after our catastrophic military success there, says we were short on troops for the occupation. Well, duh!

This from Matthew Yglesias today:

Paul Bremer says he asked the administration for more troops. The administration says he's lying. It's enough to make you wonder why Bush keeps hiring so many liars -- there's Bremer, his predecessor Jay Garner, Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Rand Beers -- more than enough for a good trend piece. But of course as Atrios points out, Bremer isn't lying at all; the administration is.

As I said before, though, I've got no sympathy for Bremer. As Spencer Ackerman writes, Bremer was more than willing to go on national television and say he had plenty of troops when that's what Bush asked him to do. Frankly, it only clouds the case that the force was undersized to rely on the testimony of a weasel like Bremer. The evidence was -- and always has been -- perfectly clear on this point, Bremer's lame effort to revive his reputation notwithstanding.

Hopelessly confused, Rumsie flip-flops on Al Qaeda-Iraq connection

2004-10-05T16:57:00.000-05:00

For God's sake, I can't even keep this straight.

First, Rumsfeld admitted publicly yesterday, rather long-windedly, that there was no credible connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and whadya take me for anyway, an intelligence expert? Read the NYTimes story here, or the Nexis transcript here.

Then he issues a press release saying:

"A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.

"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

"This assessment was based upon points provided to me by then CIA Director George Tenet to describe the CIA's understanding of the Al Qaeda-Iraq relationship."

So I guess that means Rumsfeld is sticking with the discredited intelligence from two years ago? Or that he was forced back onto the Administration's official talking points? Perhaps because Cheney is going to keep insisting that the connection exists in tonight's debate? But why would they do that? Maybe because their polls show that a lot of people still think there was a connection and that's why we went to war? Come to think of it, that must be it.

Rockstars, Hoosiers and the Enemy Lists

2004-10-04T23:12:00.000-05:00

I don't think any of us are swayed by celebrity endorsements. But Rolling Stone has a brilliant Election 2004 issue out right now, and I'm pretty sure you will all appreciate some of the rockstars' comments.

When people ask why this election is so close, I can't explain it. It's like trying to figure out how Billy Ray Cyrus sold 10 million records.
- Jeff Tweedy, WILCO

Among musicians, no one is backing Bush. Except for Ted Nugent, the guy who wears loincloths.
- Tom DeLonge, BLINK-182

I think George Bush is just as much in the dark as I am, and it scares the shit out of me.
- Adam Levine, MAROON 5

He might be a charming guy. But, boy, is he a fucked CEO.
- Mickey Hart, THE DEAD

I don't see why he should be running a baseball team, let alone be president.
- Adam Horovitz, BEASTIE BOYS

For women, our road will always be more difficult - yet all the Bush administration does is put huge potholes in our way.
- Melissa Etheridge

He lost my trust a long time ago, when I woke up in my bed and found out the election had been rigged.
- Jadakiss

People like him because they think he seems like a strong guy who would be good to have a BBQ with. But shouldn't you hold the president to higher standards than who would you like to have a BBQ with?
- Moby

Before he was elected president, he bankrupted three companies, was an alcoholic for a while and had six years of government experience. His decision-making process and communication skills are so bad that there's nothing he can do without pissing off the world.
- Tom DeLonge, BLINK-182

He is like the distant friend who somehow ends up going to the party with you, and you worry he's going to get drunk and say the wrong thing and just start talking craziness. He opens his mouth and I can't trust what's gonna come out of it. By making a fool out of himself, he makes a fool out of all of us.
- Ben Gibbard, DEATH CAB FOR CUTIE

It's like if the world is a room, and everybody is in there, and suddenly somebody walks in who is seething and has headphones on, and the music is playing really loud, and he's armed. That's the way the world sees us. Everyone is on tiptoes, afraid of what this country might do.
- Dave Matthews, DAVE MATTHEWS BAND

Bush doesn't understand that there is so much we can learn from the rest of the world. We're not in the world by ourselves, but we act like we are.
- Will.i.am, BLACK EYED PEAS

It's really one of history's great lost opportunities that we squandered all the good will we enjoyed from the rest of the world after September 11th.
- Mike D, BEASTIE BOYS

He rushed into the war in Iraq abruptly, like a boy playing with a truck: "This is my truck! You stepped on it, so I'm throwing your truck out the window!" It wasn't handled the way a real adult would handle a situation.
- Alicia Keys

I want the killing to stop. I want our soldiers to come home.
- Natalie Maines, DIXIE CHICKS

The real axis of evil is Bush and Cheney.
- Chuck D, PUBLIC ENEMY

The Republicans refuse to talk about issues - they just try and make people who are Christians believe that Bush is the only choice. As a Christian, I am offended and ashamed by that - but then again, I am offended and ashamed by most people who call themselves Christian.
- Art Alexakis, EVERCLEAR

I supported Ralph Nader in 2000, but it's a time of crisis. We have to get a new administration in. All of us who supported Ralph last time should get down on our knees and say, "Can you bow out on October 3rd? We'll get back to the ideals you're fighting for on November 3rd."
- Eddie Vedder, PEARL JAM

Harry Truman said that the one crime more heinous than treason is war profiteering, and yet we have the company that our vice president is still on retainer to - which is illegal - making a huge fortune. Every time the terrorists blow up another pipeline over there, Halliburton makes millions of dollars pasting it back together. They don't even have to be pumping oil to be making money. This is who owns our government now.
- Bob Weir, THE DEAD

I'll take my chances with the guy that's backed by the Sierra Club rather than Halliburton.
- Fat Mike, NOFX

The people who are in charge now are old hands who were involved in the governments of Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. They're radicals and zealots whose attitude is "Bring it on." Some of them want a presence in the Middle East for oil, and some just want a front-row seat for the apocalypse.
- Jackson Browne

You can't cut taxes and conquer the world at the same time. Nobody's ever tried to do that, and the reason is because it's stupid. What part of world history did Bush miss? The way you build an empire is you tax the fuck out of your citizens and draft the fuck outta them, 'cause you have to have an army and you have to feed them.
- Steve Earle

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/6487639

The polarization caused by this election is not good for anyone. I played "Pink Houses" at an Indianapolis Colts game recently, and people booed. This is in Indiana! I've never been booed there in my life. Kerry-Edwards offers us a fresh start.
- John Mellencamp

I had to save the Mellencamp quote for last because that one really hit home for me. I have seen Mellencamp play in Indiana on several occasions. I know, from firsthand experience, what they do in Indiana when Mellencamp sings "Pink Houses". The crowd chants "U-S-A! U-S-A! Num-ber-one! Num-ber-one!" during the chorus while stabbing the "Number One" finger in the air. It is something that has always annoyed me, because that always struck me as being contrary to the point of the song. But it's Indiana, they love their homeboy Mellencamp, and they love the word "America." So I cut them some slack on the annoying chanting-finger waving thing.

What I'm saying here is that, I don't think that John Cougar Mellencamp getting booed in Indiana in the year 2004 is a case of Hoosiers finally reading the lyrics on the disc liner, 20 years later. I think this is a reflection of the "Enemy Lists" that we now have in America. John Mellencamp's support of American family farming and his opposition to a bunch of rich, white-collar guys deciding that blue-collar American kids needed to go fight a questionable foreign war--these mid-western values--have made him campaign against our current President. So now John's on the "Blame America First" list. It doesn't matter that he's a total American patriot--to the point where it's almost corny. No, that doesn't matter. He doesn't support the current President's twisted policies so the word is out that he's anti-USA. That is just so ridiculously wrong.

I saw John Mellencamp play at Farm Aid in Indianapolis in 2001, two weeks after September 11th. That show opened with Willie Nelson, Dave Matthews, and Neil Young coming out onto the stage with John and thanking everyone for coming out to support Farm Aid in what they called "a terrible time of national crisis." John Mellencamp told the crowd that he was proud to be an American and that he was proud that Farm Aid 2001 was at "home" in Indianapolis. He was teary-eyed and, of course, at that point I was crying more than I did at my best friend's wedding.

Mellencamp told us that the Farm Aid board had discussed cancelling the concert that year, but that they decided to go on with the show because Farm Aid is an organization whose heart and soul is all about supporting American values, American traditions and American liberty. We already knew that, of course, because that's what we were all out there to support. John Mellencamp, Willie Nelson and Neil Young had been taking Farm Aid on the road each year and talking about American values and the beauty of the American heartland since the mid-1980s, when nobody in government was talking about it.

John stood before us that afternoon, under the Farm Aid logo of a tractor flying the American flag, and he told us that they founded Farm Aid and did all of the work that it takes to keep the operation running each year because they love our country. He told us that they did Farm Aid each year as an effort to do their part to preserve the American way of life. So, rather than cancel the show, they thought that the nation would be better served by having Farm Aid use its platform to raise money for the 9/11 victims' families that year. So, in 2001, Farm Aid was "The Farm Aid Concert For America".

It was a beautiful moment. We were all crying in the aisles and hugging strangers. I'd already given most of my meager bonus to the Farm Aid Foundation, but I dug down deep and coughed up another $50 for the widows and orphans. John Mellencamp said "God bless America!" and something about praying for our President, who had to guide us through these dark times, and to also pray for all of the people we'd lost. I couldn't tell you exactly what he said because I was sobbing too loudly at that point and my face was buried in some random guy's chest.

It just isn't right that people who genuinely love this country get booed, while our President talks about American values and patriotism and yet has done nothing to show his belief in either American values or patriotism. When he had the opportunity to fight for his country, in a war he supported, he didn't do it. Have we ever seen him volunteer his time and his talent, for free, to do anything for real Americans? John Mellencamp does that every year, throughout the year, when he works for the American family farmer.

Was George W. Bush ever willing to start at the bottom, in some unglamorous job, to work for a cause he believed in? He didn't start his political career by joining the school board, like Michael Moore. He didn't start his public service career by volunteering for Planned Parenthood to help low-income women, the way that Howard Dean did. Was he the prosecutor that created a rape crisis crime unit for the District Attorney's office, over violent objections from both sides of the political aisle? No, that was John Kerry. Was he the lawyer who won a $25 million jury award for a 6-year-old girl whose intestines were sucked out by a faulty pool drain? No, that was John Edwards.

George W. Bush's first act of "public service" was joining the Champagne unit of the Texas Air National Guard to avoid fighting in a war that he supported. Next, he helped two family friends run for the U.S. Senate to avoid completing his obligation to the National Guard. After that, his next "public service" moment came years later in the form of a failed campaign for Congress. Then he took a break from "serving" his countrymen, for 20 years, before running for Governor of the State of Texas.

I don't think George W. Bush is a bad person because he was "born on third and thinks he hit a triple." I think George W. Bush is a bad person because he's a pinch-hitter who disparages the contributions of those who do the fielding and who run the bases and who come up to bat and make an honest base-hit.

Right-wing-nut in Oklahoma may help Dems take Senate

2004-10-04T17:06:00.000-05:00

Oh my God, Trilbe! I’ve found a candidate who could be an even bigger wingnut than Alan Keyes! In fact, this guy actually endorsed Alan Keyes for president in 2000. This would be hilarious if not for the fact that former Rep. Tom Coburn, a Republican (obviously) could actually be elected to the Senate in Oklahoma.

Right now, he appears to be running behind Rep. Brad Carson, a Democrat and Rhodes Scholar who has to bend over backwards to convince Oklahoma voters that he isn’t one of those evil “liberal” Democrats found in Blue States. Although Oklahoma Democrats still have some residual advantage in party identification, the state has been effectively dominated by Republicans since 1994, after about twenty years of gradual movement in that direction.

Coburn, a country doctor who improbably won a House seat in 1994, left voluntarily, as he had said he would, after three terms, and was replaced by Carson. Now, the two are vying for the seat being vacated by longtime Sen. Don Nickles. Coburn won a hard fought primary against the Oklahoma City mayor, thereby demonstrating that a plurality of the state’s Republicans are themselves Keyes-like nut jobs.

But Coburn, who once called Oklahoma legislators “crap heads,” may have made a mistake appearing with Carson yesterday in the august setting of NBC’s Meet the Press, coming off as, well, a bigger wingnut than Alan Keyes. Coburn thinks that doctors who perform abortions should be subject to the death penalty. So it’s not inconsistent enough that a right-to-lifer when it comes to abortion is a supporter of the death penalty – we see that inconsistency all the time – Coburn thinks doctors who perform abortions ought to get the death penalty. There’s a healthy respect for life, for you.

Oklahoma is one of three states where Democrats could take open Republican seats. The others are Colorado and Illinios -- where Obama is a shoo-in against Keyes, who was actually at minus 8% in the last poll I saw. The Democratic candidate is also ahead in Alaska. Meanwhile, several southern Democrats are doing much better than expected defending open Democratic seats. As a result, the Democrats currently have a much better than expected shot at gaining the Senate. If current standings hold, the Dems would have 51 seats after the election, along with moderate Vermont Republican Jim Jeffords, who caucuses with the Democrats. Jeffords, however, could be joined after the election by his collleague, Sen. Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, who is making noises to that effect.

Going Upriver: See it now!

2004-10-04T07:19:00.000-05:00

I like a good documentary. I have always been lukewarm about Michael Moore. He takes on topics I generally agree with, and his films are entertaining, but his arguments are often over the top and a little too conspiratorial for my taste. Thus it is refreshing to have another documentary to talk about prior to Election Day. “Going Upriver” chronicles John Kerry’s Vietnam experience and then, primarily, his contribution to the anti-war movement after he got home. It is not a simple campaign bio film; indeed, Kerry’s campaign has largely tried to steer clear of his Vietnam Veterans Against the War days, which is the main emphasis of the film.

That said, the film is the most attractive portrait of John Kerry that I’ve seen, including the portrayal of Kerry at the Democratic convention. Here is a guy who grew up in relative affluence, though not absolute affluence, going to Yale at a time when the responsibility of leadership that to this day seems to be embedded in places like that still included military leadership. Kerry was told so by none other than William Bundy, who was a senior Kennedy-Johnson administration foreign policy advisor.

Here is a young lieutenant who clearly served admirably in extremely dangerous combat situations, being forced to take his swift boat upriver in order to draw hostile fire. Watching it, I was further disgusted by the Swift Boat Vets’ attacks on Kerry. How could people who shared the morass of Vietnam launch such a scurrilous and false attack on fellow veterans? (Answer: Karl Rove, whose signature tactic has been to attack an opponent where he seems the most impregnable. Read this article and tell me that Rove didn’t play a role in the Swift Boat Vet attacks.)

But the film is really about the role played by Kerry in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group that Kerry ended up more or less leading. Calmer and more articulate than many of his fellow vets, Kerry helped manage the group’s week-long Washington protest and became something of a media star in the process, appearing on network news programs as a spokesperson for the group, then culminating in an appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Here was a thoughtful, articulate young man expressing to the country what thousands of Vietnam vets were trying to say. It was extremely impressive. If the 60 year-old Kerry is even a shadow of the 27 year-old Kerry, I’m still impressed.

One footnote: the Nixon administration was so impressed and threatened by Kerry that it went out and recruited someone to try to go toe-to-toe with him in the court of public opinion. The guy they came up with was the uptight and clearly not ready for prime time John O’Neill, who spoke on behalf of no one in particular then, just as he doesn’t today as the leader of the Swift Boat Vets group.

The First Debate: Kerry Scores a Big Win

2004-10-03T22:23:00.000-05:00

For nearly a month after Kerry endured the Swift Boat Vets attacks and the vicious follow-ups at the GOP convention, the story had been that “the sky is falling” on Kerry. It was an exaggeration from Day One, a typical media overstretch coming from the tendency to focus on the horse race, on incorrect assumptions about national polls, and on the views of campaign insiders.

Bush did take the lead in the polls after the GOP convention, but not by nearly as much as news media conventional wisdom made it seem. On average, Bush went from down two or three points to up by about four points in national polls – hardly a big jump coming after a convention. Moreover, national polls are all but meaningless in a year when we already know how most states will cast their electoral votes. The focus should be on the handful of swing states that will decide the election. In those states, and therefore in the projected Electoral College, Bush also opened a lead, but an extremely narrow one, not even as large as his four-point national lead might imply. In addition, in nearly every battleground state (and in national polls, for that matter), Bush failed to reach the 50% mark, which, for an incumbent, is a better predictor of the vote on Election Day than is the spread between the candidates. (Read this piece for an explanation of why an incumbent who can't break 50% in the polls is in trouble even if he is ahead.)

But campaign insiders started whispering about how poorly the Kerry campaign responded to the Swift Boat Vet attacks and openly worried about its ability to withstand further search-and-destroy missions that were sure to come from Bush’s Gen. Rove. Thus, the story heading into last Thursday’s debate was that it was Kerry’s last chance, which was really a stretch, and had Kerry done poorly in the debate, the whole story could have become a self-fulfilling prophecy, which would have gone down in campaign annals as the Dukakisization of John Kerry.

Alas, it didn’t happen. Kerry won the first debate more decisively than anyone since I can remember – and I have seen every debate since 1976. There are several instances where it was clear after the fact that one candidate had bettered another – Ford’s 1976 comment that there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe comes to mind – but Thursday night, on stage, the difference between the two candidates on both style and substance was stunning. Kerry had the demeanor of a president; he commanded the stage. Bush looked small and mean, and acted like he didn’t want to be there. Kerry’s answers were succinct and mostly on point; Bush rambled until he could figure out a way to segue into his basic talking points, which he delivered in rote fashion and repeated until the red light mercifully went off, eliciting an almost visible expression of relief on the President’s sour face.

It was such a boffo performance by Kerry that the president’s spin machine couldn’t get any traction; after all, sixty million people saw the debate and could not have come to any conclusion other than that Kerry won the debate. You can fool millions of people some of the time, but you can’t fool a majority of sixty million people about who won that debate.

So now, voila! Kerry appears to be back up in the polls; Bush remains below 50% nationally and in nearly every battleground state; Democrats are fired up; and this race should be a sprint to the finish. The wild card, however, is the next couple of debates. Can Bush shake the dominant perception that came out of the first one? It hasn’t happened very often in debates past. Bush the Elder never got any better as the 1992 debates went on. Al Gore more or less moved even with Bush in the later 2000 debates, but that didn’t shake the perception that Bush did better in the debates because he won the first one. Maybe the president will do better now that he is back in the underdog role. I doubt it. Kerry may not be as likeable as Bill Clinton, but he is as quick on his feet. Moreover, the first debate was the one the president wanted – on foreign policy and national security. The next two debates – a town meeting free-for-all and a domestic policy debate – would appear to be even more fertile ground for Kerry, although the president may be able to show his folksy side in the town-meeting debate on Friday. He needs to; otherwise, I think he’s a goner.

schadenfreude

2004-10-01T19:35:00.000-05:00

I'm really very happy with John Kerry right now! I'll admit that, before the debate, I was pretty sure that our man Kerry was gonna bomb. I had an image in my head of his showing up for the debate wearing a turtleneck, a beret and John Lennon glasses. I envisioned him chain-smoking the whole time, using a Truman Capote-esque cigarette holder. And I was 50% sure that he would begin his appearance either by greeting the audience in French or by using a line from Cicero, in Latin. I even bet a friend $5 bucks that, by the end of the debate, he would use the word "schadenfreude."

But he was great! He came out looking good. Tall, dignified and not too tan. I was initially a bit confused because he was wearing a red tie and W was wearing a blue tie. I felt that was kinda backwards. Anyway, John Kerry was smart and he seemed to have a million facts and figures and anecdotes. But we already knew he was smart, right? W, on the other hand, appeared to be very, very confused. I knew that he was genuinely flustered when he accidently pronounced the word "nuclear" correctly.

My top-ten favorite "Confused Presidential Moments" are as follows:

FAVORITE CONFUSED MOMENT ONE: MISSY JOHNSON
"You know, I think about Missy Johnson. She's a fantastic lady I met in Charlotte, North Carolina. She and her son Brian, they came to see me. Her husband, P.J., got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq.

"You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.transcript.10/index.html

Did he just say "love her as best as I can"? Did he mean in the Jesus' love sense? I'm willing to cut the President of the United States some slack for a slip of the tongue when his intent is clear. For example, I've never held "misunderestimated" against him. I knew what he meant.

But I have no idea what "love her as best as I can" means. It was creepy and reminiscent of his "Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country" moment. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040906-4.html I'm beginning to think that GWB has a creepy, kinky-sex side to his personality that we are not yet aware of.

FAVORITE CONFUSED MOMENT TWO: HOW BEST IT IS TO KEEP THE PEACE
"I've shown the American people I know how to lead. I have -- I understand everybody in this country doesn't agree with the decisions I've made. And I made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand. People out there listening know what I believe. And that's how best it is to keep the peace."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/debate.transcript.2/index.html

I know what he means by "how best it is to keep the peace." He's trying to say "This is the best way to keep the peace." I'm not citing this because his phrasing is bad. I'm citing this moment because his whole concept is dumb. Yes, he's made some "tough" decisions that some of us think are bad. And, yes, we know where he stands. But how does our knowing what he believes keep the peace?

The only places where having a clear understanding of where your leader stands "keeps the peace" are in those bad, bad places that we're trying to "bring democracy" to. So what is he talking about here? Did Rush Limbaugh slip him some Oxycontin before the debate?

FAVORITE CONFUSED MOMENT THREE: INSPECTORS? SCREW THAT!
"Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. As a matter of fact, my opponent talks about inspectors. The facts are that he was systematically deceiving the inspectors."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/debate.transcript.3/index.html

I don't think anybody else considers this a "confused" moment. But I do. Dude, Saddam Hussein apparently wasn't "deceiving the inspectors." Because we didn't find any weapons. He was disarmed. Is he saying that Saddam's "systematic deception" made the weapons invisible? He was definitely confused here, because that just doesn't make any damn sense.

FAVORITE CONFUSED MOMENT FOUR: ALLAWI THINKS LIKE ME
"I had the honor of visiting with Prime Minister Allawi. He's a strong, courageous leader. He believes in the freedom of the Iraqi people. He doesn't want U.S. leadership, however, to send mixed signals, to not stand with the Iraqi people. He believes, like I believe, that the Iraqis are ready to fight for their own freedom."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/debate.transcript.4/index.html

Of course he believes in the same things you do! You guys have the same speechwriters? Did W forget about this? I think he was just confused for a moment, and forgot that Ayad Allawi is his puppet.

"But administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the prime minister [Allawi] was coached and aided by the U.S. government, its allies and friends of the administration. Among them was Dan Senor, former spokesman for the [Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq] who has more recently represented the Bush campaign in media appearances. Senor, who has denied writing the speech, sent Allawi recommended phrases. He also helped Allawi rehearse in New York last week, officials said. Senor declined to comment.

"The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and British Foreign Service officials also helped Allawi with the text and delivery of his remarks, said administration officials who were involved. The State Department and officials elsewhere in the government took the lead in booking Allawi's interviews."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60725-2004Sep29?language=printer

FAVORITE CONFUSED MOMENT FIVE: I KNOW HOW THEY THINK
"I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time.

"I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently. They're not going to follow somebody who says, 'This is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.'

"I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time.

"I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.transcript.7/index.html

First of all, this sounds like his "birds and bees" speech to the twins. "Honey, I know how these boys think..." Tee-hee!

But, humor aside, I know what he means. He's saying that he knows how world leaders think, because he is a world leader. Okay, that's cool. That would have been a good way for him to show some superiority and "dunk" on his competition. He was showing the world that he's the President of the United States not just some DINKY U.S. SENATOR---BOO-YAH!

But it didn't come out that way. He just rambled and sputtered. He sounded confused and he kept repeating the same words over and over again, becoming increasingly more agitated. His utter confusion kinda undercut his "superiority" as a "world leader," dontcha think?

Also, it gave me an image of W sitting on the phone gossiping with Tony Blair about John Kerry. "Yeah, Tony, I totally don't like him either! He's just so, like, 'I'm all that.' And he is so not all that. I'm, like, soooo much cooler."

FAVORITE CONFUSED MOMENT SIX: IT'S HARD WORK
"And now we're fighting them now. And it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.transcript.8/index.html

Did he just say that he understands hard work because he reads about the casualties and watches the war on TV?

FAVORITE CONFUSED MOMENT SEVEN: THEY ATTACKED US
"LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another pre-emptive military action?

"BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that.

"But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.transcript.12/index.html

It's obvious that W didn't take any Advanced Placement classes in high school. The first thing they teach you is to look for cues in the way that the question is asked. The cues in this question, Mr. Bush, would be "Iraq" and "pre-emptive." "Iraq" didn't attack you. And if that cue was too subtle, then the word "pre-emptive" should indicate that your answer should not be that you were fighting back against an attacker.

FAVORITE CONFUSED MOMENT EIGHT: I KNOW THAT
"First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.

"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."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.transcript.12/index.html

This was, of course, in response to the last "confused moment" that I cited. He was admonished and reminded that, in fact, Iraq did not attack us. You really needed to see him sputtering and yelling that the knew that we were attacked by Osama bin Laden to get the full scope of how confused he was at this moment.

But I also like his little shot that "another round of resolutions" wouldn't have caused Saddam Hussein to disclose his WMDs. Helloooo, dumbass! We know that. Nobody is saying that another round of resolutions would have disclosed weapons. We now know that he didn't have any. What your opponent is saying is that he wanted you to send troops in to back up the inspectors while they searched for the weapons. See, if you'd done that, then we could have achieved the same results that your war has achieved. We could have searched the country and determined that the dude wasn't holding.

Actually, the results would have been similar to those produced by your war, but not exactly the same. We wouldn't have 1,000 dead Americans, 10,000 dead Iraqis and a bill for $200 billion dollars. Why does he not understand this? More significantly, why is half the country planning to vote for this jackass?

FAVORITE CONFUSED MOMENT NINE: IT'S RAINING
"My hope is that the African Union moves rapidly to help save lives. And fortunately the rainy season will be ending shortly, which will make it easier to get aid there and help the long-suffering people there."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.transcript.15/index.html

That was his response to the question of what the U.S. was doing about genocide in the Sudan. Does anybody else find it a little bit odd that he made a point of mentioning the rainy season? Maybe I'm being too hard on him here.

FAVORITE CONFUSED MOMENT TEN: PROLIFERATION - SCHMOLIFERATION
"I'll tell you another way to help protect America in the long run is to continue with missile defenses. And we've got a robust research and development program that has been ongoing during my administration. We'll be implementing a missile-defense system relatively quickly. And that is another way to help deal with the threats that we face in the 21st century. My opponent opposed the missile defenses.

"We must have China's leverage on [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il, besides ourselves. And if you enter bilateral talks, they'll be happy to walk away from the table. I don't think that'll work."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.transcript.17/index.html

This moment reflects the kind of ignorance that should automatically disqualify the man from the Presidency. This moment has convinced me that there should be some sort of standardized test that the candidates have to take before they're even allowed to campaign for the office.

He made this statement in response to a question about what he was going to do to stop nuclear proliferation. In his answer he said that we need a missile defense system and the cooperation of China. Well, that's a problem. Because a missile defense system violates the international ABM treaty and the country that became the most outraged about our plans to develop National Missile Defense was China.

"The Chinese position is that the United States [by carrying out the test] is opposing international concerns and opposition to NMD (National Missile Defense)," a Foreign Ministry spokesman told CNN.

"The U.S. insisted on developing anti-missile defense systems in violation of the (1972) Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. It is not favorable to a global strategic balance and stability."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/07/16/china.missile.reax/index.html

China, in fact, promised to make more bombs if the Bush Administration violated the ABM treaty by building a missile defense system. Yup, in the article cited above they promised to increase newk-yew-luh proliferation.

"The U.S. NMD program will hamper the international arms control and disarmament process and even trigger a new round of arms race."

That was on July 16, 2001. It was the first international crisis that George W. Bush faced as President of the United States.

I know that September 11th of that year must have been very traumatic for him. But, as President, I don't think he should have forgotten about this. I thought that his mentioning these two items together made him look like someone who should absolutely not be making strategic decisions for my country.

IF YOU MISSED THE DEBATES
The DNC has distributed a brief, but comprehensive, video clip.
http://mfile.akamai.com/8082/rm/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/video/faces/faces.ram

THE PUNDITRY
I watched a lot of coverage of the debates last night. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and even Univision. The President had a distinct advantage on Univision, because he had his hot, half-Mexican nephew (who is fluent in Spanish) out shilling for him. The only pundit who agreed with my assessment of the debates was The Boondocks' cartoonist, Aaron McGruder, who appeared on CNN.

AARON MCGRUDER: You know, what bothers me about shows like this, and all the news shows, after Bush talks I hear all these smart people completely ignoring the elephant in the room. And the elephant in the room, which nobody wants to say, is that Bush is not a smart man. He can't articulate well. He doesn't speak in complete sentences.

CNN'S AARON BROWN: Well...

MCGRUDER: And everyone just ignores it, like that's OK.

BROWN: OK. So...

MCGRUDER: But he's really dumb.

BROWN: OK. That's a different thing. Let's say he is not articulate. And I think they would concede he's not the most articulate guy on the planet. It doesn't mean he doesn't have convictions. It doesn't mean he believes in some things. It doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. It just means he can't express himself.

MCGRUDER: But beliefs don't mean anything if you're stupid. And not only that, but he -- it's almost as though he's talking to the dumbest segment of society, whereas Kerry...

BROWN: Aaron, don't you think that's an incredibly arrogant way to look at the world?

MCGRUDER: It's -- you know, it's real, you know? It's just that nobody is saying the obvious, which is the man is not smart and he's the president.

BROWN: I wouldn't say that...

MCGRUDER: Everybody knows it, but nobody is saying it.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/01/asb.00.html

Iraq Study Sees Rebels' Attacks as Widespread

2004-09-29T07:00:00.000-05:00

From today's NYTimes:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 28 - Over the past 30 days, more than 2,300 attacks by insurgents have been directed against civilians and military targets in Iraq, in a pattern that sprawls over nearly every major population center outside the Kurdish north, according to comprehensive data compiled by a private security company with access to military intelligence reports and its own network of Iraqi informants.

The sweeping geographical reach of the attacks, from Nineveh and Salahuddin Provinces in the northwest to Babylon and Diyala in the center and Basra in the south, suggests a more widespread resistance than the isolated pockets described by Iraqi government officials.

National security professionals agree that Iraq is a disaster, start to finish

2004-09-28T23:57:00.000-05:00

James Fallows has an article out in the October Atlantic. Unfortunately, the Atlantic is now for subscribers only, but here is an alluring excerpt:

Bush's Lost Year, by James Fallows, The Atlantic, October 2004:

As a political matter, whether the United States is now safer or more vulnerable is of course ferociously controversial. That the war was necessary—and beneficial—is the Bush Administration's central claim. That it was not is the central claim of its critics. But among national-security professionals there is surprisingly little controversy. Except for those in government and in the opinion industries whose job it is to defend the Administration's record, they tend to see America's response to 9/11 as a catastrophe. I have sat through arguments among soldiers and scholars about whether the invasion of Iraq should be considered the worst strategic error inAmerican history—or only the worst since Vietnam. Some of these people argue that the United States had no choice but to fight, given a pre-war consensus among its intelligence agencies that Iraq actually had WMD supplies. Many say that things in Iraq will eventually look much better than they do now. But about the conduct and effect of the war in Iraq one view prevails: it has increased the threats America faces, and has reduced the military, financial, and diplomatic tools with which we can respond.

"Let me tell you my gut feeling," a senior figure at one of America'smilitary-sponsored think tanks told me recently, after we had talked for twenty minutes about details of the campaigns in Afghanistan andIraq. "If I can be blunt, the Administration is full of shit. In my view we are much, much worse off now than when we went into Iraq. That is not a partisan position. I voted for these guys. But I think they are incompetent, and I have had a very close perspective on what is happening. Certainly in the long run we have harmed ourselves. We are playing to the enemy's political advantage. Whatever tactical victories we may gain along the way, this will prove to be a strategic blunder."

More on Admin's refusal to heed warnings on Iraq

2004-09-28T21:28:00.000-05:00

Yet more evidence from today's papers that the Administration was adequately forewarned about the consequences of war in Iraq, but chose to ignore our own intelligence, including the view that the war would not make the U.S. safer from Islamic terrorists:

Prewar Assessment on Iraq Saw Chance of Strong Divisions
By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID E. SANGER
September 28, 2004 The New York Times:

The same intelligence unit that produced a gloomy report in July about the prospect of growing instability in Iraq warned the Bush administration about the potential costly consequences of an American-led invasion two months before the war began, government officials said Monday.

The estimate came in two classified reports prepared for President Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council, an independent group that advises the director of central intelligence. The assessments predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.

One of the reports also warned of a possible insurgency against the new Iraqi government or American-led forces, saying that rogue elements from Saddam Hussein's government could work with existing terrorist groups or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare, the officials said. The assessments also said a war would increase sympathy across the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives, at least in the short run, the officials said.

The contents of the two assessments had not been previously disclosed. They were described by the officials after two weeks in which the White House had tried to minimize the council's latest report, which was prepared this summer and read by senior officials early this month.

Last week, Mr. Bush dismissed the latest intelligence reports, saying its authors were "just guessing'' about the future, though he corrected himself later, calling it an "estimate.''

The group's National Intelligence Estimate about Iraqi weapons has now been widely discredited for wildly overestimating the country's capabilities. Members of the intelligence council have complained that they were pressured to write the document too quickly and that important qualifiers were buried.

Black Republicans: Leading the Way to the Back of the Bus

2004-09-27T20:46:00.000-05:00

This train of thought started earlier today, when my co-worker hit me with this statement:

"BTW, don't you think the Dems use the 'race card' way too much and too often? Their accusation that Republicans threaten black voters not to vote is just baloney. It's another example of baseless accusation."

So, I've been thinking about that all day today. Because I feel guilty for playing the 'race card' in political discussions. I do! I have some very compelling reasons for not voting Republican that don't have anything to do with race. The Republican Party just doesn't stand for what I stand for. Period. I don't need to bring race into the equation.

But let's be totally honest, race does have a little something to do with it. I have too much self-esteem to be a Black Republican. I mean, look at the facts. Your average, ordinary black person just isn't a Republican. Black people like Alan Keyes are Republicans. To paraphrase John Lequizamo, Black Republicans are like "Roaches for Raid":

"My middle name 'Lee' is after Robert E. Lee because my father respected him as a general and as a man who rejected slavery and rejected that whole system, but felt nonetheless honor bound to fight for his state."
- Alan Lee Keyes
"Keyes Sees Two Sides to Confederate Flag Issue"
http://www.conservativenews.org/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200001\POL20000120e.html

Oh, come on! That is not normal. Normal people don't name their children after someone who led a war to enslave their race. Someone whose only claim to fame is leading a war to enslave their race. Jesus, Alan, get grip!

And there are more of them out there, on Alan's team:

"For the past week or so, I’ve been trying to ignore the fact that John Kerry is an elitist race panderer who’s going to get a lot of black votes. I’m disgusted by his racial and racist rhetoric, and the black people who vote for him deserve whatever slop he dishes out.... If I ever happened to meet Kerry on the street and he started speechifying about government programs, but for the daily struggle of living a Christian life, I’d curse him to his face."
- LaShawn Barber http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/17/raciist/

They sound like righteous Black Americans, right? But when you read more of their posts you find that they LOVE to talk about how lazy and/or frightening the Black race is.

"If I secretly think that many poor blacks are animalistic and stupid, you'll never make me believe that lots of other people don't, too."
- Debra Dickerson http://slate.msn.com/id/2104994/

And that Debra Dickerson chick is a "moderate" Black Republican! Both of those women (quoted above) are part of the Black Republican "movement." It's sort of like the Civil Rights Movement, only in the other direction. http://blacksforbush.blogspot.com/

My personal, favorite Black Republicans are the ones who turn the argument around and say that Reagan and the Bushes are down with the struggle, whereas the Liberal Agenda is virulently racist:

"This is the root of the High Tech Lynching of people like Justice Clarence Thomas, who is especially hated by White Liberal Racists. His example as a freethinking Black man who doesn't care what Whites thinks is dangerous, and his contagion mustn't be allowed to spread!"
- Mr Kevin J Walker Jr http://www.blackwebportal.com/wire/AuthorContent.cfm?PartnerID=38

Let's wrap this post up with the Black, gay Republicans. They went against their brethren last week and decided to endorse George W. Bush after the other gay Republicans finally mustered up some Pride and marched away from W:

"We think that the 'Republican Tent' is inclusive and there is room for differences, but one does not pick up their marbles and go home if there are a few points of disagreement."
- The ALBRC http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2004/09/22/3

The Republican Party isn't going to get rid of them just by calling them sick, selfish deviants!

"We are determined to use whatever resources we have to get the word out, especially to Black voters, of why a vote for Bush is a vote for economic, social and political self-upliftment."

Why Bush will win the first debate

2004-09-27T07:32:00.000-05:00

I hope I’m wrong, but Bush is likely to win the first debate, because:

As the candidates prepare for the first debate, Bush is undoubtedly being told simply to “be himself,” while Kerry is probably being told “not” to be himself, which is to say a boring windbag.
[Harry Shearer is probably not too far off the mark in speculating that during his debate prep Kerry is receiving electric shocks every time he uses a complex sentence. (Click here for Harry Shearer's Le Show archive, but last night's show isn't there as of this posting.)]

It’s hard for a candidate to come off as something he’s not under the glare of live television. Remember the strange and different versions of Al Gore we saw in 2000’s debates?

But let’s say Bush doesn’t fare so well in the debate itself. Many more voters learn about what happened in a debate from subsequent media coverage. Unless Bush does something truly bizarre, you can bet that the right-wing media spin machine will be totally “on message” that Bush won the debate. First you have the President’s own spinners, who are sure to be more cohesively on message than Kerry’s spinners. Second, you have the conservative commentators and pundits who have a knack for closing ranks when it comes to beating up on liberals, who will farm out onto the networks and write their newspaper columns in what seems certain to be a chorus of rave reviews. And finally, you will have the Fox News and conservative radio outlets directly feeding the Bush spin to the masses.

ARG Polls released in all fifty states

2004-09-27T07:18:00.000-05:00

Kerry shows amazing resilience in the polls.

Here is the ARG “executive summary”:
>George W. Bush is at 47% and John Kerry is at 46% in the weighted national popular vote.

>Bush leads outside the margin of error in 17 states with 133 electoral votes.
>Kerry leads outside the margin of error in 10 states with 132 electoral votes.

>Bush has any lead in 29 states with 253 electoral votes.
>Kerry has any lead in 20 states with 270 electoral votes.

>Bush and Kerry are tied in Wisconsin and West Virginia.

>Bush needs to defend small leads in 5 states - Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Ohio.
>Kerry needs to defend small leads in 5 states - Maine, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.

The Polls This Week

2004-09-24T12:22:00.000-05:00

The simplest formula for Kerry to win the White House is to take the Gore-2000 states plus ten additional electoral votes.

Executive Summary:
1. Kerry is currently trailing in two Gore states -- Wisconsin (10 EV) and Iowa (7) -- both of which he needs to win unless he wins Florida.

2. Kerry’s best shot to win this election is Florida (27), because he could afford to drop Wisconsin and Iowa and still win.

3. Alternatively, Kerry needs to hold all the Gore states, then pick off some combination of New Hampshire, Colorado, and Arkansas to win.

4. Kerry should still fight in Ohio, though, because he’s within striking distance there and a win would give him considerably more flexibility.

5. There seems to be ample reason to downplay Missouri and Nevada, and to emphasize Arkansas and Colorado, while also tending to New Hampshire, where Kerry's lead is narrower than it has been all year.

Gore States where Kerry is vulnerable:
1. Wisconsin (10 EV): Bush leads in four of six polls released between 9/13 and 9/21, including the earliest (Strategic Vision) and the latest (Badger State). In the latter, Bush leads by an implausible 52%-38%. Kerry leads in one poll (Zobgy) and the candidates were tied in the other (American Research Group). All polls, except the Badger State are within the margin of error.

On average: Bush 47.8% Kerry 44.2% undecided/other 8%

Bottom Line: Bush holds a narrow lead here (3.6 points even with the Badger State poll included), but remains below 50%, which is usually a sign of trouble for an incumbent this late in the game, and there are 8% still apparently undecided or voting for some other candidate.

2. Iowa (7 EV): Bush leads in six of seven polls released between 9/14 and 9/23, including the earliest (Rasmussen) and the latest (Survey USA). There are no real outliers among the seven polls, and all are within the margin of error.

On average: Bush 47.9% Kerry 45.7 undecided/other 6.4%

Bottom Line: Bush holds a narrow lead (averaging 2.2 points), but the same analysis holds here as in Wisconsin. Kerry is a bit closer, but there are fewer undecideds.

3. Pennsylvania (21 EV): In four polls released between 9/15 and 9/22, Kerry leads them all.

On average: Kerry 48.5% Bush 46% undecided/other 5.5%

Bottom Line: After an increase in Bush support here, Kerry seems to have stabilized and remains in the lead.

4. Oregon (7 EV): Kerry leads in two of three polls released between 9/13 and 9/22, although Bush leads in the most recent (Survey USA). Zogby has Kerry leading by 12 points, outside the margin of error.

On average: Kerry 49.3% Bush 45% undecided/other 5.7%

Bottom Line: Oregon has gotten closer, but Kerry is in good shape at this point.

5. Maine (4 EV): In three polls released between 9/9 and 9/23, the candidates each lead in one and they are tied in the third. Bush, however, holds a one-point lead in the latest (Survey USA) poll.

On average: Kerry 45.7% Bush 44.7 undecided/other 9.6%

Bottom Line: Maine appears to have gotten very close, but there isn’t a lot of polling here, and with nearly 10 percent still undecided, I would expect Kerry to pull this one out.

6. Maryland (10 EV): In two polls released between 9/17 and 9/20, Bush led in one (Survey USA) and the candidates were tied in the other (Mason-Dixon).

On average: Bush 47.5% Kerry 45.5% undecided/other 7%

Bottom Line: Not a lot of polling here, but it’s hard to argue with two recent polls. That said, the same general analysis applies here – Bush under 50%, undecideds should break for Kerry. But, frankly, if Kerry can’t win in Maryland, there are going to be several other Blue States that he loses, too.

7. New Jersey (15 EV): Each candidate leads in one of the two polls released between 9/15 and 9/17.

On average: Bush 46% Kerry 46% undecided/other 8%

Bottom Line: The state’s gubernatorial scandal involving a Democrat and the proximity to the GOP convention in New York are said to be two factors that may be making New Jersey close. Kerry should be able to win back enough to take this state. Like Maryland, if he loses New Jersey he’s going to be losing a lot of Blue States.

OK? So, let’s say Kerry holds the Gore states, where does he get the additional ten electoral votes to get him to 270?

Bush-2000 States where Bush is vulnerable:
1. Florida (27 EV): This is the big kahuna, and it couldn’t be closer. In four polls released between 9/20 and 9/22, the candidates are within two points of each other.

On average: Bush 47.3% Kerry 46.8% undecided/other 5.9%

Bottom Line: If Kerry wins Florida, he wins. Even if Bush were to take Wisconsin and Iowa, a Kerry win in Florida would equal exactly 270 electoral votes! For Bush, Florida is necessary but not sufficient. He must also hold all but 10 EV-worth of the Red States.

2. New Hampshire (4 EV): In two polls released 9/17, Bush leads in one (ARG) and Kerry in the other (Zogby). Prior to that, Kerry has led in New Hampshire fairly consistently, and remember, Bush won the state in 2000 by less than the Nader vote.

On average: Kerry 46.5% Bush 46% undecided/other 7.5%

Bottom Line: The state looks very close once again, but next-door neighbor Kerry has an excellent shot at winning it.

3. Colorado (9 EV): This is a state that has traditionally gone Republican but which is undergoing some major demographic changes and is consistently polling as a dead heat this year. In addition, a popular Hispanic Attorney General is running for the U.S. Senate, which could help bring Democrats to the polls. There is a question on the ballot that, if it passes, would allocate the state’s electoral votes in proportion to the electoral vote. It is unclear whether that measure would actually result in the state’s electoral votes being cast that way, however, so the picture here is pretty convoluted. The two most recent polls, released 9/13, both have Bush with a one-point lead.

On average: Bush 46% Kerry 45% other/undecided 9%

Bottom Line: If Kerry holds the Gore states, plus wins New Hampshire, a win here would put him over the top. The campaigns appear to just now be waking up to the fact that Colorado is really close and apparently is going to stay close.

4. Arkansas (6 EV): This state has been close for months, and Bush received very little convention bounce. In two polls released 9/17, Bush leads one (ARG) and the candidates are tied in the other (Zobgy).

On average: Bush 47.5% Kerry 46% other/undecided 6.5%

Bottom Line: Could Bill Clinton and other state Democrats help Kerry get over the hump here? It would be ironic if Kerry squeezed into the White House by taking New Hampshire and Arkansas, rather than any of the huge Battleground states that have been getting all the attention and money thus far.

5. Ohio (20 EV): One of the Big Three Bush states targeted by Kerry, along with Florida and Missouri. Bush has led consistently here since mid-August, but in four polls released between 9/15 and 9/22, he leads by an average of only three points.

On average: Bush 48.5% Kerry 45.5% other/undecided 6%

Bottom Line: Bush is ahead but Kerry could still win here. He has shown some resiliency, and appears to not be giving up on the state.

6. Nevada (5 EV): Not really considered a swing state coming into the campaign, but has been close, and Democrats are benefiting from demographic changes. In three polls released between 9/13 and 9/21, Bush leads all three but by well within the margin of error.

On average: Bush 49.3% Kerry 46.7% other/undecided 4%

Bottom Line: I would expect Bush to pull this one out. There aren’t as many undecideds, and Bush is close to 50%.

7. Missouri (11 EV): One of the Big Three Bush states targeted by Kerry, along with Florida and Ohio, Missouri appears to be heading Bush’s way since he opened up a lead in mid-August. Two polls released between 9/17 and 9/19 show Bush leading, albeit within the margin of error.

On average: Bush 51% Kerry 45% other/undecided 4%

Bottom Line: Bush is probably headed for victory here. He is polling above 50% and there aren’t that many undecideds.

How Bush interprets intelligence

2004-09-24T06:57:00.000-05:00

I’ve argued all along that “the intelligence” on whether Saddam had WMD was nowhere near a “slam dunk,” which was one reason why we couldn’t convince our allies and the U.N. to go to war. This administration has consistently belittled information that doesn’t support its pre-defined worldview.

So, has the administration learned anything from its earlier failures, or is it “staying the course” by continuing to belittle and ignore information that could cause it cognitive dissonance?

You decide. Here’s what Bush said on Tuesday about a recent National Intelligence Estimate, which reportedly painted a bleak picture of Iraq's near future, including the possibility of civil war:

"The CIA laid out several scenarios and said life could be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better, and they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like."

Kerry’s response:

"Just guessing, America? The CIA? They're not just guessing. They're giving the president of the United States their best judgment. It's called an analysis."

Bush at a subsequent news conference: "I used an unfortunate word: 'guess.' I should have used 'estimate.'"

"It's never over for them until the last ballot is shredded."

2004-09-23T19:30:00.000-05:00

I've read Jon's analysis of the electoral college votes and I feel hopeful, but still frightened. Why is that? Why is this race so close? Why are we having to do long division to figure out ways that John Kerry can win this election? It just doesn't make any sense.

What person who voted for Al Gore in 2000 will turn that around and vote for George W. Bush this year? I just can't imagine that happening. Who can look back on the past 4 years and say, "Hey, I didn't like him as a 'compassionate conservative' in 2000, but now that's he's turned out to be a war-mongering dickhead, I really dig the guy." Who thinks like that?

Whereas, on the other hand, you have a ton of people who voted for W in 2000 that will vote against him because of the war, the deficits, the crazy Christian conservatism, whatever. That alone should have John Kerry ahead in the polls. Right? After all, Al Gore did WIN the freakin' election in 2000!

And what about Fahrenheit 911? The film was a huge hit. It had to have swung SOME swing voters somewhere. And there's Russell Simmons and P. Diddy working their asses off to get black people to the polls, Green Day and Moby working their asses off to get young people to the polls, and everyone in Hollywood is working with all of our favorite rockstars to get everyone else to the polls.

Plus, the Log Cabin Republicans won't cut their own throats (again) by voting for W this time. That's a million people RIGHT THERE! And Arab-Americans, who have been conservative voters in the past, have been loudly denouncing this Administration. Some Cuban-Americans, who have been one of the most loyal group of Republican voters, are turning against W because of his changes to Cuban travel restrictions. And what about Pat Buchanan, Bob Barr, and all of the other "true Conservatives" who've spoken out against the Bush Administration? There's even a group of Republican legislators who have banded together against Bush because of his environmental policy. I just don't see how he can possibly be ahead in the polls.

Of course I'm blaming John Kerry right now. Oh, boy would I love to have a little talk with that man about his skills as a campaigner! I'm angry. I'm frustrated. I want to cry. But then, just as I was resigning myself to another 4 years of President Crazy and Vice President Shifty, a little angel whispered words of encouragement into my ear, "Yes, OF COURSE any of us would have run a better, smarter, kick-ass campaign. Of course we would have smacked each and every one of those phony swifty boaty bastards down. But WE are not running for president -- Kerry is. So quit complaining and work with what we have."

For the Bush people, it's never over until the last ballot has been shredded. So, I'm going to take a page from their book and keep a candle burning for John Kerry. "Put Away Your Hankies" and read Mike's letter. You'll feel better.

Choice Tidbits from Kitty Kelley’s book on the Bushes

2004-09-23T19:05:00.000-05:00

Page 253: At Andover, George W. Bush writes a morose essay about his sister's death. Searching for a synonym for "tears," he consults a thesaurus and writes, "And the lacerates ran down my cheeks." A teacher labels the paper "disgraceful."

Read the Slate article for more – including the tidbit that Laura Bush smokes constantly, which, come to think of it, helps explain that frozen look she has on her face in public. You can almost hear her saying through gritted teeth, “Ah need a goddamn smoke.”

No tea for YOU, Mr. Tillerman

2004-09-23T07:53:00.000-05:00

A plane from London to the United States was diverted to Maine when it was discovered that the cloying 1970s folksinger Cat Stevens was aboard. Stevens was given the opportunity to wander off into the wild world of central Maine, but remembered there’s a lot of bad out there, so he opted instead to return to London, saying he wanted to “just relax and take it easy.”

Stevens is on a Homeland Security list of aging folksingers who aren’t allowed in the country because of a Patriot Act ban on “overly syrupy, stupor inducing artists whose work can deaden public alertness toward suspicious actions or persons.” Others on the list include Gordon Lightfoot, David Gates, Seals and Crofts, Jim Croce (who has actually been dead since 1975), and (ironically) the lite-rock group America.

Goss agrees that Cheney and Rice mischaracterized intelligence reports before war

2004-09-21T13:28:00.000-05:00

Rep. Porter Goss, whose nomination as CIA Director was approved today by the Senate Intelligence Committee, had some interesting things to say about the Bush administration’s interpretation of available intelligence before the war in Iraq. From the NYTimes article:

In hearings on Monday, Mr. Goss said that some prewar statements by senior Bush administration officials might well have overstated available intelligence about the threat posed by Iraq.

Under sharp questioning from a Senate Democrat, Mr. Goss said he agreed that statements by Vice President Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice that linked Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks; to Al Qaeda; and to an active nuclear weapons program appeared to have gone beyond what was spelled out in intelligence reports at the time.

Mr. Goss's concession could fuel further Democratic criticisms that Mr. Bush and his advisers overstated the threat posed by Iraq before the war. Democrats failed this year to persuade Republicans to include conclusions related to the administration's use of intelligence in the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq that was completed in July.

Each example on which Mr. Goss commented was raised by Senator Levin. They included a December 2001 statement in which Mr. Cheney said that a meeting in Prague between a Sept. 11 hijacker, Mohammed Atta, and an Iraqi official had been "pretty well-confirmed" and a separate statement by Ms. Rice in September 2002 saying, first, that aluminum tubes being imported by Iraq "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs" and, second, that "we know" that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development.

All three of those assertions have since been discredited, and recent reports by the independent Sept. 11 commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee suggested that all three exceeded the intelligence available at the time.

In each case, Mr. Goss cautioned that he did not know what information Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice had used as the basis for their statements. He said he still believed that Iraq had provided some unspecified training to Al Qaeda, though he declined to elaborate.

But he said of Mr. Cheney's public assertion on Dec. 9, 2001, about Mr. Atta and the meeting with an Iraqi official in Prague, for example: "I don't think it was as well confirmed perhaps as the vice president thought. But I don't know what was in the vice president's mind, and I've certainly never talked with him about this. So I don't know how he came to that conclusion." Mr. Goss said that Ms. Rice's Sept. 8, 2002, statement about the aluminum tubes appeared to have been "an exaggeration," compared with the findings spelled out in a national intelligence estimate at the same time. He said Ms. Rice's Sept. 25, 2002, statement linking Iraq to training for Al Qaeda, if it were based solely on the evidence that has been made public to date, would have been in a category in which "I would feel obliged to ask the national security adviser what in fact was the basis for that statement."

Dissention in the ranks of GOP Senators:

2004-09-21T07:36:00.000-05:00

The Sunday talk shows were rife with criticisms of the way things are going in Iraq. Leading the way were three prominent Republican Senators: John McCain, Chuck Hagel, and Richard Lugar.

Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said Bush was not being "as straight as maybe we'd like to see" with the American people about Iraq.

McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday" that it was "a serious mistake" not to have had enough troops in place "after the initial successes" and that the mistake had led to "very, very significant" difficulties.

"I think every day that goes by that we don't remove these sanctuaries in Falluja and other places in the Sunni Triangle, the more expensive it's going to be at the time we take this out," McCain said.

He said he "would never have allowed the sanctuaries to start with."

"In the Falluja issue, our general in Baghdad said we were going to go in and capture or kill those who were responsible for the deaths of Americans," McCain said.

"And we went in, and then we pulled out. As Napoleon said, if you say you're going to take Vienna, you take Vienna.”

Speaking on CBS's "Face the Nation," Jon Kyl, Arizona's junior senator -- also a Republican -- said "hand-wringing" about the situation in Iraq would not win the war.

"War is tough, and there are casualties. And just before victory, sometimes, it gets most violent," said Kyl, chairman of the subcommittee on terrorism, technology and homeland security of the Judiciary Committee.

Appearing on the same program, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a fellow Republican, disagreed with Kyl that the United States was anywhere near victory.

"I don't think we're winning. In all due respect to my friend Jon Kyl, the term 'hand-wringing' is a little misplaced here," Hagel said.

"The fact is, a crisp, sharp analysis of our policies are required. We didn't do that in Vietnam, and we saw 11 years of casualties mount to the point where we finally lost.

"The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq," said Hagel, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees.

On ABC's "This Week," Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware both had critical words for the administration's handling of Iraq.

Lugar, who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said "the incompetence in the administration" led to only $1 billion spent out of $18 billion appropriated last year for reconstruction efforts.

And finally, this:

Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee said Monday he plans to support his party in November but may write in a candidate instead of voting for President Bush.

The Rhode Island lawmaker, known for moderate views that often run counter to the Bush administration, said he was going to vote for a member of his party even though he disagrees with the president on many issues.

The Republican said the party's direction in the future will determine his political career as well. He said he's ``not OK'' with the conservative platform from the Republican convention, but would not say if he'd consider switching parties in his next election in 2006.

``It wasn't that long ago that moderates had more of a voice,'' Chafee said. ``It's a cycle that I hope will come back.''

Bush getting ready to cut and run in Iraq?

2004-09-21T06:17:00.000-05:00

Right-wing insider commentator Robert Novak thinks so, according to his column today:

Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.

The Polls This Week: How Kerry gets to 270 – not easily, but doable.

2004-09-20T07:55:00.000-05:00

Bush has forged a modest lead, but the basic shape of the electoral map hasn’t changed. Kerry must win all the Gore-2000 states, plus a Bush-2000 state or two totaling a mere 10 electoral votes. The first part of the equation is imminently doable, despite the fact that several Gore states are currently toss-ups, including apparently narrow Bush leads in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Where does Kerry go to find the 10 Bush votes from 2000? (He is likely to take New Hampshire’s four electoral votes, as he has led consistently there and Bush won in 2000 by less than the number of Nader votes. But that still leaves Kerry six electoral votes shy of the magic number.)

For most of the campaign, the answer has been Ohio, Missouri, and Florida.

Unfortunately for Kerry, Ohio and Missouri have been trending toward Bush, especially Missouri – which makes me wonder how things would look about now with Gephardt on the ticket. While there are signs that Kerry is lowering his emphasis on Missouri, Ohio is still in play, and if you look at the geography, it’s relatively easy to hit Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania almost simultaneously. West Virginia, a Bush-2000 state, would be a “nice-to-have” for Kerry, but would only deliver five more electoral votes.

The conventional wisdom is that Kerry must win Pennsylvania, which was a Gore state in 2000. I agree, more or less, although he could lose Pennsylvania, yet win Florida and New Hampshire to reach 270.

And so we come back to Florida and its 27 electoral votes as the key to this election. The two candidates have been neck and neck in the polls there, but the hurricane season has all but denied Bush his post-convention bounce in the state and the race has become frozen as Floridians recover from the storms. Despite the fact that Bush has made three post-hurricane visits to the state to “survey the damage,” neither candidate has been able to really campaign there lately. One wild card could be how well FEMA relief efforts go. There are a lot of people who need help and it’s always easy to blame FEMA for the glitches that almost inevitably occur.

Another, less likely, scenario for Kerry would be to hold all the Gore-2000 states, plus win New Hampshire, leaving him six electoral votes shy of 270, then swipe Colorado or Arkansas from Bush. Both are doable, but there are few signs thus far that Kerry is trying to bring this scenario to fruition.

As for those Gore-2000 states, if Bush cuts into any of them, it obviously hurts Kerry’s chances, but if Bush wins two Gore-2000 states, Kerry is done for. And right now, Bush has narrow leads in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

There is a wildcard in Colorado, where a ballot measure, if it passes, would require the state to cast its electoral votes in proportion to the overall vote. The way the race there is shaping up, the winning candidate, who would normally get all nine electoral votes, would likely get only five, with the loser getting the other four. Hmm…

If Kerry holds the Gore-2000 states, plus wins New Hampshire, that puts him at 264. Four more Colorado votes – or, for that matter – five, would still leave him shy of 270. Doh! He would still need to swipe another state, size wouldn’t matter, from Bush to win.

Check out www.electoral-vote.com for a pretty good compilation of state by state polls with commentary daily.

If you can’t say anything nice …

2004-09-19T16:53:00.000-05:00

In truth, I can’t recall my mother ever saying that, but it applies to my blog lately. Once we have a Democratic nominee, my partisan juices start flowing and it becomes dispositionally impossible for me to say anything bad about him (or her, as the case may someday be).

So I’ve been largely silent for the past couple of weeks. (For a measure of my true feelings toward John Kerry, qua candidate, simply click on some of my entries from last winter and spring.)

Ten Weeks

2004-09-09T19:35:00.000-05:00

Actually, we only have 9 weeks left! MoveOn has produced 10 ads, to countdown the weeks from now until the election. The ads were made by talented filmmakers, like Richard Linklater, Rob Reiner and John Sayles. And they feature some of Hollywood's Liberal Elite, like Matt Damon, Moby, Martin Sheen, Kevin Bacon, Rebecca Romijn, Ed Asner, Margaret Cho, Al Franken, Illeana Douglas, Woody Harrelson, Scarlett Johanssen, and Ione Skye.

My personal favorite is the first one, "Everybody" by Benny Boom. There aren't any big, Hollywood stars in it. But I like its energy. I would have called it "George W. Bush's Worst Nightmare". You have to be a MoveOn member to view that one. But you can see the current films without logging in.

So, just 9 weeks left until the end of an era. Either we'll have a new President, who isn't a psychotic Jesus freak. Or it'll be Armageddon. Because the only way I can see George W. Bush actually winning an election with his record--especially after he lost the last election--the only way that guy could possibly win this election would be if he is the anti-Christ. Maybe he's convinced the End Days are here because he's the harbinger of doom.

Speaking of Jesus + W, have you seen this? Frontline did a documentary about George W's religious zeal. It was excellent! And the whole piece is now online. If you have a free hour, I highly recommend you watch it. If you think that George W. Bush couldn't be any more scary, you're wrong. He's far more frightening than you think.

But then again, maybe the Jesus thing is all an act. The Frontline piece makes the point that GWB thought his father could have won in 1992 if he'd mobilized the Evangelicals. Maybe God is just another Bush campaign worker. This article from Beliefnet asks an interesting question about the depth of George's faith. It also includes a lovely vignette on the depth of Bill Clinton's.

So, it looks like Jesus isn't really on W's side. Maybe He's too busy working for Alan Keyes! After all, Jesus shocked the Mayor earlier this week by endorsing Alan.

The Two Texans

2004-09-04T17:03:00.000-05:00

In 1964, LBJ made a vow to fulfill the promise of the Great Society. He promised to improve medical care, education, employment, and solemnly vowed to "win the war on poverty." But, as you know, soon after making this promise LBJ started an expensive foreign war. The war didn't stop him from spending a fortune on the social progams he listed in his convention speech, though.

George W. Bush made a vow at his nominating convention in 2000 to cut taxes. But, as you know, soon after making this promise GWB started an expensive foreign war. The war didn't stop him from spending a fortune on the tax cuts, though.

At his nominating convention this week GWB, like LBJ, southern-drawled about the Great Society he'd build if given the chance--again. He promised to improve medical care, education, employment, and solemnly vowed to "win the war on terror." It was like seeing LBJ in a mirror. The same face, but in reverse.

"We will try to lead you as we were led by that great champion of freedom, the man from Independence, Harry S. Truman." - LBJ, 1964

"Fortunately, we had a resolute president named Truman who, with the American people, persevered." - GWB, 2004

"This is a dangerous and a difficult world in which we live tonight. I promise no easy answers. But I do promise this. I pledge the firmness to defend freedom, the strength to support that firmness, and a constant, patient effort to move the world toward peace instead of war." - LBJ, 1964

"If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy." - GWB, 2004

"The world tonight knows where we stand and our allies know where we stand, too." - LBJ, 1964

"Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand." - GWB, 2004

"Our tomorrow is on its way. It can be a shape of darkness or it can be a thing of beauty. The choice is ours, it is yours, for it will be the dream that we dare to dream." - LBJ, 1964

"This is the everlasting dream of America. And tonight, in this place, that dream is renewed." - GWB, 2004

The Scariest President EVER!

2004-09-01T20:24:00.000-05:00

I'm pretty sure that George W. Bush is the worst President in this nation's history. He's SO BAD that he's motivated American Anarchists and Movie Stars to actually go out and vote this year. His awfulness is SO BAD that it has made anarchists get over their prickly distaste for the democratic process, and movie stars get past their utter self-absorbtion. How scary is that?

Susan Heitker, 32, of Athens, believes that the U.S. government is neither legitimate nor democratic, but she still plans to vote.

"To me, at least, it's important to vote,'' she said. "There was a time when I was not going to vote, but I really dislike Bush.''

That's really scary.

“My reasoning has always been that because I’m from Massachusetts, everyone I would have voted for didn’t need my vote... That’s changing now because of where we’re going in this country.” — Matt Damon, Playboy, August issue

That's even scarier.

“I don’t remember a time when I thought I’d be coming to a political rally and be saying, you know Richard Nixon was a moderate.” — John Cusack, Associated Press, July 26

That's terrifying, because it's true.

Worse Than Those Freakin' Snipers

2004-09-01T19:43:00.000-05:00

I never thought I would ever see the day when I would find a black man more embarrassing than those DC snipers. I was pretty sure that John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo were as bad as it could possibly get. But then the Illinois GOP imported Alan Keyes to run for office.

He made a super bigoted, jackass comment today:

Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes says gays and lesbians are not only sinners, they're also "selfish hedonists or pleasure seekers," and that, according to Keyes, includes Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Cheney.

"With my own daughter, if she were a homosexual, I would love my daughter but I would tell my daughter that she was in sin," said Keyes.

Then he denied making the comment:

Keyes blamed the media for personalizing his comments about Mary Cheney.

"Do I know whether or not the daughter of the Cheneys is engaging in such acts? It is not for me to know," Keyes said. "I only know the argument I have made. It is for others to draw the conclusion."

If you click on the link above you will see video of him making the comments that he later denied saying.

WWJD, Big Al? You spent the better part of the last year trying to help Judge Roy Moore illegally keep the 10 Commandments in a public space in Alabama. Did it ever occur to you to read the Commandments, dude? Because one of them says that you shouldn't lie.

Kerry wakes up, realizes he's in a fight

2004-09-01T12:10:00.000-05:00

Thankfully, it looks like Kerry has woken up to the fact that he was this close to being Dukakis-ized. The only way to defeat a Bush is to anticipate the slurs, which typically come in from shadowy surrogates, respond forcefully then COUNTER-PUNCH aggressively. Dukakis got sucker-punched in 1988 and never got back off the mat. Kerry got the same treatment over the last week with the SBVT ads. He's in much better position than Dukakis to recover, not only given current economic and wartime conditions, but given the precedent set by Bill Clinton in 1992.

And if heads need to roll in his campaign to unleash Kerry, let the heads roll! Bring back Carville and Begala! Or someone who can act like them.

Blogging from New York: Day Two -- What McCain left out of his speech last night

2004-08-31T07:16:00.000-05:00

From Johnny Apple’s Convention Almanac today:

[W]hen we talked over a drink the night before (last), Mr. McCain grew agitated about the television commercials sponsored by a group of Vietnam veterans who question the war record of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential nominee, and specifically his entitlement to the medals that he won. He found the advertisements "completely nauseating," Mr. McCain said.

Mr. McCain and I have been friends since I flew from Saigon in July 1967 to report on an accident on the aircraft carrier Forrestal in the Gulf of Tonkin, in which a Zuni rocket accidentally detonated and set fire to the 400-gallon fuel tank of his A-4D Skyhawk, parked on the flight deck. More than 100 men were killed in the inferno that followed.

Afterwards, he came to stay at my house in Saigon for a week or so, and we enjoyed the bright lights of the wartime capital together. Only three months later, he was shot down and held as a prisoner of war in Hanoi for five long years.

Is this really the best we can do, Mr. McCain asked, almost 30 years after the fighting ended? Are we fated to go over this ground again and again, looking backward instead of forward? Won't we ever get over that war? He said he "hated the way this issue is dominating the campaign," and I thought I detected deep frustration that he had managed to do nothing about it.
"If they question Kerry's medals," he said, "they question everybody's medals. All those men who found it so hard to come home, who found so little gratitude for their sacrifices when they got here, are going to feel mistreated again. The families of the people whose names are on the monument in Washington will feel wronged, too. The painful wounds we all worked so hard to close will all be reopened.

"We've got to get that garbage off the air as soon as we can."

… But Mr. Bush has never specifically condemned the Swift boat commercial, confining himself to a mild statement that Mr. Kerry served honorably.

Mr. McCain's comments on Sunday night were so much more vehement than any I had heard him make before that I asked him whether he thought the president had acted sufficiently boldly on the issue of the commercials. Not yet, he said. In that case, would he bring the matter up again with Mr. Bush?"Yes, I will," he said, "probably this week, but not in quite the same terms. You and I were there, and he wasn't, and he's the president of the United States, and he is entitled to be treated respectfully."

Republicans Are Wandering Off the Reservation

2004-08-30T18:51:00.000-05:00

Last week we saw Dick Cheney tell the world that he loves his gay little girl! He went off the reservation and made a firm statement in which he disagreed with the President. He stated, clearly and unequivocally, that he is in favor of letting the states decide which civil rights, if any, will be given to its gay citizens. I thought we'd decided, way back in the 14th Amendment, that all Americans were guaranteed civil rights by the Constitution. And that those rights couldn't be legislated away. But I was obviously mistaken.

I guess letting the states decide this issue might not be a bad thing. After all, you know that the Blue States are all gonna vote in favor of Gay Rights. How many gay people really want to live in Alabama, anyway? So, if you have the misfortune to be a Mississippi Queen, you'll just have to move when you turn 18! Odds are that life in the Delta wouldn't have been that much fun for your gay ass anyway.

We all know that the Constitution wasn't really written with blacks, gays or women in mind. Activist judges, who try to give equal protection to minorities, just need to accept that. Equal Protection was written to protect rich, white men, like George W. Bush. Not queer, little Oklahomans or big, gay Montanans.

Bob Dole accidentally wandered off the reservation last week. He didn't know the mic was still on and he accidentally told Wolf Blitzer that the Bush people really are dirty campaigners who smear veterans. Oops! Ironically, he was appearing on the show to tell the world that the Bush campaign would never smear veterans.

The Bush Administration's unsound budgets are driving some True Conservatives off the reservation. My personal favorite is the ACU. They're upset--I kid you not--because George W. Bush's "education reform" hasn't left enough children behind. These guys aren't trying to screw school children out of their lunch money while pretending to be "Compassionate Conservatives." They're just, openly, trying to screw school children out of their lunch money. Come on, you've gotta give them credit for being honest!

Pat Buchanan is another True Conservative that's been driven off the res. Someone needed to step up to the plate and remind us of what the GOP really stands for. Pat does just that with his 300-page treatise on the evils of Jews and Mexicans. God bless him for getting the book out in time for Election 2004!

Illinois Republicans are practically carpooling to get off the reservation and away from Alan Keyes. Judy Baar Topinka lost her cool yesterday at the mere mention of the man's name. Poor thing!

Illinois Republican Party Chairwoman Judy Baar Topinka said she wasn't sure what Keyes had scheduled this week or when he would meet up with his party.

"He has his own agenda. He doesn't necessarily work within the confines of the Illinois Republican Party," she said. "So, we really don't know what Mr. Keyes is doing, when, until he alerts us. He lets us know--when he feels so moved to let us know--where he is.
"I don't know if it's a good thing," for the party, she added. "It certainly seems to be his way."

And he's driving the rest of the Illinois delegation to drink!

Keyes was nowhere to be found at the Illinois delegates' first cocktail party of the convention Sunday night at ABC's Good Morning America studios on Times Square. Guests boarded a room-sized elevator, where a bar was set up serving three kinds of Martinis to fortify the delegates for the long trip from the ground floor to the party room, one floor above.

Asked about right-wing outsider Keyes' run for the Senate, a top ranking Republican Party official said, "That's why they had the Martinis in the elevator."

Looking around the party -- honoring House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and paid for by The Walt Disney Co., the Chicago Board of Trade and other deep pocket operators -- the GOP official said, "If he (Keyes) comes in, this place will clear out." He might be the party nominee but these people don't have to like it. And they don't.

He's even managed to knock Jonah Goldberg out of sync with the GOP. Okay, so Jonah didn't get that far off the res. But, let's face it, no one from the National Review is going to get very far without taking some of the GOP kool-aid with them. For Jonah Goldberg, this is an extreme reaction.

Finally, Michael Moore isn't the only one mocking the "Coalition of the Willing." You've gotta be at least a tiny bit afraid when Conservative magazines start mocking a Republican President's war plans.

More GOP Convention -- Day One

2004-08-30T07:50:00.000-05:00

As you watch this convention, keep in mind that not a single one of the Republicans' featured speakers ever stands a chance to be its nominee for president. The party's so-called moderates are being trotted out to paper over the fact that this administration is the most conservative since Ronald Reagan. Oh some of them are probably laboring under the assumption that they have a chance at the nomination in 2008. But they would be kidding themselves.

And what about those Republican “Celebrities”? OK, they’ve got Aaa-nold, but is anybody else wondering about the Republicans’ celebrity lineup for the convention? Ron Silver? Isn’t he a little, well, intense?

From Rob Long’s piece today in Slate (he’s a Republican but he’s not a Red State Republican):

According to the most recent RNC press release, conventioneers will be treated to country music acts such as Brooks & Dunn, Lee Ann Womack, Darryl Worley, and Donnie McClurkin. They'll be joining Michael W. Smith, Daniel Rodriguez, Daize Shayne, Sara Evans, and Dana Glover on the podium. Sounds exciting, no?

I'm aware that I'm going to sound like one of those liberal Democrat media snobs—which is unfair, because I'm a conservative Republican media snob—but who are these people? I live in Venice, Calif., so I happen to know who Daize Shayne is—Google her yourself, if you're interested—but most of the other names are drawing big blanks. There are rumors, of course, that Britney Spears is a closet Bushie—which might be true; she's from Louisiana, right?—and we've all seen Ted Nugent's Republican spiel.

But the sad truth is, the real difference between Democrats and Republicans is that their celebrities are, like, actually famous and ours are, well, singing weirdly erotic songs about Our Savior. Metaphorically, anyway. It's not so much that Republican celebrities are all Christian rockers, it's that they all pretty much adhere to the Christian Rock Principle—it sounds like rock, for about one second you think it's rock, but it isn't quite. Something's off. The performers and celebrities who will appear at the RNC certainly sound famous—they have Grammys and awards and huge followings, apparently—but they aren't, quite.

Blogging the Convention, Not. Day One.

2004-08-30T07:30:00.000-05:00

Not in New York --

Actually, you couldn’t pay me to attend another Republican National Convention, even as a loyal opposition blogger. I have already been to a Republican convention, as a kid, and it left such an impression that I’m really not sure I’ve ever been quite right since.

It was 1976 in Kansas City, and the Reaganites were still trying to wrest the nomination away from President Ford. The Hall, so bright with TV lights and all the white faces that I had to wear shades, was filled with two of my favorite types of white people:

Country club CEO-types and their blue-hair wives (not many women were actual delegates) who complained incessantly about how high income taxes and government regulations were squeezing the rich. “It’s just not fun being rich in this country any more, daa’ling,” one women said as she patted me on the head. “It’s that damned OSHA,” chimed in her husband.
And then there were the minions of the Chreeest-yin Right, making their first appearance at a GOP convention, supporting Ronald Reagan. These were primarily cheap-suited anti-abortionists from the south and west, wearing sincere smiles, carrying around Bibles and asking you to come to their prayer group after the convention session. I immediately translated the words “prayer group” as “no booze”, so I never bowed my head in prayer with them. At first glance, they could be mistaken for “nice guys,” but then something like “Gerald Ford is a baby-killer” would come out of their mouths and you would just want to back away, slowly. What really creeped me out was that these people assumed that I, as a cheap-suited young teenager, was probably one of them. “Is your daddy a pastor?” one of them asked me, patting me on the head. These were the people who rode Nelson Rockefeller out of the party on a rail that year, forcing Ford to dump Rocky as his V-P and put Bob Dole on the ticket, and in so doing, stamped out the last vestiges of the liberal wing of the Republican party.

Rocky and I went way back – to 1968 when he was for a time a stop-Nixon candidate for the GOP nomination. I had switched to Rockefeller after RFK was killed as the best hope for an anti-war liberal to win the White House. Of course, I was only 8 at the time and to this day I’m not sure whether Rocky was anti-war or not. In any event, I urged my dad to take me out to the Rockefeller rally at the Wichita Municipal Airport and there we stood, waving a pre-made sign, and surging forward in the crowd to shake his hand. “How ya’ doin’ young fella?” Rocky asked me, as he patted me on the head. So I was seething that night when Reagan delegates shouted down Nelson Rockefeller.

I spent much of the convention trying to sneak into areas I wasn’t supposed to be in. I got to sit right next to Ford’s kids on the final night, while I read my advance copy of the speeches which I had picked up in the press area. Anyway, the night Rocky was treated so poorly by all those nice Chreeest-yin folks, I exited through one of the restricted doors only to find Rocky himself sitting there outside the hall. He was by himself, a half bottle of Jose Cuervo sitting beside him, smoking a cigarette. He patted me on the head, motioned toward the bottle, and with a look of disbelief that a Rockefeller had been treated the way he had by Republicans(!), he grabbed the bottle away from me and told me to get the hell out of there. “Don’t walk, run. Don't look back. There’s nothing for you to see here.” I took him at his word. I got the hell out of there.

Not long after, Nelson Rockefeller was dead, and so was the liberal wing of the Republican party. I never looked back. I’ve never supported a Republican since. (OK, I wasn’t even a Republican back then, but if I had been, I would have never supported a Republican again.)

The Big Three: Missouri, Ohio, and Florida

2004-08-27T07:46:00.000-05:00

No reason to pay any attention at all to national polling numbers this year. They mean nothing in an election to be decided by a few swing states. But what's a swing state and what isn't? The list keeps expanding and contracting. Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire were on everyone's list at the beginning of the campaign, but all seem pretty safe for Kerry. On the other hand, Colorado and Arizona have moved from pretty safe for Bush into swing state territory.

Bottom line: you don't really need to keep track of all the swing states. The election will come down to three states: Missouri, Ohio, and Florida. Kerry needs one of the three to win; Bush needs a sweep.

Here's how the numbers work. Give Kerry every state that Gore won in 2000, plus New Hampshire, where Bush won by less than the number of Nader votes. Kerry has consistently led in New Hampshire and all the Gore states so far, although there is no doubt that some, like Wisconsin and Iowa, are very close. Those states will give Kerry 264 electoral votes, six short of election.

Bush starts with a base of 151 solid red-state electoral votes. He has to win a number of states that he took in 2000 that remain close at this point in the campaign: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. This looks like a tall order inasmuch as the candidates appear to be deadlocked in all of these states except for North Carolina, where Bush holds a clear but narrow lead. But so long as the current dynamic of the campaign remains intact, it's hard to see Bush losing any of these states. That would give Bush 216 electoral votes.

And that brings us to Missouri, Ohio, and Florida. If Bush takes them all, he gets past 270. If Kerry wins one, he goes over the top. In Ohio, Bush seems to be leading, and is pushing the margin of error. In Missouri, the two candidates have been practically deadlocked throughout the summer. In Florida, same thing. Neither candidate has had a lead outside the margin of error in any trial heat.

Now to alternate scenarios. Two of the Democratic swing states that Bush has the best chance to win in are Iowa and Wisconsin. If he takes those two states, he almost surely would also win Missouri. If Bush won these two states in addition to Missouri, Ohio wouldn't matter, but Bush would need Florida to win the election.

Or perhaps Bush comes back to win Pennsylvania. If he did that, he almost surely would also win Ohio. In this scenario, Missouri wouldn't matter, but Bush would still need Florida.

As for Kerry, if he were to pull off a "Western Swing" and win either Arizona or Colorado, the election could be over even if he didn't win any of the Big Three. Or if Kerry could pull off an upset in Arkansas or Tennessee, he wins without the Big Three.

And then there is the deadlock scenario. Give Bush all of the Big Three, but give Kerry either Nevada or West Virginia's five electoral votes. The result: 269-269.

A tie would throw the contest into the newly elected House of Representatives on January 5. Each state delegation gets one vote. Currently, Republicans control 30 state delegations, Democrats 16, and four are tied. The makeup of the new House will likely not change much, so a tie favors Bush.

Check out the LA Times interactive electoral college feature and play with your own scenarios.

Check out swing state polling at www.realclearpolitics.com and www.electoral-vote.com. The Wall Street Journal (subscribers only) and Newsweek have swing state features using various polling results.

MOST RECENT BIG THREE POLLS:
Florida:
Kerry 47
Bush 49
Nader 2
Und 2
(Aug. 24, 500 likely voters, margin of error +/- 4%)
www.Rasmussenreports.com

Missouri:
Kerry 44
Bush 46
other 1
Und 9
(Aug. 24, 580 registered voters, moe +/-4%)
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-na-poll27aug27,1,1350122.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Ohio:
Kerry 44
Bush 49
other 1
Und 6
(Aug. 24, 507 registered votes, moe +/-4%)
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-na-poll27aug27,1,1350122.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Someone Has Finally Said It Out Loud

2004-08-25T22:42:00.000-05:00

We've all spent the past couple of weeks reading Alan Keyes' crazy comments. He accepted the GOP's nomination with the words "The victory is for God." The next day he went on CNN and called his opponent, a black civil rights lawyer, a "slaveholder." We've seen him ramble on about "smelly toads." We've heard him say that September 11th was warning from God. But nobdody ever calls this crazy guy CRAZY--until now! A public personality has finally said what we've all been thinking.

"Alan Keyes sees a country where every American should be armed to the hilt with the most deadly firepower imaginable," said Jim Brady, an Illinois native who served as President Ronald Reagan's press secretary. "I cannot fathom how he could come up with such a notion. It's insane."
- http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=580

But Alan Keyes has been a raving madman, for years. And nobody says anything about it. Here's some classic Alan Keyes, from the 2000 GOP Presidential Debates:

McCain's best sport came when Keyes asked him a lunatic question premised on Keyes' not understanding that McCain was joking when he said he was a big fan of the thrash band Nine Inch Nails. Keyes accused McCain of "aiding and abetting cultural murder" for saying he liked such music.
McCain rolled his eyes, giggled, and turned into a contestant on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. "Can I get a lifeline?" he asked Russert.

"I'm a father and I'm not laughing," Keyes responded.

"I haven't been able to entertain you very often in the past," McCain shot back, rolling his eyes and giggling some more.

Keyes, who was wearing the exploding lilac necktie that is often a harbinger of one of his "episodes," also took the mayhem as a prompt to express his truest self. In other words, he jumped on the nearest soapbox and started ranting to no one in particular about such evils as atheism, homosexuality, and Tim Russert.

- http://www.slate.com/id/1004325/

He rants like a madman, but everyone just ignores it. It's like there's a really smelly toad in the room, but everybody just continues sipping their cocktails and ignoring the toad EVEN THOUGH THE ROOM IS FILLED WITH THE STINK OF IT!

Guns Don't Shoot People, Condoms Shoot People

2004-08-25T19:29:00.000-05:00

Keyes: Constitution Protects Machine Gun Ownership
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-sen25.html

Alan Keyes is so crazy that I almost want him to win. Some really morbid part of me wants to see what kind of legislation he would introduce. Like, today, he calls a press conference and just launches into how Americans need to carry fully automatic weapons. Yup, he really said that. Am I so wrong for wanting to see him argue the need for teen chastity belts on the floor of the United States Senate? With this guy in the Senate, I'm telling you, more people would watch C-Span.

Declaring "the front line of the war against terror once again involves the citizens," Republican Alan Keyes said Tuesday he believes the U.S. Constitution grants properly trained private individuals the right to own and carry machine guns.

"You're not talking about giving citizens access to atom bombs and other things," the former presidential candidate said. "That's ridiculous."

Ridiculous? Why not atom bombs, Alan? What about the slippery slope? First, the fascists in Washington take away your thermonuclear device. Next... Who knows?

"This seems to be a man [Barack Obama] who is absolutely determined to make the world safe for criminals, while making sure that law-abiding citizens have no opportunity to defend themselves against the criminals," Keyes said.

"Have you ever been to

Israel

?" Keyes asked the reporter. "Because if you've ever been to

Israel

, you wouldn't ask that question. And in the midst of terrifying dangers, you walk around the streets of

Israel

and you see every other person carrying arms and Uzis and so forth and so on, and believe me, you do not feel less safe on that account."

Yeah, Alan, it totally sucks that we don't feel as secure as they do in Israel. Often, while walking to work, I envy the feeling of safety and security the Isrealis have. I mean, as opposed to the constant terror we feel.

Another reason we're so unsafe, besides the fact that we don't have enough machine guns on our streets, is because our high school curricula is woefully inadequate. We're teaching kids dangerous stuff, like evolution.

"Evolutionary doctrine removes the basis for making moral judgments about human behavior." - Alan Keyes, WorldNetDaily

And, of course, condoms are another culprit. We gave those kids at Columbine condoms, and do you see what happened? They went on a shooting spree!

These days we tell our children, "Don't bother to resist; we know you can't control yourself. We know you have to have sex. So here's your condom." Thus we suggest to our children that there is no basis in the human soul for self-discipline or self-control. - Alan Keyes, WorldNetDaily

Instead of teaching deadly stuff like evolution and birth control, we should be doing something more sensible, like teaching high school students how to aim and fire.

"The Second Amendment civics course I am proposing must include the holding and firing of basic weapons. We need to demythologize guns before the liberal attempt to create a totemic fear of them succeeds." - Alan Keyes, WorldNetDaily

No, folks, those Columbine kids didn't go on a shooting spree becuase their crazy-ass parents let them have Nazi Youth meetings in the backyard and then bought them weapons. Nope, their shooting spree was just another by-product of the "Liberal Agenda".

The gun control mentality is that guns are in control of situations, and when we see kids like those in Columbine High School, we shouldn’t see human beings who have gone off the right moral road because their consciences and self-discipline have not been properly developed. Instead, we should see guns in control of the situation, and then we should react against the guns. “Gun violence” should be called human violence, leaving us at least the dignity of being responsible for our own sins. - Alan Keyes, WorldNetDaily

Just for fun, click here to watch Alan Keyes refer to himself in the third-person and talk about the safety and security of living in Israel (click on the See Video tab):
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/082404_ns_guncontrol.html

News flash: Latest Swift Boat Vets ad claims Bush the real hero

2004-08-25T17:15:00.000-05:00

Perhaps clearing up nagging questions surrounding George W. Bush's Vietnam-era service, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's latest barrage of ads claims that, far from being AWOL in the Alabama National Guard, the president was actually a special forces operative who piloted Navy swift boats up the Hong Na River on top-secret missions at the behest of his father, George H.W. Bush, who was then Director of the CIA.

"Over the years, many Americans have seen the movie, Apocalypse Now," intones the narrator. "In 1971, George W. Bush lived it."

The ad then features retired Admiral Roy Hoffman, saying:

"Nobody could believe their eyes. Here was this pimply faced kid who not only went to Yale, but had been a cheerleader at Yale. A male cheerleader. OK? And he was piloting that swift boat past nests of snipers, bullets snapping into the boat's hull, zig-zagging to avoid mines, and diving into the snake infested river to save several of his fellow soldiers, one of them a tall gangly fella with a humongous jaw who we thought was French. Some said he must have been drunk to have piloted that boat up the river into the heart of darkness that day. But I said then, and I'll say now, 'Cheerleader, my ass.'"

News flash: New Swift Boat Vets ad claims Kerry wasn't even in Vietnam!

2004-08-25T10:13:00.000-05:00

Emboldened by the success of their first barrage of ads questioning John Kerry's combat record in Vietnam, the Swift Boat Veterans Against John Kerry today unveiled their newest ad, which claims that John Kerry never served in Vietnam at all.

The ad quotes a "high-ranking" senior Bush administration official (shown concealed in silhouette) who claims that while he was stationed with the Alabama National Guard, he remembers "a tall gangly fella that I recognized from a secret society I belonged to at Yale. He had this humongous jaw and liked to speak French, and I would run into him when we'd come to the base to sign the attendance sheet. We'd give each other a wink, and then we'd get outta there before anybody else saw us."

It doesn't matter that the attacks on Kerry's war record are false, it makes for a damn good story

2004-08-24T23:25:00.000-05:00

Even so-called objective reporters treat stories like the Republican attack on Kerry's war record not as something factual to be gotten to the bottom of, but as a "controversy" that merely requires equal time be given to both sides. So even though the facts strongly support Kerry's version of events, that's not the overall impression one gets from following the story in objective news organizations.

Many of these same media outlets have actually done some investigative reporting (see yesterday's post) that strongly support Kerry's version of events, but yet refuse to label the GOP Swift Boat Veterans claims as false. In Tuesday's Chicago Tribune, for example, the lead story was about Bush's (weak) denunciation of all 527 group-sponsored ads. There was not a single evaluative comment on the truth or falsity of the claims against Kerry. Only buried in an accompanying news analysis piece emphasizing that both candidates may have overplayed the Vietnam issue do we finally get this telling comment:

"For now, though, the president's backers have dominated the conversation, and it might not matter who is ultimately correct, even if the facts as are known today seem to heavily favor Kerry's version of events."

So much for journalists shedding light on the truth.

And while the so-called objective journalists obscure the truth, the conservative media echo-chamber at Fox News and on talk radio have no pretensions to objectivity, so for them, it's all Swift Boat Vets Against Kerry All the Time, as the following New York Times article details:

On Cable, a Fog of Words About Kerry's War Record
August 24, 2004
By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

There is the fog of war and then there is the fog of cable.

Over the last few weeks, 24-hour news networks have done
little to find out what John Kerry did in Vietnam, but they
have provided a different kind of public service: their
examination of his war record in Vietnam illustrates once
again just how perfunctory and confusing cable news
coverage can be. Facts, half-truths and passionately
tendentious opinions get tumbled together on screen like
laundry in an industrial dryer - without the softeners of
fact-checking or reflection.

Somehow, on all-cable news stations - CNN as well as Fox
News - a story that rises or falls on basic and mostly
verifiable facts blurs into just another developing news
sensation alongside the latest Utah kidnapping or the Scott
Peterson murder trial. (It is particularly confusing on Fox
News, where so many of its blond female anchors look like
Amber Frey.)

Fox News, which delivers its news with "Fight Club"
ferocity, has relished the controversy the most, seizing
hungrily on charges that Mr. Kerry lied to gain his medals.
Those accusations, which have not been substantiated, were
made in the book "Unfit for Command," co-written by a
former Swift boat commander and longtime Kerry critic, John
O'Neill. Fox News has pushed the story early, often, and
sometimes even late.

Yesterday, President Bush denounced all third-party
campaign ads, including the ads by a group called Swift
Boat Veterans for Truth, and called his opponent's war
record admirable. Fox anchors made note of that
development, then raced back to the disparaging remarks
former Senator Bob Dole made to CNN on Sunday about Mr.
Kerry's Purple Heart medals. ("Never bled that I know of,"
said Mr. Dole, who was badly wounded in World War II.)
Fox News showed, again, a clip of Mr. Dole complaining that
it was hypocritical of Kerry, a former opponent of the war,
to run now as a proud Vietnam veteran. The Fox anchor
Laurie Dhue then turned to her liberal guest, Elaine
Kamarck, a former Gore campaign adviser.

"I mean, this does make it sound like he speaks from both
sides of his mouth on this," Ms. Dhue said. "Could this
hurt the Kerry campaign?"

Ms. Kamarck disagreed.

Fred Barnes, the executive editor of The Weekly Standard
and a regular Fox commentator, ardently defended the Swift
boat critics of Mr. Kerry, saying on Fox that a majority of
the senator's Vietnam brethren believed that Mr. Kerry
"fabricated or exaggerated his record." Mr. Barnes added
that "the entire chain of command above Kerry have said the
same thing." He did not mention any notable exceptions in
that chain of command, including Senator John W. Warner,
Republican of Virginia, a former secretary of the Navy who
said Mr. Kerry fully merited the Silver Star. Mr. Barnes's
hyperbole went unchecked.

CNN showed less relish over the Swift boat clash, but it
was not much more helpful in separating fact from friction.
Wolf Blitzer's interview with the tart-tongued Mr. Dole
made a lot of news on Sunday, but CNN allowed him to make
misleading assertions without pointing out where he was in
error. Mr. Dole suggested that Mr. Kerry was in a rush to
obtain his Purple Hearts to meet a regulation that allowed
soldiers to leave the war zone after winning three. "I
mean, the first one, whether he ought to have a Purple
Heart - he got two in one day, I think. And he was out of
there in less than four months, because three Purple Hearts
and you're out." ( Mr. Kerry did not receive two Purple
Hearts for events of the same day. He received them for the
events of Dec. 2, 1968; Feb. 20, 1969; and March 13, 1969.)

Finally, yesterday afternoon, Mr. Blitzer spoke to Mr. Dole
by telephone and asked him if he regretted any of his
statements. Mr. Dole said he did not.

"I wasn't trying to be mean-spirited," Mr. Dole said. "I
was just trying to say all these guys on the other side
just can't be Republican liars."

That kind of air-kiss coverage is typical of cable news,
where the premium is on speed and spirited banter rather
than painstaking accuracy. But it has grown into a lazy
habit: anchors do not referee - they act as if their
reportage is fair and accurate as long as they have two
opposing spokesmen on any issue.

Fox commentators like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are
famous for their informal, intemperate manner of speech.
But the debate on programs like "Crossfire," on CNN, is
often as heated - and as full of hot air. On an Aug. 12
edition about the Swift boat debate, a program regular,
Robert Novak, the conservative columnist, called Mr.
O'Neill and his fellow anti-Kerry veterans "the real
patriots to rise to the surface this election year."
James Carville, Mr. Novak's liberal counterpart, challenged
Mr. O'Neill's co-author, Jerome Corsi, charging that Mr.
Corsi's blog is "scabrous." When Mr. O'Neill tried to
change the subject, Mr. Carville shrieked at him.

At best, cable news programs swing into action when a
crisis or major news development occurs, marshaling their
resources to give viewers instant, live access. At their
worst, they amplify the loudest voices and blur
complexities. People can blame the confusion of combat for
some of the discrepancies over Mr. Kerry's war record, but
cable has done little to clear the air.

Still Crazy After All These Years

2004-08-24T20:26:00.000-05:00

Imagine my delight this morning when I found not one but TWO editorials from Phyllis Schlafly! I was, like, "Girlfriend, where ya' been for the past 20 years?"

--------------------------------------------------------------
When I first heard that the Illinois Republican Party took the crazy train to Maryland to find Alan Keyes, I was dying to know what the conversation must have been like to lead them there. I mean, here's a guy who makes Jim Oberweis look sane. He's not from Illinois. And there's absolutely nothing about him that says either "United States Senator" or "winner."

I mean, it's obvious he was chosen because he was black. But I just couldn't imagine an adult, in the year 2004, saying "We need a negro. Who's available?" Then I read this article from Phyllis Schlafly. She actually made the "our black man is better than their black man" argument. Ms. Phyllis proved, once and for all, that Republicans really do say "We need a negro. Who's available?" when they want to present an image of diversity.

The Fight in Illinois: Alan Keyes vs. Barack Obama
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4867
<>
"The media were touting Obama's Harvard degree, but Keyes's Harvard Ph.D. is more accomplished than Obama's law degree."
- I'm just glad that she had enough class not to say "so there."

"Alan Keyes has exposed the lie that the Democrats are the party for advancing minorities."
- Well, she's got us there. Our black man was elected to office, locally. Then he won a state-wide primary. The Illinois Republican Party, on the other hand, pulled a black man from obscurity and brought him to another state to be their candidate for a prestigious, national office. Now that's giving a brother a helping hand!

"Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton like Obama because he imitates their votes, but Americans like Keyes because he is straightforward about issues we care about."
- She thinks Barack Obama is just a pawn for the white people? I was offended by that, at first. But then I thought about it, and the only black person she's ever met is Clarence Thomas. So who can blame her? And did she just call Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton un-American? Nice!

"The Bush-haters rally behind Obama, not because his father was African, but because he can be counted on to protect the teachers unions, abortion, and gay unions. The Democrats had hoped to elect Obama by simply playing the race card, but the nomination of Alan Keyes has checkmated that strategy."
- They checkmated our black man. Dammit! Now we're going to have to find a new, more exotic group with which to play the race card. We're going to have find us some Arab-tino PhDs and Jew-a-rican physicists to run for office. Then what are they gonna do?

--------------------------------------------------------------
If American men aren't the best athletes in the world, who's fault is that? Why it's the fault of American women, of course. D'uh! Even though this was just written today this is classic Phyllis Schlafly!

How Title IX is holding us back in Athens
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20040824.shtml

"This has forced, for example, Howard University to eliminate men's teams such as baseball in order to reduce the overall total of male relative to female athletes. Meanwhile, women's sports that use large squad sizes, such as rowing and horseback riding, are sprouting up at many colleges."
- I don't think she should blame Title IX if horseback riding has replaced baseball. Only the French could be behind something that diabolical!

"Some experts predict that our medal share will fall even lower this time. Our men's track team, traditionally a leader in medals, has been decimated by Title IX quotas."
- Once again, you're pointing the finger of blame in the wrong direction, Phyl. This isn't because of Title IX. It's because these modern negroes are so damn lazy! In the old days, our darkies were so much faster.

"Title IX has compelled colleges to eliminate hundreds of teams having large male squads, such as wrestling and track. At the same time, colleges are offering full-ride scholarships to women with no experience in sports that are easy to learn, such as crew."
- Colleges are pulling unsuspecting girls off the street and giving them crew scholarships?

"Our future Jesse Owenses have been replaced by less talented women who took an athletic scholarship to get a free college tuition, not because they were keen on sports."
- And these girls don't even like sports?

"The United States spends more on sports than any other country in the world, perhaps more than all other countries combined. But if our future great athletes have their spots taken away from them in the name of gender equality, what are we getting for our money?"
- Well, it sounds to me like we're getting Jane Austen scholars with tremendous upper-body strength.