Ashcroft Quits Top Justice Post; Evans Going, Too

The New York Times > Washington > Ashcroft Quits Top Justice Post; Evans Going, Too

Now I'm certainly glad to see this guy go, get a load of what he said:

The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.

Seriously? Do you believe this nonsense?

No Surrender

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: No Surrender

After two days of listening to this "mandate" and "political capital" nonsense, it is clear to me that Bush intends to try and run us over with his agenda. And I intend to keep fighting it.

We are the 49% of voters who do not want Bush in office, and we should not allow ourselves to be bullied into accepting the theories of a powerful mandate, political capital, or cultural shift. We must continue fighting.

Krugman agrees:
President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.

Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism.

President Bush's News Conference

The New York Times > Washington > Transcript of President Bush's News Conference:
"You ask, do I feel free? Let me put it to you this way. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in -- after the 2000 election. I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election, and I'm going to spend it for -- for what -- what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda -- Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror. "

Do you believe this guy?

A mandate?

Washington Times: President Bush clinched a second term yesterday after Sen. John Kerry decided against forcing a dramatic political standoff, clearing the way for the Bush team to declare a mandate for four more years.

Times-Picayune: Emboldened by substantial gains in Congress, Republicans declared that Tuesday's election gives them a mandate to push a more conservative agenda.

Yahoo! News (AP): The White House claimed a second-term mandate Thursday for President Bush's agenda to keep taxes low and revamp Social Security, appealing to Democrats to help bridge America's political divide after a bitter election.

At 51% of the popular vote, no one should be claiming a mandate. One state made the difference. One. But don't expect the Administration to see it any other way. And they'll be selling it to us to justify pushing through their agenda.

The New York Times reminds us, though: Four years ago, according to Vice President Dick Cheney, when Mr. Bush lost the popular vote and seemed to be in a position where consensus-seeking was a given, White House officials thought about taking a compromise centrist route for "about 30 seconds" before grabbing their old partisan agenda and running with it. In his speech yesterday, Mr. Cheney stressed the president's mandate. Given the way Mr. Cheney behaved during the first term, it's unnerving to imagine what he may have in mind now.

Friedman's blue

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Two Nations Under God

Thomas Friedman sounds blue.

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a country that allows a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn't trump science? And, most important, is it a country whose president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us - instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?

Well...

I'm not really sure what happened, but I'm not happy about it. Is it possible that Bush had the country scared enough that we don't dare vote for anyone else or face the wolves? Or are we really becoming a Christian country? The real problem is that Bush will think he was right. He will believe that his policies are the right ones and he will continue this "stay the course" nonsense. He will have control of the House and Senate and will push through any bit of right wing nonsense they want. He has no need to move to the center. He didn't believe in governing from the center last time and now with a majority of the vote we can look forward to a return of the Federal Marriage Amendment, Rehinquist and maybe another couple justices will retire, there will be more destructive environmental bills like "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests." It's bad.

So, what went wrong? The exit polls tell us that the youth vote didn't turn out. Didn't turn out. Voter turnout was up, but it turns out that they were all Christians voting for Bush. And the Right will tell us that this is the way the country is going, that the Michael Moore and Howard Dean left is just an over-represented minority. And maybe it's true if we can legislate discrimination in however many states last night.

Oh, but maybe it's too close to call? Sure, sure. Count for every vote. Fight for every vote. But I'm not holding my breath. Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell is no trustworthy sort, but I don't know the details so I'm not counting on it.

Hooray for small victories: Ken Salazar won the Senate race in Colorado.

Vote, vote, vote, vote

Okay, vote, but only do it once.
Today is the day. This is the day I've been looking forward to for quite a while. It is our chance to let the President and the world know what we feel about the man and his policies. And it's close. And that makes it incredibly important that we all get out there and vote. In fact, do more than that. Get on the phone and call every one you know and make sure they get out and vote. Remind them to remind their friends. I know that after months of the most despicable political ads that we just want to be done with it, but we have the responsibility to vote. This election is much too important to stay home.

I'm looking forward to a long night of watching unreliable reporting from the media tonight. If we've learned anything over the last few weeks, it's that we can't rely on polls. So why should we rely on polls tonight. We're not going to know until they really start counting. We should all cross our fingers that it's not close.

Those dirty details

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Kerry Attacks Bush Over Loss of Explosives

"Last night on this broadcast we reported that the 101st Airborne never found the nearly 380 tons of HMX and RDX explosives,'' Tom Brokaw, the NBC anchor, said. "We did not conclude the explosives were missing or had vanished, nor did we say they missed the explosives. We simply reported that the 101st did not find them.''

"For its part, the Bush campaign immediately pointed to our report as conclusive proof that the weapons had been removed before the Americans arrived,'' Mr. Brokaw added. "That is possible, but that is not what we reported.''

For the second day Mr. Bush did not speak about the issue, twice ignoring questions from reporters.

We do know that the US was informed about this weapons cache before the war and absolutely no effort was made to search or secure the site during the war.
And who is responsible? Ultimately, the President. Again it points to the lack of planning that went into the war and the poor way it was and continues to be waged. Does this make you feel any safer?

C.I.A. Is Accused of Delaying Internal Report

The New York Times > Washington > C.I.A. Is Accused of Delaying Internal Report

The Central Intelligence Agency has blocked, at least temporarily, the distribution of a draft internal report that identifies individual officers by name in discussing whether anyone should be held accountable for intelligence failures leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of Congress from both parties said.
The delays began in July, at the direction of John E. McLaughlin, then the acting director of central intelligence, and have continued since Porter J. Goss took over as the intelligence chief last month, members of Congress said. The delays have postponed the next step in the process, which calls for the draft report to be reviewed by affected individuals.

Of course.

Those headlines the President hates

Hike In War Funding Sought: Administration's planned request for $70 billion would bring wars' total costs to nearly $225 billion.

Allawi Blames U.S. for 'Gross Negligence' : In rare criticism of U.S.-led forces in Iraq, interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi on Tuesday blamed foreign troops helping secure the country for "gross negligence" in the massacre of 49 Iraqi National Guard recruits last weekend.

Consumer confidence falls for a third month: Consumer confidence fell in October for the third consecutive month, the Conference Board said Tuesday. The decline was steeper than expected. The Consumer Confidence Index dropped 3.9 points to 92.8, from a revised 96.7 in September, according to the Conference Board, a private research group. Analysts had expected a reading of 94.

AP: New Bush Guard Papers Leave Questions: Unearthed under legal pressure, three-decade-old documents portray President Bush as a capable and well-liked Air National Guard pilot who stopped flying and attending regular drills two-thirds of the way through his six-year commitment - without consequence.

Embedded Reporter Saw No Explosives Search: An NBC News reporter embedded with a U.S. army unit that seized an Iraqi installation three weeks into the war said Tuesday that she saw no signs that the Americans searched for the powerful explosives that are now missing from the site. Will Drudge shut up now?

Kerry for President

Kerry for President (washingtonpost.com)

And now the Washington Post endorses Kerry.

Editor and Publisher has the details on the endorsement race:
Sen. John Kerry continued his raid on newspapers that backed President Bush in 2000, grabbing 24 new "flip-flops," plus The Washington Post, which was a major supporter of the war in Iraq. The Democrat has now won endorsements from at least 35 papers that went for Bush in 2000, while Bush has earned only two Gore papers.

Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq

The New York Times > International > Middle East > Tracking the Weapons: Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq

This is bad.

The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

But it gets worse.

Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded.

Condi Rice was told a month ago. They were stolen while the country was still under the CPA. And now they're being used against our soldiers.

And Scott McClellan gives this excuse today:
At the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom there were a number of priorities. It was a priority to make sure that the oil fields were secure, so that there wasn't massive destruction of the oil fields, which we thought would occur. It was a priority to get the reconstruction office up and running. It was a priority to secure the various ministries, so that we could get those ministries working on their priorities, whether it was --

We secured the oil fields, but didn't secure ammo dumps that we knew existed. Oh, and then we didn't bother guarding treasures or preventing looting from the very offices that would have contained any information on any WMD, if there were any.

Glad to know we have our priorities.

Kerry and Salazar ahead in Colorado

Zogby International

Kerry 49%, Bush 45%
Salazar 51%, Coors 42%

It's all winnable here.

Pic of the Day

Gosh, something evil in me likes this:


That's Karl Rove under the wheels of Air Force One.

Feeling the Draft

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Feeling the Draft

For those of you concerned about a draft, this column will not help you feel more secure.
I doubt that Bush has any intentions to reinstate the draft, but his lack of foresight and doctrine of democracy by force leave us in a dangerous position. Any new military action, pre-emption against Syria or Iran, or defending an attack at home, while maintaining the same troop level in Iraq would give them no choice but to begin drafting.
Paul Krugman, the column's author, is an economist, so I am a bit more skeptical of columns that stretch too far out of that field. He has some good stuff here, though.

The administration's strategy of denial in the face of these realities was illustrated by a revealing moment during the second presidential debate. After Senator John Kerry described the stop-loss policy as a "backdoor draft," Charles Gibson, the moderator, tried to get a follow-up response from President Bush: "And with reservists being held on duty --"

At that point Mr. Bush cut Mr. Gibson off and changed the subject from the plight of the reservists to the honor of our Polish allies, ending what he obviously viewed as a dangerous line of questioning.

And during the third debate, Mr. Bush tried to minimize the issue, saying that the reservists being sent to Iraq "didn't view their service as a backdoor draft. They viewed their service as an opportunity to serve their country." In that case, why are they being forced, rather than asked, to continue that service?

John Kerry for President

The New York Times > Opinion > John Kerry for President

In case you missed it, the NYT endorsement of John Kerry:

Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a willingness - sorely missing in Washington these days - to reach across the aisle. We are relieved that he is a strong defender of civil rights, that he would remove unnecessary restrictions on stem cell research and that he understands the concept of separation of church and state. We appreciate his sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of the people who currently do without.

Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency. He is a longtime advocate of deficit reduction. In the Senate, he worked with John McCain in restoring relations between the United States and Vietnam, and led investigations of the way the international financial system has been gamed to permit the laundering of drug and terror money. He has always understood that America's appropriate role in world affairs is as leader of a willing community of nations, not in my-way-or-the-highway domination.

We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.

Debate Three

Well, a busy schedule has forced me to limit my posts and also prevented me from seeing last night's debate. My analysis comes from what is being said in the press, and let's keep in mind that this is how most voters will get their information.

Overall, another Kerry win. A Kerry sweep, they say. Bush again appears to have given up on the middle, the undecided, and is focusing on rallying the base. By Kerry reaching to the center it makes him look like he cares more about the average American. Who can say which strategy wins more votes (in the states where that matters)?

And let's clear this up before it gets any more traction. Mary Cheney is out, Dick has mentioned her sexuality on the stump, and she WORKS for the campaign. A simple mention of her is entirely legitimate. Did Kerry smear her? Did he make fun of her sexuality? NO. It may have been an unnecessary comment, but it shows the hypocrisy in the Bush stance.

Where do we go from here? Well, in states in play like Colorado, we'll see more ads, more visits, more ground game. In the press we'll see a repeat of the "Kerry surge" from Iowa and pondering on how Bush can maintain his position. From the spinners? More nonsense and more ugliness. The Lynne Cheney response was planned and coordinated, mind you.

With any luck, it'll all be over on Nov. 3. Until it goes to court, that is.

Debate Two

Need wood?

My, there were many things to laugh about during this debate. Painful, too, in many ways.
Bush, again, came across as angry, leaping out of his chair and interrupting the moderator. Not very polite. Kerry, on the other hand, was at times clear and strong, but other times he returned to that senatorial doublespeak. I score it a draw simply because Bush didn't fall on his face like he did last time. I don't think that it has stopped the Bush/Cheney slide. Or maybe I should say that it will not stop the growing Kerry/Edwards momentum. The Bush attacks are not working. Kerry appears smart, direct and very clearly Presidential in these debates and this alone will win him votes from the undecided. And on the other side Bush looks defensive and annoyed. Slapping the "liberal" label on Kerry is only going to work with people who are already going to vote for Bush.

So with Bush on the defensive, his slew of "distortions" in this debate, and facts on the ground in Iraq not in his favor, Kerry has the opportunity this week to really take control.

And, yes, Bush has an interest in a timber company.

Cheney Rewriting History

MSNBC - Rewriting History

With virtually all of the administration’s original case for war in Iraq in tatters, Vice President Dick Cheney provided shifting and sometimes misleading arguments in last night’s debate with John Edwards about Saddam Hussein’s ties to terrorists and his access to weapons of mass destruction.

Just to set the record straight.

U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03

The New York Times > International > Middle East > U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03:

"At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer concluded, Iraq had not possessed military-scale stockpiles of illicit weapons for a dozen years and was not actively seeking to produce them. "

Ah, makes me proud.

It's Ugly!

Again, I hate to detail a hasty reaction to the debate and then have to reconsider later, but I can't help thinking that Edwards wins this one. I think he had the issues, the substance. Cheney just seemed to prattle on about how right the Administration is, and when he wasn't prattling he was downright mean.

Let me be clear and honest here. I have a real visceral dislike for Bush/Cheney. These are not guys I would want to have a drink with. They just scare me. And they think they are absolutely right on everything and they shouldn't be questioned. No one can tell me that they're looking out for me. I don't believe it.

I do think Edwards missed opportunities here, but I think he was better at expressing his plan for making this country a better place. And that gets my vote.

Bremer: 'Not enough troops' in Iraq after Saddam's ouster

CNN.com - Bremer: 'Not enough troops' in Iraq after Saddam's ouster - Oct 5, 2004

Not only was the war the wrong choice, but then we couldn't even do what was right there. While we can't dispute the necessity of going to war when we did, there is no question that the war was mismanaged. And who's going to make us safer?

Iraq: Politics or Policy?

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Iraq: Politics or Policy?

Tom Friedman's back and he takes it to the Bush Administration:

This war has been hugely mismanaged by this administration, in the face of clear advice to the contrary at every stage, and as a result the range of decent outcomes in Iraq has been narrowed and the tools we have to bring even those about are more limited than ever.

Then there's this:
But my time off has clarified for me, even more, that this Bush team can't get us there, and may have so messed things up that no one can. Why? Because each time the Bush team had to choose between doing the right thing in the war on terrorism or siding with its political base and ideology, it chose its base and ideology.

And:
Mr. Bush is president, charged with protecting the national interest, and yet from the beginning he has run Iraq policy as an extension of his political campaign.

Boy, have we missed you, Tom.

Debate Talking Points

Here are Kerry's key statements from the debate:

• I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and when we are leading strong alliances.
• I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. But we also have to be smart.
• You don't take America to war unless you have a plan to win the peace.
• We haven't done the work that ought to be done.
• I will bring fresh credibility, a new start.
• The truth is what good policy is based on. It's what leadership is based on.
• We need to be smarter about how we wage a war on terror.
• I've had one position, one consistent position: that Saddam Hussein was a threat, there was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way.
• You have the president's plan, which is four words: more of the same. I think my plan is better.
• I have a plan to do it. He doesn't.
• Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us.
• I'll tell you this as president I'll never take my eye of that ball.
• You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.
• It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong.
• We didn't need to rush to war without a plan to win the peace.

Print this out. Carry it in your pocket. Mention these things to your friends. Reinforce it with the fact that Kerry won the debate because he had ideas, he has a plan. Tell them Comeback Kerry is on the way.

Debate One Analysis

I was not watching the debate last night with glee, nor did I jump up and down in celebration at its end. I could not declare a Kerry victory right away. To tell the truth I was very nervous during the whole thing because I've seen how the Bush camp can turn the smallest thing into something significant. Kerry's comments were sometimes convoluted and he failed to summarize most responses into bumper sticker statements. He did manage though to be forceful and direct, which means he avoided being boring and pedantic.

Bush seemed to struggle through most of the debate. He succeeded in hammering the same points he's been using on the road, but this began to become a problem. There's not a lot behind his bumper sticker statements, and when given two minutes to elaborate Bush was often at a loss for words. He also failed to deliver any forceful attacks. We've heard what he has to say about Kerry and their differences for months (mostly because the press reads straight from the RNC talking points), and he had nothing new to say. And I think that's what was frustrating him.
Ironically, what may have hurt Bush most was Fox News's decision to use the split screen. We were then allowed to see Bush's pursed lips, smirks, rolling eyes, and seething anger. He was mad, and I don't think most people would see that as Presidential.

After the debate and thinking and talking about it for awhile, it became obvious that Kerry won, simply because Bush was forced to spend most of the ninety minutes defending himself. Kerry too managed to push his plan for Iraq and Bush was never able to counter with one of his own. He can only say "strong and resolute" so many times before we realize that it doesn't mean a thing. Reviewing the candidate's message last night it boils down to, for Kerry, "we can do better," and for Bush"it's hard work." I think one of these might work better for the American people.

But a Kerry victory last night only means that he's still in the game. Remember that the Bushies are better at controlling the message. The Dems will have to use those keys from last night, those things that had traction, and pound them. If the media begins to think that there's a Kerry comeback starting, that will dominate.

News you may have missed this week

House Ethics Panel Rebukes DeLay The committee admonished Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) Thursday night for offering a political favor to a Michigan lawmaker in exchange for the member's vote on last year's hard-fought Medicare prescription drug bill.

House Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Ban The House joined the Senate yesterday in refusing to approve a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage, described by Republican supporters as a vital protection for traditional families but denounced by Democratic foes as a divisive pre-election ploy to inflame prejudice.

Growing Pessimism on Iraq A growing number of career professionals within national security agencies believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse, and the path to success much more tenuous, than is being expressed in public by top Bush administration officials, according to former and current government officials and assessments over the past year by intelligence officials at the CIA and the departments of State and Defense.

Oil and Gas Hold the Reins in the Wild West Land-Use Decisions Largely Favor Energy Industry

Senate Confirms Rep. Goss as Intelligence Director The Senate voted overwhelmingly yesterday to confirm Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) as the new head of the CIA, brushing aside complaints from some Democrats that he is too partisan and insufficiently interested in reform to head the embattled agency.

Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional A federal judge in New York ruled yesterday that a key component of the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to demand information from Internet service providers without judicial oversight or public review.

Thanks to WashingtonPost.com (registration req'd and worthwhile)

And then there's this editorial in yesterday's New York Times:

Playing With the Election Rules
"In Colorado, Secretary of State Donetta Davidson, also a Republican, has issued a bizarre ruling of her own on this issue. She will allow provisional ballots cast at the wrong polling places to count for only the presidential race. The Senate race in Colorado, among the closest in the nation, could determine control of the Senate, and there is no reason all valid provisional ballots should not count in this race or for statewide ballot propositions. Colorado Common Cause is challenging Ms. Davidson's rule, but she should not need a court to tell her to count the votes."

The Debate, the Media Perspective

Newspaper Editiorials

The Washington Post: Both performed credibly enough to keep voters tuned in for the next debate.

New York Times: If the question was whether Senator John Kerry would appear presidential, whether he could present his positions clearly and succinctly and keep President Bush on the defensive when it came to the critical issue of Iraq, Mr. Kerry delivered the goods... Mr. Bush, whose body and facial language sometimes seemed downright petulant, insisted, again and again, that by criticizing the way the war is being run, Mr. Kerry was sending "mixed signals" that threatened the success of the effort.

LA Times: In contrast to the president, who at times seemed tired and annoyed at having to share the stage, Kerry's command of the facts didn't get in the way of his being lucid and direct. The senator and former prosecutor delivered a powerful indictment of Bush's foreign policy record.

USA Today: The view here is that Kerry's analysis of Iraq is on the mark. But it is an observation made in hindsight — a fact Bush jumped on repeatedly Thursday by charging Kerry had shifted his opinion for political advantage.
The question that matters now is which candidate's world approach will be more effective going forward.

Rocky Mtn. News: Sen. John Kerry turned in his strongest performance of the campaign in Thursday's debate. He was calm, assured, clear, forceful and articulate. His supporters must be ecstatic.

Polls on who won the debate
ABC News: Kerry 45%, Bush 36%, tie 17%
CBS News: (Uncommitteds) Kerry 43%, Bush 28%, tie 29%
CNN: Kerry 53%, Bush 37%

The Headlines
Iraq Takes Center Stage in Debate
Bush and Kerry Clash Over Iraq in Debate
Bush, Kerry Trade Barbs on Iraq War
Candidates clash on terror, Iraq
Kerry, Bush clash on national security
Iraq war dominates Bush, Kerry debate

My letter

Below is my letter to the editor published today in the Denver Post regarding the race in Colorado's 6th between Republican Tom Tancredo and Democrat Joanna Conti:

Tom Tancredo has done nothing in the House but focus on immigration. He has stated that not only is illegal immigration a problem, but legal immigration as well. He has used the issue to push a racially questionable agenda, and this does not represent the residents of the 6th Congressional District.
Joanna Conti is a fiscally conservative Democrat, and she is well-suited to serve the district. She believes that our representative in the House should focus on things besides wedge issues. She is definitely not gutless, and she shows it by taking on the Republican incumbent in a heavily Republican district. And I applaud her for it.
Damon Garr, Golden

(Also, a letter to the Editor of the Metropolitan that I wrote in March, 2002, during the height of the Enron crisis is still online here.)

It's On!

Initial reactions here as I look around at reactions to last night's debate and it is pretty darn clear that Kerry won. Bush was defensive and mad, and it showed. You tell me which one looked more Presidential.

The fight is on.
More to come on this later.

Fox is running the show

Politics News Article | Reuters.com: "Fox News Channel, whose turn it is under a rotation system to operate the 'pool' cameras for all the networks in the first debate on Thursday in Coral Gables, Florida, said it would follow its own editorial judgment in operating its cameras. "

Keep this in mind tonight.

Couldn't Have Said It Any Better Himself

washingtonpost.com: Couldn't Have Said It Any Better Himself

Maybe puppet is a strong word for Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi, but this editorial by the Post's Dana Milbank shows that much of Allawi's speech was eerily familiar. I would guess that Bush's little evangelical speech writer, Michael Gersen, is behind this one.

There is little doubt that Allawi was brought here at this time to aid Bush's reelection. He deserves a lot of credit for being willing to lead Iraq during these times, but let's remember who gave him the job.

Prewar Assessment on Iraq Saw Chance of Strong Divisions

The New York Times > Washington > Prewar Assessment on Iraq Saw Chance of Strong Divisions:
"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."

So, can Bush say that he "miscalculated" the problems in "post-war" Iraq if he had a good idea from this report of what the problems were likely to be?

Note that the CIA guy responsible for the prewar assessment and the recent estimate, Pillar, was the subject of a recent Robert Novak editorial. It sounds like Pillar's a little peeved over Bush saying that the CIA was "just guessing."

Alleged Re-Enlistment Threats

CBS 4 Denver: Degette Seeks Inquiry Into Alleged Re-Enlistment Threats

It's being reported that soldiers are being required to re-enlist or risk being sent to sent to Iraq.

Do we really need a formal draft if we can take advantage of our citizen soldiers, the National Guard, as well as issuing stop-loss orders and now things like this?

Rigging the Iraqi Elections?

TIME.com: How Much U.S. Help? -- Oct. 04, 2004

But U.S. officials tell TIME that the Bush team ran into trouble with another plan involving those elections — a secret "finding" written several months ago proposing a covert CIA operation to aid candidates favored by Washington.

So let's add this to Rumsfeld's "so be it" on not all Iraqi's being able to vote in the election, and we are going to have a real problem with the legitimacy of this election.

Agencies Postpone Issuing New Rules Until After Election

The New York Times > Business > Agencies Postpone Issuing New Rules Until After Election

One of many problems with this Administration.

Slow rolling takes place before a presidential election because it is an axiom of political life that agencies take no action that could give an issue to the opponents of the incumbent administration....
While that rhythm to rule making is inevitable, some experts say that this year there are an unusually large number of controversial proposals, and that they reflect both the tightness in the polls and the strong industry ties to the White House. Those groups and others have prevailed upon policy makers to delay some decisions in the hopes of killing some proposals and relaxing some other rules after the election.

So, they don't want to release the changes in rules and regulations that are heavily skewed to the interests of large corporations and are bound to hurt the consumer. Included in this wad of changes we should expect to see after the election is the relaxation of FCC rules limiting the control of large media conglomerates.

Let's just remember who they think of first.

Twisting the Truth (washingtonpost.com)

Twisting the Truth (washingtonpost.com)

EJ Dionne in the Washington Post:

Speaking of curtains, Bush deserves a curtain call and perhaps an award from Hollywood for how he manages to translate Kerry's promise that he would increase taxes only on Americans who earn more than $200,000 a year into a tax increase on everybody. "He says he's going to tax the rich," Bush said on Wednesday in King of Prussia, Pa. "Rich hire lawyers and accountants for a reason -- to stick you with the bill. We're not going to let him tax you, because we're going to win in November."

So a president who signed all kinds of provisions to help wealthy taxpayers turns around, blames the lawyers and -- presto! -- Kerry, by implication and association, becomes a friend of the wealthy who want to raise your taxes. Clever? Manipulative? You decide.

And he ends the column with this:

A very intelligent political reporter I know said the other night that Republicans simply run better campaigns than Democrats. If I were given a free pass to stretch the truth to the breaking point, I could run a pretty good campaign, too.

So true.

Tax(cut) and spend

The New York Times > Washington > Congress Approves a Bill to Extend Bush's Tax Cuts

I'm all for a tax cut and who isn't? But in these times of rising deficits and war costs, don't you think some way to pay for the tax cut might have been a good idea?

Democrats had made it clear they would vote to extend the tax cuts, but they tried during the conference committee to attach amendments that would have paid for them with either a surcharge on families with incomes above $1 million or by closing some corporate tax shelters.

A good idea, but let's remember who controls the Congress. And so what can the Dems do but vote for it? Election-year blackmail.

Airport screeners missed weapons

USATODAY.com - Airport screeners missed weapons

Consider this: securing a democracy in Afghanistan and securing the homeland vs. $200 billion in Iraq.

Where has it gone so wrong?

Today, I was exposed to the most disturbing thing I have ever seen (or heard). And I, like a lot of America, watched the events of 9/11 unfold before my eyes on live national TV. Today at work, someone streamed the video of the latest beheading in Iraq. I didn’t want to see it, but my desk faces in such a way, that all I needed to do was turn my head, and there it was. I have to admit, there was some gruesome fascination at first, but it quickly turned into complete horror. I turned my head away, but not before certain images were burned into my mind, and the sound is something that I pray to God I will never hear again. That is all the further I will go, because no one else should be subjected to this.

There were other people watching, some in horror, some in gripped fascination. I heard co-workers saying things like “We need to get Bush back in office, and just drop the bomb on the entire area.” I then stepped outside for some fresh air, because I was still reeling, and was physically and mentally hurting. While I was outside, thoughts came flooding into my mind.

First of all, a few years ago, there were a number of beheadings of homeless people here in Denver. It barely hit the news. Few people remember it happening, or had even heard about it. Without trying to sound callous, because any type of action like this is reprehensible, I want to try and understand why this one man’s life seemed so much more important than multiple lives in downtown Denver, when they were killed in the same way. One was committed by politically motivated extremists, who don’t seem to hold human life in high value, even their own. The other was committed by a person, or persons, who live in the same city as me, who could be walking down the street, saying hello, shaking my hand. I am suddenly terrified by people around me. How can we say we are better than them, when our actions disprove it every day? People are murdered, raped, and beaten in the most brutal ways right here in our own country, for no other reason than for possessions, stature, or for the simple pleasure of the act. At least those in Iraq had the motive of war, oppression, or any number of reasons, either imagined or real. I am not saying those in Iraq who committed this horrible act were justified; murder is murder, no matter where it takes place.

Second, what is wrong with us, that this type of video is entertainment? Are we so jaded in the U.S., that we can watch this type of thing, that we feel it is necessary to watch this type of thing? And what kind of person would even post this on their website? I have never been more disgusted with our society.

Third, when you vote in November, vote by issues, not by emotion. Do not let the image of innocent Americans, or innocents of any nationality, being murdered, make you vote in a certain way. Bush in office will not stop this from happening, and Kerry in office won’t make it happen. These are atrocities committed by people we do not understand; in a culture and a society most of us will never know. Putting Kerry in office will strengthen our international ties, and bring us allies in a time when we really need them. With true international understanding, we can start to make true change, help other nations understand us, and help us understand other nations. Only with this kind of unity will we truly defeat terrorism. It is said, “United we stand, divided we fall.” This has never been more true.

CBS's Distracting Screw-Up

Make no mistake, CBS, Dan Rather, et al. have screwed up big-time when it comes to reporting documents that were from a questionable source, not double and triple-checking their veracity, and then trying to stick to their story. Today's apology comes too late. Heads should roll.

The real problem is that the Democrats will pay the price for CBS's mistake. The controversy over the forged documents has already served as a distraction to the thrust of the story that most already believe to be true: that President Bush got preferential treatment to get into the Guard, and then once there he shirked his responsibility. CBS did not need the documents to make their case. Instead of arguing this, though, we are now consumed with how somebody was trying to frame Bush and who should take the fall at CBS. And people are already trying to point the finger at the Kerry Campaign.

The mistake made by CBS was their own doing. We should not allow this to distract us from the important issues in this race.

Unfortunately, CBS has decided to admit their mistake on the day that Kerry gives a major speech on his plan for Iraq. We know which issue will get more press.

Colorado voters: Vote against Amendment 36

Rocky Mountain News: Opinion

Amendment 36 would require the state to allocate its nine electoral votes in proportion to the statewide popular vote instead of giving all of them to the winner. If it passes, Colorado would be the first state in the nation to have such a system.

There are many, many reasons why this is a bad idea. The only reason it seems favorable to some is that under such a system Al Gore would have won the 2000 election. But it would be the wrong choice. Consider if it went the other way in 2004 election.

The fact is that the United States of America is a republic and that the people are best served when the states retain their power. Splitting our electoral votes means that we would never see a Presidential contender again in Colorado. We would never be a swing state like we appear to be in this race. The electoral college defends less populace states from the population centers. I think there is room for tweaking the system, but doing away with it is a crazy idea.

Note that the group pushing this initiative is from California, yet they have not tried to push this idea there because it would mean splitting California's 55 electoral votes, which would all go to Kerry in this election.

States' rights are critical to maintaining a republic of this size and any effort to dilute our power should be stopped.

UPDATE
For further reading:
Coloradans to Consider Splitting Electoral College Votes
Plan would hurt small states (Note: Gov. Bill Owens (R) editoral.)
Colorado Initiative Could Be Key to Presidential Race
Colorado eyes electoral college

Quick exit from Iraq is likely

Quick exit from Iraq is likely

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.

Pulling the troops out of Iraq, whether by Bush or Kerry, before controlling the situation there would be a serious mistake. Would we really want to admit defeat?

Remember the picture in Iraq is bleak, according to the government's own estimate. Injuries and fatalities are up. The fact is that our intelligence is failing us again. We don't have the intelligence on the ground to help us root out the "insurgents." And Bush continues to try and convince us that things are improving. He thought that by "handing over" control of Iraq to the new government would mean that we would all forget that we still have troops there dying daily. The war is far from over there and we need clearly to step up our efforts. But the American people don't want to hear that we might call up reserves to fix a situation that we walked into. Stepping up military action would mean that "major combat operations" are not over, and that Bush was wrong again. With Kerry bringing Bush's post-election plans for this to light, I can only assume that the administration is using Bob Novak again to try and counter Kerry's attacks of the past week.

Kerry slams Bush over economy

USATODAY.com - Kerry slams Bush over economy

So many great bits in Kerry's speech yesterday to the Detroit Economic Club:

And after four years of hearing no from this President – no, it’s not our fault; no, there’s nothing wrong; no, we can’t do better; no, we haven’t made a single mistake – it’s time for a president who will start saying yes.

At that convention in New York the other week, President Bush talked about his ownership society. Well Mr. President, when it comes to your record, we agree – you own it.

In fact, this President has created more excuses than jobs.

We know the truth. George Bush’s failed record is the result of George Bush’s failed policies.

You can even say that George Bush is proud of the fact that not even failure can cause him to change his mind.

These are only the juicy bits; there was a lot of substance in his speech as well.

He also gives his detailed economic plan in the Wall Street Journal.

Pre-emptive Paranoia

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Pre-emptive Paranoia

While I'm not a big fan of Maureen Dowd, this is pretty good.

Here's how bad off the Democrats are: They're cowering behind closed doors, whispering that if it should ever turn out that Republicans are behind this, it would be so exquisitely Machiavellian, so beyond what Democrats are capable of, they should just fold and concede the election now - before the Republicans have to go to the trouble of stealing it again.

I've avoided jumping into this issue of the CBS report because nothing definitive has come out on the documents, but I do believe something smells a little funny here.

U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future

The New York Times > Washington > The Reconstruction: U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future

Misleading again.

As described by the officials, the pessimistic tone of the new estimate stands in contrast to recent statements by Bush administration officials, including comments on Wednesday by Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, who asserted that progress was being made.

"You know, every step of the way in Iraq there have been pessimists and hand-wringers who said it can't be done," Mr. McClellan said at a news briefing. "And every step of the way, the Iraqi leadership and the Iraqi people have proven them wrong because they are determined to have a free and peaceful future."

The report was given to Bush in late July, before things got even worse in Iraq, and still he tries to tell us things are improving.

$3 Trillion Price Tag Left Out As Bush Details His Agenda

washingtonpost.com: $3 Trillion Price Tag Left Out As Bush Details His Agenda

A staple of Bush's stump speech is his claim that his Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, has proposed $2 trillion in long-term spending, a figure the Massachusetts senator's campaign calls exaggerated. But the cost of the new tax breaks and spending outlined by Bush at the GOP convention far eclipses that of the Kerry plan.

Misleading the American People again.

Cheney crosses a line

washingtonpost.com: Cheney Says 'Wrong Choice' Risks Terrorist Attack:

"'It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,' Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city."

These people have gone overboard here. We've gone so low as to threaten the public with terror attacks if they vote for the opponent. It's despicable.

Book: Bush once snorted cocaine at Camp David

BostonHerald.com - Election 2004 Coverage: Book: Bush once snorted cocaine at Camp David

Since the door's been opened to spreading rumors, I'm glad to pass this along.

Drudge lies

Again serving as a tool of the Bush Administration, Drudge claims Kerry is holding a shotgun with a pistol grip and he is wrong.

Drudge's photo:

Another photo, with a clear view this time:

A shotgun with a pistol grip:

Let him know he's wrong: drudge@drudgereport.com. I did.

RNC - Day Four

Message: Well, the message isn't quite as clear for Bush's speech. Of course there's the reiteration of themes from other nights, Kerry's a wuss, be afraid, but this speech tried to do a lot. There was the first mention of a small bit of record and an agenda for the future. Matthew Dowd spins it as hopeful, but I won't give it that. It was more about, "well, we didn't get this done, but re-elect us and we will." The most frightening part is this crusade to spread "freedom" to the Middle East. "Freedom is on the March."

The speeches:
Pataki:
Yawn. My gosh, definitely not Presidential material. Those of us who could stay awake through it actually heard for the first time the name Osama Bin Laden.

Bush:
A presidential election is a contest for the future. It is when you don't want to talk about your miserable record.
I am running with a compassionate conservative philosophy. Really? I mean really? A handful of social programs under funded does not translate as compassion.
In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom. More on the new Crusade to come.
To create more jobs in America, America must be the best place in the world to do business. Ah, we've mentioned jobs for the first time. But then he goes the wrong way.
To create jobs my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation and making the tax relief permanent. Uh, not the guy to talk about spending. Regulation? Does anybody remember Neil Bush? Oh, and tax cuts again, because that'll create jobs.
To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy. You can't really disagree with him on this, but notice how he says "energy" and not "oil."
And we must protect small-business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across our country. Frivolous lawsuits? Oh, that's a jab at Edwards. And in what way do lawsuits hurt small-business owners?
Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess, filled with special interest loopholes. Because, like he said, rich people have tax accountants; they don't pay taxes anyway. And is this really they guy you want pushing tax reform?
In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code. Is he saying flat tax or national sales tax? Oh, boy, I hope not.
So we will double the number of people served by our principal job training program and increase funding for our community colleges. He's already cut funding for job training and the Stafford Loan program.
...we will create American opportunity zones. Haven't we been doing this for years?
As I have traveled our country I have met too many good doctors, especially OB-GYNS, who are being forced out of practice because of the high cost of lawsuits. To make health care more affordable and accessible, we must pass medical liability reform now. Am I only one that gets nervous when this President mentions OB-GYNs? I'm not really sure what he's getting at here, but I am scared of what it might be.
We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account, a nest egg you can call your own, and government can never take away. There'll be more comment on this in the future, but let me just say now that this would involve transition costs of maybe $2 billion. And it all depends on a strong market; it is not "secure."
We are insisting on accountability, empowering parents and teachers, and making sure that local people are in charge of their schools. Does anyone else see a contradiction when he then talks about "testing every child," or requiring "a rigorous exam before graduation?"
And then comes the Christian Right agenda:
I support welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work. "Strengthens family?" Does that mean he's only going to give welfare to two-parent households?
...we must make a place for the unborn child. No surprises here.
I support the protection of marriage against activist judges. Oh, yeah, yeah. Because it's judges you're afraid of.
And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law. This from the man who wants to appoint judges who put the "laws of God" over the text of the Constitution.

Okay, I could go line by line through most of this and come up with the same thing, but I want to look at the more frightening things in the speech.
And we are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East because freedom will bring a future of hope and the peace we all want.
We must, and we will, confront threats to America before it is too late.
and democracy is coming to the broader Middle East.
The terrorists are fighting freedom with all their cunning and cruelty because freedom is their greatest fear. And they should be afraid, because freedom is on the march. I believe in the transformational power of liberty: The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom.
I believe that America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century. I believe that millions in the Middle East plead in silence for their liberty. I believe that given the chance they will embrace the most honorable form of government ever devised by man. I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world.
So it's a Freedom Crusade. Is this our new foreign policy. Advancing freedom and democracy by force? This President believes it is our God-given duty to spread liberty with the use of our military power. Is this what you want for our country?

Kerry, rightfully, comes out swinging. We'll see in the next week whether or not the campaign can be effective in defending Kerry and attacking Bush-Cheney. It will be a long and ugly two months.

Setting the stage

Pass these on:
August Retail Sales Hurt by Job Worries

Productivity Growth Falls to 18-Month Low

But then again, maybe I'm just a "girly man."

RNC - Day Three

Message for day three: Be afraid, be very afraid.

I'm glad I didn't get to watch last night's speeches live. I doubt that I would have been able to sleep. At least they're focused on their sort of one prong attack: Bush is strong and with Kerry we'll all die. Again it's proof that the Administration is out of touch with the concerns of the American People. Where's the economy in all this? Where's a vision of the future?

Hate versus Hope, people. It's that simple.

Mitt:
Don't forget it's also about 2008. And where was that something special we were supposed to see?

Zell:
Whoa, holy cow! Is this guy mad or what? Have you seen the photos? He looks a little sickly.
Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. The President has referred to the troops in Iraq as an occupation. I hope this makes Zell mad, too.
For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. And what, they can take it away, too? Is this a threat?
U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs? I think most people understand that any senator's record can be misrepresented like this. Most of the weapons programs he mentions here were either recommended for termination by Dick Cheney, or later voted FOR by Kerry (after being stripped of pork). To have someone with his own clouded record in the senate to contend with making these charges is bit over the top. Disingenuous.
But then there's this line that really gets to me:
Our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief. Two things: Which party uses wedge issues to separate the American people to push their social agenda? And is he accusing Kerry of treason? I am absolutely fed up with criticism of the government being equated with treason. I want a better country and I want a better president! And I say this in defense of the America I love.
So, this was the keynote speech? This was supposed to set the tone for this convention, supposed to be one of the most important speeches, and this is what they want to convey. Zell is so angry and hate-filled that I don't think they're winning any swing voters with this speech. I think this can really hurt Bush. And it should.
And check out the clip from Hardball last night to see how reasoned this man is.

Dick:
No surprises here. The same things again. If they say it enough maybe we'll believe it.
So President Bush reached across the aisle and brought both parties together to pass the most significant education reform in 40 years. With higher standards and new resources, America's schools are now on an upward path to excellence, and not for just a few children, but for every child. And then they didn't bother to fund the program.
So President Bush delivered the greatest tax reduction in a generation, and the results are clear to see. If by "greatest" they mean biggest, or most helpful to the top 1%. Which results?
Businesses are creating jobs. Overseas.
Our nation has the best health care in the world and President Bush is making it more affordable and accessible to all Americans. And what was that number on Americans who lost their health care?
I'm so glad they brought up the economy. But then it's "WAR, WAR, WAR, be scared."
The biggest threat we face today is having nuclear weapons fall into the hands of terrorists. The president is working with many countries in a global effort to end the trade and transfer of these deadly technologies. The most important result thus far, and it is a very important one, is that the black-market network that supplied nuclear weapons technology to Libya, as well as to Iran and North Korea, has been shut down. And then we enabled Pakistan to do the same. Oh, and then we pardoned them.
He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror"... as though Al Qaida will be impressed with our softer side. I thought we settled this one. It's "sensitive" as in "smarter," but you wouldn't understand.
And then it's more of the same.
A melodrama, really. Boos and hisses, audience participation. This is what they've reduced American politics to.

Hate night last night. And tonight they're telling us it'll be a plan for the future. Don't count on specifics. Expect more of the same, say it with me: WAR, WAR, WAR. Then maybe we'll all just be too scared to vote.

RNC - Day Two

Okay, I have to admit I didn't watch everything, but the day two message came through: "the Administration has heart", or 'we can be just as nice as you." Yeah, right. I think you can't counter Barack Obama with an Austrian bodybuilder turned movie star. You can't make up for the last fifty years of minority oppression by parading minority office holders across the stage.

Bill Frist:
I had him on mute. I have seen enough of him on the floor and in press conferences to know what I'm going to get. The GOP may have done themselves a disservice by putting him up there. But then again, he wasn't in prime time.

Schwarzenegger:
If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican! Uh... really?
If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group, then you are a Republican! Hmm... really?
If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican! Uh...sort of.
If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children, then you are a Republican! Well... actually, no.
If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world, then you are a Republican! If you say so.
And, ladies and gentlemen, if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican! Alright now you've gone to far.
Translation: "Democrats are wusses who want the terrorists to win." Not very nice.

And he actually said this:
To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say: "Don't be economic girlie men!"
Translation: "If you are whining about losing your job, complaining about a stagnant economy, or don't like deficits, you are a girly man." Again, not so nice.

And read this to see who he really represents: Fox, NBC, News Corp, Paramount, Time Warner, and on and on.

The twins:
Painful to watch. College grads? Really? I know they had to put them up because the Kerry girls were in the DNC, but I wouldn't have.

Laura:
She's nice enough, but I don't think she did what they expected her to do. I don't think she softened any edges. The image of George pacing in the night over the decision to attack Iraq was nice, but I don't buy it.

Maybe the most interesting thing of the evening was that Arnold started right on the hour and Laura finished with only a couple minutes to spare. Bell to bell, they avoided giving the pundits any room for analysis. Clever.

Tonight: Cheney and turncoat Zell Miller. Don't expect much compassion tonight. Oh, and we're supposed to see something interesting from Mitt Romney.

Bush on Rush

Rush's Interview with President George W. Bush

Bush: That's the most important thing people can do is pray, and I appreciate that.

A little frightening. If I read the whole transcript, I bet I'll have more to say.

Kerry Shakeup?

When I heard over the weekend that characters like James Carville were calling for big changes in the Kerry campaign, it was followed by other criticism that the democrats were not all reading for the same talking points. "How could the democrats not all be behind their candidate?" some seemed to be saying. My reaction was different. With Kerry slipping in some polls, with Joe Lockhart already signing on in the last weeks, sure I figured a shake-up is likely. And Carville is on script, setting the stage for a shift.
Today, on CNN's Inside Politics, the talk continues--then it hit me. Let's remember Iowa. Part of how Kerry beat Dean was by coming behind in the polls, by being considered dead and then when things begin to change and he began to improve in the polls, he rode the momentum to victory. I think it's a dangerous strategy, but it's deliberate. First, this is Bush's week. He'll get some movement around the convention, no matter what the Kerry camp might due to stop it. Second, negative campaigning often hurts the one doing it. Look back at Iowa again, Gephardt and Dean traded negative ads and it hurt them both. By staying out of the Swift Boat thing until very late, Kerry made the group and the Bush campaign look a bit nefarious. Kerry didn't have to do some black-and-white ad about Bush's absence in the Texas Air Nat'l Guard.
To predict the future, I would say that we can expect a more coordinated effort out of the Kerry campaign starting Monday. Joe Lockhart did a great job for Clinton and we'll see the effect of his work soon.

RNC - Day One

After watching the first evening of speeches, the game plan seems pretty obvious. Take us back to the days after 9/11 and we'll all be too scared to vote for anyone besides Bush. Let's look at a couple quotes:

John McCain:
But remember we are not enemies, but comrades in a war against a real enemy, and take courage from the knowledge that our military superiority is matched only by the superiority of our ideals, and our unconquerable love for them.
Our adversaries are weaker than us in arms and men, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity.
We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible. Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong.
Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight.

Rudy Giuliani:
And as we look...as we look beyond this election...you know, as we look beyond this election and realize that elections do accentuate our differences...you know, let's make sure that we rekindle that spirit that we had that we're one America, we're united to end the threat of global terrorism as one people.

What the point seems to be is that America should be scared and united and that by breaking from Bush to vote for Kerry would be to give hope to the terrorists. Don't buy it.
I think it's a dangerous thing to use a national tragedy as a political rallying point. It has the potential to backfire on the Bush campaign. Most of the country supported the war in Afghanistan because we had a clear enemy who had struck our country, but then the Administration tried to capitalize on the national unity to attack a country that was not involved. It was a war of choice. And it has made us less safe.
We do have a greater war to face, we do have legions of terrorists lining up to attack Americans and we need a leader who will face those challenges. But we need one who will do it deliberation, with collaboration. We need a leader who will only use military force when necessary.
By attacking Iraq, Bush has set the bar very low. It no longer takes a great threat to go to war. Apparently it no longer requires the capability to make nuclear weapons. Using the standards of the Bush Doctrine, there are any number of country that would require immediate military intervention. Do you want a President who would take us to war so easily?

Maybe tonight we'll here something on the economy or health care. Maybe they will show that they care about what the American people care about.

Bush admitting mistakes?

I'm not sure what's happening in the Bush camp, but the line seems to be changing:

Bush on the Today Show, 8/30/04:
When asked ''Can we win?'' the war on terror, Bush said, ''I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the - those who use terror as a tool are - less acceptable in parts of the world.''

Bush to Time Magazine, published 8/30/04:
Had we had to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success.

Bush to New York Times; 8/27/04
Well, it's a — it's a miscalculation of the — what the conditions would be like after a swift victory, because we never dreamt it would be that swift.

Bush can come off script pretty often, but not in planned interviews. So why the changes? Some could say he's flip-flopped. Or we could say he's finally telling the truth.

UPDATE: Daily Kos takes this on as well.

GOP = God's Own Party

After watching the first day of the Republican Convention (while trying to work), I was struck by how many times God was mentioned. Today, so far, we've had mostly House, Senate, and Governor candidates, with the House candidates being the most frightening. Luckily, the Colorado representatives there did not do too much to embarrass us.
I can understand a speaker saying, "God bless the United States." We get that a lot. I don't like it's use, but it is pretty standard. Many of the speakers, though, tried to ally their party with God. I have to say I take some offensive to religion finding its way so prominently into politics.
It's only day one; I suppose there's much more of this to come.

Census: Poverty rose by million

USATODAY.com - Census: Poverty rose by million

Back to the issues that matter.

Poverty rose by 1.3 million.

Another 1.4 million without health insurance.

No wonder they want to spread rumors about 35 years ago.

Attn: Kerry campaign

A Test of Toughness (washingtonpost.com)

A good editorial that I hope the Kerry campaign will read. A couple key passages here:

1) And Bush certainly doesn't want to talk about the facts laid out by a Congressional Budget Office report on Friday that one-third of his tax cuts over the past three years went to people who earned an average of $1.2 million annually. Households with incomes in the top 1 percent received an average tax cut of $78,460 this year. Households in the middle 20 percent -- they average about $57,000 a year -- received an average cut of $1,090. That is a 72 to 1 ratio in favor of the millionaires.

2) When Bush went to Congress in the fall of 2002 for authorization to go to war in Iraq, he did so after saying he was going to the United Nations to seek international support for a war against Saddam Hussein...when push came to shove, Kerry decided to take the chance in voting "yes" to strengthen Bush's hand in negotiating with the United Nations. That seeking U.N. support was never really a Bush priority and that he botched the postwar planning is the president's problem, not Kerry's.

Bush continues to manage to campaign on perceived Kerry failures or flip-flops and not on his own record. Kerry's only failure as I see it is not putting Bush on the defensive and forcing him to defend his own indefensible record.

Will Ferrell - A message from White House West

Will Ferrell - A message from White House West

Funny stuff from America Coming Together.

Hurricanes and Homosexuality

Two things have led the headlines of the past few days, and I'm not quite sure of the political impact of either.

First, Charley. It appears as if Bush has learned the lessons of the father. Slow response hurt reelection efforts in '92, and no one was going to let that happen again. But declaring Florida a major disaster area before the hurricane has even made landfall? I think it's a bit much. It begins to look like overcalculation to me. Sure, opening the door to federal funds right away is important, but pre-emptive disaster relief? Time will tell how the undecideds in Florida will read this.

Second, McGreevey. At first I thought it incredibly brave for any politician to come out and declare his homosexuality. But if he's only doing it to defend himself against sexual harassment and corruption charges, that's pretty sad. While I'm not likely to believe the accusations of this "aide" (it still sounds like extortion to me), I think there's more coming on this. It was only a little while ago that McGreevey's largest fundraiser got in trouble. The real question here is about when he will step down. New Jersey is not likely to swing into the Republican column for the Presidential election no matter how hotly contested a special election might be, so why stall? Might it better to get him out of the headlines? Corzine's needed in the US Senate, and unless the NJ Democrats have a strong contender or the NJ Republican's an exceptionally weak one, it might be better to wait this out. We'll all have to see.

Changing parties to vote in primaries?

Colorado doesn't allow independent/unaffiliated voters to vote in party primaries. The only way for me to have a vote in today's election was to re-register. I have been an unaffiliated voter since I was allowed to vote. I never wanted a party to take me for granted and assume that they had my vote sealed up. I do not want to add to their numbers. Keeping independent numbers high means that candidates have to do more than pander to the base.
Let's change arbitrary primary rules. An unaffiliated voter should have the opportunity to choose which ballot, which party's primary to vote in. Otherwise a voter my have to change affiliation to vote--like I did.
I just might go tomorrow and become an independent again.

Report, GOP Source: Keyes to Run for Ill. Senate

FOXNews.com - You Decide 2004 - Report, GOP Source: Keyes to Run for Ill. Senate:

"Keyes will have to establish residency in Illinois by Election Day, according to federal law."

Carpetbagging out of desperation? Barack Obama must really scare the GOP. He gave one tremendous convention speak and they don't want him to walk into the senate uncontested, but do that have to go out of the state to get someone up to the fight? And is it any coincidence that they chose an African American?

Anti-Kerry Ad Is Condemned by McCain

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Anti-Kerry Ad Is Condemned by McCain

This is what Drudge has been pushing for weeks? Note: None of the men served with Mr. Kerry on his Swift boat but claim to have served on boats that were often near his.

No wonder no major paper has picked up on Drudge's push. It's not the big news he thinks it is, or wants it to be. There was a time when I had respect for Matt Drudge, but he's become simply a mouthpiece for the Republican talking points. He'd better clean up his act or he'll completely loose his relevance.

Objectives, Intentions, Whatever

I feel it's only fair to lay out our intentions here, as vague as they may be. See, about ten years ago David and I put up a website, SatoriWorks. We wanted to create a forum for showcasing the work of artists we knew, as well as our own artistic endeavors, including our band Shiverfix. The truth is that we never did much with our site, and recently our server ate all of our content. So, we've been given an opportunity to revamp the site, invite some great writers I know to contribute, and maybe come back on line with something we can be proud of, something we can tell people about.
On the side, I though a blog would be a good tangent. I must explain that I'm a bit of a political junkie. Not a day goes by that I don't stop by a whole series of blogs and and updates. I am a big fan of The Note, funny folks there, and of course the world wouldn't be complete without Daily Kos (please check out the News Resources link on the side bar). I thought it would fun to have something similar, but different. See, David and I have been friends for a long time, but we disagree on a lot of things politically. He's not always well informed, but he's always opinionated. So, I thought a blog would give us an opportunity to... well, argue publicly.
The truth is that we're not up to much here. Not yet.

First Post

Well, it is time to give the blog thing a try.