Campaigning 101, by the "King of Morality":

Declaring that his campaign strategy is dependent on controversy, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes told the state's top GOP donors at a recent closed-door meeting that he plans to make "inflammatory" comments "every day, every week" until the election, according to several sources at the session.

The sources said Keyes explained that his campaign has been unfolding according to plan and likened it to a war in which lighting the "match" of controversy was needed to ignite grass-roots voters.

"This is a war we're in," one source recounted Keyes as saying. "The way you win wars is that you start fires that will consume the enemy." (Chicago Tribune)

More flippity-flopping

Bush expressed support for some gun control measures, including the ban on assault weapons. (Source: Dan Balz, The Washington Post, Apr 25, 1999)

Supports the current ban on automatic weapons.
Supports banning the importation of foreign made, “high-capacity” ammunition clips.
(Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’ Apr 2, 2000)

To delve into the world of oil and economics, The Capital Spectator states a good point concerning the price of oil and the Saudi's embarrassing pickle in this regard. Recall the now-famous Saudi promise on 60 Minutes, with Prince Bandar vowing he would do what it took to lower oil prices to ensure a Bush win on election day.

As it turns out (and as I've reported here), the Saudis have indeed recently opened up all the oil spigots, so to speak, attempting to flood supply and help drive down oil prices. But alas, to their possible surprise, this move has had little effect on the price of oil.

From a line in the great movie "Spinal Tap," the Saudis can't "turn it up to 11." They are producing as much black gold as possible, none more can be thrown at demand, meaning prices can't come down. The irony is short of increasing supply (which will take years), the alternative is conservation -- that dreaded word/concept that keeps Cheney up at nights. It's far easier and timely to strongly encourage the country to take steps (many of which are painless and already available) to conserve energy, versus undertake new drilling, etc. Yet this administration will do anything possible to avoid asking us to "sacrifice" in this regard (and yet they have no problem sending others over to Iraq to sacrifice). Despicable.

Think of Kerry's service in Vietnam when reading this:

A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.

Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.

The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."

Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty." [U.S. News]

Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says

The secretary for the squadron commander purported to be the author of now-disputed memorandums questioning President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard said Tuesday that she never typed the documents and believed that they are fakes.
But she also said they accurately reflect the thoughts of the commander, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, and other memorandums she typed for him about Mr. Bush. "The information in them is correct." [NY Times]

The right-wing blogosphere went absolutely ballistic over trying to pound home that these CBS documents were forged. And while the jury is still somewhat out concerning a definitive answer concerning this issue, things do not appear good for CBS.

OK, fine. But it appears once again as if the larger point is purposefully getting drowned out by the fever-pitch sound of gotcha-talk concerning this much more minute topic. I ask what is more important: this election and the facts surrounding Bush and his supposed military record (esp. since nearly the only thing he’s running on is his integrity and his word), OR the incessant hounding of a story to “bring down” Dan Rather and the CBS news department?

As the secretary properly points out, these memos (i.e. the medium) may be fake (and therefore shame on CBS), HOWEVER their content is accurate -- and in the bigger scheme of things that’s a far more meaningful outcome to the story that should be emphasized, and reemphasized in the media.

Anytime I had brought the above up to right-wing bloggers, they would adamantly refuse to acknowledge these obvious points. The truth be damned as their main goal was to fan flames until you had an out-of-control brush fire, one that would require tons of media attention, therefore serving as an effective wag-the-dog away from the larger, more meaningful issues. Divert, divert, divert – Rove’s key tactic.

Naderites, Listen (Wake!) Up.

If there was ever any doubt that Ralph Nader's former supporters understand that redefeating Bush is the top priority for progressives in this election, it ended this morning when the overwhelming majority of Nader's 2000 National Citizens Committee issued a strong statement urging support for John Kerry and John Edwards in all swing states.

Among the more than 75 signers are Phil Donahue, Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich (who used one of her New York Times column to come out against Nader), Jim Hightower, Randall Robinson, Howard Zinn, Tim Robbins, Eddie Vedder, Susan Sarandon, Ben Cohen and Cornel West. (The Nation)

Our tax-cut-and-spend president:

The expansive agenda President Bush laid out at the Republican National Convention was missing a price tag, but administration figures show the total is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion over a decade.

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. (Washington Post)

Iraq: an escalating, underreported disaster?

"When the Americans fire back, they don't hit the people who are attacking them, only the civilians," said Osama Ali, a 24-year-old Iraqi who witnessed the attack. "This is why Iraqis hate the Americans so much. This is why we love the mujahedeen."

An iron fist also runs the risk of alienating allies. On Monday, Turkey's foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, said his government would end all cooperation with the United States in Iraq if the military did not stop pounding Talafar, a northern city of ethnic Turkmen where 50 have died over the last two days.

The approach appears to be straining the Iraqi government as well. On Monday, the office of Ayad Allawi, the interim prime minister, said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser, had been relieved of his duties and replaced with a close ally of Dr. Allawi, Qassim Daoud.

The precise reasons for Dr. Rubaie's dismissal were unclear, but he and Dr. Allawi disagreed sharply over how to quell the insurgency and, in particular, how to deal with Moktada al-Sadr, the rebel Shiite cleric. While Dr. Rubaie favors coaxing Mr. Sadr into the political mainstream, Dr. Allawi is demanding Mr. Sadr's surrender first. (NY Times)

NY Times:

Over the last three and a half years, federal officials have accelerated resource development on public lands. They have also pushed to eliminate regulatory hurdles for military and industrial projects.
From the start, Bush officials challenged the status quo and revised the traditional public-policy calculus on environmental decisions. They put an instant hold on many Clinton administration regulations, and the debates over those issues and others are intensely polarized.
<…>
The administration's approach has provoked a passionate response. Asked about his expectations in the event of President Bush's re-election, Senator James M. Jeffords, the Vermont independent who is the ranking minority member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, wrote in an e-mail message: "I expect the Bush administration to continue their assault on regulations designed to protect public health and the environment. I expect the Bush administration to continue underfunding compliance and enforcement activities."
Mr. Jeffords concluded, "I expect the Bush administration will go down in history as the greatest disaster for public health and the environment in the history of the United States."
For many environmental groups, Mr. Bush's legacy was assured in his first year, thanks to highly publicized decisions that effectively repudiated Clinton administration positions. Mr. Bush backed off a campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide and abandoned the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. Then the administration pushed, unsuccessfully, for a law allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It scrapped the phaseout of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park and briefly dropped a Clinton proposal to cut the permissible level of arsenic in drinking water by 80 percent.
The cumulative effect was striking. The decisions sought to reverse environmental action for which there was broad support. Polls by The New York Times in mid-2001 and late 2002 consistently showed public opposition to drilling in the Arctic refuge. A CBS poll in the same period showed that, by ratios of better than two to one, those polled said that environmental protection was more important than energy production.

A proud record from our compassionate president:

President Vladimir Putin announced plans Monday for a "radically restructured" political system that would bolster his power by ending the popular election of governors and independent lawmakers, moves he portrayed as a response to this month's deadly seizure of a Russian school.

Under his plan, Putin would appoint all governors to create a "single chain of command" and allow Russians to vote only for political parties rather than specific candidates in parliamentary elections. Putin characterized the changes as enhancing national cohesion in the face of a terrorist threat, while critics called them another step toward restoring the tyranny of the state 13 years after the fall of the Soviet Union. (Washington Post)

Wow, thank goodness we live in a democracy where this kind of thing could never happen in response to a terrorist strike.... (tongue pressed firmly against cheek).

Future Senior Citizens Can Thank GW & the GOP-controlled Congress!

Recall the slimy, unprecedented Republican-led 3AM vote on the Medicare Bill??

This in today's USA Today:

With a new Medicare drug benefit set to begin in 2006, Americans 65 and older can expect to spend a large and growing share of their Social Security checks on Medicare premiums and expenses, previously undisclosed federal data show.
Information the Bush administration excluded from its 2004 report on the Medicare program shows that a typical 65-year-old can expect to spend 37% of his or her Social Security income on Medicare premiums, co-payments and out-of-pocket expenses in 2006. That share is projected to grow to almost 40% in 2011 and nearly 50% by 2021.

And yet GW's lead continues to widen in the polls.... The public deserves what they get.

Mission Accomplished??

NY Times:

Scores Are Dead After Violence Spreads in Iraq

The attacks were the most widespread in months, seeming to demonstrate the growing power of the insurgency and heightening the sense of uncertainty and chaos in the capital at a time when American forces have already ceded control to insurgents in a number of cities outside of Baghdad.
-------------------------
Afghan Crowds Loot and Burn Over Governor's Dismissal

Violent demonstrators ransacked and burned at least four United Nations office compounds and a human rights office here on Sunday as they clashed with the national police and army in an angry protest at the removal of Gov. Ismail Khan by the central government.

Four people were killed and up to 50 wounded, most of them civilian demonstrators suffering from gunshot wounds, doctors at the provincial hospital said. Fifteen American soldiers and two national army soldiers were injured, mostly from stones and bricks hurled at them, said Anne Bodine, an American State Department official based in Herat.
<...>
"They were shouting 'Death to America,' 'Death to Karzai,' 'Death to the army,' " said Gul Muhammad, 26, a soldier from Parwan in central Afghanistan.

I was just watching "Meet The Press" and Russert was dogging Madeleine Albright with questions about Kerry and Iraq. That's fair, right? However, watching this display drives home the very pertinent analogy to that of a baseball team's starting pitcher who is removed from the game in the top of the first inning after allowing eight earned runs. The relieving pitcher comes in to the game with moderate expectations as his job in this case is to do the best he can given the abysmal circumstances. Fans can only he hope he doesn't make an already horrible situation worse.

While obviously Kerry (the reliever) needs to answer questions about Iraq and have a plan, please, let us not forget who the starting pitcher (Bush) was that got us eight runs behind, i.e. who started this entire mess. Trust me (a baseball fan), as the analogous game progresses, fans would not forget for the rest of the game why their team was down eight runs from the get-go, placing appropriate, justified blame.

It's unfortunate that it appears as if the American public has quickly forgotten who the starting pitcher was that caused the top-of-the-first-inning debacle (the decision to invade Iraq); according to current polls, incredibly they favor leaving this starting pitcher in the game and not go to the bullpen.

If I were the team owner and had the American public as my baseball manager, I'd fire them.

P.S. below Madeleine offers a superb answer to Russert, who often seems as if he's straining to be objective (even he must realize the stupidity of his question once Albright answers). Note her McCain reference:

MR. RUSSERT: Knowing that Saddam Hussein does not have large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, Senator Kerry still said he would have voted to authorize war. Why?

MS. ALBRIGHT: Because what he said, as he explained right there, he wanted to give the authority to the president to get the international community together to put pressure on Saddam Hussein to live up to his obligations, accountability. And, in fact, as a result of that vote, President Bush was able to go to the United Nations and get support for getting the inspectors back in. What surprises me is how President Bush did not use that diplomatic victory in order to let the inspectors do their work and then go about trying to get international support for further action against Saddam Hussein. And that is what Senator Kerry voted for. He voted to give the authority--and let me just say this. When we were in office, we had people that voted for us to have authority, Senator McCain, for instance, and then was very critical in terms of the way that the war was being carried out. So giving authority, I think, is something that is appropriate. Giving a blank check is not, and Senator Kerry, in his floor statement, made very clear that he expected the president to go to the United Nations and rally international support.

Kerry has regained his lead in electoral map, by 273-233 margin.

Meanwhile, in the country that truly has WMD, a nuclear test? An accident? <"Major explosion in North Korea">

Says It All

Kevin Drum:

9/11....I'm not much for memorials, but even I don't think that an amateur discussion of typewriter fonts of the early 70s is a great choice of blogging topics today. Instead, here is Juan Cole's reminder of what Osama bin Laden was trying to accomplish with his attacks three years ago:

Bin Laden hoped the US would timidly withdraw from the Middle East. But he appears to have been aware that an aggressive US response to 9/11 was entirely possible. In that case, he had a Plan B: al-Qaeda hoped to draw the US into a debilitating guerrilla war in Afghanistan and do to the US military what they had earlier done to the Soviets. Al-Zawahiri's recent message shows that he still has faith in that strategy.
The US cleverly outfoxed al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, using air power and local Afghan allies (the Northern Alliance) to destroy the Taliban without many American boots on the ground.
Ironically, however, the Bush administration then went on to invade Iraq for no good reason, where Americans faced the kind of wearing guerrilla war they had avoided in Afghanistan.
....It remains to be seen whether the US will be forced out of Iraq the way it was forced out of Iran in 1979. If so, as al-Zawahiri says, that will be a huge victory. A recent opinion poll did find that over 80 percent of Iraqis want an Islamic state. If Iraq goes Islamist, that will be the biggest victory the movement has had since the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. An Islamist Iraq might well be able ultimately to form a joint state with Syria, starting the process of the formation of the Islamic superstate of which Bin Laden dreams.

You should read the whole thing, but the bottom line is pretty simple: if we stay in Iraq and fight a long, grinding, unwinnable guerrilla war against Islamic militants, bin Laden is delighted. If we give up and leave Iraq, bin Laden is delighted.
It didn't have to be this way, of course. We could have spent our military energies on smashing al-Qaeda and our diplomatic energies on gaining allies in the Middle East — demonstrating that Osama bin Laden's murderous vision was neither the best nor the only path for the Muslim world. Instead, thanks to George Bush's obsession with Iraq, America is the Great Satan, bin Laden is the most popular public figure in every Arab country in the world, al-Qaeda is bigger and more broad-based than ever, a thousand American soldiers are dead, and Iran and North Korea pursue their nuclear plans with impunity.
We are where we are because of George Bush. Never forget that.

P.S. to Naderites: Kerry just as bad? Really?

To All My Reaganite Friends (who feel they must cancel out my vote with their "Bush" vote).

Posted on Salon yesterday, Doug Bandow makes a good case that if you're a Reaganite (like he is) and vote for Bush, than you're really just voting for a team and not for the principles which Reagan supposedly represented:

Why conservatives must not vote for Bush

A Reaganite argues that Bush is a dangerous, profligate, moralizing radical -- and that his reelection would be catastrophic both for the right and for America.
-------------------
Republican partisans have little choice but to focus on Kerry's perceived vulnerabilities. A few high-octane speeches cannot disguise the catastrophic failure of the Bush administration in both its domestic and its foreign policies. Mounting deficits are likely to force eventual tax increases, reversing perhaps President Bush's most important economic legacy. The administration's foreign policy is an even greater shambles, with Iraq aflame and America increasingly reviled by friend and foe alike.

Quite simply, the president, despite his well-choreographed posturing, does not represent traditional conservatism -- a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Rather, Bush routinely puts power before principle. As Chris Vance, chairman of Washington state's Republican Party, told the Economist: "George Bush's record is not that conservative ... There's something there for everyone."

Even Bush's conservative sycophants have trouble finding policies to praise. Certainly it cannot be federal spending. In 2000 candidate Bush complained that Al Gore would "throw the budget out of balance." But the big-spending Bush administration and GOP Congress have turned a 10-year budget surplus once estimated at $5.6 trillion into an estimated $5 trillion flood of red ink. This year's deficit will run about $445 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation reports that in 2003 "government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II." There are few programs at which the president has not thrown money; he has supported massive farm subsidies, an expensive new Medicare drug benefit, thousands of pork barrel projects, dubious homeland security grants, an expansion of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, and new foreign aid programs. What's more, says former conservative Republican Rep. Bob Barr, "in the midst of the war on terror and $500 billion deficits, [Bush] proposes sending spaceships to Mars."

Unfortunately, even the official spending numbers understate the problem. The Bush administration is pushing military proposals that may understate defense costs by $500 billion over the coming decade. The administration lied about the likely cost of the Medicare drug benefit, which added $8 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Moreover, it declined to include in budget proposals any numbers for maintaining the occupation of Iraq or underwriting the war on terrorism. Those funds will come through supplemental appropriation bills. Never mind that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz had promised that reconstruction of Iraq could be paid for with Iraqi resources. (Yet, despite the Bush administration's generosity, it could not find the money to expeditiously equip U.S. soldiers in Iraq with body armor.)
<...>
Conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan worries that Bush "is fusing Big Government liberalism with religious right moralism. It's the nanny state with more cash."

Yet some conservatives celebrate this approach. Kevin Fobbs and Lisa Sarrach of the National Urban Policy Action Council opine that Bush is "a strong leader, a comforter in chief." A comforter in chief?

Why, then, would any conservative believer in limited, constitutional government vote for Bush? It is fear of the thought of a President John Kerry.

Bobby Eberle of the conservative Web site GOPUSA warns, "One can only imagine the budgets that would be submitted by Kerry." President Bush has made the same point, repeatedly charging that Kerry "has promised about $2 trillion of new spending thus far." Maybe that is true, though the cost of Bush's actual performance would be hard to beat. After all, the president initiated a huge increase in the welfare state with his Medicare drug benefit bill. Veronique de Rugy of the American Enterprise Institute points out that, in sharp contrast to Presidents Reagan and Clinton, "Bush has cut none of the [federal] agencies' budgets during his first term."
<...>
Bush's foreign policy record is as bad as his domestic scorecard. The administration correctly targeted the Taliban in Afghanistan, but quickly neglected that nation, which is in danger of falling into chaos. The Taliban is resurgent, violence has flared, drug production has burgeoned and elections have been postponed.

Iraq, already in chaos, is no conservative triumph. The endeavor is social engineering on a grand scale, a war of choice launched on erroneous grounds that has turned into a disastrously expensive neocolonial burden.

Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, contrary to administration claims, and no operational relationship with al-Qaida, contrary to administration insinuations. U.S. officials bungled the occupation, misjudging everything from the financial cost to the troop requirements.

Particularly shocking is the administration's ineptitude with regard to Iraq. Fareed Zakaria writes in Newsweek, "On almost every issue involving postwar Iraq -- troop strength, international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali Sistani -- Washington's assumptions and policies have been wrong. By now most have been reversed, often too late to have much effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the much broader effect of turning the United States into an international outlaw in the eyes of much of the world."

Sadly, the Iraq debacle has undercut the fight against terrorism. The International Institute for Strategic Studies in its most recent study warns that the Iraq occupation has spurred recruiting by smaller terrorist groups around the world.
<...>
A few conservatives are distressed at what Bush has wrought in Iraq. "Crossfire" host Tucker Carlson said recently: "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it." William F. Buckley Jr., longtime National Review editor and columnist, wrote: "With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

And opposed it he should have. The conflict is undermining America's values. As social critic Randolph Bourne long ago observed, "War is the health of the state." Although the Constitution is not a suicide pact, the so-called PATRIOT Act threatens some of the basic civil liberties that make America worth defending. Abu Ghraib has sullied America's image among both friends and enemies.
<...>
Bush's record has been so bad that some of his supporters simply ask, So what? Bush is "a big government conservative," explains commentator Fred Barnes. That means using "what would normally be seen as liberal means -- activist government -- for conservative ends. And they're willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process."

But this political prostitution is unworthy of venerable conservative principles. Undoubtedly, reducing the reach of government is not easy, and there is no shame in adjusting tactics and even goals to reflect political reality. But to surrender one's principles, to refuse to fight for them, is to put personal ambition before all else.

The final conservative redoubt is Bush's admirable personal life. Alas, other characteristics of his seem less well suited to the presidency. By his own admission he doesn't do nuance and doesn't read. He doesn't appear to reflect on his actions and seems unable to concede even the slightest mistake. Nor is he willing to hold anyone else responsible for anything. It is a damning combination. John Kerry may flip-flop, but at least he realizes that circumstances change and sometimes require changed policies. He doesn't cowardly flee at the first mention of accountability.
<...>
Those who still believe in Bush have tried to play up comparisons with Ronald Reagan, but I knew Reagan and he was no George W. Bush. It's not just that Reagan read widely, thought deeply about issues and wrote prolifically. He really believed in the primacy of individual liberty and of limited, constitutional government.
<...>
Serious conservatives must fear for the country if Bush is reelected. Is Kerry really likely to initiate more unnecessary wars, threaten more civil liberties and waste more tax dollars? In any case, there are other choices (e.g., the Libertarian Party's Michael Badnarik, the Constitution Party's Michael Peroutka and even Independent Ralph Nader).

Serious conservatives should deny their votes to Bush. "When it comes to choosing a president, results matter," the president says. So true. A Kerry victory would likely be bad for the cause of individual liberty and limited government. But based on the results of his presidency, a Bush victory would be catastrophic. Conservatives should choose principle over power.

Bin Laden still issuing orders

Is Rumsfeld catching GW's "disease"....?

Rumsfeld Mixes Up Hussein, Bin Laden in Speech

Is it possible that due to universal criticism of media coverage leading up to the Iraq war (it was inadequate) that perhaps in haste to prove such laxness away CBS fell trap to overly aggressive pursuit of a story at the expense of accuracy?

Evil Dick (Cheney) recently stated that a vote for Kerry this November could jeopardize the safety of the country. In addition, he's STILL peddling his unfounded belief that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda, saying so yesterday but continuing his habit of offering zero proof. The "Fear Campaign 2004" marches on! (As I asked weeks ago, I ask again: where is John Edwards? Is he in hiding? Can we see his evil side, at least a bit?).

The following from a terrific column by Rich Lewis:

Vice President Dick Cheney proved himself to be a champion of democracy this week by advising us that anyone who votes for John Kerry is inviting another terrorist attack on the United States.

Here's what Cheney said at a town hall meeting in Iowa on Tuesday:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again. That we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States...."

See how simple it is? Make the "right choice" (vote Bush) and we are safe; make the "wrong choice" (vote Kerry) and risk getting "hit again."

I hope all you Democrats and Kerry-leaning Independents and Republicans are properly terrified — because that's the intent of Cheney's remark. To scare you into voting the "right" way. Fear is such a reliable stimulant.

But wait.

Suppose Al Gore had said to you in September of 2000: "If you elect George Bush in November, the danger is we'll get hit by terrorists in a way that will be devastating to the United States."

Well, by golly, he would have been right! We did elect George Bush (sort of), and we were hit by terrorists just nine months later.

So, by Cheney's logic, everyone who voted for Bush the last time made the "wrong choice" and is to blame for 9/11.
<..>
Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards correctly interpreted Cheney's words in Iowa to mean "that if you go to the polls in November and elect anyone other than us, and another terrorist attack occurs, then it's your fault."

He labeled Cheney's comments "scare tactics" that "crossed the line."

But really, what line? We still have lines?

A young John Kerry enlisted in the Navy and requested duty in Vietnam — a dangerous place where any American serviceman could be killed at any minute by the enemy, accident or disease — and tens of thousands were. He survived and received multiple combat medals.

Now we are supposed to believe that his decision to go to Vietnam was a mere stunt designed to enhance his political career? That he is a self-serving coward who only exposed himself to danger to pad his resume?

To echo a famous line in American history: Have we no shame?

First the "Swift Boat Vet for Truth" diversion, then the "Christmas in Cambodia" diversion, now this "CBS document forgery" diversion.... Karl Rove and his right-wing minions are very good at the "look over here...." tactic.

Regarding this latest bit of nonsense to get the country's attention off those things that truly matter, I agree with Atrios when he states, "the whole thing is so goddamn stupid" (and then offers proof). Where could this go? CBS was duped? OK, fine. But need we remind everyone that this doesn't change the far bigger issue, that being that 1) GW did not in fact release all military records (despite saying he did), 2) still leaves many unanswered questions concerning his whereabouts during his "military" days, and 3) if all of this B.S. were to apply to John Kerry rather than Bush (do a mental switcheroo), Kerry would be a politically dead carcass by now.

Their hope (and it's working!) concerning this difficult topic for them: weave, dodge, confuse, make the public so numb with headaches that they become completely disinterested, then crank up the terrorist alerts & threat reminders (keep them scared!) -- mission accomplished!

The best book I've read about America after 9/11 isn't about either America or 9/11. It's "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," an essay on the psychology of war by Chris Hedges, a veteran war correspondent. Better than any poll analysis or focus group, it explains why President Bush, despite policy failures at home and abroad, is ahead in the polls.

War, Mr. Hedges says, plays to some fundamental urges. "Lurking beneath the surface of every society, including ours," he says, "is the passionate yearning for a nationalist cause that exalts us, the kind that war alone is able to deliver." When war psychology takes hold, the public believes, temporarily, in a "mythic reality" in which our nation is purely good, our enemies are purely evil, and anyone who isn't our ally is our enemy.

This state of mind works greatly to the benefit of those in power.
<...>
Another president might have refrained from exploiting that surge of support for partisan gain; Mr. Bush didn't.

And his administration has sought to perpetuate the war psychology that makes such exploitation possible.

Step by step, the fight against Al Qaeda became a universal "war on terror," then a confrontation with the "axis of evil," then a war against all evil everywhere. Nobody knows where it all ends.

What is clear is that whenever political debate turns to Mr. Bush's actual record in office, his popularity sinks. Only by doing whatever it takes to change the subject to the war on terror - not to what he's actually doing about terrorist threats, but to his "leadership," whatever that means - can he get a bump in the polls.

-- Paul Krugman, NY Times, 9/7/04

Some overdue items from the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll:

* "Likely Voters" favor Bush by a 52-45 margin, however "Registered Voters" favor Bush by just a 49-48 margin. As I’ve discussed here before, if you assume that registered voters will turnout in a surprising robust fashion this election year, in effect perhaps throwing off what’s typically deemed a “likely voter,” than the category “Registered Voters” may be the more accurate margin count. As further proof, when registered voters were asked when "compared to previous elections, are you more enthusiastic about voting than usual," 65% were “More Enthusiastic” vs. just 23% who were “Less Enthusiastic.”

* For the question, “if the elections for Congress were being held today, which party’s candidate would you vote for in your Congressional district,” 48% of reg. voters said “Democrat” vs. 44% “Republican.”

* When it came to “Stance on the issues” or “Leadership skills” as to which is more important, the latter won by a 47%/39% margin. I am just dumbfounded by this one. I realize the theme of this campaign has come down to so-called leadership abilities, but c’mon, you’ve got to be kidding me that Bush towers over Kerry when it comes to this quality. What has Bush done to make him such a great leader? In a very minimal sense, he did what he was getting paid to do (he simply did his job). What other president wouldn’t have bombed Afghanistan? However, is it a great leader that fails to assemble an international coalition to go to war vs. a country that never had anything to do with 9-11? So the logic of the results to this question is leadership trumps a candidate’s stance on education, health care, Iraq, tax policy, the economy, abortion, the environment, judicial nominees, etc. What?!

* What is the #1 issue to voters? What is it every election year? You guessed it: the economy. If you guessed terrorism, that would be second.

* On the question, “Cares about the needs of people like you,” Kerry wins by a 48/41 margin. Kerry should play this up, exploiting the fact that HE is the compassionate one – not Bush.

Shocking news: Pollution harms children's lungs.

The World Wants Bush Out.

Of 35 countries sampled, 30 (or 86%) choose Kerry over Bush. This poll showed "Kerry was particularly favored in traditionally strong U.S. allies and beat Bush on average by more than a two-to-one margin." The only three countries choosing Bush: Philippines, Nigeria and Poland (India & Thailand were divided).

Republicans will simply dismiss these results as either "liberal media bias" (which is what they use to dismiss 97% of anything), or better yet, with a "who cares what they think!" sneer. The main point being if we wish to rebuild our standing in the world, it cannot be done with GW & Co. in office.

Updated list of just some of GW's flip-flops.

President Flip-Flop.

Bush/Rove attack Kerry on supposed flip-flopping and his military service -- two obvious areas of severe weakness for Bush. Watch for their criticism of Kerry's environmental record next.

OK, so we have Kerry's KNOWN service in Vietnam where he bravely fought, was injured, and saved the lives of other soldiers. Now, compare that to this clown of a president and his "service." Can you imagine the outcry from Republicans if shoe was on the other foot, i.e. if Kerry and Bush switched military backgrounds?!! The Republicans would make absolute mince meat of Kerry and the polls would be 70-30 in favor of Bush!!

Yet, as it is, we have things like the following:

Bush's military records show gaps in drill attendance from May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1973, when his Texas supervisors could not account for his whereabouts and said so in his last written evaluation. During that time, Bush lived briefly in Alabama, where he worked for the Senate campaign of Winton "Red" Blount. He returned to Texas to work in a Houston program for troubled youth.

C. Murphy Archibald, who worked on the Blount campaign, said that in the fall of 1972, Bush frequently was late for work on the Alabama campaign and often bragged about how much he drank the night before. (USA Today)


So Bush was AWOL from his military duty AND on top of that couldn't manage to show up on time for his campaign job, too hung over to even do that! Yes, this our current president!

And this:

In one of the most damaging attacks, Ben Barnes, the former lieutenant governor of Texas, said he had helped Mr Bush dodge the Vietnam draft by securing him a sought-after place in the Texas air national guard.

"I would describe it as preferential treatment. There were hundreds of names on the list of people wanting to get into the air national guard or the army national guard."

Yesterday, a group calling itself Texans for Truth - an echo of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who have questioned Mr Kerry's service - aired a 30-second advertisement claiming that Mr Bush did not show up for service in the Alabama air national guard after his transfer from Killian's unit.

In the advert, retired Lt Col Robert Mintz said he could not remember Mr Bush serving in his unit, the 187th air national guard in Montgomery, Alabama.

"I called my friends and said: 'Did you know that George Bush served in our unit?'. Everyone said: 'No, I never saw him there.' It would be impossible to be unseen in a unit of that size," he says in the ad. (Guardian Unlimited)


Robert Kuttner summed it up in yesterday's Boston Globe:

Based on the issues, it's astonishing that Kerry is running slightly behind Bush. The Iraq war is an unpopular fiasco, the economy is not delivering for regular people, and Bush's repeat deceptions are far more disqualifying than Kerry's much-exaggerated flip-flops. As actor John Lovitz, playing a sinking Michael Dukakis listening to Bush the First blither through scripted remarks, memorably said on Saturday Night Live in 1988, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy."

Not to get all "X Files" like, but does anyone else get a little upset or unsettled concerning this space probe (Genesis) crash? The craft held billions of solar atoms and again, CRASHED, in a Utah desert. Uh, isn't there even the slight chance that the containers holding the atoms might have ruptured? I have yet to read an article even commenting on this possibility. Who knows what intergalactic solar atoms may do once released into our atmosphere....

Less than a week after the GOP hate-fest was (thankfully) put to rest, the electoral map has begun to swing back in favor of Kerry. The margin is down to 254-243 in favor of Bush. Recall that this map peaked at 280-242 in favor of Bush during the GOP fest, but was already drifting back as soon as the balloons hit the floor at Madison Square Garden.

My other point made at the time was that Kerry held a sizeable electoral vote lead weeks after the Dems convention -- and here we see Bush spitting the bit not less than one week after his big show. Has to mean/say something.... (Get ready for Rove to give the "Capture Osama" order!).

P.S. Need more proof? Click here for the Zogby map, showing a 307-231 Kerry lead. Note: this map is being profiled on the Wall Street Journal web site -- last time I looked, the WSJ was no lefty-leaning operation!

I've heard many a liberal cite Pat Buchanan as a conservative that has been against the Iraq war, not holding back with his criticism towards GW & Co.

Here's a bit of his blunt commentary in a recent interview:

Rumsfeld’s query has been answered: we are creating more enemies than we are killing.

Without more American troops and more years of fighting, we will not win this war. We can only stave off defeat.

However, don't make the mistake of believing Pat has switched sides -- he hasn't. When asked on Bill Maher's HBO show whether or not he'd vote for Bush, Pat grimaced and stuttered, not quite answering the question. Yet, it appeared obvious that he was NOT going to vote for Kerry. Here’s the exchange:

MAHER: Does that mean you're voting for Bush?

BUCHANAN: Well, you know, if it comes down to a choice between Kerry, who, you know, really doesn't seem to – he doesn't take a strong stand against the president's policy, like your other guest, Howard Dean, did. I don't know why you would vote for John Kerry, even if you're like Pat Buchanan and you believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. On immigration, I think we ought to defend our borders. I think we ought to stop sending those jobs overseas and keep them home. And I think we ought to stop launching imperial wars. [applause]

MAHER: All right.

BUCHANAN: But why vote for John Kerry when he agrees with George Bush on all three of them?

MAHER: I'll take that as a yes. [laughter]


Buchanan has always loved the attention received by being the maverick in the GOP. To his credit, he doesn't simply tow the party line. But when you scratch the surface and cut through the subtleties, he's a fairly devout Republican at the end of the day. When he inevitably pulls the lever for Bush come November, his vote will 100% cancel out any Kerry vote -- and that's all that matters. He can quibble and nit-pick all he wants about how GW shouldn't have done this or that, the proof is in the voting booth.

Finally, if you need any more convincing, go to his web site. Some of the links listed under "Our Favorites" are such lovely folks as Ann Coulter, Robert Novak, Oliver North, and Phyllis Schlafly. Need I say more?

As of today, 999 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq.

Emperor Ashcroft.

Justice Department Censors Supreme Court Quote.

As promised, Saudis are trying their darndest to reelect Bush....

Said with a straight face?!

Although several months old, this quote typifies the stupidity of this administration:

In March, Michael Fleischer, a New Jersey businessman, took over. Yes, he's Ari Fleischer's brother. Mr. Fleischer told The Chicago Tribune that part of his job was educating Iraqi businessmen: "The only paradigm they know is cronyism. We are teaching them that there is an alternative system with built-in checks and built-in review."

You can't make this stuff up.

(Thanks Al Franken)

Where in the world is Alan?

After writing about McAuliffe's milktoast disposition (below), when thinking of a brilliant, go-for-the-jugular, attack-dog style that could do some real damage to the Republicans, the person that quickly came to mind was Alan Dershowitz. I used to enjoy watching him on the Hardball-type shows at night, but I must ask: where is he? It's like he fell off the face of the planet. Why isn't he on the talk shows anymore, esp. since we know he's not publicity-shy??

I realize that Michael Moore has warned Democrats from giving in to panic and begin the self-critical and blame domino fest, however I just can’t resist. Trust me, I absolutely understand that this race is FAR from over and anything can happen in the next two months, but at least a few things are already fairly clear.

One, which I have felt strongly about for a long time, is Terry McAuliffe should have been relieved of his duties years ago. Granted, he’s a big-time fund raiser, but that doesn’t mean he should be rewarded with calling the strategic and tactical shots for the party. He should be assigned responsibilities that deal with his expertise: raising money.

My feeling has always been that he’s simply not Karl Rove-ian enough. Do I mean purposefully evil or willing to do anything to win? No. But what I do mean is someone who can go for the jugular, who can conduct the extensive science (yes, science) to figure out what works when it comes to winning elections (Rove is a pro at this), who does not have to be the TV-friendly nice face with pearly white teeth for the DNC but instead more of an in-the-trenches, brilliant, and fiercely competitive force. We just don’t have that with Terry. Oh no? Don’t believe me? Just watch him on TV – he’s about as soft as it gets concerning his “stinging” commentary. He just doesn’t have it in him.

As The New Republic wrote after the 2002 elections, which were a debacle for Democrats:

Most importantly, McAuliffe has been an abysmal party spokesperson. There could be no finer coda to the McAuliffe era than his election night performance on CNN when, with the returns already indicating a GOP landslide, he proclaimed, "I think it's going to be a very good night for Democrats."

Granted, you can’t hang everything on one person, but unlike Bush, you have to start somewhere when enforcing accountability and McAuliffe is an obvious, and overdue, target -- irregardless of what happens in November.

Regarding the developing spy case within the Pentagon, this quote from a NY Times story today:

"They have no case," said Michael Ledeen, a conservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a friend of Mr. Franklin. "If they have a case, why hasn't anybody been arrested or indicted?"

Hmm. I could be mistaken but isn't the AEI basically a "home base" for this administration's large group of neocons? I believe so, making this quote meaningless with regards to its objectivity. Also, the fact no arrests have occurred may also have something to do with the guy in charge of the Justice Dept., no?? Ashcroft is not exactly a non-partisan figure (!). In fact, I would argue given the degree to which neocons run things and influence this administration, it's shocking this story broke at all, saying to me anyway that there must be AMPLE evidence of wrongdoing for them to lack the ability to keep this out of the press.

As I've been grimly warning, there's a very good chance for "FLA 2000 Redux"....

Bush is unwilling to take on escalating health care costs and in many ways is playing a direct role in their escalation (see Medicare bill boondoggle). By all accounts, the lack of robust hiring in this so-called economic recovery can in large part be blamed on high health care costs. Many employers are on record stating their reluctance to take on new workers given the high cost of health care benefits. And a good deal of the hiring that is occurring, when the data is looked at more closely, is actually part time workers and other forms of employment that allow employers to safely escape the offering of benefits. Exclude this form of hiring and the unemployment figure goes way up.

Therefore, if Bush truly cared about doing something that could meaningfully improve the job market, he would pledge to do whatever it takes to get these costs under control, but of course he doesn't because he's in the pocket of all the huge health care corporations. Kerry has already spoken out on this problem, but I don't recall many people listening.

Meanwhile, the Angry Bear presents a very good explanation of how Bush's proposed solution is so ridiculously anemic it's laughable. His solution: medical liability reform -- of course! It's the lawyers to blame! But as the Bear points out,

If tort reform had been passed earlier this year, and every dollar saved from reduced malpractice suits was passed on to consumers, then the effect on the country's health care bill would (with luck) have been to reduce it from perhaps $1,670bn in 2004 all the way down to $1,663bn. Instead of a 7.2% increase in health care costs, we would have been faced with a 6.8% increase in health care costs this year.
<...>
Such figures suggest that tort reform would effectively do absolutely nothing to reduce health care costs in this country.
<...>
In a nutshell, medical liability tort reform is a red herring. Malpractice lawsuits have an insignificant impact on the nation's overall health care spending, and curbing them will do virtually nothing to change the cost of health care in this country. Bush has no interest in policies that would have a real impact on health care costs. His solution is no solution.

Again, this growing problem is severe and significant. It's obviously a reason jobs are being outsourced out of the country, but you'll never hear this administration mention THAT fact. It continues to remain one fat, giant, insidious secret.

I realize much of what Drudge conveys as news is often misleading, however I hope this time he's right when he posts:

Bill Clinton spoke with John Kerry from his hospital bed on Saturday night in a 90-minute conversation in which he offered Kerry detailed advice on how to reinvigorate his candidacy... Clinton told Kerry that he should move away from talking about Vietnam... Clinton aides who are expected to play an increasingly prominent role in Kerry campaign are James Carville, Paul Begala and Stanley Greenberg... Developing...

Drudge also links a story informing us the "October Surprise" is right on schedule:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - The United States and its allies have moved closer to capturing Osama bin Laden in the last two months, a top U.S. counterterrorism official said in a television interview broadcast Saturday.

"If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught," Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told private Geo television network.

Make no mistake, Bush/Cheney/Rove have been putting on the blistering heat to get Osama caught. They'll probably want it to happen sometime in the next few weeks. My fear is given how the public will naively suck up this news, I don't know how Kerry counter-attacks it effectively. In raw fashion, it offers up one of the truest advantages held by the incumbent -- mainly because he is the commander in chief.

If you ever wished for a brief nugget to tell you all you need to know about the brain trust writing the editorials at Rupert Murdoch's rag, the NY Post, this from today's edition:

On Thursday night, ABC anchor Peter Jennings felt the need to explain to viewers that two protestors had been forcibly removed by security officers from the floor of the Republican Convention when they tried to disrupt President Bush's acceptance speech.

Jennings seemingly couldn't understand why the Bush-bashers were being escorted out. Weren't they merely exercising their First Amendment rights?

"What they could be charged with, other than political expression, I do not know," intoned the perplexed Jennings.

Did he sleep through 9/11?

Whether you agreed with the right of those two protestors to do what they did Thursday night (and frankly, I felt it was inappropriate), you've got to be kidding me that the editorial is comparing this brief disruption by two, again two, vocal critics and what occurred on September 11, 2001? And to think that some actually take these editorials seriously!

The dialogue with my Naderite friend continues.... My response to her feedback in the "Comments" section of yesterday's post follows:


Ms. K, I respectfully disagree with your contention that my blog sounds like I know all of the troubles of the world. Instead, I believe nearly the entire purpose of my posts involve one thing: stop-gap solutions, for lack of a better description. I have repeatedly stated (to you anyway) that Bush is so extremely bad that what's key right now for the sake of the country is to vote for a better alternative (a better pig?). NOT an ideal, super-duper candidate that has all the right answers to every issue (as I've said, much more so like Nader), but rather one that has a highly-credible chance of beating the truly, extremely awful GW/Cheney. (As much as you may think Kerry is headed to certain defeat, I got news for you: his neck-and-neck polling results versus Bush are at least a tad bit better than Nader's). It's really that simple.

This argument or clarification has more than once gone round the track, but again, the by-far major difference between us is our outlooks on the current political landscape. You/Nader find the two political parties 100% equivalent, both equally bad, toxic, etc., and therefore reject both in favor of Ralph. I disagree feeling that while there absolutely are serious problems with our party system, I find that at this point in our history, NOW is not the time to take an overly-idealistic stance regarding this matter. Thanks to the extremism of GW & Co., I do NOT believe as you and Ralph do that at this point in time the two parties are equal. The percentages do not matter, yet what DOES matter is I find the Dems less repugnant, less damaging, less harmful, less hypocritical, less religious (zealots), etc. etc. Therefore, Kerry (duh) gets my vote.

If we had a Republican Party currently running the show that was just mildly bad, still had moderates with some pull/voice, were at least somewhat reasonable, etc., than I would be much more so with your cause RIGHT NOW. As it is, and as I've said, I agree with nearly everything Ralph says and stands for -- BUT it's a matter of timing. Your railing on and on about how the Dems are just as bad on issue X (put in what you want) as the Repubs is well-meant and frequently accurate, but I believe ultimately misguided given what we may face as an alternative in the next four years.

Whichever one wins (Bush or Kerry), you'll be able to pop off for the next four years with "I told you so" indignation. In effect, you're really not taking a side (at least not a pragmatic one) but instead just effectively condemning and dismissing the whole kit and caboodle, leaving you free and clear to finger point and dictate. You know, I could easily do the same (again, I agree with Ralph) but choose not to for the reasons stated above. In the end, I truly believe I'm taking the more difficult stance / path. Lord knows my "pig" (Kerry) will be imperfect and will be a ripe target for criticism, but 1) I'd rather that imperfect pig over the other one (to use Animal Farm imagery), and 2) if Ralph were to win (!), you know, he'd be ripe for criticism also (he's not perfect!) -- I can elaborate on how this might be so.

Enough for now, but I have a feeling this endless debate will be repeated, fresh with new analogies, metaphors, etc.

"Gang of Neocons" apparently caught neck-deep in developing story of espionage

Is it just me or is this story HUGE? The current administration is basically run by neocons and now there is fast-developing story about the top leaders of this group involved in spy games within the Pentagon, etc., apparently at the highest levels. I plan to keep a close eye on this one and my hope is the "liberal" media does the same.

Wow, an absolutely excellent article by Fred Kaplan on Slate.com:

Half-truths and embellishments are one thing; they're common at political conventions, vital flourishes for a theatrical air. Lies are another thing, and last night's Republican convention was soaked in them.

In the case of Sen. Zell Miller's keynote address, "lies" might be too strong a word. Clearly not a bright man, Miller dutifully recited the talking points that his Republican National Committee handlers had typed up for him, though perhaps in a more hysterical tone than anyone might have anticipated. (His stumbled rantings in the interviews afterward, on CNN and MSNBC, brought to mind the flat-Earthers who used to be guests on The Joe Pyne Show.) Can a puppet tell lies? Perhaps not.

Still, it is worth setting the record straight. The main falsehood, we have gone over before (click here for the details), but it keeps getting repeated, so here we go again: It is the claim that John Kerry, during his 20 years in the Senate, voted to kill the M-1 tank, the Apache helicopter; the F-14, F-16, and F-18 jet fighters; and just about every other weapon system that has kept our nation free and strong.

Here, one more time, is the truth of the matter: Kerry did not vote to kill these weapons, in part because none of these weapons ever came up for a vote, either on the Senate floor or in any of Kerry's committees.

This myth took hold last February in a press release put out by the RNC. Those who bothered to look up the fine-print footnotes discovered that they referred to votes on two defense appropriations bills, one in 1990, the other in 1995. Kerry voted against both bills, as did 15 other senators, including five Republicans. The RNC took those bills, cherry-picked some of the weapons systems contained therein, and implied that Kerry voted against those weapons. By the same logic, they could have claimed that Kerry voted to disband the entire U.S. armed forces; but that would have raised suspicions and thus compelled more reporters to read the document more closely.

What makes this dishonesty not merely a lie, but a damned lie, is that back when Kerry cast these votes, Dick Cheney—who was the secretary of defense for George W. Bush's father—was truly slashing the military budget. Here was Secretary Cheney, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 31, 1992:

Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.

Cheney then lit into the Democratic-controlled Congress for not cutting weapons systems enough:

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M1s, F14s, and F16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.

I'm not accusing Cheney of being a girly man on defense. As he notes, the Cold War had just ended; deficits were spiraling; the nation could afford to cut back. But some pro-Kerry equivalent of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Zell Miller could make that charge with as much validity as they—and Cheney—make it against Kerry.

In other words, it's not just that Cheney and those around him are lying; it's not even just that they know they're lying; it's that they know—or at least Cheney knows—that the same lie could be said about him. That's what makes it a damned lie.

Before moving on to Cheney's speech, we should pause to note two truly weird passages in Zell's address. My favorite:

Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of a Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.

A "manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief"? Most people call this a "presidential election." Someone should tell Zell they happen every four years; he can look it up in that same place where he did the research on Kerry's voting record ("I've got more documents," he said on CNN, waving two pieces of paper that he'd taken from his coat pocket, "than in the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library combined.")

The other oddball remark: "Nothing makes me madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators." Huge applause line, but is he kidding? The U.S. troops in Iraq are occupiers. Even Bush has said so. If he doesn't understand this, then he doesn't understand what our problems are.

Cheney followed Zell, and couldn't help but begin with … not a lie, but certainly a howler: "People tell me Sen. Edwards got picked for his good looks, his sex appeal, his charm, and his great hair. [Pause] I said, 'How do you think I got the job?' "

Funny, apparently self-deprecating line, but does anybody remember how he did get the job? Bush had asked Cheney to conduct the search for a vice presidential candidate, and he came up with himself. He got the job because he picked himself.

Later in the speech, Cheney made this comment: "Four years ago, some said the world had grown calm, and many assumed that the United States was invulnerable to danger. That thought might have been comforting; it was also false."

Who are these people who thought this? The implication is that it was the Democrats who preceded Bush and Cheney. But it was Bill Clinton's administration that stopped the millennium attack on LAX. It was Clinton's national security adviser who told Condoleezza Rice, during the transition period, that she'd be spending more time on al-Qaida that on any other issue. It was Rice who didn't call the first Cabinet meeting on al-Qaida until just days before Sept. 11. It was Bush's attorney general who told a Justice Department assistant that he didn't want to hear anything more about counterterrorism. It was Bush who spent 40 percent of his time out of town in his first eight months of office, while his CIA director and National Security Council terrorism specialists ran around with their "hair on fire," trying to get higher-ups to heed their warnings of an imminent attack.

"President Bush does not deal in empty threats and halfway measures," Cheney said. What is an empty threat if not the warnings Bush gave the North Koreans to stop building a nuclear arsenal? What is a halfway measure if not Bush's decision to topple the Taliban yet leave Afghanistan to the warlords and the poppy farmers; to bust up al-Qaida's training camps yet fail to capture Osama Bin Laden (whose name has virtually gone unmentioned at this convention); to topple the Iraqi regime yet plan nothing for the aftermath?

"Time and again Sen. Kerry has made the wrong call on national security," Cheney said. The first example he cited of these wrong calls: "Sen. Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed 'only at the directive of the United Nations.' " Yes, Kerry did say this—in 1971, to the Harvard Crimson. He has long since recanted it. Is there evidence that George W. Bush said anything remarkable, whether wise or naive, in his 20s?

The second example of Kerry's wrong calls: "During the 1980s, Sen. Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiative that brought victory in the Cold War." We've been over this—unless Cheney is talking about the Strategic Defense Initiative, aka the "star wars" missile-defense plan. It may be true that SDI played some role in prompting the Soviet Union's conciliation, though it was at best a minor role—and wouldn't have been even that, had it not been for Mikhail Gorbachev. But two more points should be made. First, lots of lawmakers opposed SDI; almost no scientist thought it would work, especially as Reagan conceived it (a shield that would shoot down all nuclear missiles and therefore render nukes "impotent and obsolete"). Second, Kerry voted not to kill SDI, but to limit its funding.

"Even in the post-9/11 period," Cheney continued, "Sen. Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a 'more sensitive war on terror,' as though al-Qaida will be impressed with our softer side." A big laugh line, as it was when Cheney first uttered it on Aug. 12 before a group of veterans. But Cheney knows this is nonsense. Here's the full Kerry quote, from an address to journalists on Aug. 5: "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side."

In context, it's clear that "sensitive," a word that has several definitions, is not meant as a synonym for "soft." And Cheney, who is not a stupid man, knows this.

"He declared at the Democratic Convention," Cheney said of Kerry, "that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked." Where in Kerry's speech did he say this? Nowhere.

"Sen. Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve," Cheney continued, "as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent countries." No, that's not it. Kerry thinks that other countries should go along with our actions—that a president must work hard at diplomacy to get them to go along with us—because going it alone often leads to failure. Cheney should ask his old colleague Brent Scowcroft or his old boss W's father about this. Or he should simply go to Iraq and see what unilateralism has wrought.

Parts from Krugman's latest column:

The suggestion that Mr. Soros, who has spent billions promoting democracy around the world, is in the pay of drug cartels came from Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, whom the Constitution puts two heartbeats from the presidency. After standing by his remarks for several days, Mr. Hastert finally claimed that he was talking about how Mr. Soros spends his money, not where he gets it.
The claim that Mr. Soros's political spending is driven by his desire to legalize heroin came from Newt Gingrich. And the bit about the Holocaust came from Tony Blankley, editorial page editor of The Washington Times, which has become the administration's de facto house organ.
<...>
There was plenty of hatred in Manhattan, but it was inside, not outside, Madison Square Garden.
Barack Obama, who gave the Democratic keynote address, delivered a message of uplift and hope. Zell Miller, who gave the Republican keynote, declared that political opposition is treason: "Now, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief." And the crowd roared its approval.
Why are the Republicans so angry? One reason is that they have nothing positive to run on (during the first three days, Mr. Bush was mentioned far less often than John Kerry).
<...>
Mr. Bush, it's now clear, intends to run a campaign based on fear. And for me, at least, it's working: thinking about what these people will do if they solidify their grip on power makes me very, very afraid.

Less than 24 hours after the GOP Convention and this map is already drifting back Kerry's way (was 280-242 Bush on Weds.).... Where's the bounce? Like I said, we'll see what the electoral picture looks like near the end of September.

Great post by Professor Juan Cole:

Let us imagine you had a corporation with annual gross revenues of about $2 trillion. And let's say that in 2000, it had profits of $150 billion. So you bring in a new CEO, and within four years, the profit falls to zero and then the company goes into the red to the tune of over $400 billion per year. You're on the Board of Directors and the CEO's term is up for renewal. Do you vote to keep him in? That's what Bush did to the US government. He took it from surpluses to deep in the red. We are all paying interest on the unprecedented $400 billion per year in deficits (a deficit is just a loan), and our grandchildren will be paying the interest in all likelihood.

And what if you had been working for America, Inc. all your life, and were vested in its pension plan (i.e. social security)? And you heard that the company is now hemorrhaging money and that the losses are going to be paid for out of your pension? What if you thought you were going to get $1000 a month to retire on, and it is only going to be $500? Or maybe nothing at all? Because of the new CEO whose management turned a profit-making enterprise into an economic loser? Would you vote to keep him on?

"Crazy" Zell Miller gave a glowing introduction for Kerry at a dinner held in early 2001. In just three years (3 1/2 years to be exact), has Kerry changed to the extent that would warrant such a dramatic, turn-on-a-dime opinion from any reasonable Senator? What was Kerry saying or representing on March 1, 2001 that is starkly different now?

As usual, when one actually thinks (in short supply on GOP side), not allowing blind emotion to dictate one's actions, the only logical conclusion is Zell has flip-flopped concerning his opinion of Kerry (NOT Kerry morphing into something different). Yep, just ANOTHER flip-flop for the GW camp. Of course, the right-wing looneys will regard Zell's flip-flop as a good thing ("he's seen the light!"), not allowing the same leeway for revelation to Kerry (regarding his return-home criticism of Vietnam).

Yet, on the topic of credibility, Zell's words (slurs) of hate and distortion have him fall far short of being able to take what he has to say seriously. His odd behavior over the last few years simply begs the question: how can anyone take to heart what he has to say? Did he suddenly get hit in the head with an apple? Struck by lightning?? Spoke with God in a dream???

When Jim Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent it at least made sense; his consistent voting record supported his reasons for switching, esp. since he was a staunch environmentalist. As he said at the time, his party actually moved away from him, not vice versa. Compare to Zell Miller, who has a long track record of vacillating all over the political landscape (in Georgia, they call him "ZigZag Zell"). In the '60s, he was a very vocal racial segregationist, then in the '90s he nearly lost an election siding with the more progressive side on the Confederate Flag issue, he then lurched back to the conservative side.

Of course, he has every right to zig and zag (flip and flop), it's his lies that are most disturbing.

Michael Moore is right (below). Giuliani, McCain, Bob Dole -- all former more-or-less sane Republicans, sucked into the GOP/Rove nutjob machine, turning them into cold-blooded Stepford Republicans (blank stare, reciting in monotone, "George Bush is great, thank God he's president, 4 more years," etc.).

They'll regret it once the GOP inevitably implodes and reverts back to the mean (oops, they're already mean, let's say "median"). It happened when Gingrich went too far, and it will very likely happen again. Their party is already FAR out of touch with the average American and if GW wins a second term, without reelection concerns serving as at least a mild restraint, the unfettered blood-thirst for power will send them over the edge.

The fact is, when you hear pundits attempt to get inside the head of Karl Rove, it inevitably amounts to pure surmising about tactics and strategy to win -- hardly ever anything ideological or having to do with political philosophy. Example: it's often said that he has calculated it's a far better win/loss proposition to focus on the 4 million evangelicals who supposedly sat-out the 2000 election than to focus on winning over the many undecided voters. Incite those evangelicals with red meat issues (gay marriage, stem cell, God speaks to GW, etc.), getting their blood to boil & insuring they'll get to the polls come November. Skip any attempt at appealing to swing voters with more moderate, reasonable, and complex stances on more universal issues -- why bother? Rove's research shows he gets much more bang for his buck tossing those religious extremists some inflamed red meat -- requiring very little expensive TV ads, etc. -- than he does attempting to woo the swing voter, a much more expensive and time-consuming endeavor, esp. since history shows they're much more likely to vote non-incumbent anyway. Best to do what they aimed to do with their Convention: simply bash away at Kerry with hopes of turning off any swing voters, causing them to just stay at home and not vote, therefore allowing their sure-to-vote evangelicals (and other crazed, extreme GOP voters) to result in a net-net gain.

Do you sense any political philosophy with the above? I don't. Pure "X" and "O" tactics. Again, my point being Rove knows how to win elections based on the rules as they exist -- no matter that the rules are often sick & perverted. So be it. To him, his attitude is "they pay me to win elections, NOT make judgment calls on what's right or wrong with attaining such victories." To a point, given his role, he has the right outlook. That's not to say his chosen tactics are not evil -- most often they are! But you get my point. He understands (I hope!) that the political point of view of a typical evangelical is not representative of the country at large -- at all; HOWEVER that same evangelical is an easily-controlled (manipulated) vote, one that requires less allocated campaign $$ per evangelical than other groups of voters, and a vote is a vote (one evangelical vote will cancel out any other voter in the country). It's sickening, but brilliant.

Bill Maher referred to it last night (on blowhard O'Reilly's show, of all places) when he said that Republican views do not reflect the overall views of the country but they win, mainly because they're damn good at winning elections. It's like the basketball team that wins the game fully exploiting the flawed rules (perhaps they notice using elbows, etc., are not getting called by refs, so they use it BIG TIME, i.e. play dirty because they can), but nonetheless no whistles are blown. Yes, it's winning ugly, but a "W" is a "W."

Now, Mr. Moore:

The Republicans have no idea how much harm they have done to themselves. They used to have a folk-hero mayor of New York named Rudy Giuliani. On 9/11, he went charging right into Ground Zero to see whom he could help save. Everyone loved Rudy because he seemed as though he was there to comfort all Americans, not just members of his own party.

But in his speech to the convention this week, he revised the history of that tragic day for partisan gain:

As chaos ensued, "spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then-police commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, 'Thank God George Bush is our president.' And I say it again tonight, 'Thank God George Bush is our president.' "

Please.

I believe I have finally found a tactic that works to open the mind of blind Bush followers. It’s very simple. Ask him or her if they have a child who is nearing draft-able age, and if they do, proceed to ask if they would honestly be OK with sending their child over to Iraq to fight this war. Granted, nothing new here, but it’s about the only thing I’ve tried thus far where I’ve at least noticed a hesitation by the GW fanatic. If they’re at all honest after hearing your question, you can see their answer written all over their face (that being, “no”).

It’s by no means a cheap shot, it could certainly happen. But more importantly, by going to war based on lies and deception, what Bush & Co. have done is to plant the seed of doubt in the collective American public mind whenever this country is faced with a difficult war decision. All future presidents will now have to deal with the Bush legacy in this regard. They very likely will have to provide much more evidence that it is necessary to go to war – more evidence than has ever been provided to justify military action prior to GW’s four years. The country will not forget the bullsh*t that went on leading up to this Iraq war and for that, future presidents will be burdened. The public will be that much more reluctant to send our soldiers to war – esp. when it may be one’s own child.

Some may say that’s not such a bad thing, perhaps we needed a bonehead like W. to force future presidents to fess up more concerning pre-war decisions. Perhaps. But 1) did we truly need to get there by way of this GW screw-up (and nearly 1000 dead U.S. soldiers), and 2) there’s the chance that the extra evidence that will have to be provided to convince the public could in fact be security-sensitive, i.e. best not divulged as it may compromise the welfare of soldiers, but may ultimately have to be divulged to tip the public’s opinion, and 3) ultimately a president may just decide not to engage in a military conflict, one that is frankly necessary, because he/she realizes it will require the exhaustion of too much political capital.

Oh great. And we’re supposed to believe that Bush/Cheney has made us safer. You watch and see.

Hardball's Chris Matthews appears to be getting some spine:

Giuliani: "He even, at one point, declared himself an antiwar candidate, and now he says he's a pro-war candidate."

The context: Giuliani's statement appears derived from an appearance by Kerry in January in which Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's "Hardball," asked him whether he was one of the candidates "unhappy with the war has been fought, the way it's been fought . . . are you one of the antiwar candidates?" He answered: "I am. Yes. In the sense that I don't believe the president took to us war as he should have, yes. Absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris. Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was, and we should have done it right."

Matthews has protested to the Bush campaign the use of the statement that Kerry called himself an antiwar candidate, saying the remarks were taken out of context. (Washington Post)

Three Cheers for Andrew!

I don’t normally applaud Andrew Sullivan as I’ve had great difficulty understanding his beliefs in their entirety. He has strong convictions, and unlike most other right-wing pundits, he can at least lay out his supportive reasoning in a fairly convincing manner. However, where I run into trouble is trying to make heads or tails about how it all fits together as he appears to possess some opinions that can conflict with the premise of others. Oh well.

Today he posted a terrific summary of last night’s “Zell Miller Show.” Zell was great, wasn’t he? At least in as much as he was the true face of the GOP displayed bare for all to see. How ironic for that moment of naked truth to come from a Democrat! Well, perhaps their intention was to have someone speak before Cheney to help make Dick appear warm & cuddly -- objective achieved!

And now, from Republican Andrew Sullivan:

Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift. Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude.

THE "OCCUPATION" CANARD: Miller first framed his support for Bush as a defense of his own family. The notion that individuals deserve respect regardless of their family is not Miller's core value. And the implication was that if the Democrats win in November, his own family would not be physically safe. How's that for subtlety? Miller's subsequent assertion was that any dissent from aspects of the war on terror is equivalent to treason. He accused all war critics of essentially attacking the very troops of the United States. He conflated the ranting of Michael Moore with the leaders of the Democrats. He said the following:

"Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."

That macho invocation of the Marines was a classic: the kind of militarist swagger that this convention endorses and uses as a bludgeon against its opponents. But the term "occupation," of course, need not mean the opposite of liberation. I have used the term myself and I deeply believe that coalition troops have indeed liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. By claiming that the Democrats were the enemies of the troops, traitors, quislings and wimps, Miller did exactly what he had the audacity to claim the Democrats were doing: making national security a partisan matter. I'm not easy to offend, but this speech was gob-smackingly vile.

OPPONENTS OR ENEMIES?: Here's another slur:

"No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy."

Yes, that describes some on the left, but it is a calumny against Democrats who voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq and whose sincerity, as John McCain urged, should not be in question. I have never heard Kerry say that 9/11 was America's fault; if I had, it would be inconceivable to consider supporting him. And so this was, in truth, another lie, another cheap, faux-patriotic smear. Miller has absolutely every right to lambaste John Kerry's record on defense in the Senate. It's ripe for criticism, and, for my part, I disagree with almost all of it (and as a pro-Reagan, pro-Contra, pro-SDI, pro-Gulf War conservative, I find Kerry's record deeply troubling). But that doesn't mean he's a traitor or hates America's troops or believes that the U.S. is responsible for global terror. And the attempt to say so is a despicable attempt to smear someone's very patriotism.

THE FOREIGN AGENT: Another lie:

"Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide."

Miller might have found some shred of ancient rhetoric that will give him cover on this, but in Kerry's very acceptance speech, he declared the opposite conviction - that he would never seek permission to defend this country.

Another lie: "John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war." Kerry didn't want to do that. Yes, he used his military service in the campaign - but it was his opponents who decided to dredge up the divisions of the Vietnam war in order to describe Kerry as a Commie-loving traitor who faked his own medals. What's remarkable about the Republicans is their utter indifference to fairness in their own attacks. Smearing opponents as traitors to their country, as unfit to be commander-in-chief, as agents of foreign powers (France) is now fair game. Appealing to the crudest form of patriotism and the easiest smears is wrong when it is performed by the lying Michael Moore and it is wrong when it is spat out by Zell Miller. Last night was therefore a revealing night for me. I watched a Democrat at a GOP Convention convince me that I could never be a Republican. If they wheel out lying, angry old men like this as their keynote, I'll take Obama. Any day.

I had a request to update my comments concerning the electoral map changes. Since the GOP convention started, this map has changed, drastically. Whereas before Kerry was leading by 280-238 margin, it is now reversed with Bush leading by a 280-242 margin.

I would suggest two things: 1) these polls are apparently very volatile, and 2) this map is likely benefiting from the current GOP convention coverage.

Given that Kerry held such a large lead even weeks after the Dems convention, I maintain that we should revisit this map near the end of September and see if Bush still holds his lead.

This administration's penchant for doctoring governmental statistics is unprecedented, and OUTRAGEOUS! Is this not what a dictator does in his/her country? Change the "facts" to his/her liking?? 1984-ish anyone? I've been accused of being an "alarmist"; whelp, guilty as charged when it comes to this stuff!

From Misleader.org:

Last week, the Census Bureau released statistics showing that for the first time in years, poverty had increased for three straight years, while the number of Americans without health care increased to a record level. But instead of changing its economic and health care policies, the Bush administration today is announcing plans to change the way the statistics are compiled. The move is just the latest in a series of actions by the White House to doctor or eliminate longstanding and nonpartisan economic data collection methods.

In a Bush administration press release yesterday, the Census Bureau said next week it "will announce a new economic indicator" as "an additional tool to better understand" the economy. The change in statistics is being directed by Bush political appointees and comes just 60 days from the election. It will be the first modification of Census data in 40 years.

This is not the first time the White House has tried to doctor or manipulate economic data that exposed President Bush's failed policies. In the face of serious job losses last year, the Associated Press reported "the Bush administration has dropped the government's monthly report on mass layoffs, which also had been eliminated when President Bush's father was in office." Similarly, Business Week reported that the White House this year "unilaterally changed the start date of the last recession to benefit Bush's reelection bid." For almost 75 years, the start and end dates of recessions have been set by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private nonpartisan research group. But the Bush administration decided to toss aside the NBER, and simply declare that the recession started under President Clinton.


Can someone tell me where the checks-and-balances are to put a halt to this reprehensible practice?

Regarding my post yesterday on Dennis Hastert, Josh Marshall has an update:

More on Soros and Hastert.

The Hill has a piece in Wednesday's paper in which the reporter asked Hastert's spokesman John Feehery whether he had any evidence of Soros' ties or funding by drug cartels. Feehery makes clear that he and his boss have no evidence for this whatsoever but insist that they stand behind the vaguely but ominously worded accusation.

These are scary times. And it's an ominous sign of the times that the Speaker of the House can float such a false and extremely defamatory charge and have the behavior go almost unnoticed in the press.

Think about it.