Politics 2004 Archives

This Powerline item is a classic fisking (link via Instapundit).

(Also posted in The Corner after I emailed this to Jonah Goldberg - Welcome, Corner readers!).

For all of Josh Marshall's huffing and puffing about the effort to expose how Joe Wilson got picked for the Niger trip, it's worth taking a little trip in the Wayback Machine to what Marshall had to say on July 8, 2003, less than a week before Bob Novak's now-infamous column identifying Wilson's wife, CIA officer Valerie Plame, as the person who picked Wilson:

Read More »

The Mad Hibernian's post on Friday on Michael Crichton's new book questioning "global warming" and similar environmental dogmas (which followed on this powerful speech by Crichton last year denouncing global warming theories) prompted some interesting comments and links. Now, I'm no expert on the subject myself, but I did think it was worth repeating here something I said in the comments to that post. I'm very skeptical of hearing "global warming" discussed as if it is a single concept, like "the earth is round." Basically, "global warming," as I understand its popular meaning, is really three different concepts:

1. The earth has, for some period of time, been getting warmer.

2. This past warming trend is not a random or cyclical phenomenon but is a trend that will continue into the future unless interrupted by human intervention.

3. The past trend and its continuation into the future are the results of specifically identifiable human activities, i.e., carbon emissions.

It is entirely possible to believe #1 without believing #2 and #3, or even to believe #1 and #2 without believing #3. Beware of anyone who tries to use evidence supporting just one of those propositions to convince you of all three.

Well, as promised back in late October, it's time to award the 2004 Bedfellow Awards. The Bedfellow Awards are named in honor of the comic strip "Bloom County," in which Senator Bedfellow was defeated on the strength of an election-day headline, "WARNING: VOTING FOR BEDFELLOW MAY CAUSE HERPES". Although the award gives special points for attacks that are false and/or unfair, the simplest definition of a Bedfellow Award nominee is a news story that (1) comes out shortly before the election, and (2) has a much larger impact on the election than it would have if it had come out earlier.

I solicited nominations, although I didn't get a whole lot of them. You can see some of the nominees here and a very early candidate here as well as in the post linked above and its trackbacks. Let's run through the awards:

1. Overall Winner: Osama bin Laden

Political experts will debate endlessly which candidate it helped and whether it had much of an impact one way or another (Kerry says it cost him the election), but there's no question that the big, knock-everything-else-off-the-front-page surprise story of the campaign's last weekend was the emergence of OBL himself from his gopher hole with a video message aimed directly at the American people and obviously timed deliberately to influence the election. (I'll leave aside here as well the debate over whether he was actually trying to help Kerry or just to show he could influence an American election as his minions had in Spain). The story, once out there, was a legitimate story, which is why I'm giving the award to bin Laden himself rather than the news media or the candidates, who had no choice but to react to it.

2. Anti-Bush Winner: The Al-Qaqaa Explosives Story

This was a favorite nominee, and it would have been an even more outsized story if CBS had succeeded, as planned, in sitting on the story until the Sunday before the election (instead, because the NY Times broke the story a week earlier, 60 Minutes had to settle for a story attacking the Bush Administration over the sufficiency of equipment for the troops in Iraq). The explosives story got more heat and less light than it would have earlier in the campaign because there was so little time to get to the bottom of the thing.

3. Anti-Kerry Winner: The Dishonorable Discharge

On November 1, the New York Sun's Thomas Lipscomb finally broke through Kerry's long stonewall on the circumstances of his discharge from the military, but the day-before-the-election timing wound up making the story a late hit. Of course, unlike late hits against Bush, this one got ignored and buried.

4. Senate Race Winner: The Kentucky Senate Race

Nasty, nasty, nasty, full of allegations of whispering campaigns, the most late-hit-filled and under-the-radar campaign of the year turned out to be the Kentucky Senate race, with Democrat Dan Mongiardo openly challenging the mental competence of Republican righty Jim Bunning, and Bunning accused of a whispering campaign to convince voters that Mongiardo was gay.

I didn't get enough nominations or pay close enough attention to pick a House winner, but the latest of the late hits had to be the attack on Louisiana Republican Billy Tauzin III for a citation for trespassing and illegal hunting of nutria, a kind of rodent.

Anyway, there were plenty of candidates from this year's presidential elections. Feel free to suggest additional honorable mentions in the comments and trackbacks.

*Great, great column by Tom Friedman on the radicalization of Iraqis under sanctions. Friedman often infuriates; he's right about diagnosing problems but responds by suggesting daft solutions. This one's more on the diagnosis side. (Link via Geraghty).

*A fine primer on Ukrainian history from a Ukrainian friend of LT Smash. If you've studied Russian history, as I did in college, some of this will be familiar, but there were also things here that were new to me or that I'd long forgotten.

*You'll want to head over to Soxblog, where pseudonymous blogger James Frederick Dwight (you really shouldn't need to think too hard on the origin of his pseudonym) is tearing apart a sloppy New Yorker piece comparing hospitals and clinics that treat cystic fibrosis (start here and scroll up for followup posts, including his discussion of my initial reaction to the piece, which was that it sounds like something drafted by the plaintiffs' bar).

*Yes, the Onion's Iraq Alert System just killed me. (Link via Simmons' Intern).

*Victor Cha, a Georgetown professor who advocates a "hawk
engagement" strategy regarding North Korea, will assume the post of Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council.

*You can look at this chart here and argue, as these Berkeley professors do, that the results on this graph show that the 2004 vote in Broward and Palm Beach counties were a suspicious outlier, but isn't the far more logical inference that the 2000 count in Broward and Palm Beach is the suspicious outlier? Gee, does anyone remember any controversy over the vote-counting methods used in Broward and Palm Beach in 2000? I wonder if the results would look less anomolous if you used the Election Day 2000 counts in those two counties rather than the figures that were generated a month later.

*The Gift That Keeps On Giving, Part LXVIII.

*Ann Althouse on Nancy Pelosi's horrible facelift/plastic surgery.

Jim Geraghty maps out the possibilities for CBS News after the final report comes out on Ra^thergate:

CBS could go one of three routes from this point. One, they could try to clean up their act, stop behaving as if their job is to drive President Bush from office, cover viewpoints beyond the left, and attempt to break up the groupthink that has calcified their news judgment.

Two, they could define themselves as the left-of-center news channel, and aim for the blue state audience. Instead of trying to prevent bias, they could embrace it, and make it part of their brand identity. "CBS News: The channel that progressives prefer."

Three, they could define themselves as the tabloid news channel, rushing things to air without checking, and intentionally eroding their standards for accuracy in the name of being first. They could be one part supermarket checkout line tabloid, one part Drudge, one part Wonkette, one part British Fleet Street scandal sheet.

The third is obviously somewhat tongue in cheek, especially for a deep-pocketed broadcast network. I agree that CBS can and should make a clear decision as to which way the Evening News goes: try to build a new reputation for evenhandedness, or embrace the Left the way FOX has embraced the Right. On the other hand, the departure of Rather, who after all brought this story on himself in his capacity as a 60 Minutes II correspondent rather than as Evening News anchor, offers a third way: start splitting the brand, letting 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes II go their way as crusading liberal newsmagazines, while attempting to play it straight on the Evening News. This can work in the newspaper business - the Wall Street Journal has had success with both a highly ideological opinion page (which hires its own reporters) and a news section with a high reputation for evenhandedness and balance. Would it work in TV? If CBS tries to rebrand itself as a network that distinguishes between a balanced newscast and an openly left-wing newsmagazine, of course, the network would have to decide which side of the line they want to dominate the morning show, the coverage of big events like the conventions (where FOX, for example, has prospered by stacking its panels with conservative commentators who draw in right-leaning viewers). Splitting the two sides makes some sense: while the Evening News has floundered in the ratings, 60 Minutes remains healthy and can profit by enlarging its reputation as a vocal critic of all things Bush (although they might do well to stop shilling books sold by Viacom).

I've also got an outside-the-box suggestion for Rather's replacement: CNN Headline News anchor, technology reporter and former Tech TV anchor Erica Hill. Hill would bring a number of advantages to the anchor position. First, and most obviously, she's drop-dead gorgeous, better-looking than most of the actresses on CBS' prime-time schedule, let alone in the news business. That never hurts in the ratings department, and before you gripe about looks as a job qualification, remind me again why Brian Williams is succeeding Tom Brokaw, and why John Roberts has been mentioned as a replacement for Rather: first and foremost because they are big, good-looking guys with reassuring voices. Let's not pretend otherwise.

But there are other women on TV who could look good reading the news; what's additionally noteworthy about Hill is her background as a tech reporter. If you've seen her reports on CNN, she clearly comes off as someone who understands and enjoys new technologies and, frankly, spends a lot of time on the internet; she's been reporting for months on the influence of blogs and the internet on campaigns. That's precisely the fresh perspective towards newsgathering that CBS badly needs. I don't know how smart she is - her bio says she's a summa cum laude graduate of BU, which is nothing to sneeze at - but she comes off as intelligent on the air, which is important.

Granted, there would be internal resistance at CBS to bringing in someone with minimal experience (she can't be more than 30 years old, and looks younger than that), although again, the CNN bio does say she anchored the now-defunct Tech TV's on-air coverage all day on September 11, which is a real baptism of fire for any anchor. And maybe shaking things up would be a good in itself, sending a message that the way things have always been is part of the problem and bringing in someone not so set in her ways that she can't take the program in new directions. In any event, part of CBS' problem, even above and beyond bias, is age: Rather and Bob Schieffer and Mike Wallace . . . these guys are fossils, and whatever their other virtues they can't be expected to connect with younger viewers or change with the times. Maybe CBS, with an older-skewing audience, is happy with that dynamic, but it's unsustainable long-term. A young, fresh-faced anchor would change all that. With Brokaw leaving, there will be a window of opportunity for a new anchor to capture market share if CBS can make a splash. Erica Hill in Dan Rather's chair would make a splash.

UPDATE: You can catch a flavor of Hill's style with her online "Hot Wired" columns at CNN.com here (from January, discussing campaign blogs), here (marveling that she could survive a few days without internet access) and here (discussing procrastinating online).

And the Democrats wonder why they lost even normally Democrat-friendly states like New Mexico:

Democratic legislators too often seem hostile to suburban concerns, and indifferent to the aspirations of those who would like to buy a home and a small green place to call their own. In Albuquerque, for example, planners working for the local Democratic regime advocated banning backyards, an essential part of the middle-class family lifestyle. One even told a local developer that his having four children made him "immoral." A small--and probably extreme--example? Undoubtedly. But it speaks to a stereotype that Democrats have been battling for years now: that they disdain suburbia and the families who live there. It is long past time for Democrats to start undoing that perception.

Oh, and to repeat a point we Republicans keep making: you take the people who abort their children, and we'll take the families with four kids, and we'll see in a generation which of us has more voters.

One last spleen-venting legal case for the day:

A California teacher who teaches his fifth-grade students with the aid of primary source documents like the Declaration of Independence has been ordered by school administrators to stop using such artifacts of American history because the material contains references to God.

I heard about this one during the significant amount of time I spent stuck in traffic on I-95 over the holiday weekend, while flipping past Sean Hannity’s radio show. Not considering that the most reliable source and more than a little skeptical, I decided to check it out and, lo and behold, The Smoking Gun had the documentation, including the teacher’s complaint.

Politically, this is an example of Democrats needing to better police their fringes. I can’t imagine that the mainstream of that party is really opposed to the Declaration of Independence or shares such absolutist hostility to religion, but the cumulative effect of stories like this, fairly or unfairly, pushes a lot of otherwise undecided people into the Republican camp. It’s hard to get anyone to trust their children to people who think the ideas of people like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are unfit for public schools.

This Nicholas Kristof column in last Wednesday's NY Times, denouncing the "Left Behind" series of novels popular among evangeical Christians, rather perfectly captures a misunderstanding of religious tolerance that is found too often on the Left, and one I've dealt with before. Here's Kristof:

The "Left Behind" series, the best-selling novels for adults in the U.S., enthusiastically depict Jesus returning to slaughter everyone who is not a born-again Christian. The world's Hindus, Muslims, Jews and agnostics, along with many Catholics and Unitarians, are heaved into everlasting fire: "Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and . . . they tumbled in, howling and screeching."

Gosh, what an uplifting scene!

If Saudi Arabians wrote an Islamic version of this series, we would furiously demand that sensible Muslims repudiate such hatemongering. We should hold ourselves to the same standard.

[snip]

I accept that [the authors] are sincere. (They base their conclusions on John 3.) But I've sat down in Pakistani and Iraqi mosques with Muslim fundamentalists, and they offered the same defense: they're just applying God's word.

. . . [I]f I praise the good work of evangelicals - like their superb relief efforts in Darfur - I'll also condemn what I perceive as bigotry.

See, here's the problem. Kristof isn't just asking the authors of these books to allow for people of other faiths to practice their own faiths in peace; he's demanding that the authors change what they themselves actually believe to be the Word of God. That's not a plea for religious tolerance; it is, in fact, religious intolerance, as Kristof is saying that the beliefs of these Christians are so offensive to him that they must be branded as "bigotry" and driven from public expression.

Let me put this another way to explain why the comparison to radical Muslims is so offensive. I have no problem with people who believe that God is going to send me to Hell for being a Catholic. They believe their thing, and I believe mine. I have a major problem with people who think that they, rather than God Himself, should send me there. It is right and proper and necessary to denounce religious extremists who are unable to accept the peaceable coexistence of people of different religions, who call for earthly violence and political opression against those of different faiths. But to demand that people give up the tenet of their faith - a central one in many faiths - that says that they are following the one and only path to salvation, that's what Stephen Carter has referred to as demanding that people treat "God as a hobby" rather than taking faith seriously. While it may in some circumstances be rude to say it, I wouldn't want to live in a country where people could not feel free to profess that theirs is the only true faith; such a country would be one in which no one really believed in anything at all.

The "Left Behind" guys aren't asking that anyone be harmed in the here and now; they are content to wait for Jesus to take care of that. By failing to distinguish between the two, Kristof shows that he still views religious beliefs as something that can be bent to the needs of human society rather than the other way around. Which is to say, not religion at all.

*Patterico has a tremendous idea: Senate Republicans should introduce a non-binding resolution of support for each of the filibustered judicial nominees, so as to put on the record the fact that they would be confirmed if granted a floor vote. Would the Democrats filibuster this as well, so as to prevent the public from finding this out? (Link via Bashman).

*If you liked my marginal vote analyses, Patrick Ruffini has a map that captures a lot of the same type of stuff in graphic form. I take it that some of the swing towards the Democrats in Montana may have been aided by the victory of the Democratic gubernatorial candidate there.

*Speaking of cool charts, check out this piece with its charts of blog activity during the campaign.

*This "Email of the Day" to Andrew Sullivan pretty well captures the Democrats' image problems.

*Two more from Ruffini, who's on a roll: first, this:

President Bush carried 97 of the nation's 100 fastest-growing counties, most of them "exurban" communities that are rapidly transforming farmland into subdivisions and shopping malls on the periphery of major metropolitan areas.

The counties with the most population loss (from people picking up and leaving) voted for Kerry 68.6% to 30.4%.

Mmmmm, 2010 census. And Ruffini also has a link to this must-read analysis over at Kos' place:

A top Kerry staffer (one of five who had been with Kerry from the very start of his primary campaign and who claimed he talked with Kerry almost daily on the phone) told me: "To be blunt, this is a fat-cat top-down campaign. The campaign staff doesn't really get grassroots." Those were his exact words (I wrote them down because I was startled he would admit this--I haven't told ANYONE this quote because I didn't want it to get into GOP hands prior to the election). He did think a grassroots strategy was crucial, but he may have been among the very few Kerry staffers there at the time to think that way; he and one other staffer were pushing to get me hired and create a real grassroots strategy. He called me daily with updates. On the fourth day, he apologized that Mary Beth Cahill was concerned I could be a "Republican mole." He told her I had been a volunteer with the Dean campaign and that he trusted me based on our phone conversations, but that didn't prove anything to her. She couldn't imagine hiring someone who lived in California that she'd never met. Instead, she hired a former Emily's List staffer with experience sending direct mail to big donors, whom Mary Beth had worked with previously.

This, of course, echoes many of the things the GOP side was saying before the election. Did McCain-Feingold actually succeed in hamstringing Kerry? Then again, the turnout and exit poll numbers do suggest that Kerry's side didn't do so badly in turning out the Democratic base and swinging Nader voters; where they lost was in high GOP turnout and, perhaps most of all, the defection of something like 10% of the people who voted for Gore in 2000. You win them back with the message and the candidate, not by digging deeper at the roots. Plus, the Republicans have an advantage: new GOP voters tend to stay put in their homes with their children, whereas the Democrats' newly registered voters are often transients - college students, new immigrants - and even if you can still find them four years later, they may start to lean more Republican as they set some roots down, which means the Dems need to reinvent the wheel every four years with their register-young-voters push.

Dan Drezner notes another diplomatic triumph for the Bush Administration, as James Baker hammers out an agreement with Russia, France, Germany and others to forgive 80% of Iraq's debts.

I had to laugh at this exchange on CNN’s Sunday Late Edition between Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and Wolf Blitzer:

SANCHEZ: …I believe that we made mistakes. The media certainly is not in our hands any longer, and, in particular, radio talk shows where that is completely in the opposition's hands, and they use it effectively against us.

BLITZER: But, Loretta, when you say the media -- when you say the media is not in your hands, are you saying that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN are hostile to Democrats?

SANCHEZ: No, that's not what I said. I'm saying that -- if you would let me finish -- that the majority of people are now receiving a lot of their information out of radio. And the radio isn't in the hands of the Democrats anymore.

Many years ago, the Republicans made a very effective play. They sat down. They made a strategy. They decided they were going to put big thinktanks around, that they were going to fund them. They decided that they would buy radio, that they would use that to talk to people. And people drive in their cars, they're listening to the radio all the time. They're getting a lot of information that way.

You know, networks are losing -- you know, they're getting less and less viewership.

The transcript doesn’t quite do justice to how depressed Sanchez sounded when she said “the media is not in our hands any longer.” But the interview did make me want to learn more about this sinister, so-called “radio” device and how the government can curb its pernicious influence.

Seriously, though, isn’t it overstating the case - and more than a little rude to Al Franken, who was on the very same panel – for a Democrat to say that radio is “completely in the opposition’s hands.” Comments like these would also seem to belie Sanchez’s claims.

Drum notes a program at Santa Clara University to give preferential treatment to male students and huffs:

I'm hopeful that the principled folks over at National Review will condemn this practice. And please: not just a desultory acknowledgment or two to prove you care. I expect a stream of outraged posts and crosstalk at least equal to the recent torrents about Arlen Specter, the lack of conservatives among humanities faculties, and the shocking tolerance of liberalism at the University of Chicago.

I'm counting on you, Cornerites. The eyes of the blogosphere are on you.

Well, if Drum wants us conservatives to say that preferences for less-qualified male students in university admissions are bad, he can relax; obviously, this kind of discrimination is not justified. But, in the Kleiman style, he wants instead to paint conservatives as hypocrites for not dropping what they are doing and writing what Drum tells us to write.

But he can't be serious; this is one isolated and possibly unique feature of one not terribly prominent university. To say that it is deserving of the same attention as the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee - a matter that affects the court system and legal reform issues as a whole - is unserious at best and disingenuous at worst. Even to compare this to conservatives' principled opposition to racial preferences misses the fact that the latter are pervasive, perhaps universal, in higher education admissions. That doesn't make one more or less wrong than the other, but it certainly suggests why the emphasis falls naturally on the more prevalent program. A little perspective would go a long way.

Ricky West reminds us, graphically, that a major focus of George W. Bush's budget-busting spending increases compared to Clinton has been in education spending, an area where he's been criticized relentlessly for not spending enough.

You know, some jokes just never get old.

*Real subtle, that Zarqawi:

In video shot by an embedded CNN cameraman, soldiers walked through an imposing building with concrete columns and with a large sign in Arabic on the wall reading "Al Qaida Organization" and "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger."

Inside the building, U.S. soldiers found documents, old computers, notebooks, photographs and copies of the Quran.

*Jay G has an amusingly profanity-laden tirade (you were warned!) about critics of Hardee's new super-fatburger.

*While what he did may well have been wrong, I'm loath to sit in judgment of the Marine who shot what appears to be a wounded and non-threatening sniper in Fallujah. I believe very, very strongly that a man who wears the uniform is entitled to the benefit of every doubt. But Dale Franks explains why sometimes soldiers have to be punished for reasons that have nothing to do with justice and everything to do with discipline.

*David Frum lays out options for blockading Iran and has some helpful history of the words "Palestine" and "Philistine".

*NZ Bear reminds us that we still need a loyal opposition.

*Kevin Drum notes that the exit polls always overestimate support for the Democrats.

*What are these "morals" you speak of?

*Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post on the centrality of corruption to Arafatistan. Jeff Jacoby, of course, had the definitive Arafat post-mortem:

In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg.

*How the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign made better use of email than the Democrats.

Part II of a three-part series on what the Democrats need to do from here; Part I, on Communications, is here, and Part III, on Policy, will follow.

1. Governors and State Legislatures

Obviously, the Democrats need to start by rebuilding their hold on governorships, which they lost in the mid-1990s. Republicans presently hold the governor's mansions in the nation's four largest states - California, Texas, New York, and Florida, although New York may be due to swing back their way when Eliot Spitzer runs in 2006, with George Pataki probably wisely choosing not to run again. Republicans have also captured several natural Democratic strongholds - Massachusetts (which hasn't elected a Democratic governor since Dukakis), Maryland, Hawaii, even Vermont. The near-abandonment of the South has left the Dems in a serious bind there as well, although the cyclical nature of governorships, particularly due to the lure of corruption in state government, means that they take one from time to time.

As far as developing presidential candidates, I'll get to that later when I'm handicapping the 2008 race, but they are just at the wrong part of the cycle, with few governors in office long enough and one of their biggest media stars (Jennifer Granholm in Michigan) ineligible to run because she's Canadian-born. It didn't help when Gray Davis was humbled by the California voters, Jim McGreevey stepped down amidst a multitude of scandals, Roy Barnes lost in Georgia, and even smaller-time governors like Gary Locke felt the need to quit and go home. The process of building up governors to run for president or Senate means having someone be successful and popular enough to get re-elected. Even Granholm may face a tough re-election battle in Michigan.

The picture at the state legislature level is much stronger, as the Dems gained a lot of seats this year in seveal states, both red and blue. If they can consolidate those gains, it will be particularly important when another round of redistricting arises after the 2010 census, which seems likely to send still more congressional seats and electoral votes out of the blue states and into the red states.

2. Carville for DNC Chair

I take it he doesn't want the job, and there seem to be too many other people focused on their own self-interest (and on stopping the Hillary juggernaut) for anyone to persuade him, but much as I loathe James Carville, he's exactly what the Democrats need in a party chair - he's a regular-guy type, knows the South, doesn't fall into the trap of believing his own BS, and understands how you craft a message to win elections. You can always have a McAuliffe type as your #2 to work the fundraising - Mercer Reynolds, for example, raised vast sums of money for Bush this year and I'd never even heard of the guy until last week. The party chair winds up on TV a lot, and Carville is good with TV.

More thoughts on the DNC/consultant side: The Dems badly need a new batch of consultants who have cut their teeth in states outside the Northeast and West Coast. They need to permanently banish Bob Shrum and his grim populist message from the party - not just from presidential races, because half the problem is that all their presidential candidates have been groomed from the start by Shrum. Ditto for humorless types like Tad Devine and Chris Lehane who don't know when to stop spinning. On the other hand, Donna Brazile is one of the more sensible types and an expert on turnout among African-Americans, and needs to get a larger role. And as with accepting the loss of Shrum's good record with Senate campaigns, the party needs to cut bait with Terry McAuliffe even if it means losing some of his golden fundraising touch; the guy is a disaster in every other way (McAuliffe was one of the fools whose obsession with Bush's National Guard record led to so many bad decisions this year, from Rathergate to the overdone stress on Kerry's combat record), and his fundraising skills are partly offset by the scandals he engenders.

3. More Chuck Schumer

In developing presidential candidates, the Democrats need to present the face of moderation, bring along people who have the personal touch. Congressional leadership is a different game. That's why, if it was my party, I'd have wanted Schumer rather than the soft-spoken Harry Reid to head the Senate Democrats. Schumer will never be president; as a liberal Jewish lawyer from Brooklyn with an accent to match, he's too NY to be president in the way that Phil Gramm was too Texas and, frankly, Kerry was too Massachusetts (truth be told, in an ordinary year Kerry would never have won the nomination). But Schumer brings to bear a number of advantages that would make him ideal as a party leader in Congress. He's insanely hard-working. He's exceptionally PR savvy; I've noted before his habit of doing a press conference on a consumer-protection issue every Sunday, guaranteeing him a block of time on the Sunday evening local news once a week to the point that the local networks know they can give their consumer reporters the night off. He's actually relatively sane on national security and law enforcement issues. He's tough as nails. And, unlike guys like Daschle and Gephardt, Schumer doesn't talk down to people and doesn't sound like he's reading made-up focus-grouped talking points he doesn't believe in.

4. Say Goodbye To Hollywood

Hollywood stars tend to lean very far to the Left, and tend to spout off their political opinions without being asked and whether they know anything about the subject or not. The Democratic Party can't change this fact. They also give a lot of money to Democrats. The Dems shouldn't want to change this fact. But what the party can and should do is stop being star-struck and just stop making public appearances with Hollywood types. It's one of the tendencies that makes so many people identify the Democrats with the values-free zone that is Hollywood and with unserious dilettante leftism. Take their money? Sure. But don't telegraph to the American people that you take Ben Affleck's opinions seriously.

Of all the celebs who worked with the Kerry campaign and supporting 527s this year, only two seemed like they might help: Bruce Springsteen, because he's a fairly serious guy with an older fan base including a lot of blue-collar types (although as I noted some time ago, Bruce's fans tend by the nature of his music to be more conservative), and Puff the Magic Diddy, because he would help get young urban African-Americans registered to vote. It's not clear even that these two were any help, although it may be that Bruce's appearances in Wisconsin were part of the major Kerry operation that delivered the state by a hair.

5. No More Moore

For many of the same reasons, the Democrats need to walk away from Michael Moore. Yes, his movies and books are beloved by a segment of the Democratic base. But having Moore appear in public with Democratic candidates like Wesley Clark and appear at the Democratic Convention (they couldn't really stop him from appearing at the GOP convention) led to far too close a public association with a shameless and deeply dishonest huckster. And worse yet is allowing Moore's favorite hobby-horses to become Democratic talking points and ad campaigns.

Don't like that advice? Think the GOP has people it should distance itself from? Well, to some extent yes - but as a matter of practical electoral politics, the Democrats lost. They are the ones who disregard such advice at their peril.

6. No More Sharpton

In the current political environment, racial division helps the Democrats. The 2000 NAACP James Byrd ad, promising that a Bush Administration would set off a wave of lynchings, was highly effective. The Bush camp was probably politically wise to give no reason for this election to be racially polarized, even to the point of compromising its principles by signalling to the Supreme Court in the Michigan affirmative action case that it would not attack racial preferences.

More astonishingly, Republicans even held their fire when Al Sharpton, the David Duke of the Democratic party, spoke at the convention in prime time; if there had been a similar speech at the GOP convention, you would have heard nothing else for months. But don't think voters didn't notice: as I noted before, Bush won white voters by a 17-point margin, and while Sharpton may not have been much of a factor in that, the Democrats simply have to suck up the short-term cost of annoying Sharpton if they want, in the long term, to win back the confidence of non-Jewish white voters and stem erosion of voters from two groups Sharpton has targeted with particular bile: Jews and Asian-Americans.

Jim Geraghty, back from vacationing in Italy (and still in need of a new title), has some interesting thoughts on the international press. He starts by surveying various options for someone in Europe looking for more objective coverage of the U.S. This caught my eye:

The International edition of USA Today: Making the domestic version of that newspaper look like “War and Peace.” Three paragraphs and then we punt. I can’t complain about their news coverage skewing one way or another because there was rarely enough to form an opinion about. I do love the sports section, though.

Here at home, I’m a fan of USA Today, because I feel like its aspirations to be a national paper and its famous brevity combine to make it one of America’s more objective publications. USA Today is generally scorned by readers of more hefty papers like The New York Times, but, unlike that paper, it really is a pretty good bellwether for the country. (Of course, brevity does not guarantee objectivity. Down here in DC, commuters are treated to the free Washington Post Express paper, which manages to cram an incredible amount of spin into just a few brief paragraphs every day.)

In fact, I’ve long wondered: what it is the most objective news source in the country?

Read More »

President Bush just introduced Condoleeza Rice as the new Secretary of State.

One question: Rice’s former deputy Stephen Hadley is taking over as the new National Security Advisor. Since one of the main jobs of that position is to coordinate between the often-contentious State and Defense Departments, won’t it be hard for Hadley to take sides against his former boss? While the conventional wisdom is that Rice replacing Powell will move the Bush Administration’s foreign policy to the right, I’m wondering if the interaction between Bush, Rice and Hadley will move the balance of power in Washington towards Foggy Bottom. Which may actually be a good thing, assuming – and it is a big assumption - that that Department has the President’s best interests in mind.

On the other hand, Rumsfeld might increasingly run rings around those two less experienced figures. We shall see.

More thoughts on all of this here, here and here.

You have to take the national exit polls with a grain of salt, but it appears that this poll weights out to the correct result, and if so, a few things jump off the page:

1. Bush won white voters 58-41. He won white males by 25 points and white women by 11. Now, I know white people aren't exactly a cohesive group, and that there's something vaguely distasteful, even, about speaking of a "white vote". But if you're not even competitive with a demographic that constitutes 77% of the electorate, you got problems. Similarly, 81% of the electorate consists of Christians, and while the poll doesn't combine Protestant and Catholic, if my (rusty) algebra is correct, Christians voted for Bush by a margin of 57-42. At the cross-section of the two majority groups, 61% of the electorate is white Christians, and they broke 63-36 for Bush. Again, you can't afford to lose by that kind of margin with a majority voting bloc.

2. 49% of voters trusted Bush and not Kerry to fight terrorism, and those voters broke for Bush 97-3, such a decisive margin as to suggest that this issue was a deal-breaker for nearly half of all voters. In short, all else aside, Kerry was about 99% defeated just by the lack of voter trust in him as a war leader. This is supported by the fact that voters who trusted both candidates on terrorism broke for Kerry 75-24, while voters who trusted both candidates on the economy broke for Bush 61-38.

Since everyone and his brother is giving advice to Democrats, I might as well put in my own two cents as to the features of the Democratic Party that (1) might, possibly, be subject to change and (2) could help the Democrats in the long run if they were changed. I realize a lot of this will read as a criticism of Democratic candidates, but these really are some of the things I've found frustrating about Democratic campaigns, and I suspect that they are also things that turn off voters who are open to persuasion by Democrats; take this for what it's worth. I'll break down my analysis into three parts: Communications, Personnel, and Policy. Let's start with the Communications issue:

1. Obfuscation is a defensive tactic, not a strategy:

Republicans from the mid-1960s down through today have tried to brand Democratic candidates as "liberals," as a way of summarizing attacks on a broad range of positions on crime, defense, taxes, spending, social issues, etc. GOP consultant Arthur Finkelstein became particularly well-known for this tactic, which can be very effective. There are basically four ways to respond to this tactic: (a) defend liberal positions on the merits; (b) pretend that the positions are not really liberal; (c) nominate candidates who do not take liberal positions; or (d) be evasive about the candidate's positions.

Following the spectacular failure of (a) in the 1984 presidential election (when Mondale openly advocated raising taxes, among other positions) and (b) in the 1988 presidential election (when Dukakis proclaimed "competence, not ideology" was at issue), the Democrats have had to choose between (c) and (d). While Bill Clinton had sporadic success with (c) (notably on crime and trade issues), the party's presidential and Senate candidates, at least - Clinton included - have increasingly leaned towards (d).

John Kerry is perhaps the pinnacle of this strategy, a man who got burned by the liberal label in his unsuccessful 1972 House race, and has spent the rest of his career dodging the label. He does so in two ways. One is to salt his record with votes that he can use to defend himself against charges of liberalism - which would be a convincing strategy if he actually took consistent positions on those issues, rather than a vote here or there, usually accompanied by his other tactic, weaselly disclaimers that leave you guessing as to where he actually stands. I dealt with this issue here and here. As I've noted, the Republicans have a time-tested counterattack when a Democrat does things like this to avoid taking clear and identifiable positions: call him a flip-flopper.

With each of the last three Democratic presidential candidates there has been endless speculation as to what they believe on a whole battery of issues, and while Clinton was able to eke out victories with this tactic, politicians without his unusual talents have had a much rougher go.

Now, let me make one thing clear: all politicians fudge, straddle, and flip-flop from time to time to create confusion in the public mind as to where they stand on issues. This is a useful tactic for a candidate who does not want to offend potential supporters on a particular issue, and I'm not suggesting that Democrats should avoid it altogether. But here we come to the Democrats' weakness: mistaking a useful tactic for a strategy. You can obfuscate some of your positions so as to emphasize others, and you can obfuscate on small issues so as to emphasize big ones. But once voters start to catch on to the idea that you are playing hide-the-ball on multiple major major issues, you are toast. The place of the Iraq War in the War on Terror was the most central issue at stake in this year's campaign, and nobody but maybe John Kerry himself believed that he had a single, clear and coherent position on the issue. That may have been, under the circumstances, a necessary compromise to keep his base from splitting in half, but it was death in Kerry's efforts to broaden his appeal beyond Bush-haters to people who wanted a leader they could depend on to know where he stands. And the problem hasn't been limited to presidential candidates either, as red-state Senate Democrats like Tom Daschle and Mary Landrieu have struggled to balance their moderate images at home with their fealty to liberal causes in Washington.

If the Dems are going to try to become a majority party, they need candidates who will get out there and lead on issues rather than fudging and trying to be all things to all people. It will require courage, discipline, avoidance of panic at temporary setbacks and the willingness to suffer bad press and risk losing some elections. Of course, this presupposes that their positions are actually capable of attracting popular support. But if the Democratic party has lost faith that its ideas can attract popular support, then this entire conversation is pointless. Isn't it worth a try?

2. Biography is not a substitute for policy:

This is a second and related example of the Democrats taking a tried-and-true campaign tactic and trying to pass it off as a strategy, and another one in which Kerry represents a nadir. Again, all candidates use their biography when possible to shore up both the strong and weak points in their images. But what we've seen increasingly from Democrats is efforts to use biography as a shield to cover the candidate's policy positions. Get asked about gun control? Don't talk about the issue - go hunting! Get asked about war? Talk about your service record!

Leave aside for now the debate over whether the tendency to do this is just a feature of recent Democratic candidates and consultants or whether it's driven by the party's devotion to identity politics. As a practical matter, there are two problems with this approach. First, voters aren't stupid; a dove with medals is still a dove, and a hunter who favors gun control is still in favor of gun control. Second, nobody has enough biography to cover every issue, and the need to have something personal to say on issue after issue is one of the roots of the exaggerations and resume-padding that got Gore and Kerry into so much trouble. Look at Bush and Cheney for a comparison: Bush's bio story is well-known, but he rarely tries to connect it to a particular policy debate, and Cheney only reluctantly talks about himself at all despite having a genuinely impressive up-by-the-bootstraps story.

3. Forget Vietnam:

This goes with the issue above - voters just keep on rejecting combat veterans who aren't right on policy. And I won't rehash the whole Kerry Vietnam story here. But it goes deeper: the constant references to Afghanistan and then Iraq as "quagmires," Ted Kennedy calling Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam" - don't Democratic politicians and their allies in the media realize how sick Americans are of hearing about Vietnam, and how dated their worldview sounds? If there's one rhetorical crutch the Dems need to drop, it's Vietnam.

4. Voters want to be spoken to as adults:

This one is mostly a matter of speaking style, although it's also an issue of substance: too many Democratic politicians (prime offenders include Gore, Gephardt and Hillary Clinton) talk to audiences like they are five years old. With the exception of Lamar Alexander I can't think of a Republican who does this. Again, Cheney is a good model to imitate on this point (not that anyone has to go to his extreme) - you can tell when he gives a speech that he's talking to you exactly as he would speak to a room full of senior advisers. That's respect, and even if voters don't put it into words, we appreciate it.

5. Don't believe what you read in the papers:

The Kerry campaign spent much of the year reacting to newspaper headlines and stories on broadcast networks. On a few occasions, they got burned by believing that anything reported there would be backed up by evidence and widely digested and believed. In fact, a lot of the rage on the Left at the notion of ignorant voters is an inability to comprehend that some people out there don't watch 60 Minutes and don't believe everything they read in the NY Times. Much as Democrats may wish to deny the idea of liberal media bias, eventually they have to accept that they can't just sit back and expect that the media will do their jobs for them and still produce a credible product.

6. Explain programs in terms of incentives:

Government programs are complicated; that's just the way they are. When Democrats propose changes to programs or new programs, they often wind up choosing one of three ways to talk about them: either they oversimplify and just tell us what they intend the program to accomplish without explaining how it will work, or they talk up how much more money they will spend, or they start reeling off complex, wonkish details that put everyone to sleep.

In fact, one reason that I suspect that domestic policy was the dog that didn't bark in this campaign was that John Kerry was never able to explain any of his policy proposals in a way that allowed people to understand them and compare them to President Bush's.

Democrats should look at how Bush explains his proposals and take a lesson. With programs like private Social Security accounts and Health Savings Accounts, what Bush focuses on is how the incentives in the program work in favor of the citizen. People instinctively understand, for example, that a shift to private ownership of funds will give them more control. Of course, one might argue that plans to, for example, impose direct or indirect price controls on medical drugs can not be explained in terms of incentives without revealing their fundamental flaws.

7. People don't like being called bigots:

The same-sex marriage flap is only the most recent manifestation of the tendency of pundits, bloggers, entertainers and the like on the Left - and to some extent politicians as well, notably John Kerry in his speech against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 - to refer to their opponents as driven solely by "bigotry and ignorance." This position is especially sharp with regard to same-sex marriage, since the pro-same-sex-marriage argument depends on the idea that there is no rational basis grounded in anything but irrational bigotry for anyone to want to treat traditional opposite-sex marriage any differently from same-sex unions. The problem, of course, is that - even leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the debate for the moment - people tend to get defensive when their lifelong beliefs, especially their deeply-held religious beliefs, are branded as irrational superstition and bigotry. It's not a strategy for winning hearts, minds, or votes, as the overwhelming rejection of same-sex marriage at the polls even in liberal Oregon showed.

8. Bloggers and pundits matter too:

On some of these points, notably the last one, I'm thinking as much about liberal bloggers, newspaper columnists, TV and radio personalities, and the like as I am about Democratic politicians. But one thing conservatives and Republicans have learned, sometimes to our grief, is that people look at the Right as a single entity, and tend to have trouble remembering what arguments they heard from President Bush and which ones they heard from Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson.

Put another way: for a lot of people, their most regular exposure to liberal ideas comes from the New York Times editorial page, or from Atrios, or from The Daily Show, or from CBS News. If those organs constantly blare the same theme - Bush is a liar and a draft dodger! - people will identify it with the voice of the Left. That doesn't mean people should feel totally inhibited, especially on blogs, but if commentators on the Left think that the recent spate of "Jesusland" bashing, especially from the Times columnists, has no impact on the public's view of Democrats, they are sadly mistaken. And, bloggers: remember, you may not have a huge audience, but your readers include people in Democratic Party circles, both in Washington and at the grass roots, as well as people in the media. You do have an influence on the debate, and don't think that you can push anger and bile all day and pound the table for agendas that are not likely to fly with voters, and then wonder why the candidates you support can't convincingly portray themselves as level-headed moderates, or why your party has a bad reputation on religious issues when you sneer constantly at people of faith. You want to shape opinion? You got it. Use it wisely.

In contrast to Kos, who as I and others have noted backed 15 Congressional candidates and they all lost, the Club for Growth had a pretty decent 19-14 record in Senate and House general election races this year, a record that looks better when you look at some of the longshots they backed (not that Kos didn't back a few longshots, but you'd think in 15 races he'd get one right).

The more I think about it, the more I have to agree with Stuart Buck that, if Chief Justice Rehnquist is the first Supreme Court Justice to step down, Michael McConnell would be the best choice to replace him. As Buck pointed out in an email, this People for the American Way brief against McConnell actually summarizes pretty well why pro-life conservatives should want him on the bench. McConnell is one of the most distinguished scholars in the federal judiciary, having for many years been a leading scholar and court advocate on Establishment Clause issues. He is well-regarded as well in academia as a man of even and judicious temperment, which is one reason why his nomination for the bench in 2001 attracted the broad support of even liberal academics like Laurence Tribe and Cass Sunstein. This is one reason why Senate Democrats, having seen how badly the filibuster issue hurt them in many elections in 2002 (as it did again this year), moved swiftly to drop the filibuster against McConnell, and he was approved by the Senate by voice vote on November 15, 2002. That issue will loom again for 2006, as five Democratic Senators face re-election in states Bush carried in 2004 (although two of those, Robert Byrd and Jeff Bingaman, are likely to be immune to public pressure). Surely, recognizing that a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee will be an unusually divisive and unpopular move - it's only been done once, in the case of Abe Fortas' elevation to Chief Justice, and then only on allegations of improprieties that eventually forced Fortas' resignation from the bench - the Dems may quietly be looking for an excuse not to filibuster the replacement for the conservative Rehnquist but instead save their fire for nominations to replace the moderate Sandra Day O'Connor or liberals John Paul Stevens or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, especially if the nomination comes up right on the heels of the election. McConnell would give them a good reason not to fight, and present major obstacles to having one.

Others who agree that McConnell would be a good choice:

*Michael Rappaport

*Eugene Volokh

*Stephen Bainbridge

*John Hinderaker (although the Deacon has his own suggestions)

In this post, I examined the national popular vote and concluded that, comparing of the increased number of Bush voters from 2000 (about 8.66 million) and the increased number of Kerry voters as compared to Gore voters in 2000 (about 4.56 million), one of two things had happened - either:

1. Bush had won the votes of 65.5% of "new voters," defined as people who - regardless of whether they had voted in past elections - didn't vote for either Bush or Gore in 2000; or

2. Bush had won less than 65.5% of such voters but had stolen away so many Gore voters (even over and above Nader voters who switched to Kerry) that he could approximate the same effect.

As more poll data comes in, I'm more convinced now by some of the commenters to the prior post who argued that it was more the latter than the former, and that the Gore voter switch is particularly pronounced when you consider the likelihood that most of Nader's voters from 2000 went over to Kerry. (I heard someone on TV claim that exit polls showed Bush won 10% of Gore voters). This is a conclusion that should cause ABC's The Note great embarrassment for its now-famous declaration, back on August 11, that "we still can't find a single American who voted for Al Gore in 2000 who is planning to vote for George Bush in 2004."

I calculated the 65.5% "marginal votes" figure by applying the following formula to the national popular vote:

((Bush 2004 votes) - (Bush 2000 votes))/(((Kerry 2004 votes) - (Gore 2000 votes)) + ((Bush 2004 votes) - (Bush 2000 votes)))

As noted, Bush won an additional 8.66 million Republican votes, whereas Kerry won something on the order of 4.56 million additional Democratic votes. I computed these figures by ignoring third-party candidates, figuring that people Kerry won over who had voted Nader last time are, in many ways, equivalent to bringing new people into the process, and by comparing the official FEC tabulations from 2000 and the latest running tallies so far. I would caution that the 2004 figures are still moving targets; returns are coming in daily. The 65.5% figure, for example, is down to 64.5% as of Friday, and may go up or down as more absentee and provisional ballots are tabulated in various states.

Anyway, I thought I'd take a state-by-state look to see where it was, precisely, that all of those 8.66 million new Bush voters came from. The numbers that follow were computed Friday, November 5, following the call of Iowa, the last contested state, for President Bush. It's a particularly interesting question for me, as a New York City Republican listening to my fellow New Yorkers rage at what they saw as the provincialism of the red-staters who gave Bush his victory (See here and here for examples): where was it that all these extra Bush votes came from? What state led the charge to Bush?

New York

That's right, New York. The single largest percentage of marginal voters swinging to Bush came among the benighted, provincial, knuckle-draggin', Bible-thumpin', troglodytes of the Empire State itself. New York was one of only three states in the Union (along with Rhode Island and Alabama) to see an increase in Bush votes and a decrease in Kerry votes as compared to Gore, and the only one in which the decrease was significant. Bush gained nearly 400,000 additional votes in New York while Kerry lost more than 120,000 - a swing of nearly half a million votes. That swing, by the way, all but eliminated Gore's 540,000 advantage in the national popular vote all by itself. Before New Yorkers fume at Bush voters in the South and the Great Plains states they should look around at their neighbors and ask themselves how many of them have been strangely quiet about this election.

It wasn't just New York, of course; the fourth-largest marginal swing was New Jersey, and Bush won over 80% of the marginal votes in Connecticut. Can you say, "September 11"? And, come to think of it - when you combine those states with the nearly 1 million new Bush votes in Florida - there may have been another factor at work in 2000, much noted in the media at the time and much ignored in the media this time: Joe-mentum. Without the presence of the first Jew on a national ticket, Kerry may not have had the same oomph in states with a large Jewish population ("Where have you gone, Joe Lieberman, your party turns its lonely eyes to you . . . ") Of course, these are basically Democratic states, so Bush still didn't win them. But he won over a lot of people here in the past four years, and that showed in the final tallies.

I list the states in order of the percentage of the marginal vote won by Bush:

Read More »

Instapundit links to a post-election item from one of the Daily Kos contributors containing this charming bit:

Marching order #1, therefore, is this: No matter whom you talk to outside our circles, begin to perpetuate the (false, exaggerated) notion that George Bush's victory was built not merely on values issues, but gay marriage specifically. If you feel a need to broaden it slightly, try depicting the GOP as a majority party synonymous with gay-haters, warmongers and country-clubbers. Because I, for one, am tired of hearing whiny complaints from conservatives that, not only do I not have values, but that I fail to properly respect the values of people who are all too happy to buy into, no less perpetuate, inaccurate caricatures of the 54+ million Americans who voted Tuesday for John Kerry.

Criticizing the GOP ain't gonna build us a new national majority. But the process is brick by brick, or perhaps, brickbat by brickbat. We didn't decide the rules of engagement, but that's what they are and so we may as well start firing away.

I have heard this attitude many times, and it always seems to come from the Left. Not from everyone, mind you, but the people it does come from . . . let's back up a bit here: we all know that many people on the Right and on the Left regard some or all of the other side as liars, cheaters, etc. in their conduct of elections and political debate. Leaving aside for the sake of argument who's right about this and in what ways, it can be very frustrating to fight against people you regard as fighting dirty and cheating.

I've read or been party to plenty of bitter wallows after election defeats, from widespread debacles in 1989, 1990, 1992, 1996 and 1998 to more localized issues like Hillary Clinton's senate win in 2000. I've seen plenty of examples of conservatives looking for ways to stop lies, election fraud and other sorts of wrongdoing by Democrats. I've seen conservatives willing to hoist Democrats by their own petards, most notably with the Independent Counsel statute and with he-said-she-said sexual harrassment claims (Paula Jones as revenge for Anita Hill). And yes, I've seen conservatives argue points that were just not true.

But I have never seen anybody on the Right argue that we ought to knowingly spread untruths or create false impressions to win political arguments. What's disturbing about a lot of the reactions from people in the Left's fever swamps and sometimes even in more mainstream venues is the notion that Democrats ought to imitate precisely those facets of Republican tactics that they profess to find offensive. What's particularly damaging is the desire to imitate the GOP without really understanding why Republicans do the things we do and why they are effective, which is how you get what amounts to cargo-cult operations like Media Matters, which purports to be a complement to conservative outlets that decry media bias but instead spends most of its time just taking potshots at conservative pundits.

*Now, They Tell Us: the lead story on the NY Times website yesterday was one that veterans of the 1992 election will find familiar: the discovery, all of a sudden, that the jobs picture is better than it was painted in the run-up to the election. I'm watching carefully for signs of economic revisionism where Democrats and Bush Administration critics who just a few days ago were comparing this economy to the Great Depression start arguing that Bush was hard to beat because economic times are good.

*Kos just topped the "screw 'em" classic, by openly hoping for America's defeat in Iraq:

The big silver lining, and it's significant, is that Kerry won't be tarred for cleaning up Bush's mess. Had Kerry gotten us out of Iraq, he would've been blamed for "losing the war". Now Bush will ineptly lose it for himself.

Kos is taken firmly to task for this by Greg Djejerian:

[S]uch flippant treatment of a major national security issue is also very small; and the American people have smelled this smallness out. That's part of the reason a somewhat embattled American president, with a less than ideal economy and with a tough war on his hands, was handily re-elected (I believe not since FDR has a President been re-elected while simultaneously gaining seats for his party in both Houses of Congress). Americans like to dream of big projects and goals--and the Democratic party is failing them in this--content instead to lazily carp from the sidelines. Worse, some of that party's activists, it too often appears, would wish for some important, declared national objectives to be scuttled. Trust me, that wasn't a winning strategy in the past, it isn't one right now, and it won't be one in the future.

Kos is undoubtedly particularly peeved at the failure of his personal ambition to become a power player in the Democratic party, as all 15 of the House and Senate candidates he backed lost. The list, here, is particularly funny now due to the misspellings and egregious cheap shots, like claiming Jim Bunning's mental health was deteriorating. (Link via Blogs for Bush)

*Speaking of Blogs for Bush, the site will continue in a new format, although it's unclear to me how its function will differ from that of RedState.

*Catch Mark Steyn in something close to full gloat mode here and here. I liked this one:

Michael Mooronification damages everyone who gets it.

Look at the recently resurrected Osama bin Laden. Three years ago he was Mr Jihad, demanding the restoration of the caliphate, the return of Andalucia, the conversion of every infidel to Islam, the imposition of sharia and an end to fornication, homosexuality and alcoholic beverages. In his latest video he sounds like some elderly Berkeley sociology student making lame jokes about Halliburton and Bush reading My Pet Goat.

*Speaking of gloating, while I might divide the group differently, I endorse the general sentiment of John Derbyshire as to the people who deserve to be gloated at and those who don't.

*From November 2: Best Jimmy Breslin column ever.

*Lileks on New Yorkers who are aghast at the supposed ignorance of the red states that voted for Bush:

It's a big country. Please take this in the spirit it's offered: we watch the news that comes from New York, read the magazines that come from New York, see the shows that come from New York. It's entirely possible we know you better than you know us. Nu?

*Tim Blair links to some classic inside stuff from the Bush and Kerry camps. The guy who comes off in this as the real political brains isn't Karl Rove but Bush himself - note that Bush figured out before Rove did that Howard Dean was toast in the primaries. Of course, this is consistent with the theory that Bush's expertise is knowing people, and he knew Dean personally.

*Stuart Buck thinks - and I agree with him - that Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor would have retired before the election if it were not for the legitimacy questions that people raised after Bush v. Gore.

*Where credit is due: Wretchard notes that "[t]he French may have performed a valuable service by admitting Arafat to a military hospital in Europe which will reduce the risk of imputing his death to Jewish poisoning, a rumor that has already made the rounds in the Middle East."

Looking at Slate yesterday, it was unsurprising to see a characteristically Democratic “why do they hate us” debate ongoing among its liberal writers. Two things struck me about this. On one hand, things aren’t quite as bad for the Democrats as a lot of us are assuming. A few more votes in a few of the swing states and we might be talking right now about what’s wrong with the Republican Party. However, on the other hand, this election did turn out to be, in the end, a profound disaster for the Democrats and, as someone who definitely leans Republican, even I am a little bit concerned about the degree to which one party currently has control of our government. So what should the Democrats do? At risk of being greeted with hostility, here is some unsolicited, yet sincere, advice for the minority party for the years leading up to 2008:

Read More »

Here's something I think is really, really interesting, as long as you understand that the methodology isn't so much science as a rough way of measuring the impact of something that might be more accurately measured if you had accurate exit polls. Turnout was up across the country, such that Bush got more votes everywhere than he did in 2000, and Kerry got more votes everywhere than Gore did in 2000 (except California in each case, as far as I can tell, although there may be a bunch of absentee ballots yet to count).

The conventional wisdom was that increased turnout would help Democrats. If this were true, one would expect that, at least in contested states, the marginal voters would break for Kerry - i.e., that when you subtract out the 2000 returns from each side, what's left should lean Kerry. This would be true unless Bush moved so many Gore voters to his column (above and beyond the number of 2000 Bush voters who abandoned him) to negate the benefits of new Kerry-leaning voters. (My own suspicion is that, in general, the people who voted last time and switched sides were close to a wash, although they likely broke for Bush in some places like NJ where he lost decisively last time but closed the gap significantly).

But if you run the calculations of marginal votes, what you get is Bush majorities in the marginal numbers in a lot of places. In some states by big margins - in Connecticut, for example, Bush wins about 88% of the marginal vote. Ohio was an exception, but Bush takes 48% there, enough to hold a state he won by a few points last time. Of course, in New Hampshire, which he lost, he drops to 43%.

I'll run a state-by-state table of these later on when we're closer to having final tallies (including absentees) to provide a good comparison. But let's at least run the table on the national popular vote. Here's the equation I used:

((Bush 2004 votes) - (Bush 2000 votes))/(((Kerry 2004 votes) - (Gore 2000 votes)) + ((Bush 2004 votes) - (Bush 2000 votes)))

For these purposes, I ignored third-party candidates, since people Kerry won over who had voted Nader last time are, in many ways, equivalent to bringing new people into the process. Looking at the official FEC tabulations from 2000 and the latest tallies so far, I get the following:

Bush 2000	Bush 2004	Bush +	Gore 2000	Kerry 2004	Kerry +	Bush Share of Increase
50,456,002	59,117,523	8,661,521	50,999,897	55,557,584	4,557,687	65.5%

When you put the numbers in that context, you see that Bush was actually hugely more successful at the margins in his combination of bringing new voters to the polls and convincing more people to switch to him than away from him. Remember that next time you hear that high turnout always and everywhere favors the Democrats.

Will Collier has the county-by-county map.

By now you've heard a lot about how the partial exit polls that leaked out during the day on Election Day across the internet were skewed to an almost absurd pro-Kerry extent, and you've seen how pro-Democrat pollster John Zogby's final results were the same way just before the election (he projected more than 300 electoral votes for Kerry).

But the state-by-state polls actually weren't all that far off if you knew how to read them. Personally, I was relying on two reliable sources down the stretch: Daly Thoughts and RealClearPolitics, both of which came out with the same Election Day prediction of 296 electoral votes for Bush. Assuming that nothing overturns Bush's lead in Iowa, which looks like the last state not definitively called, Dales and RCP will have each gotten 49 of 50 states right, missing only Wisconsin, which Kerry held on to by the narrowest of margins.

In fact, RCP's national poll average showed a fairly steady lead for Bush throughout the fall, so anyone who put their faith in the RCP guys knew what was likely to happen. Media reports to the contrary were mostly based on cherry-picking pro-Kerry polls and/or on the assumption that new voter turnout would moot all the old polling models. Dales in particular should be explaining over the next few weeks why that was a bad idea (Kaus got in the best cheap shot yet: "Bush 51, Kerry 48: Pollster Ruy Teixeira demands that these raw numbers be weighted to reflect party I.D.!")

Mark Steyn often argues that liberal media bias is a Republican's best friend, as Election Day is the only time that Democrats are forced out of the self-serving illusions given them by the media and compelled to face reality. On this one, he seems to have been right; the evidence was there in the polls, but people who were reading Zogby and the various media outlets that trumpeted a late Kerry surge missed it. Glad I was reading guys who could tell me the score.

We'll see more from exit polls and the like, although one of the ironies of this election is that the exit polls were so wrong about the result, yet they will still be used to break out who voted for who and why. Makes you wonder.

Anyway, here's my best guess on the message of this election as it pertains to the issues (more later on the candidates and the campaigns):

1. The War on Terror: Polls regularly showed that people are split on the war in Iraq, with many Americans having misgivings on the reasons for going there and our progress in winning the war. Ultimately, nothing succeeds like success; I'm confident that in time, we'll have enough tangible progress to get more public acceptance.

But Democratic hopes that unease about the war would sink Bush turned out to be largely unfounded. Even if people weren't so sure they supported the Iraq war, it was clear throughout the campaign that they trusted Bush and his team to carry the broader war through to victory, or at least as far as they could get in four more years. To some people, that may sound irrational: if you don't trust Bush on Iraq, why trust him at all? But most people, I think, understand that the president knows more than they do about any particular foreign controversy; they are perfectly capable of doubting the Iraq war based on what they know, and yet resting comfortably with the more general sense that Bush has proven himself to be a guy who's not going to take potential threats sitting down.

One of the criticisms that has sometimes been made by Democrats is that Bush politicized the war. If they mean simply that Bush sought political profit from his leadership in wartime and his handling of the time of crisis after September 11, well, that's politics; do these people not remember Oklahoma City, or the 1944 election for that matter? But that's not it; what really rankles is not that Bush scored political points off of having handled some uncontroversial things well. What rankles is that Bush found electoral advantages in 2002 and 2004 from the Democrats' own differences of opinion with his policies. As if it was noble of Democrats to attack the president's policies at all turns in the harshest of possible terms and seek to undermine them in Congress, and yet somehow improper for the president to point out these differences to the American people and ask them to decide which side of these various controversies they trusted.

This is the great dilemma for Democrats. Democrats have a set of beliefs about domestic politics (more later on this), and many of them feel cheated in some sense that foreign policy swamped those issues in the campaign. But at the same time, a large segment of Democrats remain harshly critical of the president's foreign policies. A Tony Blair/Joe Lieberman-type Democrat who doesn't put daylight between himself and Republicans on foreign policy and national security issues would make it nearly impossible to politicize those issues and remove deep divisions in our politics. If Democrats are going to bemoan the prominence of national security in our politics, they need to decide: are they willing to go along with Republican policies and attitudes that are popular, at least in broad outline, with the public? If they are, the security issue can be neutralized. If not, then they will have to accept the natural consequences of their own ideas.

2. The Economy: Some Republicans will argue that the president's economic policies have been blessed by the electorate. I'm not sure I'd go that far. Polls seemed to indicate, again, a generally divided view, with Kerry sometimes having advantages on the economy. But it is clear that voters found Bush's economic management at least sufficiently unobjectionable that bread-and-butter issues didn't overwhelm the rest of his message, even in hard-hit places like Ohio and Michigan (Bush did better in Michigan than in 2004). And, of course, there's no question that Bush's fealty to his tax cut pledges helped him hold his base, and that - as in 2004 - a number of House and Senate races went Republican after being fought on economic issues.

3. Social Issues and the Courts: Here, I believe there is a mandate, if one that Republicans need to interpret carefully. Republicans up and down the ticket did exceptionally well with rural and other socially conservative voters, and Karl Rove's prediction that he could bring out millions of evangelical Christian voters who didn't vote in 2000 proved prophetic. Polls regularly showed that voters preferred Bush over Kerry in picking judges, and it's now already conventional wisdom that the same-sex marriage issue played disastrously for Democrats in the heartland. With the Senate now up to 55 Republicans, Bush will be amply justified in appointing conservative judges and in pushing to get through the appellate judges who are already stalled. If Bush is really devious, he could respond to the next Supreme Court vacancy by appointing Miguel Estrada and daring Democrats to complain about his lack of judicial experience after they spent years keeping him off the bench.

But the posture of the same-sex marriage issue should also serve as a reminder: America is a progressive country and a conservative country, and politicians forget one of the two parts of that formula at their peril. Progressive, in the sense that there is a broad, general acceptance of social change. People may fight about particular changes in our society and grumble and groan about the decay of everything, but at a fundamental level, the public is willing to accept that attitudes about race, gender roles, sexual behavior and the like do change over time, and the society changes accordingly. Certainly, efforts to use government to forcibly hold back such changes in attitude almost always result in political setbacks. Bill Bennett had this to say yesterday:

President Bush now has a mandate to affect policy that will promote a more decent society, through both politics and law. His supporters want that, and have given him a mandate in their popular and electoral votes to see to it. Now is the time to begin our long, national cultural renewal . . .

With all due respect to Bennett - much as I'm sure he and I agree on many values issues - that's not going to work. But if it's important to recognize the progressive nature of social change, it's at least equally important to recognize the conservative impulse as well: people who may be willing to be persuaded to change their minds about things - or who may give way in time to people with different opinions - may not be so enthused about court decisions that take away from the people the development of that process and tie it up in a constitutional straitjacket. In some cases, that straitjacket can actually reverse the direction of the progressive impulse (as any social change can be reversed over time if attitudes change); pro-lifers are optimistic that, if anything, the absolutism of pro-abortion groups like NARAL and their allies in the courts have succeeded in provoking a general trend towards more rather than less disapproval of abortion. If such a trend grows visibly over time, eventually there will not be popular support for candidates like Kerry who swear to appoint judges with a pro-Roe v. Wade litmus test. This election could wind up being seen in retrospect as such a turning point, as Bush (like Reagan) got a larger share of the popular vote than avowedly pro-abortion candidates like Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis and Mondale ever did.

People like Kevin Drum keep telling us that times are a-changing and eventually, issues that favor conservatives will go away. But this dichotomy will never go away, no matter what the particular issue. Liberals are forever trying to use the courts to short-cut or entirely avoid the process of persuading people on social issues, and that will continue to be a self-defeating tendency no matter what the specific issue at hand. As long as conservatives focus their energies on appointing judges who will leave most such issues in the hands of the people and don't try to make major social changes of their own before their time, social issues will remain a bulwark of conservatism.

It is being reported that Senator Kerry has conceded to President Bush and that both men agreed on the need to reunite the country.

Kerry reportedly will be speaking at 1 PM in Boston. Bush will probably speak later today.

UPDATE: It is very interesting, and quite heartening, to hear how much respect Bush and Kerry apparently have for one another. I got the sense in 2000 that Bush and Gore really could not stand one another, something subsequent events have only seemed to reinforce.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Jim Geraghty has a classy salute to Tom Daschle that I completely endorse.

FINAL UPDATE: My take on today’s speeches: I thought Edwards was trying to rally Democratic spirits, but came off all wrong, a little too partisan for the occasion. Kerry was very good, striking just the right tone and doing his best to heal the bitterness of a too-long campaign. Like Gore at the very end in 2000, I'm not a fan of the guy, but it was hard not to feel for him and his supporters (well, most of them). Cheney was Cheney, with a deadpan crack about having “delivered” Wyoming for the ticket. Bush seemed very gracious and relieved. The President proceeded to give a very nice speech about looking forward, serving all Americans and about what he hopes to accomplish. In all, a peaceful and honorable democratic transition all around.

If you’re depressed, Daniel Drezner has some encouraging words for moderates who voted for Kerry.

I stayed up until Edwards spoke at 2:30 (after being announced as "the next vice president of the United States"), so I'm just too spent this morning to do the full what-it-all-means post, or even to fully absorb the meaning of Kerry's refusal so far to concede. My gut tells me that Kerry's refusal to call it last night was only fair, given the traumatic 2000 experience for his party and given how close this one was in the Electoral College, although it's rather sad to see the tradition of Election Night concession speeches fade away. But I would hope he buries the hatchet by the end of today; fishing for an extra 500 votes when you have a popular vote plurality at your back is one thing, but going to war for 146,000 votes is quite another, and with Bush having won a decisive majority of the national popular vote, I suspect the public would run out of patience for a fight that lasts more than another day or so. The Democrats never got closure on the last election because the leader of their party never looked them in the eye and said, "we lost fair and square, it's over" the way the loser of every election had before. Kerry surely must be able to appreciate, particularly with the passions that election and the war have stirred up, why it will be crucially important to the peace of the nation going forward to do that soon.

My feeling this morning is mostly one of overwhelming relief. We got through the election without a terrorist attack, meaning the last thing Al Qaeda might have been holding back something for has passed. Not that they are done, but there was no other reason to wait other than lack of capacity to strike. And the election went well. The Commander-in-Chief will stay at the helm, and we will have the opportunity to carry his strategy through for another four years. The Senate will be more Republican, as we steel for a likely Supreme Court battle and maybe several.

For historical perspective, not only has Bush won a majority of the popular vote for the first time since 1988, but his 51% of the vote is larger than any Democrat has won, other than FDR (who did it four times) and LBJ in 1964, since the Republican party ran its first national election in 1856 (Jimmy Carter in 1976 is the only other Democrat to muster a majority in that period, and then it was 50% in the wake of Watergate). The Republican party remains a majority party at the national level, having won popular majorities now 7 times to the Democrats' two since 1945. It is, of course, particularly satisfying, on an emotional level, to see Bush win a larger share of the vote than Clinton ever did.

On the coverage last night, I was flipping channels continuously. CBS was actually the fastest network to call states early, but only FOX and NBC called Ohio for Bush, and at last check nobody was willing to say 270; it's safe to say that some of the networks just couldn't quite bring themselves to call a winner until the other side had conceded defeat. I do think FOX had the best coverage, for two reasons. First, FOX had the best ticker, packing in useful information on popular vote totals along with the percentages and share reporting for all the major races. Some of the others left out the raw numbers. Second, FOX had the incomparable Michael Barone, whose encyclopedic understanding of every battleground state down to the precinct level gave FOX viewers a decisive informational advantage in digesting the returns from hotly contested states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida.

Furthest-out line of the night, besides some of Dan Rather's Ratherisms, had to be Joe Scarborough discussing why statewide and nationwide elected officials like hurricanes in Florida.

Anyway, I'm tired and I need to get back to work. I'll be back on my usual early-morning blogging schedule wrapping up the election the next two days, and then I'll be resuming baseball coverage next week. I'll also be taking down some of the election-related bells and whistles on the site over the next several days.

I'm done blogging for the night, having done little enough anyway. I may even try to go to bed if it looks like this will drag on all night.

Still no blue states red and no red states blue. And the networks are quivering in fear of calling Florida, which looks very solid for Bush. The bad news is that it looks at the moment like Bush may need to hold Ohio because he's not gaining ground in any blue state, plus Nevada is tight and NH a slight Kerry lead, eroding further Bush's margin for error.

An amusing but almost certainly daft Rove-is-a-genius theory.

Very little blood drawn yet, in the sense of either side losing anything they'd had much realistic hope of winning. The calls so far that are at all interesting:

R: Win WV, Win Senate races for Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Mitch Daniels wins IN gov, defeat Amendment 36 in CO.

D: Win NJ.

Like I said, not a lott of blood drawn as of 9:53 pm. And Isakson and Obama won.

UPDATE (10:17 pm): NBC calling Arkansas for Bush. Another mild heartburn extinguished.

But everything I'm hearing seems to augur well for Bush in Florida, and Florida is the key state. (This sounds particularly good for Bush in FL).

At almost 8pm, everyone on both sides is dying of anxiety right now. But this one sounds good for Bush:

AP also found that 18-24 year olds broke for Kerry by +15 ... but didn't turn out in any greater numbers this year than in 2000. So much for Rock the Vote.

Command Post 2004 page

NRO Kerry Spot

NRO Battlegrounders

Instapundit

Jay Cost

Vodkapundit

And checking in on a few others, but those are the ones to watch.

Will I be in the right-wing coccoon to some extent? Well, Election Day is one day you want the news - even and especially the bad news - from your friends. Besides, there's always the TV.

UPDATE: I'd pass along some of the cautions you'll see elsewhere: I'm trying not to get too excited about anecdotal reports about turnout, fragmentary exit polls, and the like. And that particularly includes voter fraud and similar shenanigans - while my two biggest concerns about this election have been litigation and fraud, I'm hoping as much as possible to keep from thinking about them. Remember that initial reports of any kind of fraud or irregularities coming out on Election Day are likely to be wrong, much the way that initial reports from a war zone (or anywhere else where there's a lot of people, a lot of fast-moving activity and news reports rely on eyewitnesses and hearsay) tend to get a lot of the details wrong. There should hopefully be enough diligent people on hand to record the facts almost anywhere things get dicey.

I voted absentee and took the day off because I had planned on volunteering for the Bush campaign, but I never got a response back despite several attempts; I'm not sure if that means the campaign has enough lawyers, or what. Anyway, I'm home much of the day, although I've been running errands and dealing with work stuff anyway so far. But I'll be chasing the same fragmentary bits of information as everyone else and I'll post as I get the chance.

Two links to start off:

*Rasmussen's final tracking poll showed Bush surging to over 50% for what is, I believe, the first time all year. No time like today!

*The Brothers Judd on Kurds in Iraq keeping their fingers crossed for a Bush victory.

My vote is in.

A few weeks back, discussing Afghanistan’s first democratic election in its history, I trotted out a favorite quote from Churchill. In honor of today’s election at home, it seems appropriate to bring it out again:

At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper.

For the slightly more cynical, here is another:

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

I believe that America is the greatest country in the world, not because Americans are inherently any better than others, but because we were blessed with the very best constitutional foundation in the world. Today, from Afghanistan to Indonesia to Ukraine to Iraq, democracy is, with our help, increasingly on the rise and the sphere of representative governments continues to expand every year. We should be thankful to live in a country that not just practices democracy, but is willing to sacrifice to promote and defend it.

Whatever the outcome of today’s election, I sincerely hope that never changes.

Latest from the most credible of the GOP optimists:

Jay Cost's final predictions.

Jim Geraghty's conversations with his highly-placed Republican insider and the insider's mentor.

I can't tell you what these are worth, but their arguments have been a principal source of my optimism. Are they spinning, or deluding themselves? We'll know soon enough.

Well, I've put my faith all year in Dales as the best of the poll-watchers. Now, it's put up or shut up time. He's currently showing states solidly behind the two candidates at 222-186 for Bush, 276-238 for Bush - game, set, match - if the candidates each take the states where they are leading only by a little, and just two states (Ohio and Hawaii) too close to call. Electoral-vote.com has Kerry 298, Bush 231, coming to different conclusions (all in Kerry's favor) on Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, and Hawaii, with the sole call more in the Bush direction being New Hampshire, listed with New Mexico as the only tossups.

Looking at the RealClearPolitics 3-way polling averages, 11 out of 12 have Bush with between 47 and 51% of the vote, and 8 of 12 have Kerry with between 47 and 49% of the vote. The latest Rasmussen tracking polls are consistent as well, showing Bush leading 47.9-47.1, 48.1-47.1, and 48.8-47.4 over the past three days (the most recent listed last). Which means, essentially, that we have both an incumbent and a challenger who have a fairly solid base of support entering the last two days of the campaign. I think most of us will agree that it is highly likely that Bush will poll at least 47% on Election Day, and equally highly likely that Kerry will poll at least 46% and probably at least 47% - thus, at least a decently close election remains likely, although we could still have a decisive popular-vote majority and/or an Electoral College landslide.

Recognizing the limits of historical analogies, what can we determine from this? I decided to take a look at the final election results for elections dating back to 1824, when they started keeping records of the popular vote. There have been 25 elections in that period in which an incumbent has stood for re-election; 16 have been re-elected, 9 have been voted out of office.

Strong Incumbents, Weak Incumbents
Obviously, a strong incumbent - if we define a "strong" candidate as one who finishes with at least 47% of the vote - is likely to be re-elected. How likely? All 16 who were re-elected had at least 47%, while only two incumbents who polled at least 47% were voted out, those being Ford in 1976 with 48% of the vote and Grover Cleveland in 1888, who won the popular vote with 48.6% and was voted down (if you want to quibble with my line-drawing - and I had to draw it somewhere - the one incumbent in the 46% range, Martin van Buren at 46.8% in 1840, went down to defeat). The only three presidents to be re-elected with below 50% were Harry Truman in 1948 (49.4%), Woodrow Wilson in 1916 (49.2%) and Bill Clinton in 1996 (49.2%).

What's interesting - and, in fact, what shows the limitations of historical analogies - is how few incumbents have lost races without a complete collapse in their support. Besides Ford, the other four incumbents to lose since 1900 got completely abandoned at the polls: Carter in 1980 got 41%, Hoover in 1928 got 39.6%, Bush Sr. in 1992 got 37.4%, and Taft in 1912 got 23.2% and finished third. Besides Cleveland and van Buren, the other two 19th century incumbents to lose also showed weakly, in both cases against candidates who beat them in the popular vote four years earlier: Benjamin Harrison drew just 43% in his 1892 rematch with Cleveland, and John Quincy Adams drew just 43.6% in his 1828 rematch with Andrew Jackson.

The average margin of victory for successful incumbents? 54.9 to 41.1 overall and 54.9 to 40.9 since 1900. The average margin of victory for successful challengers? 49.5 to 41.2 overall, and 48.5 to 37.8 since 1900.

Strong Challengers, Weak Challengers
The flip side is when, as this year, we have a strong challenger: six candidates have drawn at least 47% of the popular vote against an incumbent president, and all of them have won. Of those, only one drew less than 50% of the vote: Benjamin Harrison in 1888 with 47.8%.

Strong Incumbents, Strong Challengers
You can see where this is heading. In the five presidential elections in which an incumbent and a challenger were separated by 5 points or less, the incumbent won two (Truman in 1948 and Wilson in 1916); the challenger won three, Carter defeating Ford in 1976 and the two Cleveland-Harrison matches in 1888 and 1892; or, that's a two-to-one advantage since 1900. Not much you can learn there either way. For what it's worth, the average outcome was 47.6% for the incumbent and 47% for the challenger, or 48.9% for the incumbent and 47% for the challenger since 1900.

If you look at matchups of a strong challenger against a strong incumbent, there's only two historical precedents, both of them bad for the incumbent: 1888 and 1976.

Conclusion
Well, it should be pretty clear from all this that the history isn't all that enlightening; there's really only five campaigns out of 25, and maybe really only two, that give us any examples to study. But I do think the history is a useful caution about reading too much into the study of, for example, how late-deciding voters make their minds up. The fact is, the 1976 campaign is the only one in the last 50 years to look anything like this one, and the polling data from 1976 don't exactly support the notion that voters facing a choice between a strong incumbent and a strong challenger will swarm to the challenger at the end, as Ford's strength came from a late surge after never pulling better than 45% until the final poll of the election, when he pulled briefly ahead at 49-48 with a momentary surge that quickly subsided (link via this analysis). And Ford, you may recall, was a bit of a unique incumbent: he had never been on a national ticket before, and was running on a record of the first election after Watergate and the fall of South Vietnam.

In other words: tomorrow, history leaves us on our own. It's our job to make it.

Will Collier passes on a wise lecture from Jeff Greenfield on why you shouldn't vote if you really can't make up your mind.

How popular is Bush in South Dakota, the state where Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle is fighting for his political life after four years of efforts to undermine and denounce Bush at every turn? Popular enough that Democratic Representative Stephanie Herseth felt the need to pledge that if the Electoral College ends in a 269-269 tie, she would vote to re-elect Bush.

Leave aside the fact that Kevin Drum is obviously living in a different universe from people like Steyn when it comes to the election; that, after all, will be settled at the polls in the next 36 hours. But this post, arguing that this election - win or lose - spells the death of movement conservatism, is just daft. First of all, the idea that Republicans are on the brink of agreeing that it's a good idea to raise taxes is . . . well, I can't even find a principle so central to the Democratic party to compare it to. A Republican Party that believes in higher taxes would be, in short order, a recipe for a one-party state.

It's true, as Drum has said in the past, that Republicans' failure to even try a large-scale attack on government spending shows the difficulty of a frontal assault on spending, although I think it's equally true that the war and Bush's personality have as much to do with that as anything, and I'm on record saying the GOP will be looking for a spending hawk to nominate in 2008 no matter what happens here.

It's particularly hilarious to hear Drum claim that this election is being held in "the most favorable environment imaginable for a conservative tough guy." Well, if Drum is prepared to agree that the economy is booming and the Iraq War is going seamlessly - heck, even I wouldn't go quite that far on either score, and I'm pretty optimistic on both counts - I'll believe him. Talk about reversing your own spin when it's convenient to do so.

As I've said before, if Kerry wins - even if, as I suspect is his only realistic path to victory, he wins by keeping it close enough to be decided by fraud and/or litigation - it will be seen, and rightly so, mainly as a decisive popular rejection of the Iraq War. This is doubly true if - as I also think is likely even in a Kerry-wins scenario - Kerry wins in spite of Bush getting a very impressive turnout by his base and a more-than-respectable share of non-first-time independent voters, each of which would suggest that the appeal of the Republican message as a whole remains in the general 50/50 neighborhood.

My own predictions, for what they're worth, later today.

Mark Steyn's latest Spectator column is vintage Steyn, albeit a bit less laugh-out-loud than usual (and I like the new Spectator layout, for what it's worth, although you can't see it in the printer-friendly format). Steyn concludes by assuring his British audience that if he's wrong they can get a new analyst of the American scene:

My sense is that the 2002 model is still operative, and that the Democrats and the media, talking to each other in their mutually self-deluding cocoon, have overplayed the Bush-bashing. Next Tuesday the President will win the states he won last time, plus Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Maine’s Second Congressional District to put him up to 301 electoral votes. Minnesota? Why not? Nudge him up to 311 electoral votes. Oh, and what the hell, give him Hawaii: that’s 315. The Republicans will make a net gain of two seats in the Senate, one of which will bring with it the scalp of the Democrats’ leader, Tom Daschle. . . . Look for a handful of Republican House gains, too. And Democrats tearing their hair out — or John Kerry’s and John Edwards’s hair, if they can penetrate the styling gel.

The above prediction needs to be able to withstand Democrat fraud, which I’m nervous about. If Tuesday goes off as smoothly as the Afghan election, we’ll be very lucky.

Usually after making wild predictions I confidently toss my job on the line and say, if they don’t pan out, I’m outta here. I’ve done that a couple of times this campaign season — over Wes Clark (remember him?) — but it almost goes without saying in these circumstances. Were America to elect John Kerry president, it would be seen around the world as a repudiation not just of Bush and of Iraq but of the broader war. It would be a declaration by the people of American unexceptionalism — that they are a slightly butcher Belgium; they would be signing on to the wisdom of conventional transnationalism. Having failed to read correctly the mood of my own backyard, I could hardly continue to pass myself off as a plausible interpreter of the great geopolitical forces at play. Obviously that doesn’t bother a lot of chaps in this line of work — Sir Simon Jenkins, Robert ‘Mister Robert’ Fisk, etc., — and no doubt I could breeze through the next four years doing ketchup riffs on Teresa Heinz Kerry, but I feel a period of sober reflection far from the scene would be appropriate. My faith in the persuasive powers of journalism would be shattered; maybe it would be time to try something else — organising coups in Africa, like the alleged Sir Mark Thatcher is alleged to have allegedly done; maybe abseiling down the walls of the Presidential palace and garroting the guards personally.

But I don’t think it will come to that. This is the 9/11 election, a choice between pushing on or retreating to the polite fictions of September 10. I bet on reality.

Greyhawk, who I believe is still blogging from the front in Iraq, has the details, and a memorable empty throne (via Lileks, who has some as-always-worth-reading thoughts of his own on how Kerry plans to find bin Laden).

As I mentioned, I voted absentee already, and proudly cast my ballot for George W. Bush. If you've been reading this site the past 2+ years, you already know why, and I have neither time nor space here to go through all the reasons. So, I'll just summarize the top three. For a compare and contrast, you can look back at why I voted for McCain over Bush in 2000.

1. The War on Terror: By far the overarching issue in this election is the war. Put simply, Kerry could get me killed. Having been targeted for murder once before on September 11, and given that I still work a few blocks from Times Square, that's something I take rather seriously.

I've written too much about Bush, his leadership and his strategy to recount here, but let's just say this: from the time that he grabbed that bullhorn at Ground Zero to vow that we would be heard from, Bush has gotten it. My philosophy in the war on terror is aptly summarized by the Churchill quote I use as a tagline to the site; the full quote:

Germany must be beaten; Germany must feel that she is beaten. No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong.

Does Bush apply a similar philosophy to the war on terror? I believe he does, and his willingness to absorb endless abuse and wavering support from the public and from some of our allies is, in a wartime leader, a sign of the kind of constancy we desperately need. Bush knows what he wants to do, and he will not be deterred until it is done.

Which brings us to the contrast with his opponent. Can you even begin to picture Kerry insisting that the war on terror does not end until our enemies feel that they are beaten, that it ends only on our terms and at a time of our choosing, that we will not and should not believe we have peace until we have victory? I can't. Not with Kerry's history, not with how he has conducted himself in this campaign. And, of course, Kerry's long history of shifting course with the winds, too well known and extensive to be worth rehashing here, does not inspire confidence in his ability to stay single-mindedly focused on a coherent strategy in the face of obstacles, setbacks and criticism. (For more on Bush's and Kerry's differences as leaders, see here and here).

Even aside from the issue of the two candidates' fundamental differences in philosophy and temperment, there is the question of strategy, which is why this election - which frankly everyone recognizes is a referendum on that strategy - is so critical. Kerry has tried, at every opportunity, to attack Bush on tactics. But even if you agree with some of Kerry's tactical criticisms (which I discussed here), the larger issue is that Kerry rejects the overall strategy of the Bush Administration in fighting the war on terror (including the place of the Iraq war in that strategy), and has not advanced a credible alternative strategy or even convinced me that he would have one other than a return to the do-not-enough policies of the Clinton era. Consider the major strategic doctrines of this administration - each of which I wholeheartedly endorse (see Steven den Beste for more on the grand strategy; the Bush Administration thus far has stuck rather closely by the detailed vision surmised by den Beste) - and how little faith Kerry has in them:

A. The United States is pursuing a "forward strategy of freedom" by which it seeks to encourage reform and/or directly undermine or overthrow undemocratic regimes and replace them with more democratic regimes. Kerry went out of his way in the debates and at the Democratic Convention to avoid saying anything complementary about democracy promotion as a key weapon against tyranny; instead, just as in his dealings with Communist regimes in the 1970s-1980s (think: Daniel Ortega) and his statements about Arafat and Aristede in more recent years, Kerry has shown a disturbing degree of deference to existing regimes that are recognized as legitimate by the international community, no matter how little their legitimacy derives from the consent of their people and no matter how hostile they are to the United States, its allies and its interests. When he does talk about democracy, Kerry says things like this:

"We must support human rights groups, independent media, and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture from the grassroots up."

Labor unions???? In countries with huge pools of unemployed young men and no skilled labor? And that's how you propose to topple the region's tyrants? By getting them to join the AFL-CIO? Independent media and human rights groups do have a role to play, assuming they don't get co-opted into carping mostly about the tyrant's enemies (as so many did with Saddam), but most of the region's regimes need stronger medicine than that.

B. States that sponsor, harbor, or encourage terrorists are as culpable as the terrorists and will be treated as enemies; states with past connections to terrorists must be either with us or against us. Kerry, again, seems more concerned with making sure that we are on the sides of our allies than the other way around, and is profoundly allergic to incurring the anger of allies if it is necessary to get people to do what we want. (See here on why I think Kerry is saying he would not have gone to war with Iraq).

C. The United States reserves the right to launch a pre-emptive strike against our enemies when we believe they represent a serious and developing threat to our security, whether or not we have established that the threat is imminent. (As announced, I don't think this doctrine extends to threats to our interests, but more narrowly to direct threats to our physical security). Kerry, as I have discussed, takes a narrower view of when and how we can respond to threats.

(For more on Kerry's overall foreign policy outlook, see here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

On whether Kerry can effectively rally the nation to finish the job in Iraq no matter what the obstacles, just ask yourself: you work for a big company, and a new guy gets appointed CEO after a protracted power struggle. Do you really want to get assigned to a project that the new CEO, all the way through his climb up the ladder, has savaged as a diversion, a waste of money, and precisely the opposite of the direction the company should be going in?

I didn't think so.

Finally, and of grossly underestimated significance in this election season, there's the signal a Kerry victory would send to the world. As I noted recently, when you try to strip Kerry's message down to soundbites - which is how a president's message gets translated to the rest of the world - it can't be seen as anything but a message of retreat and retrenchment and a popular repudiation of Bush's aggressive defense of American interests. Kerry would need to labor long and hard, at great cost in life and treasure, to correct that impression even if he was totally dedicated to doing so. (More on Kerry's credibility and the message a Kerry victory would send here and here).

2. The Courts: I tend to focus my concerns, on the domestic side, first and foremost on those areas where the president's polices, once in place, are most difficult to change. Nothing has a longer-lasting impact than Supreme Court nominations. One reason for the rising temperature of the last three presidential and last five Senate election cycles is that activists on each side have, on each occasion, steeled for battle over the next Supreme Court nomination on a narrowly divided Court, and each time we've gone another two/four years with nothing happening. That can't hold forever, with a couple of Justices past 80 and several suffering major health problems.

As a practicing litigator, I see the many ways in which the composition of the courts affects the progress of litigation and its effects, direct and indirect, on society. And although it's not an ironclad rule, it's true in most cases that conservative judges, even when they err, wind up leaving things in a position that can be changed by the voters; liberal judges tend, when in doubt, to constititionalize more issues in a way that gradually narrows the scope of democratic accountability and control. That's an ominous development.

3. Social Security: The biggest long-term issue in the federal budget is entitlements. Bush took a step backward on that issue when he fulfilled his campaign promise to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. But in his second term, Bush will be looking for a domestic legacy, and he recognizes the importance of changing the fundamental operation of Social Security as the key to his long-range view of an "ownership society" in which individuals have ownership and control over more aspects of their lives. And Bush is a guy who gets things done. (More on the larger themes at stake here). I look forward to the debate on this issue after the election (see here for a key point on the transition-cost issue); if Kerry wins, of course, nothing will change in the way the government does business.

Conclusion: There are many other issues at stake here, and many reasons I have not discussed. But on the biggest of the big things - leadership, determination and strategy at war, the role of the courts in our society, and the long-term structure of the entitlement programs that consume the largest share of the federal budget - the choice of Bush over Kerry is clear. May the right man win; I cast my vote for him already, and hope you do too.

Brett Favre has apparently joined the Bush camp. Not a big surprise, but that’s good news for Republicans in Wisconsin, since Favre is easily more popular there than either of the two candidates this year.

(By the way, if you don’t get the headline above, you're obviously not following the campaign obsessively enough! See here.)

UPDATE: There is now some doubt about that earlier report. Maybe someone in Wisconsin could confirm or deny?

ELECTION EVE UPDATE: This is my final update to this post, which you may or may not find to be a useful resource. May the best man win.

Well, I’ve more or less said my piece about who I’m supporting this year, offering one of the least-coveted endorsements of the season here. The following are just a few of those who seem to agree...

Read More »

Jay Cost, who seems to be one of the most optimistic poll-readers these days, in an item posted yesterday:

Present Probability that Bush will win the Electoral College: 96.36% (This is the probability that Bush wins FL and IA and WI or OH. Thus, we can be 96.36% confident that Bush would receive a minimum of either 271 EVs or 281 EVs).

[snip]

Right now the EV math is looking awfully tough for Kerry. He is definitely behind in FL, IA and, though I do not cover it here, NM. This gives Bush a minimum of 266 EVs. Plus, Bush is likely leading in OH and WI -- and I think Kerry will be unable to hold MN when all is said and done. The word on the ground is that BC04's organization in MN is a sight to behold. The big question on my mind right now is not whether Bush gets to 269, but whether he breaks 300 (which he would do if he carries FL, IA, NM, WI, OH and MN -- that would be 306).

Personally, I continue to believe that Florida, not Ohio, is the real key right now, because winning Florida gives Bush (or, to a lesser extent, Kerry) multiple ways to win, while losing Florida leaves Bush with almost no margin for error and Kerry with none.

*Tonight's final pre-election broadcast of 60 Minutes weighs in, as you knew it would, with a last-ditch Kerry campaign commercial submission for the Bedfellow award with this Steve Kroft piece charging a lack of armor and equipment for soldiers in Iraq. Of course, the show ran late due to football, so it's debatable how many people caught the whole thing.

*More on bin Laden's effort to meddle in U.S. elections - should we read something into this MEMRI translation of one of his statements?

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security.

Here's a handy scorecard of the poll-closing times in each state on Tuesday night. The first states to close up the polls entirely start at 7pm EST and include two early indicators: New Hampshire and Virginia. Bush is going to win Virginia, but if it's close, that could be a bad indicator. New Hampshire has been fiercely contested; I expect Kerry to take it, but a Bush victory is certainly still possible. Bush taking New Hampshire would not be fatal but it would be a very bad sign for Kerry, as this is the swing state in which Kerry has spent the most time (other than perhaps Iowa) and the one most likely to be receptive to his New England persona.

At 7:30 we get North Carolina and West Virginia, two more Southern states that could be warnings of weakness for Bush but that Bush will win even if he's losing. And we get Ohio, although for a variety of reasons, if Ohio is as close as everyone thinks it will be, it could be a long time before the networks announce a winner. Recall that the networks appear to have absorbed the lessons of incorrectly calling Florida for Gore early on Election Night 2000 (before the polls closed in the most Republican parts of the state, in fact); any state that looks close won't get announced until they are sure.

8pm brings the witching hour for a huge swath of the country, including Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Again, if we're looking for knockout blows, look at MI and NJ; if Bush wins NJ, Kerry is toast in a big way, and if he wins MI, the math gets really ugly for Kerry. And frankly, the more I do the electoral math, the harder it is to see how Kerry can win a close one without Florida, because he then needs to win almost every other state that's even remotely contested. Shortly after 8, in other words, is the first point at which Election Night could for all intents and purposes be over if the networks have clear enough winners to start calling a bunch of states (Bush can win if he loses both Florida and Ohio, but it's hugely improbable).

After that, brace for the long haul, as Wisconsin, Minnesota and New Mexico don't check in until 9pm, Iowa at 10, and Hawaii at 11pm, and of course some states (like Oregon) aren't likely to be declared for weeks.

Josh Marshall, who ought to be an expert on this particular subject, on Democrats' reactions to the bin Laden tape:

[Emails Marshall received] struck me with what is one of the Democrats' greatest weaknesses: their vulnerability to getting knocked off stride by the rush of events, their tendency to fret that all is lost, almost to indulge in it, when the car hits a simple bump in the road.

(Emphasis in original). Note that Marshall has been down this road before. Which party do you trust to stick to its guns when times are hardest?

I have, in the past, threatened to hand out - but never got around to awarding - a "Bedfellow Award" for too-late-to-respond hits in the campaign season, especially (but not exclusively) false ones. The name comes from the comic strip "Bloom County," in which Senator Bedfellow was defeated on the strength of an election-day headline, "WARNING: VOTING FOR BEDFELLOW MAY CAUSE HERPES".

2002 had loads of candidates, including the flap over the Wellstone memorial service; the 2003 winner probably went to the LA Times sexual harrassment story on Schwarzenegger (the accuracy of which never seems to have been examined, although I don't doubt that there was a good deal of truth to it, given Arnold's reputation), although there may be something I'm forgetting; the Kerry-intern story was a good example from the primaries, although the rolling nature of primary elections gave him time to get the truth out before more damage was done.

The simplest definition of a Bedfellow Award nominee is a news story that (1) comes out shortly before the election, and (2) has a much larger impact on the election than it would have if it had come out earlier. Obviously, (2) is particularly true of stories that are false or misleading, since they tend to be easier to explain or debunk if they come out with adequate time to respond. If I get enough nominees, I'll hand out awards for the presidential race, a Senate race and maybe a House race, as well as an award for each party.

Anyway, we've got a battery of candidates so far in this year's presidential election (let alone the Senate and House races), and the late hits - some true, some false, some fair, some inserted by people outside the US political process - keep rolling in fast and furious:

*Will word come out that Kerry was not, initially, honorably discharged from the Navy?

*A new bin Laden video! (See here, link via McArdle, in which bin Laden seems to be relying on "Fahrenheit 9/11" for his talking points, and here, in which a very sad-looking bin Laden sounds like he's cribbing from DNC speeches for material, ripping the "inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance" and accusing Bush of "misleading" the American people. Is it for real? Is it recent? Will there be enough time to tell the difference?

*Another example just from Instapundit's backup singers: Michael Totten links to this FOX News report saying maybe we really did protect and dispose of at least a big chunk of those missing explosives. The whole HMX/RDX story, of course, is a leading candidate for the award at the moment, but there's plenty of time for more.

Anyway, those are just the early entries; we'll get crazier stuff still as we go. Put your favorite candidates in the comments - and I'll update this post as we go - and I'll try to hand out awards after the election.

UPDATE: (And I've also added a little to the text above). From NRO Battlegrounders, word that a Pennsylvania judge has unsealed records from a Heinz family lawsuit over the death of Teresa Heinz Kerry's first husband, records that could potentially shed more light on the family's finances. There probably isn't much news in there, but if there is, there won't be time to give it context.

Saw David Kay being interviewed by Soledad O'Brien on CNN's American Morning this morning on the issue of accounting for Iraq's prewar stocks of heavy-duty conventional explosives HMX and RDX (a link to the transcript should be posted on this page later today). Specifically, they watched a newly-released (as of last night, I think; I confess that this story is unfolding too fast for me to have confidence that I've followed every twist in it). First off, agree with him or not - or agree with him only in part - you have to like David Kay; his bluntness stands in stark contrast to the doublespeak of most international bureaucrats, and he mostly doesn't seem to have a dog in the various fights he weighs in on (recall how his initial report cheered opponents of the war with his declaration that "we were nearly all wrong" about Saddam having WMD, and also cheered proponents of war with his insistence that Saddam was deceiving and evading inspections and that Iraq was even more dangerous, on the whole, than we thought).

Anyway, once again Kay's recollections and analysis of the video gives a little something to everyone. His points, in no particular order:

1. He (Kay) had argued during the 1990s for destroying this stuff, but Hans Blix gave in to the Iraqi regime's demand that they be allowed to keep it for civilian construction purposes.

2. The tape (apparently shot by US media in April 2003, if I heard correctly) clearly shows an unbroken IAEA seal on at least one bunker, indicating that there was still some quantity of the explosives there at the time US troops arrived.

3. To Kay's eye, it's clear that the tape shows the presence of HMX. Kay didn't talk about RDX. Since I, like most bloggers, had never heard of either one until four days ago, I'm still mulling the significance of this, but as I noted below, Wizbang has been looking into the RDX side of the ledger.

4. Kay believes that US troops would and should have recognized these as explosives but, not being professional weapons inspectors, would likely not have recognized them as stocks of HMX.

5. Kay thinks the troops, having located stocks of explosives, should have been responsible for guarding them.

6. Although he didn't discuss the logistics of moving 360 or 380 or whatever tons of the stuff, Kay cautioned that you would be surprised at the things that looters, moving without trucks, can cart away by hand. He noted having seen people literally dismantling and taking away buildings brick by brick.

7. Kay stressed that it's important to keep in perspective the fact that this was just a small percentage of the high explosives in Iraq; he asserted (and this surprised even me) that Iraq possessed approximately 2/3 the amount of explosives as the US military, a staggering quantity for a country the size of California that could barely feed its people.

Looking back over my recent take on the election, I’m actually struck by some of the things I left out. Notably, the things we’re not paying attention to, especially in foreign affairs.

In 2000, Bush and Gore famously never debated the issue of terrorism. Today, the election has focused on the fight against al Qaeda, the insurgency in Iraq and, to a lesser degree, on Iran and North Korea, with a dash of Darfur thrown in. As some have noted, however, that leaves an awful lot of the world undiscussed. Might there not be big things we don’t see coming or big areas that we are taking for granted because things are going fairly well?

Read More »

As you can see below, I’ve paid some attention to who’s been endorsing who, but I confess to being pretty shocked that Germany’s largest, in fact Europe’s largest, newspaper has apparently endorsed President Bush. (Via Michael Totten).

Of course, it would be a little hypocritical for me to put too much stock in this, especially since the paper’s reasoning seems to be that Europeans should support Bush because it will keep them from having to do any heavy lifting in the War on Terror. But it is a nice reminder that world opinion is not as monolithic as some would have us believe. See here for another excellent example of that.

UPDATE (from the Crank): According to the left-wing Guardian, add Tony Blair, who of course won't come out and say it publicly, to the list of world leaders backing Bush:

The Prime Minister fretted to one close friend: 'Whenever Bush weakens in the polls, they start mucking about.'

Who are these 'they' whose 'mucking about' makes Tony Blair so anxious? They are Iran with its sponsorship of terrorism and its ambitions to go nuclear. They are Syria. They are the psychotic regime in North Korea along with the rest of the planet's rogue and risk states.

The mind of Mr Blair was summarised for me in vivid terms by someone who has an extremely good claim to know what is going on inside it: 'Tony thinks the world is a very dangerous and precarious place. Bush is the tough guy who keeps the bad guys under their rocks.'

So, we know Kerry at least met with the ambassador for Cameroon during the run up to the Iraq war. I wonder what they talked about?

Is Jim Geraghty's source in the Bush-Cheney campaign giving him (a) good grounds for optimism, (b) self-serving spin, (c) the results of coccooning self-delusion, (d) certainty about the unknowable based on small sample sizes or cherry-picked polls, or (e) a bit of each?

We won't know until Tuesday.

Paul at Wizbang wants answers. For now, all he has is a potentially plausible working hypothesis: that by January 2003, all but 3 tons of the 141 tons of RDX at Al Qa'qaa was gone from that facility, and that IAEA inspectors knew this and withheld the fact from the UN Security Council during the pre-war debate. If you can help shed light on his analysis, drop by and lend a link or a comment.

I have to say, given that "there were no dangerous weapons in Iraq" was one of the points Kerry had decisively won in this year's political debate, he seems to have shot himself in the foot by placing so much emphasis on the eve of the election on the dangers posed by these conventional weapons that were in Saddam's hands before the war.

Stuart Buck passes along word of an Alice-in-Wonderland decision to prevent the Ohio Secretary of State from investigating what may well be a substantial number of voter registrations - on the grounds that the individuals can't be notified of a hearing on the matter because they don't live at the addresses they used to register! (Coincidentally, the decision is by a Clinton appointee who is the wife of one of Ohio's leading plaintiffs' attorneys - what are the odds of that?)

I'm going to offer a perhaps-unexpected (to new readers, at least) point here and say that now is not the time, and a puff-piece interview on Good Morning America was not the place, for Curt Schilling to stump for President Bush. The stakes in this election are indeed life and death, and of course I welcome Schilling's endorsement. But:

1. I've long been infuriated by entertainers who stick their politics into a venue (interviews, concerts, etc.) where I'm expecting to just be entertained, as opposed to presenting a political argument in a political context. That should go for conservatives in sports and entertainment just as much as liberals. There's a reason why, despite the baseball/politics mix on this site, I labor to keep the two types of content clearly marked.

2. Sox fans are celebrating right now, and, let's be frank, a lot of them are Democrats. Don't spoil that with politics, no matter the cause; just don't (more on that idea here).

Random links:

Commonwealth Conservative on why he loves baseball.

Tim Lambert on - for what it's worth now - home field advantages in the World Series.

The Red Sock of Courage.

Ann Althouse notes that there is really no way to stop a large number of Illinois Democrats from voting for Kerry in Wisconsin following a joint Springsteen performance/Kerry appearance that 60,000 people are expected to attend. Of course, this looks like a prime opportunity for Republicans, for once, to keep a close eye out for ballot fraud without getting accused of racism in the process, as Bruce's fan base is pretty white.

UPDATE: Althouse says not too many people went and voted after the rally anyway. Which is good news.

It's not exactly a surprise, but given the publicity machine that surrounds the handful of September 11 widows who have consistently agitated against President Bush, it's worth noting this open letter of support for Bush from a much longer list of families of people killed on September 11.

I'm sure that there are also plenty of other Bush supporters among those who, like me, were fortunate to survive the attacks.

McQ notes a number of polls breaking down different voting blocs, with interesting commentary. One significant group:

A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that military veterans prefer George W. Bush over John Kerry by a 58% to 35% margin. Those with no military service favor Kerry by ten percentage points, 51% to 41%.

McQ notes one obvious reason for this:

I’m pretty plugged into the vets community and I’ve never, ever heard talk like I’ve heard about John Kerry among veterans. Let me succintly characterize it by saying the comments could easily interchange "Fonda" for "Kerry" if you know what I mean. There are a great number of vets who are still angry about those two and intend to demonstrate that anger on Nov. 2nd.

The line you often hear quoted, from various sources, is about a Kerry defeat being the parade Vietnam vets never had. Of course, consider this in tandem with the 75% or so support that Bush appears to get from both active-duty military and from the Guard and Reserves, and the overall picture is not one of great love for Kerry by his fellow veterans and soldiers.

Rasmussen has the goods:

Among voters who made up their minds in the Spring of 2004 or sooner, Kerry is favored by a 51% to 48% margin. This obviously includes some who decided to vote for anybody-but-Bush since 36% of voters made up their mind before the Democratic nominee was selected.

The candidates are essentially tied among those who made up their minds during the summer. However, those who decided in the past month favor President Bush by a 57% to 38% margin.

Our sample included 136 Likely Voters who made up their mind over the last week. These voters also appear to be breaking in the President's direction but the small sample size prevents any definitive assessment.

There are very few undecided voters today. Those who have recently made their final decision are most likely firming up a choice for the candidate they have been leaning towards for some period of time.

At the moment, 93% of Bush voters are certain they won't change their mind and 89% of Kerry voters say the same. Our daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that just 2% of voters remain undecided at this time (many of whom may not vote).

Also, Powerline links to a great column by Ralph Peters about the 2004 election and its impact on the ground game in Iraq.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt points to a 51-47 Bush lead among the most-likely voters of all: the 9% of all respondents to an ABC poll who say they have already voted by absentee ballot or early voting. I cast my own absentee ballot for Bush on Friday, to free myself up to volunteer on Election Day.

*Lileks on Andrew Sullivan's Kerry endorsement. The closing line, which Lileks has delivered by Tony Blair, is deadly.

*The Sultan of Snark on Ron Suskind: "If Suskind misreads his own facts wrong in order to (willfully? subconsciously?) pander to New York Times readers' fear of Christian fundamentalism, what other facts has he misread? And what kind of 'empiricist' is he?" I also liked the line about the "imperturbable" Andrew Sullivan.

*Ricky West has another video up, and reminds us of Clinton's magic coattails.

*Will Collier on heavy early-voting turnout in Georgia, nobody's idea of a battleground. High turnout in Georgia, of all places, tends to undercut the idea that it's Kerry's supporters who are fired up. Remember, you have a lot of people out there who support the war and have had to keep silent as the media has poured hot boiling scorn on the war effort for the past couple of years.

Either way, I predict that the loser of this election will get substantially more votes than any prior presidential candidate in history. And if Kerry wins, Bush would break with a long tradition of incumbents losing only if they have a severe split in their party, a major third party candidate and/or a catastrophic setback on the order of Watergate, the Great Depression or the one-two punch of stagflation and the Iranian hostage crisis.

*Jay Cost (link via NRO Battlegrounders) on why he thinks the Bush-Cheney campaign has a decisive advantage in the Ohio ground game that will show up on Election Day. I'm prepared to believe, among other things, that the GOP's get out the vote (GOTV) effort benefits from being an integrated organization as compared to the alphabet soup of "independent" groups working for the Dems, but I'm more skeptical about the idea that there's some enormous hidden advantage here that Karl Rove knows about and we don't.

Who controls the British pound? Who keeps the metric system down?
Karl Rove! Karl Rove!

Who leaves Atlantis off the maps? Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
Karl Rove! Karl Rove!

Who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
Karl Rove! Karl Rove!

Who robs cavefish of their sight? Who rigs every Oscar night?
Karl Rove! Karl Rove!

The latest and apparently last theory that Kerry and his media allies have settled on is to attack Bush's execution of the War on Terror, including both the Iraq war and Afghanistan; the theme of the attacks has been that Bush is incompetent, which is taken now as received wisdom beyond challenge by fact. Go read Greg Djerejian's long essay on this point, and yesterday's shorter Wall Street Journal op-ed (for a similar analysis, see Dan Darling on the Washington Post's effort to argue that the Iraq war and anti-Iran hardliners undermined the al Qaeda manhunt). Both contribute to a few of the key points that need to be borne in mind in evaluating the Bush Administration's performance:

1. War is a difficult and complex endeavor, requiring the making of scores of decisions large and small. Many of those decisions are, by their very nature, made on the basis of severely incomplete information, fraught with uncertainty and likely to have lethal consequences if they go wrong - and often if they go right, as well. The military acronym SNAFU got that way for a reason. Bush, by leading the nation in wartime, is certain to make more mistakes, and with worse consequences, than any peacetime president.

2. The history of wars, in fact, is almost unbroken in the making of catastrophic misjudgments by even the best of wartime leaders. Certainly if you review the records of Lincoln, FDR and Churchill, three of the models of civilian leadership in war, they and their generals and civilian advisers made numerous errors that cost scores of lives, many of which in retrospect seem like obvious blunders. I'd like the critics who formerly supported Bush and have now abandoned him to at least admit that on the same grounds, they would have voted for Dewey in 1944 and McClellan in 1864.

3. More specifically to the issue at hand, in almost all cases, the decisions by Bush and his civilian and military advisers involved avoiding alternatives that had their own potential bad consequences, and the critics are judging these decisions in a vacuum. The decision to disband Saddam's army and undergo a thorough de-Ba'athification is a classic example, cited incessantly by critics on the Left. But what if Bush had kept that army together, and they had acted in the heavy-handed (to put it mildly) fashion to which the Ba'athists were accustomed, say, by firing on crowds of civilians? Isn't it an absolute certainty that all the same critics would be singing "meet the new boss, same as the old boss," accusing Bush's commitment to democracy as being a sham and a cover for a desire to set up friendly tyrants to keep the oil pumping, that we'd hear constantly about how we've alienated the Iraqi people by enabling their oppressors, how we showed misunderstanding of the country by leaving a minority Sunni power structure in place over the Shi'ite majority? Wouldn't we hear the very same things we hear now about Afghanistan, about using too few US troops and "outsourcing" the job, or the same civil-liberties concerns we hear when we turn over suspects for interrogation to countries without our restraint when it comes to torture? Don't insult our intelligence and try to deny it.

The same goes for many decisions. More troops? We'd hear that this is a heavy-handed US occupation. I mean, we heard something like that when Giuliani put more cops on the street in New York, let alone a foreign country. Like most conservatives, my preference would have been to go hard into Fallujauh in April. But even if the alternative decision to hold off until there could be significant Iraqi participation in the assault was wrong, it was not an illogical one, but rather a decision made with the patience and foresight to consider the long-range political consequences in Iraq of differing military approaches.

4. Many of the decisions at issue here, from specific ground commanders' decisions to secure particular sites to Tommy Franks' call on Tora Bora, were decisions principally made by people lower in the chain of command, many of them in the military. This is not to say that Bush, as the head of that chain of command, is not ultimately responsible to the voters for those decisions; he is. But it is to remind people that they are not second-guessing solely the judgments of a small coterie of the president and civilian advisers, but the entire chain of command. Tom Maguire makes this point explicitly with regard to Tora Bora:

[I]f the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff chose not to overrule his subordinate, why should Bush? This . . . actually strenghtens Bush's case - the issue was identified, alternatives were weighed, and a decision was made. We all wish the right guess had been made, but I, at least, am glad that the decision making team was aware of the issues and the alternatives.

If Kerry is campaigning on a promise to make the battlefield decisions and always make the right ones, good for him. Say Anything, John.

5. Much of the criticism has focused on the idea that Bush needs to admit more errors, and that Kerry would be better at recognizing and admitting mistakes. Djerejian zeroes in on an argument made by David Adesnik and Dan Drezner:

[P]eople like Drezner and Adesnik are asking: maybe Kerry's a gamble--but at least he's not a proven train wreck. While Adesnik think "accountability", in the main, is the issue that has gotten waverers on board for Kerry--the real core grievance appears to be best reflected, instead, in this Adesnik graf that Drezner approvingly links too:

As a professional researcher, I think I simply find it almost impossible to trust someone whose thought process is apparently so different from my own. In theory, I am sure that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld all believe in evaluating the relevant data and adjusting their decisions to reflect reality. Thus, when I say that I object to the way that this administration makes decisions, I am saying that I do not believe that it has lived up to the intellectual standard it presumably accepts. [emphasis added]

Let's put all this in plainer English, OK? What Dan and David are saying, I think, is: When this Bush team effs up (and they have effed up a lot), are they able to (on a bare-bones constitutive level, say): a) even recognize they have effed up and b) then move to redress the eff up?

As an initial matter, admitting mistakes, especially in wartime, is overrated, particularly if that means (1) admitting a decision was wrong before you have all the information to reach a final conclusion about it, or (2) making a public self-analysis that gives useful information to the enemy. How often did Churchill, battling daily to keep up the fighting spirit of the British, go on the radio to say, "sorry folks, I blew it again and got a bunch of people killed"? I tend to think that Bush made a big mistake of this kind when he conceded the point last summer on the inclusion in the State of the Union Address of British charges that Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa; as it turned out, the Brits stood by their report, and Saddam really did send an envoy there to do precisely that.

The more important point in wartime is the ability to recognize what's not working and change tactics or, if appropriate, strategies. Djerejian cites several examples of Bush doing precisely that, most notably with the firing of Jay Garner but also extending to expanding the number of troops on the ground.

In any event, where, I would ask, is the evidence that Kerry is better at admitting mistakes than Bush? This is a guy who brought all sorts of political grief to himself by stubbornly refusing for three decades to admit that he was wrong to repeat false charges, under oath and on national televison, that smeared his comrades in Vietnam as guilty of pervasive war crimes. Has Kerry admitted he was wrong to oppose nearly every aspect of the foreign policy strategy that President Reagan pursused to great effect in the closing and victorious chapter of the Cold War? Has he admitted he was wrong to oppose the use of force to kick Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991? Maybe I missed something, but I don't even recall him admitting he was wrong for trying to slash the intelligence budget in the mid-1990s following the first World Trade Center bombing. Indeed, one of the most common threads throughout Kerry's behavior in this campaign has been his unwillingness to take any personal responsibility for mistakes, from blaming his speechwriters for things that come out of Kerry's own mouth to picayune things like blaming the Secret Service when he falls down on the slopes. As Jonah Goldberg notes, Kerry's "liberal hawk" backers may argue that the decades of bad judgment in Kerry's past are rendered inoperative by September 11, but Kerry's stubborn insistence that he hasn't changed in response to September 11, and that he had the right answers all along even when he wrote a book in 1997 that barely mentioned Islamic terrorism, gives the lie to the notion that Kerry is a model of self-reflection. Even the man's own supporters can't seriously defend the proposition - on which many of them heaped well-deserved scorn during the primary season - that Kerry has been consistent from the start on whether Saddam was a serious threat that justified a military response. Yet there Kerry stands, insisting to all the world what nobody believes, that he hasn't changed his position. Preferring Kerry to Bush because Bush won't admit mistakes is like preferring fresh water to salt water because salt water is wet.

In any event, will Kerry somehow change, grow in office, shed a lifetime of bad judgments and blanching at the use of American power, suddenly stop valuing diplomacy as an end and the status quo as the highest virtue? Just because Bush changed in office means nothing. First of all, Bush was a guy who had already proven his willingness to change and admit his problems when he quit drinking, had a religious awakening and basically overhauled his whole approach to life in his forties; Kerry can show no similar example of a willingness to change. And Kerry is now in his sixties, six years older than Bush in 2000, and while Bush may count September 11 as a life-changing event, Kerry had already had his, in Vietnam. Kerry's foreign policy world view was set decades ago, both by the example of his diplomat father and by Vietnam. The fact that Kerry has been malleable and vascillating over the years, clear a pattern though that may be, is no reason to think that he will suddenly re-examine his approach to accept the need for the United States to lead a continuing effort to overturn the corrupt, rotten and deadly status quo in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

6. The final charge is that Bush's errors would be forgiveable if he had done more, earlier, to explain the risks and burdens of war to the American people. Of course, this has nothing to do with the execution of the war, but political leadership is important, and in many ways it's much more the president's job than is the decision to use X number of troops to seal off a particular location. First off, the charge that Bush argued the war would be easy is refuted by virtually all his speeches, in which he said over and over and over again that we were in for a long haul, and there would be difficult times ahead. Of course, that has long since become obvious from events, and in any event we really were not in a position before the war to know precisely how it would all play out. But I will agree that he never gave a Churchillian "blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech specifically about Iraq, and that many hawks in and out of the administration underestimated in their public arguments the difficulties of a post-conquest insurgency (then again, many doves told us that we'd be bogged down with thousands of casualties taking Baghdad). Of course, the war itself, up to and through the fall of Baghdad, was as much of a "cakewalk" as a real life shooting war against a substantial enemy can ever be; the problem is simply that we didn't broadcast the coming insurgency (which, by the way, would have had the effect of greatly encouraging the insurgents).

In the end, that's what this argument is all about - not the difficulties of war, which are well-understood, but simply a political argument about the use of speeches to predict the unpredictable. Moreover, on that ground, again, there's no reason to think Kerry would be better; after all, Kerry is the guy who won't even admit to this day that his war vote was a vote for war. Kerry's the guy who wasn't able to predict that his campaign would have to prepare for attacks by people who'd been holding a grudge against him for 30 years.

No, Bush hasn't been a perfect war leader, but show me who was. He's had tough calls to make, and unlike Kerry he can't shift with the wind without consequence. Progress has been frustrating at times, because our overall enemy - the forces of terror and tyranny, of radical Islamism and fascist gangsterism - have recognized that an American victory in Iraq would be a defeat for them in the war on terror. You know that, I know that, they know that. But that just makes it all the more urgent to stick with a guy who believes in the mission, and who has proven that he will keep on trying new approaches until the job is finished, rather than looking for the door.

OK, we've heard both sides say it over and over again, and I'm compelled to agree: both sides in the presidential campaign are appealing to fear. Of course, if your fears are rational, it may be a very logical thing to vote your fears. So, let's just get on with it:

Kerry and Edwards want you to believe that George W. Bush is plotting to bring back the draft, stop Social Security benefits from being paid to today's senior citizens, and turn firehoses on African-Americans who try to go vote. If you believe those things, you should vote for Kerry and Edwards.

Bush and Cheney want you to believe that Islamist terrorists are plotting to kill large numbers of Americans with terrorist attacks. If you believe that, you should vote for Bush and Cheney.

In 1987, Dukakis staffer John Sasso sank the presidential aspirations of Joe Biden by distributing a videotape demonstrating that Biden had plaigarized parts of speeches. Dukakis fired Sasso for his troubles, although most observers today regard this as standard opposition research rather than a dirty trick.

Today's New York Sun reports that Sasso's candidate, John Kerry, stands accused of plaigarizing campaign materials and even parts of the 1997 book "The New War" that he used to burnish his image as a deep thinker, chunks of which bear strong resemblances to uncredited newspaper and magazine articles. Unlike in 1987, the charge is not likely to do much damage to Kerry - plaigarism scarcely seems to dent scholars these days, let alone politicians - and maybe it's of a piece with the by-now well-known fact that Kerry's idol, John F. Kennedy, had ghostwriters draft large sections of his award-winning book Profiles in Courage. But the irony should not be lost, at least.

Libertarian Jane Galt quotes Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik at length, on his theory that paying federal income taxes is not legally required, as proof that Badnarik is a fringe nut. If you vote for Badnarik, you are doing nothing to advance the cause of liberty.

If further proof were needed of the impracticality of doctrinaire libertarians, check out this revealing Reason Magazine symposium. Even Glenn Reynolds wasted his ballot in 2000 on Harry Browne. And Richard Epstein is voting for Badnarik!

The GOP has, in fact, committed sins against small-government libertarianism, some by wrongly buying in to big government and some by taking pro-law-enforcement and pro-life stances that I, as a conservative, approve of. But libertarian ideas are taken seriously in Republican circles, while they are scorned at every turn by the Democrats. And in the real world, if there is ever to be progress away from Big Government, it will require that the public accept fewer guaranteed entitlements and more individual decisionmaking. With his plans for private accounts in Social Security and Health Savings Accounts, Bush is far further out on the limb in favor of such progress than any presidential candidate since Goldwater. And whether Bush wins or loses, the GOP will be under pressure to nominate a spending hawk in the next campaign; that candidate's job will be much easier if Bush has laid the groundwork for changing an entitlement system that dwarfs the size of any discretionary spending. And yes, Bush wants conservative judges; but conservative judges will do no more on social issues than leave them to the people's elected representatives.

If libertarians can't support Bush, faults and all, they are simply not interested in testing their ideas outside a laboratory.

UPDATE: The Mad Hibernian points me to Dale Franks' endorsement of Bush as a counter-example of a libertarian (actually a neolibertarian, as the QandO guys call themselves) who understands the stakes:

It is utterly pointless and shortsighted to calculate about the future of the GOP when our primary concern right now is the threat of radical Islam. A retreat in the War on Terror that results in a decade of threats to American security like those that appeared in the 1970s could very well make domestic political calculations about the relative libertarian-ness of the GOP moot.

[snip]

. . . [I]n an election like this one, facing the Islamist threat, I simply don’t believe that any victory in this election can be taken as a referendum on domestic policy. It might say volumes about how the American people wish the War on Terror to be fought, but I doubt any case can be made that it would constitute a general expression of approval about, or predicts the future of, the L[ibertarian]/C[sonservative] idea in American politics.

In any event, I’m far more concerned with keeping the USS America from slipping beneath the waves than I am about watching the GOP sink. Maybe, once the last terrorist’s head is stuck on pike, I’ll be more concerned with the fate of the GOP’s L/C direction.

Until then, I want a president that I’m sure will pull the trigger, when it needs to be pulled. That president is George W. Bush.

Mommypundit has advice for single women contemplating voting for Kerry. (Link via Irish Lass)

Brilliant column by political science professor Mathew Manweller (found in the comments at Jane Galt's place), on the stakes in this election:

America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold.

First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things.

Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America.

Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracking polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly [sic] photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.

Read the whole thing. Jay Nordlinger makes the same point:

Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Michael Moore are not supporting Kerry because they think he'll continue the War on Terror — certainly not because they think he'll do a better job of it. They are supporting him because they think he doesn't mean it. I bet they're right.

In my view, this election is not a contest to determine how we'll fight the War on Terror; it's a contest to determine whether we will fight it at all. And the decision made by the Americans will be fateful.

George W. Bush and his people think that our security requires wholesale changes in the Muslim world — changes that we must abet. The other side — which includes a portion of the Right — believes that we can just hunker down, lashing out when some occasion demands. And if only Israel weren't so damn troublesome, perhaps the Arabs would be calmer.

I have never liked the terms "pro-war" and "anti-war," certainly the former. None of us is pro-war. It's just that some of us think that it's necessary to wage, while others do not. The Bush side thinks the war is a matter of self-defense; the other side thinks it's a matter of belligerence, or arrogance, or utopianism, or servitude to "Sharon," or something else bad.

As I have said before, I wish this election weren't so important. But I'm afraid it is. If the Americans elected John Kerry in, oh, 1992 or 1996, that would be one thing. If they elect him in 2004 — that will tell us something disheartening.

A little story: Some time ago, England had what was called "the Metric Martyr." This was a fellow — a grocer or a butcher, I forget which — who sold his goods in imperial measures: pounds, ounces, etc. But because England is now beholden to Brussels, he was prosecuted for not using the metric system (hence, Metric Martyr).

I asked our senior editor David Pryce-Jones (a Brit), "How could the British people permit this? I mean, it's their system — the imperial system, or the English system — to begin with." David answered, "The British people wouldn't permit it. The question is whether they remain the British people."

(Nordlinger has some other godd stuff, including this gem from a reader: "Did you see that Fidel Castro took a fall? I wonder if Jimmy Carter broke his nose.")

Roger Simon has a related point about how the anti-Israel, anti-democracy pro-status-quo "Arabists" have found their home in Kerry's Democratic apparatus, as evidenced by Kerry's top foreign policy adviser, Richard Holbrooke, specifying that a Kerry administration would put the screws on three countries in the region: Syria, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Krauthammer, if you missed his latest must-read column, explains how and why Kerry would sell out Israel, which remains our most unpopular ally among the Europeans, the UN, the Arab dictators and others whom Kerry feels the need to please.

Call me naive, but I still have more faith in the voters than that. But I remain worried that the election will be close enough to be swayed by fraud and litigation, and that's bad news for Bush - and for the nation.

Stuart Buck thinks we should aspire to imitate the voting procedures in Afghanistan.

The NY Times - with the assistance, predictably, of 60 Minutes - is pushing a story about explosive stockpiles in Iraq that have been unaccounted for since the invasion. Why now? I'll leave that to the reader. But the relevant questions about what's missing from this story are asked by Captain Ed, Geraghty, the Minute Man, Henke, and John Cole.

UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy at NRO argues that the existence of the explosives in question constitute yet another example of Saddam's violations of UN resolutions, one UN inspectors apparently decided to let slide because Saddam's regime told them that the explosives could conceivably have non-military applications. And remember, this particular cache was just a small proportion of Saddam's explosives stockpiles, in addition to all the other problems with his regime. Oh, but "the sanctions were working," right?

ONE MORE UPDATE: Geraghty, who's been on this story all day, quotes NBC News Pentagon reporter Jim Miklaszewski saying that the NBC News crew embedded with the 101st Airborne during the war confirms that the missing explosives were already gone when the 101st Airborne arrived at the site on April 10, 2003, the day after the fall of Baghdad. More here from what appears to be a contemporaneous report of what some parts of the 101st (recall that a division is more than 10,000 troops) was tasked with that day:

U.S. Army soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division began an offensive to root out the Fedayeen paramilitary fighters loyal to Saddam Hussein from Hillah.

The troops encountered resistance almost immediately on entering the city. About 200 Fedayeen fighters on pick-up trucks counter-attacked with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. Several Iraqi tanks also fired rounds at U.S. tanks.

U.S. forces responded with tank fire, artillery, and air strikes. Scores of Iraqi troops were killed during the four-hour battle. Three U.S. soldiers were wounded.

A lieutenant colonel with the 101st Airborne, Rick Carlson, says his soldiers, conducting a building-to-building search of the city, discovered what he called a "gigantic" warehouse full of weapons and ordnance.

Other weapons were found inside schools. He says the soldiers searched school buildings because that is where U.S. troops in neighboring cities of Najaf and Karbala have uncovered large weapons caches:

"Every school that we have encountered in those three regions has been used as a weapons depot. So, whenever we have gone into a (militarily) built-up area, we go straight to a school."

Powerline points us to the much-hyped story of the weekend, a Washington Times piece by National Review's State Department correspondent, Joel Mowbray:

U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred.

This contradicts Kerry's assertion at the second presidential debate that he had such a meeting:

This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable.

Kerry was even more emphatic in one of his big prepared foreign policy speeches:

Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."

Kerry is now backing down:

When reached for comment last week, an official with the Kerry campaign stood by the candidate's previous claims that he had met with the entire Security Council.

But after being told late yesterday of the results of The Times investigation, the Kerry campaign issued a statement that read in part, "It was a closed meeting and a private discussion."

A Kerry aide refused to identify who participated in the meeting.

The statement did not repeat Mr. Kerry's claims of a lengthy meeting with the entire 15-member Security Council, instead saying the candidate "met with a group of representatives of countries sitting on the Security Council."

Asked whether the international body had any records of Mr. Kerry sitting down with the whole council, a U.N. spokesman said that "our office does not have any record of this meeting."

Great work by the bloggers who got this story rolling and by Mowbray for putting it all together. What does it all mean? This is a lot bigger deal, at a minimum, than Dick Cheney forgetting that he'd ever run into John Edwards; the problem with some of Kerry's fabrications is that they tend to be complicated, self-important embellishments that are hard to square with a simple trick of memory. That's how Roger Simon, who compares this to the "Christmas in Cambodia" fairytale, views the story. Jason Steffens is less impressed with the electoral significance of yet another "Kerry made stuff up" story, as apparently are some of Simon's readers.

I doubt myself that this will be a game-breaker, but then, anything that puts Kerry on the defensive for even a day at this late stage can be a big momentum-suck, and this is a legitimate question, and one that Kerry would have to answer if we had a press corps that demanded answers from Kerry, which it often has not. Of course, the ultimate test is whether other news agencies will pick up this story - as they would if it were a claim that Bush had lied and ran on CBS or ABC or in the New York Times - or if this will get buried in the right-wing media ghetto. This morning's Drudge Report is not encouraging: there's a small headline, totally eclipsed by the blaring coverage of Bill Clinton's triumphant, press-oxygen-sucking return to the campaign. We know which story Big Media would rather cover; Matt Lauer last week was worshipfully comparing a Clinton return to Willis Reed hobbling onto the court in the 1970 NBA Finals (which is a humorous analogy because it puts Kerry in the Clyde Frazier role). Stay tuned.

UPDATE: INDC Journal has more, including links to other commentary. Bill also considers a possible justification:

A commenter brings up a reasonable point - Kerry "meant to communicate" that he only met with the permanent members of the Security Council, not "all of them," as he specified on two occasions. I don't believe that this interpretation completely invalidates the significance of Kerry's statements, but in any case, I've been told that verification regarding the permanent five is in the works. We'll see. I await further detail with everyone else.

Captain Ed finds this unhelpful and telling of Kerry's attitude towards our allies in Eastern Europe:

[T]he reality of his paltry and meaningless diplomacy also shows what a lightweight Kerry is on the world stage. He went to the UN to meet with diplomats about Iraq, and who did he choose? Singapore, Cameroon, and France: two countries that could have no earthly effect on enforcing the UN resolutions, and one that Saddam had bribed into submission. He didn't bother with Bulgaria, one of the nations that Bush convinced to support the liberation of Iraq and one with troops on the ground helping to support its democratization.

Above all, we are at war. This will be the first Presidential election since the September 11, 2001 attacks, which nearly killed the primary author of this site and which claimed the lives of almost 3,000 innocent Americans whose only offense was going to work or getting on a plane in a free country. It is essential that we never forget that day and that we affirm our commitment to seeing the War on Terror through. President Bush is the best candidate to do so and offers the best plan to lead this country for the next four years.

I am not a blind supporter of the President. Were there a George Washington or Winston Churchill running against Bush, I’d be quite happy to vote to replace him. In fact, in 2000, I supported John McCain and that year, as John Kerry might say, I voted against Bush before I voted for him. But, over the last four years, I believe Bush has been an excellent wartime leader and that there is simply no credible alternative offered in this election.

Read More »

A big, campaign-moving story needs no introduction. Thus, for all the Josh Marshall-style hype here, here and here about a Washington Times story breaking Monday "that the Kerry campaign will be forced to address regarding a previous criticism of Bush's foreign policy" and that constitutes "another chapter in the story of John Kerry making stuff up," I'm doubtful that whatever it is will move the needle much in the campign, especially since Big Media outlets often take several days to check into stories from the Washington Times.

The bloggers in question are pushing this story in part because they apparently did the research on the issue, which is one of numerous reasons to think it's not a game-breaker like the status or whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. But if everyone is playing the speculation game, the hint that Kerry will be forced to address the story suggests to me that it could be something about Cuba, which has obvious electoral significance.

Amusing article from The New York Times, of all places, about the likelihood that the young President Bush had higher IQ and SAT scores than the young John Kerry (Via Instapundit). No wonder the Times is opposed to standardized tests!

I loved this line:

Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," Professor Gottfredson said.

Anyway, take that for what it’s worth - I’ve always thought leadership and management ability trump raw intelligence as a measuring stick for the Oval Office - but I’ve also long wondered how many of the people who take it as an article of faith that Bush is an idiot scored below what he did on the SATs.

UPDATE: Here is the Steve Sailer article, in case you are interested.

Tom Maguire on why there doesn't need to be a draft:

In the late 80's, we had 2.2 million folks on active duty. Now it is down to about 1.4 million. The notion that we couldn't add several hundred thousand troops without a draft seems to be contradicted by our past experience.

As Maguire notes, this sort of higher math is apparently beyond the capacity of Paul Krugman. By contrast, Geraghty has numbers that explain why Kerry will win Pennsylvania:

The total number of eligible Philadelphia voters now stands at 1,066,222. That is close to the 2003 U.S. Census estimate for the number of people of voting age - 1,025,259 - living in the city.

This is repeated in several areas - like Milwaukee and St. Louis. In each place, of course, the fact that there are more registered voters than eligible people of voting age means that there is a high potential for voter fraud. In each case, this is occuring in a Democratic-dominated city in a state that otherwise seems primed for the GOP picking. I haven't followed the voter-fraud and election-related violence beats on this site the way Bill Hobbs or the Powerline guys (among others) have (see this for a good example), but it's a major concern. A lot of us Republicans are very worried about this election entirely because of the threat of fraud and/or litigation; the way the national and state polls are going, I can't see how Kerry supporters can be optimistic unless they are depending on fraud to carry the day.

After all, the internals on various polls consistently show that large majorities (1) recognize that the nation is at war and (2) trust Bush better to prosecute that war, while the same polls measure the candidates as about even on economic issues and place Bush decisively ahead on leadership and sharing the voter's values. Add in Bush's structural advantages in the Electoral College, the difficulty of Kerry replicating Gore's voter-turnout miracles among African-American voters and unionized voters, and the fact that the GOP totally overhauled its own get-out-the-vote drive after 2000 (to great effect in 2002), and all Democrats are really left with, besides the always-hoped-for surge of young liberals (recall how they didn't show for Howard Dean this year), is shenanigans at the polling places.

Yes, I know - many Dems will claim that this is overstated or whatnot. But, tell me: how can you be optimistic if you aren't banking on it?

Am I the only one who read this item and thought of that classic Garret Morris SNL skit where he sings to his parole board, "gonna get me a shotgun, and kill all the whiteys I see . . ."

Probably not the association Kerry was looking for.

The fun never ends: an alert reader sends this link to a "Football Fans For Truth" item on John Kerry apparently having falsely claimed to have been at Shea Stadium for Game Six of the 1986 World Series, when he was apparently at a fundraiser in Boston that night (although he appears to have been at Game Seven two days later).

UPDATE: I should add a caution for new readers: not every story of a politician saying something that's not true is (1) hugely significant or (2) proof the guy is lying. People forget stuff and embellish their own memories all the time. I don't expect anybody to change their vote over this trivia; it's mostly just funny. Still, (a) if baseball were all that important to Kerry . . . well, I sure know where I was for Game Six, and I'd particularly remember if I'd been there or not, and (b) what this suggests is less that Kerry is some sort of liar as that he's a prototypical braggart, the guy who has to put himself at the center of things when he wasn't. The type, of course, is a familiar one and all too prevalent in politics.

SECOND UPDATE (10/26): Kerry campaign says he flew to the game after the fundraiser; Thomas Galvin runs the timeline on this and finds it unlikely. I can't speak to when the shuttle runs, but I can add a few points to Galvin's analysis that suggest that Kerry's account is not necessarily implausible:

1. Galvin discusses the game time; the game definitely ended after midnight; I vividly recall debating whether the 10th inning ended "before" the 9th and what the true end-of-game time was, because it was the night we set the clocks back (I know now you do that at 2am, not midnight).

2. Galvin includes 45 minutes for Kerry to get from from LaGuardia to Shea. You could walk there faster.

3. It's not odd for VIPs like Kerry to fly around just to catch part of a game (or to duck early out of a fundraising dinner), especially if he thought it would end with the Sox ending their streak of defeats.

So, it may be that Kerry is telling the truth here.

Kerry, on Tim Russert's Meet the Press, May 6, 2001:

[W]e have to be honest about the mistakes we made [in Vietnam]. We don't have legitimacy in the world, Tim, if we go to other countries, in Bosnia or China or anywhere else, and not say, "You know, we made some terrible mistakes."

And that honesty, that lack of a sense of honesty is part of what is driving people's anger toward the United States today. That's why we have the vote in the U.N. That's why people--our allies, too--are disturbed by this defense posture. You can't abrogate the ABM treaty and move forward on your own to build this defense in a way that threatens the perceptions of security people have. And if you build a defense system, Tim, that can do what they say at the outside, which is change mutual assured destruction, you have invited a potential adversary to build, build, build, to find a way around it. The lesson of the Cold War is, you do not make this planet safer by moving unilaterally into a place of new weapons. Every single advance in weaponry through the Cold War was matched by one side or the other, and that's why we put the ABM treaty in place, and that's why we need to proceed very cautiously and very thoughtfully.

First of all, this insistence on national apologies is very one-sided. Does China have "legitimacy in the world"? When does China apologize for anything?

More importantly - I know I harp on Kerry's past a lot, particularly his views of the Cold War, but a man who could not or would not take the unambiguously pro-American position whenever that conflict got difficult - and who, to this day, can not or will not admit his mistakes in opposing President Reagan's winning strategy at every turn - is never going to understand this war, in which we will often be called upon to make hard decisions. Who on earth thinks that the "lesson of the Cold War" is that we built too damn many weapons systems? Kerry has learned nothing.

All of this is based on the naively dovish theory that strengthening one's defenses is a provocative act, and its necessary corollary that one can make peace by remaining weaker. People on the left, like Kerry, have (retroactively, after all of their Doomsday Clock and "The Day After" talk of the 80s) fallen in love with "mutually assured destruction" as a peacekeeping deterrent. But MAD kept the peace because Russia was afraid we could destroy them if they attacked us; the fact that they could also destroy us was not in any way a good thing. The fact that Kerry still views strengthening our military as a dangerous thing is best demonstrated by his argument, repeated in two of the debates, that it's a bad thing that the US is developing "bunker-busting" nuclear weapons. From the first debate:

Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense.

You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.

Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation.

Note that he doesn't even say he will do this through negotiatons - just a unilateral shutdown. The second debate:

[T]he president is moving to the creation of our own bunker- busting nuclear weapon. It's very hard to get other countries to give up their weapons when you're busy developing a new one.

This is Kerry going all wrong again, thinking that nations lead other nations by example. It's just not realistic, and it's a dangerous way to proceed in a dangerous world.

Memo to the Guardian: please stop printing columns openly calling for the assassination of the President of the United States. I would add some commentary here, but if you’re not already disgusted after reading that, nothing I can say will make you feel that way.

For a less hate-filled take on our election from across the pond, see here.

UPDATE: Perhaps the Guardian is in an ill-tempered mood because of the unintended consequences of its letter-writing campaign to lecture the people of Ohio.

There would indeed be a little bit of humor, in this election season, if we were to see an Astros-Red Sox World Series, Texas vs. Massachusetts. Here's a little quickie trivia (answers to follow later):

1. Who was the last team from a major party presidential candidate's home state to make the World Series in an election year?

2. Who was the last team from a successful major party presidential candidate's home state to win the World Series in an election year?

("Home state" here meaning the conventional view - the state where the candidate spent his adult life and won elective office, rather than, say, considering Bush from Connecticut and Kerry from Colorado, the states of their birth)

UPDATE: The first commenter gets it, so think of your answer before you check the comments.

I was very favorably impressed with President Bush's speech in New Jersey yesterday, which really honed in on Kerry's biggest vulnerabilities on national security. I've got more on the speech over at RedState.

Kevin Drum reviews the various possibilities for why we are dependent on a single company with British-based facilities to make flue vaccines. (Link via Instapundit). Drum's answers are reasonable - he focuses on the burdens of FDA regulation as compared to British regulations - although I think he discounts the product liability lawsuit problem and the incentives it creates to have vaccines manufactured by an overseas subsidiary. In either case, the landscape Drum reviews - narrow profit margins squeezed by fluctuating demand, a demanding regulatory regime and serious litigation risks - is entirely irreconcilable with the picture of drug companies commonly painted by Democrats in general and the Kerry campaign in particular.

With the election getting ever closer, I’m uncomfortable with a lot of criticism of President Bush’s or Senator Kerry’s respective religious convictions (or lack thereof). It seems to me to be entirely possible that either man could be far more or far less devout than they outwardly appear or present themselves. Inquiring about the issue seems unduly speculative, presumptuous and even invasive. However, the actions and stated beliefs of each candidate are fair game.

In that vein, you may want to read Rich Lowry’s column from Friday on Kerry’s approach to issues of concern to Catholic voters, such as myself. Here is a key section:

Kerry's straddle is to have (nominally) socially conservative positions, so long as they won't actually serve any socially conservative ends. He opposes gay marriage, but won't do anything that might stop it from coming about. He thinks life begins at conception (or so he has said, at least once), but won't do anything to stop its destruction. He opposes partial-birth abortion, but votes against banning it, and supports parental notification, but votes against requiring it.

I think there can be little doubt that on issues of abortion, gay marriage, federal funding for stem-cell research and related “family values” issues, Bush’s positions are far closer to the Catholic Church than are those of Kerry. This might explain, why, despite unsavory attempts by surrogates of John McCain to tar Bush as an “anti-Catholic bigot” during the 2000 primary season, Bush appears to have significant support among the Catholic community, even though it his opponent who is Catholic.

Three primary issues strike me as areas of potential divergence between Bush and Catholic voters: the death penalty, policy towards low-income individuals and the Iraq War. It’s worth considering all three.

Read More »

Looks like The Great Diplomat needs to work on his diplomatic skills:

The commander of the UN peacekeepers in Haiti has linked a recent upsurge in violence there to comments made by the US presidential candidate, John Kerry.

Earlier this year Mr Kerry said that as president he would have sent American troops to protect Jean-Bertrand Aristide who was ousted from power in February.

The Brazilian UN general, Augusto Heleno, said Mr Kerry's comments had offered "hope" to Aristide supporters. Much of the recent unrest has centred on areas loyal to Mr Aristide.

More than 50 people have died over the past fortnight.

In fairness, blaming American politicians for chaos in Haiti is like blaming them for the sun being hot. There are far deeper problems to blame. Of course, were the situations reversed (i.e. were this Dole challenging Clinton in 1996), would the challenger be held to a higher standard?

Speculation abounds: why did both Edwards and Kerry bring up the fact that Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter? Some think they were trying, clumsily, to get religious conservatives to feel disenchanted with the Bush-Cheney ticket. I'm doubtful that will work; if anything, conservative Christian voters who already like and agree with Bush and Cheney are more likely to see this as personal family business that shouldn't be used in a campaign.

But they may not be the target audience. Connsider: the Kerry campaign seems very worried that African-American voters, who by large margins (especially the majority of African-Americans who are regular churchgoers) are opposed to same-sex marriage, might be less motivated to show up and vote for Kerry on Election Day. This is compounded by the fact that Kerry, unlike Clinton and Gore, doesn't have much experience appealing to black voters and doesn't seem to have the same emotional rapport with them. This concern is almost certainly why you never hear Kerry compare the same-sex marriage fight to the civil rights movement (as Andrew Sullivan does on a daily basis), since African-Americans are understandably touchy about diluting the moral weight of their struggle for equal rights, and doubly so for a cause many of them don't sympathize with.

Perhaps bringing up the gay daughter won't work with people who are already fond of Bush and Cheney and likely to respond by circling the wagons around them. But it could be savvy politics in trying to neutralize the issue with a bloc of voters Kerry badly needs who are predisposed to dislike the Republican ticket. I don't know how this gambit played with African-Americans, but if you think about it logically, they seem like the most likely target audience.

The Big One is on in Iraq, as US forces are finally doing what, at least in retrospect, they should have done back in April, cordoning off Fallujah and opening a major offensive against the heart of the insurgency. I can't offer any insights on the military angle, but here's what's interesting: the Bush Administration was quite happy to leak word earlier this week that it had no intention of any major offensive actions in Iraq until after Election Day. The left, predictably, went nuts over this report (see Kevin Drum, Mark Kleiman, Matt Yglesias, Atrios, Brad DeLong, and, yes, even the Kerry campaign), claiming that Bush was putting politics over national security by not launching an offensive in mid-October. Which raises four possibilities:

1. Something changed between Monday and today. Unlikely, given the amount of preparation that goes into something like this.
2. The media stories were wrong and/or based on reports from people who knew nothing. Always a possibility.
3. This was a head-fake to throw off the enemy in Iraq.
4. This was a head-fake to throw off the Bush Administration's domestic political opponents so they'd demand that Bush go on the offensive, which would make it more difficult for them to immediately switch course and cry "October Surprise".

Without discounting the other possibilities, #4 sure sounds like typical Bush political strategy, with #3, of course, being an added bonus. And the usual suckers fell for it, for the same reasons they always do.

And maybe now we know why Bush wanted to talk to Kerry after the debate.

Yes, even with two classic baseball games on, you knew I had to watch the last presidential debate. Now, I called the first debate a narrow Kerry victory and the second a clear but not decisive victory for Bush.

Maybe I've just let my biases cloud my judgment. But I really thought Bush cleaned Kerry's clock tonight, regularly outmaneuvering him, projecting superior charisma and humor and landing a number of body blows that Kerry really wasn't able to react to, while Kerry stepped in a bunch of holes on social policy that he really wasn't even forced into.

From the top:

Kerry always does this long throat-clearing opening that means nothing; Bush gets right to work.

Wow, Kerry's forehead is enormous.

X-raying cargo holds . . . Kerry is in reruns.

Reagan again! When will Bush smack him for embracing Reagan today after denouncing him in the 80s?

Bush is giddy when Schieffer and Kerry mention foreign policy, so he can talk about Afghanistan's elections.

Kerry voted against the Homeland Security bill? Even I didn't know that.

Kerry is becoming a big Tora Bore. Bush has obviously decided never to respond on this. But it draws the first Bush smirk of the night.

Flu season? Schieffer decides to make the night's second question about flu shots? Bush gives an answer that's good public health and bad politics . . . until he decides to blame John Edwards. Kerry sounds hoarse, decides to just blame Bush for everything. Wellness? Remember the Department of Wellness? I guess Bush won''t mention that.

Bush: A plan is not a litany of complaints. Good line.

Kerry: The Jobs Fairy is coming! Jobs for everyone!

McCain-Kerry, Kerry is slipping into Washingtonese again. Dingell-Norwood, anyone?

Bush is calling for the Fiscal Sanity Fairy. Nice try, George.

Bush again: "Here's some Trade Adjustment Assistance money" is not a winning slogan. Keep moving.

Kerry compares Bush to Tony Soprano. Classless move, doesn't accomplish anything.

Kerry says he supported a Reagan tax cut?

"Far left bank of the mainstream - makes Teddy Kennedy the conservative Senator from Massachusetts." Amazingly, Kerry essentially lets this stand with just some flapdoodle about Gramm-Rudman. It's all he's got.

My wife points out that Bush isn't always using his whole time. Yeah, but he says one thing and then stops. By the end of a Kerry answer, just try remembering what he was talking about at the beginning.

Homosexuality. Bush has an even-handed answer he obviously prepared. Slams decisions made by judges. Kerry jumps on Dick Cheney's daughter. Why that again? Kerry talks about gay people living in straight marriages. Did anyone not immediately think of Jim McGreevey? This is a train wreck for Kerry.

Rebuttals? There seem to be no rebuttals.

Abortion. Kerry says choice involves woman, doctor and God. Who's missing from this picture? "I will defend the right of Roe v Wade". Kerry should hope that polls well, because he's unambiguous on this point. Harks back to JFK - when abortion was illegal!

Kerry says 56 bills, not 5. Does that include commemoratives?

The jury will disregard Bush's potshot at the networks, when he starts to slam Kerry for relying on network reports and then drops the point. Point is made.

Rationing healthcare. Bush is doing the best he can on this. Also mentions health savings accounts. He'll lose this issue, but he's battling.

Social Security - better ground. Bush preempts the attacks by saying they said checks wouldn't come 4 years ago, and they came just the same. Problem in the trillions - status quo not an option. Bush promises to front-burner this issue - dare I hope he means it?

I missed - did Kerry say Greenspan supported the Bush tax cut? Why admit that?

Kerry may like saying "tTop experts in the country" but I doubt it warms the heart of swing voters.

[Phone rings. Miss some immigration stuff].

Kerry wants to speed up border crossings by fingerprinting everyone?

Minimum wage hike. Bush fudges rather than point out how this would harm small business.

Kerry on judges: "Yes, I'll have a litmus test."

[Phone rings again]

"Countrypeople"?

Bush drops the hammer on the 1991 Gulf War. Kerry fails to respond. Stop the fight!

Bush blames Tom DeLay on assault weapons ban expiring. Not a high point.

Affirmative action. Kerry goes for his base, to heck with people who don't like it. Both candidates agree to lie and pretend Bush is against quotas.

Bush says nice things about aetheists. Good answer on faith and prayer. Kerry's "faith without works" line will play well with Northeastern Catholics, not so well with Protestants.

The Daschle hug is defended! Kerry plays team!

More campaign finance reform? No!

Bush draws laugh from audience deprecating his English. Kerry says he married up, has to say it twice to get anyone but Schieffer to laugh.

Closings. No minds changed here, just closing the book.

UPDATE: Why do I think Bush won? On style, he was just more accessible, while Kerry seemed tired and hoarse. On substance, Bush wanted to define Kerry as a conventional liberal, and Kerry offered little resistance and helped Bush's case by giving a number of conventional liberal answers. Bush is much more at home with social issues, and he's less apt to fall into Beltway-speak on how programs work.

The voters, of course, will be the final judge. But Bush did about as well as I could have hoped, and in a number of cases Kerry gave worse answers than I would have expected. That's how I scored it.

*Take McQ's advice and put down your drink before you read this.

*It's not too late to read Jane Galt's hilarious blogging of the second debate ("K[e]rry: I was there when the budget was balanced! Me: I was there when the World Trade Center site was cleaned up! I claim full credit!" "Memo to Mr Kerry: Pro-life voters don't want you to respect them--they want you to not spend their tax dollars on abortions!")

*Smash on Kerry and the anniversary of the USS Cole bombing: "My problem with Kerry isn’t that he sees Iraq as a diversion from the War on Terror, but rather that he sees the War on Terror as a diversion from his domestic agenda."

*Hitchens on Saddam's nuclear program ("Of course, we could always have left Iraq alone, and brought nearer the day when the charming Qusai could have called for Dr. Obeidi and said: 'That barrel of yours. It's time to dig it up.'")

*Matt Welch, who disdained the whole Swift Boat story, nonetheless rips the media for not diving into the merits of the story earlier.

*More on the Swift Vets' latest campaign, including the words of Medal of Honor winner Bud Day ("Shot down over North Vietnam in 1967, Maj. Day suffered numerous injuries, managed to escape from his prison, walked for two weeks through the jungle eating live frogs before he was recaptured." More here).

*A Boston Globe columnist casually accuses Bush of being a murderer (via Allah).

*Bill Frist rips John Edwards for giving false hope by saying "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again" (Link via the Corner).

*Nader challenges Michael Moore to a debate.

*Mark Steyn thought Kerry sounded awful when he looked at the debate audience and declared that he, Bush and Charlie Gibson were the only ones in the hall who made $200,000:

[H]ow can you tell by looking at people that they earn under 200 grand? And, even if you can, is it such a great idea to let 'em know they look like working stiffs and chain-store schlubs? But, when you've married two heiresses, it's kinda hard to tell where the losers with mere six-figure incomes begin: it's like the 97-year-old who calls the guys in late-middle age "sonny". In America, quite a few fairly regular families earn 200 grand and an awful lot more families hope to be in that bracket one day. And, more importantly, the sheer condescension of assuming that the room divides into the colossi of the politico-media ruling class and everyone else sums up everything that's wrong with the modern Democratic Party.

I had the same reaction - when Kerry said that there was a guy over his shoulder, older guy in a decent suit, balding, grey hair and glasses - he certainly looked to me like the type who could easily be a doctor, lawyer, businessman type. There were a couple of others who, even just on appearance, could easily have been the same, and as Steyn points out that's still just picking by the stereotypes.

This is the final part of a four-part series on the Iraq War.

Part I looked at why America could not rest after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and why state sponsors of terror, such as Iraq, require our attention. Part II looked at why, in particular, North Korea and Iran should not have taken precedence over Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Part III looked at why the decision to go to war in Iraq was necessary and justified. Those questions provide a necessary background to this analysis.

This part looks at what, roughly a year and a half on, America has gained and what it has lost from the Iraq War. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? The answer, attempting to look at the war from all angles, is yes.

Read More »

Jesse Jackson and John Kerry sound awfully worried and defensive about the potential for the same-sex marriage issue to pry off African-American voters from the Democratic ticket:

"How many of you — someone from your family — married somebody of the same sex?" Mr. Jackson asked of the congregation of about 500. After nobody raised a hand, he asked, "Then how did that get in the middle of the agenda?"

"If your issues are cancer and Medicare and education and jobs and Social Security and decent housing, then how did someone else put their agenda in the front of the line?" he asked.

Following him a few minutes later, Mr. Kerry urged his audience to try to ignore diversions from the issues Mr. Jackson had mentioned.

"All they're going to do is attack and attack and try and divert, and push some hot button that has nothing to do with the quality of your life on a daily basis," the senator from Massachusetts said.

And, I've heard of demonizing your opponents, but I always thought that was in a figurative sense:

[Kerry] appeared at yesterday's service with Mr. Jackson and Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas; Rep. Kendrick B. Meek of Florida; Mr. Meek's mother, former Rep. Carrie Meek; and the Rev. Al Sharpton, who campaigned against Mr. Kerry for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"He's fighting against liars and demons," Mrs. Meek said.

The article does not mention if Kerry disagreed with the characterization of Republicans as "demons." Then there's the usual hyperbole:

Mr. Kerry told the congregation he is taking steps to allay the grievance of many Florida blacks that their votes were not counted in 2000. "Never again will a million African-Americans be denied their right to exercise their vote in the United States of America," he said.

Why only a million? Why not a billion, or a trillion, if you're going to make up numbers out of thin air?

Oh, and don't forget all the hyperventilating we get from the Left over the idea that "Bush actually believes that God told him to become president." (But it's OK for a writer to knock that if "[s]ome of my best friends believe in God . . . "). Now, Kerry would never nod along at a suggestion like that, would he?

Pastor Gaston E. Smith at the Baptist church was trying to send a message to his congregation.

"For every Goliath, God has a David," he said. "For every Calvary's cross, God has a Christ Jesus. To bring our country out of despair, discouragement, despondency and disgust, God has a John Kerry."

Mr. Kerry mostly sat stolidly during the 20-minute sermon, nodding slightly. Mr. Smith said God can work His will through the election. "If he did it for Clinton, he can do it for you," he said.

But don't hold your breath waiting for the denunciations of this from Slate and its ilk.

So President Bush, in the second debate, goes out of his way to call Kerry a "liberal," to which Kerry's response is to grouse about "labels" rather than try to show how his record disproves the charge (which he can't; as Bob Novak has pointed out, this is the same Kerry who in July 1991 said "I'm a liberal, and proud of it").

The impact? Today's Rassmussen poll suggests that the charge didn't take long to stick:

During the second Presidential Debate, President Bush made several references to Senator Kerry as politically liberal. Kerry consistently responded that labels don't matter.

Whether or not labels matter, the President's message did have an impact on voter perceptions of both candidates.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters now see the President as politically conservative. That's up from 60% immediately following the first debate and similar to the numbers following the Republican National Convention. Sixty-one percent (61%) of conservatives now believe the President is one of them.

For John Kerry, 55% now see him as politically liberal. That's the highest its been all year. Following the first debate, 49% viewed the Senator as politically liberal. For most of the year, that figure was in the low-to-mid 40s.

Thirty-one percent percent (31%) of liberals now see the Democratic nominee as one of them. Most liberal voters (59%) still view the Senator as politically moderate.

That's just one debate. If Bush can hammer this theme in the second debate and in ads, he may quickly have Kerry wishing he could go back to debating Iraq.

Bush and Cheney rip into Kerry for his remarks in that NY Times Magazine profile, drawing this response:

"I think you have to ask yourself, why are they so interested in attacking John Kerry?" the campaign's national chairwoman, Jeanne, Shaheen, told CNN's "American Morning."

"I think the answer is pretty clear it's because they don't want to talk about the issues that people are facing."

Um, maybe because Kerry is, you know, running against Bush?

It is, of course, a bad sign when a campaign does nothing but attack. But really, you have to be living in la-la land to think Bush hasn't campaigned on the basis of his own past record and future platform. Whining about being criticized for the candidate's own, rather lengthy and detailed remarks on the primary issue of the campaign is just weak and pathetic.

If anything, I almost feel bad for Kerry staffers trying to explain away this interview, which really can't be defended on the merits and shows staggeringly bad political judgment in addition to the bad strategic thinking on national security.

This is the third part of a four-part series in praise of, and defense of, the Iraq War.

Part I looked at why America could not rest after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and why state sponsors of terror, such as Iraq, require our attention. Part II looked at why, in particular, North Korea and Iran should not have taken precedence over Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

This part, the longest yet, details why America and its allies were right to take it upon themselves to enforce years of violated UN Resolutions by military force and, ultimately, to remove Saddam Hussein. In other words, this is the meat of the sandwich.

The hardest part of writing this is deciding where to start.

Read More »

Many people, starting as usual with Powerline, are piling on John Kerry's answers in this NY Times Magazine profile of his foreign policy views. Geraghty says that it "confirms every conservative’s worst fears and suspicions about Kerry’s views on how to fight terror." Eugene Volokh is appalled by Kerry's analogy of terrorism to illegal gambling and prostitution, our responses to which "are examples of practical surrender, or at least a cease-fire punctuated by occasional but largely half-hearted and ineffectual sorties." Maguire notes Kerry's hesitancy to talk even to the sympathetic ears at the Times, and points out, "if Kerry does not think he can communicate clearly with a Timesman, how can we take seriously his belief that he can sell his message to a cold, uncaring world?" Lileks, as usual, offers the most cutting critique of Kerry for saying that "[w]e have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance":

Mosquito bites are a nuisance. Cable outages are a nuisance. Someone shooting up a school in Montana or California or Maine on behalf of the brave martyrs of Fallujah isn't a nuisance. It's war.

But that's not the key phrase. This matters: We have to get back to the place we were.

But when we were there we were blind. When we were there we losing. When we were there we died. We have to get back to the place we were. We have to get back to 9/10? We have to get back to the place we were. So we can go through it all again? We have to get back to the place we were. And forget all we’ve learned and done? We have to get back to the place we were. No. I don’t want to go back there.

There's more; read the whole thing.

The profile is an astonishing caricature of Kerry, and all the more frightening because it doesn't seem that the writer - this is the Times Magazine, after all - wants to do a hatchet job on Kerry. There's the elitism:

Read More »

This is the second part of a four-part series on why the Iraq War, contrary to the position de jour of Senator John Kerry, was the right war in the right place at the right time (see Part I here). America acted both wisely and decisively in removing Saddam Hussein from power and is doing the only right thing in helping the Iraqi people get their country back on its feet.

Why, though, of North Korea, Iran and Iraq was a military response appropriate for the latter but not for the first two?

Let’s look at them one at a time.

Read More »

*North Georgia's own Ricky West on Max Cleland and Jimmy Carter: "Thing is, the two Georgians most cited by the MSM (Cleland and Jimmy Carter) are so far outside of the pulse of Georgia, neither could win a state-wide election even if they were running against each other."

*Check out Jonah Goldberg with what has to be the angriest G-File ever, on Kerry's Iraq posturing. A sample:

[N]o one bothers to ask whether the Great Diplomat and Alliance Builder believes our oldest and truest allies Great Britain and Australia are lead by equally contemptible liars. Of course, they can't be liars — they are merely part of the coalition of the bribed. In John Kerry's world, it's a defense to say your oldest friends aren't dishonest, they're merely whores.

And one more:

John Kerry said it so eloquently when he noted that George W. Bush has offered 23 rationales for the war. Heaven forbid the International Grandmaster of Nuance contemplate that there could be more than a single reason to do something so simple as go to war. Let's not even contemplate that the ticket that says this administration hasn't "leveled" with the American people should have to grasp that sometimes leveling with the public requires offering more than one dumbed-down reason to do something very difficult and important.

*This is a classic:

James Rappaport, who challenged Kerry in MA SEN: "He didn't attack me for my positions as anti-tax and pro-growth . . . He attacked me primarily personally." More Rappaport: "At one point he called me a chicken hawk because I was strong on defense but hadn't served in Vietnam. He forgot that I was sixteen when the war ended." ("Nightline," ABC, 9/27).

*In case you missed it a few weeks ago, here's your summit:

France said Monday that it would take part in a proposed international conference on Iraq only if the agenda included a possible U.S. troop withdrawal, thus complicating the planning for a meeting that has drawn mixed reactions.

Paris also wants representatives of Iraq's insurgent groups to be invited to a conference in October or November, a call that would seem difficult for the Bush administration to accept.

(Emphasis added). Kerry demands that we have a summit, and his proposed summit depends on the inclusion of people who want to negotiate with terrorists. But don't hold your breath waiting for Kerry to get called on this.

Make sure you check out Tim Blair for a well-deserved bout of "[h]urtful, savage, imbalanced and triumphalist ranting" at Saturday's election victory by Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Howard's opponent, Mark Latham, sounds like an an Aussie Howard Dean:

The real importance of tomorrow's election lies in the foreign policy changes that would be instituted under the Labor Government of Mark Latham. The man who once broke a taxi-driver's arm, and ran Liverpool's (a suburb of southern Sydney) municipal council into historic levels of debt and political chaos now has an opportunity to shape Australia's place in the world. The shape it would take can be speculated upon by the remarks Mr Latham has, in the past, made about the President of the United States. "The most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory" he declared about the American President who overthrew two tyrannical regimes in a single term. Latham then went on to label his Australian conservative opponents as a "conga-line of suckholes" for having originally supported the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Like Senator John Kerry, Mr Latham has prevaricated and occasionally made complete reversals of policy on what Labor would do in Government. "All the troops home by Christmas" was the original clarion call. Then it became some of the troops. Their position hasn't been clarified for some weeks, and thanks to Labor's compliant fifth columnists -- the media -- it isn't likely to be placed under any scrutiny, any time soon. But the fetid stench of appeasement wafts through the air, and it is unmistakable.

Meanwhile, some irregularities but no widespread violence as Afghans went to the polls for the first time since the US liberated their country from the Taliban.

In both cases, of course, the elections represent a setback for John Kerry's campaign. Afghanistan is a clear triumph for the Bush Administration; we're hardly home free there, but the ability to conduct an election free of violence gives the lie to claims that the country has fallen apart, and gives hope for similar progress in Iraq. That's terrible news for Kerry.

In Australia, of course, Kerry's sister - the head of his campaign there - created a stir in mid-September when she basically told Autralians to side against the United States by voting Howard out of office:

JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

Ms Kerry, who taught school in Indonesia for 15 years until 2000, is heading a campaign called Americans Overseas for Kerry which aims to secure the votes of Americans abroad -- including the more than 100,000 living in Australia.

Howard's victory stands as a rebuke to the Kerrys and their ham-handed attempt to pry another ally out of the coalition. And, of course - of much greater importance - it preserves the role of our most faithful ally as a vigilant force against terrorism.

The October issue of Catholic Digest carries extended interviews with both Bush and Kerry, although it's not entirely clear from the context whether these were sit-down interviews or were, as often seems to happen with these sorts of things, written answers submitted in response to written questions.

I didn't find anything all that enlightening in the answers, but there was one tic in Kerry's answers that seems oddly illuminating. Kerry was asked 13 questions - 5 on economic issues, one open-ended "why should a Catholic vote for you" question, 6 on religion or foreign policy, and one on the Latino vote.

In his answers to each of the questions on the economy, as well as in his answer to the open-ended question, Kerry worked Edwards' name into his answer, usually by opening a sentence with "John Edwards and I . . . " In none of the other answers did he mention his running mate. Presumably, Kerry thinks of Edwards as rubbing off some sort of positive air when dealing with bread-and-butter issues, but doesn't find the need to bring him into other areas.

The United States and its coalition partners were right to invade Iraq to depose and disarm Saddam Hussein and we are right to be staying to help the Iraqi people combat a ruthless insurgency and develop a stable, representative government. President Bush made the right strategic decision at the right time.

Why Iraq? This is the first of a very lengthy, four-part post on that question. (Like the Crank, I’m sorry to be short-changing baseball - which I do love - but I feel that these are important issues and that this may be the very biggest.).

As we live in the continuing wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, America has a responsibility to aggressively confront rogue regimes, allies of terror and repressive dictatorships wherever and whenever it can. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq emphatically fit all three categories.

I strongly disagree with the argument that state sponsors of terror are irrelevant to the Global War on Terrorism simply because the specific terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were sub-state actors. Following the successful invasion of Afghanistan and the fall of the Taliban, the United States was right to broaden its sights and to act to head off gathering threats, correct festering wrongs and enforce long-ignored international resolutions. The approximately 3,000 victims of September 11th deserve no less.

The main question is where, post-Afghanistan, should the next front have been? Let's examine that.

Read More »

Well, that was an improvement. Bush was visibly livelier, faster on his feet, more in command. He didn't use every single line he needed, didn't uncork some of his most powerful weapons. But he hit Kerry, and hard, on several occasions.

Kerry was mostly the same as the first debate; as noted, he's a good debater. But tonight we saw even more clearly the real Kerry in his repeated determination to deny who he is, run from his record, duck the "liberal" label that so aptly fits him. If Kerry isn't as liberal as Ted Kennedy and Mike Dukakis . . . well, why can't he find examples of how?

Kerry on Saddam's threat:

I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president.

Kerry on Saddam's threat, same debate just a few minutes later:

I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions, Randee. But you're absolutely correct, [Iran] is a threat, it's a huge threat.

And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat.

Of course, for my perspective Bush's best answers were early on, on the war, although to be honest some of them don't seem as great, or at least as new, on paper. This was the home run:

Mr. President, my mother and sister traveled abroad this summer, and when they got back they talked to us about how shocked they were at the intensity of aggravation that other countries had with how we handled the Iraq situation. Diplomacy is obviously something that we really have to really work on. What is your plan to repair relations with other countries given the current situation?

BUSH: No, I appreciate that. I -- listen, I -- we've got a great country. I love our values. And I recognize I've made some decisions that have caused people to not understand the great values of our country. I remember when Ronald Reagan was the president; he stood on principle. Somebody called that stubborn. He stood on principle standing up to the Soviet Union, and we won that conflict. Yet at the same time, he was very -- we were very unpopular in Europe because of the decisions he made.

BUSH: I recognize that taking Saddam Hussein out was unpopular. But I made the decision because I thought it was in the right interests of our security. You know, I've made some decisions on Israel that's unpopular. I wouldn't deal with Arafat, because I felt like he had let the former president down, and I don't think he's the kind of person that can lead toward a Palestinian state. And people in Europe didn't like that decision. And that was unpopular, but it was the right thing to do. I believe Palestinians ought to have a state, but I know they need leadership that's committed to a democracy and freedom, leadership that would be willing to reject terrorism. I made a decision not to join the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which is where our troops could be brought to -- brought in front of a judge, an unaccounted judge.

BUSH: I don't think we ought to join that. That was unpopular. And so, what I'm telling you is, is that sometimes in this world you make unpopular decisions because you think they're right. We'll continue to reach out. Listen, there is 30 nations involved in Iraq, some 40 nations involved in Afghanistan. People love America. Sometimes they don't like the decisions made by America, but I don't think you want a president who tries to become popular and does the wrong thing. You don't want to join the International Criminal Court just because it's popular in certain capitals in Europe.

Even if indirectly, he did finally deal with the Tora Bora garbage, by talking at the end about military decisions being open to question. Of course, I was thrilled to hear him stress the leadership theme I was pressing for earlier today:

Now, he talks about Medicare. He's been in the United States Senate 20 years. Show me one accomplishment toward Medicare that he accomplished. I've been in Washington, D.C., three and a half years and led the Congress to reform Medicare so our seniors have got a modern health care system. That's what leadership is all about.

I know I'm biased. And it wasn't a knockout. But I certainly thought, especially after how Bush got clobbered in the press after the last debate, that this was a clear win.

UPDATES: And what was with Kerry talking about Red Sox fans living in a fantasy land? Didn't he see Ortiz' home run?

The transcript doesn't capture this moment, where Bush basically swatted Charlie Gibson aside to drop the hammer on Kerry:

KERRY: . . . We're going to build alliances. We're not going to go unilaterally. We're not going to go alone like this president did.

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

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

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

(CROSSTALK)

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

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

BUSH: You tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland we're going alone. There are 30 countries there. It denigrates an alliance to say we're going alone, to discount their sacrifices. You cannot lead an alliance if you say, you know, you're going alone. And people listen. They're sacrificing with us.

(The other time he tried to say "Berlusconi," Bush gave up half way through).

Why do we have another debate limited to the economy? Seems like we covered a lot of that tonight. The foreign policy stuff, I think we can say they've repeated themselves plenty by now. But there's a host of issues (social issues come to mind) that haven't been much ventilated.

Kerry, after Bush called him the most liberal Senator:

But look, what's really important, Charlie, is the president is just trying to scare everybody here with throwing labels around. I mean, "compassionate conservative," what does that mean? Cutting 500,000 kids from after-school programs, cutting 365,000 kids from health care, running up the biggest deficits in American history.

Mr. President, you're batting 0 for 2.

I mean, seriously -- labels don't mean anything. What means something is: Do you have a plan? And I want to talk about my plan some more -- I hope we can.

Say it with me: "competence, not ideology." I guarantee you the Bush camp is giddy tonight; maybe they're wrong, but it sure looked like a Bush win to me, and I suspect it did to them as well.

You will notice once again that in discussing our strategy in the war on terror, Kerry never mentions freedom or democracy and never refers to us fighting anyone but Al Qaeda.

Starting to see some reactions . . . I'd agree that it was a good sign that Kerry was mostly on the defensive.

Tonight's debate will do much to decide this election. The president also needs for it to help the country focus on something broader: a debate about the fundamental question of what kind of war we are now engaged in. That is the question that has divided our political system since at least the January 2002 State of the Union speech, when President Bush labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an “axis of evil.” None of this is new ground for those of us who have followed these questions closely and debated them endlessly. But as the time of decision approaches, it is useful once again to go back to first principles on the issues that divide us.

Here's the bottom line:

Kerry: We are at war with Al Qaeda and the remnants of the Taliban because they attacked us; we are at war in Iraq because we attacked them.

Bush: We are at war with any and all international terror groups, whether or not they have previously attacked us, and we can win only when we have removed or fundamentally altered the regimes that support or harbor them.

That's the distinction. Let's explore. There are a number of different strains of thought among President Bush’s critics on the Left, ranging from those whose disagreements focus principally on the mechanics of war-fighting to the Michael Moore/Ted Rall=type lefties who opposed the war in Afghanistan and would oppose basically anything that involves the exercise of American power. The latter group, of course, is beyond reason or argument.

The principal thrust of the argument advanced by many mainstream Democrats, however, and recently embraced by John Kerry, goes something like this:

1. The US may only go to war (a) to respond to an attack, (b) to interdict an imminent threat, or (c) with the sanction of the UN. In other words, we have the right to engage in direct self-defense ((a) or (b)), but the legitimacy of any mission that goes beyond direct self-defense depends on the agreement of collective bodies like the UN and, to a lesser extent, NATO.

2. The US was attacked by Al Qaeda on September 11.

3. Therefore, the US has the right to strike back at Al Qaeda, including nations that directly support Al Qaeda.

4. There is no evidence of direct involvement by Iraq in supporting Al Qaeda attacks on the US, and therefore any war against Iraq is not a part of any war of self-defense or retaliation in response to September 11, and is arguably a distraction from finishing that war.

5. There turned out to be no evidence that Iraq had sufficient WMD capabilities, let alone intent to use them, to establish an imminent threat to the US.

6. Therefore, we had no right to act against Iraq without international sanction.
The relevant international organizations had not reached a determination to attack Iraq. Absent an imminent threat or a connection to the war against Al Qaeda, we should not have gone to war until they did.

On one level or another, this has been the argument of critics like Howard Dean, Al Gore, and Bob Graham, and John Kerry has now embraced it by calling the Iraq war a "diversion". I think I’ve been fair in setting out the syllogistic quality of this line of thought, which in its defense does have deep roots in Western thought about war. I actually agree with some of its underlying philosophy, although as I’ll discuss below, the current situation demands the competing argument of the Bush Administration and its supporters that this approach is hopelessly insufficient to deal with the ongoing threat of international terrorism.

For all of John Kerry’s past efforts to appeal to pro- and anti-war voters alike, there has long been copious evidence to suggest that this is what Kerry actually thinks. One of the clearest signs came back in June, when Kerry said this:

This administration took its eye off of al-Qaeda, took its eye off of the real war on terror in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan and transferred it for reasons of its own to Iraq . . .

In short: we are at war with a single organization (Al Qaeda) and have gone and started a second, separate war in Iraq, without meeting necessary preconditions for doing so.

What Bush, his administration and its supporters (myself included) have consistently argued is that the old way of looking at these issues is wrong, for a number of reasons; I'll focus here on two.

1. "Al Qaeda" is not the only enemy. Yes, that's who attacked us. But the goal here isn't just to put them out of business but to end the terrorist threat to the U.S. once and for all. To my mind, we are at war with (a) any organized terrorist group that can reach across national borders or within the U.S.; (b) any state that sponsors, supports or gives aid and comfort to any such group. Even if you discount the evidence of Saddam's overtures to bin Laden, the fact that Saddam had a long history of actively supporting some terrorists and harboring others makes the ability to tie him to bin Laden almost academic; you can't well say you are at war with terrorist sponsors and leave Saddam in place. Remember, after all, that Al Qaeda itself is only a loose association of groups anyway, formed by a merger with the Egyptian group Islamic Jihad. It's sort of silly to have arguments over whether, say, Ansar al-Islam or Zarqawi were or are part of Al Qaeda; the similarity in rhetoric, tactics, goals and ideology makes them part of the same problem regardless of where the lines on their org charts point.

2. We can't win the war without broadening it. Because we are fighting a type of enemy, united by its ideas and tactics rather than as a single organism, we can't win just by rolling up body counts, capturing territory and choking of funds, although all of those are helpful. What we need to do is change the dynamics of the states that have fostered the problem, both by supporting such organizations and by encouraging the hatreds that breed terrorists.

The choice between Bush and Kerry is clear, it is fundamental, and it is essential to our security. It's a matter of life and death that we get it right.

I just got an email from the RNC with an update of the "Kerry on Iraq" video (linked up top). I predict that, in tonight's debate, President Bush will send people to the website if Kerry tries to claim that his position has been consistent.

There's another thing Bush needs to drive home tonight, and it's a point he's more comfortable making. Here's something like what I'd like to hear:

You know, I've been listening in this campaign to Senator Kerry talk about foreign policy, domestic policy. And it's clear that we have some fundamental differences in philosophy. But leadership matters too. You can't tell people you're going to get things done better if you can't lead.

Dick Cheney and I know a few things about leadership. I've been the president through some tough times, I've been a governor, I've run companies, run a baseball team. Dick Cheney's been Vice President, he was Secretary of Defense during the first Gulf War and Panama, White House Chief of Staff, CEO of a big company. He was elected to a leadership position in Congress when he'd only been there two years. And in the last four years, we've gotten an awful lot done - kept our promises to cut taxes, reform education, pass a Medicare prescription drug bill, lead coalitions in two wars.

When have Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards ever been leaders like that? They've never been executives, never been governors or run a significant business. Their own Senate Democrat colleagues have never elected either one of them to a leadership position, not even trusted them to chair an important committee. They've never led the fight on a major piece of legislation. How are they gonna work with Republicans in Congress?

I've worked with allies around the world. I've worked with Democrats in Texas and in Congress. I know how to get enough people on board to get the job done. That's a proven record of leadership. Where's Senator Kerry's record? Where's Senator Edwards' record? Where's the leadership? When have they ever put people together to follow them anywhere?

You'll hear me talk tonight about my record. Like I said, I've got a record I'm proud of. I've been in Washington four years, and I've gotten a lot done. Senator Kerry's been in Washington twenty years, and he hasn't done a thing worth talking about. Any time he talks about an issue tonight, just ask yourself: where's the record? When has anything ever happened in Washington because John Kerry made it happen?

It's easy enough to criticize. My opponent looks at the wars we've had to fight and says, not enough troops, too many American troops, too many Afghan troops, too much money, not spending enough money to get the job done, not a big enough coalition. He says the coalition should be more like in 1991, but he voted against that war too, said it could still be bigger. Well, the president doesn't have the luxury to wait and see what happens and say, "too little," or "too much." The president has to lead. I've led, and you can judge me by my record. My opponent can't say the same.

There's a common thread throughout Bush's career, from his admittedly checkered business career, to his days as Texas Governor, to his presidential candidacy, to his domestic policy and his conduct of foreign affairs. Bush's expertise is in finding out how many people he needs on board to get a particular job done, and putting together a coalition that will do the job. He has a practical politician's understanding that you need to make concessions to win allies on any issue, so you don't bring along more than you need. And sometimes, you sacrifice some long-term good will to do it, from inflaming Jim Jeffords during the tax cut flap in 2001 to enlisting allies in Iraq (namely, Spain's Aznar government) who couldn't survive the poilitical pressures caused by going along. But in each case, Bush got what he needed.

Kerry's record couldn't be more opposite. Kerry's done nothing with respect to our allies this whole campaign - both the Iraqi allies and the countries that have sent troops - but scorn and insult them. There's a reason his Senate Democrat colleagues have never followed him anywhere, let alone cobbling together enough help from Senate Republicans to pass a bill. There's a reason the great majority of Kerry's peers in Vietnam, as well as the guy who spent the most time in his command on his boat, are willing to drop everything to run around the country opposing him. There's a reason almost nobody can find close Kerry friends among his peers anywhere he's been. Even Kerry's finest hours in the Senate were either lone-wolf investigations or tasks like the POW issue that nobody else wanted to get involved in. Kerry's not a coalition-builder, not a leader, not a guy who gets things done. And Bush, who is all those things, needs to point that out.

UPDATE: Linked this post to this week's Beltway Traffic Jam.

As has been pointed out in numerous places, most of John Kerry's "plan" for Iraq involves claiming to do the same things Bush claims he's already doing. Yes, partisans on each side can argue over what's actually getting done and how much more could be (see here on the latest iteration of the Bush plan), although if Kerry thinks he can get more done faster and better just by pouring more resources into Iraq, he's underestimated how much more difficult he will have made the task of raising those resources after campaigning on a platform of "we should be spending that money at home instead" and "we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them at home."

The key to how Kerry tries to bridge that gap, of course, is by claiming he can obtain - and the president should have obtained - more foreign support, including the blessing of key players at the UN. But there is an enormous vulnerability there for Kerry: a skilled debater could expose the childish naivete behind Kerry's faith in the European and UN cavalry, especially after he was finally forced to concede that the French and Germans won't be sending troops. Likewise, the Duelfer report from the Iraq Survey Group report has revealed the extent to which the inspections process, the UN Oil-for-Food program and our "allies" in France, Russia and Germany were hopelessly compromised by corruption and bribery (see here, here, here, here and here for starters). Roger Simon explains why this is so fatal to Kerry, whose worldview simply can't survive contact with these scandals.

But I fear that Bush will never use them. The irony is that Kerry has this great reputation for diplomacy when all he does is defecate all over our allies, while Bush is supposed to be Mr. Ugly American, yet Bush is the one who often pulls his domestic political punches out of what can only be concern that his remarks will harm our ability to work with other countries. If Bush spent tonight working some riffs from Roger Simon and Mark Steyn and Ralph Peters about the French, the Germans, the Russians the UN - their military impotence, their corruption - he could leave Kerry's signature issue in a smoldering pile of ash. But then Bush would have to go back and work with Chirac, Putin, Schroder, and Annan, so instead he plays nice.

Sometimes being the only grownup in the room stinks.

You have to give the Kerry camp this: they've been very effective, albeit with the cooperation of the press, in spinning the results of the first two debates to be a smashing victory for Kerry and a draw for Edwards. This is where the arrival of the Clinton people comes up big. They can't and won't make a difference in improving the quality of Kerry's message, to the extent he even has any. But contentless spin, subject-changing and news cycle management are their expertise, and we've seen it in play.

Did top Kerry campaign staffer and former Ted Kennedy aide actually say that she never saw Edwards in the Senate either? Sure looks that way from this partial transcript (albeit without a link), but I suspect she just had a brain cramp and meant to say Cheney. Still pretty funny. Link via Wizbang.

Some people have argued that then Bush campaign needs to get off calling Kerry a flip-flopper and go after his actual positions. Indeed, one Bush staffer told CrushKerry.com that the campaign is in the process of a long-planned October pivot to a "shock and awe"-style sudden-from-all-directions bombardment of Kerry's liberal record in the Senate. (Link via Geraghty). But then you hear something like this from Kerry:

The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position.

This is a perfect example of why I always thought "flip-flop" was a necessary defensive tactic - you'd rather run against Kerry's ideas, but he's so good at denying what he stands for, by pointing to examples of him saying or doing the opposite ("that dog won't hunt, and let me tell you why . . ."), that it winds up being necessary to argue that he doesn't stand for anything at all, to force him to bear the burden of proving what his position is before you try to knock it down.

Jonah Goldberg:

My favorite part of the debate last night was when Edwards mentioned how he "agreed with John Kerry on Thursday night." You gotta love it that even John Edwards has to nail down the exact time and place that John Kerry said something he agreed with. You can't just say "I agree with John Kerry." That's like saying the globule in the lava lamp is oval. Wait a minute and that will seem ridiculous. So you've got to nail it down.

One of the major themes of the first two debates has been America's credibility in the world at large, and the corresponding ability of the nation to get other nations to follow us. John Kerry and John Edwards insist that America has "misled" the world, as far as the reasons for war and the progress in Iraq. Bush and Cheney have responded that Kerry has sent "mixed signals" that undermine our credibility. Now, far be it from me to suggest that it doesn't matter, particularly on the home front, if the president tells the truth. (I also don't agree with Kerry and Edwards that this administration has been misleading about why we are in Iraq and how we're doing there, but that's another day's argument). But Bush and Cheney are, fundamentally, talking about an entirely different type of credibility - the type that really matters in international affairs.

Because, in the end, most of the countries on this earth, and most of the large masses of people, aren't real big on believing what foreign governments tell them, and with good reason. Most of us on some level - and diplomats and heads of state most of all - recognize that governments speak self-interestedly, and don't take what they say at face value. Or, at a minimum, they make their own minds up - the justifications for war in England are viewed as an issue of Tony Blair's credibility, in Australia an issue of John Howard's credibility, not so much Bush's.

But where a nation's credibility is critical is when you ask whether it is believed that a country keeps its promises - and its threats - acts reliably in its own interests, finishes the jobs it starts, and the like. Did the Soviet Union care if the United States saw "the light at the end of the tunnel" in Vietnam, or whether the explosion in the Gulf of Tonkin was just a pretext? Of course not. But the Soviets watched very carefully when they saw that America didn't stay to finish the war and didn't stand behind the South Vietnamese when the resulting peace treaty was violated by the renewed invasion from the North. And they watched equally carefully when Reagan started fighting to back up our interests, even in places like Grenada where the direct US interests were relatively minor. Because Reagan understood that our credibility in the Hobbesian world of international affairs depended upon not taking slights lightly. And every new president faces, fairly early, tests of his credibility - that is, in some sense, what the Chinese did to Bush in early 2001. There have been other tests, too - and don't think the world hasn't noticed that from Kyoto to the ABM treaty to the International Criminal Court, Bush has stood for one thing and one thing only: protecting US interests against agreements that failed to adequately protect them. Next time someone wants to make a deal with us, they will remember that. In short, credibility in international affairs isn't about telling the truth - it's about being clear where you stand and following through, so your allies know you will keep your promises and your enemies know you will back up your threats. Does anybody seriously think Kerry has that kind of credibility?

The real problem of US credibility in the Middle East - and yes, it's been a bipartisan one - is the widespread belief that we don't have the guts to stick it out through tough times and that we will abandon our allies on the ground to the same old despots. Think Somalia, or the abandonment of the Kurds and Shi'ites in 1991. In a way, that's one of the most compelling reasons, if an unstated one - but one that any world leader immediately understood - why we went to war with Saddam. The guy was flouting the terms of the cease-fire, calling into question the credibility of our willingness to enforce agreements with the US. He was thumbing his nose at the US in myriad ways (including his public cheerleading for the September 11 attacks, something nearly none of even our declared enemies dared to do), calling into question the credibility of our willingness to respond to slights, insults and threats.

And now, we have found ourselves in a daily struggle to win over the Iraqi people - and the biggest obstacle is the fear that we will once again cut and run and abandon them to the same old forces of evil, as we did in 1991, as we did in Somalia, as we did in South Vietnam. It is critically essential to our credibility - and to the security of the situation of our troops in the field - that there be no doubt that the US can not be deterred from finishing the job in Iraq, no matter how long it takes, what the obstacles or the costs are or what political pressures are brought to bear on the president by the Howard Deans of the world. Can John Kerry say he has that kind of credibility, the kind that led the Iranians to conclude that they didn't want to be holding US hostages even a minute into the new Reagan Administration? Bush and Cheney are dead right, and deadly serious, about the fact that Kerry does not. Everything in his record and history suggest a guy who is consumed by fear of the quagmire, who hemmed and hawed and finally opposed the first Gulf War, who has grown gloomy and panicked about this war whenever things have gone badly in the field or in his own political campaign. In fact, Kerry has even argued that we should have threatened war with Saddam - but not been ready to back that threat up the minute he failed to cooperate.

Credibility matters. Lack of it gets people killed. The kind of credibility that counts is not the credibility to persuade people in argument or admit mistakes. It's the credibility to say, "this we will do," or "this we will not stand for," and then prove that you will not yield in that determination. That's the credibility that Bush has, and Kerry does not.

On catching bin Laden - January 20, 2002:

"The bottom line is that the closest we came was in Tora Bora. I do think some people have asked some questions about how that particular component of the mission sort of played out. But the fact is that it is a difficult place. He is elusive.

I think they are doing the maximum amount right now possible to try to track him down. And it is an extraordinarily hard thing for him to hide somewhere. I mean, over a period of time, I think, he is in trouble."

(Emphasis added). If you've been following this campaign, you can probably guess who.

* From the Asia Times: why John Kerry’s plan for dealing with North Korea is ill-conceived.

* Glenn Reynolds (who memorably stated last week that he’d “be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons”) looks at some of the under-covered aspects of the Duelfer Report. Don’t just listen to spin, though, take a look at the report’s key findings yourself.

* It doesn’t sound like Alexandra Pelosi’s new film is too flattering to Mr. Kerry. I actually enjoyed “Journeys With George” even though it was rather more cynical about our political process than I am.

* Finally, Bruce Springsteen and the “Vote for Change” tour of contested battleground states have now added a last minute trip to New Jersey. Draw your own conclusions.

CBS Sportsline reports a massive increase in viewership for the vice presidential debate vs. four years ago:

Despite competition from the baseball playoffs, five times as many television viewers watched Tuesday's vice presidential debate between Dick Cheney and John Edwards, Nielsen Media Research said.

The 43.6 million viewers were up from the 29.1 million people who saw Cheney take on Democrat Joe Lieberman in 2000, and reflects the heightened interest in the race.

Fox was the only major network not to carry the Cheney-Edwards debate in the New York area. It was contractually required to show the AL Division Series Game 1 between the New York Yankees and Minnesota Twins, which had 8.5 million viewers.

Fox affiliates in other markets chose to carry the debate.

Of course, some folks would have you believe that John Edwards won or drew the debate, which may be the case if you watched with the sound off. But particularly given the way Cheney drilled the Kerry-Edwards team on Iraq, I'd score these ratings as excellent news for the Bush-Cheney ticket.

With the Presidential campaign finally heading towards a climax and the baseball playoffs in full swing, I couldn’t resist jumping back into the mix here, however temporarily.

Anyway, I noted with some satisfaction that President Bush finally went on the offensive about one of the most glaring weak points in John Kerry’s various positions on Iraq: his vote against the 1991 Gulf War.

John Kerry and John Edwards have very disingenuously been holding up the Gulf War as a model of multilateral military engagement and cost-sharing. The problem is not that this isn’t true – it clearly is – but that Kerry voted against the very war which his campaign now says forms the criteria by which he defines acceptable multilateralism (i.e. virtually the entire world on our side).

A rough history follows (I apologize for any errors, but am mainly going from memory). In 1991, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was, for the second time, on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, yet, in an act of almost incomprehensible recklessness and stupidity, invaded neighboring Kuwait prior to attaining a nuclear capability. After some hesitation, the United States led by the first President Bush decided that the invasion could not stand and developed the largest international coalition in history, backed by, among many others, the U.N. Security Council, a number of Arab allies and the indispensable sine qua non of any successful military alliance: the French.

Yet, when the vote had come before the U.S. Congress, Kerry voted against taking military action.

Read More »

Yesterday morning's speech by the president had some good stuff along with some typical stump speech filler, but also a few disappointments:

Read More »

Man, Dick Cheney's gonna be pulling chunks of John Edwards out of his stool for months after tonight's debate.

I had not, you may recall, planned on watching tonight's debate, or any of today's playoff games; I started an arbitration today, which had been projected to run the rest of the week. I won't go into details here except to say that it only took one day of hearings to bring the case to a successful conclusion, leaving me unexpectedly free, after hearing a few innings of the Yankees-Twins game, to catch the back end of the debate on radio and TV and then catch up on the rest on tape and transcript.

My impressions? Well, as I said at the time, I thought the first presidential debate was pretty good; Bush was solid but far too slow to respond to Kerry's attacks; Kerry was at the top of his game, albeit due to throwing out a lot of falsehoods.

Tonight's debate was even better (as debates often are when the candidates are sitting down) - these guys weren't afraid to mix it up, and frankly called each other liars quite often (Cheney: "Well, Gwen, it's hard to know where to start; there are so many inaccuracies there."). Now, some people really do think most of what Dick Cheney says is lies. You can't reach those people. But to anybody else, it had to be obvious that Cheney won this one, and the Kerry camp had to be hoping that a lot of people were watching the baseball game instead. Cheney was on top of just everything, very fast on his feet, he was calm, deliberate, and serious.

Edwards, meanwhile: well, to those of us who are practicing litigators, Edwards is a recognizable type - the lawyer who's great in front of juries, where he gets to control the narrative, but not so hot in front of judges, because he keeps trying to launch into an emotional closing argument instead of answering questions. Here's a perfect example:

Read More »

Well, anyone who's done any kind of public speaking or argument can tell you that a guy who has prepared notes can whup a guy with no notes nine times out of ten, unless the guy without notes is (unlike George W. Bush) really a masterful extemporaneous speaker. Is it really possible that a Kerry operative told Drudge, in response to questions, "See you at the inauguration, Drudge"? That does sound like the Kerry people's type of self-justification, although it also sounds like the kind of unverifiable reporting one tends not to trust, coming from Drudge.

A colossal scandal? Not really. But pretty low-rent behavior and not the mark of a man with any honor, if you ask me. I just assumed watching the debates that Kerry had prepared notes - he certainly appeared to be using note cards - and was wondering why Bush didn't have better ones himself. I hadn't realized that the candidates had agreed to do without them.

UPDATE: The NY Post claims that the video shows that Kerry pulled out a pen. Apparently this was also in violation of the rules, although I could have sworn I saw Bush taking notes and I know I saw Kerry taking notes almost every time Bush was speaking. Clearly, bringing in a pen isn't a big deal. Bringing in prepared notes, when you've agreed with the other guy not to, is something of a bigger deal, although I'd tend to agree with a number of commentators who think that this isn't going to put a dent in Kerry either way, and we're best off leaving the issue. Frankly, I think the quality of the debate - which was actually pretty good - and its ability to inform the public would have been improved if the candidates had agreed to bring prepared notes, just as any competent lawyer will have prepared notes at an oral argument or a trial. How many decisions does a president make without the ability to consult notes or talk to advisors, anyway?

SECOND UPDATE: Bill has reviewed the evidence and retracted his accusation. End of story.

In light of John Kerry's puzzling insistence on a go-it-alone approach to North Korea in Thursday night's debate, I thought I'd make a little list. Admittedly, I'm doing much of this from memory, but there seems to be a certain consistency . . .

1. The North Vietnamese, during the Vietnam War, compared Ho Chi Minh to George Washington, argued that their war was one of national liberation, accused US troops of regularly committing war crimes and atrocities, called on Nixon to end the war immediately, argued that the people of South Vietnam would be happy to accept communism, and generally argued that the US war in Vietnam was immoral from beginning to end. John Kerry, during the Vietnam War, compared Ho Chi Minh to George Washington, argued that the North's war was one of national liberation, accused US troops of regularly committing war crimes and atrocities, called on Nixon to end the war immediately, argued that the people of South Vietnam would be happy to accept communism, and generally argued that the US war in Vietnam was immoral from beginning to end.

2. The Soviet Union and its allies denounced the US invasion of Grenada in 1983. John Kerry denounced the US invasion of Grenada in 1983.

3. The Soviets, in the 1980s, denounced Ronald Reagan as a warmonger and a threat to peace for deploying missiles in Western Europe. John Kerry, in the 1980s, denounced Ronald Reagan as a warmonger and a threat to peace for deploying missiles in Western Europe.

4. Daniel Ortega, in the 1980s, denounced US support for the Nicaraguan contras and argued that the US should have peace talks with his regime. John Kerry, in the 1980s, denounced US support for the Nicaraguan contras and argued that the US should have peace talks with Ortega's regime.

5. Moammar Qaddafi argued that Reagan's bombing of Libya was unjustified and caused excessive civilian casualties. John Kerry argued that Reagan's bombing of Libya was unjustified and caused excessive civilian casualties.

6. Our adversaries during and since the Cold War have argued that we were reckless and irresponsible by pursuing missile defense. John Kerry has argued that we were reckless and irresponsible by pursuing missile defense.

7. Fidel Castro has, for decades, regularly denounced US sanctions against Cuba. John Kerry has, for decades, regularly denounced US sanctions against Cuba.

8. In 1991, Saddam Hussein wanted to draw out the process of the Western response in the hopes that it would bog down. John Kerry said we should have drawn out the process.

9. Yasser Arafat has denounced the security fence erected by Israel. John Kerry has denounced the security fence erected by Israel.

We can add four more from the debate alone:

10. In 2002-03, Saddam Hussein wanted to draw out the inspections process and make it more multilateral. John Kerry says we should have drawn out the inspections process and made it more multilateral.

11. Kim Jong-Il wanted to have bilateral talks rather than multilateral talks. John Kerry says we should have had bilateral talks rather than multilateral talks.

12. Osama bin Laden says we helped him by invading Iraq. John Kerry says we helped bin Laden by invading Iraq.

13. The Iranian mullahs oppose US sanctions against Iran, wish to enter into agreements with the US, and insist that there are plausible reasons why a poor but oil-rich country needs nuclear power. John Kerry opposes US sanctions against Iran, argues that we should enter into agreements with Iran, and insists that there are plausible reasons why a poor but oil-rich country needs nuclear power.

Does Kerry have company on some of these stances? Yes. Can he defend some by pointing to occasions (as with Israel and Cuba policy) where he's since taken the opposite position? Yes. Is he actually an unpatriotic America-hater? Of course not. But remember: Time and time and time again, America's enemies have argued against us - and Kerry has echoed their charges. I'd rather trust the national defense to someone who's not so quick to echo the words and strategies of our enemies.

(A partial list of sources: Kerry's stances on Grenada and Nicaragua, the first Gulf War, the Cold War and Grenada again, the security fence, the Cold War again, Libya, Nicaragua again, and Grenada again, and Cuba).

Well, we know John Kerry wasn't at the Republican Convention in August (I was), but he shouldn't have claimed that the subways weren't running for the convention without checking with someone who was.

But what about some of Kerry's other claims? Lileks covers Kerry's claim that we should have used more allied troops in Iraq. Smash covers Kerry's claim that we should have used fewer allied troops in Afghanistan. And this National Review analysis debunks Kerry's claims about body armor.

This has to be a first in a foreign policy debate:

Nothing about Castro

Nearly nothing about Mexico

Nothing about Haiti or Venezuela or Colombia

Viewers who tuned in to hear the candidates' views on America's role in the Western Hemisphere could be forgiven for concluding that neither of them has any views on America's role in the Western Hemisphere.

One more thing I should add that was impressive about the debate - even if we should all know better by now - was Bush's command of the facts. Bush is often regarded as a guy who grasps only as much as is written down in front of him, but last night he was on top of a broad array of issues, from the onset of the rainy season in Sudan to the upcoming summit in Japan. None of this should be a surprise, and as I said, Bush certainly wasn't in his element, but for voters who may have gone in expecting Bush to read "My Pet Goat" while he waited for Uncle Dick to bring him the answers to the questions, Bush's performance had to be reassuring.

The happiest people from tonight's debate have to be down-ticket Democrats. John Kerry's strong performance may not move the needle much in the presidential debate, given Bush's refusal to be pushed around and his bouts of feisitiness. But if the debate didn't help Kerry much, it should be enough to finally arrest his catastrophic decline, and that will help other Democrats worried about a Mondale-sized disaster.

If you had any doubt that John Kerry is a tough, aggressive debater - in fact, a man who's at his best in debate - tonight should have removed any doubt. Kerry put in a fine point-scoring performance, getting off his shots at President Bush, avoiding his trademark rambling and getting away, actually, with quite a lot of statements that the president should have called him on, from fairy tales about buying body armor on the internet to the fundamental illusion that Kerry can change the opinions of allies who haven't helped out in Iraq. Bush, partly because he's not a great debater and partly because he carries the burden of his office (can't scorn the French if you might someday have to work with them), was unable to dismember the fundamental falsehood at the heart of Kerry's "plan" for Iraq.

But Bush also did what was probably necessary: he stood on the podium as Leader of the Free World. He made clear over and over the importance of being consistent, not sending "mixed messages." Yes, like Kerry, he had a few points he repeated endlessly, but he had to.

Bush's strongest performances were on two points: calling Kerry on his stream of insults aimed at the allies who HAVE helped us in Iraq, and making Kerry look like an idiot on North Korea, where Kerry was left sputtering about the need to have bilateral rather than multilateral talks without giving any reason other than that's not what Bush is doing.

Bottom line: Kerry is a better debater, and it showed. He's faster on his feet. But when Bush sets his feet, he doesn't budge. The voters will decide which is a more important qualification to lead in wartime.

UPDATES START HERE:

Bush talked a lot about freedom, liberty. Kerry hardly did, except in Russia, but he did bring more emphasis to winning than in the past.

I hope this debate doesn't change much in the election; I think it may not. Bush started badly but held his ground after that, while Kerry was consistent throughout.

This summarizes one exchange: Kerry: "He's a liar." Bush: "I don't take that personally."

I liked how Bush repeatedly stressed staying on the offensive.

It was tacky how Kerry said "the president invaded Iraq." No, the United States and its allies did.

Kerry said Bush didn't work with our allies like Reagan did. Reagan, rolling over in his grave: "oh, now you support my foreign policy."

People who ripped Zell can shut up after Kerry called our troops "occupiers".

Kerry dodged Jim Lehrer rolling out his "last man to die for a mistake" line after Kerry called the war a "mistake"

Bush's turning point was when he called Kerry's attack on Bush for turning own UN help "totally absurd." Also, Kerry stepped in it when he started talking about yet another UN resolution and when he used the phrase "passes the global test" for preemptive action, and when he griped about us developing bunker-busting nukes to take on North Korea. Ill give Reagan the last word: "now that's the Kerry I remember."

And you are required to drink both.

Lots of interesting issues to address for tonight's debate, but I'll just make a prediction on one. A key issue of tone for Kerry is whether to try to look presidential and be likeable, and thus temper his attacks on Bush in favor of trying to lay out his own vision, or whether to play to his natural strength as a debater - the strength that forged his reputation as a "good closer" - and go mercilessly on the attack, questioning Bush's truthfulness and trying to bait Bush.

My prediction: the latter. Several reasons: (1) Bob Dole, who shares some of Kerry's strengths and weaknesses as a presidential candidate, tried the former approach in 1996, to no effect (as Kerry's Clinton-era staffers will recall); (2) Kerry has been on the attack in recent speeches, to say nothing of his spokespeople; (3) Kerry's base wants it (to the point where some people have been pining for Howard Beale Dean lately), and may need to hear some of the old 1971 anti-war passion from Kerry to perk up morale and get out the down-ticket vote.

I'm not saying this is necessarily the wisest strategy. But it will feel good, and stands a chance of breaking the race's momentum (or, alternatively, burying Kerry entirely). I predict that Kerry decides that he's been too cautious for too long, throws caution to the wind, and turns his rhetorical boat into the fire, coming out swinging as the man Kerry obviously believes he really is.

Stay tuned. The fireworks could be fun to watch.

Karl Rove must dream, in the says leading up to the first debate, of stories like this:

New York's state Democratic Party chairman derided President Bush on Monday as "simple" and "that simplistic gentleman up there in the White House with his one- and two-syllable answers."

And remind me why someone who gets snookered this badly by the mere threat to pull out of one debate should be trusted to negotiate with Iranian mullahs and crazy Kim.

Then again, Dales warns that the history of pre-debate polls and their power to predict the general election result doesn't necessarily support the idea that the debates are as influential as everyone thinks.

Back on July 28, at the height of enthusiasm for the Kerry campaign, I noted this, from Josh Marshall's site, about a conversation Marshall had with Michael Moore at the Democratic convention:

I ask him what he makes of all of this. No attacks on the president. Not even any mention of the man's name. . . .

[A]s he breezes by he says, "Oh, Really? I liked it. You don't even have to say it. Everyone knows how bad it is."

Think what you will about Michael Moore or evening one of the convention, I think that sums up precisely what this event is all about and the dynamic on which it's operating. I've seen a slew of articles today arguing that the Democrats must energize their 'base' while not alienating the swing voters John Kerry needs to clinb from the mid-40s past 50%.

But this strikes me as a tired conventional wisdom that has little to do with what's actually happening here. . . .

Among Democrats, the rejection of this president is so total, exists on so many different levels, and is so fused into their understanding of all the major issues facing the country, that it doesn't even need to be explicitly evoked. . . . the primetime speeches were actually brimming with barbs, and rather jagged ones at that. They were just woven into the fabric of the speeches, fused into rough-sketched discussions of policy, or paeans to Kerry.

Perhaps it's a touchy analogy, but like voters who understood the code-words Republicans once (and often still do) used to flag hot-button racial issues they dared not voice openly, these Democrats could hear the most scathing attacks on President Bush rattling through the speeches they heard tonight.

My reaction:

Josh Marshall and Micheal Moore hit the nail on the head with regard to how the Democrats really feel about why this convention has been so vague and unspecific in its attacks on President Bush, to the point where I hardly think the name "Dick Cheney" or familiar hobby-horses like "Halliburton" or "Enron" or "Weapons of Mass Destruction" have been mentioned: they think it's so self-evident that Bush is a disaster that they don't even believe it's necessary to explain why. I'm not sure that's a winning approach, but I do think Marshall and Moore have put their fingers on what their side is thinking.

As it turns out, this is rather precisely the problem: Kerry didn't think the American people needed any persuading. Thank you, big media/lefty pundit coccoon. Now, months later, Jonathan Alter has noticed the problem:

Shrum's grand plan wasn't complicated. He figured that with most voters believing the country is on the "wrong track," all that Kerry had to do was establish his credibility as a potential commander in chief and he would win—hence the "bio" convention. No need to respond directly to Bush ads sliming him for wanting to cut the same weapons systems that Bush's father cut. No need to explain how the Iraq war had been botched. No need to discredit Bush at all, because he was already thoroughly discredited.

Oh, well. The Shrum strategy was the product of short-term thinking (the assumption that Bush's unpopularity in the period of the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal would last until fall) and was reinforced by the sealed and often smug world of Democratic politics, where it was taken for granted that Bush was bad, bad, bad, and any reasonable person already knew why. Shrum correctly realized that a Michael Moore-style sledgehammer would do little to sway undecided voters who don't loathe Bush. But Shrum wrongly extrapolated from that point that Kerry had no need to indict Bush in easy-to-remember phrases that would stick. He once told me as much, and that name-calling wouldn't work in post-9/11 presidential politics.

That was wishful thinking.

Of course, it's a bit late now to fix the problem. But turning to the meta-issue, amazingly, this isn't the first time Alter has followed one of my trains of thought. On September 9, I wrote:

Read More »

. . . but still funny. Trolling through the demented Allahpundit's archives, I picked up this, this and this from the Democratic primaries. If you didn't see them then, go there now.

Let's consider exactly how bad things look right now for John Kerry in the Electoral College, by looking over RealClearPolitics' state-by-state battleground poll averages. Bush, of course, starts with a historical advantage: he needs 269 electors to tie, 270 to win, and if he holds the 2000 "red states," he gets 278. On the RCP scoreboard, Bush gets 291 if you count the states where his average margin is at least 3 points over Kerry.

With Ohio drifting away from Kerry and Wisconsin looking firmly planted in the Bush camp, Kerry's hopes are now totally dependent upon wresting Florida from Bush, while holding on to big battlegrounds like Pennsylvania (Kerry by 1.7), Minnesota (tied), Oregon (Kerry +0.7), and New Jersey (Kerry +1.4) (Michigan, at Kerry +5 now looks fairly safe for Kerry barring another big shift in the dynamics of the race).

But, leaving aside the issue of Maine and possibly Colorado splitting their electoral votes, consider this outcome - even if Florida gets away from Bush, he could still win with the following states:

Read More »

*Go read Captain Ed, and keep scrolling. There's just so much good stuff there I can't begin to link to it all.

*I've added Let's Fly Under The Bridge to the blogroll for Roland Patrick's unique combination of exhaustive examination of the "Bush AWOL" nonsense (with the benefit of knowledge derived from his own military experience) and his longstanding crusade to mock Brad DeLong. In this installment, he carves up the US News and World Report for misunderstanding Bush's TANG payroll records and service requirements. (Hat tip to the redesigned QandO - update your blogrolls! - for linking to Patrick).

*Geraghty notes more examples of Kerry's chronic indecisiveness, this time with quotes from exasperated party loyalist and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.

*Godwin's Law alert from Josh Marshall: "Can we re-check the sprinkler system in the Reichstag?"

*Drezner's got some great stuff on life in the campaign press corps bubble.

*The spate of retractions on stories harmful to Kerry on Friday seems like a sign of what the ex-Clinton guys like McCurry, Lockhart, Carville and Begala are good at - jumping all over the media to get their side of the story out or, in these two cases, to get errors fixed before they spread too far. Just because media bias, sloppiness and laziness so often tilts against Republicans, we shouldn't forget that Democrats get burned at times as well, and a Democratic candidate needs people to push back at the media.

By the way, I thought at the time that people might be misreading the Burkett paraphrase that later got retracted. Here's the original:

During a single phone conversation with Lockhart, Burkett said he suggested a "couple of concepts on what I thought [Kerry] had to do" to beat Bush. In return, he said, Lockhart tried to "convince me as to why I should give them the documents."

Some people read this as saying that Lockhart wanted Burkett to give the documents to the Democrats, but it always looked to me like he was saying Lockhart told him to give the documents to CBS. This is just bad writing, which leaves the reader in doubt as to critical facts (as Daffy Duck would say, "Pronoun Trouble!"). Anyway, the later retraction clarified that Burkett had told the reporter that CBS wanted the documents - and if that's what he really said, the reporter just goofed terribly.

*As long as John Kerry is in public life - at least as long as he fails to apologize for or retract his statements in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War - stories like this one will just keep coming (hat tip to Allah).

*And another point, albeit not from what you would call an independent source, on Bush's entry into the TANG, for those of you not sick to death of this:

Read More »

*Ramesh Ponuru notes the Kerry campaign's misuse of a study whose author contends that it did not, as the Kerry folks claim, show that President Bush's Social Security reform plans would lead to massive benefit cuts.

What else is new?

*It's official: the Kerry campaign is raising the white flag in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana and Missouri, all once thought of as potential swing states. Kerry has pulled any plans for running additional ads in those states.

*Jon Stewart last night, on Ra^thergate: "To see fake journalism taking off like this is very refreshing."

*Progress in winning over African-American voters is, like the Yeti, a durable yet mythical figure in Republican circles. But hope springs eternal. Red State has a chart (the second one, not the first, which is a sample of 40 voters) that seems to show President Bush doubling or tripling his support among black voters in several states compared to 2000, mainly in the South. I'm not sure if this is reliable stuff, but if it is, I'd bet that military families are heavily represented among those willing to give Bush a hearing.

*Captain Ed's readers keep digging up new documents at the Navy Archives regarding Kerry's tour in Vietnam. This one relates to David Alston, who spoke persuasively at the Democratic Convention but has tended to tell stories about engagements where he and Kerry did not serve together.

*Wizbang sees Kerry throwing the Swift Boat Veterans into the briar patch.

*Try this one on:

The Commission on Presidential Debates told the Bush and Kerry campaigns Tuesday that it could not accede to their unusual request that it sign by Wednesday their 32-page agreement detailing parameters for the debates.

First of all, the commission said, it has to determine which candidates have enough support in the polls to qualify for the debates, which it does not plan to do until Friday.

They need a poll to determine if Kerry still has enough support to be included in a debate? ;)

*What is Kerry hiding? Quite a lot of things major candidates usually disclose, including medical records, tax and financial records, and military records. (via QandO). The press usually doesn't tolerate this - they didn't let go with Bill Simon's tax returns in 2002 or Jack Ryan's divorce records this spring (in each case, inflicting huge damage on the candidate), and we saw in the case of Paul Tsongas why the medical records of a candidate - especially a cancer survivor - can be a significant omission. Yet the media has given Kerry a free pass on stuff that he would have to disclose if he was running for Senator or Governor.

Tracking all the Kerry flip-flops on Iraq is a hopeless endeavor, but here is a choice one. Kerry's speech on Monday:

The President claims [Iraq] is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war . . .

Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States.

So, what did Kerry say when he voted on the Iraq war resolution?

It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. . .

A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

Man, this is just too easy sometimes. I also found this amusing:

The President . . . should give other countries a stake in Iraq’s future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq’s oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

[snip]

The President . . . should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton.

So, after all of Kerry's bluster about a coalition of "the coerced and the bribed," be wants to get more people on our side by . . . bribing them. But at least he's being consistent in calling for outsourcing jobs currently done by U.S. companies and workers, right?

A few weeks back I noted the Bush campaign's strategy to lower expectations for Bush's performance in debates by creating a debate-about-debates dynamic that made it seem as if the president was afraid of too many debates; I also noted how hard it was for Bush's detractors to resist the temptation to fall into the trap by mocking Bush on this score.

The good news for Kerry supporters: Matt Yglesias isn't stupid enough to fall for the trap. The bad news: John Kerry is.

(Stephen Green notes about Kerry: "Man, I'd love to play poker with this guy." Of course, Kerry is the same guy who has now announced to the world that we should be willing to threaten war when we don't mean it, so his bluffing skills are as bad as his ability to recognize a bluff - "Gee, John, you put a lot of chips on this hand." "Yes, I'm bluffing.").

Stuart Buck:

So this is what supposedly happened:

1) Burkett comes into the possession of documents that, if true, would damage Bush and aid Kerry.

2) Via Max Cleland, the Kerry campaign is notified that Burkett has some highly interesting documents related to Bush.

3) Via Mary Mapes of CBS, Joe Lockhart is notified in particular that Burkett had some "records" that would "move the story forward."

4) Indeed, Burkett "had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS" only "if the network would arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign."

5) Lockhart, a very busy man, then calls Burkett.

6) Despite the fact that Lockhart would have had no reason for calling Burkett in the first place other than the story about National Guard documents, and despite the fact Burkett had already tried to get the documents to the Kerry campaign via Max Cleland, and despite the fact that he had made CBS promise to get him in touch with the Kerry campaign before he would release the documents, both Lockhard and Burkett somehow neglected to talk about the documents.

7) Instead, Burkett merely took the opportunity to tell Lockhart that Kerry needed to talk "more" about his "Vietnam experience," as if Kerry hadn't already emphasized that theme, and as if Lockhart had called Burkett merely to hear this sort of generic advice.

Are 6 and 7 believable?

Like I said about Sandy Berger's-pants-gate: man, Clinton scandals are just the gift that keeps on giving, aren't they?

Oh, and: could there be a clearer contrast between (1) the media presumption of Bush and RNC involvement in the Swift Boat ads in the absence of any evidence of same and (2) the media presumption that the Kerry folks had nothing to do with this even though key figures in the Kerry and DNC camps were talking to all the major players, including a known crackpot, at the critical junctures? Particularly given that Bush and the RNC have never tried to add the Swift Boat Veterans' charges to their own litany of attacks on Kerry, while the open attacks on Bush's Guard service have come in the form of Kerry speeches, Kerry press releases, daily attacks by the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, ad campaigns paid for by the DNC, speeches by Wesley Clark, Tom Harkin and other Democratic candidates and officeholders, to say nothing of veiled references from numerous speakers at the Democratic Convention. It's not like the Democrats can credibly say that they didn't ask Burkett about this stuff because they weren't interested in this issue.

Bill INDC has some good stuff too.

UPDATE: Wizbang has an entertaining trip into the Sixty Minutes wayback machine to visit with the original wacko who started all these anti-Bush "Fortunate Son" stories before committing suicide after his criminal record (for paying someone to commit murder via car bomb) was exposed.

SECOND UPDATE: Michele has a particularly egregious example of where liberal journalists are willing to find coordination.

Well, we keep digging deeper on the web of connections between the Democrats and the forged documents used in CBS' hit job on President Bush.

First of all, beyond his statement on CBS Evening News, Dan Rather sat for a longer interview with local reporter Marcia Kramer of WCBS-TV here in NY (Kramer is best known as, among other things, Hillary Clinton's favorite reporter during the 2000 Senate race, which should tell you something). I didn't see a transcript, but you can go here and view the video.

Rather seemed genuinely contrite and apologetic, and kept saying there was no excuse, "this is not a day for excuses." But his factual assertions belied that:

1. He focused entirely on the idea that CBS had to change its story when it determined that Bill Burkett lied to them about the provenance of the documents. Still no admission that there was anything wrong with the documents themselves or that anyone else but CBS' own diligence led to the discovery.

2. Rather seemed to admit that CBS, or at least Rather, never saw anything purporting to be originals: "I believed in the authenticity of the copies of the documents we had"

3. Rather refuses to accept responsibility for putting the documents on the air over the objections of two of CBS' experts, and continues to insist either that the experts are lying now or that he personally was misled by his staff at CBS about what the experts were telling them. I haven't exactly transcribed this - I'm paraphrasing - "I was told that we had four experts who by and large agreed that the documents were not forgeries, probably weren't fake - two of those came back later and either changed their story or changed what I was and we were told was what they were saying"

4. Additional information on Burkett's additional source: Burkett told CBS that the documents came from a person (who Rather still won't identify) who would have had access to the original files and who was out of the country and CBS could not locate them.

But wait, there's more!

Read More »

Allah and Jeff Goldstein have been wondering about the timeline set out in the Washington Post for how CBS put together the "Sixty Minutes II" story, and what it means in the hunt to identify who was responsible for creating and disseminating forgeries. You'll want to read their whole analyses. Now, it appears that CBS will point the finger at Bill Burkett, see here and here, a guy about whom Kevin Drum - who interviewed Burkett in February - said

I talked with Burkett at length back in February, and speaking as someone who believes his story about Bush's files being purged, I still wouldn't trust him for a second if he suddenly produced a bunch of never-before-seen memos out of nowhere. If he really is CBS's "unimpeachable source," they've got some very serious problems with their news judgment.

Here's the basic timeline derived from quotes from the WaPo article, which I've excerpted and bullet-pointed:

*In mid-August, Mapes told her bosses that she had finally tracked down a source who claimed to have access to memos written in 1972 and 1973 by the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, Bush's squadron commander in the Texas Air National Guard.

*During the Republican National Convention in New York [August 30-September 2], Rather got a call from Ben Barnes, a onetime Texas lieutenant governor and veteran Democrat who has known the anchor, a former Houston TV reporter, for 30 years. Barnes said he was ready to say before the cameras that he had pulled strings to get Bush a coveted slot in the Texas Guard in 1968. Mapes had long been urging Barnes to tell his story.

*On Friday, Sept. 3, the day after the convention ended, Mapes hit pay dirt. She told Howard her source had given her the documents.

*The next stop was Texas. Rather was in Florida, so CBS chartered a plane to get him to Austin. On Sunday, Sept. 5, he and Mapes interviewed Robert Strong, an administrative assistant in the Texas Guard during Bush's service there.

*Document analyst Marcel Matley flew from California to New York, and Rather interviewed him on Labor Day, Sept. 6

*On Tuesday, Sept. 7, as Rather sat down in a CBS studio with former Texas lieutenant governor Barnes, the top brass was turning its attention to the explosive story.

The story ran Wednesday, September 8.

So, that's it? Well, here's an item quoted by Goldstein that needs to be factored in:

In an Aug. 21 posting [on a Yahoo group for Texas Democrats], Burkett referred to a conversation with former senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.) about the need to counteract Republican tactics: “I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. He said counterattack. So I gave them the information to do it with. But none of them have called me back.”

Cleland confirmed that he had a two- or three-minute conversation by cell phone with a Texan named Burkett in mid-August while he was on a car ride. He remembers Burkett saying that he had “valuable” information about Bush, and asking what he should [do] with it. “I told him to contact the [Kerry] campaign,” Cleland said. “You get this information tens of times a day, and you don’t know if it is legit or not."

Cleland, as we know, was in Texas August 25 to deliver a letter to the president's ranch in Crawford; on August 21, Cleland was in Wisconsin.

Anyway, that's all background here. Someone with more time to spend on this can connect these dots, but I'd like to add a few links to the fire:

*On August 22, with no apparent prompting from anything in the news, Josh Marshall, out of the blue, calls for Ben Barnes to come forward:

Now, as fate would have it, Ben Barnes is a Democrat. Was then, is now. And he supports John Kerry.

But he's never really spoken openly about how he helped Bush hop in front of everyone else or other aspects of the president's abbreviated military service, about which he is said to know a great deal.

Maybe now would be the time?

By August 27, still well before Barnes was reportedly in touch with Dan Rather, Marshall touts a Kerry campaign video featuring Barnes:

You'll want to link through to this one -- it's a video clip of Ben Barnes, the former Speaker of the House in Texas, the guy who got President Bush into the Texas Air National Guard.

I'm told the tape is from a recent Kerry rally . . .

[snip; includes Barnes saying, "I got a young man named George W. Bush in the National Guard when I was Lt. Gov. of Texas and I’m not necessarily proud of that. But I did it."]

Now, I don't know what Ben Barnes looks like. And I do not independently know the provenance of the tape. But I've spoken to two sources who know Barnes. And they tell me that that is Barnes on the tape.

One of those two men is Jim Moore -- co-author of Bush's Brain. Moore told me this afternoon that the clip is from June 8th of this year, at a Kerry rally in Austin. Moore assures me that the tape is legitimate.

I placed a call to Barnes' office and left a message with one of his assistants; but the request for comment has not yet been returned.

Click through Marshall's site to see the video. Soon, Marshall was pushing the Barnes-is-talking story; by September 1, six days before Barnes supposedly met with Rather, Marshall reported:

A bit more on Ben Barnes, the guy from Texas who got President Bush into the Guard way-back-when.

Apparently, the attacks on Kerry's war record just proved too much for him. As we've noted previously, for almost a decade now Barnes has gone to great lengths to avoid causing trouble for the president on the Guard matter. And the Bush folks in Texas have made it clear to him during this election cycle that if he spills the beans about the president that they'll do everything in their power to put him out of business in the state (Barnes is now a lobbyist). And that heat has, I'm told, increased dramatically in recent days.

But apparently those threats haven't done the trick because he has already taped a lengthy interview slated to appear in the not-too-distant future on a major national news show in which he'll describe the strings he pulled to keep Bush out of Vietnam and apparently more.

(Between you and me, according to my three sources on this, Barnes told his story to Dan Rather -- remember, the Texas connection -- for 60 Minutes.)

(Allah noted a similar report in Salon that day). What does it all mean? Not clear yet. But Marshall's sources were clearly pushing Barnes to come forward and get him to talk to Rather, at precisely the time that Burkett was talking to Max Cleland and was, apparently, involved in getting the forged documents to CBS.

Developing . . .

This hypothetical scenario, which I linked to earlier, suggests (among other things) that the White House, while having no role in their creation, basically entrapped CBS into putting forged documents on the air:

They [CBS] come up with a clever idea: They'll get a reaction out of the White House. They decide to fax the memos to the White House and ask for a comment. It will place Bush in a terrible bind. After all, Bush could have no way of knowing that copies of the memos still existed or what other memos CBS might have. He'll have to come out with a mealy-mouthed statement about how it doesn't matter and he fulfilled his Guard obligation and this is dirty politics. Then CBS can move forward with the broadcast, having Bush's tacit admission that they are genuine. . . .

[snip]

Karl Rove gets the faxed documents and goes running to Bush with the bad news. Bush: 'This can't be right. I never got any orders from Jerry Killian to report for a medical exam.' Rove: 'Well Dan Rather is going to be putting these on his 60 Minutes broadcast. He's got to have people lined up who will vouch for them.' Bush: 'Karl, Jerry would never write down anything like this. Somebody's feeding bulls**t to CBS.' Rove: 'Okay, let's start by calling in the FBI and checking if these memos are real.'

An hour later two high-power experts are pouring over the documents. Within fifteen minutes they're telling Bush and Rove that the memos are not only fakes, they are really, really bad fakes. Rove: 'How easy would it be for other experts to see that?' Expert: 'Anyone can see it. I can't believe that CBS found a legitimate expert to authenticate these. No professional is going to risk his reputation by saying that these are genuine, especially if he only has copies to go by.'

But what's the White House going to do? Rove expects 60 Minutes to show a small picture on the TV screen with a blow-up highlighted overlay of a couple of critical sentences from each memo. It won't be enough for experts to analyze. The general public will believe it, and White House denials will be brushed aside.

Now Rove comes up with a counter-ploy: Re-fax the documents to the rest of the news media. That way they'll have the evidence available for their own experts to analyze and knock down. Don't say much of anything; just reiterate the usual boilerplate that the President fulfilled his National Guard obligation and was honorably discharged.

The 60 Minutes crew is a bit surprised by the White House tactic, but immediately concludes that Rove is trying a pre-emptive strike, to minimize the significance of the memos. In a way it's even better than an angry response. It shows that the White House is shell-shocked! The White House reaction proves that the memos are genuine, despite the doubts which have been raised during the pro forma review by CBS' outside experts, and despite the denials of Killian's son.

The Washington Post's account seems to support this general theory, if not its specifics:

White House communications director Dan Bartlett had agreed to talk to "60 Minutes," but only on condition that the CBS program provide copies of what were being billed as newly unearthed memos indicating that President Bush had received preferential treatment in the National Guard. The papers were hand-delivered at 7:45 a.m. CBS correspondent John Roberts, filling in for Rather, sat down with Bartlett at 11:15.

Half an hour later, Roberts called "60 Minutes" producer Mary Mapes with word that Bartlett was not challenging the authenticity of the documents. Mapes told her bosses, who were so relieved that they cut from Rather's story an interview with a handwriting expert who had examined the memos.

At that point, said "60 Minutes" executive Josh Howard, "we completely abandoned the process of authenticating the documents. Obviously, looking back on it, that was a mistake. We stopped questioning ourselves. I suppose you could say we let our guard down."

(No word on whether pun intended).

As CBS pushed to finish its report, it was Bartlett who contacted the network -- rather than the other way around -- at 5:30 the evening before to ask whether the White House could respond to the widely rumored story.

And more:

Bartlett said he caught the president leaving for a campaign trip that morning and showed him the memos. Bush had "no recollection of having seen them," Bartlett said, and would not necessarily have seen papers from a commander's personal file.

Howard was struck by the fact that Bartlett, in his interview, kept referring to the Killian memos to support his argument that the president had fulfilled his military obligations.

"This gave us such a sense of security at that moment that we had the story," Howard said. "We gave the documents to the White House to say, 'Wave us off this if we're wrong.' " But Bartlett said CBS never asked him to verify the memos and that he had neither the time nor the resources to do so.

I note with amusement CBS' defense, in stark contrast to its sneers at the one-man-band nature of the bloggers criticizing it:

Mapes, an associate producer and a researcher were carrying the journalistic load. "The show is not so lavishly budgeted that we have tons of people doing this," said Harry Moses, a "60 Minutes" producer not connected to the story. "You do the pre-interviews yourself and then bring in the correspondent."

Mark Steyn challenges CBS' typewriter "expert" Bill Glennon, who still insists that it was possible to create the now-infamous Killian memos with a 1972-vintage typewriter:

Look, if Dan thinks this guy's theory is correct, let's put him and his IBM Model D and me and my computer in a room at CBS News for an hour and see which one of us emerges with the closest replicas of these four documents. I'll give him ten thousand bucks for every memo he reproduces exactly, and round it up to an even 50 grand if he gets all four right.

Any takers, CBS?

If you follow the Electoral College too closely for your own good, you may be aware that, if each of the two presidential candidates wins the vote in each of Maine's two Congressional districts, they are each awarded one elector, with the state's two remaining electors going to the statewide winner. Apparently, while John Kerry is still doing solidly in Maine, President Bush is running ahead in the state's predominantly rural Second Congressional District, a potentially significant win if the election swings back to being airtight-close by Election Day. To what does CNN attribute this?

Although Maine has voted solidly for the Democratic presidential nominee since 1992, this year has opened a window of opportunity for the president in the 2nd District, which is perceived as more conservative and supportive of the war in Iraq than southern Maine's 1st Congressional District.

[snip]

According to the CNN Web site, large numbers of veterans who live in the 2nd District are the bulk of the support for President Bush. The network's analysts also speculated that hunters in the 2nd District who oppose a ban on bear baiting could also be presumed to be pro-Bush and will be helpful to the president on Nov. 2.

Bear-baiting???

Is that anything like this?

Add to the list of new government agencies to be added by John Kerry: the Ministry of Silly Walks:

Read More »

Stuart Buck catches Kevin Drum and the New Republic making charges against FOX News - of promoting a doctored photo of John Kerry and Jane Fonda - without any supporting evidence. Buck goes through the transcripts and finds that FOX anchors mentioned that the photo was doctored and a hoax every time they referred to it.

*ABC has decided to go for CBS' jugular, and comes up with the man who actually got Bush into the Texas Air National Guard:

Retired Col. Walter Staudt, who was brigadier general of Bush's unit in Texas, interviewed Bush for the Guard position and retired in March 1972. . . .

"I never pressured anybody about George Bush because I had no reason to," Staudt told ABC News in his first interview since the documents were made public.

[snip]

Staudt said he decided to come forward because he saw erroneous reports on television. . . .

Staudt insisted Bush did not use connections to avoid being sent to Vietnam.

"He didn't use political influence to get into the Air National Guard," Staudt said, adding, "I don't know how they would know that, because I was the one who did it and I was the one who was there and I didn't talk to any of them."

'Highly Qualified'

During his time in charge of the unit, Staudt decided whether to accept those who applied for pilot training. He recalled Bush as a standout candidate.

"He was highly qualified," he said. "He passed all the scrutiny and tests he was given."

Staudt said he never tried to influence Killian or other Guardsmen, and added that he never came under any pressure himself to accept Bush. "No one called me about taking George Bush into the Air National Guard," he said. "It was my decision. I swore him in. I never heard anything from anybody."

When he interviewed for the job, Bush was eager to join the pilot program, which Staudt said often was a hard sell. "I asked him, 'Why do you want to be a fighter pilot?' " Staudt recalled. "He said, 'Because my daddy was one.' He was a well-educated, bright-eyed young man, just the kind of guy we were looking for."

He added that Bush more than met the requirements for pilot training. "He presented himself well. I'd say he was in the upper 10 percent or 5 percent or whatever we ever talked to about going to pilot training. We were pretty particular because when he came back [from training], we had to fly with him."

[snip]

Records show Bush stopped flying F-102As in April 1972. He has said he moved to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of a family friend. Staudt retired from the Guard in March of that year and said he was never contacted about Bush's performance.

"There was no contact between me and George Bush ... he certainly never asked for help," Staudt said. "He didn't need any help as far as I knew."

He added that after retiring he was not involved in Air National Guard affairs. "I didn't check in with anybody - I had no reason to," he said. "I was busy with my civilian endeavors, and they were busy with their military options. I had no reason to talk to them, and I didn't."

Staudt said he continues to support Bush now that he is president. "My politics now are that I'm an American, and that's about all I can tell you," he said. "And I'm going to vote for George Bush."

Link via Allah.

*WaPo moves the ball ever so slightly by looking at Bill Burkett's rants in a Yahoo club. Money quote:

In e-mail messages to a Yahoo discussion group for Texas Democrats over the past few months, Burkett laid out a rationale for using what he termed "down and dirty" tactics against Bush. He said he had passed his ideas to the Democratic National Committee but that the DNC seemed "afraid to do what I suggest."

*A plausible how-it-could-have-happened scenario (link via Dales blog).

UPDATE: Allah has some pointed comments about Burkett's phone call to Max Cleland; he's right on the money in his point about Josh Marshall. And Mickey thinks Staudt could sue CBS, although the bigger question is why they never talked to him in the first place.

Has the Navy determined that John Kerry was entitled to his medals? An AP report seems at first glance to say so:

The Navy's chief investigator concluded Friday that procedures were followed properly in the approval of Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites)'s Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals, according to an internal Navy memo.

Vice Adm. R.A. Route, the Navy inspector general, conducted the review of Kerry's Vietnam-ear [sic] military service awards at the request of Judicial Watch, a public interest group.

Hmm, "procedures followed properly"?

Judicial Watch had requested in August that the Navy open an investigation of the matter, but Route said in an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press that he saw no reason for a full-scale probe.

"Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed," Route wrote in the memo sent Friday to Navy Secretary Gordon England.

"In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards."

[snip]

"Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive," he wrote. "The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place.

This is almost certainly the right decision as far as the Navy is concerned, but it does nothing to resolve the public question, which is dumped back on the voters to decide whether the facts matter and, if so, what they are. Not the reference, however, to "existing documentation" - I'm sure Judicial Watch will be hot to pursue whether everything available to Route has been made public.

UPDATE: Tom Maguire thinks this proves that the Navy has documents we don't, since there isn't sufficient public information to conclude that the proper procedures were followed with regard to Kerry's first Purple Heart.

*I had meant to tear into Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter's claim that "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war," but Stephen Hayes had done it for me.

*Does Kofi Annan want Bush to win, or is he (more likely) completely oblivious to how little most Americans (even many critics or skeptics of the Iraq war) like having some UN functionary tell them that it's "illegal" for America to go to war with a country that repeatedly violated the terms of a cease-fire? The State Department fires back.

*Got your Florida campaign slogan right here: "[L]et them go naked for a while" may not exactly be "let them eat cake," but it's close.

*Not that Kerry himself is any better; he's about as convincing a populist as Prince Charles. Vodkapundit notes that Kerry calling Lambeau Field "Lambert Field" is hardly the first example of him botching the local color, citing his campaign's ignorance of St. Louis radio powerhouse KMOX and his misadventures with Philly cheesesteak. Of course, then there's touting "Buckeye football" to a Michigan crowd, misidentifying Eddie Yost as a Red Sox player . . . it's stupid stuff, and the Yost thing is particularly forgivable because it was from a years-ago memory, but it does bespeak a certain disinterest in connecting with people on things that should be easy to get right. But here's what's hilarious about the Lambeau thing: Lambeau is a French surname, and Kerry said it like one of those guys who deliberately refuses to pronounce a French name properly. If Kerry can't get a French name right, what, precisely, is he good for?

*Opportunity knocks: Bush and Kerry have each been invited to appear, separately, for half-hour segments on Black Entertainment Television (BET) to address questions of special concern to African-American voters. Bush should jump at this. Yes, any potentially hostile interview is a risk in the stretch run of an election. And yes, Republicans often eschew advertising and campaigning directed at African-Americans out of a rational short-term calculation that there are more likely votes to be won elsewhere. But this is free TV, it's just a few hours of the president's time, and it's a way to showcase his interest without having to get booed by an NAACP crowd.

*Hey Hey, Ho Ho. (But check out the definitive rebuttal in the second comment).

*Roll tape!

*The camera does not love John Kerry. Of course, the caption here suggests an improvement on current campaign tactics.

Bush leads 54-40 in a Gallup poll due out this morning, raising further questions about the sometimes wide variance in polling. Still, I'd be surprised if many presidential candidates have won after trailing by double digits in a Gallup poll as late as the middle of September. The electoral math is getting grim for Kerry; if Bush wins Florida and Ohio, it's very hard for Kerry to win, and Bush is looking stronger in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which would really lock down the electoral college.

But don't get cocky; Dales still sees a lot of states in play.

Breaking news in the Valerie Plame case. DC District Judge Thomas Hogan yesterday unsealed this opinion (link opens a PDF file) requiring New York Times reporter Judith Miller to "appear before the grand jury to testify regarding alleged conversations she had with a specified Executive Branch official" and produce related documents; the court notes that Miller did not write an article but "spoke with one or more confidential sources regarding Ambassador Wilson's article, 'What I Didn't Find in Africa.'" The court concluded that requiring Miller's testimony was proper because "all available alternative means of obtaining the information have been exhausted, the testimony sought is necessary for the completion of the investigation, and the testimony sought is expected to constitute direct evidence of innocence or guilt." (Emphasis added).

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that one of its own reporters, Walter Pincus, has indicated that his source has revealed his (or her) identity already:

A Washington Post reporter's confidential source has revealed his or her identity to the special prosecutor conducting the CIA leak inquiry, a development that provides investigators with a fact they have been pursuing in the nearly year-long probe.

Post reporter Walter Pincus, who had been subpoenaed to testify to a grand jury in the case, instead gave a deposition yesterday in which he recounted his conversation with the source, whom he has previously identified as an "administration official." Pincus said he did not name the source and agreed to be questioned only with the source's approval.

"I understand that my source has already spoken to the special prosecutor about our conversation on July 12 [2003], and that the special prosecutor has dropped his demand that I reveal my source. Even so, I will not testify about his or her identity," Pincus said in a prepared statement.

"The source has not discharged us from the confidentiality pledge," said The Post's executive editor, Leonard Downie Jr.

*Kevin Drum admits the obvious:

[I]t's a big mistake for us liberals to kid ourselves into thinking that Republicans win elections solely because they fool people into voting for them. It's not just that this is a debilitating mental attitude - although it is - but it's also not true. Our main problem isn't that this year's campaign has ignored the issues, our main problem is that the #1 issue in this campaign is national defense, and on that issue - like it or not - the majority of Americans favor the Republican position. If John Kerry wants to win, he should focus on the issues, but he has to focus on the issues that matter most in this campaign cycle.

It's all about 9/11, Iraq, terrorism, and national security, baby. This election is going to be won on that issue, and Kerry needs to convince the country that he can handle it better than Bush. And really, considering the botch Bush has made of national security, that shouldn't be all that hard.

Bottom line: Republicans aren't avoiding the issues. It's just that their signature issue happens to be the one people care most about this year. Democrats had better figure that out pronto.

(Emphasis in original).

*In a funny Monday G-File, Jonah Goldberg compares Dan Rather's decision to use and then defend the use of forged documents to the decision of the Hapsburgs to enter World War I:

He was the equivalent of some powdered-wigged fool who believed that Austria would come out on the other side of a short battle with its reputation enhanced. Instead, it revealed that CBS News is really the Sick Man of Big Media. . . it's clear that Dan Rather doesn't understand what's going on any more than those poor last dinosaurs understood why the tasty green fronds became so hard to find when it got cloudy. As an icon of the old world of big media, his self-inflicted extinction will surely be recognized as the end of not merely Dan Rather, but the age of Dan Rathers.

I don't have any better idea about what's coming next than the folks in 1914 did. I don't think blogs have the ability to replace CBS News any more than Gavrilo Princip and the Black Hand could replace the Hapsburgs. Blogs are great but they can't do the heavy lifting of investigative journalism. But it seems obvious to me that we are officially at the Goodbye To All That moment of old media.

*Allah has a real Columbo moment with the acronym "OETR." My main source on things military confirms this: "I have a half dozen OERs but I have never heard of OETR." (Link via Geraghty, who needs to get permalinks)

*Speaking of Geraghty, he has tons of poll news this morning. What does it all mean? Dales has the answers.

*My Pet Jawa has some background on Kitty Kelley. (via LlamaButchers).

*Funny Bushism in his speech to the National Guard (where he pointedly stated that "I respect and honor all of those who serve in the United States Armed Forces -- active, Guard, and Reserve."):

From its birth in the 1630s, the Guard protected the early colonists and helped win the War on Independence.

Um, wasn't that the war of or for Independence?

My law school classmate Orin Kerr comments on the CBS frenzy:

[L]et me see if I understand things correctly. A presidential election is less than two months away, and there is a war going on right now in Iraq. The war in Iraq raises profound questions about United States policy with regard to the Muslim world for decades to come. But instead of debating the war that is going on right now, we're debating the war records of the two candidates from more than three decades ago. Wait, no, that's too direct: we're debating one network's story about one candidate's war record from three decades ago. Wait, maybe that's too direct, too: we're debating the fonts on different typewriters that may or may not have been used to write a memo that led to a story about one candidate's war record from three decades ago. Yeah, that's pretty much it.

C'mon, folks: don't we have more important things to blog about?

Dan Drezner concurs. I see their point about the extent of the coverage, but:

(1) Most of us have blogged many angles of the Iraq war to death, especially the justifications for the war in the first place.

(2) Getting a good picture of the facts on the ground to blog about the war's continuing progress can be quite frustrating for the U.S.-based civilian observer. Part of the problem is that we are so heavily dependent on the media to give us an accurate picture of what is going on.

In that context, the fact that one of the three major networks - in a story immediately disseminated by many other media outlets (including on the front page of numerous newspapers) - is being exposed for having used forged documents, perhaps knowingly and almost certainly recklessly, in pursuit of what looks like a partisan and/or personal vendetta against the president, is tremendously important. The problems being revealed go to the heart of CBS' newsgathering and editorial decisionmaking practices, which in turn affects the credibility of the news we rely on to interpret so many other stories.

In a way, then, this is about the Iraq war. It's about everything.

(3) I'll add a third point: I can blog until I'm blue in the face about the Iraq war, as we all have, without doing much to change the world. But as with the Trent Lott story, the blogosphere has actually affected the course of this story. That's where the emphasis comes from - bloggers are always going to be most attracted to the stories on which they can actually have some impact or uncover some new facts.

(Of course, for some websites, this story is their sole reason for being).

Millionaire construction magnate and former Army Ranger Tim Michels yesterday won the Republican primary to challenge Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold. The Feingold-Michels race, in a critical swing state in the presidential race, promises to focus heavily on national security:

Michels, the only candidate in the race with military experience, also argued his background was critical in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

He ran an ad that featured the World Trade Center on fire to emphasize the dangers facing the United States and harshly criticized Feingold for his vote against the Patriot Act. The act broadened police powers to battle terrorism after the 2001 attacks.

“All of Congress came together to pass the Patriot Act except for Sen. Feingold,” Michels said.

Feingold has said he opposed the measure because it went too far in eroding civil liberties. Michels said that wasn’t an acceptable position in a time of terrorism.

“He voted no and that’s really all that counts in the end,” Michels said.

Yes, it's ironic to have a Republican, in this year of John Kerry, stressing his military record. But a military record remains a very good thing for a public official to have; it just can't be everything. Feingold's vote against the Patriot Act naturally invites a serious debate on the issue. It's also ironic to have a self-financed millionaire businessman running against one of the authors of the campaign finance reform bill that will only proliferate the number of such candidacies in the future.

Feingold remains favored to win, but polls have consistently shown that he was vulnerable; Michels will need to move fast to make an impression. Fortunately, Feingold called before the primary for five debates with the GOP nominee. I was a little disappointed here - I'd given money to Bob Welch (not the pitcher), a long-time Wisconsin state senator and conservative favorite. Either way, though, it will be a senate race to watch.

Greyhawk, who's headed off to Iraq (drop some cash in his tipjar to help out keeping his site live while he's deployed), catches even RatherBiased.com missing a chance to rip an inflated claim by CBS News about its role in publicizing the horrors at Abu Ghraib. (Link via Instapundit).

Wonkette, breaking with her usual practice, carries some actual political analysis from Charlie Cook of the National Journal (note that this is analysis someone else paid to get and then leaked to Wonkette):

Cook feels that the Kerry campaign has been overconfident. The Democrats should have attacked Bush on his weak points: the economy, health care and the deficit. Instead, they focused on Kerry's military past. Barack Obama's speech was terrific but didn't move ball forward at all for Kerry and was a waste of airtime. The Swift Boat attacks have been devastating for Kerry and he took too long to respond. As Cook put it, Kerry lost three pints of blood and you can only lose five before death. Kerry's campaign also looks a bit like Noah's ark, with everything in pairs: two consultants, two experts, etc. In contrast, Karl Rove can make a decision while shaving in the morning and have it executed before he pulls out of the driveway.

[snip]

In response to a question about Kerry's ability as a "closer," with the '96 campaign against William Weld typically cited as evidence, Cook was quite skeptical. He felt that Kerry does not have a history of running good campaigns. Bill Weld was a moderate running in a liberal state, during a time when Newt Gingrich and his crowd were running amok in Washington. Cook feels it was the worst environment for a Republican to run in. Rather than Kerry winning, Cook feels that Newt lost it for Weld. In addition, Kerry didn't win the Democratic nomination; rather, Dean and Gephardt killed each other, destroying each other like scorpions.

A savvy poiunt about Obama, who gave a speech that left us all feeling very good . . . about Barack Obama. (See here for my critique of the Democtrats' convention strategy, although I hadn't pointed the finger at Obama). I also liked the plug for Real Clear Politics and its averaged polls. The Kerry Spot (a daily must-read these days) has more free-premium-content gloom for Democrats with a link to this FreeRepublic post reprinting an analysis of congressional races by Roll Call's Stuart Rothenberg.

Eric McErlain takes apart one of the stupidest political arguments I have ever seen, this Bob Harris post at Tom Tomorrow's place showing a still photo of George W. Bush playing rugby at Yale and trying to make out Bush as some sort of dirty rugby player. I'm no expert on rugby, but it always seemed like one of those sports where the technical term for someone who never played dirty was "loser."

Anyway, I emailed Harris some time back - he never responded - to point to this David Pinto post:

[Peter] Gammons and Kerry played hockey against each other in prep school, and Peter told me once that Kerry was the dirtiest hockey player he ever saw.

Lesson: maybe you don't want to make this an issue. Although McErlain links back to a post where he quotes Denis Leary making Kerry out to be a weak-minded, vascillating showboat as a hockey player, at least in his later years. So who knows?

Anyway, the best line about the whole Bush rugby thing comes from a commenter at Michele's place back in mid-August:

It seems like absurdly too much effort to spend on a stupid 35-year old rugby picture, but I saw a post somewhere yesterday saying that, like a lot of sports action photos, it might not even be what it looks like at first glance. The implied physics of the picture (assuming Bush to be throwing a punch) would have Bush and his fist moving in opposite directions, not a great way to hit someone (but, hey, Bush is dumb, so that would fit, I suppose!)

And, of course, it's a devastating picture, ruining Bush's rugbycentric strategy, which he planned to kick off at the end of the convention when he'd be joined by a dozen former Yale rugby players, his "Band of Ruggers."

Heh.

Two more stories on the "AWOL"/medals issues, which I pass along without further comment:

*Vodkapundit notes the discovery of what at least purports to be John Kerry's after-action report on the engagement leading to the awarding of his Silver Star.

*A theory about some of the confusion in Bush's records and among the witnesses regarding his service in Alabama (Via Maguire).

Following up on an earlier post, a few diligent readers sent me links to this AP story observing that President Bush - unlike Senator Kerry - has raised a lot of money from baseball owners and, to a lesser extent, baseball players. Of course, given that a lot of these people know Bush personally from his days as owner of the Rangers, that's not all that surprising, nor is it surprising that the owners would, as a result, view Bush as being sympathetic to their interests.

Deacon at Powerline notes possible ways for CBS to feel the heat from its use of forged documents, including boycotts of their advertisers or FCC consequences. These are unrealistic and penalize innocent parties. The answer here is obvious. You are never going to get CBS or its affiliates off the air.

The goal - and one that's already been substantially advanced by this story - should be to convince other news outlets to view CBS News reports the way they currently view Drudge - as an indication of a possible story that requires further independent investigation, rather than something you can run with on tomorrow's Page One.

As we saw all too clearly on Thursday morning, a CBS News story is still seen by other news outlets, including the other networks' morning news shows and the major newspapers, as worthy of repeating without independent fact-checking. That is what needs to change.

As recently as five days ago, this, from Kevin Drum, was the motto of the Left in dealing with the dueling stories about (1) whether George Bush was given preferential treatment in joining the Texas Air National Guard and whether he fulfilled his service requirements to the TANG and (2) whether John Kerry earned bogus medals to get an early trip home from Vietnam:

This story is a perfect demonstration of the difference between the Swift Boat controversy and the National Guard controversy. Both are tales from long ago and both are related to Vietnam, but the documentary evidence in the two cases is like night and day. In the Swift Boat case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence indicates that Kerry's accusers are lying. Conversely, in the National Guard case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence provides additional confirmation that the charges against Bush are true.

As it turned out, of course, the documents Drum was discussing in that post were crude forgeries. Even apart from that, however, Drum is way off base in his analysis, as I'll discuss below. Now, we get a different tune from Matt Yglesias, who's been an unlikely bitter-ender in the forged-documents debate:

[S]eeing as how the White House hasn't bothered to allege that these are forgeries (George W. Bush being someone in a position to know, for example, whether or not Killian ever ordered him to take a physical George H.W. Bush [at a minimum] being someone in a position to know whether or not pressure was brought on Killian regarding the write-ups) I don't see a reason why CBS should need to produce a slam-dunk case. To have a real "he said, she said" she has to say something.

A third perspective comes from this comment by Oliver Willis (scroll down; it's in the comments section) that pretty well sums up the mindset of Willis, the rest of the Media Matters crowd and their ilk:

Frankly, my major beef with Bush is the dead soldiers in Iraq and the economic stupidity at home. All this other stuff is icing on the cake, if it sticks good, if not oh well. As long as its mud.

(You can see a similar approach in this DNC email and press conference Friday morning after the 60 Minutes documents had been fairly well exposed as frauds). Well, let's start with Drum's and Yglesias' points about the burdens of proof. And let's recognize the basic truth about these stories:

1. George W. Bush was paid by the TANG for a sufficient number of drills to meet all requirements, and was given an honorable discharge in 1973.

2. John Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts, the Silver Star and the Bronze Star by the United States Navy, was granted permission to leave Vietnam early, and was given an honorable discharge from the Navy Reserves in 1978.

So before we go talking about documents and witnesses, let's recognize that the official records of both the TANG and the Navy reflect decisions made at the time to credit Bush with the service and Kerry with the honors they claim today. So of course, the burden of proof is on their accusers, especially given that there is (now that the Killian memos have been revealed to have been frauds) no sign that anyone questioned Bush's service prior to, I believe, his 1994 race for governor of Texas, and that most (though not all) of the questions about Kerry's medals were aired for the first time in 2004. How do those cases stack up?

Read More »

Rich Lowry notes this, from a Washington Post story:

Aides say Kerry may soon apologize for some of his most heated comments during the Vietnam War protests of the early 1970s, a move that would rekindle the debate for a few more days.

The time to do that would be today, before the rally planned for Sunday in Washington, where thousands of Vietnam vets are planning to denounce Kerry. A little more from memory lane with Kerry's 1971 testimony will explain why:

Read More »

If you read political blogs other than this one, you have by now already seen some of the details of this story; it's such a perfect illustration of the speed with which the blogosphere can detect, analyze, and ultimately overwhelm a bogus story in the mainstream media. And it all started with one guy on a message board. Here's the timeline:

1. Stories about President Bush's National Guard service had been pushed very hard by the media back in February, but little new information had surfaced since then. Following a month of tough questions about John Kerry's Vietnam service, however, Democrats were desperate to put some heat back on the president. Enter Dan Rather, ever eager to move the ball against Republicans; "60 Minutes II" had a story in the works for some time built around an interview with Ben Barnes, a Texas Democrat who claimed he'd pulled strings to get Bush into the National Guard in 1968. Leaving aside the fact that Bush actually didn't need any help because there was no waiting list for people willing and able to spend a year learning to fly the F-102, Barnes has an obvious credibility issue: he's a high-ranking official with the Kerry campaign and is the campaign's third-largest donor/fundraiser.

Enter the memos: CBS pushed the fact that the story also included "newly discovered" documents from the files of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984 (dead men dispute no tales). Even before it aired, lefty bloggers like Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum started hyping the fact that the story would be more than just Barnes. The documents weren't hugely damning, but they added just enough weight to some of the pre-existing theories about Bush avoiding a flight physical and getting favored treatment to keep the story moving. The story aired Wednesday evening. In apparent coordination, the New York Times and Boston Globe on Wednesday released new high-profile stories including a retired military officer's analysis that had apparently been in the works since at least February (more on that one later).

2. Having been launched by CBS, the story took off immediately, with none of the slow-boil skepticism that had been applied to bona fide eyewitness accounts of Kerry's service. Thursday morning, the Times, the Washington Post and the New York Daily News all ran CBS' documents story on the front page. ABC's The Note aptly summarized the instant media feeding frenzy (links omitted):

Bush's National Guard records played big on all the morning shows. Nothing new was reported, though we did enjoy the spirited exchange between titans James Carville and Tucker Eskew.

ABC's Terry Moran's wrap of Bush's military Guard records was the first stand alone package in GMA. Moran included sound from White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett claiming Ben Barnes was acting "on behalf of John Kerry" and reported in his live close that Lt. Col. Jerry Killian wrote in one memo that "I'll back-date, but won't rate," a statement that "raises the possibility that Bush's military records were falsified."

CBS' Bill Plante's wrap led the "Early Show." Plante reported that the White House says Bush did not have to take the annual physical exam he never showed up for because the Alabama National Guard did not have the kind of airplane Bush was flying. Plante also reported that the White House says they are trying to get all of his records released.

NBC's Carl Quintinilla wrapped both Kerry's and Bush's Wednesdays within the "Today" newsblock, focusing on Kerry first then reporting nothing new on Bush's Guard records. Quintinilla was the only one to include the new "Texans for Truth" ad featuring former Alabama Air National Guard Lieutenant Bob Mintz claiming he didn't remember Bush being there.

The New York Times and the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune and USA Today wrap the days' developments. LINK, LINK, LINK, and LINK

The Boston Globe 's Robinson and Latour ran the "60 Minutes" documents by military officers who said it "contain[ed] evidence that political influence may have come into play as he sidestepped his training requirements in his final two years of service, from May 1972 until May 1974." LINK

"Bush's service has been in dispute for years because of a six-month gap in 1972 that has not been fully explained by military records. Repeated news reports and document releases by the White House and Pentagon have not settled the question," writes James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times. LINK

Rainey's last graph calls the Globe's Wednesday "scoop" into question:

"Two retired officers interviewed by The Times on Wednesday and familiar with National Guard procedures differed as to whether Bush was still obligated, at that point, to check in with a unit in the Boston area."

The Washington Times looks at the Democrats' strategy. LINK

Rush Limbaugh calls it all a cheap media ploy. LINK

DeFrank, Meek, and Siemaszko of the New York Daily News report the Bush campaign was "rocked yesterday by allegations that the "Top Gun President was a substandard pilot who disobeyed a direct order while serving in the Texas Air National Guard." LINK

The big lefty bloggers jumped instantly into the breach, with Kevin Drum, Mark Kleiman and Oliver Willis, in posts too numerous to link here, calling Bush a criminal and a liar and accusing the Whiite House of a cover-up.

3. Before the papers had hit the stands, however, CBS had posted PDF copies of the documents online, however, and around 9pm Wednesday, one guy on a FreeRepublic.com message board was raising questions about their authenticity:

To: Howlin
Howlin, every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman.

In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used monospaced fonts.

I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old.

This should be pursued aggressively.

47 posted on 09/08/2004 8:59:43 PM PDT by Buckhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Now, the "freepers" have taken more than their share of guff over the years, and since I don't go there I can't vouch for whether the bad reputation is deserved. But on this one, all it took was one skeptical guy - one more, apparently, than works for Dan Rather (at least when it comes to anti-Bush stories).

4. At 7:51 AM Thursday morning, the Big Trunk over at Powerline - which may well be the best single conservative blog out there - simply posted a copy of the FreeRepublic post and asked whether the CBS memos were genuine. As soon as I saw that post, I knew this was a big story - and apparently, so did everyone else. Blog after blog started linking to it, emails poured in, and the Big Trunk started updating with thoughts from people all over the country who had experience with typewriters and computers and could tell the various telltale signs that this was a Microsoft Word document created on a laser printer rather than a genuine typewritten document. The incoming feedback really took off once the National Review Online linked to Powerline's analysis both at The Corner and the Kerry Spot. Typewriter museums (did you know such things existed?) were contacted, bloggers produced exact duplicates of the memo on Microsoft Word, forensic document experts were interviewed (see this INDC Journal post for a particularly in-depth treatment), people familiar with the technology and terminology available to the military in the early 70s weighed in. Dan Rather's most persistent critics jumped aboard. By late yesterday, the original Powerline post had over 250 trackbacks; by this morning, nearly 500.

5. Then, the breakout: around 3pm, the Drudge Report linked to the Powerline analysis, flooding the site with so much traffic it crashed. By 9pm, the Weekly Standard had a column out with this tidbit:

A spokeswoman for CBS, Kelly Edwards, said she was overwhelmed with phone calls and did not respond to specific requests for comment.

6. By this morning, the Washington Post and ABC News were running with the story - WaPo had it on the front page - of how CBS may have been duped, and Killian's own son was disputing the documents' authenticity. John Podhoretz was retracing some of the timeline in his NY Post column. And now, for all of Rather's eagerness to put some pressure on Bush, the heat will instead fall on CBS, which at last check was simply insisting that it adequately sourced its story.

In just a day, one citizen's skepticism shook CBS and reminded the major media outlets of the hazards of running with a story just because it came from one of their own. Ten years ago, they would have gotten away with it.

“In other wars, captured Americans subjected to the hell of an enemy prison were considered heroes. In other wars, they were not abandoned. In Vietnam , they were betrayed.”

“Little did the American prisoners of war imagine that half a world away events were conspiring to make their precarious situation even more desperate. That an American Naval Lieutenant after a 4-month tour of duty in Vietnam was meeting secretly in an undisclosed location in Paris with a top enemy diplomat. That this same lieutenant would later join forces with Jane Fonda to form an anti-war group of so-called Vietnam veterans, some of whom would be later discovered as frauds who never set foot on a battlefield. All this culminating in John Kerry’s Senate testimony that would be blared over loud speakers to convince our prisoners that back home they were being accused and abandoned. Enemy propagandists had found a new and willing accomplice.”

That's from Stolen Honor, a new documentary (independent of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth but featuring some of the same former POWs) expanding at length on the excesses of John Kerry's "war crimes" testimony and the harm it caused. Go here and see if you think these guys are just another bunch of lying, crooked Republican attack dogs. Just for one example of a guy who appears in "Stolen Honor" and has also supported the Swift Boat group, check out this bio on "Bud" Day, who doesn't strike me as the kind of guy you want challenging your activities in wartime:

Read More »

The "process" issues of a political campaign, in particular the "debate about debates," tends to bore me. But I do have one observation to offer. The Bush camp is floating a trial balloon about maybe only agreeing to two debates instead of three. My suspicion is that Bush is posturing about ducking a third debate so as to (1) signal to the press that he's winning (the underdog always wants more debates, so if the dynamic is Kerry pestering Bush for debates, the media will draw that conclusion) and (2) subtly lower expectations (Kerry can't simultaneously accuse him of being afraid to debate while building him up like Lou Holtz before the Navy game).

Of course, for this to work, the Democrats have to fall into Bush's trap and start complaining about Bush's reluctance to debate and pressuring him to do three debates. Fortunately, some of them, at least, are as knee-jerk predictable as monsters in a video game who fall for the same fake-out every single time. Go see Atrios and Oliver Willis fall right into the trap.

UPDATE: Mark Kleiman marches right into the trap as well. Where's Admiral Ackbar when you need him? These guys are just too easy.

SECOND UPDATE: For now, the Kerry camp sticks to the script:

[M]ake no mistake, George Bush is a skilled debater. In fact, he has never lost a debate in his entire political career.

"[T]he United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to."

But the French and the Germans, well, they'd go to war if we asked them nicely.

If you look at John Kerry's latest line of argument in yesterday's big Iraq speech, he gives a brief nod to the loss of life in Iraq:

More than 1,000 of America's sons and daughters gave their lives in service to our country. More than 1,000 sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters who will never come home to live the lives they dreamed of. We honor them, we pray for them and for their families, and we owe it to their memory and all our troops to do what's right in Iraq.

He clearly is tiptoeing around saying whether those 1,000 have given their lives in vain or for a noble cause. But he then spends the bulk of the speech griping about the bill:

America has paid nearly 90% of the bill in Iraq. Contrast that with the Gulf War, where our allies paid 95% of the costs.

George W. Bush's wrong choices have led America in the wrong direction in Iraq and left America without the resources we need here at home. The cost of the President's go-it-alone policy in Iraq is now $200 billion and counting. $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford after-school programs for our children. $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford health care for our veterans. $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford to keep the 100,000 new police we put on the streets during the 1990s.

This is a deeply morally offensive line of argument. The decision to go to war means the decision to sacrifice the lives of some number of our soldiers. That's a very grave decision. If the decision is worth making - if it is worth asking even one young man or woman to lay down his or her life for the greater good of the nation - it is petty and ungracious to complain about the bill. Yes, it's a lot of money. But it's only money. And if it's what needs to be done to win the war, then we who have asked for those sacrifices should spend that money without complaint. Think the war was a bad idea? Fine, tell us that. Want money for job training and after-school programs? Fine, tell us how you'll cut domestic spending, raise taxes or borrow money to pay for it. But don't dare tell us that we should pay for those things by haggling over the price of national security while our troops are dying in the field.

Krakow, Poland will rename a square after Ronald Reagan.

Since people are still pushing the "Bush was AWOL" story in the absence of any supporting evidence, and in particular any evidence that Bush was even required to show up for any drills in Alabama in 1972 after four years of extensive service in the Texas Air National Guard, it's worth noting for contrast that there seems to be an absence of evidence that John Kerry fulfilled his contractual commitment to drill with the Navy Reserves during the time when he was busy being an anti-war leader, meeting with Vietnamese Communists in secret, and running for Congress. Jon Henke at QandO pulls together some links, including an analysis concluding that "Kerry, while in violation of his contract . . . was not legally required to drill and hence not AWOL." Which would not bother me one bit. Does it bother those who nitpick at the last year of President Bush's service?

(PS - Go here and read through my prior link-filled analyses on the "AWOL Bush" charge, in particular these fourteen questions. While we're at it, see here and here (Links via QandO and Bill Hobbs) and here - QandO is really on top of these issues - regarding the fact that Bush didn't bypass anybody on a waiting list to get into the Texas Air National Guard because so few people were willing, able and qualified to spend a year training to fly the F-102. Finally, recall that John Edwards - like Dick Cheney - passed up the opportunity to enlist and go to Vietnam).

Mark Cuban, trying his hand at politics, makes a serious error regarding drug company profitability:

One of the great lies of all time is that we have to protect drug company profits. . . . That if [the government] doesn’t [protect drug companies from price controls], then the drug companies won’t invest money in new drugs, and as a result we won’t have the miracle cures, particularly those miracle cures that don’t ever offer a complete payback on the cost of developing them.

[snip]

Let’s get real here. The day I believe that argument is the day that CEOs of public drug companies don’t pay themselves, don’t have bonuses and don’t own stock in their companies.

They don’t run their companies to make a profit. They run their companies to make Wall Street happy, to push their stock prices up, and if they are lucky, to hit the jackpot personally.

They know that in order for their stock prices to go up, they have to sell the future. If all they have to sell is the cash flow from their existing base of drug patents, they have a problem. Could you imagine the CEO of a major drug company saying, “Well, we can’t come up with any new products, and our R&D isn’t really working, so we will just play out the patents on our drugs and pay out the cash to shareholders.” Yeah Right.

They will do just what they are doing now — keep on investing in their own R&D hoping they can hit a home run with new drugs, and when that doesn’t work, they will use their stock and cash to buy other companies that have better prospects. In all cases, they hope the results will propel their stock and their own net worth.

They aren’t going to change how they do business at all. Won’t happen. CEOs are a competitive bunch. You don’t get to run a major corporation by not being motivated to succeed. A measure of that success is personal wealth.

As long as CEOs and those around them want to be rich, we can change the laws regarding drug pricing and nothing at all will change…Nothing.

This is a perfect example of how a smart businessman can believe a stupid idea when it comes to politics. Cuban is right, of course, about the kind of motivations that make executives tick - like any other worker, they work to make their companies profitable because they are given incentives to do so, not out of some abstract love for their shareholders. And he's right that, if drug companies realized tomorrow that they could no longer expect future profits from large R&D layouts, executives would be loath to become doomsaying pessimists about their own companies.

But what would really happen is right under Cuban's nose, and he misses it: what does a company do when it realizes that its current business is throwing off profits that can't sustain in the future? Well, the most common response is what Cuban himself suggests: "use their stock and cash to buy other companies that have better prospects." In other words, diversify.

Which is precisely the point: if R&D in new drugs starts looking like a bad gamble, sooner or later drug company CEOs will devote more of their available resources to acquiring companies who do other things than invest in drug R&D, and less to that R&D. And, in the long run, we'll have fewer drugs produced. Not none; that goose won't stop laying golden eggs entirely. But the natural response of CEOs who want to stay successful will be to migrate their companies' capital investments away from a low-margin business. And we'll all suffer.

Kerry supporters have been howling since the Republican convention (see this EJ Dionne column on Zell Miller's speech for an example) that Republicans were somehow dishonest for suggesting that a Kerry Administration would subordinate its judgment to that of the UN or let decisions to protect U.S. national security be held up by the French.

In a lot of ways, this is classic Kerry non-definition: the man spends nearly all his energies (including those spent on Vietnam, which is deployed in the service of this endeavor) trying to explain what he doesn't stand for rather than what he does ("that dog won't hunt"). Let's see if we can unpack Kerry's semi-current Iraq position on its own terms and see if I can explain precisely why I find these cries of outrage - and, indeed, Kerry's entire position on the Iraq war - so spectacularly disingenuous.

1. Was Iraq A Sufficient Threat To U.S. National Security To Justify War? The Bush Administration and other war supporters made many arguments about the nature of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to our national security (see here and here for some of my own thoughts on the subject), ranging from his pursuit of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction to his ties to international terrorists to broader arguments about his role in the region.

There is a coherent argument - albeit one I regard as dangerously irresponsible - to the effect that Saddam's regime was not a threat, and there are those who dispute particular items in the Administration's bill of particulars against him. But Kerry has not renounced his prior conclusion - underlying his vote in favor of authority to use force against Saddam's regime - that the regime posed such a threat. Despite generalized blather about "misleading the nation into war," Kerry has never, to my knowledge, made a serious effort to attack the factual underpinnings of the Administration's case, something that would be particularly difficult to do on the WMD issue given his own and Edwards' prior statements on the issue. He hasn't tried to deny Saddam's ties to terrorist groups and provision of safe haven to terrorists; that's a place Kerry, wisely, doesn't want to go.

2. Could Steps Short of War Have Removed The Threat or Revealed It To Be Overstated? Another of the "process" arguments before the war, and emphasized by some critics since, is that if the weapons inspectors or sanctions had been given more time, we would have discovered an absence of weapons - and not gone to war - or would have found some other way to defuse the multifaceted threat posed by Saddam's regime. Kerry has also not attempted to pursue this argument, perhaps recognizing the foolishness of arguing that we could at some point have taken Saddam's word - or the word of the inspectors he was actively working to deceive - that he was cooperating with inspections (when there's been substantial evidence since the war that he was doing anything but), and perhaps simply recognizing that Kerry would look foolish if he renounced his own war vote. Instead, Kerry has admitted that, even knowing what he knows now, he would have voted the same way. In other words, for all his arguments that war was unnecessary, Kerry hasn't made any effort to convince the public that the reasons he cited for voting in favor of war would or could have been resolved short of war.

3. Should We Have Waited For More Allies? Instead, Kerry's main argument has been that (1) we went to war without sufficient support from our allies and (2) things would have gone better, and easier, for us if we had waited to get that support. Of course, given what we now know about weapons inspections - i.e., that inspectors were never going to unearth a "smoking gun" - it is entirely implausible to suggest that "more time" would have resulted in a larger coalition. What was going to happen to change the minds of the war's critics? If the 12-year history of the conflict shows anything, it's that prolonging confrontations inevitably leads to fissures in the coalition encircling Saddam. Delay would only have led more of the allies to walk away from war.

In short . . . Kerry's position on the war, at least as set forth in his convention speech and some of his other efforts to explain it, amounts to this: we needed more allies, we shouldn't have gone to war without them . . . but we weren't getting them. If that's not a veto in the hands of our "allies," specifically those (France, Germany, Russia and China) with seats on the UN Security Council or leading positions in NATO, what is? (Howard Dean on Bill Maher's show the other night was focusing this point on Iraq's neighbors, but let's not pretend that any more Arab states would have lined up to give public support to the war).

P.S. - Of course, all this is an analysis of Kerry's position on the war as of his speech to the Democratic Convention, not the Howard Dean imitation he's now peddling. Bill Kristol notes that Kerry's current position is one he previously saw as so irresponsible as to disqualify one from high office:

JOHN KERRY said yesterday that Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Translation: We would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power.

Not an unheard of point of view. Indeed, as President Bush pointed out today, it was Howard Dean's position during the primary season. On December 15, 2003, in a speech at the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles, Dean said that "the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer." Dean also said, "The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at the extraordinary cost, so far, of $166 billion."

But who challenged Dean immediately? John Kerry. On December 16, at Drake University in Iowa, Kerry asserted that "those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

Kerry was right then.

In the pantheon of bad ideas: someone in the Kerry campaign deciding to call John McCain, one of the few Republicans who's had some nice things to say about Kerry, a liar. Powerline has the details and notes that cooler heads have (for now) prevailed.

If Bush's campaign did this to McCain, even for part of a day, the president would be hounded about it to his grave.

UPDATE: The relentless Captain Ed saved a cached copy of the page from Kerry's site. McCain's listed at #10-13:

Read More »

The Minute Man:

Kerry has missed at least half the point about the Swiftees - rebutting the truth or falsity of their claims is only a part of the story. John Edwards said to the convention something the Swiftees repeated in their first ad - if you want to know about the character of John Kerry, ask the men who served with him.

Well, even if the 200 Swiftees are lying, what does it say about Kerry's character that 200 of his fellow officers and sailors would come out of the woodwork and lie, cheat, and steal to keep him out of the White House? . . .

Dole made a related point with his "they can't all be lying Republicans"; some of the public probably figures, where there's smoke, there's fire.

And I don't have an answer for that, BTW. But proving the Swiftees "wrong" is not really the point - the point is, the guys Edwards would said would vouch for Kerry loathe him.

Of course, the truth or falsity of the claims about Kerry's medals certainly matter, although the Swift Vets' second charge - that Kerry betrayed and libelled them by his 1971 Senate testimony and by his secret negotiations with the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong while still an officer in the Navy Reserve - isn't subject to much in the way of factual disputes. And, as both Maguire and Captain Ed point out, there are still plenty of factual areas in which the Swifties or have either scored a hit or still have a ball in the air.

But Maguire's main point underscores why the Kerry camp has been so desperate to paint these guys as having been bought and paid for by the GOP - if the story is just "bitter ex-Vietnam colleagues smear Kerry," that's still bad for him. It's why Kerry can't just laugh it off and say, "well, it was a long time ago and people's memories always differ about things that happen in combat." It's why, in effect, Kerry can't let anyone believe that these 200+ Navy combat veterans are men of any honor at all, anything but cheap whores bought off for a pittance.

Which is not, to put it mildly, the posture you want as a candidate who's a putative champion of veterans. And certainly not if you're a candidate who said worse things yet about your military brethren all those years ago.

You know, on watching the Democratic and GOP Conventions, a parallel occurred to me to explain why the Democrats, despite having a modestly well-received and tightly-disciplined convention, weren't nearly as successful as the Republicans. You see, putting together a good convention is sort of like assembling a good US Olympic basketball team.

The Democrats, like the US Olympians, started with a decent foundation: a two-time champion (Bill Clinton, Tim Duncan) and a guy with few accomplishments but much talent and potential (Barack Obama, LeBron James). But, like the US Olympic team with the likes of Stephon Marbury and Allen Iverson, the Democrats overloaded their dias with guys who were there more because they were big names and big egos than because they fit into a gameplan to win the fight they're engaged in. Thus, Al Gore. Thus, Jimmy Carter. Thus, Ted Kennedy. And, like the Olympians, they then sent these guys up there in circumstances (in the Dems' case, a stern warning against anger and full-throated Bush-bashing) in which they couldn't even play to their strengths.

The GOP had no such problem. Former presidents Bush and Ford and Bob Dole, the last three guys to lose a national election for the GOP? Love ya, guys, but no invite to the podium. Prominent congressional leaders like Hastert, DeLay, Frist, Santorum? All were deemed bad speakers (Hastert), too controversial (DeLay, Santorum) or both (Frist), and buried in the early evening or not asked to speak. Party maverick John McCain, liberal Republicans Giuliani and Schwarzenegger and Democratic defector Zell Miller? Asked to step up but limited to playing a role, setting up the president's message in the areas where they agreed with him. About the only "vanity" appearance that went over poorly was Bush's daughters.

The Democrats put on too many of their All-Stars without regard to how those guys would advance the ball with swing voters, yet kept them too muted (unlike Miller) to fire up the base. The GOP ensured that everyone at the Convention was there to set up the big man. That's a team - it's winning basketball, and it's winning politics too.

The Kerry Spot at NRO quotes this Rueters dispatch:

The Massachusetts senator, who has said he would have voted to give Bush the authority to use force if necessary against Saddam Hussein even if he had known at the time that the Iraqi leader had no weapons of mass destruction, has struggled to draw clear contrasts with the president.

"I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq," Kerry said.

He denied that he was "Monday morning quarterbacking." The Bush campaign said Kerry had "demonstrated nothing but indecision and vacillation" on Iraq."

"I said this from the beginning of the debate to the walk up to the war," Kerry told supporters. "I said, Mr. President don't rush to war, take the time to build a legitimate coalition and have a plan to win the peace."

He said Bush had failed on all three counts. He called the president's talk about a coalition fighting alongside about 125,000 U.S. troops "the phoniest thing I've ever heard."

"You've about 500 troops here, 500 troops there and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war," he said. "It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Update your scorecards accordingly.

UPDATE: The Bush campaign makes a point I had thought of and Googled but couldn't pin down a quote for: that Kerry's "wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time" line is verbatim from Howard Dean's stump speech (Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd have also used the same line). Yearrrrgggggh!

“In an expansive conversation, Mr. Clinton, who is awaiting heart surgery, told Mr. Kerry that he should move away from talking about Vietnam, which had been the central theme of his candidacy…”

Here's what I wrote June 17, 2003:

Let's face it: there's really nothing the Democrats can do to defeat George W. Bush in 2004. Which is not to say he can't be beaten, just that what can do him in is mostly a combination of external circumstances (the economy, setbacks in the war) and missteps by the Administration. The only Democrat I'd feared in terms of his ability to create his own buzz independent of pre-existing anti-Bush sentiment was John Edwards, but Edwards increasingly looks like just a pretty face who's in over his head.

57 days from Election Day, the dynamics of the race have not changed. Bush can still screw up (think of Ford in 76 freeing Poland in the debates), and external events can still do him in. But with a bit of a lead going (probably not the 11-point lead in the Time/Newsweek polls, but perhaps a real 3- to 5-point lead) I really don't think there's anything Kerry can do to change the dynamics. Kerry missed his chance at the convention to lay out a positive or coherent agenda, or clarify his position on the Iraq war; after the convention, it's nearly impossible to do another reinvention of the candidate. All Kerry has left is that he intends to attack Bush harder - but really, where can he go that he and Howard Dean and Michael Moore and MoveOn.org haven't covered already? That way lies only deeper into the fever swamps. Were I Kerry's advisers, I'd tell him to keep his dignity and hope the other guy screws up. But Kerry wants to believe he can still win this himself, and that will be his undoing; the harder he thrashes about, the more leeway he gives Bush in case Bush winds up needing it.

The NY Daily News reports that an independent pro-Bush group, "MoveOnForAmerica[, ]led by GOP political consultant Stephen Marks", is preparing to run two controversial ads. The first targets the Democrats' embrace of Al Sharpton:

In the Sharpton ad, Kerry is seen shaking hands and embracing the black leader and a narrator asks grimly what role he might have in a Kerry administration.

[snip]

In the Sharpton spot, the narrator accuses Sharpton of blaming the U.S. for the 9/11 attacks, calling Adolf Hitler "a great man," urging college students to kill cops and indirectly instigating a fatal fire at a Jewish-owned store in Harlem.

Fair enough - it's one thing for a party to put a Jesse Jackson or a Pat Robertson on stage, but giving Sharpton a prime-time slot and a nod in Kerry's acceptance speech . . . well, if the GOP did the same for David Duke, they'd deserve what they got. Of course, this is of dubious political wisdom, since the media will want to spin this as playing the race card (as opposed to the racist card) in ways they didn't when the NAACP ran those infamous ads against Bush in 2000. Which is bad; Bush has gone out of his way to avoid racial division, and is banking on Kerry having problems matching Al Gore's turnout of black voters in 2000.

The second ad is just bad:

[I]t invokes the name of Willie Horton, the African-American inmate who raped and tortured a suburban couple while on furlough from a Massachusetts prison.

Which might be a fair point, except the Horton-furlough case didn't happen while Kerry was Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor. Instead, the 'hook' is this:

In the new ad, a narrator says that in 1982, Kerry, as a private attorney, "successfully overturned the conviction of his client George Reissfelder," who had escaped in '74 while on furlough - "just like Willie Horton."

When Reissfelder was captured three years later, he tried to grab a cop's gun. The ad says he tried to shoot a police officer and pleaded guilty to that, but didn't serve his 15-year sentence.

His sentence, however, had nothing to do with the case that Kerry worked on with his law partner, Roanne Sragow, who was the lead attorney.

Sragow had been assigned by a judge to look into Reissfeld's '67 murder conviction - which turned out to be wrongful.

The ad admits he was cleared but calls him a "would-be cop killer," and points out Kerry was Dukakis' lieutenant governor.

This is precisely the sort of thing that Judge Frank Easterbrook has rightly decried when the Democrats have done it in judicial confirmation hearings:

I am especially distressed about a recent development in the nomination and confirmation process: holding against nominees the positions taken in litigation. It used to be understood that lawyers serve as advocates and make arguments in the interests of clients. It is not that we trust newly appointed judges to leave their old views behind them; the mind doesn't work that way. But statements in briefs are not the lawyers' "own" views to begin with (when in the SG's Office I filed briefs taking positions that I would not have supported as a judge).

It is bad enough to assume that a scholar who writes an article opposing rent control would automatically think as a judge that rent control is unconstitutional--the subjects are unrelated--but terrible to assume that a lawyer who (say) represents persons accused of committing securities fraud would then favor securities fraud while on the bench. Nonsense. Ex-prosecutors on the bench acquit defendants; former defense lawyers appointed to the bench convict defendants; proponents of public support for religious instruction still apply the Establishment Clause after appointment; and so on. There is a nasty side effect of condemning the lawyer on the client's account: ambitious lawyers will shy away from representing controversial clients. And as almost any cause or client can be depicted as controversial from some perspective... Do we really want this?

It's true that some clients are so vile they don't deserve a distinguished attorney's best efforts; I could imagine people I would refuse to represent. But the fact is, we shouldn't punish Kerry for representing a criminal defendant - especially when the guy may have been innocent and especially when it was his partner's client. And, of course, invocation of Horton's name will blunt the effect of the first ad, which at least seeks to make a legitimate issue of someone the Democrats should have denounced a long time ago.

Ralph Peters, a former Army officer who's been a staunch supporter of Bush's strategic approach to the war on terror while fiercely criticizing Don Rumsfeld for what Peters views as an insufficient commitment to put "boots on the ground," tears into John Kerry's speech to the American Legion like there's no tomorrow. Some choice quotes:

John Kerry made his most disgraceful speech since he lied about atrocities to Congress three decades ago. By making promises he doesn't mean and can't keep, he tried to buy the votes of American veterans.

Had he offered each vet a $5 bill and a shot of whisky for their support, his performance could not have been shabbier.

From one Vietnam vet:

"A Kerry defeat would be the welcome-home parade we never had."

On the insurgency in Iraq:

Kerry said we should never go to war without a plan to win the peace. Agreed. But where was he 18 months ago, when such a criticism could have made a difference?

On Kerry's claim to have been fighting all along for veterans' benefits:

The only veterans' benefit young John Kerry fought for was the right of vets to be spit upon in public.

Read the whole thing.

Check out RedState's interview with Bret Schundler, the man who lost to Jim McGreevey in 2001 and may yet be in line to win the New Jersey Governorship.

Best wishes, of course, on a full recovery to Bill Clinton, who'll be having heart bypass surgery early next week. In the immortal words of Mark Steyn, "if we members of the vast right-wing conspiracy don't get back to our daily routine of obsessive Clinton-bashing, then the terrorists will have won." And in all seriousness, Clinton is - by the standards of the 2002-04 Democratic Party - a voice of reason in foreign affairs.

The Wall Street Journal's Holman Jenkins, in the subscription-only Political Diary (a must this season, I would add) had an important point about how current methods of governmental accounting obscure the real costs of transitioning Social Security to a private accounts system:

Point One: A promise to bondholders increases the deficit and the debt. A promise to future retirees doesn't.

Point Two: That's the kind of accounting peculiarity that, in the private sector, leads straight to the hoosegow. Thus the reported national debt is about $3 trillion, but the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security alone are $11 trillion.

[snip]

The White House itself first put $1 trillion in play as the transition cost, but when measured in light of the $14 trillion indebtedness above, the figure is less impressive than it sounds. More importantly, we're talking about a "refinancing" here -- that is, trading an IOU held by future Social Security beneficiaries (due in, say, 30 years) for an IOU held by bondholders (due in, say, 30 years).

No change in the real net fiscal position of the federal government would be required, just an exchange of invisible (to the uninformed public) debt for visible debt. Better yet, done right, the deal could be a fiscal win-win: Future retirees would have a bigger nest egg (plus ownership and control of how they spend it down, rather than the government dictating terms of their bet with the mortality tables). Meanwhile, the real indebtedness of the federal government would actually go down, not up.

When you tinker with some of the present-value issues - which are beyond my expertise, I can tell you - I suspect the transition from spend-as-you-go to spend-and-borrow-in-exchange-for-cutting-future-obligations is not quite as costless as Jenkins makes it sound, but his fundamental analysis does make an important point about the degree to which the media overstates by orders of magnitude the nature of the transition costs. To my mind, if the transition is something that gives us a better system and fewer long-term costs to taxpayers, then it's worth incurring some additional costs now to put the system on a better footing in the long run.

Does Bush pay Kerry for pictures like this?

Bush's speech, I thought, was solid; it lacked a single huge flourish that would bring the crowd to a frenzy (the way, say, Zell Miller did with his "spitballs" line), but it didn't need to be poetry; it needed to tell people what Bush intends to do in the next four years, particularly on domestic policy; and it did just that. Bush needed to get first downs, not throw the Hail Mary pass, so to speak. He said, "Tonight I will tell you where I stand, what I believe, and where I will lead this country in the next four years." And he delivered it.

*Bush seemed to shrug a bit too often during the speech - it's a mannerism of his, but he seemed to use it a lot.

*Bush did a good job, I thought, of drawing together a single coherent theme to his various proposed reforms:

The times in which we live and work are changing dramatically. The workers of our parents’ generation typically had one job, one skill, one career often with one company that provided health care and a pension. And most of those workers were men. Today, workers change jobs, even careers, many times during their lives, and in one of the most dramatic shifts our society has seen, two-thirds of all Moms also work outside the home.

This changed world can be a time of great opportunity for all Americans to earn a better living, support your family, and have a rewarding career. And government must take your side. Many of our most fundamental systems the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, worker training were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow. We will transform these systems so that all citizens are equipped, prepared and thus truly free to make your own choices and pursue your own dreams.

*This one puzzled me:

In this time of change, opportunity in some communities is more distant than in others. . . . [W]e will create American opportunity zones. In these areas, we’ll provide tax relief and other incentives to attract new business, and improve housing and job training to bring hope and work throughout all of America.

Aren't these called Enterprise Zones? What's Jack Kemp doing these days, anyway?

*I credit Bush's attack on Kerry's desire to raise taxes and to raise spending, but Bush would have a bit more credibility on the latter if he hadn't overspent so much the past four years and if there weren't so many places in the speech where I was holding on to my wallet. Show me the spending cuts!

*There are a lot of damning Kerry quotes to choose from; Bush picked two particularly good ones by honing in on the pot shot at Reagan (eight years of “moral darkness,” ) and the more egergious pot shots at our allies (“coalition of the coerced and the bribed.”). Both embody Kerry's sneering contempt in a way that can't play well with independent or undecided voters.

*Like Cheney and - from what I could see on TV - unlike Kerry, Bush knew to stop for a drink of water during his liveliest applause lines.

*If you couldn't tell at home, a few of the times when the crowd started chanting "Four More Years" in the middle of something Bush was saying - particularly during the section where he was contrasting the nations that have turned to cooperation in the war on terror - were efforts to shout down the protestors who got in (one of whom held up one of those infantile "Bush Lied People Died' signs - if it didn't ryhme, who would listen?). It definitely did interrupt the flow of the speech, but anyone who thinks this sort of thing will help Kerry defeat Bush needs to get out of Manhattan more. It should hardly bear reminding that even the furthest right wackos never tried to interrupt Kerry's or one of Bill Clinton's convention speeches. Fools.

*I thought the end of the speech went on too long, and there may have been a better place for the jokes. But Bush does self-deprecating humor quite well; it's one of his biggest contrasts with Kerry, who had almost no humor in his speech and who seems to have little or no ability to poke fun at himself (quite the contrary). That's a bigger distinction than it seems. And it's a bad one for Kerry; even Al Gore knew how to mock himself.

*Kerry's response was so predictable it could have been pre-programmed - he accused Republicans of (yawn) attacking his patriotism (Rueters, of course, took this unquestioningly as true) and then (yawn, stretch, rub eyes) on to Vietnam:

I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.

Speaking of Iraq, I had no problem with Bush not doing more to explain the ins and outs of the decision to go to war. 'Splainin' is for the debates, when Kerry will have to face questions on the same issues.

UPDATE: Is it too much blog triumphalism to point out that, before bloggers started digging up stuff like this, the President of the United States would not have used a 1946 New York Times article in a speech to the nation?

I was back at the convention last night. Thoughts:

*Man, we are so gonna win this thing. I've been holding off on the optimism for much of the spring and summer, but the contrasts between Bush and Kerry, from their personalities to the professionalism and discipline of their campaign operations, is all saying "victory" at this point in the game. I think Kerry needs a major external event to turn around that dynamic.

*Across the street from Penn Station, which runs under Madison Square Garden, is Macy's; Macy's has a big video screen that runs ads. When I arrived for the convention around 7pm, the video screen was running the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad with Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony.

*It occurred to me that Zell Miller missed an opportunity in his riff on the Democrats' war dissent: besides Wendell Willkie, he might also have referred to Bill Clinton not challenging George H.W. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. The contrast would have been sharp, since Kerry opposed that war too and since it would have helped Zell underscore how a 1992 Clinton supporter became a 2004 Bush supporter. Then again, Clinton didn't quite support that war, either, so much as he ignored it because it was a dead issue by 1992.

*There are some things you can't do. You can't beat Democrats by promising to spend money. And you can't beat Republicans by wrapping yourself in the flag.

And yet, in a sense, it's almost beside the point for Bush to wrap himself in the flag. For a lot of Republicans, Bush is the flag - maybe not Old Glory, but at least the battle flag in the War on Terror. Bush has laid out a distinct and aggressive approach to fighting terror, most notably the doctrine of preemption, the "forward strategy of freedom" in the Muslim and Arab worlds, the "axis of evil," and the "Bush Doctrine" (you're with us or against us). Because of the root-and-branch nature of so much of his opponents' criticism of this approach, it has come to be identified worldwide with the person of Bush, and his defeat at the polls this fall would be identified everywhere with a rejection of these cornerstones of American foreign policy. Thus, if Bush goes down, it is very much the fall of the flag in battle - our enemies will exult, and our friends will worry about our commitment. Democrats may regard that as a harsh truth, but it's hard indeed to avoid it.

*The house was packed as it was not on Wednesday, and the delegations on the floor were far better organized in neat circular lines. I don't know if the folks at home could see the group - they had to be Texans - all sitting together with the red, white and blue matching outfits and white cowboy hats.

*The early speakers (former Texas railroad commissioner Michael Williams, Florida Senate candidate Mel Martinez) got more attention froim the crowd than last time, but they didn't have much new to say. During Martinez' speech I saw my first "Jeb '08" sign. It didn't look hand-made, either.

*Pataki's 9/11-heavy opening was cringe-inducing, but he warmed up as he slid into attacks on Kerry. He was wearing too much makeup, I think.

Then, the main event: the president's speech.

Through the efforts of a friend, I managed to get into the Republican convention last night, and will be returning tonight. A few thoughts on the evening:

*I only had to go through security twice to get in; although security was wall-to-wall and very observant and had closed off many of the numerous approaches to MSG and Penn Station, the actual run through the metal detectors didn't seem as intrusive as the usual routine at airports and courthouses.

*My convention pass got me access to the press area behind the scenes, which means going past booths/tents filled with people from all the recognizable major media outlets, from newspapers like the New York Daily News to opinion journals like the Weekly Standard. But I wanted to see Bloggers Row, and eventually I followed the signs for the media until I got to Radio Row, where numerous radio stations are set up and broadcasting side by side. The blogger contingent was set up at a long patch of table off to the side - a small area crammed with laptops, but well-situated and visible. I was surprised at how many people were dropping by to see the bloggers, some of whom were quite smooth at setting up interviews. I got to meet all sorts of bloggers I had been in contact with by email but never met, including Alan Nelson from the Command Post, "Captain" Ed Morrissey from Captain's Quarters, Kevin Aylward from Wizbang!, Matt Margolis from Blogs for Bush, and David Adesnik from Oxblog. Roger Simon was probably the most recognizable in his trademark fedora. I also spoke with Hugh Hewitt, who had just wrapped up his radio show with an interview with John Fund; Hewitt is set up right across the aisle from the bloggers and is most gracious in person.

*Michael Barone dropped by the bloggers' area; there's a skill level involved in being a really high-level pundit that's truly impressive. Barone was peppered with questions from all sides and poured forth high-level punditry pretty much continuously, and was still doing so in a crowd when he headed away, talking about everything from the effect of down-ticket races (he cited Adlai Stevenson's gubernatorial campaign as particularly crucial to Harry Truman's re-election in 1948, complete with references to the number of electors Illinois had in that year) to the effects of abortion on national politics (he thinks Giuliani is such a star that we may see the first pro-choice GOP nominee in 2008). Barone reminded me of nobody so much as legal scholar Richard Epstein, who I met at a Federalist Society conference in law school, and who had a similar gift for rapid-fire extemporaneous opinions on every topic that passed his way.

*After that, I moved into the arena. A convention is a political junkie's dream come to life; there were familiar faces from the media and politics just everywhere, and if I was more aggressive about these things I could easily have struck up a few interviews (on one of the entrances to the Garden I was on line behind Alan Keyes). From my perch in the arena I could see interviews going on with Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich, and watched Barone (again) and Candy Crowley and Rudy working the floor.

*Someone with a sense of humor set up the Al Jazeera booth right next to Fox News.

*The first two speeches I saw were Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey introducing her boss, Mitt Romney. Romney got a very warm reception, but it wasn't 10pm yet, and the crowd clearly was not into the early speeches; Healey in particular seemed to be shouting enthusiastically into an empty room. Same-sex marriage? not popular with Republican delegates. Healey's biggest applause line was her reference to how Romney "stood up to an activist court" to protect "traditional values." She did also draw a little reaction by noting that John Kerry doesn't talk much about when he was Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor under Michael Dukakis. Romney's speech seemed just wasted; he told a moving anecdote about a U.S. Olympic athlete who carried the tattered World Trade Center flag at the 2002 Games in Salt Lake City, but nobody seemed to be paying attention.

*Then, John Kerry was given Zell. Zell Miller is not a guy you want coming after your candidate, as I remember well from 1992. I was surprised that Miller's speech (1) didn't do more to set out his Democratic bona fides (as he's done in op-eds for the Wall Street Journal) and (2) focused entirely on foreign policy. My wife, watching at home - after having seen Rudy and McCain Monday but skipped most of Tuesday - was worried that the convention has been too overwhelmingly focused on national security to the exclusion of domestic policy, although I suspect that that is partly to help set the stage for President Bush to set out his Big Idea agenda tonight (as Bush told Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday when asked about his domestic agenda, "I'm going to save some of it for the speech if you don't mind."). Miller's comparison of the Democrats of today to Wendell Willkie was rough stuff - the common Democratic complaint is that Bush has played politics with national security, but really, if the Dems had been as supportive of the Iraq war as they were in Afghanistan, the war on terror would be a much smaller issue. More on this another day, but it's precisely because of the political battles over foreign policy that this is such a predominant issue this year, to the point that convention delegates seemed bored during the domestic policy parts of Cheney's speech.

My wife worried that Miller came off as too harsh, and he was certainly rough: after he said, "nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators," I half expected him to add, "Senator, you messed with the wrong Marine!"

Miller had a field day with Kerry's opposition to various weapons systems, climaxing with "This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?" My wife said Miller was less prepared to deal with CNN interviewers later who pressed him with DNC talking points about how Dick Cheney as Defense Secretary had not pressed for some of those systems. That's poor preparation: this has been a Democratic talking point for months, and if you take the record seriously it's hard to put much stock in the notion that Kerry and Dick Cheney have similar records on defense spending and weapons systems. (This particular talking point is vintage Kerry; his campaign isn't willing or able to tell you what Kerry stands for, but is instead obsessed with trying to disprove anything that's said about his record).

This was also a good passage, tying together the long years of Kerry's vascillations on foreign policy and blunting his efforts to hide behind his Vietnam service:

For more than twenty years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure. As a war protestor, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far-away. George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday’s war. George Bush believes we have to fight today’s war and be ready for tomorrow’s challenges.

*Then, Lynne Cheney, who told us that her husband "entered public life as the Gentleman from Wyoming." I know it's too long ago to be worth explaining the relevance to today of Cheney's term as White House Chief of Staff under Gerald Ford, but is it too much to ask his own wife to remember that he held the job?

*As for the Vice President, he was low-key as always. I was actually sitting next to Cheney's speechwriters, which was amusing, since they knew exactly what was coming and were chattering about various passages in the speech as it went along. His speech started with the much-underappreciated fact that Cheney himself, despite his current image as the Mr. Moneybags guy from Monopoly, is from relatively humble origins: "my grandfather didn’t have a chance to go to high school. For many years he worked as a cook on the Union Pacific Railroad, and he and my grandmother lived in a railroad car."

Many of Cheney's lines were repeats of things he or Bush have said before, which was disappointing on one level, but a sign of both the consistency and the marketing savvy of the Bush team - they understand the importance of recycling key phrases to reinforce the public's image of what they stand for. (And, having done so, they don't blame those key phrases on "overzealous speechwriters").

Cheney told us that Libya's "uranium, centrifuges, and plans for nuclear weapons that were once hidden in Libya are locked up and stored away in Oak Ridge, Tennessee . . . " Gee, should he have just given us a street address? I sure hope they are well-guarded.

The foreign policy section of the speech bored heavily into Kerry, in classic Cheney fashion:

The President’s opponent is an experienced senator. He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it. But there is also a record of more than three decades since. And on the question of America’s role in the world, the differences between Senator Kerry and President Bush are the sharpest, and the stakes for the country are the highest. History has shown that a strong and purposeful America is vital to preserving freedom and keeping us safe - yet time and again Senator Kerry has made the wrong call on national security. Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed “only at the directive of the United Nations.” During the 1980s, Senator Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan’s major defense initiatives that brought victory in the Cold War. In 1991, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf, Senator Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm.

After Cheney cited Kerry's experience as a Senator and a soldier, I half expected him to say: "a man with John Kerry's experience should know better." I was specifically disappointed in two things: first, Cheney should drop that line mocking Kerry's reference to a "sensitive" war on terror, which really is taken out of context; far more damning, in my opinion, was his reference back in June to "the real war on terror in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan" and his claim that the Bush Administration had "transferred it for reasons of its own to Iraq." That's a stark admission of Kerry's fundamental unwillingness to accept the centerpiece of the war on terror, which is the idea of an offensive strategy of changing the conditions and removing the forces that support and nurture terrorists throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds, as opposed to concentrating solely on taking down those specific nations and organizations that can be proven to have already attacked us.

Second, even beyond the weapons systems and the $87 billion, I really wanted to hear more on Kerry's plan to gut intelligence spending in the mid-90s. I could also have done with some of Kerry's quotes about the Reagan policies that made such a difference in the Cold War; it's one thing to cite votes, but Kerry's speeches took some very tough lines against nearly every major controversial initiative of the Reagan years, from Central America to missiles in Europe. Still, there's only so much time, and you do have to cut to the chase.

My wife was concerned that there seemed to be a lot of empty seats in the hall while Cheney was speaking, although that was news to me where I was sitting. I'm also not sure the TV caught the full impact of the rows of people doing the tomahawk-chop-style "flip-flop, flip-flop" wave. Which played in with this:

Senator Kerry’s liveliest disagreement is with himself. His back-and-forth reflects a habit of indecision, and sends a message of confusion. And it is all part of a pattern. He has, in the last several years, been for the No Child Left Behind Act - and against it. He has spoken in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement - and against it. He is for the Patriot Act - and against it. Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual - America sees two John Kerrys.

Aside from the laugh line, this is clearly a central point to Cheney: a guy who can't keep his message at least straight enough that his supporters could answer the question "would Kerry have gone to war in Iraq" is never going to project the certainty about American intentions and resolve that is itself an important element of stability in foreign affairs.

All in all, an entertaining night, and one with a lot of red meat for the crowd; the parade of moderates was most definitely interrupted, and the base was happy. The stage is now set for the next-to-last major movement (other than the debates) of this campaign - the president's address to the nation laying out his agenda for the second term.

UPDATE: Will Collier at Vodkapundit follows up on my point above by refuting the spin on Kerry's opposition to major weapons systems.

Reflecting on the latest shakeup in the Kerry campaign, Dr. Josh Marshall reveals more than he probably intended to in diagnosing the Democrats' counterproductive, morale-sapping tendency to panic and lose faith:

Politically, this is one of the worst things about Democrats -- and it has many sources. As a group they seem to have a great tendency toward becoming disheartened, turning on their candidate, doubting his strategy, doubting his advisors, and so forth. Unfortunately, the candidates and advisors have an equal tendency to be open to that kind of fretting. And with the media playing the handmaiden to the synergizing anxiety, the whole thing can become very demoralizing and damaging for campaigns.

Many folks look back and say Al Gore ran a terrible campaign. Maybe. Maybe not. For me, I look back and see something different. I remember a campaign that was far too sensitive to the spin and CW of the moment and thus capable of being buffeted by the smallest political squall. This, rather than any particular tactic or strategy, has always struck me as its greatest failing.

The Bush 2000 campaign was wholly different. They had many reverses. But there was never any serious question that a Rove or a Hughes would get canned. And if there was, the campaign sent out a clear signal that it would never happen. On many levels they were more disciplined.

That difference made a big difference in consistency of strategy and morale among the troops.

Replace "campaign" with "nation at war" and you have a pretty good summary of why the current leadership of the Democratic Party can't be trusted with the car keys in dangerous times.

I caught only pieces of the three major addresses last night - Arnold, the Bush twins, and Laura Bush. The twins were pretty much the living embodiment of the phrase, "not ready for prime time." Instapundit rounds up the commentary, including an NRO reader describing them as "bad MTV VMA filler". If this is anything like what George W. was like at 22, it's actually rather frightening to think of him flying fighter jets.

Marty Noble of Newsday notes the political tilt of baseball players in general and the Mets in particular towards the Republican party:

Players rarely wear their political allegiance on their sleeves.

"But I'd be surprised if it isn't 4 or 5 to 1 Republican in the game," Mets catcher Vance Wilson said last week. "Not everyone is involved or up to date on what's going on, but of the ones who are, I'm sure it's heavy Republican."

(Link via Baseball Primer). Of course, Noble can't resist this dig:

The Grand Old Party appeals to those in the grand old game, if only because of their affluence. The average salary of a major league player, $2,549,363, connects more with Republican ways and the have-lots of the world.

Would Noble say the same thing about the overwhelmingly Democratic tilt of, say, movie stars? I'm sure making big money and paying big taxes does have something to do with it, but professional athletes have always been a conservative lot, since long before they made a lot of money, and I suspect that's been doubly true in times (like the present) when the principal political issue was war and peace.

*Tim Blair notes that Kerry staffers have recently been admonished to be "more diligent about staying on top of the Senator's position." They'll need GPS for that one.

*QandO notices that John McCain has pointedly not denounced the Swift Boat Veterans' second ad, the one featuring Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony. Given the history there, this should not be surprising. Meanwhile, Wizbang reports that the Swifties are offering to drop their remaining ads if Kerry will meet certain conditions including an apology for his 1971 charges of war crimes.

*The Bush campaign, wisely, wants no part of Britney Spears at the GOP Convention.

*Jonathan Chait gets a convenient case of amnesia (subscription only):

Four years ago, Bush dismissed the attacks against McCain by insisting McCain's attacks against him were just as bad. Now Bush is using that line again, and McCain is repeating it. When asked about the discredited Swift Boat charges, McCain replied, "It bothers me that that is the case. It also bothers me that people connected to the Kerry campaign have had to do with attack ads against President Bush as well." You see, Bush's allies are accusing Kerry of lying about his war record and faking his wounds, but Kerry's allies are accusing Bush of weakening environmental regulations. So it's all the same thing.

McCain has even asserted that Kerry brought this on himself by emphasizing his record. "His critics are saying, 'Look, you made it fair game,'" McCain said. "I mean, that's very legitimate, and I think there's a risk that he took when he made it such a centerpiece. He may be paying a very heavy price." Uh huh. Four years ago, Bush made a big deal about his record as Texas governor. By that logic, then, it would have been "fair game" for critics to accuse him of using the governor's office for Michael Jackson-style sleepovers with little boys.

Leaving aside Chait's facile dismissal of the Swift Vets' charges, note how he assumes that all the attacks on Bush have been about such high-minded policy disputes as "accusing Bush of weakening environmental regulations." Apparently Chait has never heard of Michael Moore, or of the persistent and entirely unsubstantiated claim (made even by Kerry himself) that Bush was AWOL from his National Guard unit.

Andrew Sullivan has often ripped President Bush for not using the word "gay" - I wonder if he saw Friday's USAToday interview (only an abstract is now available online, but the cached version is here for now), Bush addressed the same-sex marriage issue:

Bush said he has not discussed the amendment with Mary Cheney, but "of course I've heard from people that are my friends who are gay. ... I will encourage a debate in a way that doesn't divide people into camps and doesn't disparage anybody."

Not that this really makes a huge difference, but since Sullivan has marked this as an important yardstick in his estimation, it's worth noting.

Fine speeches last night by McCain and Giuliani, both of whom made some necessary points about the war on terror and the war in Iraq. The two speeches were a reminder that, no matter how else people may try to spin their presence at the podium, the two were there not because of their moderation on some issues but because of their star power, their obvious political talents, and most of all their unrelenting hawkishness on foreign policy. There's a reason McCain has a big speaking role at this convention and Chuck Hagel doesn't.

McCain's speech, however, was also an illustration of why he is unlikely to find success again as a presidential candidate. Once upon a time, John McCain was a brutally negative campaigner, promising an end to "the truth-twisting politics of Bill Clinton and Al Gore." Lately, though, McCain has seemed to take to heart his own crusade against negativity, alternating between cheerleading and chiding President Bush while staying mostly silent on the sins of the Democrats. McCain's prime-time slot covered the important stuff - the foreign policy stakes, the absence of sensible alternatives in Iraq, and a well-deserved potshot at Michael Moore - along with a clenched-teeth tribute to Bush's leadership. I particularly liked this one shot at the Al Gore far left: "I don’t doubt the sincerity of my Democratic friends. And they should not doubt ours." (Emphasis most definitely in original).

But a convention crowd wants more: an explanation of why John Kerry's competing vision (or lack thereof) should be found wanting. McCain mostly left that to Rudy. And if he seriously wants to be president, he will have to change that. Yes, it's true that Bush himself mostly avoids the big broadsides against Democrats, but he is willing to throw the occasional punch at his opponent. If McCain isn't willing to do the same anymore, maybe he doesn't want it badly enough.

One of the lingering debates on the Swift Boat story is whether the incident in which John Kerry pulled James Rassman out of the water - and won the Bronze Star - occurred under enemy fire or not; the Swifties say that there was no fire and that several boats (the captains of which have lined up against Kerry on this point) were at the scene for some time fishing the crew of PCF 3 (Kerry's boat was PCF 94) out of the water after it hit a mine and was disabled.

McQ over at QandO explains why the NY Times has (unsurprisingly) misread the Navy documents on Kerry's website to mistakenly claim that several Viet Cong were killed during the incident; McQ contends that the documents actually show that they were killed on land by soldiers the swift boats had been carrying earlier in their mission.

UPDATE: Don't forget to follow McQ's links; this and this present sober, clear-headed assessments of the available evidence regarding the March 13, 1969 engagement, with more supporting links. Frankly, this is getting to be an interesting "whodunit"-type story, even apart from its (tenuous) relevance to the presidential race.

Watching Kerry on Jon Stewart - Stewart is totally in the tank for Kerry. Maybe that's not surprising; you don't expect tough questions on a comedy show. But Stewart makes it clear whose side he's on.

One interesting note: Kerry is starting to play the expectations game by noting that Bush has won every debate he's been in.

While we're in the pre-convention lull - and I assure you, faithful readers, that by next week I'll be back on the issues as far as political coverage goes - it's worth remembering what a fraud many of the attacks on President Bush's National Guard service have been. The Donovan pointed recently to an essay on Aerospaceweb.org (with useful, and let's face it, really cool pictures) on the F-102, Bush's aircraft, and on his service record. A few key excerpts (but make sure to go there and read the whole thing) [UPDATE: Seems the essay is no longer publicly available]:

Read More »

CrushKerry.com - not an impartial source, obviously - claims that the decision to threaten legal action against the Swift Boaters came from Kerry himself against the better judgment of his advisors. Here's what's interesting about Kerry wanting to use the courts to squelch criticism: remember the FOX lawsuit against Al Franken, which was widely reported to have been instigated by Bill O'Reilly? Remember the hue and cry on the left at O'Reilly over this?

*Matt Yglesias: "If this sort of thing is going to be typical of rightwing tactical thinking in the near future, then Bush is definitely going down in 2004."

*Kevin Drum endorsed attempts to shame the lawyers who filed the suit.

*Jack Balkin called it "A Fair and Balanced Attempt at Censorship" and added:

The most troubling aspect of the lawsuit politically is its attempt to harass a political opponent through the use of intellectual property laws. . . . We can only hope that Fox receives the bad publicity it deserves for filing this lawsuit; first, for being on the wrong side of this free speech controversy, and second, for trying to suppress people who disagree with its coverage of the news. It is particularly upsetting for a news organization to try to use the courts to suppress the speech of its political critics.

(See also Oliver Willis and Mark Kleiman)

Now, it turns out that the Democrats' presidential candidate is the same sort of glass-jawed bully that O'Reilly is. Oh, the irony.

Captain Ed, who's been one of the blogosphere's All-Stars lately, notes a Washington Post article that puts the final nail in John Kerry's claims to have a "memory . . . seared -- seared -- in me" of making an illegal border crossing into Cambodia on a swift boat during his tour in Vietnam.

UPDATE: But one of Kerry's "Band of Brothers," Del Sandusky, is sticking by the Cambodia story.

*Reuters doesn't know the difference between documents and evidence

*Joe Klein:

George W. Bush announced last Monday in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) that he wanted to bring around 70,000 troops home from Germany and North Korea over the next 10 years. In principle, that is not very controversial. The military and foreign policy priesthoods have favored that sort of restructuring since the end of the cold war. And yet, when Kerry spoke to the VFW two days later, he attacked Bush's position, using an argument with some merit but of microscopic import in the midst of a presidential campaign: he said it was a "hasty" and "political" plan and certainly not a good negotiating tactic to withdraw troops from Korea while we are trying to get the North Koreans to drop their nuclear program.

But oops. Some two weeks earlier, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Kerry had taken a different position: "I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just [in Iraq] but ... in the Korean peninsula, perhaps, in Europe, perhaps." As you might imagine, the Bush campaign quickly pointed out the inconsistency.

The stumble raises two basic questions about Kerry's campaign. First, is he a latter-day Ron Burgundy—the idiot 1970s anchorman of Will Ferrell's recent film who would read anything that appeared on his TelePrompTer? Did Kerry not remember what he had said to Stephanopoulos?

*This is unbelievable, and a good example of why Tad Devine is such a tool: blaming Bush for the Democrats' over-the-top rhetoric:

Now listen, I think we can understand Senator Harkin said something very tough today and I think I know why. Because this president and this vice president have so polarized this country, have so polarized this campaign, they‘re bringing out the absolute toughest things on both sides.

Link via Hanks.

Read More »

John Kerry is in a box. He's been calling on President Bush to denounce the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad, although Bush's more generalized blast at independent "527" groups yesterday makes it harder to press that point. But what are Kerry's possible arguments for dismissing the Swift Boat ads?

1. It's Ancient History. This is the easy and logical response to attacks on something a politician did 30+ years ago under factual circumstances that have grown hazy: dismiss it as old news. Heck, Bill Clinton routinely called for people to "move on" from things he'd done while he was President. Indeed, even the Vietnamese think that the Vietnam War should be a non-issue in this campaign. But Kerry torched that bridge a long time ago; a man who introduced himself to the general electorate in July and made his Vietnam service literally the first thing out of his mouth, surrounded by his "band of brothers," can't plausibly argue that what happened in Vietnam means nothing to his campaign.

2. Independent Ads Are Bad. Given the vast array of anti-Bush spending over the past year - including Michael Moore pushing his movie's video release up to October - Kerry can't well denounce 527 groups and other independent actors in principle.

3. It's Wrong To Attack A Man's Service Record. Here's the biggest problem: if Kerry wants to stand on principle as saying you shouldn't attack a man's service record, he has a three-pronged problem: (a) he himself is attacking over 200 of his own comrades who are involved in the Swift Boat campaign; (b) he has to deal with his own past history of making false charges of widespread atrocities against American troops in Vietnam; and (c) he has personally attacked Bush's service record with the Texas Air National Guard. From Kerry's own mouth:

I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard, and a vice president who got every deferment in the world and decided he had better things to do, criticizing somebody who fought for their country and served

That was accompanied by this Kerry campaign press release entitled "Key Unanswered Questions on Bush's Record In National Guard." And, from Kerry's campaign spokesman, Chad Clanton:

Voters are going to have to decide: someone who volunteered to service their country when their country needed them or someone else who, you know, it speaks for itself. It is a contrast, it is a difference. … There is no better test than whether someone is committed to defending their country than whether they've put their life on the line on the battlefield.

Were Kerry to take the same stand he demands from Bush, he'd have to denounce himself and his own campaign. Oops.

4. Attack The Financing. This has been Kerry's main tactic: focus on the Republican financiers of these ads rather than the men in the ads. Of course, Charles Krauthammer had the best response to this:

The Democrats have reacted to the Swift boat vets with anguished and selective indignation. This assault was bankrolled by rich Bush supporters, they charge. No kidding. Where else would Swift boat vets get the money? With the exception of the romantic few who serially marry millionaire heiresses, Swift boaters are generally of modest means. Where are they going to get the cash to be heard? Harold Ickes?

Anyway, unlike Paula Jones - about whom the charge may have had some credibility - people can't seriously believe that the 200+ Swift Boat Veterans, each one a man who served his country in wartime, have been bought off; they may or may not be the most credible individuals, but most of them seem to be gainfully employed, and some quite successful.

5. They're Lying. Of course, this is the bottom line, but it's a place Kerry doesn't want to go, because it means engaging the Swift vets on their terms: disputing whether the accusations are true. But it's all he has left, and now - with the campaign focusing on Kerry's anti-war activities, about which the only dispute is how clear it should have been to Kerry that his charges were untrue - even that is not a defense.

I gotta say, on reading this transcript, Larry Thurlow - one of the Swift Boat vets - doesn't sound very credible to me, although it's hard to tell with Chris Matthews browbeating the guy.

UPDATE: The bottom line: even leaving aside the issue of the relevance of microanalysis of Kerry's war record to the campaign - I continue to think that Kerry's actual record is of little relevance, although if he's been lying about his record all these years that is something, whereas I also continue to think that Kerry's early-70s anti-war activities when he was preparing a run for Congress are much more relevant - it seems over-the-top for the Swift Boaters to be attacking every one of Kerry's medals. The attack on Kerry's Bronze Star (the rescue of Jim Rassman), of which Thurlow is a part, is especially central to this controversy; while the attack on Kerry's Silver Star seems mostly to involve a difference of opinion, there's a direct factual contradiction between Kerry and the other swift boat captains over (1) how many boats were present when Kerry pulled Rassman out of the water and (2) whether there was enemy fire at the time. Rassman seems like a sincere and truthful witness in support of Kerry on this point, but his vantage point may not have been that great - by his own testimony, he was under water for most of the incident and (correct me if I'm misreading this) may not have been able to tell the difference between enemy fire and fire from the swift boats at the shore - and John O'Neill has cited physical evidence supporting the Swift Vets' version of the event.

At the end of the day, it may be that some of the Swift Boaters are not being honest or don't remember things real well, although (1) that doesn't necessarily call into question the whole enterprise, since we've seen examples already of Kerry, to put it charitably, having inaccurate recollections of those events, and (2) I don't for a second think these guys have been bought off or that they are all partisan Republicans; it's much more likely that their primary motivation is bitterness at Kerry's anti-war speeches.

Bob Dole became the first major Republican to directly attack John Kerry's war record on Wolf Blitzer's show today, lighting into Kerry with startling ferocity:

BLITZER: First of all, Senator, what's your bottom line on this whole ad campaign?

DOLE: I think this can hurt Kerry more than all the medal controversy. I mean, one day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons. The next day he's standing there, "I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran."

And I think he's -- I said months ago, "John, don't go too far." And I think he's got himself into this wicket now where he can't extricate himself because not every one of these people can be Republican liars. There's got to be some truth to the charges. But this is on tape. This is on television. This is before the Senate committee.

BLITZER: Just to remind our viewers, this is when he came back from Vietnam. He testified in 1971...

DOLE: Ran for Congress.

BLITZER: Right. And he was quoting a whole bunch of other Vietnam veterans who opposed the war and making these allegations of atrocities, if you will, war crimes committed by U.S. troops. And a lot of people have always suggested that what's really angered these Vietnam veterans, the other side, is, not so much what he did or didn't do when he served in Vietnam, but what he did when he came back.

DOLE: I think that's true. And I think this ad's going to take -- it's going to be tough on Kerry because -- and he says, "Well, this is all hearsay," what he picked up from other veterans. But he said it. He said it before a Senate committee. It had worldwide attention.

BLITZER: The fact that he said on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press" a few months ago he probably went too far. He was a young man just back from Vietnam, and he probably shouldn't have said some of those things during those statements when he came home from Vietnam. Does that ease the responsibility that he has?

DOLE: Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam. And here's, you know, a good guy, good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out. I think Senator Kerry needs to talk about his Senate record, which is pretty thin. That's probably why he's talking about his war record, which is pretty confused.

BLITZER: You know, the American public seems to be paying attention to these Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads. There's a CBS poll that came out. I think this is the right poll. Here it is. Presidential choice among veterans, 37 percent support Kerry-Edwards, 55 percent Bush-Cheney. But after the convention it was at 46 percent. He seems to be losing support among veterans, which is an influential bloc of voters out there.

DOLE: You know, I think it's too early to tell what -- nobody maybe in six -- how many days left? Not many. There are eight weeks. Maybe this will be forgotten. Maybe there will be something else. But I think this has certainly damaged Senator Kerry. And I think it's partly his own doing. He can't lay out -- I remember in '96, I was the veteran in the race. Bill Clinton avoided the draft. And we didn't have all this trouble over my service versus his non-service. There wasn't much written about it. People accepted the fact that I had a record. Now there's all the talk about Bush's National Guard service. Has he told the truth? Has he released the records? And one way, I think, for John Kerry, who I consider to be a friend, is to maybe apologize to all these people for something he may have said at a very early age, and let us have those records he's given to the author...

BLITZER: Douglas Brinkley.

DOLE: Douglas Brinkley, the records and the journals...

BLITZER: Who wrote a book about his experience.

DOLE: Yes. But somebody ought to find out the facts. I think this is going to be -- could be the sleeper issue.

[Snip]

DOLE: . . . John McCain is absolutely correct. But as I recall, it was Terry McAuliffe who made reference to President Bush as being AWOL. They dragged up all the stuff. I think there were 80 stories in the media about the National Guard. There's only been about eight or 10 on the so-called Kerry flap.

So it seems to me they've initiated it, and now they've got into some rather murky area. But I don't -- I wish they'd forget it. It's not about whether or not you're...

[Snip]

DOLE: . . . . [T]hese same people now are going after Bush. I didn't see them going after Clinton in '96 because he didn't serve at all. They were going after me on my record. That's why I say we ought to get back to the issues. Let's talk about the issues.

[Snip]

DOLE: I don't quarrel with that. I said John Kerry's a hero. But what I will always quarrel about are the Purple Hearts. I mean, the first one, whether he ought to have a Purple Heart -- he got two in one day, I think. And he was out of there in less than four months, because three Purple Hearts and you're out. And as far as I know, he's never spent one day in the hospital. I don't think he draws any disability pay. He doesn't have any disability. And boasting about three Purple Hearts when you think of some of the people who really got shot up in Vietnam...

BLITZER: And speaking about people getting shot up in Vietnam, the Democrats, at least some Democrats, are now going after the president and the vice president for avoiding service in Vietnam. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, Democrat...

DOLE: He's not a very good one to complain because he was hiding out in Japan, claiming he was a Vietnam veteran.

(via SpinSwimming). Some of this smacks of bitterness, of course, but Dole is plainly disgusted with Kerry's overuse of his Vietnam record, and it's not hard to see why the stress on the three Purple Hearts are particularly galling to Dole, given Kerry's obvious robust health compared to the severity of Dole's wounds. You can also hear the former infantry officer in Dole when he's asked about John McCain's comments and he remarks, "Yes, but, John wasn't there. He was up in the air."

I await the usual suspects calling Dole a "chickenhawk" because he didn't serve in Vietnam. At any rate, we're getting another object lesson in the ugliness of campaigns based on my-war-record-can-beat-up-your-war-record.

UPDATE: Captain Ed suggests that Dole may have been provoked into this outburst by a Boston Globe editorial that denigrated one of Dole's own Purple Hearts. Idiots.

Instapundit (just keep scrollin') and the Minute Man have moved in for the kill on the Swift Boat story. Blood in the water! This is getting nasty, and of course it's all feuled by the fact that there's a bunch of veterans out there who have been nursing a very well-deserved grudge against Kerry for 33 years now. This, from the Swift vets' ad (watch it yourself), is just devastating - following an explanation of how the North Vietnamese often tried to get POWs to falsely confess to war crimes:

"John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and many of my comrades in the North Vietnam prison camps took torture to avoid saying,'' says Paul Galanti, identified on screen as a prisoner of war from January 1966 to February, 1973.

Welcome to 21st century political campaigns.

Joe Piscopo says he may abandon his lucrative career as . . . uh . . . well, anyway, he may run for governor of New Jersey as a Democrat.

Piscopo, of course, stopped being funny when he started lifting weights, which makes him the prime example of what I might term Picsopo's Laws of Thermodynamics for Comedians:

*The talent of a small-to-average-size comedian decreases in direct proportion to the increase in the mass of the comedian.

*The talent of an average-size-to-large comedian decreases in direct proportion to the decrease in the mass of the comedian.

Not sure why exactly this is. Partly it's because fat comedians who make jokes about being fat and sloppy get less funny when they get in shape, skinny comedians who do a lot of pratfalls and physical comedy lose some of that if they get fat (think: Dan Aykroyd), and comedians generally get less funny if they start working out and taking themselves seriously. Which is another way of saying that growing up is bad for comics.

John McCain on John Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony charging American soldiers with widespread and systematic war crimes in Vietnam:

In piece he wrote for the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S. News & World Report, the POW-turned-senator charged that testimony by Kerry and others before J. William Fulbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee was "the most effective propaganda [my North Vietnamese captors] had to use against us."

"They used Senator Fulbright a great deal," McCain wrote - a reference to Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony that U.S. soldiers were committing war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course.

He said Kerry political ally Sen. Ted Kennedy was "quoted again and again" by his jailers at the Hanoi Hilton.

"Clark Clifford was another [North Vietnamese] favorite," McCain told U.S. News, "right after he had been Secretary of Defense under President Johnson."

"When Ramsey Clark came over [my jailers] thought that was a great coup for their cause," he recalled. Months earlier, Sen. Kerry had appeared with Clark at the April 1971 Washington, D.C., anti-war protest that showcased his testimony before the Fulbright Committee.

"All through this period," McCain told U.S. News, his captors were "bombarding us with anti-war quotes from people in high places back in Washington. This was the most effective propaganda they had to use against us."

Via Henry Hanks. It's stories like this that make ads like this one so devastating.

Sometimes, in war, soldiers - even in the best of armies - commit horrible atrocities; such is human nature and the opportunity war affords for the exercise of its most brutal impulses. And nobody really disputes that some American soldiers committed such atrocities in Vietnam, probably - given the nature of the war - with greater frequency than other wars.

But Kerry has sold himself - and won the hearts of some veterans - on the theory that service in Vietnam was, whatever the merits of the war itself, no different than any other service; that American soldiers who served there did so with the same honor, and deserve the same recognition, as veterans of other wars. I have no quarrel with that argument, which seems quite right to me; but hardly anybody did more at the time to argue the contrary position - that American soldiers had acted barbarously as a matter of course - than Kerry. No wonder his words (while he was still a member of the Navy Reserve) were such effective propaganda for the enemy.

Bryon Scott over at Blogs for Bush takes a hard look at "independent" 527 groups and finds that, for all the fuss about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," such groups are overwhelmingly Democratic.

UPDATE: Jay Caruso has done a good deal more digging, and looks at individual Democrats with close ties to both the Kerry campaign and the "independent" 527s. If the Bush people are savvy, they will counterclaim with such a bill of particulars against Kerry's complaint to the FEC (which I gather is based on the work of Kerry's investigators at the NY Times) regarding the independence of the Swifties.

Ricky West has the details.

UPDATE: Not the same guy. A relative? Even so, it kind of moots the point. Consider this item corrected.

So last night, I saw John O'Neill of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on Joe Scarborough's show, debating John Hurley, national director of "Vietnam Veterans for Kerry." (I missed the same duo on Hardball last week, but it sounds like they did the same routine). Some Kerry supporters may wish to know: who is John Hurley? Well, Hurley is obviously a politically active head of a veterans' group, and he has a pretty thick Boston accent. Which leads me to believe that he is one and the same as John J. "Wacko" Hurley, head of the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, who successfully fought all the way to the Supreme Court in 1995 to keep a gay group out of the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade.

Somebody call Media Matters, which tried to discredit the Swift Boat group by dredging up a variety of intemperate and in some cases intolerant quotes by O'Neill's co-author, Jerome Corsi. At least Corsi isn't actually heading a group directly affiliated with the Bush campaign.

(Of course, the merits of keeping gay groups out of the St. Patrick's Day Parade is open to fair debate, depending on one's view of the parade, but what do you think Atrios would say if Hurley was heading a pro-Bush group?)

As for the merits, I gotta say, if this was the first I'd seen of this controversy, I would have started off very skeptical - O'Neill seems so over-the-top in attacking just every bit of Kerry's service record, and his demeanor is very cheesy trial-lawyer. But I was definitely more convinced by the end that O'Neill's charges could have some weight to them. O'Neill just had a whole lot more specifics on his side, and all Hurley could do - besides say he thought O'Neill should be ashamed of himself - was to cite Navy reports that apparently relied on Kerry's own information.

The debate over the circumstances of Kerry's Bronze Star (the rescue of James Rassman) seems particularly stark - Kerry and Rassman say that Kerry came back alone under fire to pull out Rassman, O'Neill cites the captains of several other boats who say Kerry alone fled the scene and came back when the shooting stopped while there were several other boats around pulling other guys out of the water. It's very hard to write this off as a difference in perceptions.

Anyway, I remain open to persuasion on who's right here, and I remain skeptical of how relevant any of this really is to the 2004 campaign. But there's clearly an interesting story here.

I'm on my way out of town again on business. It turns out that for all the Kerry camp's blather about how (most of) the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth never served on the same boat with John Kerry, one of his vocal "band of brothers" who spoke at the Democratic Convention may not have been either, and may be lying today. I've said for some time that I wasn't interested in exactly what Kerry did to earn medals in Vietnam, but it looks like the swift boat story is gaining some real traction anyway based on problems with the, er, accuracy of Kerry's narrative.

Captain Ed is on this story like a starving man on a sandwich. Go check him out.

So, last week, Louisiana Congressman Rodney Alexander switched parties, to catcalls from Democrats; Alexander chose to time his switch late enough to prevent the Democrats from fielding a viable opponent on November's ballot, a bit of non-beanbaggery that the perennially overwrought Mark Kleiman described as "about the sleaziest, most cowardly thing I've ever heard of a politician doing". Mmmm, short memory there, Professor Kleiman. Kevin Drum also called it "Pretty sleazy".

Well, now New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey has delayed his resignation in disgrace until November 15, to prevent any election at all to fill his job and keep the governorship in (unelected) Democratic hands until 2006. Neither Drum nor Kleiman has had anything to say on this yet - not that it's my place to tell them what to write - but it will be amusing to see if they turn around and defend this sort of chicanery when it helps their side. Hmmmmmmm.

UPDATE: The Mad Hibernian points me to this Professor Bainbridge post calling Kos on the same point.

While I'm away, I will leave you with this, a wonderful illustration of how Vietnam winds up being at the center of anything John Kerry does, no matter what the issue at hand, and an illustration in particular of the context behind his use of the "Christmas in Cambodia" fable in a 1986 debate on Nicaragua; from a wonderful May 17, 2004 cover story by Jay Nordlinger in National Review on Kerry's Latin America policies dating back to the 1980s, available in full online only to subscribers:

Read More »

John Cole demolishes one of the Kerry camp's fraudulent talking points on the swift boat story: that the Swift Boat Vets aren't qualified to speak to Kerry's Vietnam experience because they were not in his boat. I'm left with three possibilities to explain why the Kerry people are relying on such thoroughly bogus arguments, coupled with foolish, bullying threats of lawsuits to stifle a poorly funded ad campaign:

1. The Swift Boat Vets are right.

2. The Kerry people are incompetent fools.

3. The Kerry people have such contempt for the public that they think this will do.

(My money's mostly on #3, but the Swifties have at least scored one apparent hit with the "Christmas in Cambodia" story that Kerry has now backed off from after saying in 1979 - when it should have been fresher in his mind - that it was "seared" in his memory).

And we have to consider who this story is aimed at. To me, John Kerry is still a war hero. But I'm not the Swift Boat Vets' target audience.

Read More »

More on Vietnam another day - for now, this is the link of the day, QandO discussing an op-ed in the LA Times on the real scandal in Kerry's record: how he was wrong on nearly every major foreign policy initiative during and immediately after the Cold War. Key quote:

Many leaders had a hand in Washington's Cold War triumph, but Ronald Reagan's contributions were pivotal, and Kerry opposed every one of them. Reagan's defense buildup disabused Soviet leaders of any hope that they could ultimately come out ahead of the United States. Kerry derided these military expenditures as "bloated" and "without any relevancy to the threat." In particular, Reagan's plan to seek a missile defense system against Soviet ICBMs and NATO's decision to station new missiles in Europe to counteract the new Soviet deployment there rendered futile the Kremlin's vast investment in nuclear supremacy. Instead of these measures, Kerry advocated that we adopt a one-sided "nuclear freeze."

Here's President Bush's current stump speech on the war, which has a pretty good nutshell summary of why it all happened, and a good zinger at Kerry; I highlight some of the points the Administration hasn't really stressed enough in the past:

Before September the 11th, the ruler of Iraq was a sworn enemy of America. He was defying the world. He was firing weapons at American pilots who were enforcing the world's sanctions. He had pursued and he had used weapons of mass destruction. He harbored terrorists. He invaded his neighbors. He subsidized the families of suicide bombers. He murdered tens of thousands of his own citizens. He was the source of great instability in the world's most volatile region.

After September the 11th we looked at all the threats of the world in a new light. One of the lessons of September the 11th is that America must take threats seriously before they fully materialize. (Applause.) We saw a threat. My administration looked at the intelligence and saw a threat. The United States Congress looked at the same intelligence; members of both political parties, including my opponent, looked at the intelligence and came to the same conclusion.

We went to the United Nations, which looked at the intelligence and demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, or face serious consequences. After 12 years of defiance, he again refused to comply. He deceived the weapons inspectors. So I had a choice to make: either forget the lessons of September the 11th and take the word of a madman who hated America, or defend this country. Given that choice, I will defend America. (Applause.)

Even though we did not find the stockpiles that we expected to find, removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right thing to do. (Applause.) Saddam Hussein had the capability to make weapons of mass destruction. And he could have passed that capability on to terrorist enemies. After September the 11th, that was a chance we could not afford to take. And America and the world are safer because Saddam Hussein sits in a prison cell. (Applause.)

And now -- and now, almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and almost 220 days after switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance. He now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq. After months of questioning my motives and even my credibility, Senator Kerry now agrees with me that even though we have not found the stockpile of weapons we all believe were there, knowing everything we know today, he would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. I want to thank Senator Kerry for clearing that up. (Applause.)

The US District Court for the District of Columbia today released an opinion (dated July 20, 2004; link opens as PDF file) ordering Tim Russert and Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper to disclose information provided to them by confidential sources (presumably, the identities of individuals within the Bush Administration) in the Valerie Plame investigation. (The Washington Post has more here).

UPDATE: Here's the bottom-line order (also a PDF) holding Cooper and Time in contempt but staying the contempt order pending an appeal to the DC Circuit.

Kevin Drum says the Vietnam vets in the Swift Boat group must be "certifiable lunatics" because Media Matters has assembled a bunch of (admittedly wacky) quotes about the co-author of their book . . . who isn't one of the vets. Josh Marshall (tongue in cheek) says he's starting a "Concerned Vietnam Combat Veterans Whose Service Records Have Been Attacked by Friends of President Bush Even Though President Bush Has Nothing To Do With It and Did His Best to Stop it But Failed" group . . . except, of course, that he doesn't even humorously suggest that any such vets exist.

As I've said before, I think the whole swift boat story is something of a sideshow, and I'm withholding judgment on the credibility of these guys. And yes, as with the Democrats' favorite small subset of 9/11 widows, their credibility needs to be evaluated just like anybody else in politics, no matter how sympathetic (or, in this case, heroic) their own personal stories are. I do have an open mind on this one.

But note to people attacking the vets: discrediting people who assist, finance or run with the story won't do. If you don't have the goods on the men who wore this country's uniform and now want to be heard on what they saw and did in Vietnam, don't dismiss them out of hand.

Captain Ed has the latest. Read for yourself.

UPDATE: I still think this is a relatively minor story, as are Kerry's and Bush's service records generally, although it's a bigger deal because Kerry's made his four-month tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. But one thing that's really clear here from reading the two sides' letters is that the Swift Boat Vets have much better lawyers than the Kerry/Edwards camp does (which is unsurprising if you look at John O'Neill's resume). The Swift Boat Vets' letter is far more detailed and deals directly with the issues, while the Kerry/Edwards letter seems obsessed with non sequiturs like who served on which boat and who filled out particular forms.

Democrats who cheered the courage of Jim Jeffords call Louisiana Congressman Rodney Alexander a "coward" and a "turncoat" for switching parties to become a Republican. Of course, both sides cheer switchers to their side and hiss those who go the other way, although Republicans are more apt simply to trumpet switches as a sign of the strength of the party and its ideas, rather than as some great profile in courage (although many big GOP stars have switched from the Democratic side at some point, including Reagan, Phil Gramm, Bill Bennett, Jean Kirkpatrick, and many others).

One of the stupidest memes I've heard from the Left in a very long time - and that's saying quite a lot - is detailed here:

I'm waiting on the transcript, but a moment ago Donna Brazille killed the "John Kerry was an indistinguished as a Senator" meme.

In the "rapid fire" section of Crossfire she said the following to a Republican Strategist...

"Dick Cheney was in the house for over a decade. How many bills did he pass?"

The Republican Strategist paused, looked physically ill, then tried to change the subject by saying "Well, he was aknowledged as a leader."

There was laughter in the crowd.

But Brazille didn't let him go. She leaned forward and very calmly told the truth.

"2 bills".

2 bills for Cheney. 57 for Kerry.

I generally figure Brazile would be smarter than this - this is just an incredibly idiotic comparison. First of all, Kerry's been in the Senate twice as long as Cheney was in the House - but Cheney, unlike Kerry, came to the Vice Presidency with qualifications well beyond his Congressional record. Cheney had already been White House Chief of Staff in the Ford Administration (he was Don Rumsfeld's deputy during the traumatic conclusion to the Vietnam War and had worked in the Nixon and Ford White Houses since 1969) and Secretary of Defense during the first Gulf War and the end of the Cold War. He also, of course, headed a large corporation in the 1990s. He was clearly a much more consequential figure than Kerry in numerous ways, a recognized power broker in GOP politics and national security policy.

To review: there are basically four major ways to have an impact in Congress:

1. Get in the leadership. This is the true path to power. Dole, Daschle, Frist, George Mitchell . . . these guys were all impact players on a huge range of legislation without getting their names on them. How many bills did Tip O'Neill sponsor? Dick Cheney quickly got into the leadership:

After just one term in the House, Congressman Cheney was elected Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee. By the time he left Congress, in his sixth term, he had been elected House Minority Whip—the second ranking House Republican Leader.

Cheney was happy and effective in his 10 years as a Congressman, and he rose to be the second-ranking Republican in the House, with a real chance of one day becoming Speaker. But when President Bush in 1989 asked him to be Secretary of Defense instead, he leaped at the offer.

Kerry, by contrast, never got close. This is a guy whose big theme is that he'll build alliances, and he never even managed to get his fellow Democratic Senators to follow him anywhere.

2. Sponsor bills. Neither Kerry nor Cheney did much of this.

3. Be a high-profile advocate on particular issues - McCain on campaign finance, Kemp on tax cuts, Nunn and Lugar on defense, Kennedy on health care. Even if they hadn't had their names on bills, those guys would be impact players. Neither Kerry nor Cheney did much of this.

4. Be a high-impact committee chairman. Kerry never has. Cheney, of course, was never in the majority, so he didn't have the chance.

Which brings us to another distinction - Cheney spent his years as one of the leaders of the minority in a chamber where the minority has little clout. By definition, members of the minority party in the House don't accomplish much, especially the way the Democrats ran the House in those years. When he's had opportunities to exercise more influence, as he has now in three Republican administrations (he was a lower-level Executive Branch guy in the Nixon years), he's been a major, major impact player. Kerry, by contrast, has been in the Senate - where the minority has more power - and has spent about half of his two decades there in the majority party, while leaving barely a trace and never really getting out front on any issue (c'mon, give me examples of causes where Kerry took a visible public position and fought for it without ducking for cover).

(Pejman has more in a similar vein; thanks to Pej for the link to Kos)

Of course, Kerry's Senate record does look distinguished . . . compared to Edwards.

Barking moonbat warning: a left-wing fimmaker blasts ultraliberal Florida Congressman Peter Deutsch, now running for Senate, for this egregious offense:

Florida Sentate candidate Peter Deutsch (D) called George W. Bush a “Legitimate President,” contradicting Michael Moore.

[snip]

U. S. Senate candidate Peter Deutsch is far from being the man who will stand up for Floridians, says award-winning documentary filmmaker, Jeannine Ross. "In our film about the 2000 election called "Florida Fights Back, Resisting The Stolen Election," I confronted Peter Deutsch in April of 2001 at a town hall meeting about why the Democrats were not asking for a federal investigation of the election that had happened only a few months prior. To my shock and surprise Deutsch, this 'man of courage,' said 'on a personal basis, I consider George W. Bush a Legitimate President.' He admitted that voting fraud happened in Florida in 2000 (i.e. the felons list, etc) but dismissed it nonchalantly by saying 'what happened, happened' and 'life goes on.' Deutsch made these comments only 2 weeks after receiving a $25,000 fundraiser from influential Republicans in Miami. "The voters in Florida don't know this other side of Deutsch," says Ross. "You need to see it to believe it."

I guess you do. You can go here and see video of Deutsch take this appalling position . . .

In other news, the Wall Street Journal's Political Diary noted on Thursday that he's in a spitting match with EMILY's list, calling them "anti-male." I'm starting to feel pretty good about the GOP's chances of taking that Florida Senate seat, I tell you.

Spinsanity, hardly a Bush-friendly source, calls the Democrats on exaggerating the extent to which John Kerry chose to go into combat in Vietnam.

Richard Cohen trots out one of the Democrats' typical efforts to obfuscate John Kerry's allergy to principled positions by turning the "flip flop" charge against President Bush. Right off the bat, of course, Cohen gives away the game:

In supposed contrast to Kerry, Bush presents himself as the immutable politician, a man of fixed, firm beliefs who sticks to them not because they are popular but because they are right -- despite all evidence or reason. This is certainly the case when it comes to his core beliefs. His devotion to minimal taxes on the rich, for instance, is touching, but it has put the government in such debt that it will take our children's children to pay it off. By then, Bush imagines, his visage will be on Mount Rushmore.

Quick: name Kerry's core beliefs he will stick to come Hell or high water. But don't hold your breath while you are thinking.

OK, but moving beyond that, Let's run down his list and see how many actual flip flops we have:

As a presidential candidate, he declared himself implacably opposed to nation-building. Now we are engaged in building Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, the cost has been not merely a ton of money, as it was in Haiti and other places Bush said he wouldn't go, but nearly a thousand American lives lost and countless more ruined. Mind you, with weapons of mass destruction all but declared a mirage in the desert, the new -- and sole -- justification for the war is not anything approaching self-defense but getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime. This is nation-replacement and nation-building, a total rehab project.

Nice try; Bush opposed nation-building for its own sake - not as a necessary aftermath to a victorious war. As I've argued repeatedly, this has nothing to do with the Iraq and Afghan wars, in which the cause was national security and the mission was and is victory. Cohen has to ignore the Administration's own beliefs - and, pointedly, ignore September 11 - to turn this into a flip-flop. Not an auspicious start.

Bush also declared himself a determined unilateralist, kissing off treaties and understandings and even spurning NATO's help in Afghanistan. Now, though, the unilateralist of old is sending Colin Powell around the world, seeking alms and arms for Iraq. Flip-flop.

When did Bush ever say he wanted to act unilaterally? Let's review: before the Iraq war, Bush asked a bunch of nations to help; some of them responded, some didn't. After the war, he asked again. Other than the refusal to let the absence of some coalition partners deep-six the whole enterprise, the only unilateralism Cohen can cite is the fact that Bush didn't want U.S. military operations in Afghanistan hampered by the need to run all targets and missions through the multilateral bureaucracy that was such an operational nightmare in Kosovo.

Bush would not negotiate with North Korea. He did. Flip-flop.

Um, no. Bush would not negotiate unilaterally with North Korea, where the U.S. goal has been to involve the neighbors. When the North Koreans agreed, after much bellyaching, negotiations commenced. That's called a victory, not a flip-flop.

Bush told the United Nations to butt out of Iraq. Now he wants it in. Flip-flop.

We covered this one already; Bush always wanted their help.

The president opposed creating the Department of Homeland Security. Soon after, his strong opposition apparently slipped his mind and he flip-flopped his way to an embrace.

Here, we've at least got a change in tune, but it's more of a tactical retreat than anything; Bush realized he couldn't resist the formation of a department and could accomplish a lot (policy-wise and politically) by pressing for one that met his requirements. In the end, this boils down to cagey tactics, not a flip-flop.

Bush later opposed the creation of the Sept. 11 commission, but now he cannot thank it enough. He did not want his chief aides -- Condoleezza Rice, for instance -- to testify publicly before it but relented in the face of popular opposition. Flip-flop. He himself would not testify for all sorts of hallowed constitutional reasons and then, of course, did. Flip-flop.

Again, Bush bowed to reality and has sought to make the best of the situation. And frankly, it's not like these inside-the-Beltway "what sort of commission shall it be" controversies are anything like issues of war and peace or positions on issues of continuing importance.

He insisted, though, on taking Dick Cheney with him, the functional equivalent of bringing the textbook to the exam -- not exactly a flip-flop, I grant you, but such a blatant admission of ineptitude that I am moved to include it nonetheless. Look, it's my column.

I choose to ignore this. Look, it's my blog.

Finally, of course, we get Bush's recent call for the creation of the post of national intelligence director, a position he once opposed.

As usual, people on the Left are complaining that Bush changed his tune so he could co-opt the momentum and turn it to his advantage. That's smart tactics, not a change in principles. Nobody ever said politicians can't compromise to advance their agendas.

This prompted James P. Rubin, a Kerry adviser, to ask, "Why did President Bush flip-flop?"

OK, that's an impartial source. You win. . . Next up: the Center for American Progress.

Read More »

Outta My Way!

Longer collection here

The Completely Insane Frank J. is on a roll.

Irving Kristol once remarked that "A liberal is one who says that it's all right for an 18-year-old girl to perform in a pornographic movie as long as she gets paid the minimum wage." I think he meant this as a joke. But New Zealand is out to prove him right; the government went and legalized prostitution . . . only to subject it to the sort of OSHA regulations that govern - and burden - legitimate enterprises:

The recommendations - which the New Zealand Herald said will also be distributed to brothels and sex workers - include detailed advice on safe sex practices such as the storage and handling of sex toys and disinfecting equipment.

Employers are asked to ensure condoms in a variety of shapes and sizes are always available, and to provide beds that support the back for a variety of services to be performed without strain or discomfort.

Sex workers are cautioned to watch out for occupational overuse syndrome, often caused by rapid repetitive tasks or forceful movements, and to carry a small torch in case they need to check clients for sexually transmitted diseases.

1. I swear I'm not making this up.

2. Lest you get too alarmed, "torch" means flashlight. I hope. Ouch!

3. I may have to nominate "occupational overuse syndrome" for "best euphamism ever.

*Taxation without representation: the Commons Blog notes that the UN is preparing to propose, next month, taxes - yes, UN taxes - on various international transactions to raise money for international development and UN-run anti-poverty programs. I was sure these guys had misread this story, but when you click the links it turns out to be for real. I'll give you three guesses which world leader is the major proponent of this, and the first two don't count (hint: first name "Jacques").

*Stuart Buck drills Kerry with still more examples of Kerry - contrary to his cynical convention blather about "Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so" - himself saying that it was so. My favorite, from January 2003:

If you don't believe in the U.N. ... or you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me.

As I've said before, Kerry's use of that line in the convention speech can only be read as the work of a man with complete confidence that nobody will call him on what he said before.

*Doc Weevil notes the oddity of accusing Republicans of being "un-Pennsylvanian."

*Professor Bainbridge compares Kerry's liberalism to Paul Wellstone's. (link via Instapundit). Chris Lawrence disagrees. For the record, here's how the Almanac of American Politics breaks out Kerry's 2001 and 2002 record, via National Journal rankings:

Issue Area	2001 Liberal	2001 Conservative	2002 Liberal	2002 Conservative
Economic Policy	93	0	95	0
Social	81	8	82	0
Foreign Policy	74	14	73	26

As usual, Kerry's supporters have been busy trying to say what he isn't rather than what he is, but any way you slice it, that's a pretty liberal record.

*Another blogger who will be at the Republican Convention (link via Instapundit).

*I saw Bill Clinton on Letterman Tuesday night - Dave gave him an uninterrupted platform to stump for Kerry. He made one semi-good point that was self-serving and not in Kerry's interest (surprise!) by defending the CIA by saying that the CIA found itself by the early 90s staffed with people with the training, looks, language skills and outlook to infiltrate the Warsaw Pact, and it takes time to train a whole new crop of people to infiltrate Middle Eastern terror groups (15 years? I'm skeptical that it should have taken that long. But he's partly right).

*A scathing review of "The Day After Tomorrow" by a paleoclimatologist (link via Dean Esmay).

*George W., man of the (Iraqi) people? (link via Chrenkoff).

*Laurence Simon has a semi-humorous set of arguments in favor of gay marriage.

Happy Fun Pundit had some hilarious captions to the "clean suit" photo (link via Vodkapundit). The elephant one damn near killed me. Protein Wisdom has some fun with a more recent shot. It's amazing how Kerry succeeds in making Bush and Cheney look like regular "just folks" by comparison.

Personally, I'm not that eager to go after John Kerry's Vietnam service, since that's the only issue he wants to talk about. But, of course, if he wants to run on Vietnam, he has to take the good with the bad. Polipundit links to this video from the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," featuring a group of officers who served alongside Kerry in Vietnam and blast his integrity and his conduct upon returning home from the war. Very hard-hitting stuff. Say what you will about the relevance of some of these charges to the election - I'm skeptical of whether it matters how severely Kerry was injured when people were, after all, shooting at him - but these guys have unquestionably earned the right to question every aspect of Kerry's service.

Some on the Left have attacked the swift boat group because some of its members are Republican activists in long standing, but my sense is that - whether you give their accounts credence or not - these guys are acting on motives that run far deeper than partisan politics. By and large, these are guys who felt betrayed by Kerry in 1971 when he gave his now-infamous speech to the Senate - which ran as the lead story on all three network newscasts that night and was the foundation of his political career - accusing his fellow Vietnam vets of "war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." It should not be surprising that some of the men he slandered then have not forgiven or forgotten.

UPDATE: Unsurprisingly, John McCain blasts the Swift Boat Vets ad (although the Swifties get the benefit of having their ad available on MSNBC). For the record, as I've said before, I don't think the nitty-gritty details of Kerry's service record should be an issue, try as Kerry may to make it the only issue. Nor do I hold against him the simple fact that he opposed the war on his return. On the other hand, how Kerry conducted himself and the things he said when he returned from Vietnam - including the 1971 testimony that fed directly into his 1972 campaign for Congress - is very much a part of his political career and entirely fair game, and he shouldn't act surprised that so many vets despise him for it.

*Kerry wants to send nuclear fuel to Iran. Seriously. I wish I was kidding. Next thing you know, he'll be kissing Brezhnev . . .

*Neal Boortz:

I'm betting that an impartial observer of the November 2nd election will be able to tell you who won our presidential election merely by watching the video -- no audio -- only the video of any of several Arabic television stations or news channels. Just watch the people in the streets of Tehran, Cairo or Damascus. If they're shouting, celebrating and shooting their AK-47s into the air, you'll know that Kerry won. If there are long faces in the capitols of the sponsors of terrorism, you can get ready for another four years of George W. Bush.

Link via Vodkapundit's chaser, Will Collier.

*Stryker takes issue with Hugh Hewitt's contention that the military votes heavily Republican, and criticizes the Marines who told reporters that they were against Kerry.

*Mark Steyn:

Last year, I was at a Kerry campaign stop in New Hampshire chatting with two old coots in plaid. The Senator approached and stopped in front of us. The etiquette in primary season is that the candidate defers to the cranky Granite Stater's churlish indifference to status and initiates the conversation: "Hi, I'm John Kerry. Good to see ya. Cold enough for ya?" Etc. But Kerry just stood there nose to nose, staring at us with a semi-glare on his face. After an eternity, an aide stepped out from behind him and said, "The Senator needs you to move."

"Well, why couldn't he have said that?" muttered one of the old coots, as Kerry swept past us.

That's how I felt after the Convention: all week Senators Biden, Lieberman and Edwards made the case that the Democrats were credible on national security. Why couldn't Kerry have said that?

Because in the end he's running for President because he feels he ought to be President. That's his message to George W Bush: "The Senator needs you to move." And even then everyone else says it better.

Read the whole thing.

Matt Welch just drills Kerry and Edwards for their straddle on free trade, noting this quote from senior Kerry economic advisor Laura Tyson:

Recognize that what might be said in one primary … is not an indicator of the future…. [What’s important] is Sen. Kerry's very courageous, very consistent, very long-term record on trade and global economic integration…. [He has shown] courage in this direction because a significant part of my party's base is a voice of concern about trade … and is consistently asking for policies that would take the U.S. backwards. […]

I want to assure you that a Kerry-Edwards administration will continue in the great American tradition of leading the way on global economic integration.

As Welch puts it,

It’s always refreshing to hear a senior campaign adviser tell you that her boss is a pandering bulls***ter. But this has been a Democratic talking point for more than two months . . .

Read the whole thing; this was before Kerry's "fair trade" and anti-outsourcing language in his convention speech. The soft-spoken promise that Kerry doesn't mean what he shouts from the rafters is reminiscent of this.

*Tom Maguire agrees with me that Kerry failed to address the critical questions in the war on terror - who we are fighting and whether he would have gone to war in Iraq. (Maguire also notes, of Kerry's "the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to" line: "Why we had to go to war in Kosovo remains a mystery, but this has been a Kerry line for over a year.") Kerry supporter Matt Yglesias agrees for basically the same reason: "To put it politely, I thought that was crap":

Mainly, I'm pissed about Iraq. How to handle Iraq is the most important question facing the president and he just punted. On other looming foreign policy issues (Iran, North Korea, Sudan) where, again, the president can pretty much do whatever he wants we are left with no idea of what a President Kerry would want to do. Nor do we even have a particularly smart backward-looking critique of the Iraq War. It's bad, of course, that the president wasn't straight with the American people about the case for war. Nevertheless, if the deception had been in service of a wildly successful policy, this would be the kind of thing one could more-or-less shrug off. Similarly, contrary to Kerry's accusation Bush didn't go into Iraq without a plan, he went in with a bad plan. But Kerry doesn't get into any of this. Nor did he so much as mention our general strategic situation in the Middle East, offering an opinion one way or the other about the alliances with Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

Typically, Yglesias and his liberal friends think that Kerry's vagueness was politically smart - as usual, they seem to assume that the American people are too dumb for specifics - but I tend to think that if the debates roll around and Kerry refuses to answer these two critical questions - (1) would a President Kerry have ultimately decided to go to war with Iraq, and (2) does the war on terror go beyond hunting down some stateless terrorists - he'll come off like Dukakis' cold response to Bernard Shaw on the death penalty in 1988.

*Andrew Sullivan, who's also voting for Kerry:

No mention of democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan. No mention of the terrorist forces that are amassed there. No reference to the elections scheduled for January. No mention of Iran. And the whole point is about process - about how to wage a war, not whether it should be waged. This is a man who clearly wants the U.S. out of the region where our future is at stake, and who believes that simply by taking office, other powers can somehow pick up the slack. Memo to Kerry: no other powers can pick up the slack. They don't have the troops or the technology or the will. His strategy is pure defense. This sentence is his strongest threat: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." So let's wait, shall we?

Also: "private drug research that has cured millions and saved my own life must be throttled to placate constituencies like the AARP."

Also: "I'm glad that Kerry has decided to use the FMA against Bush, as he should." (For a guy who excoriates Bush for not using the word "gay," Sullivan's awfully forgiving of Kerry making only the vaguest possible allusion to the issue, referring only to the "Constitution." Jon Stewart did a great bit where he played that clip and then had someone whisper in his ear and said, "wait, gay people want to do WHAT?").

And: "I definitely liked Kerry less at the end of it than at the beginning."

*Jay Reding thinks President Bush can tear up Kerry's approach with one word that was conspicuous by its absence: "Victory."

*I was only joking to friends about Kerry arriving in Boston on a water taxi because he couldn't find a swift boat, but Fred Kaplan at TNR reveals that those of us who had this thought weren't off base at all:

A few weeks back, a colleague of mine at TNR joked that the Kerry campaign should create a miniature river in the FleetCenter, in which the candidate and his "band of brothers" could wend their way toward the podium in a swift boat. Then came news that the Kerry campaign had actually hunted for a Vietnam-era swift boat to plunk down in the convention center. Alas, none was found, and Kerry had to settle for a water taxi ride with his boat mates.

Kaplan also notes a flaw in Kerry's invocation of the lessons of his combat service:

To Kerry supporters who argue otherwise, is it really necessary to point out . . . that the very men who dispatched Kerry to Vietnam were themselves decorated veterans?

(Of course, some, like LBJ, had fairly bogus combat decorations. But as to the architects of that war, the point stands). Kerry wants us to believe that his combat experience will be a restraint on going to war:

As President, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: “I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm’s way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent.” So lesson one, this is the only justification for going to war.

But this leaves unanswered the critical question about our reluctance to use force to stop the march of terrorism in the 1990s: what will Kerry say to the parent or spouse or little child who has lost a loved one due to a terrorist attack that Kerry could have prevented if he'd gone to war? The possibility doesn't even enter into his calculations.

*Lileks:

Read More »

Wonkette:

Proving the axiom that the only interests that are special are the other guy's special interests, Democratic delegates are paying $120 a piece for liability insurance. . . As lawyer and blogger Walter Olson notes, "imagine if they were doing something physically riskier than just waving placards around."

Punch the Bag wants Republicans to "Lose the hokey country music," and contrasts the Democrats' use of U2. Of course, one reason Republicans use country music is that liberal rock stars won't give permission for use of their songs (not that this stopped the Democrats from using Van Halen against the band's wishes). He also has a Kerry anecdote:

Back in 1987 (heavy sigh) when I was living on Capitol Hill, my roommate and I were at the video store on a Friday or Saturday night I guess. Yeah I know, why weren’t we in Georgetown? At any rate, in comes John Kerry dressed in a white button down shirt, khakis, and tennis shoes looking for a video too. I think he was between wives at that point and obviously didn’t have a lot planned that evening. He chose his movie and was soon out the door. My roommate, a press secretary on the Hill and more savvy than me given how his career has soared, immediately asked the clerk what Kerry had rented hoping it would be one of xxx-those-xxx kind of videos. Instead, and no surprise in hindsight, it was Oliver Stone’s Salvador. I look back at that observation of him and smile since it is a far cry from the jet set life he now experiences with the ketchup money.

On the big questions - would Kerry come out as an anti-war candidate or as a guy who stands by his vote for the Iraq war - and its practical significance (does he embrace the idea of an offensive strategy, including preemption and sometimes having to move without French and German allies), Kerry, unsurprisingly, didn't give an answer and tried to have it both ways. I've perma-linked this at the top; you owe it to yourself, in examining Kerry's views on this issue, to watch the RNC's devastating video on his contradictory positions over the years.

Where do we start?

Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn’t make it so. . . . As President, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system - so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics.

Of course, Kerry himself cited Saddam's WMD in voting for the Iraq war. But hey, nobody watching at home remembers that, do they?

And as President, I will bring back this nation’s time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.

In theory, I agree with that, but "have to" means many different things to many different people. Was Iraq part of the larger war, which no one should dispute is one we have to fight?

Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: “I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm’s way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent.” So lesson one, this is the only justification for going to war.

In other words: threat has to be imminent. Initiative has to belong to the enemy. That's a "no" on voting for the Iraq war.

I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That’s the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

Here is the reality: that won’t happen until we have a president who restores America’s respect and leadership — so we don’t have to go it alone in the world.

We all know this is hokum - the major European powers have neither the will nor the means to project more than token military support into Iraq. Kerry knows this, and does not care.

And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

"[B]efore they get us"? Sounds like we're back to preemption and being willing to go on the attack.

I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required.

Required, how?

Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.

Oh, only if we're attacked first. As if there was any doubt that Kerry would respond to an attack. Well, unless - as is almost invariably true - the intelligence is fuzzy on exactly who attacked us, where they are located, and who their patrons are.

I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.

Sounds nice, but if you really mean the stuff before about needing allies, eventually there are times when the only realistic choice is to go with only ten or twenty of them or to wait for the whole world to get on board, resulting in inaction.

And I will build a stronger American military.

We will add 40,000 active duty troops - not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives - and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists.

Note how quick to say "not in Iraq." So much for the idea that we need more troops there. Also, Kerry doesn't exactly have the best record of voting for "the newest weapons and technology."

As President, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower.

Which sounds good, but I note also that nearly nobody at this convention talked about the sicknesses of jihadism and anti-Semitism and tyranny in the Muslim and Arab worlds. You'd think the problem was just a few renegades.

We need a strong military and we need to lead strong alliances. And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win. The future doesn’t belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.

Actually, I'd like a president who is willing to say that today.

So, for people tuning in last night, we can answer the question, "Who is John Kerry?": He's an orange man with mechanical hand gestures and run-on sentences like this one:

So tonight, in the city where America’s freedom began, only a few blocks from where the sons and daughters of liberty gave birth to our nation - here tonight, on behalf of a new birth of freedom - on behalf of the middle class who deserve a champion, and those struggling to join it who deserve a fair shot - for the brave men and women in uniform who risk their lives every day and the families who pray for their return - for all those who believe our best days are ahead of us - for all of you - with great faith in the American people, I accept your nomination for President of the United States.

Was it, as it should have been, the speech of Kerry's life? Well, measured against past Kerry speeches, I'd have to say it was - he didn't drone, and it wasn't a forty-car pileup of banalities. Neither was it a great speech; I'd maybe give it a B or a B+. But then, I'm not the target audience here. Some observations:

*The most striking characteristic of Kerry's speech, as with this whole Democratic convention and as with Kerry's traditional approach to defining himself (or, rather, un-defining himself) - particularly coming from a challenger - was its astounding defensiveness. I am too a patriot. I am too willing to defend this country from its enemies. I'm not gonna let the UN veto actions to defend the country. I do too share your values. I do too believe in God. I'm not gonna jack up your taxes. I'm not a pessimist or a mean, angry guy.

At some point, you have to wonder if the Democrats ever ask themselves why it is that they should have to say things like this. When you have to spend half the time at your own party's convention three months before the general election trying to convince people that you are not an unpatriotic, amoral, unprincipled, godless weenie, perhaps the convention shouldn't be the first time you deal with the problem.

*Echoes of any number of past campaigns here - I can't even count the faux-Kennedyisms, but there was the deliberate echo of both Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bush in 2000:

We have it in our power to change the world again. But only if we’re true to our ideals - and that starts by telling the truth to the American people. That is my first pledge to you tonight. As President, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House.

There was also the verbatim cribbing from Dick Cheney in 2000: "To all who serve in our armed forces today, I say, help is on the way."

Line with the strongest Shrum/Ted in '80 feel to it:

But we’re not finished. The journey isn’t complete. The march isn’t over. The promise isn’t perfected.

*My wife thought the choppy hand gestures - which got better about halfway through the speech, when the six cups of coffee or whatever started to wear off - made Kerry look like a cheerleader. Though I must say, John Stewart was running footage later of Jennifer Granholm, and Kerry wasn't that bad.

*Cheap shot: after Kerry said his mother "taught me to see trees as the cathedrals of nature", I half expected him to add, "and I came to see them as my brothers." Another one: when he said

Now, I’m not one to read into things, but guess which wing of the hospital the maternity ward was in? I’m not making this up.

I can't have been the only one thinking, "is he really gonna say, 'the left wing'?"
(I also noticed that they cut the volume on "No Surrender" right at the line "there's a war out there still ragin', you say it ain't ours anymore to win . . .")

*I predicted to some friends that Kerry would have his "band of brothers" on the stage alongside him during the speech. Between the salutes, the "reporting for duty," and all the Vietnam-vet stuff, I half expected him to come out in uniform - or at least wearing his medals (not the ribbons, I guess . . . ). Even Ollie North didn't play the man-in-uniform card this hard. Time will tell how the hard sell on his Vietnam service will play, but they definitely left no cliche behind in promoting it.

*Should the Republicans, as some have suggested, try to make hay out of the paucity of substantive attention given to domestic policy? The Democrats generally were long on pain-feeling and talking up job creation and very short on how you do anything about it. But I suspect the GOP needs to stick to its own game plan, which in any event has to include some real details on what the second-term agenda should look like.

*Now, correct me if I'm wrong - I didn't by any means watch every speech - but I swear I didn't hear the name "Saddam Hussein" from the podium once.

*More another time on Kerry's pie-in-the-sky on foreign oil and on the idea that we should be developing more life-saving drugs while imposing price controls on drug companies.

Cont'd . . .

Dean Esmay asks whether, if John Kerry were to win the election, conservatives will pledge not to launch the sort of ceaseless attacks on Kerry's credibility and his acts abroad that Bush's opponents have launched:

I will refuse to call him traitor, loser, liar, incompetent. He will be my President, my Commander In Chief, the Chief Executive of a great nation, elected by the will of a majority of the electors in these 50 great united States. So even if he does things I disagree with in conducting foreign policy, I will say, "I respectfully disagree with the President's directions, but I will do my best to express my dissent respectfully and hope that I am mistaken and that he has made the proper decisions after all."

Suspending for the moment my disbelief in Kerry's chances, I for one - like most conservatives - have a mixed reaction to that. Many of the attacks on Bush have been hand in hand with the propaganda of America's enemies: that Bush is a lying warmonger, disrespects our allies, disregards international institutions, etc. By contrast, conservative critiques of Kerry's foreign policy would almost certainly be from the opposite direction: that he'd be too timid, too deferential to corrupt and ineffectual international institutions, too reliant on paper promises of peace. Those are, of course, the exact opposite positions as those pushed by our enemies.

Unlike the Clinton years, conservatives are united in a vision of what our foreign policy should be; as in the Cold War, expect me and other conservatives to rip Kerry if he fails to pursue that policy aggressively, but not to run around screaming that "Kerry lied, people died" if he takes firm action against the nation's sworn enemies. I don't expect to be accusing him of "wagging the dog" or screaming about dead civilians in foreign wars or accusing him of selling his foreign policy to big American corporations.

Liar? Well, Kerry usual avoids lying by avoiding saying anything with any factual content, but if he lies, yeah, I'll call him on it. I think Kerry's fairly contemptible in a number of ways (more on that tomorrow), but I don't expect to reach the level of bile of somebody like Atrios or Kos or Oliver Willis in indicting Kerry's whole party as a bunch of criminals; that's a stupid oversimplification that just makes it harder to have a dialogue.

On the other hand, I certainly would support an absolute refusal to allow Senate votes on any Kerry judicial nominee an inch to the left of Sandra Day O'Connor. Kerry and Edwards made that bed, if they win they deserve to sleep in it.

If there are questions raised about scandals, I'll certainly keep my eye on them, but I wouldn't expect to reach the level of venom directed at Bush on the flimsiest of evidence.

If Kerry were to take the nation to war, I'd be behind him 100%, no "buts" and no cheering for setbacks.

*Josh Marshall and Micheal Moore hit the nail on the head with regard to how the Democrats really feel about why this convention has been so vague and unspecific in its attacks on President Bush, to the point where I hardly think the name "Dick Cheney" or familiar hobby-horses like "Halliburton" or "Enron" or "Weapons of Mass Destruction" have been mentioned: they think it's so self-evident that Bush is a disaster that they don't even believe it's necessary to explain why. I'm not sure that's a winning approach, but I do think Marshall and Moore have put their fingers on what their side is thinking.

*The indispensable Dave Barry - for my money, the funniest writer in the history of the English language - on the convention's first night:

The highlight of Day One of the Democratic convention was the appearance of former President Bill Clinton, who gave a passionate speech on the theme ''My Book Is for Sale,'' after which the delegates unanimously nominated him for another term.

No, they didn't, but they would if they could. The Democrats haven't totally gotten over pining for Bill. Remember when you were in high school, and you really wanted to go to the prom with a gorgeous girl, but you couldn't ask her because she was really popular and already had served two terms as president of the United States, so you wound up asking John Kerry? That's the situation the Democrats are in now.

Barry also captures the Democrats' desperation to look tough:

The convention continues tonight, with the theme being: ''Making America Stronger through the Strength of Strongness.'' The idea here is to convince doubtful voters that the Democrats can be trusted to be tough on terrorism and won't create some kind of feel-good liberal bleeding-heart program like enrolling terrorists in bowling leagues.

Emphasis on this theme will continue through Thursday night, when, to climax the convention, an actual live terrorist will be released onstage, and John Kerry will beat him senseless with a hockey stick, after which John Edwards will sue him.

Read the whole thing.

*Terrific speech from last week by Senator Mitch McConnell on the media's failure to give adequate attention to the complete collapse of the story they trumpeted this time last year about the Iraq, Niger and the 2003 State of the Union Address.
(Link via the MinuteMan).

*Gratuitous Boston Herald paraphrasing potshot, in an article noting nasty comments Teresa Heinz Kerry once made about Ted Kennedy: "Kennedy's office dismissed the comments as water under the bridge" (Link via Wonkette)

*Tim Blair has a laugh at the expense of one of his chief nemeses, left-leaning Australian journalist Margo Kingston, who doesn't understand what's so "anti-semetic" about saying that "the fundamentalist Zionist lobby controls politics and the media in the US and Australia."

Barack Obama, in last night's keynote address:

[E]ven as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America — there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States.

Ted Kennedy:

[I]n our own time, there are those who seek to divide us. One community against another. Urban against rural. City against suburb. Whites against blacks. Men against women. Straights against gays. Americans against Americans.

Um, doesn't this create a bit of a jarring contrast to a campaign that, with the addition of John Edwards to the ticket, has made "Two Americas" a central theme? Of course, "Two Americas" speaks of economic, not cultural divisions - but it's still an inherently divisive, Manichean, us vs. them view of the country.

Of course, the Democrats' overarching theme here is that there should be no cultural issues in politics - we should just let them dictate the terms of conservatives' surrender. Note that in all the talk about common values there's no attempt to deal with the Democrats' actual positions on the issues that the people, in a democracy, have every right to disagree over. Much closer to the Democratic heart - as far as the party's governing philosophy - is Ron Reagan's statement:

[I]t does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many.

Translation: my moral concerns should be the basis for government policy; yours are just a personal opinion, driven by that awful thing, "theology."

Ricky West has a fine self-produced video up; make sure you check it out. And I actually got an email this morning from John McCain asking for donations to the Bush campaign (yes, hold the irony with that one):

Today we face the greatest test of our generation, defending our nation from a depraved, malevolent force that opposes our every interest and hates every value we hold dear. There was no avoiding this war but we will survive. Our enemies must not.

In this challenging time, I am grateful for the leadership of President George W. Bush and his steadfast resolve in defending our nation. He has led this country with moral clarity about the stakes involved and the strength to achieve unconditional victory.

Our President has not wavered in his determination to make this world a better, safer, freer place. Our nation must not yield in this long, tough fight to vanquish international terrorism and with George W. Bush as our President, it will not.

My friends, this is the most important election of our lifetime and I wouldn't be writing you if I didn't firmly believe in President Bush's leadership and the need for his re-election in these challenging times. As Democrats gather in Boston, I am asking you to demonstrate your strong support for President Bush by making a contribution to his re-election campaign at www.GeorgeWBush.com/JohnMcCain/ today.

To the work of many American generations who protected our interests and championed our values abroad must now be added the defense of our freedoms here at home from a clear and present danger. We are very fortunate that in these challenging days we have a President and Vice President that have demonstrated time and again the determined, clear thinking necessary to prevail in this global fight between good and evil.

Yup. You know, I keep thinking that if McCain had been president instead of Bush, the Left would hate him just as much - he'd undoubtedly have done a lot of the same things in terms of foreign policy, he's certainly no more diplomatic than Bush, and his background as a pilot from a Navy family would probably have led to him being characterized as a mad bomber and the like, in terms pretty well opposite to the attacks on Bush for not having seen combat.

Very little time to blog this morning, so just my gut reactions to what I saw of the Democrats last night: strong speech by Bill Clinton, as you would expect; there were a few howlers along the way as he and Hillary blamed Bush for various things Clinton did nothing about, but so be it. At least he had the decency to admit, when making a point about Kerry's Vietnam service, that he didn't go either. (Clinton's efforts to make Kerry sound like a point man in the Senate were fairly tepid; even Clinton needs more to work with than Kerry's Senate record) . . . funny how Hillary is suddenly known principally as a voice for expanding the military . . . Hillary's Chicago accent seemed to be more in evidence than usual . . . I thought it odd that neither of the Clinton's referred to the other as "my husband"/"my wife" . . . didn't see Gore, but Jimmy Carter's speech seemed very typically Jimmy Carterish, full of despair and blaming America and Israel for all the world's ills; Carter also sounds as if he has some sort of speech impediment, which isn't really all that unusual given his age.

Thoughts upon my return from vacationing in Lake George, NY:

*Saw a bunch of Bush/Cheney and W'04 bumper stickers. Saw tons of those yellow ribbon support-the-troops stickers. Did not see a Kerry or Kerry/Edwards sticker anywhere. Blue state, red country. Also on the sticker subject, I bought one of those magnetic Bush stickers advertised over at Smash's place; they're a great thing if (like my wife) you don't want permanent sticker residue on your car after the election (downside: the fear of the sticker getting swiped). I also saw a Bush TV ad, which seemed odd, given that the New York/Vermont TV market isn't exactly a swing state market.

*Ever have one of those stretches when you just keep having instant problems with stuff you buy? We had this - inedible/undercooked hot dog, corkscrew that won't open a bottle, overcharge for a food order, take-out entree that gets home without an essential element - and the solutions are always bad: I don't want to sit back and accept getting ripped off, but I also hate to be one of those people who goes back and complains about stuff all the time.

*Ricky Williams is retiring. Ricky Williams was born in 1977. Yes, I feel old.

*The Mets appear ready to decide that this team is worth making a few tinkers around the edges but otherwise be neither a buyer nor a seller in the summer deal market. Which is depressing, given how close they have come in so many games blown by the bullpen lately, but makes sense. Sometimes a pennant race just has to be enjoyed on its own terms, without high expectations.

*On Sandy Berger's pants-gate: man, Clinton scandals are just the gift that keeps on giving, aren't they?

Dean Esmay has the best summary of the Valerie Plame scandal I've heard yet. There's now nothing left of Joe Wilson's original charge - that President Bush misrepresented the state of intelligence on Saddam Hussein's efforts to buy element needed to make nuclear weapons in Africa - and little or nothing left of Wilson's credibility. Nor is there any reason to think that Plame's career as a Langley, Virginia-based CIA analyst has been injured, nor her safety jeopardized.

What's left, primarily, is the issue of whether there's been a technical violation of 50 U.S.C. 421, which of course requires proof that the defendant disclosed a covert agent's identity "knowing . . . that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States" - a state-of-mind requirement that seems very difficult to establish in this case, especially given the likelihood that the sources who told Bob Novak that Plame was with the CIA had encountered her in her capacity as a Langley-based analyst and reviewed her recommendation of Wilson in the same capacity.

Oh, and just by the way: this is interesting.

You may have seen Jonah Goldberg's point last week that the Democrats who ripped Dan Quayle for his lack of experience have a lot of explaining to do to justify John Edwards, with only about half of Quayle's tenure as a legislator, as a VP candidate. This was a particularly amusing example:

In 1988 John Kerry got into a lot of trouble -- and eventually apologized -- for telling the following joke when asked about Quayle's qualifications:

"The Secret Service is under orders that if Bush is shot, to shoot Quayle."

But what really amazed me was the site Jonah linked to: www.quaylemuseum.org. Yes, there really is a Dan Quayle United States Vice Presidential Museum. See for yourself. Quayle's bio gives in to one flight of hyperbole that would make Bill Clinton blush: "As a leader in causes from legal system reform to deregulation to the renewal of basic American values, Vice President Quayle developed a large national following and became one of the most admired Americans of his time."

I didn't get to see much news this weekend - we were busy with my son's 7th birthday - but I did catch a clip from a CBS News interview that I found amusing. Kerry and Edwards were doing a joint interview, sitting in chairs next to each other; they were interrupting each other on and off, and at one point Edwards leans forward, says to Kerry, "let me answer this one," and launches into an answer to a question about how Kerry would have handled the Iraq War differently . . . what I noticed was that as he did this, Edwards gripped Kerry's right arm with his left hand. It was an instantly recognizable gesture, of course, and one Edwards has undoubtedly used so many times it's second nature: the lawyer cutting off his (perhaps sympathetic but usually inarticulate) client and taking charge of the meeting.

John Edwards, war profiteer? Not really, but Tim Blair has some grist for conspiracy theorists, and Bill Hobbs has some fun with Kerry and Edwards flying "Million Air" (yes, that's actually what the private airline service said). Of course, that wasn't the Kerry camp's only amusing recent gaffe; the Boston Herald's blog also noted Kerry arriving at an education event to the strains of Bruce Springsteen's "No Surrender" - a great song, but one whose opening lines are "We busted out of class/had to get away from those fools/We learned more from a three-minute record, baby/than we ever learned in school."

Anyway, on the money issue, one thing that gets me is how Edwards vs. Cheney is supposed to be the little guy vs. the plutocrat; the New York Daily News bills the matchup as "The Lawyer vs. the Tycoon." But Edwards was a multimillionaire years before Cheney was. My recollection on this could be wrong, but I don't believe Cheney grew up rich in Wyoming in the Forties and Fifties; he spent the Sixties as a student, 1969-76 working in the Nixon & Ford Administrations, spent the Carter & Reagan years as a small-state Congressman, and 1989-92 as Secretary of Defense, while his wife was (I believe) also in the public-policy business. In other words, while Congressmen and Cabinet secretaries are hardly poor, I doubt he made much in the way of really serious millionaire-type money until he left the Pentagon in 1993 to head Halliburton. Edwards, by contrast, won his first million-dollar verdict in a contingency fee case (i.e., he probably walked off with a third) around 1984, and his wife was also in lucrative private practice for many years. I guarantee you that in 1992, Edwards was worth several times what Cheney was worth. Yet, somehow, Edwards is the "little guy". Bah.

Jonah Goldberg notes a New York Press article by Michelangelo Signorile approvingly reporting on efforts by gay activists to use threats of "outing" Members of Congress and their staffs as a way of influencing their votes on the Federal Marriage Amendment, including threats to expose Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, who apparently is widely believed to be a lesbian:

As the July 12 date nears for a vote on the federal marriage amendment, an outing panic has gripped Washington's political and media circles. Some gay activists have vowed to expose those closeted members of Congress who are supporting the amendment, as well as the closeted gay staffers of any member backing it. And it's not only right-wing Republicans who should be on notice. After initially indicating that she would vote against the constitutional amendment that would make gays and lesbians into second-class citizens, Sen. Barbara Mikulski's opposition to the amendment appears to have gone into the closet: Now that a vote is near, the Maryland Democrat—who is up for reelection in November—is suddenly not returning reporters' phone calls seeking her intentions on the vote, nor is she issuing any statements on the matter.

[snip]

All of Capitol Hill, reports the Blade, is in a "panic" over activists' efforts to out politicians supporting the FMA and, perhaps more controversially, threatening to out staffers who might be gay. The argument for outing the staffers is that many of them have a lot of influence in their offices and are public figures in their own right, quoted often in the beltway press, representing their bosses. Activist Mike Rogers has been calling the offices of at least 13 members of Congress urging the closeted gay staffers to confront their bosses on the issue, and outing them to the chiefs of staff if they refuse to discuss the issue with him.

Rumors have circulated in Washington that the Blade had planned to publish a list of names of closeted staffers and members, something the paper denies even as it defends reporting on those who might be closeted gays who might be voting for the amendment.

Interestingly, Goldberg notes this morning that Mikuski has quickly issued a press release reiterating her opposition to the amendment.

Now, maybe I'm missing something, but aren't the facts described in this article a textbook case of blackmail - and probably extortion in violation of numerous federal laws - in that activists are threatening to expose the private lives of Members of Congress and their staffs unless they change their votes on pending legislation (indeed, an amendment to the Constitution itself) in a way that satisfies the activists? If I were one of the targets in this situation, I'd have to consider putting in a call the FBI and start wearing a wire.

John Kerry works his famous personal magnetism on John McCain, with predictable results:

Read More »

Memory lane - an October 10, 2002 press release:

The bipartisan resolution on Iraq was cosponsored by Senator Edwards. It closely tracked provisions he spelled out one month ago. The joint resolution gives the president authority to use military force against Iraq to enforce relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. It calls on the president to work with the U.N. to make Iraq comply with its resolutions, but authorizes force if diplomatic means fail. The measure also focuses on what happens in a post-Saddam Iraq and its transition to democracy.

Senator Edwards said the debate on the congressional resolution helped make the case to the American people that Saddam Hussein must be stopped from adding nuclear weapons to his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

I posted much more in this vein at the Command Post back in January. On the other hand, see this Peter Beinart column from last fall trashing Edwards and Kerry for voting against the $87 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds:

Read More »

NY Post headline this morning:

KERRY PICKS GEPHARDT

Official Kerry Announcement:

In just a few minutes, I will announce that Senator John Edwards will join me as my running-mate on the Democratic ticket as a candidate for vice president of the United States.

Instapundit is all over the story of John Kerry conceding that "I believe life does begin at conception," which as Captain Ed notes, makes anything but a pro-life position on abortion an appalling admission of callousness:

John Kerry, in his remarks to the Iowa newspaper, comes up with a completely different raison d'etre -- he seeks to define life so as to protect his political career. Kerry now admits he practices hypocrisy on a scale so monstrous, it boggles the mind.

If life begins at conception, why then does Jon Kerry not only agree to allow abortion, but campaigns on its behalf? Does he care so little for human life and the souls of the unborn that he cheerfully sells them out for political gain? John Kerry was one of only 14 Senators who voted to continue the practice of partial-birth abortions, which take a fetus past the point of viability into the birth canal and kills it by sucking out its brain. How does that match up with a belief in life at conception?

Read the whole thing. I tend to side with those who assume that Kerry doesn't and can't really believe this, as evidenced by his record and rhetoric over the course of his career.

One thing that's striking about this political season is the confidence of the two sides (see here for a sample from Kevin Drum's debate with Hugh Hewitt, this Reason article - not even by a Bush supporter - arguing that Bush "is a lock," and my discussion here of Chuck Todd's Kerry-landslide theory). I mean, in any presidential election there can be found partisans on each side who are so convinced of the hopelessness of their adversaries that they are certain of victory. But this year seems unusual in that regard - left-leaning sites seem full of posts and comments about how Bush is going down, while many conservative commentators are talking landslide. Me, I admit I have a hard time picturing Kerry actually winning this thing - especially with an improving economy and a likely decline in the level of violence in Iraq by Election Day - much harder than I did with Gore in 2000 or even Clinton in 1992.

All of which will be very interesting to watch, come November. One way or the other, there are a lot of very confident people out there who are going to be eating some serious crow.

I hate to keep raising Michael Moore around here, but I just keep seeing people on the Left who actually seem to think he's doing good things. Can anybody be that credulous?

Well, Dave Kopel is collecting a bill of particulars on Moore's latest movie. Spinsanity has some background.

UPDATE: Matthew Hoy, noting Paul Krugman's contention that Moore "has yet to be caught in any major factual errors," suggests that "Krugman doesn't know what facts are."

Ed Moltzen starts down the rabbit hole of the latest Al Gore speech, and keeps tumbling down, down, down . . . too much good stuff here to excerpt.

(Link via Michele).

I've stressed before that I'm not that interested in pinning blame on Americans for the September 11 attacks; there's way too much 20/20 hindsight out there. Nonetheless, it's important to keep the historical record straight - not least as a reminder that those who want to return to the pre-September 11 policies are horrifically mistaken, and also as a curative against current agitprop that seeks to blame President Bush for the problem. In that light, it's important to keep the Clinton legacy on terrorism in perspective and understand why, with the benefit of that hindsight, it was such a disaster.

Clinton likes to speak today of his "virtual obsession" with getting Osama bin Laden. Here's his explanation of why he didn't, from Larry King's show on Sunday night:

And after the African embassies were blown up, there was a plan to blow up our embassy in Albania. We did that. There was a plan by many of bin Laden's allies from the mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Afghan War, to take over Bosnia after the Bosnian War and we stopped that.

So we were deeply immersed in this. So what I say all the time is -- and what I told President Bush when we had our little meeting after the Supreme Court decision -- I regret deeply that I didn't get him. I tried everything I knew to get him.

I wish -- the only real regret I have in terms of our efforts is nearly everybody in the world knew that he did the USS Cole in October of 2000. I knew what our options were, I knew what our military options were, I knew what our covert options were. And I felt I couldn't take strong military action against Afghanistan because the FBI and the CIA didn't officially agree that bin Laden had done it until after I left office.

If they had done so when I was in office, I would have taken stronger action -- even as a lame duck president.

KING: Do you know why they didn't?

CLINTON: I think they just had a process they wanted to go through. And keep in mind, you know, when Oklahoma City happened, which before 9/11 was the worst domestic terrorist incident, a lot of people immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was a Muslim militant terrorist. And I remember standing in the Rose Garden of the White House pleading with the American people not to jump to any conclusions.

So I felt if I launched a full scale attack, violated air space of countries that wouldn't give me permission, had to do the logistics of doing that without basing rights like we had in Uzbekistan and other things we had after 9/11, I would have been on grounds without an approval.

But I don't think -- I don't know of anything that I could have done that I didn't do at the time that would have dramatically increased the chances of getting bin Laden because I wanted to do it and I regretted not doing it.

There's just a world of misguided caution there, and not just on Clinton's part; the FBI and CIA bear some pretty substantial responsibility as well. But note that Clinton treated the Cole incident exactly as the current critics of the Iraq war would have treated Saddam Hussein: by giving bin Laden the benefit of every doubt, by treating it as a law enforcement matter requiring indictable evidence before one moves to protect the nation. The consequences of this approach, as we now know, were catastrophic.

Clinton's approach was also problematic for a deeper reason: he spoke at the time and speaks now, as President Bush has wisely stopped doing, as if apprehending a single leader (bin Laden) was the goal, and as if military action was pointless if he didn't apprehend the #1 guy. But we also know, as Clinton knew and told the nation as far back as August 1998, that Taliban Afghanistan was home to "a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden." Of course, it was the men training in those camps, not bin Laden himself, who actually executed the September 11 plot, and thousands more trained there who may still be at large. In a January 1999 speech, Clinton reiterated the problem:

Since 1993, we have tripled funding for FBI anti-terrorist efforts. Our agents and prosecutors, with excellent support from our intelligence agencies, have done extraordinary work in tracking down perpetrators of terrorist acts and bringing them to justice. And as our air strikes against Afghanistan -- or against the terrorist camps in Afghanistan -- last summer showed, we are prepared to use military force against terrorists who harm our citizens. But all of you know the fight against terrorism is far from over. And now, terrorists seek new tools of destruction.

Last May, at the Naval Academy commencement, I said terrorist and outlaw states are extending the world's fields of battle, from physical space to cyberspace, from our earth's vast bodies of water to the complex workings of our own human bodies. The enemies of peace realize they cannot defeat us with traditional military means. So they are working on two new forms of assault, which you've heard about today: cyber attacks on our critical computer systems, and attacks with weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological, potentially even nuclear weapons. We must be ready -- ready if our adversaries try to use computers to disable power grids, banking, communications and transportation networks, police, fire and health services -- or military assets.

Indeed, even ordinary internet users knew about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan during the last two and a half years of the Clinton Administration.

Richard Miniter has taken a dark view of Clinton's efforts:

[S]tarting in 1993, Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.) repeatedly wrote to President Clinton and warned him and other administration officials about bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists. McCollum was the founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and had developed a wealth of contacts among the mujihedeen in Afghanistan. Those sources, who regularly visited McCollum, informed him about bin Laden's training camps and evil ambitions.

[snip]

In October 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen sailors were killed in the blast. The USS Cole was almost sunk. In any ordinary administration, this would have been considered an act of war. After all, America entered the Spanish-American war and World War I when our ships were attacked.

Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke had ordered his staff to review existing intelligence in relation to the bombing of the USS Cole. After that review, he and Michael Sheehan, the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, were convinced it was the work of Osama bin Laden. The Pentagon had on-the-shelf, regularly updated and detailed strike plans for bin Laden's training camps and strongholds in Afghanistan.

At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden. Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it. Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was. Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process. Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack "sufficient provocation" for a military retaliation. Michael Sheehan was particularly surprised that the Pentagon did not want to act. He told Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"

Instead of destroying bin Laden's terrorist infrastructure and capabilities, President Clinton phoned twice phoned the president of Yemen demanding better cooperation between the FBI and the Yemeni security services. If Clarke's plan had been implemented, al Qaeda's infrastructure would have been demolished and bin Laden might well have been killed. Sept. 11, 2001 might have been just another sunny day.

Rich Lowry:

[W]hy attack just one Afghan training camp? Mike Rolince, former chief of the international terrorism division of the FBI, explained to me: "We never went back to the camps and dismantled the neighborhood where these people were allowed to train, test chemicals, recruit, plan operations. On a regular basis, we saw intelligence that documented what they were, where they were, how big they were, how many people were going through there, and the administration lacked the political will to go in there and do something about it."

Now, Clinton's failure to act is sometimes excused by other circumstances: impeachment distracted him, he had to prosecute the Kosovo war, he couldn't act during an election. Let's go to the timeline of Clinton's military responses against al Qaeda or, for that matter, against Iraq, charted against a selection (admittedly incomplete) of significant events:

Month	Events	Military Actions
August 1998	August 7: Embassy bombings. August 17: Clinton grand jury testimony	August 20: Missile strikes on terror camps in Afghanistan
September 1998	September 11: Starr Report released	None
October 1998	n/a	None
November 1998	Congressional elections	None
December 1998	December 19: Clinton impeached	December 16: Desert Fox (bombing of sites in Iraq)
January 1999	n/a	None
February 1999	February 12: Senate acquits Clinton	None
March 1999	March 24: Bombing in Kosovo begins	None
April 1999	Kosovo campaign continues	None
May 1999	Kosovo campaign continues	None
June 1999	June 10: Kosovo campaign ends	None
July 1999	n/a	None
August 1999	n/a	None
September 1999	n/a	None
October 1999	n/a	None
November 1999	n/a	None
December 1999	n/a	None
January 2000	n/a	None
February 2000	n/a	None
March 2000	March 7: Bush, Gore lock up nominations; stock market begins long slide	None
April 2000	n/a	None
May 2000	n/a	None
June 2000	n/a	None
July 2000	Republican Convention	None
August 2000	Democratic Convention	None
September 2000	n/a	None
October 2000	October 12: Cole bombing; October 11: second Bush-Gore debate, candidates discuss Iraq but neither addresses terrorism	None
November 2000	Election, recount begins	None
December 2000	December 12: Supreme Court stops recount	None
January 2001	January 20: Clinton leaves office amid flurry of presidential pardons and new regulations	None

Again, the purpose of the timeline isn't to damn Clinton (although one does come away with the conclusion that his military aggressiveness tended to wane when he wasn't in extreme political/legal peril, and question what he could have been doing instead of spending "a whole day a week every week for a year, maybe a little more" in marriage counseling), but to point out the obvious: for more than three years after the August 1998 attacks, the nation and its president (Clinton, for most of that period) knew there were terrorist camps operating in Afghanistan, and failed to treat them as a lethal threat. In the latter half of 1999 in particular, it seems difficult to explain why an offensive against terrorists could not have been a higher priority. Let us not repeat that error.

Drezner quotes Andrew Sullivan knocking the conventions:

For my part, I think bloggers could make more of a statement by not going to these elaborate infomercials. All they are are schmooze-fests for journalists, pundits and political types and then many layers of corrupting parties for donors. The only political importance is as television shows, and you can better understand that by, er, watching television.

A major cliche award should go to anybody who carps about the fact that conventions are contrived for TV. The whole point of the modern political convention is to allow a once-every-four-years opportunity for each of our two major political parties to speak directly to the public - without much in the way of media filtering - about their agenda and vision for the nation. The parties make some delberate choices about the face they choose to show to the public, and those choices, as in the 1992 GOP convention or Al Gore's 2000 speech, can be significant. And there are still the genuine human moments that crop up in any live TV event, no matter how stage-managed, like the electricity generated by the Ted Kennedy 1980 and Reagan 1976 not-entirely-a-concession speeches.

So count me as a dissenter against the cynics. Yes, conventions are scripted for TV. But that's precisely why they matter.

One of Drezner's readers has a good point here about GOP Senate candidate Jack Ryan:

[A]s a Chicagoan let me just mention how depressing it is to have the most clueless, lunkheaded republican party in the country. Worst of all they cant seem to find a candidate for any office not named Ryan (former Governor George Ryan was plagued with graft and corruption). Newsflash GOP, many voters dont bother to see what a guys first name is, if a Ryan keeps showing up on ballots every couple of years, a significant number of semi-apathetic voters will check the opposite column just out of habit. Idiots.

You'll recall this problem biting GOP gubernatorial candidate Jim Ryan in 2002. (Not that I'm endorsing the characterization of the IL GOP as the most clueless in the nation; MA, NJ & CA all provide stiff competition). Why not double down and bring in the Express?

There he goes again: Al Gore serves up a steaming dollop of leftist tropes on how people were misled about the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, based on the usual Gore assumption that the American people are too stupid to understand what the Administration actually says. Then, he rails against the Bush Administration getting support from a "network of 'rapid response' digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for 'undermining support for our troops.'"

I guess he means us warbloggers, eh?

Powerline, as usual, has, well, a rapid response and an appropriate one, including some amusing Gore quotes from 12 years ago, back when he was still a responsible adult.

More ugliness:

Read More »

Lawroark (via Andrew Sullivan) takes apart Michael Moore for dredging up a silly Dana Milbank article from the September 3, 2002 Washington Post saying that President Bush had spent 42% of his term on vacation. Lawroark notes a couple problems with this, including the inclusion of weekends in the figure, and has a nifty photo display of Bush meeting with foreign heads of state at the ranch and Camp David, which hardly seems like a day at the beach to me.

Let's add two more problems with this line of attack:

1. The proportion of the president's term spent on vacation will always be highest if measured at the beginning of September, and higher still if it includes two whole summers in office and only one winter. Entering September 2002, the months of June, July and August accounted for 6 of the 19 months of the Bush presidency (31.5%). Does this mean Bush only likes being president in the summertime? Or did Milbank, on a slow newsday, just pick a fortuitous time to run the numbers?

2. As President Clinton told Newsweek three years ago (I don't have the link but the quote is reprinted here), and repeats the point in his memoirs: "Every important mistake I made in my life, I made because I was too tired." Bush understands that executive decisions require judgment, and judgment requires a clear head; if he needs to go jogging, get to bed early or clear brush on his ranch to think things through, that's a far better management strategy than staying up all night eating pizza and getting frisky with interns.

Will Saletan pens a transparently fatuous article seeking to compare Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan to Bill Clinton so as to level a ludicrous accusation of hypocrisy against Republicans:

Six years ago, Republicans demanded that Bill Clinton be investigated and impeached for having sex with an intern and covering it up. Now their nominee for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, Jack Ryan, is brushing off his then-wife's allegations that he repeatedly pressured her, despite her protestations, to have sex with him in front of other people. Instead of denouncing Ryan, many Republicans are defending him.

Saletan concludes: "Now we know why Bill Clinton got impeached. He was in the wrong club." No serious adult could believe that the GOP's defense of Ryan shows "why Bill Clinton got impeached," and I very seriously doubt that Saletan expects anyone to believe this column. Note that Saletan doesn't even bother to deal with the inconvenient facts about Clinton, none of which are involved here:

1. He was the President; character is more central with an executive than a legislator, and particularly the president;

2. He was cheating on his wife;

3. With a star-struck and emotionally vulnerable woman half his age;

4. Who was a subordinate and, later, a federal employee;

5. In the office during the workday;

6. He lied about it under oath;

7. He conspired with others to do the same, including hiding evidence and offering favors to those who agreed to keep quiet;

8. He involved other federal officials in lying to the public about it;

9. He had an extremely long history of sexual infidelity, including numerous charges, some of them quite credible, that Clinton had essentially forced himself on unwilling women.

Ryan, by contrast, comes off only as a bad and boorish husband with freaky sexual interests - not a recommendation of his candidacy but hardly fatal to being a U.S. Senator (heck, John Kerry left his first wife while she was battling suicidal depression to run for the Senate). [CORRECTION: Kerry left his wife because he was concerned that she would distract him from running for Lieutenant Governor, not the Senate]. Only in the fantasies of Clinton's defenders is that all there was to the Lewinsky saga. I suppose Saletan is trying to bait us conservatives into rehashing all this to make us sound obsessed with Clinton, and if that's his intent, I just fell for it. But really, nobody could believe Saletan's Clinton analogy here in good faith.

*The MinuteMan rips Paul Krugman for criticizing John Ashcroft for not holding a press conference on the arrest of a domestic terrorist. Of course, if you missed it, Michelle Malkin did a good number on Krugman's last fact-challenged foray into smearing Ashcroft. (via Instapundit)

*PJ O'Rourke (via Kaus) rehashes parts of his 1986 essay "Goons, Guns & Gold" in which he goes after John Kerry for being spineless (or, as O'Rourke wrote in his notes at the time, "ball-less" - even Joe Conason comes out looking like a hero compared to Kerry.) Not that Richard Lugar fares well either, and I suppose you can argue that Kerry's unwillingness to get involved showed a nuanced appreciation for the diplomatic complexities, but it's still a rather ugly incident.

*An amusing conversation between Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. They agree more than they disagree.

I wonder about the effect of Bill Clinton's listen-to-me tour on the Kerry campaign. Of course, the effect of such things tends to be minimal either way, but . . . Reagan's death was a mixed bag for Bush: Bush clearly stands for many of the same things Reagan did, has endured many of the same criticisms from the same sources, and shares some of Reagan's strengths. On the other hand, especially when it comes to his wit and persuasive powers as well as substantive issues like battling government spending, Bush is clearly no Reagan.

But Clinton doesn't even hold such mixed blessings for Kerry, because Kerry shares few of Clinton's virtues (his charm and charisma, his willingness to take on elements of his party, his ability to tap into the nation's innate optimism) and has different liabilities (his positions are both more liberal and less distinct than Clinton's, plus Clinton was never accused of being an aloof, out-off-touch elitist). You can draw parallels between Clinton and Kerry, to be sure, but you have to work so hard at it that you aren't likely to convince anyone but the choir.

Plenty of Clinton stuff out there, if you care to read it. Kathryn Jean Lopez notes that Clinton's 957-page opus ignores his own signing of the Defense of Marriage Act. Blackfive has a humorous anecdote and some more pointed observations. Favorite line: "Dan Rather looked like he was taking the hottest girl to the prom..."

Anyway, I've still got serious Clinton fatigue; I'm working on one or two posts but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on all this.

A DC-based lobbying outfit called the American Shareholders Association has produced a study showing a sharp increase in payment of dividends following the dividend tax cut:

According to the latest ASA analysis of S&P 500 dividend data, favorable dividend activity among S&P 500 companies increased 55.2 percent since the tax cut was enacted. A total of 298 favorable dividend actions (increases and initiations) were taken on the S&P 500 compared to just 192 in the previous 12 month period. 19 more companies are paying a dividend than before the tax cut and companies increased their dividend 277 times. As a result, $185 billion of cash will be returned to S&P 500 shareholders in 2004.

The group's head argues that this is good corporate governance, given that unlike reported earnings, cash dividends can't be faked:

"More cash in shareholders pockets is disciplining managers to undertake only the most productive investments. This has re-elevated shareholders to be true owners of the corporations they invest in and has improved corporate governance more than any regulation passed by Congress or the Securities and Exchange Commission."

Wizbang has the details. Those who ignore their history are doomed to commemorate it.

UPDATE: A diligent reader writes: "It was too good to be true. Ted K drove off the bridge on 7/19. He did, however, plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident on 7/26."

The MinuteMan weighs in with some thoughts on criticizing non-blogging, and notes that he was way ahead of me, back in 2002, with more examples of Mark Kleiman's demonization of things not written by right-leaning bloggers, including this howler:

Aside from Andrew Sullivan, who doesn't like gay-baiting no matter who does it (but seems ok with other forms of prejudice), I have yet to see anyone in the right blogosphere object to the persistent use of bigotry and other dirty tricks by Republican candidates. This is in fairly sharp contrast to the practices of the left blogosphere, and seems to me to reflect a real difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of willingness to criticize their own side.

...I think the difference is a legitimate source of pride: to be liberal is, fundamentally, to be fair-minded.

(To be fair, this was before the Trent Lott brewhaha).

Some interesting Kerry stuff from Robert Sam Anson in the NY Observer last week - I can't find it online anymore - including Nixon privately calling Kerry "sort of a phony" on tape and a list of some of the daughters of fame and privilege Kerry has dated; I had forgotten that he dated Reagan's daughter.

Near the end, though, Anson says that this is an election "between a man who knows life's sorrows too well and agonizes too much, and a man who knows doubt, worry, reflection or serious hurt barely at all." You hear this sometimes about Bush, but it conveniently forgets one of the formative, and undoubtedly shattering, experiences in Bush's life - the death of his younger sister from leukemia when he was about 7 years old and she was 3 or 4. You really can't overstate the impact a thing like that that has on a kid that age, but because the Bushes don't dwell on it, Bush is seen as a guy who's never suffered.

Moreover, painting Bush as a guy who's immune to reflection ignores his decision to quit drinking, which is a fairly prime example of a man engaging in serious reflection and changing the course of his own life. Certainly you'd be hard pressed to find anything in Kerry's life over the past 30 years (i.e., since the end of his Vietnam protest days) that bespeaks a similar effort to take stock and really reorient himself. Perhaps the portrait of Bush could use some (gasp) nuance.

UPDATE: Dr. Manhattan, in the comments, points me to the link.

Kos, on a plan to change Republican-leaning Colorado from winner-take-all to a proportional division of electoral votes: "The move is brilliant. For one, every state should allocate EVs in this manner. . . "

One of Kos' contributors, on a plan to do the same in California: "republican ploy in california to steal pres. election"

My own reaction is that I'm not in favor of changing the rules this far into the electoral season, much as overturning Kerry's likely lock on California might be a tempting target. Long term, proportional division of state electoral votes might make sense except for two facts:

1. Small states with 3 or 4 electoral votes are harder to carve up in a fair proportion because of rounding issues;

2. As the Sultan of Snark notes, trying to fix this by tying it to congressional districts would only exacerbate the malign influence of gerrymandering.

Is there any blogger out there who makes more demands of other bloggers than Mark Kleiman? I should preface this by saying that I generally don't get into flame wars and the like with other bloggers; life's too short, and I generally prefer just to bicker with a particular post and leave it at that (although the disappearance of Hesiod from the blogosphere does warm my heart). But Kleiman's tactics and rhetoric have really gotten under my skin one time too many. Kleiman's beloved rhetorical hobbyhorse is branding as many people on the Right as he can - other bloggers as well as pundits and elected officials - as bigots, liars, and crooks, often by association. He's probably the single blogger most obsessed with a tactic we all use sometimes - and properly so, in some circumstances - but should be extremely cautious about overusing, especially against fellow amateur pundits who don't have the time to cover every issue under the sun: demanding that people on the other side of the spectrum denounce this person or that activity or the other statement. And, of course, his hair-trigger overreactions even on subjects about which he knows little or nothing often winds up forcing him to back down from things he's written.

It would, of course, be unfair of me to make such sweeping assertions about Kleiman's blog without some examples. This is hardly exhaustive; we'll go in reverse chronological order here:

June 13, 2004
Kleiman rips Eugene Volokh and Glenn Reynolds for not writing about the torture-memo issue, in response to Volokh's reasoned explanation of why he was staying out of this controversy. Kleiman:

If the attacks on the Presdient were even a little bit unfair, one would have expected that, even if Eugene decided to remain silent, one of the less weighty conservative law-bloggers could have been found to rise to the President's defense. (Glenn Reynolds, who has been silent so far this round, presumably isn't available, given his unprintable response last time the torture issue came up.)

Sometimes silence conveys more information than speech. Indeed, as Leo Strauss never tired of reminding his readers, sometimes silence is intended to convey information about which speech would be inconvenient, or information too important to be written or spoken. This may be one of those cases.

June 4, 2004
Kleiman tries to smear the entire universe of people criticizing George Soros' overwrought anti-Bush broadsides (like comparing Bush to Hitler) as nothing but disguised anti-Semitism:

Ever since the Republicans started their attempt to demonize George Soros, I've had in the back of my mind a nagging question about how much of the campaign was based on simple anti-Semitism.

Rather than ask himself whether Democrats would tear into a billionaire who was financing over-the-top attack ads on their president (Richard Mellon Scaife, anyone?), Kleiman latches on to a legitimately anti-Semitic Tony Blankley column in the Washington Times, but then uses it as a club to smear the rest of the Right while demanding that we all snap to attention; after Pejman weighed in, Kleiman wrote, "I'm still waiting for a non-Jewish conservative to agree, or a hint of complaint from the RNC or its allies"; after Drezner did the same, he insisted, "Drezner also doubts that Blankley's words reflect discredit on the other Republican Soros-bashers. I'm with Kevin Drum on this one: yes they do, unless the other Republican Soros-bashers distance themselves from their colleague." Frankly, I doubt that I've ever read a Tony Blankley column in my life, but there you have it: I'm a bigot because I didn't denounce it the way Mark Kleiman demands. And if you've criticized Soros, even if you've never read anything Blankley has ever written, so are you.

Read More »

I have to say, the whole Reagan memorial week, coming on the heels of the dedication of the World War II memorial and the last D-Day anniversary that most of the veterans of that war will attend, felt like a funeral for the 20th century. Oh, there were end-of-century retrospectives in 1999, but we're now far enough into the new century, with enough new problems and traumas behind us to give some distance and perspective, to see more clearly the century that preceded. The involvement of so many of the other key figures of the last half of the century in remembring Reagan - Thatcher, the Pope, Gorbachev, Walesa - underlined that.

P.J. O'Rourke, who has a new book out in stores today entitled "Peace Kills : America's Fun New Imperialism", has an amusing look at talk radio in The Atlantic, in which he takes on easy targets Ann Coulter ("has the look of a soon-to-be-ex wife who has just finished shouting"), Bill O'Reilly ("We've all backed away from this fellow while vigorously nodding our heads in agreement. Often the fellow we were backing away from was our own dad."), and of course, Michael Moore:

Moore does include one chapter on how to argue with a conservative. As if. Approached by someone like Michael Moore, a conservative would drop a quarter in Moore's Starbucks cup and hurriedly walk away.

O'Rourke also asks what conservative talk radio has really accomplished:

The effect, as best I can measure it, is nil. In 1988 George Bush won the presidency with 53.4 percent of the popular vote. In 2000 Bush's arguably more conservative son won the presidency with a Supreme Court ruling.

Read the whole thing. (Via I Love Jet Noise).

I thought I'd take a quick look at some of the 40th president's baseball connections:

*Straight out of college in 1932, Reagan got a job with radio station WOC in Des Moines, Iowa; within a year, following the station's merger with WHO, Reagan was installed as the station's broadcaster for Chicago Cubs games, a job he would hold for five seasons, until he landed his first Hollywood job in 1937. You have to recall that, in those days, the technology didn't exist to broadcast games live from the ballpark to a coast-to-coast or even a regional audience. So, Reagan wasn't the Cubs broadcaster - just the broadcaster for Des Moines and the surrounding area reached by WHO. But to people who lived there, he was the voice of the Cubs for those years.

What that meant was, Reagan would sit in front of a ticker reeling off the play-by-play and re-creating the game as it was happening. Imagine doing this by watching the play-by-play on the internet and you get the idea. I recall Bob Costas doing a demonstration on the pregame show for the NBC Game of the Week back in the 80s showing what this process was like; among other things, the broadcaster would click two sticks together to make a bat-hitting-ball sound, and play a tape of canned crowd noise. Once, the tape jammed and Reagan just improvised the batter fouling off pitch after pitch until they fixed the feed.

Reagan often said that his biggest baseball thrill was the last month of the 1935 pennant race. It's not hard to see why. Reagan was a 24-year-old broadcaster that season, and the Cubs were chasing the defending World Champion Cardinals of "Gashouse Gang" fame. On the morning of September 3, 1935, the Cubs stood in third place, 2.5 games behind the Cardinals (but 5 back in the loss column). The Cards would go on to have a fine stretch run, going 17-11. But what the Cubs did the rest of the way was remarkable, winning 21 straight, including three straight (culminating with a doubleheader sweep that kicked off by beating 28-game-winner Dizzy Dean) from the Cards to clinch the pennant before dropping the final two games to St. Louis.

*Reagan was born in 1911. Of course, this means that even without the Alzheimer's, at 93 he was too young to remember a Cubs world championship (they lost to the Tigers in the 1935 Series, including three 1-run games). What baseball players were born in 1911? You could look it up; the better-known names on the list:

Hank Greenberg
Joe "Ducky Wucky" Medwick
Frank McCormick
Walter Alston
Denny Galehouse
Van Lingle Mungo

What do these guys have in common? Well, among other things, other than Galehouse (who died in 1998), all of them were dead by the time Reagan left the White House in 1989.

*Last December, I panned Reagan's performance in the Grover Cleveland Alexander biopic The Winning Team:

You may remember that shortly after Alexander died, Hollywood rushed out a movie of his life called "The Winning Team," starring Reagan as Alexander and Doris Day as his wife. It was just awful. The movie had a few dramatic high points, but they made little enough attempt to capture the real Alexander. And Reagan – put aside your politics for a minute and just think acting – gave what had to be the worst performance of his acting career: adept at playing the genial Everyman and the B-movie hero, Reagan was completely out of his league trying to portray a morose, moody alcoholic. Only Reagan’s political career kept the movie from disappearing into complete obscurity, but the butchering of Alexander’s life story left him less well known today than Crash Davis and Moonlight Graham.

I've been a bit short on Reagan hagiography compared to some other people around the blogosphere, but then I don't have the luxury of time, so I generally write only a fraction of what's on my mind. I should note that, while there's a good deal of bickering about Reagan's legacy from the usual sources of bickery, I have to confess that there are two presidents I'm not really able to discuss entirely rationally: Carter and Reagan. The reason is obvious: I was 5 years old when Carter was inaugurated and 18 when Reagan left office, and my perceptions of both men were heavily filtered through the prism of youth. It's one thing to go back and revisit your youthful convictions in light of later experience, as I've done and as most people do (I have changed my mind over the years on a few issues). It's another to revisit the incidents of your youth themeselves. I've had a similar experience in trying to come to grips with the idea that maybe Jim Rice never really was a superstar . . . the mind doesn't grasp it.

Not that I have a lot of doubts, mind you, but I'm really in no mood to argue the details, that's all. Suffice it to say that, after the drear of the Seventies, I found Reagan to be a deeply inspiring figure, one who left a permanent mark on my notions of leadership and the goals of the American enterprise.

Still, it wasn't just my childhood; Carter really was, as Dave Barry put it, a colossal weenie. Just re-read the famous "crisis of confidence" speech, and contrast it with the tone Reagan set throughout his presidency. (Link via the MinuteMan).

Bonus observation: I hadn't realized how much of the Clinton "feel your pain" and "listening tour" stuff came from Carter.

Smash has some fine first-hand reporting on what can only be described as an anti-America protest. More picking on far-out wackos who don't deserve the attention? Maybe. Until Smash points out that the leader and at least one of her friends who came out to encourage "a peoples’ movement" to follow the Vietnam model of support for a "determined national liberation struggle" by the Iraqi 'insurgents' and "[a] historic revolt within the US armed forces" are public school teachers, and the leader teaches history to high school kids, apparently influenced by her radical socialist politics.

Another reminder why I send my kids to Catholic school. Of course, not everyone can afford that option, so their kids have to swallow this sort of propaganda, paid for with our tax dollars. The education of a child with no other options, of course, is a small price to pay for a teacher's freedom of speech.

This is probably just an oversight, but it seems an odd one - today's Washington Post's lead article on Reagan lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda asserts:

Reagan will join a list of those who have lain in state beneath the Rotunda that includes Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, William H. Taft, Warren G. Harding, William McKinley Jr., James A. Garfield, Herbert Hoover and Lincoln.

That's seven other presidents, all Republicans. Have Democratic presidents not been given this honor, or is the Post just ignoring them?

National Review gives Ralph Nader's organization good marks for supporting the use of DDT in countries where malaria is still a tremendous killer of humans, despite lingering debates over DDT's environmental impact.

Ombudsgod has some background on the Washington Post's Dana Milbank's history of playing it fast and loose.

Punch the Bag has a first-hand remembrance of Reagan's presence.

I can't presume here to sum up Ronald Reagan's legacy; I'd suggest you head on over to the National Review, which is heading into saturation-coverage mode, and properly so. I'll offer a few disjointed thoughts; for tonight, two snippets:

*Reagan, from his speech on the 40th anniversary of D-Day:

The men of Normandy had . . . the deep knowledge - and pray God we have not lost it - that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

*I think I've mentioned this before . . . my career in radio was extremely short, a few months of doing news updates on campus radio in my freshman year of college, in the fall of 1989. But the one highlight: I got to go on the air and announce that the Berlin Wall had come down. It hardly mattered if nobody was listening. After all those years and all those people saying it was just another system, the good guys won, the oppressed got freedom - and Reagan was vindicated. I can only hope we will live to see such victory again.

It seems almost beside the point at this stage to talk about domestic politics - the political terrain is 100% Iraq at the moment - but if the economy winds up becoming an issue in the election, the recent job growth reports may send the Democrats looking to take this helpful advice from the Politburo.

Sad news: CNN reports that President Reagan is dying. Given how much Alzheimer's has taken from him already, it's probably for the best for the 93-year-old Reagan and his family if the end comes soon.

To be cold-bloodedly political for a second, how would Reagan's death in the next month or two affect this year's presidential race? Not much, of course - most things that are supposed to affect the presidential race turn out to be overrated - but a wave of Reagan nostalgia would undoubtedly be a bit of help to Bush, reminding people of the common principles both have stood for and the common criticisms both faced. This is in marked contrast to the coming wave of Clinton nostalgia that will arrive with Bill's book - the further away one gets from the Clinton years, the less of lasting importance (other than his trade deals, for which his successors are none to quick to claim credit) can really be traced to him, and the things people remember fondly about Clinton (his charm, empathy and optimism) are palpably lacking in the Democrats' current nominee.

RatherBiased.com notes David Brock, discussing his new project (left-wing media commentary site MediaMatters.org), undercutting his entire thesis by talking about how mainstream media figures love MediaMatters:

"In the past few weeks -- as I have been on some of these TV shows, either talking about my book or about MediaMatters.org -- I have been -- off air -- been told by network talent: 'Thank God you are doing this because we can't do it -- because [conservative minister] James Dobson can send an e-mail and turn NBC upside down'"

* * *

"I think they are afraid," Brock said. "For a long time, the mainstream media has not stood up. They've essentially allowed Fox to happen. They do not cover Limbaugh -- he is a serious political figure in this country -- they don't write about what he says."

Nikita at The Command Post links to a NewsMax report of John Kerry giving the finger to Ted Sampley, a particularly rude and aggressive Vietnam War vet and activist, at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, in front of a bunch of schoolchildren. I'm not buying the story on the basis of a single-source report from NewsMax, particularly given that Sampley appears to be the source for the story. Something like this would be a real "Dead Zone" moment if it had happened, though.

The Bush campaign has a very amusing graphic showing John Kerry's shifting positions on Iraq. (Link via Instapundit).

I'm calling BS on the "Conservatives for Kerry" website. I've looked it over, and all of the apparently "conservative" critiques of Bush are either Kinsleyesque "if he believed his rhetoric he'd do this" charges or flimsy definitions of what's conservative. Put another way: nowhere on the site does the author actually argue for the validity of any conservative ideas as against the alternative.

Michael King has the goods. I've seen much worse, but this is reminiscent in its symbolism of the famous Jesse Helms "hands crumpling paper" ad on affirmative action.

Chuck Todd argues that the election won't be close and Kerry will trounce Bush. He has to offer an exceptionally strained reading of the evidence - for example, he points to high turnout in two primaries and ignores sharply lower (by historical standards) turnout in numerous later contested Democratic primaries. Still, I have to agree that the odds are rising rapidly that this election will be a blowout one way or the other, as events in Iraq are drawing oxygen away from all other issues, and the public may well just decide either that Bush has screwed up or that Kerry can't be trusted. The fact that both candidates have been dropping in the polls recently seems to suggest that there are a lot of voters not too happy with how things are but not rushing to Bush.

Then again . . . suppose you had an employee (let's call him Joe), and you basically liked Joe and he did good work and you trusted him, but one morning he screwed up a big project. At lunch that day a colleague asks you, "how's Joe? Is he doing a good job?" You're probably not going to give Joe high marks.

But let's say instead that at lunch you meet your boss, and he says, "it's time for evaluations, and you have to decide which employees get bonuses and which ones get pink slips." Suddenly, you have to choose: do you really want to fire Joe? Of course not; you trust him and like him and he does good work, notwithstanding having that screwup on his record. Everybody makes mistakes, after all, and you can't be sure you'd get someone as good.

My point here is that when pollsters ask for job approval ratings, people are likely to vent about whatever good or bad is goinng on right this week - and they may not be thinking about the president's (or another public official's) overall record. And that's particularly true right now: there's been a lot of bad news from Iraq lately, especially the Abu Ghraib story, and it's not unreasonable for people to be unhappy with that news and express it to pollsters. But that's still rather a different thing than voting the president out of office.

Dean Esmay makes a point that seems obvious to most North Americans, but nonetheless seems to evade European doomsayers: we are so far from the world being overcrowded that you could put the world's entire population as of 2010 in the Canadian province of Alberta, at a population density roughly the same as New York City, and have the whole rest of the world to play with.

(Link via Joyner).

Ricky West shares a "gotcha" moment with Atrios. He's still waiting for the promised mea culpa.

Yeah, I know, picking on Air America is beating a dead horse. But this item really captures one prominent reason why conservatives have argued all along that openly liberal radio would never fly as a for-profit business:

Die-hard liberals tuning in to Air America couldn't believe their ears last week when they heard a commercial for the oil company Royal Dutch/Shell.

"Air America is trying to posit itself as anti-corporate, left-leaning radio, and they're running ads where Shell says it's a great corporate citizen?" kvetches an environmental advocate.

In the spot, about a scientist studying a coral reef, Shell comes across as environmentally concerned. Shell-bashers complain that the fossil-fuel dispenser is anything but. In a class-action lawsuit alleging complicity in human-rights abuses in Nigeria, the family of the late Nobel laureate Ken Saro-Wiwa claims that his protest against Shell's drilling led to his execution by the state. (A Shell spokesman told us the allegations were false.)

A source tells us the station inherited the ad commitment for a limited period when it took over WLIB (1190 AM).

It's hard enough getting sponsors without having to have them vetted by every environmental group out there to see if somebody has a beef with them.

The Washington Post reminds us that trends can be moving in different ways in different states, changing which states are "battlegrounds." Another reason why, if you aren't already, you should be reading Gerry Dales' Electoral College Breakdown on a regular basis.

Joshua Wolf Shenk at Mother Jones has an astute observation, albeit couched in the usual anti-Bush screediness, about the Left's inability to weave a positive narrative, as exemplified by the Kerry campaign's Shrumian rhetoric:

What’s the story here? It puts forth two main characters: There’s this greedy, powerful character named “Special Interest” who has been kicking ass! Special Interest runs the political and corporate worlds. Hell, Special Interest runs the world. S/he has a penthouse in Trump Tower, a chalet on Aspen Mountain and a ranch in Montana. S/he spends the morning on the phone with Wall Street, making a few billion, and the afternoon on the phone with Washington, making the money tax-free. Then, at night …

Up against “Special Interest” is a perennial loser called “Everyday American.” Loser has a nagging spouse and impeccably average kids and a long commute to and from a cubicle. At home, the toilet leaks but it’s hard to find a decent plumber. The cell phone keeps blinking out, but the new ones are so expensive. But then again, Loser thinks, “I’m worth it.” So s/he logs onto to Internet — wants to save the sales tax — and goes to bed excited, wondering whether UPS will take two or three days, and whether there will be someone at home to sign for the package, and whether s/he is as truly, deeply pathetic as it seems.

Which of these characters would you rather be? John Kerry and Bob Shrum don’t condescend to give you the choice. They tell you, “You’re Loser.” You secretly hate them for this. You may hate their opponents more, and vote for Kerry with clenched teeth. Or you may vote for Nader (at five points in the May Gallup poll). Or you may (like huge chunks of the core Democratic constituency) just not vote.

Whereas the right-wing has a good story that they believe, liberals have a lame story--and they don’t even believe it. One of the highlights from Bob Shrum’s reel is when he dressed up former Senator Bob Kerrey in a uniform of a hockey goalie and had him say that he was going to defend America from foreign imports. Kerrey went along with it, then later said that he hadn’t believed a word of what he said in the campaign.

The same must be true for John Kerry. This wealthy Washington insider may tell us--but surely he doesn’t believe--that he’s going to lead us in a fight against “Special Interest.” Anyway, even if Kerry gets elected telling this story, who will want to follow him? Americans don’t want to fight the rich and the powerful. They want to be rich and powerful.

Ouch. In some ways this is also where John McCain went off the rails, when he stopped using his campaign finance crusade and his anti-pork tirades as credibility-building examples of his fearlessness and tried to make them the centerpiece of his campaign.

Of course, Wolf Shenk's own proposed narrative doesn't hang together so well, either, as it basically degenerates into a litany of "BUSH LIED!!!!" and carping about budget deficits. Actually, if you buy the narrative, the one that does work for Democrats is tying the same sex marriage issue into the civil rights movement . . . except, of course, that the public isn't buying same sex marriage at this point and the Democrats are afraid (probably justifiably) to try to lead them there. Plus, of course, the fact that weaving a civil rights narrative leaves them with nothing to say about war or the economy. But that's still better than having nothing to say at all.

A must-read: how Ted Kennedy is relying on the Lyndon LaRouche operation for some of his anti-war charges. In fact - and I had meant to blog on this earlier this week when it was reported in OpinionJournal's Political Diary - Kennedy, the de facto leader of the anti-war faction these days, is even relying on the work of a writer he himself doesn't believe.

Annika imagines Michael Moore in boot camp. And the MooreWatch guys suggest that if Moore really thought getting his message out was more important than cashing in, he'd pre-release his latest crockumentary on the internet free of charge. Which ain't gonna happen.

Will Dick Cheney decline to run again in 2004, citing health reasons? It's a favorite topic of speculation, especially among fans of Condoleazza Rice, but most of the scenarios I've seen - focusing on Bush forcing Cheney out for political reasons or Cheney quitting to "take one for the team" and using his health as a pretext - strike me as pretty far-fetched, if not as ridiculous as John Kerry picking a pro-life Republican war hawk as his running mate.

This column from The Hill, however, actually makes a not-insane, if speculative, argument that Cheney's health may yet force him to the sidelines:

There are two other reasons I’m betting there won’t be a Bush-Cheney ticket this fall. One was a little-noticed report in the Federicksburg (Va.) Free Lance Star on April 16 that Cheney was taken to the Culpeper Regional Hospital on April 5 from a nearby secret undisclosed location, just before leaving for Asia. . . .

* * *

I asked [reporter Donnie] Johnston, who lives in Culpeper, about his story, which Cheney’s office refused to comment on. “I could get no official confirmation,” he said, “but unofficially, I was told by three different sources that Cheney was there under an assumed name. That’s why the hospital said they had no record of his being there.”

The second reason is that Cheney’s defibrillator, made by Medtronic of Minneapolis, may be nearing the end of its average life expectancy of about five years. An earlier model was recalled in 1999 because of faulty capacitors, according to Medtronic spokesman Scott Papillon, who said the problem was corrected in Cheney’s newer model.

One of the more bizarre Kerry campaign talking points is the repeated assertion that President Bush "has no record to run on." Kerry even used it himself on Meet the Press. This is nonsense, to the point where you wonder how stupid these guys think the voters really are.

If you take off your partisan hat for a minute, leave aside your view of how good or bad the various Administration efforts have been, step back and ask yourself what the Bush Administration has actually made happen, it's a pretty extensive list for just under three and a half years in office.

1. The Iraq War - While it's true that any administration would have faced a crisis in dealing with Saddam Hussein after September 11, given the collapse of the basic assumptions of the sanctions regime and the Clinton-era commitment to a policy of regime change, there's no denying that the Bush Administration required a massive diplomatic and political initiative to persuade reluctant allies and members of Congress, arrange basing rights and other critical military support, get UN Resolution 1441 passed, and deal with all the other logistical and political aspects of the war and its aftermath. And, of course, the war itself resulted in conquering America's most prominent adversary in a matter of weeks and embarking on a long and arduous reconstruction of the country.

2. The Afghan War - While the Afghan war didn't face the same political and diplomatic hurdles as the Iraq war and hasn't involved the same complex reconstruction efforts, there were decisions to be made up front about how directly to confront the Taliban, there were those who criticized the decision to go to war (including much of the European press). The Administration's response was to assemble what it described as "the largest coalition ever assembled."

3. Tax Cuts - Not one or two but three rounds of tax cuts, cutting income tax rates for everyone who pays income taxes, cutting capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, estate taxes. All against such a stiff headwind of political opposition that the tax cut fight triggered a mid-term shift in control of the Senate, and at times when pundits declared that the people did not want tax cuts. Bush made the cuts his top domestic priority, and the results are apparent in the tax bills of most taxpayers.

4. Medicare Prescription Drug Bill - I don't happen to be a big fan of this one - it seems hard to find anyone who is - but the fact remains that a prescription drug benefit was something the Clinton Administration sought and couldn't deliver, and something both Bush and Gore campaigned on; the Bush Adminstration pressed hard on some Congressional Republicans to deal with the issue and even lined up the support of AARP, rare for any GOP initiative. The resulting program is one of the largest new federal programs in four decades.

5. No Child Left Behind - Again, a deeply controversial bit of legislation, and one that bequeaths a legacy of disputes over its implementation, as such programs often do. But you can't ignore it; Bush worked with some unlikely Democratic allies (like Ted Kennedy) on the bill, and produced a substantial new set of rules and priorities for federal education policy.

6. The Patriot Act - The Administration rammed through Congress in a matter of weeks after September 11 a long and involved piece of new legislation including a long wish list of authorizations the Justice Department had been begging for for years. Law enforcement authority has been expanded in many significant ways.

7. Homeland Security - While the Administration really wasn't the driving force behind establishing a new Department of Homeland Security, it played a very large role in shaping the legislation and, of course, has set about the daunting task of implementing it. Bush even made the contours of the Homeland Security bill a central issue in several Senate races in which he heavily invested his political capital and came away with freshly minted GOP Senators.

8. Missile Defense - Boy, we're far down the list for something as big as missile defense, a long-time GOP priority that has moved substantially towards implementation; the Bush Administration removed the major diplomatic obstacle by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, over fairly minimal Russian protests.

9. Partial Birth Abortion Ban - Another long-time political priority and one with major symbolic significance, as the first federal statutory restriction on abortion since Roe v. Wade. Might rank higher except that it remains to be seen if the bill survives the courts in a way that preserves any real-world impact.

10. Libya and Pakistan - The unraveling of Libya's WMD program and the illicit arms network run by a Pakistani scientist had roots in some longstanding initiatives, but there's little doubt that the Administration's diplomatic efforts (including the credible threat of force, even if only implicitly) gets some credit.

11. Capture of Major Fugitives - More an operational than a policy success and part of the Iraq and Afghan wars, the apprehension of numerous Al Qaeda and Iraqi figures, as well as wanted fugitives around the globe and the interdiction of terrorist financing sources, has to be listed as an Administration accomplishment.

12. McCain-Feingold - A highly significant and longstanding legislative priority that led to a substantial overhaul of the campaign finance laws. I would rank it higher except that the Bush Administration played only a fairly minor role in actually getting the bill done. Still, Bush did manage to ensure that the hard money limits would be doubled to $2,000, the first such change since 1974, and following that compromise he did sign the bill into law.

13. Sarbanes-Oxley - An even further-reaching real-world impact can be chalked up to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which raised the criminal penalties for white collar offenses, extended the statute of limitations for securities fraud claims and imposed extensive new regulations on the way public companies operate. Like McCain-Feingold this was more something that Bush allowed to happen than made happen, but the White House's insistence that some new legislation must be passed did play a part in getting the bill done in an election year.

14. Healthy Forests - I may be underestimating the significance of this legislation or of forest management generally as an issue, in ranking this rather low. But it is yet another area where the Bush Administration has set priorities and seen them enshrined in new legislation.

15. Steel Tariffs - Don't ask for an endorsement here, but the tariffs did have some real-world consequences for the price of steel.

16. Faith Based Initiative - Bush's legislation didn't get passed, but the push to improve the government's ability to use faith-based initiatives has nonetheless had some practical consequences in the way the government operates.

17. Clear Skies - Like the faith-based initiative, this one hasn't seen new legislation, but the Administration has changed environmental regulations in a number of ways, including several that target specific types of emissions reductions.

As I said, you don't have to like all these policies to recognize them as significant changes to the world President Bush inherited in 2001. I've left off things like Bush's rallying the nation after September 11, since the impact of that is rather subjective, and I've left aside here as well Bush's groundbreaking endorsement of a Palestinian state, since little enough has come of that. I've probably forgotten a few other things, perhaps some of them quite important (I wasn't sure where to rank the African AIDS initiative or his decision on stem cells). And admittedly, there are a number of other Administration priorities that have gone undone or unfinished - not just faith-based initiatives and "Clear Skies," but private social security accounts, negotiations with North Korea, support of democracy in Iran, a constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage, an overhaul of immigration policy, more substantial provisions on school choice and medical savings accounts, judicial appointments, tort reform, and drilling in ANWR.

But the overall record is one that's highly consistent with Bush's carefully cultivated image as a guy who sets priorities and makes things happen. It requires an astonishing suspension of reality to describe this as no record at all.

UPDATE: The commenters have some good suggestions for additions to the list. Also check the further discussions at Blogs for Bush and Right Wing News.

Time to dump out a bunch of links I'd accumulated but won't have time upon which to blog:

*Where else in the world but the U.S. is it a "coverup" if you announce an investigation in a press release posted on the internet? Also: if the problem with Abu Ghraib is humiliation, isn't that multiplied by airing the pictures? I mean, the media won't publish the names of rape victims, but it will show this? And this picture about says it all on the President's reaction to this story.

*Pete Stark is just crazy. And he's not alone.

*Michael Barone thinks it's 1988 again. Read the whole thing.

*Daschle's stall on judges hits new lows.

*Too good to be true? Vodkapundit sees hope for the end of EU farm subsidies.

*Jimmy Kimmel Suckers the NY Times.

*Boston Globe on blogs; the key point here is the fact that blogs are all about the print media, and can miss out on the significance of events that are especially TV-centric.

*Missing hijacker? Nelson Ascher takes this with a grain of salt, and you should too, but it's an intriguing one.

*A delightful WaPo profile of John McCain:

He has no idea why George Tenet still runs the CIA. "I think he must have some negatives somewhere," McCain says, meaning photo negatives.

McCain met with Tenet at Langley about a year ago. Seemed like a good guy, McCain says. Tenet made his case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and it sounded compelling.

"But it was a little like a Chinese meal," McCain recalls. "An hour later I was hungry again."

McCain is that rarest of creatures, a genuine maverick. Guys like him usually wind up just being in the wrong party, like Arlen Specter or Zell Miller. But McCain is, on some issues, as conservative as they come, and on others he is frankly quite liberal. But wherever he sets his sails, he never trims them.

Read More »

Robert Tagorda points us to polls showing a high level of public support for Don Rumsfeld in the Iraq prisoner abuse crisis. Which I would attribute, to some extent, to common sense: not blaming the head of such a vast organization as the Armed Forces for the behavior of every soldier. People get the fact that Rumsfeld, as it were, did not order the Code Red. In fact, it appears that, outside of the Abu Ghraib facility, nobody did.

Democrats screaming for Rumsfeld's head and looking to score points against President Bush would be wise to first ask themselves what they would want their guy to do in the same shoes. The facile answer is that a Democrat would never find himself (or herself) in the situation of having prisoners mistreated by American soldiers. One way to put that is that a Democrat wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq; while that is probably true, it's also true that many Democrats did vote for war (and some still support it), including the party's current presidential nominee. You certainly can't look at the broader situation - American troops sent into sometimes hostile territory and engaged in putting down an insurgency while building national institutions - and say no Democrat would ever go there.

The second idea is that this is somehow the fault of insufficient troop strength, and a Democrat would never have made the mistake of providing an insufficient number of troops. Even crediting this argument, this position is highly implausible (anyone remember Mogadishu, Desert One, or the Bay of Pigs? Democrats have often been accused of applying insufficient force).

The third, I suppose, is that the absence of formal Geneva Convention rules here was the problem, although I fail to see where such rules would be a substitute for better field-level supervision of individual soldiers.

All that really leaves is the charge that Democrats are better at supervision . . . which is also ridiculous. Bad stuff happens at lower echelons in any organization. Are we to believe this sort of thing doesn't happen in prisons in the U.S. under the supervision of elected Democrats? And have the Dems ever espoused such stringent "the leader must fall on his sword" doctrines for their own - did they call for the resignations of Janet Reno after Waco, Bill Richardson after Los Alamos, or are they calling even now for the head of Kofi Annan?

The fact is, this problem happened on the ground, and while the Administration's response after the fact may not have been pitch-perfect, it's been diligent, contrite and relatively open in ensuring that those responsible will be punished. I certainly haven't heard a realistic explanation of how the Administration has done anything particularly disappointing since learning about the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

If there were a mercy rule for political columns, this spectacularly brutal Mark Steyn effort would have to be stopped long before its, well, merciless conclusion about John Kerry's latest efforts to blame his "Benedit Arnold CEOs" rhetoric, as well as a botched proposal to name Jimmy Carter or James Baker as a Middle East envoy, on "overzealous speechwriters":

Boy, those Benedict Arnold speechwriters who take the hard-earned money of decent, honest American politicians and salt it away in their Cayman Islands bank accounts, there oughta be a law against it. Given their uncanny ability to make Kerry say what he doesn't mean at six campaign stops a day, is it possible these overzealous speechwriters are part of the ''Republican attack machine''?

Or is this a typically shrewd move by the Kerry campaign? Democratic operatives have long dismissed the moron Bush as incapable of stringing two words together without puppetmaster Dick Cheney shoving his arm up the back of the coat. By announcing that he too is merely a brainless stooge reading out whatever's put in front of him, the senator could seriously cut into Bush's base in key swing states.

And the coup de grace:

Who is John Kerry? They weren't his medals he threw away, just some non-name World War II vet he happened to bump into. Those aren't his four gas-guzzling SUVs in the drive, just ones owned by his ''family.'' They're not his words coming out of his mouth, just words wholly owned and operated by employees of a subsidiary unit of his wife's holding company, Benedict Arnold Heinz Kerry Campaign Rhetoric Inc., registered in Bermuda.

It takes a big man to blame everyone around him. Which is at last a rationale for the Kerry campaign: If you're the kind of fellow who likes blaming your underlings, at least when you're president there's no end of underlings to blame.

The whole thing really amazes me - I mean, yes, politicians pass the buck sometimes, and some things really are underlings' faults. But to take something like the Benedict Arnold line that was near the core of his stump speech and claim that it was never intended to connect with primary voters seething at outsourcing . . . amazing.

There is, in fact, justice in this world.

I asked last week how long it would take John Fund to notice the New Jersey poll showing Governor Jim McGreevey trailing his 2001 opponent Bret Schundler 46% to 39% a year and a half before the next election. Fund finally got to the poll in yesterday's OpinionJournal Political Diary. He's slipping!

With Al Gore buying a TV network - well, you know, nothing says "pitch-perfect PR sense" like "Al Gore." Can you spot the contradiction:

"This is not going to be a liberal network or a Democratic network or a political network in any way shape or form," Gore said during a news conference. His partner, Hyatt, ran unsuccessfully to represent Ohio in the Senate [ed. - from what party, as if we can't guess?], a position once held by his father-in-law, former Democratic senator Howard Metzenbaum. Hyatt made his fortune marketing legal services through television advertising.

Other investors in INdTV Holdings LLC, an investment group Gore founded with Hyatt, include former Warner Bros. Home Video President Warren Lieberfarb and RealNetworks Inc. Chairman Rob Glaser. Glaser also invested in the Air America Radio, a liberal radio network. . . .

Gore said on Tuesday he and his fellow investors plan to keep their new channel an independent entity, "because the trend towards consolidation is one that needs to be countered with independent voices."

*Mark Steyn's verdict: on Tim Robbins' (relatively) new play: "not . . . as funny as a genocidal madman"

*The 2006 NY Governor's race has officially begun

*Bad photo op alert: John Kerry on his bicycle, wearing lycra shorts, an orange-and-yellow ensemble that matches his bike, and a facial expression that can only be described as "jaunty rich guy on a bike". Dukakis looked better in the tank.

*Jeffrey Toobin, in the New Yorker, has (unsurprisingly, considering the source) a positive look at John Kerry's years as a practicing lawyer, first as a politically upwardly mobile prosecutor and then in private practice. Kerry still comes off as more than a little of an egostical and opportunistic self-promoter, but it's not like Toobin could just write about a different person. By contrast, OpinionJournal's Political Diary (subscription only) carries a claim (by Democrat and Kerry supporter) David Liederman, founder of the David's Cookies chain, that Kerry's cookie shop in Faneuil Hall ripped off Liederman's chain store design and business plan.

*Captain Ed has a measured look at the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," a group of Vietnam vets of Kerry's era, including "19 of 23 officers who served with" Kerry and "every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam," and who are coming out to declare him "unfit to be commander-in-chief," largely on the basis of his post-war anti-war activities. The group is headed by attorney John O'Neill; I noted NRO's profile of O'Neill here.

*Robert Tagorda notices Kerry dialing down his rhetoric on the economy in the face of reality (Link via Instapundit)

*The Bush campaign blog links to an article comparing Kerry to Stephen Douglas and his have-it-both-ways approach on slavery.

*The May 3, 2004 Day by Day is a keeper.

*Peggy Noonan goes to a revival of a play now starring Puff the Magic Diddy and sees progress - but also a loss of sense of tragedy about abortion.

James Joyner catches Kevin Drum mischaracterizing President Bush's record as a rugby player at Yale (Bush played intercollegiate rugby, which was a club sport, and Drum rips Bush for claiming to have been on the "varsity") in a rather pitiful attempt to make Bush look like a liar (Drum claims he was just making a point about Mickey Kaus, but read Drum's entry for yourself and ask if he's trying to make Bush look bad).

Next up: the Bush Little League records - WHERE ARE THEY??????

There's been a lot of piling on UMass grad student Rene Gonzalez over his breathtakingly asinine op-ed essentially spitting on Pat Tillman's grave (even drawing co-blogger Kiner's Korner out of his long hibernation). Ricky West has the goods on Gonzalez' other public fulmintions, including (predictably enough) anti-Semitism and racial slurs aimed at African-American Republicans, and one of his commenters notes that Gonzalez is also a signer of one of those appallingly discriminatory "divest from Israel" petitions.

Gonzalez' attitudes are despicable, of course, although he's as much to be pitied for his ignorance as hated; the guy is obviously so isolated and so lacking in social skills that he had no clue how offensive the vast majority of sentient adults would find his remarks. Hopefully, UMass has the sense not to have this idiot teaching anything to undergrads; he has, or should have, killed any chance he ever had of teaching anywhere, since nobody wants to court lawsuits by hiring an instructor so completely lacking in basic sensitivity.

Tim Blair notes a related consequence:

Rene is now a graduate student. He's active in politics, he's interested in all the big issues, he's maybe thinking about a political career, and he's just written something he'll deeply regret . . . Rene will get what's coming to him. Picture him a couple of decades from now, struggling to explain his youthful extremism to party officials or journalists or voters.

As you will recall, this is the same reason why I support keeping flag-burning legal: anything that allows guys like this to imprint the scarlet letter of anti-Americanism on themselves before they get into politics is A Good Thing.

(On a related note . . . when I worked on Jim Rappaport's 1990 Senate campaign against John Kerry back in my College Republican days, there were rumors among the low-level volunteers that somebody had video of Kerry from the early 70s burning a flag. Knowing what I know now, it's obvious that Kerry was never as far gone as all that - but if he had been, it would have been political death for him even in Massachusetts).

Wizbang wonders why MSNBC's coverage of the Kerry medals-throwing story was so coordinated across several hosts and programs to give only Kerry's side of the story, and applies Occam's Razor to conclude that the logical explanation is that MSNBC went in the tank to get the exclusive interview with Kerry on Hardball. Hey, don't argue with me; go and read the whole thing and draw your own conclusions.

(Maybe the change in management is showing up onscreen)

The Mad Hibernian called my attention to this drivel from the AP Wire:

Some historians and professional groups are complaining about not being consulted before President Bush nominated a historian to head the National Archives who is best known for a book that concluded Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy.

* * *

Weinstein's work has stirred controversy, including his 1978 book, "Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case." It concluded that Hiss was a Soviet agent when he worked for the State Department in the 1940s.

Hiss was indicted on two counts of perjury after being pursued by then-Rep. Richard Nixon of California as a spy. One jury deadlocked but a second convicted Hiss in 1950 on both counts, and he served almost four years of a five-year sentence. He maintained his innocence until his death in 1996.

Besides putting Nixon on a career path that led to the presidency, the Hiss case led eventually to the infamous McCarthy hearings of the early 1950s.

Two things are striking here. First, the article tries to balance the charges against Hiss by stating that Hiss "maintained his innocence until his death in 1996," without mentioning that the Soviet archives later proved that Hiss was, in fact, a Soviet spy. Second, it's not at all clear that the Hiss story even has anything to do with the controversy, which appears to be more of a procedural fight.

Grr.

Via Instapundit, the amazing true story of John Kerry snapping under the pressure of the right-wing Torquemadas at Good Morning America. If you're gonna gripe about the media, either (1) do it in private (recall Christy Mathewson's line that a ballplayer should always have an alibi and always keep it to himself) or (2) fight back on camera while you still have the audience (as George H.W. Bush did with Dan Rather). Don't whine with the cameras rolling after the live interview is over. Captain Ed has a great comment:

Hey ... what happened to "Bring It Ooooonnnnn!" Has he changed his campaign motto to "Maaaaake Iiiittt Stoooooopppppp!!!!"?

In a similar pile-on-Kerry vein, we have lots more where that came from:

Read More »

From the latest Rassmussen poll, from Oregon: "[r]egardless of who they will vote for, 49% of Oregon voters think Bush will be re-elected while 32% think Kerry will win." This is terrible news for Kerry if that gap holds in the major battlegrounds; a perception that the election is going to the incumbent can be deadly for a challenger.

Rasmussen also reports, in advance of the 2005 election, that New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey trails Bret Schundler [who McGreevey defeated in 2001] 46% to 39%. What's the over-under on when we see a John Fund column on this? I say maybe an item in today's Political Diary and a column as soon as he gets done with the Toomey/Specter race.

Kevin Drum, quoting a columnist and adding his own question:

When a white person screws up, it ignites a debate on the screw up. When a black person screws up, it ignites a debate on race.

The subject, of course, is Jack Kelley vs. Jayson Blair, and Pitts' point is precisely on target. Don't the folks who loudly insisted that affirmative action was to blame for Jayson Blair's transgressions owe us an explantion for their relative silence about the far worse journalistic fabrications of Jack Kelley?

This recycled canard makes no more sense than it did at the time of the Blair scandal, so why answer it afresh? Instead, I'll repeat what I wrote (partly in response to Drum) at the time:

Read More »

So after Thursday's post I am informed, in at least one case with a fairly typical lack of civility, that there is a distinction between those posters at Daily Kos who could be considered co-bloggers and those who make "diary" entries posted to a different part of the site . . . I'll admit that in my time of reading the site I never really noticed the difference, and I don't think it makes much of one, in the sense that the site really has more in common with the Democratic Underground or FreeRepublic.com than with a mainstream blog in having no filter whatsoever to keep the worst examples of hate-filled extremism from filling up the site (at least Charles Johnson, for all the guff he gets, doesn't let the nuts out of the comment section). [UPDATE: Gerry Dales assures me that Free Republic does, in fact, have filters to keep the place from going to the nuts. My bad - not a site I read regularly either, and perhaps I'm making the mistake of buying into the bad reputation of the site in some quarters. Lesson: don't make generalizations about sites unless you're a regular reader.].

I went back today just to look over the "diary" area, and like clockwork there was this beaut, reprinted in its entirety:

Read More »

According to this April 1 report, the Bentley College Republicans came up with just a brilliant contest, one that you should try at your school, if you're a student (or at a weblog near you, for that matter):

The contest offers a $100 to the first Bentley student who can "unequivocally define John Kerry's position" on certain issues. The issues listed are NAFTA, Gay Marriage, Iraq, Taxation and Education, specifically the No Child Left Behind Act. To win the contest a student must "point out a vote by John Kerry in the Senate which is not contradicted by any public statements or previous vote made by the candidates." [sic] The contest ended on Monday, March 29 with approximately fourteen entries, described more as commentaries than entries, and no winners.

Warning: this post contains racially insensitive language

It wasn't so long ago, only a few months, that Daily Kos (supposedly the second-most-linked and -read blog, although that combines its rankings with Political State Report) was presenting itself as a part of the political mainstream, a legitimate indicator of a movement within the Democratic Party. These days, the donkey can't run fast enough away from the wacko hatemongers at Kos.

Read More »

Yeah, you knew that already - if "sucks" is strong enough a word for the senseless death, imprisonment, torture, oppression and impoverishment of millions worldwide, not to mention an arms race, numerous wars and coups, etc. We had a grim reminder today of those horrors in the thousands incinerated in North Korea by a train collision, an event that was almost certainly caused by the endemic and frequently fatal incompetence of communist regimes.

Thankfully, we're down to just two hard-core Communist states (North Korea and Cuba), although nominally Communist China is still a tyranny and some shifty ex-Communists can still be found in power throughout the former Warsaw Pact. No thanks to John Kerry (seen here shaking hands with Sandanista dictator Daniel Ortega), who from his return from Vietnam all the way through the end of the Cold War never really got on board with the notion that it was a worthwhile endeavor to rid the world of this malignancy. Today's edition of OpinionJournal's Political Diary (worth every penny of the $3.95/month cost) gives some examples from Kerry's tour with the anti-war movement in the early seventies, the efforts that shot him to the political prominence on which his entire subsequent career has been founded:

Mr. Kerry may have to explain yet more dubious remarks from [1971] at West Virginia's Bethany College in which he declared: "Our democracy is a farce; it is not the best in the world." College newspaper accounts report Mr. Kerry also told students that "there is a disbelief in the American Dream, people are questioning if it is really a dream or if the dream still exists."

Mr. Kerry went on to tell his Bethany College audience that communism did not represent a threat to the United States. "The soldier went to Vietnam to defend the country from aggressive communism in the tradition of World War II," Mr. Kerry said. "But the soldier learned he was not fighting communism. Communism was not a threat to our country and the war was not moral."

NRO also has words with a Vietnam-era critic of Kerry's blithe use of false charges against American soldiers; it's a good read, and an important one. Kerry's conduct in the early 70s wasn't just irresponsible or impulsive youth; it was about the conscious use of sensational slanders to advance his own career at the expense of the national interest, and about patterns of thought and behavior about national security issues that have plagued his entire public career.

Lileks has been on a ferocious roll lately. Tuesday's Bleat looks at Claudia Rossett's NRO piece drawing up a roadmap of the ties between the UN's oil-for-food boondoggle for the benefit of the long-suffering Iraqi people Saddam Hussein and some secretive financial institutions that have been linked to Al Qaeda. Rossett's piece is far from definitive, but it's cautious and apparently well-sourced, and raises some real issues about whether Saddam's dealings with shady Al Qaeda-linked financiers and his evident opportunity to funnel them money undetected was just coincidence. Among other things, Lileks notes the problem this could later present for the Democrats and their standard-bearer:

[W]hat does this do for John Kerry’s credibility? He stated on Sunday that Saddam had no connections to Al-Qaeda, an assertion that has now taken on the mantle of Absolute Fact.

Monday, Lileks gave a well-deserved Fisking to Andrew Sullivan's call for a regressive, growth-strangling gas tax. Read the whole thing.

Friday, Lileks offered up the best effort I've read yet to articulate the opposition to the gay marriage movement (indicative of his openness to honest debate on the one issue but not the other, Sullivan links to the gas tax Bleat but ignores this one). After noting that he doesn't have a religious issue with homosexual relations or with same-sex marriage, Lileks tears into the argument of an anthropologist in support of same-sex marriage, in terms that are worth reprinting here in full:

Read More »

Michael King looks at a shameful banner ad run by the Kerry campaign demonizing Halliburton while its employees are in the firing line over in Iraq. (In fact, if you know your history - the British East India Company, anyone? - the Kerry people even have the past wrong). It's still amazing that the guy can simultaneously run on a platform of (1) demonizing companies that send American jobs to foreign countries and (2) threatening to take big contracts away from an American company and give them to foreigners.

King also notes that Doonesbury is about to have a character, former football star B.D., lose a leg in Iraq (I'm not clear what he's doing there, but then if I read Doonesbury twice a year it's a lot). I agree with King that while this could be a good storyline in less aggressively partisan hands - and probably good for the aging, decades-past-its-prime comic strip - Trudeau's record doesn't suggest a guy who's capable of that kind of balance.

Ed Moltzen has some fun excerpting quotes from various big bloggers on the Left (from way back in early 2004!) who held their breath until they turned blue demanding that President Bush release every last scrap of paper anyone had anywhere bearing on his National Guard service. None of these bloggers, it seems, have had anything at all to say about John Kerry holding off on full disclosure of his military records.

Now, this seems to be a ridiculous controversy, and Mickey Kaus may be wise to suspect a trap:

[M]aybe it's a trap. Kerry's intentionally turning the military records fight into a bigger story than it had to be because he knows that when the full records are (inevitably) released reporters will discover not scandal but official encomiums to his character and leadership!

(Emphasis in original). Tonight on CNN, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Kerry adviser Michael Meehan issues a carefully worded statement in response:

Read More »

The Bush campaign passes another milestone with a mass email last Thursday - Tax Day, of course - picturing John Kerry side-by-side with Ted Kennedy, with the caption "If You Need A Good Reason To Support President Bush, Here It Is":

Both Ted Kennedy and John Kerry Voted Against President Bush's Tax Relief in 2001 and 2003. Both Ted Kennedy and John Kerry Voted For Bill Clinton's 1993 Tax Increase -- the Largest Tax Increase in History.

(Emphasis in original). It's a fair enough ad, of course - those are hardly votes Kerry could try to run away from.

Meanwhile, the Bush campaign overhauls its "official blog". It looks pretty good - "official blog" is still something of an oxymoron, but the campaign looks to have figured out what a campaign blog can do in terms of churning out daily raw materials for unaffiliated bloggers to run with. I can understand why there are no comments - the campaign doesn't want to be held responsible for what's said there - although a trackback feature or Technorati links or some such would be a nice nod to the interactivity of the blogosphere in a way that doesn't require the campaign to have even implicitly endorsed the content of the blogs sending links.

From yesterday's Meet the Press:

Read More »

TNR's Ryan Lizza has a good profile of Ted Kerry guru Bob Shrum in The Atlantic. My thoughts:

*Shrum quit the Carter campaign in 1976, telling Carter, "I am not sure what you truly believe in, other than yourself." How far he's come from that to working for Kerry.

*Lizza asks, "Why is it that almost every major candidate for the Democratic nomination since 1972 has wanted Bob Shrum to work for them?" The answer is obvious, and it's something Lizza notes elsewhere: it's because Shrum helped so many of them (Kerry included) win statewide office. They just don't get that the presidency is different.

*Why am I not surprised that a guy who's advised Kerry and Gore had a brief involvement with the New Coke fiasco, the world's worst example of mania for reinvention?

*Lizza's parade of nearly identical quotes from Shrum candidates over the years promising to be "a fighter" against "powerful forces" is hilarious. Does Shrum think he's Cus D'Amato?

*"With much of the country passionately aligned against President Bush, the consummate Shrum villain if ever there was one, the sociological and political landscape may at last be hospitable to the consultant's steadfast world view." Self-delusion, thy name is Lizza. Sorry, but Kerry can't win unless he can get the people who don't hate Bush to vote for him.

The Boston Globe throws a tantrum over the August 6, 2001 memo (reprinted over at Kevin Drum's site):

[W]hen Bush read the carefully chosen title of the Aug. 6 brief -- "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" -- he should have demanded that his national security team scour files for useful information and institute immediate preventive precautions.

The Aug. 6 memo was in response to a request Bush had made for an assessment of bin Laden's intentions. It was the right question to ask. . . But the answers Bush received should have lit a fire under him. He should have demanded action from the government agencies under his command.

After all, Bush was being told that bin Laden wanted to kill people inside America, that he already had operatives and cells in this country, and that he "wanted to hijack a US aircraft." If Bush had made prevention an urgent priority, two of the hijackers -- Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhazmi, whom the CIA had identified from a terrorist conclave in Malaysia and who were living openly in San Diego -- might have been nabbed. The memo from an FBI agent in Phoenix about Arab males at flight schools might have been pursued. The request from the FBI's Colleen Rowley to examine the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, might have been granted. The government had the clues that fateful summer. It lacked a commander in chief to prod officials to align them in a pattern and take preventive action.

(Emphasis added). Talk about nonsense - does the Globe really think that the people making these decisions report directly to the president, or for that matter, have less than about 10 layers of reporting between them and the president? And remember, every level you go down, to get action, you have to order that many other people to do other things that wouldn't get you anywhere . . .

Jane Galt has a great rebuttal to the hindsighters. Excerpt:

You're George Bush in August 2001. Tell me, specifically, what you would have done based on that memo, that would have a reasonable chance of apprehending the hijackers. "Put the government on alert" is glaringly insufficient. The memo says that Al Qaeda may want to hijack an airplane to secure the release of militants, or that it may aim to make some sort of attack in Washington. Given that you do not know which of these, if either, is true, nor when, where, or how the attack will come; given that the "chatter" to which opponents of Mr Bush like to refer has more often not presaged an attack (as we have seen with the numerous "Orange Alerts" and so forth); and given that any measures you take will be expensive and anger some subset of the population, what do you do? If your answers include, with astonishing foresight, such unprecedented things as strip searching passengers on domestic flights or ordering pilots not to open cockpit doors even after hijackers have begun killing passengers, please explain which of the tens of thousands of domestic flights taking off in the United States each day you plan to target; where you will get the extra personnel to do so; how you will respond when the ACLU and the airlines get a preliminary injunction against you for flagrantly violating passengers' civil rights; how you plan to sell the massive delays to the millions of angry passengers; what you are going to do about the inevitable Democratic charges of racial profiling; and how long you plan to keep this up, given that you have no idea whether an attack is due this week, this year, or at all? You must also include a section explaining what you are going to do about the North Korea expert shouting in your ear that you really need to pay attention to this intelligence saying that crazy Cousin Kim may have nukes.

(Emphasis in original). Read the whole thing.

Via Kaus, we find this LA Times report (registration required), which just cracked me up:

[M]ost Americans recoil from efforts to blame Bush for the [September 11] attacks. One leading Democratic interest group recently asked a focus group in Florida to respond to a potential television ad accusing Bush of negligence in failing to stop the attacks. The result was volcanic — against the ad.

"They were so angry I thought they were going to turn the tables over," said a Democratic operative who watched the session. "It was a very polarizing ad, and it pushed people who were on the fence decidedly away from us."

Gregg Easterbrook has some fun with the Kerry campaign's new "middle class misery index," which "seven indicators: median family income, personal bankruptcies, job growth in the private sector, home ownership rates, and the costs of gasoline, health care, and college." The index is, typically of Kerry, both too complicated to explain easily and so transparently slanted that it's counterproductive:

[I]n order to be manipulated such that George W. Bush has "the worst record of any president ever," indicators must be chosen that give a great economic rating to Jimmy Carter. Check the Kerry campaign's graph, halfway down the page. When were times best by this index? At the end of the Clinton administration, and in 1978. Can you find one single person in the United States who would want a time-machine ride to the economic conditions of 1978? That was the time of "stagflation," combined inflation and lack of growth. Unemployment was worse in 1978 than today, too.

But then the Kerry middle-class misery index has been doctored to remove inflation and unemployment as leading concerns, and there's a reason--both trends here are in a positive cycle. This brings us back to the standard, established misery index of inflation and unemployment. Inflation has been low for a little more than a decade, while unemployment has been low for a decade. (Construct the unemployment graph of your choice here.) The standard misery index for the postwar era averages about 9.5; in Clinton's first term, the number was 8.8; right now it's 7.6. This makes George W. Bush's misery index admirable, among recent presidents trailing only the end of the Clinton administration, at 6.7.

Of course, when you campaign on 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and can't put the unemployment rate in your 'misery' index, you have problems. But another thing I found particularly odd about Kerry's index is that it ignored interest rates. I mean, for the Party of Rubinomics, interest rates are everything; virtually the entire economic argument made by Democrats against the Bush tax cuts is a variant on the tax cuts=>deficits=>high interest rates meme. Which makes it all the more telling that nobody's complaining about high interest rates (another reason to scoff at an index that pines for the good old days of 1978).

Nick Confessore argues that Air America can rapidly make itself commercially viable by signing on Howard Stern for the morning drive time slot. This is a perfect test of two dilemmas liberal radio faces: (1) is it willing to put a guy on the air who appeals to the young, sexually liberal males that the Democrats deperately need to reach (as Marc Fisher noted in a Slate essay I linked to over a year ago) but who is anathema to humorless PC feminists? (2) is Air America willing, more broadly, to hire a guy who can be something of an albatross to the radio network as far as its partisan mission (Stern is, justifiably, a big target) but who will rake in the bucks? In other words, is this really a serious commercial venture, as opposed to just another campaign adjunct?

I'm no Stern fan, but I can appreciate that, as New York's sportsradio WFAN has done with Imus, sometimes commerce demands bending your format for a morning radio star if you really want to be profitable. It's time for Air America to decide if it's willing to put profits first. If not, the only alternative may be to wait for a Democratic administration and beg for grants.

It's late, so forgive me if I ramble . . . Instapundit asks, "[t]o the Democrats, well, 'we'd all love to see the plan.' Where is it?" I'm starting to wonder if Kerry is running the Nixon '68 playbook, what with his platform of having a secret plan to end the insurgency in Iraq and have peace with honor, the details of which he won't share with us. (Of course, he voted for it because he was brainwashed by Bush!) Here's a problem with nominating a guy like Kerry whose entire resume is built on something he did 35 years ago - the ability to adapt his thoughts to new and changing circumstances is painfully limited. Frankly, Kerry's a has-been. George W. Bush gets accused of being inflexible, but maybe there are advantages to nominating a guy who didn't make up his mind on a lot of things until recently.

Meanwhile, Goldberg blasts Ted Kennedy for raising the specter of quagmire. Jonah's column is pretty standard fare - there's something to be said for the idea that using the "V" word is a universally recognized signal for defeatism. Frankly, when you hear a liberal say "Vietnam," you know the meaning of what he's saying without listening just as sure as you know a conservative's meaning when you hear him mention Neville Chamberlain. But it did make me wonder: as Lileks has noted, despite the Democrats' current conventional wisdom that Vietnam was Nixon's war, Kennedy actually voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, as did Robert Byrd, the other big quagmirist in the current war (has Kerry ever asked either one for an apology?). As with John McCain and campaign finance reform, or Trent Lott's momentary vow to become a born-again fan of affirmative action: Lord save us from penitent politicians, forever making amends at our expense.

Unrelated Cynical Question of the Day: What percentage of America's voting public is aware that Wesley Clark and Richard Clarke are not the same person? (Not that I blame the average voter for a certain rational indifference to the Beltway crisis of the hour, by the way). There's this Clark guy running around on TV, used to be sort of a Republican, used to work for Clinton, now he says Bush should have prevented 9/11 and not gone to war with Iraq . . . I can see how folks would get confused.

Finally, speaking of McCain, I think it's just funny that the Democrats' cupboard of leadership is so bare that many of them would kill to put a Republican (and not just any Republican, but one who's more of a war hawk than Bush, and is a firm supporter of school choice and private Social Security accounts and other heresies) on the ticket. I mean, could you imagine anybody in the conservative press or blogosphere agitating to put Bob Kerrey or even Zell Miller on the GOP ticket? The closest we'd come is lifelong liberal Republicans like Powell or Giuliani or Schwarzenegger, and even they'd be viewed with mixed feelings.

CNN and Harvard celebrate, as an unambiguous good, a report showing a record high percentage of women admitted to the freshman class at Harvard. Unmentioned is the fact that you can only raise the percentage of one group by reducing another . . .

Harvard officials have been trying to raise the number of women on campus for decades.

William R. Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions and financial aid, said the ratio of men to women was 4-to-1 when he arrived in the 1960s.

"This is a day we have been hoping for a very, very long time," he said.

The number of women did not set the only record. Asian-Americans made up the largest percentage yet of accepted applicants, at 18.9 percent. The percentage of blacks was also the highest ever, 10.3 percent, as was the percentage of Latinos, 9.5 percent.

Now, there's always a hornet's nest around the question of how much "trying" is acceptable - certainly, if women were 10% of the incoming class, you'd think something was wrong - but what's revealing here is the idea that there is no cost whatsoever to persistently straining to reduce the admission of men. A little more agonizing, at least, would be appropriate. But then, William R. Fitzsimmons presumably has his college degree already. What should he care?

For all of President Bush's obstacles to re-election, there are a number of reasons why I have a hard time imagining Kerry actually winning this thing. The history of incumbent presidents is one of them. When was the last time an incumbent president got ousted really by surprise, without massive dissension in his ranks, without a huge overhang of economic doom? I mean, look how many things had to go wrong for incumbents to lose in the past century:

Bush I - Major fissures in the party (as shown by Buchanan's primary challenge), major third party candidate (Perot), more severe recession than anyone could claim today with a straight face (though they try), and his party had been in power 12 years, which always exerts a pull back to the middle. His opponent (Clinton) won with 43% of vote.

Carter - Major recession (remember stagflation?), international humiliations, malaise, major fissures in the party (between Kennedy's primary challenge and fighting between the Carter White House and Hill Democrats), and a serious third party candidate (John Anderson) who gave anti-Reagan voters an alternative to re-upping the incumbent.

Ford - Watergate overhang, gigantic debate gaffe (Poland), never elected in his own right, barely survived primary challenge by Reagan that split the party.

LBJ - Hung it up after New Hampshire primary after internal revolt on war, and his party was rent in two in November; never faced general electorate.

Hoover - Great Depression, and his party had been in power for 12 years.

Taft - Party split in two, Taft's popular predecessor (Teddy Roosevelt) ran as a third party candidate, his opponent (Wilson) won with less than 40% of vote, and his party had been in power 16 years.

Compare these to, say, Harry Truman, who saw his party split three ways and still got re-elected amid a weak economy and international crises. I think the forces of inertia and incumbency are stronger than we think, and may help Bush on top of his other strengths.

Mark Steyn reprints my John Kerry Song along with a few others. We're not worthy!

More links:

*You learn something new every day: Ricky West tells us about when Hillary Clinton was on the Board of Directors for Wal-Mart. As the biggest business in Arkansas, it made a certain amount of sense to give a cushy job to the governor's wife.

*The shocking news that the Bush Administration's communications team in Iraq is staffed with (gasp!) people who support the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq!

*John Kerry keeps his VP search quiet . . . as detailed by reports about that search in the New York Times. The news here is his apparent intention (if you believe this report) to name a VP nominee a month or so before the convention.

*Wonkette on NBC disassociating itself with Ashleigh Banfield: "Who can we contact about nixing her right to be associated with journalism?"

I generally prefer to blog on a subject like last week's Kos Kontroversy when I've got sufficient uninterrupted blogging time to unpack all its implications, but I haven't had that kind of time lately and the issue's getting a bit stale now. So, I'll just run through my quick thoughts.

First of all, if you missed it, blogger Markos Zuniga of the popular far-left site Daily Kos (which I had added to my blogroll not long ago because of its excellent horse-race coverage, notwithstanding the overall left-wing nuttiness of the site) created a big stir when he made the following remarks on the death of the four Americans who were lynched by a mob in Fallujah:

Every death should be on the front page

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

by kos on Thu Apr 1st, 2004 at 15:08:56 GMT

I won't get into all the subsequent controversies, covered well enough by Michele (also here), Instapundit, and others far too numerous to mention, about (1) whether Kos misbehaved in trying to erase/conceal the entry on his site and in his various semi-apologies and justifications, (2) whether it's proper to pressure Kos' advertisers over a remark on his blog (I'll agree that the trend there is disturbing), or (3) to what extent left-leaning bloggers had an obligation to denounce what Kos said. (The latter being a point I'll expand on another day, the short answer being that it depends how bad the comments are, how prominent the blogger making them is, how prominent, prolific and/or professional the blogger with the 'obligation' is, and whether the latter blogger often makes similar demands of the other side; in any event, Oliver Willis gets credit for being the first big blogger on the left to denounce this). Random thoughts, though, on a few aspects:

First, I don't have much use for people who, in the course of defending Kos, describe his remarks merely as "stupid". Yes, they were stupid. But the problem isn't that they were stupid, or ignorant, or prejudiced, none of which is exactly rare on blogs or anywhere else people air their opinions. Nor is the problem that Kos was too flip and too disrespectful of the dead. The snarky, quick-hit, shoot-from-the-hip style of blogs does, sometimes, lead to undue callousness. As someone who writes under intense time pressure (when time runs out, I gotta run for a train), I can sympathize with bloggers who don't always get to dress up their statements with the appropriate nods to convention and politesse.

No, the problem with Kos' remarks is that they were vicious and mean, and effectively took sides with a lynch mob. Now, I recognize that many on the Right have been equally rough on Ahmed Yassin, Uday and Qusay, and even on less thoroughly evil figures like Rachel Corrie. But there's a common denominator there: those are all people who chose to take sides with those who want to kill us. They're on the other side.

And that's how Kos treated the men who were lynched in Fallujah: as not on his side. Except that, whatever you think of "mercenaries" and their motives (more on that below), there's no dispute that these guys' were in ultimately in Iraq because the Coalition Provisional Authority wanted them there to assist in its efforts to rebuild the country into a democracy. The fact that Kos sees the people engaged in that task as being on the other side puts him, at least emotionally, on the side of the lynch mob, the fascists, and the Islamists.

In any case, the viciousness of siding with a lynch mob, in any case short of the Ceacesceaus of the world, is impossible to justify; as Kevin Drum put it:

I really don't think it matters if they were private contractors in any case. They were burned to death and hung from a bridge. Nor does it matter much that you don't like the war. Some of the wingnuts on the right gloated over the deaths of UN workers in last August's bombing, and that was wrong as well, regardless of what they thought of the UN.

(Emphasis in original). I don't think that Kos' attitude is representative of liberals/the Left as a whole. Still, there were those on the left side of the spectrum who insisted that any criticism of Kos whatsoever for this attitude was out of line. Check out Jeralyn Merritt's take:

We will make our position very clear: We wholeheartedly support Markos. He made a comment most people find objectionable and then retracted it and explained why he made it. To us, it should be the end of the story. Any attempt to inflate it or even to keep it alive has little to do with Markos, and everything to do with right-wing conservatives trying to make political hay out of it. This has become a right-wing ploy to debase the left. Don't let it happen. Don't let them win. . . .

As for the "liberal bloggers" who have criticized Markos, we'd point out that most of them are not really liberals but centrist Democrats. Shame on them. We discount their criticism and suggest you do too.

(Emphasis added). Wow. "Shame" on anyone who even criticizes Kos' hateful comments? That's an astonishing view. I can't see how you can say that people like Drum and Willis should be ashamed of themselves for finding Kos' comments offensive unless you are arguing either that (1) his "screw 'em" attitude is not only correct but beyond question, or (2) there is no level of offensive behavior by the left that should be valued above ideological solidarity (well, except for the dire offense of being a "centrist"). Neither is an appealing option.

On the other hand, as nasty as Kos' attitude on the war is - and even though I felt compelled to de-link him, especially since I had him on my list of bloggers who form the "Loyal Opposition" - I'm not prepared to give him the "Fredo, you're nothing to me now" speech the way the perennially overwrought Mark Kleiman did, at least initially:

[Ann Coulter] put herself beyond the pale of civilized discourse. Anyone who now quotes her, links to her approvingly, or supports her financially is dirtying himself: Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Kos has now, it seems to me, put himself in the same category.

There are all kinds of people out there who contribute something to public discourse, even if they have some views that are appallingly uncivilized. Sure, there are some that are totally out of bounds, and I certainly wouldn't cite the likes of either Coulter or Kos on any subject without some appropriate caveats (nor would I have even before Kos made this comment; he's always been way out there, at least on the war). But, as I've long stressed, a person can do a thing that is entirely indefensible and still not be worthy of capital punishment. Put another way: we're all sinners here.

The second thing, and one that's also been covered extensively elsewhere so I won't dwell on it: I don't see what makes these guys 'mercenaries' as opposed to just security guards, which everyone needs in Iraq or many other dangerous places (Moscow, Mexico City, etc.) It's not like they were conducting offensive operations or anything. To say that every civilian who carries a gun for a paycheck is a "mercenary" means the security guard at the local shopping mall is a mercenary. You can call him that if you want, but in so doing, you've rigged your argument by abandoning the accepted commonsense meaning of the term.

My third and final point: Frankly, "screw 'em" appalled me. But it wasn't the part of this item that really made me so angry I had to wait several days before even considering blogging on this flap. What really got under my skin was the condescending assumption that those of us who supported this was thought that war was a big video game.

Like Xbox? Yeah, when I saw my office building pouring smoke and bodies falling out of it, I thought it was just like f#&!%ing Space Invaders. Even on the substantive point - Kos' argument that every corpse in Iraq should be placed on the front page: we don't put every drug dealer who shoots another drug dealer on the front page. We don't put every fetus who's aborted on the front page. We don't put every Israeli victim of suicide bombings on the front page. We didn't put the victims of the Rwandan or Cambodian genocides on the front page, not every last one of them. We sure as hell haven't put everyone who was raped or gassed or run through a shredder by the Ba'athists on the front page. Massively publicizing every death is a decision about what things to highlight. Kos wants to stack the deck.

More links:

Read More »

Stuart Buck is back on the blog and having fun spinning a few conspiracy theories. Bring your own grain of salt.

Kerry leads Bush 50-38 in Minnesota (breakdown here). A late-March poll in Ohio showed Kerry leading there by 46-44. In other news, Missouri voters are paying close attention to Bush's ads.

UPDATE: Also, check out the latest polls showing Bush up 9 in Colorado and down just 1 point in Michigan, with the latter putting him closer to Kerry there today than he was to Gore on Election Day 2000.

From the Krauthammer column I noted yesterday, this Q&A from the September 11 hearings is all you really need to know about desperate efforts to blame the Bush Administration for September 11:

SEN. SLADE GORTON: "Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001 ... had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?"

CLARKE: "No."

Indeed.

I was going over the whole Richard Clarke thing again . . . the core of the problem I have with his 'apology' is this: as far as I can tell, Clarke never once admitted that he had been wrong about anything, ever. That's no apology. Contrast, for example, President Reagan: I don't know if Reagan ever formally apologized for sending the Marines to Beirut, but he regularly described that decision as the worst mistake of his presidency. That's how you act when you genuinely believe that you have erred.

Charles Krauthammer agrees.

Punch the Bag has seen former White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels' campaign "reality show" in support of his campaign for Indiana Governor, and he's not impressed.

If you've noticed, I've removed Daily Kos from my blogroll, where he'd been listed (ironically enough) under the "Loyal Opposition" section. I'm not calmed down enough to blog about that one just yet.

I haven't de-linked the Kos-affiliated site Political State Report, which remains a useful news source. This latest entry has an interesting look at the latest Bush-Kerry polls from Wisconsin.

In looking over a Bloomberg News report on the latest good news on the job-growth front, I came across this bizarre piece of garble:

"In every single month of this administration, we haven't seen the creation of a single manufacturing job in America,'' Kerry, 60, said in an e-mailed statement.

Is Kerry really saying that not one manufacturing job has been created in any month of the last 3+ years? Or that there's been no net gain over that period, or in any month of that period . . . This pileup of double negatives is impossible to argue with because it's incoherent. Now, people make fun of "Bushims" that come out when Bush makes a verbal miscue, often when speaking extemporaneously. But at least when Bush and his team issue something in writing, it sounds good, because Bush hires writers who can, you know, write.

OpinionJournal carries just a devastating review of Richard Clarke's book. Also, I noted yesterday allegations from the Left, amplified (as always) by Paul Krugman, of a smear job aimed at Clarke's personal life (see also here), but in fairness, I should note that the unsourced rumors involved give us, frankly, no evidence at all to tie them to anybody in the Bush camp, and nearly everything I've seen on this comes from the lefties (although Wonkette does seem to think that Laura Ingraham has been implying the same thing). I still think it's wrong if it's being done - but let's not be too quick to indulge the assumption that whatever Wolf Blitzer says is the gospel truth.

(On a side note, it still cracks me up that Blitzer is seen by the lefties as some sort of right-wing secret agent. Talk about paranoid).

Workingforchange.com, not exactly a right-wing source, notes how John Kerry's positions on CAFE and Kyoto can't help him in Michigan. Not that they killed Al Gore there (Gore won the state by 5.1%, and that was with Bush getting big support from the state's substantial Muslim population, which is sure to swing behind Kerry), but it won't help. I've long thought that his continuing embrace of Kyoto (despite having voted for the anti-Kyoto resolution, of course) could blunt one of Kerry's major themes, which is outsourcing; pushing for an agreement that handed a huge competitive advantage in manufacturing to India and China is not the act of a man obsessed with the loss of jobs from America to those countries.

In other campaign notes - OpinionJournal's Political Diary (subscription only) noted that, while the Heinz Corporation has (wisely) noted that it takes no position on the campaign (they don't want to be Kerry's Halliburton, and red-staters buy ketchup too), Kerry's wife and her children control a block of Heinz stock worth some $520 million. Also, this seems like a pretty effective Bush ad on the economy, while this "report" from a group called the American Shareholders Association (link opens PDF file) attack's Kerry's record on economic issues. Meanwhile, I continue to be amused by the implication that Josh Marshall, in the item I linked to yesterday, persists in the delusion that the Dems' big weakness is the failure to call Bush a liar often enough.

Apparently, Wolf Blitzer and Wonkette have been spreading the idea that sources in the Bush Administration have been whispering that Richard Clarke is gay. This appears to be a pretty low-profile inside-the-Beltway thing, and it's not clear who in DC this is supposed to influence. But I'll agree with Mark Kleiman that this sort of thing really has no place in this sort of debate, any more than does Bob Novak implying that he knows that Clarke is a racist. The Democrats' whole passive-agressive, we-attack-and-then-complain-when-you-fight-back thing may drive me nuts, but there are some times when people on the Right really go overboard. This looks like one of them.

OK, this is just a snapshot on a week when the candidate has been on vacation and is about to have rotator cuff surgery (have the Democrats nominated the Steve Karsay of politics here?), but I've noticed it before: go check out Josh Marshall's blog, and one thing you'll notice on the front page is an almost complete absence of items about John Kerry. There's only one item apiece on Matt Yglesias' and Kevin Drum's blogs (there's a bit more at Kos and Mark Kleiman, but in neither case are they saying much about Kerry's proposed policies or speaking favorably of his candidacy, while Atrios has mostly just been asking for donations). It's been previously noted that there were no pro-Kerry blogs of note during the primaries, when major bloggers were lining up behind Clark, Edwards and Dean. Now, it's always easier to attack - I've almost certainly written more about Kerry than Bush lately - but keep your eyes out, because if the left side of the blogosphere can't generate much enthusiasm for Kerry and can't get enough of a fix on the man's policy proposals to stump for them, that's probably a sign that he's going to have trouble getting a coherent and exciting message out to the portion of the population that isn't obsessed with politics.

Marshall, by the way, is clearly worried about Kerry (link via Tom Maguire), who's down 7 points now to Bush in the latest poll from Pennsylvania (link via The Corner). As you may have noticed, I've added links at the bottom of the page that open Google News searches that should pull in the lastest poll from the various major battleground states.

On the other hand, the New York Times has some good news for Kerry and bad news for Atrios. (Links also via Maguire).

Via Andrew Sullivan, the early results show a strong pro-Bush swing in the battleground states following his initial TV ad campaign. Perhaps most notable is this result:

14. If John Kerry were to win the election in November, do you think your federal income taxes would go up, or not?

Yes, would 58%
No, would not 27%
No opinion 15%

That's never a good omen for a presidential candidate.

Powerline notes that the always-unhinged Paul Begala is calling Condoleazza Rice a liar in large part on the strength of allegations made by one Sibel Dinez Edmonds, a disgruntled former FBI translator who was hired after September 11. I noted Edmonds' sensational charges here.

Also on Powerline: a hilarious commentary on John Kerry's snowboarding attire.

So the Bush Administration gets thrown in the briar patch yet again by allowing Condi Rice to testify. You gotta admit, Bush sure knows when to fold 'em. I'm actually distressed at the precedent here - refusing to let the National Security Council staff testify is something other administrations have stood for as well (including the 1999 refusal to allow Richard Clarke to testify). Chalk up another one for how little this whole September 11 commission will accomplish besides just scoring political points.

More on the Clarke Affair:

Read More »

I actually caught this one on the Daily Show the other night - here's Bob Novak on Crossfire talking to Rahm Emanuel about Richard Clarke:

NOVAK: Congressman, do you believe, you're a sophisticated guy, do you believe watching these hearings that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?

EMANUEL: Say that again?

NOVAK: Do you believe that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?

EMANUEL: No, no. Bob, give me a break. No. No.

Is it possible that Clarke is a racist? Well, I don't know the man. Bob Novak almost certainly does. But while public reports have certainly suggested that Clarke resented working for Rice, I haven't seen anybody put forth a shred of evidence that would indicate that his problem had anything to do with her race, or for that matter her being a woman. And unless Bob Novak knows something we don't (in which case he should have shared it, and his failure to do so suggests pretty strongly what the answer is), shame, shame on him for suggesting otherwise.

I've noted this before, but it is sometimes useful to look back:

John Kerry, 2004:

[President Bush] misled the American people in his own State of the Union Address about Saddam's nuclear program and WMD's.

John Kerry, October 9, 2002:

Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.

In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.

According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?

Who indeed?

The latest: Kerry criticizes Bush for criticizing Clarke for criticizing Bush.

Some controversies, you can't blog halfway, and with so many people blogging on the Clarke thing and so much new dirt on the guy every day, it's been pretty pointless for me to try to keep up even if I hadn't been swamped at work all week. One thought, on his easily disproven whopper about Condi Rice: there's no older cliche in the political book than disgruntled insiders claiming people they met with didn't know what was going on. Hell, they tried that with George Washington.

For what it's worth, here's my link-free, bottom-line take on what I think we know thus far about the propriety of blaming Clinton and/or Bush for September 11 (I may or may not go back and dig up the supporting links on this some other day, but it's all out there):

1. With the benefit of hinsdight, it's now clear that Clinton's people screwed up our anti-terror policy, beginning after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, through too much caution about committing to use military force and by a law enforcement-centered approach, despite having regularly considered more aggressive approaches.

2. In so doing, they were largely unchallenged by the GOP and not sufficiently challenged by the conservative press.

3. Had Clinton moved more aggressively, he would have had qualified support from some on the Right and the center-left, but the public appetite for a military response wasn't there, and would have been difficult for Clinton to generate without a major attack. It would have been a test of even Clinton's powers of persuasion.

4. Clinton's people knew well how bad the overall threat was, and warned Bush's people about the nature of the threat.

5. On the other hand, they didn't hand over any kind of a strategy or plan to do anything about it other than a continuation of the prior insufficient efforts.

6. Clinton also recognized the Saddam problem -- that the 'containment' regime's premises had collapsed and the status quo was ultimately unsustainable -- but similarly didn't hand over any strategy to do anything about Saddam.

7. Bush & Gore both recognized in the 2000 campaign that the status quo with Iraq needed to change, and both would have headed towards a clash with Saddam even without 9/11.

8. Neither Bush nor Gore said much about bin Laden or terrorism in the 2000 campaign. It was not an issue and didn't even come up at the debates.

9. The Bush Administration, like its predecessor, did nothing of significance on terror or on Iraq for its first 8 months in office.

10. However, the Bush Administration appears to have been developing strategies to deal with both problems (bin Laden and Saddam) by early September 2001, albeit without the urgency we'd want, with hindsight, to have seen from both Bush & Clinton.

11. The Bush Administration also seems to have had some warnings about Al Qaeda using airplanes as a weapon - in fact, I checked and there were widespread press accounts in June 2001 of Al Qaeda reportedly plotting use airplanes as a weapon at the G8 summit in Italy that summer - but never got more specific information, in part because of pre-Patriot Act restrictions on law enforcement's ability to connect the dots.

Bottom line: yes, in hindsight, both the Bush and Clinton Administrations, with more foresight, could have done more on both counts. Yes, they should have done more. Yes, I hand Clinton the larger share of the blame, at least as far as the failure to develop a long-range offensive strategy is concerned - whereas it appears that Bush was at least thinking in that direction. On the defensive question (i.e., having the homeland on alert), there's less to fault Clinton and a bit to question about Bush, but I regard the failings as mostly institutional - the problem was the inability to pursue evidentiary leads and get urgent warnings up the ladder, rather than a failure of leadership.

But the blame isn't, in my view, the important question - as I said, none of it is entirely damning, and it's bipartisan in nature. The important question is what's been learned. The Bush Administration, of course, is famously unwilling to throw red meat to its critics by admitting error (witness what happened when they gave an inch on the State of the Union), but its actions have shown a willingness to re-evaluate U.S. military doctrine and law enforcement practice in numerous ways since. The Democrats . . . not so much. I really don't have confidence that John Kerry, who's been busy blasting Bush for being too eager to go to war and who's campaigned against the expanded law enforcement powers of the Patriot Act, has really learned anything.

Remember the fighting styles of Don Rumsfeld? Well, I think we can add a new one. It's hypnotic, I tell you.

The Bush Administration comes under fire for not putting more emphasis in its foreign policy on increasing the supply of oil? Of course, this article is a classic disembodied passive-voice attack, containing only one fairly mild criticism from the Kerry campaign and no named critics. But it's more than a little ironic to think that Bush would face criticism for not placing a higher priority on oil in our Middle East policy.

Just noodling around with FundRace a bit . . . doesn't this seem sorta newsworthy: H. Ross Perot and his wife each donated the maximum $2,000 to George W. Bush. Then again, Perot endorsed Bush in 2000, so maybe that's old news.

(By contrast, Jeb could only swing a $1,000 donation).

Having a little fun here - it's time for a John Kerry theme song. This one is to the tune of the classic 70s hit "Rubberband Man" by the Spinners (Click here and scroll down for a sample of the tune). I'll leave to someone with more musical talent the task of putting this to sounds and images:

The Other Hand Man

Hand me down my chardonnay,
Hand me down my brie,
Hurry now and don't be late
He’ll be on the slopes by three
You and me were goin' out
To catch the latest sound
Guranteed to blow your mind
So high you won't come down

Hey, y'all prepare yourself
For the Other Hand man
You never heard a sound
Like the Other Hand man
You're bound to lose control
When he starts to say, "on the Other Hand,"

Oh, Lord, this dude is outta sight
Everything he says
Comes out both left and right

Once I went to hear him speak
On a Sunday talk showdown
I was so surprised, I was hypnotized
By how this cat flip-flops around

When I saw this long-faced guy
Stretch a sound bite ‘till it broke
Hey, I laughed so hard
As he got bogged down
Steerin’ clear of yes or no

Hey, y'all prepare yourself
For the Other Hand man
You never heard a sound
Like the Other Hand man
You're bound to lose control
When he starts to say "on the Other Hand,"

Got that Other Hand
All ready to go
And then he wriggled his way
Around yes or no

(Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo)
Guaranteed to blow your mind
(Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo)
Back and forth flip floppin’ all the time
(Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo)
Does he really think we’re stupid, oh, Lord
(Doo doo doo doo doo)
Lord, make him go away

Hey, y'all prepare yourself
For the Other Hand man
You never heard a sound
Like the Other Hand man
You're bound to lose control
When he starts to say "on the Other Hand,"

Doo doo doo doo doo
Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo
Doo doo doo doo doo
Other Hand man, Other Hand man
How much of this stuff do he think we can stand
So much nuance, fluff and evasion from one man, Lord
And then he had nerve to wiggle his war vote
To "yes, but," got it all straight in his head, y'all
Ah, come on, Kerry

Hey, y'all prepare yourself
For the Other Hand man
You never heard a sound
Like the Other Hand man
You're bound to lose control
When he starts to say "on the Other Hand,"

Other Hand man starts to jam
Flip-floppin’ his way across the land
Got answers goin’ every way
Everything about him seems out of place

Always wafflin', always wafflin'
Always waff-waff-wafflin'
Just a Other Hand, Other Hand man
Always wafflin', always wafflin'
Always waff-waff-wafflin'
Just a Other Hand
Other Hand man
Go ‘way
Oh, go ‘way Johnny
Uh-huh

This one is John Kerry in a nutshell:

I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.

(Link via Real Clear Politics). At the end of the day, of course, the vote was "yes" or "no," but Kerry never wants to stand up for a yes or no position on anything, does he? (UPDATE: Kaus: "If the $87 billion vote had come during the general election, and Kerry needed to appeal to moderates and conservatives, would he have voted for or against it? The question more or less answers itself") A lot of Kerry's waffles seem to come from a fear of being tagged as a liberal, which he so obviously is anyway. Prediction:

Like Al Gore's populism and Bob Dole's tax cut fever, Kerry will embrace his inner liberal only after he's frittered away half the summer.

This is why the primaries are supposed to be about showing the base you have the courage of your convictions, so you can rest on that and work on sounding moderate in the general election. Kerry hasn't proven himself as a man of principle, to put it mildly - he was busy working on looking 'electable' - so he'll have to work on that far later than he should.

Also, Ed Moltzen at LateFinal, who's been on a roll lately, fisks the living daylights out of Kerry's speech to the firefighters' union. (Link via Michele).

*Stryker:

A new liberal radio network, called "Air America Radio" and featuring Al Franken Janeane Garafalo, is coming to an AM Station near you. No word yet on whether the networks' founders are aware of the irony in having a liberal radio station named after an illegal and undercover CIA operation during the Viet Nam war, as well as a mediocre Mel Gibson film.

*"The Boston Fog Machine": David Brooks succeeds in nailing jello to the wall (link via Tom Maguire)

*Also from the Minute Man, a reminder from 1948 that Democrats have known for a long time how to play rough: "President Likens Dewey to Hitler as Fascists' Tool"

Here's another way of looking at what's fundamentally wrong with John Kerry's approach to foriegn policy. Kerry, of course, has repeatedly insisted that he will, as president, do more to rebuild America's alliances with various foreign nations. But how, and at what cost?

There are, fundamentally, two types of diplomacy: you can think of them as hard diplomacy and soft diplomacy. Hard diplomacy is about getting people to change their behavior by changing the facts and/or changing your position; the most obvious examples are threats or reprisals and bribes with concessions. (Another example is creating the fait accompli, where you simply alter the facts on the ground). Soft diplomacy is, in essence, everything else, any effort that entails getting the other guy to change his position without changing yours. A lot of what people think of as diplomacy falls in this area, from ass-kissing on a personal or national level (i.e., talking nicer), to simple persuasion. The problem, of course, is that there's very little reason, in the real world, to believe that soft diplomacy has very much impact on the behavior of nations.

Here's what worries me: when Kerry talks about improving our diplomacy, there are two possibilities. One is that he's fool enough to believe that soft diplomacy is really important, and that he'll be able to get our reluctant allies to change their behavior just by asking nicer. Not only is this foolishly naive, but when has Kerry ever shown himself to be the kind of guy who can do this? He's never put in the effort to be a coalition-builder in two decades in the Senate; never tried for a leadership position, never worked in any notable way across party lines, never led a fight on major legislation (all these stand in marked contrast to Bush's record in Texas, by the way, and don't go telling me that Kerry can compensate by being more charming in person than Bush).

(One possible line of argument sometimes heard from the Left is that the U.S. has lost credibility on account of misusing intelligence, and that this has made us less persuasive . . . again, there are two possibilities: either Kerry intends to improve our intelligence-gathering operations, which would be a sharp reversal of his positions over the past 30 years, or he intends to be less willing to act on the kind of warnings we had in Iraq.)

The other possibility is that Kerry expects to use hard diplomacy . . . but threats of force or other reprisals? I doubt it. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that what Kerry means, fundamentally, is that he will concede American interests and negotiating positions in ways Bush wouldn't.

That really could make Kerry popular in foreign capitals. But it shouldn't make him popular here.

I just love this one, from Pejman: in 1944, a Democratic Senator who was the chairman of the party's national convention referred to a potential GOP victory as "Hitler's secret weapon."

It ain't beanbag. Lileks had more in this vein yesterday:

Accusing one's opponent of treason is a personal attack. . . . There's nothing comparable on the other side. Nothing. I mean, the Bush team runs an ad that has a second of 9/11 footage, and his opponents pitch a carefully staged fit - because that's all they have. . . I ask: imagine, if you will, that we're at war. (Just pretend.) A Democrat president is attempting to pacify Krepistan, which has been shooting at American planes for a decade. The Republican candidate says he's been in contact with foreign leaders who really want him to win, and is caught on tape telling a supporter he thinks the current administration is made up of crooked liars.

Think the New Republic might write a disapproving editorial or two?

Probably not. After all, didn't the Democrat president note that his opponent failed to grasp the strategic importance of Krepistan? Tit. Tat.

This does not sound like the way to woo swing voters.

The impeachment of South Korea's president seems like it might be a big deal, no?

Which reminds me: if John Kerry were actually to (ha, ha) offer the vice presidential nomination to John McCain, would McCain re-use his best applause line from his 2000 stump speech, the one where he promised to rid the country of "the truth-twisting politics of Bill Clinton and Al Gore"? Would Clinton stump for a ticket including a man who voted to remove him from office?

Just askin'.

The Kansas City Star (registration required):

Kerry alternately pleases, befuddles Arab Americans and Jews

They aren't the only ones.

The Washington Post:

Kerry Sweeps Races in 4 States: Boredom Is Senator's New Foe

Actually, it's a very old foe.

And what about Kerry's potential VP choices? A columnist with the Arkansas News notes wryly that

A national wire service article attempted last week to cover the waterfront on potential running mate choices for John Kerry, even to the point of saying that Kerry's need for Southern competitiveness might cause him to consider U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. I couldn't help but chuckle - not about Blanche's being vice president, but about the fact that until recently Kerry called Blanche "Mary." He thought she was Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

But maybe Kerry's not the only one with mistaken-identity problems. This Yahoo photo captions the challenger as "U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (news - web sites) (R) of Massachusetts" (hey, is that why McCain would consider running with him?), while this one notes that Idaho Senator Larry Craig mistakenly identified Hillary Clinton as a senator from Texas.

The Bush National Guard story finally gets the serious treatment it deserves.

Mark Steyn takes a look at the weapons systems John Kerry wanted to cut back or cancel in his 1984 Senate campaign.

Via the Command Post, the Campaigns and Elections Mag power rankings from two days ago, presented here with my own two cents; basically, I'd rank the contenders in terms of likelihood (1) Richardson, (2) Gephardt, (3) Rendell, (4) Edwards, (5) Cleland, (6) Landrieu, (7) Hillary!, (8) Rubin. (Not listed here is Bill Clinton; as James Taranto and others have pointed out, NYU Law professor Stephen Gillers' NY Times op-ed touting Clinton for veep ignored the 12th Amendment, which provides that ""no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States" - an embarrasing and inexcusable omission both for Gillers and for the Times.

Read More »

A clearly disappointed Will Saletan, on the relative weaknesses of Kerry and Edwards: "The good news for Edwards is that experience is easy to acquire. The bad news for Kerry is that caring and honesty aren't."

If Kerry loses decisively in November (i.e., Bush gets a majority of the popular vote and wins at least 290 electoral votes), the Democrats will revamp their primary structure for 2008. Kerry was clearly a beneficiary of a setup whereby the early frontrunner's momentum could no longer be stopped after he won both Iowa and NH, and he's emerged relatively unscathed and unvetted. If that produces a general election flop, there will be much handwringing. And with Terry McAuliffe stepping down as DNC Chair after 2004, you'd think that new party leadership will be looking to finally rethink some things.

Take the quiz! NRO's Jim Geraghty has a hilarious compilation of quotes - see if you can guess (without peeking at the bottom) which ones are John Kerry and which are Pat Buchanan. I thought I could guess, and I only got 5 out of 10 correct.

Which brings up an interesting point: Buchanan may be a convincing populist, but Kerry as a peasant with a pitchfork conjures an image of a down-at-the-heels nobleman trying to rile a crowd to get his castle back . . . Kerry and Bush may both be from elite old-money WASP backgrounds, but Kerry has tried to paint himself as an economic populist, and it's a transparent fraud coming from such a wealthy man. Bush has never played that card - if anything, he's gone in the opposite direction by presenting himself as a CEO with an MBA - but he's far more authentic as a cultural populist, a former beer-drinking frat boy who likes baseball, Austin Powers movies, cowboy boots, and clearing brush on his ranch.

So, Edwards is out. On the last day of his campaign, though, The Hill gave us this report, which any lawyer would recognize as a major ethical no-no: in 1994, while still a practicing attorney, Edwards loaned $30,000 to a federal bankruptcy judge overseeing a case in which Edwards' wife was then appearing. It appears that the facts are not in dispute . . .

Of course, even while apparently accurate, this report is an early candidate for the Bedfellow Award (see here and here), which I christened for extremely late, can't-be-responded-to hit jobs in honor of the comic strip "Bloom County," in which Senator Bedfellow was defeated on the strength of an election-day headline, "WARNING: VOTING FOR BEDFELLOW MAY CAUSE HERPES." Obvious recent candidates include Bush's DUI arrest, highlighted at the end of the 2000 campaign, and the groping charges and pro-Hitler quotes dug up on Arnold Schwarzenegger last year. Of course, bonus points are for a charge that's false or at least severely overblown, as well as for charges that are inflammatory and/or totally unrelated to the issues (the Kerry-intern story now looks like it might qualify on all grounds, except that it wasn't quite as late in the game). Stay tuned - I'll wager that 2004's winner won't become clear for some time.

Elliott Spitzer is learning one of politics' painful lessons these days as he finds himself unable to duck the gay marriage issue: sometimes, you chase the headlines, and sometimes, the headlines chase you.

So, Dean finally did win a primary, owing to a sympathetic vote yesterday from his former constituents in Vermont. If you missed it, Howard Kurtz had a long and interesting post-mortem in Sunday's Washington Post on the Dean campaign from the inside. (Link via The Corner). One lesson: when your campaign staff is so out of touch they need Rob Reiner to tell them what's going on in the real world, that's a problem. It's probably also true, as Kurtz suggests, that Dean never really expected to win and may on some level have undermined his own campaign by being unwilling to accept the discipline of a frontrunner.

The Boston Herald calls Kerry on the fact that he's barely showed up to vote in the Senate while campaigning (ditto for Edwards), most notoriously by ducking the vote on the Medicare prescription drug bill. ScrappleFace called this one last month.

A few good ones:

*LT Smash details Kerry's anti-defense positions from his 1984 Senate campaign. (Meanwhile, Oberon argues that the RNC's litany of bad Kerry votes on weapons systems is overstated, although he doesn't touch on Kerry's campaign against the CIA).

*Jonathan Chait on why Ralph Nader has always been a counterproductive zealot.

*Jonah Goldberg summarizes his thoughts on why and how conservatives approach the 'culture wars.'

*Tom Maguire on John Kerry's waffling on trade.

*Byron York on John Kerry, stuck in the Sixties (link via Kaus).

*Kaus summarizes his main beefs with Kerry.

I listened to part of the Democrats' Sunday debate on the radio. Kerry has gotten some grief for his answer about whether God is on America's side, but I thought that Edwards had the answer to that question that I myself was composing in my head when they asked the question, which was to quote Lincoln saying he prayed not that God was on our side but that we were on God's side.

There was also some fun ducking and dodging on the gay marriage issue, with Kerry and Edwards circling the wagons on this issue under fierce attack from the left by all the panelists, Sharpton and Kucinich. (The transcript doesn't quite capture how loudly Kerry was stressing the word "RIGHTS" or, of course, Sharpton's inimitable bluster, although he had some amusing zingers).

Read More »

Maybe I'm not reading the right news sources, but it seemed pretty sad to me that they're holding all these primaries today in states Joe Lieberman had hoped to do well in - including his own home state - and nobody even seems to be speculating about whether he would endorse one of the candidates.

The nonpartisan National Journal has released its rankings for 2003, and John Kerry (when he bothered to vote, that is) was rated the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. That's gonna leave a mark. Being #1 makes it real easy for Bush's team to write the campaign commercial . . .

I found it very revealing when Matt Yglesias suggested a few weeks ago that John Kerry should "really commit himself" to "build[ing] a viable democratic state in Iraq" . . . but that until the nomination was salted away he shouldn't do so because it would "be unpopular with the primary electorate and possibly lead to a Dean-resurgence."

Of course, with Dean out of the way, I'm still not holding my breath for Kerry to get serious. But it's more than a little scary to hear from a commited Democrat the idea that the Democratic primary voters aren't prepared to hear a serious, adult discussion about America's role in the world or its strategy for winning the war on terror.

Gossipist Liz Smith calls America's first Arab-American presidential candidate "a known terrorist."

(Link via the newest indispensable blogger, Wonkette).

John Kerry has been fond of claiming recently that the Bush Administration has broken faith with military veterans by cutting veterans' benefits. As Bill Hobbs explains, this is fiction. But I have another question: as Hobbs notes, Kerry's not only challenging Bush, he's challenging Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi. What's Principi's background?

A combat-decorated Vietnam veteran, . . . Mr. Principi is a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md., and first saw active duty aboard the destroyer USS Joseph P. Kennedy. He later commanded a River Patrol Unit in Vietnam's Mekong Delta.

How dare Kerry question the commitment to our veterans of a decorated Vietnam veteran?

Of course, I'm being somewhat facetious here - Kerry's claim that his own Vietnam service immunizes his national security record from criticism, like his other main blathering points about "special interests" and outsourcing, is so flimsy it doesn't hold up under even the most minimal logical scrutiny. (As one of Tim Blair's readers put it, "I think I finally understand why Kerry underwent the botox treatments. It's so he could say all the things he does with a straight face. "). But it's still fun applying the scrutiny.

Wonkette's readers had some good ones as well:

* "Vote Kerry: He Led America To Victory In Vietnam!"

* "John Kerry: Pretending To Fight Against Special Interests Since Very Recently"

* "John Kerry Won't Just Take A Stand On The Tough Issues - He'll Take Two Or Three Of Them"

* "Kerry: Not in the pocket of most special interests."

On the other hand, if you want an example of someone actually questioning Kerry's patriotism, check out this, from NRO:

Read More »

Following up on yesterday's argument . . . as I think you can tell, I'm hardly a bitter-ender on the substance of the gay marriage question. I don't necessarily think that the world would spin off its axis if we had gay marriage . . . frankly, I hadn't really thought about "gay rights" issues until maybe my senior year of college, and I've made a real effort since then to take in all sides of the issues. And while I don't have the patience to read as much on these issues as Andrew Sullivan puts out, I do try to read his stuff on this. But what I do take very seriously is the Left's concerted effort to impose radical social changes without ever getting the sanction of democratically elected representatives or explicit authority in the Constitution or statutes, and then turn around and call conservatives the radical ones.

Now, we've got yet another local official threatening to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, this time the mayor of New Paltz, New York (this is what you get for electing a 26-year-old Green Party mayor). As in California, this will suddenly put both the Governor and the state Attorney General in a very awkward position.

Tom Maguire, who's been all over this issue, points us to Ramesh Ponnuru's article on NRO essentially endorsing the same solution that Maguire, I and James Taranto would all prefer: an amendment that would do nothing more than leave exclusively to each state's legislature the question of what kind of marriages or civil unions to approve. Indeed, the WSJ comes out with an editorial today endorsing precisely this position:

Now, even some who support a constitutional remedy wonder about the language. There is debate about whether the amendment's language would bar states from endorsing civil unions, which Mr. Bush says they should be free to do. We think this entire issue should be decided in the states, by the people through their elected legislators. And if the voters want to alter the definition of marriage as a new social consensus develops, that should be their democratic right.

This is a popular position. Indeed, even Sullivan says "I will support a federal constitutional amendment that would solely say that no state is required to recognize a civil marriage from another state," although he contends that we should first wait for the courts to bulldoze all the existing legislation on the matter - at which point, I do question whether he'd argue that it's a "divisive" attempt to "roll back" the facts on the ground . . .

Given that the votes clearly will not be there for a more sweeping amendment - something such noted weak-kneed moderates as Tom DeLay seem to have already appreciated - those pushing for an amendment need to take what they can get. I agree with Taranto that the more modest solution would put John Kerry in even more of a terrible box than he's already in (as opposed to his current position, in which he (1) says that opposing gay marriage is bigoted and divisive and (2) says that he opposes gay marriage), since the GOP could honestly portray its effort as one that preserves the status quo without casting it in stone. Kerry would then be forced to bet his chips on the losing hand of opposing his own position - or face the wrath of the Left within his own party.

Turning briefly to the merits of gay marriage, a few non-comprehensive thoughts:

Read More »

Well, looks like it's time for me to talk about gay marriage. . . I didn't choose the time or the terms of this debate, but then, neither did President Bush. Keep that in mind.

You see, like any controversy over the intersection of law with the culture, the gay marriage debate has both a substantive aspect (what the right outcome for society should be) and a procedural aspect (how we get there, who legitimizes the decision, how it's enforced). And in this fight, the procedural issue is, in my view, a lot more troubling even than the substance.

On the merits, I first looked at this issue ten years ago, when I was in my first year of law school, and I came down in support of some form of civil union solution; I haven't seen anything to change my mind since then. More on the substantive merits another day (this post is already too long) . . . but I can recall having a debate in my property class with a lesbian woman who thought it highly unrealistic to await a democratic resolution of the issue. She wanted it to come from the courts.

From sources around the blogosphere too numerous to link here, we've tended to see five basic lines of attack against the president's decision to come down in favor of a constitutional amendment on the topic:

1. Ask why anybody cares who else is married.
2. Call the president and other opponents of gay marriage bigots.
3. Ask whether the president doesn't have better things to do than worry about this issue.
4. Argue that we shouldn't go amending the Constitution over this issue.
5. Suggest that this is all politically motivated.

These are deeply misguided arguments, and notwithstanding the fact that many of them are coming from people I otherwise respect and agree with on many other issues, they buy into the thuggish and dishonest tactics of the cultural Left, tactics that have been repeated so many times that those of us who consider ourselves social conservatives know exactly where this is going.

Read More »

In case you missed it, from late last week: did you know that the YES Network (presumably at the urging of George Steinbrenner, who was once convicted of making illegal campaign contributions to Richard Nixon), was a major donor to the group (also including such distinguished John Kerry supporters as Bob Torricelli) that ran particularly pointed anti-Howard Dean ads in Iowa (the ads that showed Osama bin Laden and questioned whether Dean had the experience to deal with him)?

One wonders whether YES' anti-Dean position had anything to do with his threat to regulate the media.

Well, you can't say that the National Review is a latecomer to bashing John Kerry on his 1971 testimony to Congress.

Answer: New Mexico, Oregon, Iowa and Wisconsin.

Question: In what four states in 2000 was Al Gore's margin of victory over Bush smaller than the number of votes cast for Pat Buchanan?

In only two states - albeit enough to swing the election - did Nader outpoll Bush's margin of victory: Florida and New Hampshire. If a third of New Hampshire's 22,188 Nader voters had pulled the lever for Gore, he'd be president now.

I've added a direct link in the Reference Desk to the Electoral College Map (provided by Edwardsforprez) that's featured over at Daily Kos; it's a wonderful resource. But I ran the numbers with Bush holding all his 2000 states except New Hampshire and Nevada, and I came up with . . . a 269-269 tie. Is that possible? I'll have to check the math.

Jonah Goldberg picks up an amusing example of overseas outsourcing by someone John Kerry won't call "Benedict Arnold." Meanwhile, the Daily News defends NY-based companies that outsource tasks overseas, while arguing that John Edwards should be criticizing companies that close plants in Queens to relocate to South Carolina.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave . . .

John Kerry hasn't even sewn up the Democratic nomination, and already he's complaining that he can't handle criticism from President Bush and Republicans on his national security record and his actions after Vietnam. Of course, the hypocrisy of Kerry wanting to take Vietnam off the table after making it part of his answer to nearly every question is mind-bending, like if Howard Dean had suddenly claimed that the Iraq war shouldn't be a political issue. So much for "BRING IT ON!"

Me, I prefer Jonah Goldberg's approach. And come to think of it, so did Kerry's surrogates not so long ago.

UPDATE: Kaus catches an even more egregious attempt by Kerry to bully his opponents into silence:

Kerry responds:``I don't know what it is about what these Republicans who didn't serve in any war have against those of us who are Democrats who did."

I can't say enough about the Mark Steyn piece the Mad Hibernian links to below . . . but another can't-miss bit of political humor is today's Dave Barry column, which is just packed with gags in the classic Barry style. One sample:

Yes, voters, I trust you, because I am one of you. I even talk like you. For example, when I'm campaignin' in the South, I leave the "g" off the ends of words and I use old country expressions that express the homespun wisdom acquired by rural people over years of drinkin' contaminated ground water, such as: "Don't light a match till you know which end of the dog is barkin'." As your President, I will govern the nation, or at least the South, in accordance with those words, whatever they may mean.

Read the whole thing.

Tim Blair offers some amusing historical perspective on presidential polls.

It appears for the moment that we've seen the last of Howard Dean as a candidate for national office for quite some time. Although he may be keeping his powder dry for 2008, I suspect that Dean's 2004 problem - people think he's nuts - is a hard one to overcome; ask Dan Quayle how hard it is to change an image that casts you as unpresidential.

Anyway, this makes it time to dump out the rest of my research on Dean, for future reference or just for the sheer malicious glee of kicking a man when he's down:

Read More »

Kaus has a quote so good I hate to mention that it was apparently tongue in cheek, being made by Jon Corzine at the Washington Press Club Foundation Dinner:

Frankly, sharing a media market with Chuck Schumer is like sharing a banana with a monkey. Take a little bite of it, and he will throw his own feces at you.

Tim Noah, like Jonah Goldberg, thinks Howard Dean's problem as a candidate was that he was a phony who didn't really believe in his own left-wing campaign rhetoric. Both of them cite his more (comparitively) moderate record as Vermont governor. The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, argues that Dean's undistilled leftism and confrontational style made him "the most consequential loser since Barry Goldwater."

I think the Journal is closer to the truth, and there's an important point here about politicians and their convictions. The charge against Dean sometimes focuses on the idea that his strong anti-war and tax-hiking stands were calculated postures based on his assessment of the mood of the Democratic electorate in 2003. Kevin Drum has repeatedly made the same charge against Bush. Now, it's fair game to point to inconsistencies in a man's record and ask whether he really believes what he says. But in a representative democracy, it's not necessarily fatal to hire leaders who echo what we want them to say, rather than what they'd do if they had their druthers. Many of our individual druthers, after all, aren't so well thought-out.

No, what matters more than anything is not a politician's fealty to his own internal principles but his ability to take a principled position and stick to it, whether he believes in it or not. Regardless of its sincerity, Howard Dean's positions on Iraq and on the Bush tax cuts were principled positions: he made sure everyone knew precisely where he stood, he made all the arguments for those positions as forcefully as he could, and he left himself no wiggle room to back away if those positions were rejected by the voters or if (as happened with the capture of Saddam) his principled position was discredited by subsequent events. What we look for in leaders, especially presidents, is that ability: the willingness to say, "here I stand," let the voters judge the merits of that stand, and keep faith with your promises, even when the going gets rough.

That doesn't mean that you can never compromise; even a principled advocate can judge when to settle for the best deal that's going to come. Think of John McCain's approach to campaign finance reform or Ted Kennedy's approach to universal government-provided health insurance, both clear examples of principled positions where (like the results or not) a legislator staked out a position and made things happen by tireless advocacy and leadership.

Part of what made Bill Clinton so frustrating to deal with was his allergy to principled positions, the difficulty of pinning him down on issues. But even Clinton took principled stands on occasion -- sometimes by using his popular mandate to enact campaign promises like the Family and Medical Leave Act, sometimes by bucking his own party for the good of the economy (as with NAFTA and GATT), and, in the case of HillaryCare, pushing a principled stand far beyond the point where prudence counseled compromise.

Love him or hate him, President Bush has similarly taken a series of principled positions, albeit with exceptions (as where he abandoned many of his principles on the education bill and threw them overboard on McCain-Feingiold). In dealing with the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, Bush was unyielding in pursuit of our objectives, even in the face of many objections and obstacles along the way. On tax cuts, Bush has consistently staked out clearly understood objectives -- there's no question that Bush's campaign got out in front of public demand for tax cuts and that the public identifies Bush with that position -- and pushed for as much of his proposed cuts as he could get. Bush's positions on Social Security, the Medicare prescription drug bill, judicial nominees, the faith-based initiative -- you can fault his objectives or the degree of his follow-through, but you can't doubt where Bush stands and that he's been willing to weather criticism from many corners without changing course.

Which brings us to the core of the problem with John Kerry. As Will Saletan has put it:

Kerry's more fundamental problem is his tendency to try to have everything both ways, chiefly by rigging his answers with caveats. He approaches political questions the way soldiers approach urban warfare: He never walks into a sentence without leaving himself a way out.

This is Kerry's core problem. Try to cite back part of Kerry's voting record, and he'll cite votes going the other way. War with Iraq? Voted against the first one but said some good things about it, voted for the second one and campaigned against it, voted in between for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Voted for the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind and NAFTA, campaigned against all three. Campaigned strenuously for Kyoto, but voted for the anti-Kyoto resolution in the Senate. Opposes drilling in ANWR, but wants the unions to know he's OK with it. Opposes gay marriage, but voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. . . . you get the picture. It's not that Kerry doesn't necessarily have principles; clearly, his instincts are quite liberal, as he's often shown and as his voting record tilts. But there's never been any point in John Kerry's career when, as many another legislator has done, he took an issue, made it his own, and declared to all the world: here I stand, come with me. Dean's not the only loser who got his way; in recent memory, Steve Forbes and Ross Perot also did much to shape the public agenda by taking stands on issues and forcing other candidates to deal with their ideas. But even if John Kerry wins, for what has he ever shown he would fight without backing down, come whatever grief may come his way?

Read More »

This site's third co-blogger, who blogs under the pseudonym Kiner's Korner, has gotten out of the blog groove the last several months. But I have to give him credit here for an email he sent me January 30, after the New Hampshire primary:

Prediction:

Dean doesn't actually win a single primary

I doubted him, but that's exactly what happened.

As Howard Dean exits stage left, it's worth looking back at Clay Shirky's widely-linked analysis of what went wrong:

[T]he hard thing to explain is not how the Dean campaign blew such a huge lead, but rather why we ever thought that lead actually existed. Dean's campaign didn't just fail, it dissolved on contact with reality.

The answer, I think, is that we talked ourselves, but not the voters, into believing. And I think the way the campaign was organized helped inflate and sustain that bubble of belief, right up to the moment that the voters arrived.

* * *

The moment for me, and I think for many of us, when we realized that Dean was sunk was on Wednesday after New Hampshire, when the press reported that he'd spent most of his $45 million war chest already. The obvious question, "How did he think he could do the rest of the campaign on a few million dollars?" has an obvious answer: "He thought he'd raise more, when Iowa and New Hampshire anointed him frontrunner."

This was a fatal flaw in the campaign - they believed their own press. Dean was so out of touch that he had not prepared a concession speech in Iowa, a state where his third place finish was so bad that if he'd gotten every single Gephardt vote as well, he would still have been in third place, and would still have been double digits behind Kerry.

This is the question within the question. Out here, we had an excuse (albeit a flimsy one) for believing Dean was the frontrunner: it's what we read in the papers. But campaigns don't just use the pollsters, their field operations also keep their own numbers. And for Dean to blow all his cash and then not even prepare for anything other than victory means their internal numbers predicted certain victory as well.

The irony here is rich: Dean spent much of his campaign blasting Bush for relying on faulty intelligence to make decisions and for failing to plan ahead for postwar Iraq. Moreover, his party has hung a lot of importance on corporate scandals and the burst of the tech bubble, both of which were grounded in some way in wildly optimistic overestimates of profitability. And after all that, it turns out that Dean himself was the one who was guilty of the very things he charged the president with: he fell for bad information and didn't have a contingency plan in place if things went badly.

Of course, there's a counter to all this: that Dean's implosion was all about Dean's own statements piling up against him, while events outside his control (i.e., the capture of Saddam) worked to undercut the thrust of his case. And you can argue that, given what a longshot Dean was to start with, it made eminent sense for Dean to pursue a high-risk, no-fallback-position strategy aimed at crushing the opposition in the first two contests (in fact, John Kerry has succeeded by pursuing the same strategy). But the fact is, Dean believed his own BS, and he paid for it.

There's been some griping from Democrats about the GOP having its convention in New York so close to the anniversary of September 11, when the incumbent party's conventions are normally in mid-August, but a look at the calendar (thanks to The Note) explains why the Republicans are staging the convention so late:

July 26, 2004: Target start date for the 108th Congress' August recess

July 26-29, 2004: Democratic National Convention, Boston

Aug. 14-29, 2004: Summer Olympic Games, Athens, Greece

Aug. 30-Sept. 2, 2004: Republican National Convention, New York City

Sept. 6, 2004: Labor Day

Sept. 7, 2004: Target end date for the 108th Congress' August recess

As Bill Clinton might have told himself: it's the Olympics, stupid.

After Ted Barlow accused Jonah Goldberg of printing made-up stories of John Kerry pulling rank on ordinary citizens (often with the question, "Do you know who I am?," which Jonah now abbreviates as "DYKWIA"), Howie Carr stoked the fire with a NY Post column detailing how his callers have been lighting up the phone lines for years with stories like this. (For those of you unfamiliar with his work, Carr is a Boston Herald columnist and radio show host who's somewhere between the slightly over-the-top Limbaugh and Hannity and the way-over-the-top likes of Ann Coulter or Bob Grant). Now, Barlow does have a point about using anonymous letter-writers and callers to slam public figures, but I strongly suspect that some serious reportage would uncover a heck of a lot of people willing to repeat this type of thing on the record.

Now, Goldberg points us to an amusing catch by brand-new blogger Donald Crankshaw, who noticed a DYKWIA-type story about Kerry from none other than Dave Barry:

In conclusion, I want to extend my sincere best wishes to all of my opponents, Republican and Democrat, and to state that, in the unlikely event I am not elected, I will support whoever is, even if it is Sen. John Kerry, who once came, with his entourage, into a ski-rental shop in Ketchum, Idaho, where I was waiting patiently with my family to rent snowboards, and Sen. Kerry used one of his lackeys to flagrantly barge in line ahead of us and everybody else, as if he had some urgent senatorial need for a snowboard, like there was about to be an emergency meeting, out on the slopes, of the Joint Halfpipe Committee. I say it's time for us, as a nation, to put this unpleasant incident behind us. I know that I, for one, have forgotten all about it. That is how fair and balanced I am.

You can check out Barry's whole column here. While it's Barry's usual tongue-in-cheek style, Crankshaw says he emailed Barry's "Research Department" and Barry insists that he's not making this one up.

Meanwhile, the Onion perfectly captures Kerry's true colors (link via Andrew Sullivan).

Josh Marshall makes a revealing blunder all too typical of Beltway Democrats:

Bush told a crowd in Florida that "Democrats would endanger America's fiscal health by raising taxes." . . . When the president came into office the budget surplus was over $200 billion. Now the deficit is over $500 billion.

Even my frail grasp of mathematics tells me that's a deterioration in the nation's fiscal health of roughly three-quarters of a trillion dollars in the three years he's been in office. And for almost all of that time the president's party controlled both houses of congress.

And he says the Democrats are a danger to the nation's fiscal health?

Note that Marshall equates "the nation's fiscal health" with the Federal Government's budget. Now, maybe he's deliberately turning Bush's use of the word "fiscal" against him, but the bottom line here is that Marshall completely ignores the existence of an economy outside of the government. Balanced budgets alone are not the health of the state.

Cartoonist Tom Oliphant comes to the obvious conclusion about the sudden descent of the 2004 campaign into mudslinging about Bush's National Guard service and unproven charges about a sex scandal involving John Kerry: the man most responsible for driving both charges to the front page is Wesley Clark, the master of the unproven assertion.

Maybe it's just coincidence that this kind of stuff is coming from the Clintons' favorite candidate (just like it's a coincidence that all those high-paid players happen to be on the Yankees) . . . or maybe Jonah Goldberg was right in 2002 that ""Like some perverse "Where's Waldo" drawing, wherever large groups of Democrats congregate, you know if you can find Bill Clinton in the picture they will behave like jackasses."

More reactions from military sources to the "AWOL Bush" nonsense. From Bush's visit yesterday with a National Guard unit in Louisiana:

In interviews, soldiers brushed off the flap about Bush's record. Staff Sgt. Jim Lee, an Arkansas National Guardsman, said, "I think he did his duty. We're certainly supportive of the president. We're all Guardsmen, so we know what happens when you transfer from one state to another. The records get convoluted."

Pfc. Allen Harmon, also from Arkansas, said, "In a sense you've got to look at people's past. But right now, he's doing a good job."

First Lt. Jason Cannon, a soldier of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment who was wounded by a roadside bomb in Iraq, said, "I think it was a really long time ago. The press gets focused on things that aren't that important. I don't think he was AWOL. I've been in the Guard. He switched states. It looks like he was looking for a place to drill."

Pfc Willie Wade, a guardsmen majoring in education at Grambling State University, said, "I wondered (about Bush's Guard flap) when I first saw it. I take it he fulfilled his duty. They showed the papers."

Then there's Phil Carter, who strains to find a reason why the controversy should continue, but admits up front that

The issue has never been whether he was guilty of desertion or being AWOL--two slanderous charges leveled without regard for the facts. The real issue has always been the character of his service, and whether it was good enough to set the example for America's 1.4 million citizens in uniform.

As an initial matter, it should be clear that Bush did volunteer to serve as a fighter pilot when he was under no compulsion to do so. President Bush could have avoided the draft through other means that were far safer than flying the F-102--an aircraft sometimes called the "widowmaker" for its propensity to crash. Despite efforts by some pundits to create one, there is no real analogy between the president's military service and the efforts by former President Bill Clinton to avoid military service, except that both happened within the larger context of the Vietnam War.

This should come as a surprise to those commenters who cite Carter as an authority on the "AWOL" charge, but Carter is out in front of where the goalposts have been moved by Democrats desperate to keep the issue alive.

Looks like the "did John Kerry cheat on his wife?" story isn't going anywhere at the moment, after peaking with cover stories in the NY tabloids on Saturday. . . which is as it should be; sure, Kerry could be lying to us, but he's now unequivocally denied the story (such as it is), and all the "evidence" is unsourced hearsay speculation. The man's entitled to the benefit of the doubt. I'm not ready to declare the story an unsubstantiated smear until we see if Drudge comes up with anything else, but until he does, we should presume that Kerry has been faithful to his second wife.

Which is not to say that the picture of Kerry's family life is entirely flattering. Remember all the howls of derision from the Left at Newt Gingrich having served divorce papers on his wife while she lay sick in the hospital? NewsMax commented on this last spring (based on reporting done in this Joe Klein article in the New Yorker):

[T]he press has been far kinder to Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry, who, according to published accounts going back more than a decade, began extricating himself from his first marriage to Philadelphia heiress Julia Thorne at the same time she was battling a case of depression so debilitating that it drove her to the brink of suicide.

In an attempt to explain why he decided not to let his wife's precarious mental state derail his 1982 bid to become Michael Dukakis' lieutenant governor, Kerry told the New Yorker magazine last December, "When I get focused and set out to do something, I'm pretty good at staying focused."

"You don't want to let yourself down, you know what I'm saying?" added the ambitious Democrat without a hint of irony.

NewsMax notes that Kerry wrote to the New Yorker to complain about the article, although it doesn't address whether he actually disputed any of the facts in Klein's article . . . again, the picture of a man's character is broader than any one incident, and there have been good presidents before who had pretty ugly personal lives. But it's something to consider. Anyway, don't hold your breath waiting for the people who mocked Gingrich to come down hard on Kerry.

Well, I've certainly kicked the beehive with the last few days' posts on the AWOL stuff, but it looks like Bush's critics, having made a mountain out of something that scarcely amounted to a molehill, are mostly looking for a graceful exit. Josh Marshall is consoling himself with the thought that Bush was pretty immature as a young man. (This is news?) Kevin Drum is preparing to concede defeat and even making light of the story, as if he was an innocent bystander. Honestly, I generally enjoy Kevin's site; maybe this explains it all. Hopefully he'll regain the even temper that had made him one of the few left-side bloggers who's genuinely consistently worth reading.

On TV tonight, Bill Maher was busy convincing himself that he's right to hate Bush; Maher simply ceased to be interesting after he became a bitter lefty following the backlash against his comments after September 11. And Charles Rangel was on NY1 . . . I swear I am not making this up . . . arguing that Bush shouldn't have worn the flight suit on the aircraft carrier because after missing his flight physical in 1973, he was no longer a licensed pilot.

Meanwhile, Chris Lawrence has expanded on something he wrote in my comments section, explaining why reports from the Memphis Flyer can't really be trusted.

So, yesterday I had 14 questions for Kevin Drum to answer if he expects us to continue taking him seriously on the "Bush was AWOL!!!!!!" charge. I also mentioned Mark Kleiman as one of the prominent bloggers flogging this story (and emailed him the link), and threw in Oliver Willis as well. Let's track the responses:

*Kleiman, to his credit, emailed back his response quickly and then posted it on his blog. However, his response basically dodges all of my questions and instead focuses on things we don't know. You can go there and judge for yourself. My response: Yes, I'm aware of Phil Carter, but he hasn't dealt with a lot of these points either. An obvious answer on the "why nobody remembers" thing is that Bush was just marking time, and most likely wasn't doing much to attract attention. If I'd become the most famous man in America by now, it's still unlikely that the people in my bar review class 8 years ago would remember me, notwithstanding the fact that there were only about 6 of us.

As for the flight physical, I take Sparkey's point (and others') seriously about the flight physical not being much of a requirement if Bush had no reason to remain qualified to fly. If he was away from his regular doctor - or even just the AF doctor Bush had been to before - it's not surprising that he wasn't really interested in going to a new doctor for a pointless physical. As for Bush's book . . . well, OK, that's not accurate. But it was 30 years ago, and he'd logged a lot of hours in the air. It's not unusual at all if that seemed like a longer time than it was, and I assume that when he proofed the book, he was doing so from memory, rather than cross-referencing it with fragmentary pay stubs. Kleiman also begs the question; elsewhere, he points to a Texas statute that reads as follows:

§ 432.131. Absence Without Leave

A person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial directs if the person without authority:

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed.

The problem is, Kleiman never gives any explanation of why he believes Bush was "required to be" in any particular place at any particular "time prescribed." It's also pretty lame that Kleiman attacks my criticisms on his blog without providing a link; that's just bad form. Blogs are supposed to be open to a give-and-take that presumes you have enough confidence in your position to let your readers hear the other side and respond. (Kleiman also insisted that his site's failure to accept trackbacks from my site and some other conservative sites is due to a technical problem he hasn't been able to fix . . . I take him at his word, but a better trackback feature might hold him a bit more accountable for his writings).

*Maybe Drum will address the questions later, but his initial response was to issue a non-denial denial, basically admitting that there's nothing to this story but arguing that Bush should nonetheless be compelled to keep answering questions about it. Um, remind me not to listen to Kevin complain about anything that was done to Clinton . . . on my Question #2, about eyewitness testimony, Drum provides a mixed answer: on the one hand, he's still pushing the statement by Col. Turnipseed even after he's come right out and said that he was misquoted and not in a position to comment. That's just sleazy. On the other hand, Drum points to a new report about some guys who do appear to have a basis for saying they expected to work with Bush in Alabama and never saw him. This is the first thing I've seen that looks like halfway decent evidence, although I'll have to digest this a bit before I pass judgment on their credibility. But bear in mind that these guys are talking about events more than 30 years ago, and they didn't come forward 4 years ago when this story broke. Like I said, we shall see.

*Willis just ignores me. Par for the course.

UPDATE: Oliver Willis, in comments, says I've overstated his interest in this story and that he didn't even notice my trackback.

I usually respect Kevin Drum, but he's really gone off the rails on the Bush National Guard story (See here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here - and that's just the last three days!). Now, I don't usually like making demands that other bloggers write about things, but Kevin has been monomaniacal on this story, he's using his big soapbox to drive the story, and he obviously has plenty of time on his hands to delve into this stuff (he's even conducting interviews and begging readers to dive into microfilm in Alabama!). So I have a few questions -- honest questions -- I really would like to hear him answer, because as far as I can tell, he has yet to deal with any of these points:

1. As I noted previously here, Sparkey at Sgt. Stryker contends (see the comments section) that "[b]ecause [Bush] had so many days of active duty, he had exceeded the requirements set forth in his enlistment contract" by 1972 and thus was not obligated to do anything, and could not be punished, for example, for missing a physical (Baldilocks has more here). I have no idea if Sparkey is right, but he obviously knows a heck of a lot more about the military than I do, and various sources seem to confirm that Bush had, in fact, well exceeded his required days of service. (See here and here) To me, if he's right about this, this controversy is over: game, set, match. Do you disagree with Sparkey's reading of the relevant requirements, and if not, is there any basis for arguing that Bush failed to meet his obligations to the Texas Air National Guard?

2. The original "Was Bush AWOL?" story rested heavily on Colonel (later Brigadier General) William Turnipseed of the Alabama National Guard's statement to the effect that he would have remembered seeing Bush on the base if he'd been there. It now turns out that Turnipseed says he was misquoted and admits that he himself can't recall if he was on the base that much (See also here). Others in the same unit have the same reaction: they have no reason to believe that they would remember a guy who was just showing up to do a few drills (More on that here, and compare this statement by someone who does remember). Do you still contend that Turnipseed or anyone else with the National Guard at the time provides any eyewtness evidence that Bush failed to attend to his obligations with the Guard?

3. Another key and frequently cited piece of evidence cited by Bush's critics is an evaluation stating that Bush was "not observed." Again, people with a lot more military experience than I have seem to believe that this isn't really all that uncommon, and that "not observed" is basically a military term of art for "I'm not in position to evaluate" rather than "he wasn't here." (See here) Do you have any basis for disputing this characterization?

4. A number of individuals with military experience have described your characterization of the ARF unit as "disciplinary" as being laughably misinformed(see here and here and here). Do you still stand by the notion that there is evidence that Bush was at any times placed in a "disciplinary" unit or on any other "disciplinary" status?

5. Do you dispute that paperwork errors and incomplete records were fairly common in the Guard in the early 1970s? (See here and here and here and here).

6. Come to think of it - do you have any experience whatsoever serving in the military or reviewing military records? That's not a criticism -- I don't either -- but given that most of the military bloggers and commenters who have weighed in on this seem to think that this is an idiotic controversy, while nearly none of the prominent Bush critics (other than people like John Kerry and Wesley Clark who have studiously avoided knowing any of the relevant facts) appears to have any clue how to make sense of military records, military jargon and military service obligations, it's a fair question.

7. Similarly, commentators with military experience have indicated that you have misread the one document you have been citing, stating that "There is ONLY one way to get TWO POINTS PER DAY. That is DRILL ATTENDANCE." (See also here ). Now that this point has been raised, do you have any basis to dispute this?

8. It is not that rare for people in the military to miss a physical (see here and here) or to have records of their physical lost. (See here re: the notion that Bush had received any sort of disciplinary "warning", and here as well). Do you contend that Bush having missed a physical is a serious infraction that justifies characterizing him as "AWOL"?

9. It appears that by 1972, Bush's airplane, the F-102, was being phased out, and for other reasons (including the winding down of the American presence in Vietnam) the Guard was facing a surplus of manpower in general and pilots in particular (See the comment here and here (scroll down)). In other words, the tasks for which Bush had trained and served from 1968 through 1971 were no longer of much use to his country, and keeping his flight physical current in particular was largely superfluous (see here). Do you contend that Bush failed to perform any service to the National Guard in 1972-73 that would have served any useful purpose?

10. It has also been suggested that it was fairly common practice at the time for the Guard to excuse members from certain obligations due to other employment, such as Bush working on a Senate campaign in Alabama. (See also here), as well as to allow a good deal of flexibility in making up missed time. Do you have any reason to question the propriety of this, in the context of how the Guard operated at the time?

11. It has been reported that, at the time Bush enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard, the unit he joined (the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group at Ellington Air Force Base, Houston) was actually flying combat missions in Vietnam (See here, and also more generally here and here and here). Do you dispute this?

12. Bush put his life at substantial risk by training on and flying the F-102; it was all too common for pilots in the Guard to be killed while flying this aircraft, as well as others. (See here and here on the risks). In fact, pilots in the National Guard get hazard pay for their duty. Do you deny this?

13. In fact, at one point, Bush volunteered for a program that was sending pilots to Vietnam (see here and here and here). Do you dispute this?

14. Isn't it true that the principal source of this story is a nutjob conspiracy theorist from Democrats.com?

Look: Some of the sources I'm citing here may not be authoritative. And yes, Bush didn't volunteer to go to Vietnam as John Kerry did. But the way I see it, the record currently shows that Bush (1) signed up for hazardous duty that was well more than the bare minimum of service to get out of Vietnam, (2) fulfilled every requirement - and then some - that his country asked of him to merit an honorable discharge. The burden of proof here is on those who claim otherwise. I'd love to hear Kevin or Oliver Willis or Mark Kleiman or some of the other critics try to act like responsible adults here and go point-by-point through these questions and show me the evidence why they disagree with these two conclusions.

Adding my two cents here . . . I watched Bush's interview on CNBC Sunday night at 10. I thought Russert was noticeably more deferential to Bush than to his usual guests, although he asked plenty of tough questions; the difference was more in the followup.

My take on Bush: obviously, this isn't his best format, but we knew that already. On Iraq, at least, I thought he was great. He stayed relentlessly on message (Bush's ability to not say things is a hugely underestimated skill), but once he got rolling he was also fiesty and impassioned on the importance of Iraq to the larger situation. On the connection between Iraq and the larger war on terror, you couldn't help but be impressed by his depth of conviction.

He had definitely prepared extensively for this. After each question, he'd pause and say "sure" or "OK" and then launch into his prepared answer, which made clear that he was there to stake out his positions rather than to engage in genuine back-and-forth conversation. Which is frustrating, but it also shows an un-Dean-like appreciation of the gravity of every word that comes from the President.

He was weaker on the other stuff. He was too defensive on the economy, didn't stress enough how things have improved lately, but then, he doesn't want to seem unconcerned to people who haven't tasted the recovery yet. I also thought when he started talking about how the market started dropping in March 2000 and the recession began a year later, he could have tossed in a dig about how when he proposed his tax cuts in 2001, the Democrats were saying he was overstating the country's economic problems (remember "talking down the economy"?). Maybe by debate time, the opposition research people will have dug up Kerry saying that.

Like Andrew Sullivan, I don't know what planet Bush gets his budget numbers from. But then, I don't put much stock in anybody's budget numbers.

On the AWOL issue, Bust could have said more but he doesn't want to dignify the issue; what the Democrats have been stupid about is giving him an opening to rip them for lumping in Guard service with desertion or fleeing to Canada.

From the NY Daily News:

A new Time/CNN poll . . . found that 60% of voters deem Kerry did proper service in Vietnam, but only 39% deem Bush did.

So . . . 40% of survey respondents think that Kerry piloting his boat through firefights isn't enough? What would satisfy these people? Do the other 40% think he (1) should have died there, or (2) should have refused to serve?

On the other hand, Charles Johnson points out that this is dishonorable:

Al Gore . . . was a featured speaker at the Arab League’s lunatic “think tank” known as the Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up . . . what should we call lending the prestige of the US Vice Presidency to a blatantly insane anti-America, antisemitic Arab hate group in the Persian Gulf—after September 11? And taking their money—no doubt quite a lot of it?

Johnson also links to an example of the kind of stuff the Zayed Centre has featured from other speakers.

Ed from Late Final, on the difference between Bush and Kerry on the war:

Kerry: When he says, "Bring it on," he refers to President Bush, the RNC and Karl Rove.

Bush: When he said, "Bring it on," he referred to terrorists seeking to disrupt the transformation of Iraq to a free, democratic state.

(Link via Note-It Posts). Of course, when Bush said, "Bring it on," what was Kerry's response?

"The President’s comment yesterday regarding the continued attacks on American troops in Iraq was unwise, unworthy of the office and his role as commander in chief, and unhelpful to American soldiers under fire. The deteriorating situation in Iraq requires less swagger and more thoughtfulness and statesmanship," Kerry said in a statement.

Oh.

Looks like the loose cannon doesn't fall too far from the tree.

Tom Maguire notes a significant fact about the whole "Bush AWOL" nonsense. If you recall, there are three principal pieces of evidence relied on to push this story:

1. Bush's National Guard commander in Alabama, William Turnipseed, says he would have remembered seeing Bush if he'd been there, but doesn't.

2. Bush missed a physical.

3. Bush hasn't produced Guard records showing he wasn't AWOL.

The third, of course, isn't evidence so much as an absence of evidence, and it's unsurprising that the Guard's paperwork from that period isn't in great order. Now Maguire notes that the first point has been badly undermined by the Washington Post:

Reached in Montgomery yesterday, Turnipseed stood by his contention that Bush never reported to him. But Turnipseed added that he could not recall if he, himself, was on the base much at that time.

In other words, if Bush was doing what he said he did - just showing up for meetings to play out the last two years of his commitment after exceeding his contractual commitment of hours of service in his first four years of service - it's not surprising in the least that he never interacted with Turnipseed, who isn't so sure he was around much himself. Bogus.

Let's have some fun with numbers . . . as primary season winds down and we look ahead to the likely Bush-Kerry matchup, it's important to bear in mind a lesson that the 2000 election drove home: presidential elections are won and lost in the Electoral College. (Which is, among other things, why national polls are of limited usefulness; it's the individual states that matter). So I thought I'd look at which states are likely to be "in play."

There are two variables: how many electoral votes a state has to offer, and how likely it is that the state could go to either candidate. The first is a fixed number; we know it in advance. (Daily Kos, which has some of the best horse-race coverage around, has a great calculator that lets you compute the electoral numbers by coloring various states red and blue). For the second, a good starting point is the 2000 election results.

I decided to take a whack at combining the two. I started by dividing a state's electoral votes by the percentage point difference between Bush and Gore, but that gave too much weight to the larger states, so I settled on dividing the electoral votes by the percentage point difference squared. (For ease of comprehension, I multiplied the percentages by 10 - thus, a 12-point difference was rendered as 1.2 before squaring it, a six-point difference as .6). This isn't a scientific sample, just a way of quantifying what we already intuitively know. Here's my ranking of the most-hotly-contested states (Under "Margin," I listed a negative margin for states won by Gore):

Read More »

Howard Bashman linked to this, and Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan have picked up on it by now, but I'll still add that you should check out Stuart Taylor's National Journal column arguing that, to Ted Kennedy's proposal for forcing colleges to disclose the kind of alumni preferences that get nitwits like Ted Kennedy into Harvard (and George W. into Yale, for that matter), we should add required disclosures for all other kinds of non-academic preferences in admission, racial and otherwise. Here's his proposed questionnaire:

Please provide data showing:

1. Any preferences in admissions or financial aid based on family relationships with alumni, alumnae, or donors; status as a recruited athlete; state or region of residence; economic status; or membership in any racial group, disaggregated into specific groups.

2. For each preferred category, and for each racial group of applicants, (including unpreferred racial groups): all written and unwritten policies as to the weight given to the preferred characteristic; the median high school grade point average and SAT (or ACT) score; and the percentage admitted.

3. For each preferred category and each racial group of admitted applicants: the percentage receiving financial aid, median amount received, and median family income, to the extent available; the numbers of Caucasians, Asians, Hispanics, African-Americans, and Native Americans; the median high school GPA and median SAT (or ACT) score; the median college GPA of enrolled students; and the percentage who graduate within six years.

This goes back to why I was skeptical of the Racial Privacy Initiative, which was soundly defeated in the California special election. Sunshine is a good thing.

Mac Thomason called this one first, and now The Wall Street Journal's John Fund is speculating about deposed Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore making a third-party challenge to President Bush from the right. (Link via Howard Bashman). I'm skeptical that that would happen, or that Moore would find sources of financing for such a run; Bush has been pretty strong on social issues.

*Edwards finally goes on the attack, and says he would've voted against NAFTA. Which puts him way out there with Gephardt, Perot, Buchanan and Bob "the Goalie" Kerrey in rejecting Bill Clinton's number one accomplishment as president.

*Salon carries an article (sorry, subscription only) on why Wesley Clark doesn't blink. The author of the article, Anna Holmes, actually contacted me and a number of other bloggers looking for quotes about why we thought Clark was so creepy, although there's only a few quotes (none from yours truly) in the final article.

*From Saturday, David Brooks nails the bizarre nature of the Kerry phenomenon of voters trying to elect a candidate based on his electability.

One of the burning questions that has surrounded George W. Bush since he arrived on the national scene has been, how conservative is he, really? Four years ago, I thought I had an answer. Today, I'm not so sure.

To make sense of Bush's proper place on the Right, it's necessary to look at two significant political movements that have come to the fore in the past 15 years or so. Traditionally, the conservative movement has been driven by small-government conservatism, the idea that government is too big and intrusive and spends and regulates too much. Ever since the Reagan years, the small-government conservatives have been trapped in a sort of limbo: they've won the battle of ideas, but lost the political battle, most spectacularly with the failure of Newt Gingrich's 1994 revolution to eliminate any significant government programs.

Partially in response to this, we've seen the growth of what (at the risk of adding another sub-category) I've long liked to think of as Reform Conservatism. The central insight of Reform Conservatives has been that the most important problem with government programs is not that that they involve the government, but that they take choices away from individuals. The classic Reform Conservative solution is including privately controlled accounts within the Social Security system; rather than stage a losing battle over trying to scale back or get rid of the program, Reform Conservatives have focused on introducing within it an element of private choice to make the operation of Social Security more like a non-governmental program. The other signature issue of Reform Conservatives, school choice, operates the same way: it's still redistributing taxpayer money, but the decisionmaking authority over the use of that money is shifted to parents and away from school system bureaucrats.

Read More »

Thursday's NY Times carried a review of Debra Dickerson's book "The End of Blackness," about race in America. What caught my eye was this bit of idiocy:

Ms. Dickerson has been accused of employing reductive neoconservative logic and of pandering to white readers, telling them what they want to hear.

This, of course, is a classic misreading of the term "neoconservative," by someone who probably learned the term in the past year and thinks it means "anything that is conservative that I do not like." Since when is there even a standard "neocon" position on race (at least, one that is distinct from conservatism as a whole), much less one that should be seen by the Left as particularly odious?

The Washington Post offers a partial transcript from last night's Democratic debate. Let's have a little fun with some choice quotes, focusing mainly on the two principal candidates and that wacky funster, The Most General Wesley Clark:

Read More »

*Inappropriate quote of the day:

"You have a Jim Rassmann, who was a Special Forces officer that was blown off John Kerry's small boat ... When John Kerry turned that boat back and hauled Jim Rassmann out of the water, risking his own life, what he has said: We leave no one behind. He didn't leave Jim Rassmann behind. He won't leave veterans behind."

--Ted Kennedy, who left Mary Jo Kopechne behind. (Link via NGD)

--Noam Scheiber notes that in 1991, John Kerry's office was sending pro-war letters to pro-war constituents and anti-war letters to anti-war constituents (Link via Andrew Sullivan)

--Over at The Command Post, I quote at length from RNC Chair Ed Gillespie's speech ripping into John Kerry's voting record on national security. Highlight: Kerry voted in 1997 to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. (I also liked Gillespie's crack on Edwards: "I heard Sen. Edwards was disappointed that he got only 13 percent of the vote in New Hampshire after getting 33 percent in Iowa. I guess as a trial lawyer he just assumed he would always get a third.").

--The New Republic (subscription only) says Kerry's 1997 book The New War "was almost entirely focused on the threat of global crime-not terrorism." As TNR notes, the book isn't terrible, but it certainly isn't the visionary tract Kerry now makes it out to be. And get this doozy:

Perhaps worst of all is the odd note on which he closes-a call for repairing America's domestic health through after-school programs, health care for all, and early-childhood intervention. Those programs, Kerry writes, "will enable us to make peace in our own country and contribute to it elsewhere." After reading that Manhattan is likely to be nuked someday, a reader can be forgiven for expecting more.

--A link to the full text of Kerry's dramatic 1971 testimony to Congress. Note that the "Winter Soldier Investigation" (discussed here) is the opening and thematic centerpiece of this speech, which launched Kerry's political career.

--Fortune magazine notes that Wesley Clark just made $1.2 million (at least on paper) from his investment in a German company, and that this was essentially a risk-free investment set up by business associates. Nice work if you can get it.

--This morning's NY Daily News looks at Clark's videotaped address to the annual conference of the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America, a group under investigation for ties to terrorism. "Two past conference speakers face terror-related indictments and a third is identified in FBI reports as a Hamas terror leader."

--Also in the Daily News, gossip columnist Lloyd Grove (second item) relates some of the hate mail he's getting for questioning whether John Kerry has had Botox to render his famously furrowed brow smooth and motionless. Um, he is a gossip columnist. This is the first and, I'm sure, last time I'll say this: this is an issue for Maureen Dowd!

1. A look back at Will Saletan's definitive take on why John Kerry was such a brave soldier and such a timid politician.

2. FOX News reports that Ted Kennedy is leaning on the unions to switch from Dean to Kerry.

3. For now, at least, President Bush is polling well in California. If Bush can even be competitive in California in the fall, that means two things: the Democrats have to expend valuable resources there, and Bush is probably doing even better elsewhere. But I'll believe this is real when I see it hold up over more time (FOX quotes a Democratic consultant attributing this to the Arnold-honeymoon effect). I remain skeptical (as I noted here and here) about California going Republican all of a sudden.

4. Noam Scheiber's thoughts on why a quick Kerry victory could leave the Democrats with a weak and untested nominee.

Yesterday, ABC's The Note re-posted a pair of hilarious memos from John Kerry's outgoing campaign heads to the incoming heads last November (one was from ousted campaign manager Jim Jordan to his incoming replacement, Mary Beth Cahill; the other was from departing communications spokesguy Robert Gibbs to the arriving Stephanie Cutter). These aren't smoking-gun stuff, since it's pretty common knowledge that campaign people talk like this, but they are deeply humorous reading and, since The Note doesn't have archives, I'll reprint them here in their entirety:

Read More »

Mackubin Thomas Owens on NRO has a scathing look at the vicious slanders spread by John Kerry against Vietnam veterans back when he wasn't so proud to be one:

Kerry began by referring to the Winter Soldiers Investigation in Detroit. Here, he claimed, "over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did, they relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told their stories. At times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

This is quite a bill of particulars to lay at the feet of the U.S. military. He said in essence that his fellow veterans had committed unparalleled war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course, indeed, that it was American policy to commit such atrocities.

In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a lie. It was inspired by Mark Lane's 1970 book entitled Conversations with Americans, which claimed to recount atrocity stories by Vietnam veterans. This book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular demonstrated that many of Lane's "eye witnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.

* * *

If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service. Who can be proud of committing war crimes of the sort that Kerry recounted in his 1971 testimony? But if he is proud of his service today, perhaps it is because he always knew that his indictment in 1971 was a piece of political theater that he, an aspiring politician, exploited merely as a "good issue."

*Prediction: the nomination race will, and should, ultimately turn on Michigan on February 7. It's a big state, an industrial state, it's after each region of the country has had a taste of the leading Democrats and the field has narrowed, and -- along with Pennsylvania and Ohio -- it's the core of the states where the November election will be decided.

*Joe Lieberman's declaration that he's got the "Joe-Mentum" is the saddest thing I think I've ever heard from a major candidate. He was on tonight trying to spin 9% of the vote in a state in his native region of the country as something to keep him in the game. I kinda like Lieberman, but . . . it's so, Joe. It's so.

Tom Maguire catches a great backtrack in the NY Times from a Wesley Clark spokesman on the General's statements on abortion:

The Clark spokesman, Jamal Simmons . . . described the exchange with The Union-Leader's publisher as "a rhetorical fight with a conservative, right-wing, anti-choice editorial board."

"He was making an effort not to cede any ground on the issue," Mr. Simmons said. "It was an effort to keep from engaging them on the issue of timing. Engaging in this in any other way would be ceding ground to Republicans that perhaps there needs to be other restrictions."

As long as we're making martial analogies, I'd say that the first version of any statement by General Clark is a rhetorical Maginot Line, impressive to his supporters but easily overrun and ultimately indefensible.

Read More »

Congratulations are in order for David Pinto, who's moving on to a job with Baseball Info Solutions, the publishers of the new Bill James Handbook. David's been a great friend to this site, and I wish him well; he'll apparently be moving his blog to their site.

I have to wonder if the Sporting News, which bought out STATS, Inc. and shut down its annual baseball handbook (which competed with TSN's inferior publication), made a huge mistake common to arrogant baseball men by failing to consider that the key STATS employees, starting with John Dewan, might go and re-start essentially the same book with a new company. Had they thought about that, they could have (1) incorporated more of STATS' elements in the TSN annual or (2) included contract provisions in the sale requiring that key employees not compete with TSN for a number of years. Looks like they whiffed on that one.

On another note, David has this amusing nugget from Peter Gammons:

Gammons and [John] Kerry played hockey against each other in prep school, and Peter told me once that Kerry was the dirtiest hockey player he ever saw.

The next batch of primaries after New Hampshire on January 27 is a seven-state breakout on February 3. The Democratic National Committee's site has what appears to be a definitive calendar of the remaining primary schedule. The Feb. 3 lineup:

Arizona
Delaware
Missouri
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina

Now, let me ask a silly question, since I don't know the answer to this: why does South Carolina get all the attention when reporters talk about the step after New Hampshire - are some of the others nonbinding or something? Missouri in particular is a swing state right in the heart of the country and bigger than South Carolina (11 electoral votes to SC's 8), and now its favorite son has dropped out. You'd think that would be a bigger story than a state the Democrats can't carry in November anyway. New Mexico went Democrat by a hair in 2000, and is a critical state in November; together with Arizona (which has 10 electoral votes and is probably in play if the Democrats are competitive), it provides an early test in the West, where none of the remaining candidates has a regional base. Even Oklahoma is nothing to sneeze at.

So why does the media keep talking only about the primaries as Iowa-New Hampshire-South Carolina?

In addressing some of Bush's key points of attack against John Edwards yesterday, I didn't mention Edwards' obvious inexperience, particularly in foreign affairs. Naturally, that remains his biggest vulnerability, which I'll get into more another day.

But Edwards is vulnerable from another flank as well: once Joe Lieberman is out of the race, he becomes the most pro-Iraq-war Democrat left, and that could render him uniquely exposed to the potential for a third-party challenge. A left-wing anti-war third party would get its most votes in places like California and the Northeast, where the Democrats are likely to run strongly anyway, but the places where it could be a factor are a number of swing states the Democrats need badly: Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

It's not just that Edwards supported the war (I'll deal another day with his position since the main combat operations ended); it's that his full-throated support for the most controversial justification for the war -- that Saddam's regime had weapons of mass destruction -- puts him so totally at odds with the charges made by the anti-war Left (Dean, Clark, Ted Kennedy, Paul Krugman, etc.) that the war was some sort of political stunt or oil grab dreamed up in Texas and that our WMD intelligence was all a creation of Dick Cheney and the perfidious neocons.

Of course, we all know that Edwards has plenty of company on the Left - others who stuck their necks out on the WMD allegations include such right-wing warmongers as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Dick Gephardt, Lieberman and Tony Blair. But Edwards' statements on the matter were notably definitive:

Read More »

I gotta say, all of a sudden my prediction last January of Edwards and Kerry as the top 2 candidates for the Democrats (in that order), with Lieberman a distant sixth and Dean a candidate with some appeal and advantages but no staying power, is looking pretty good right now, although I did overrate Gephardt and Bob Graham (I clearly hadn't seen Graham in "action" enough). As of now, I'm mentally preparing for Edwards, who's the most dangerous of the Democratic candidates and who will require a different emphasis for Bush.

Three keys to beating Edwards, in my view:

1. Show how his populism really means taking choices away from Regular People and giving them to government. Issues like private Social Security accounts, medical savings accounts, and school choice are kryptonite to populists. Note that all these were emphasized by Bush again in his State of the Union address.

2. Make an issue of judges. Edwards, together with Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer, led the battle against Bush's judges, effectively pushing for more liberal courts. Not only are there "smoking gun" memos showing how this strategy was dictated by Democratic special interest groups, but once you get away from platitudes about "strict constructionists" and get to reality, it's real easy to show how liberal judges take power from the people and use it in ways that the people would never agree to. Bush is wisely pushing this angle of the gay marriage debate; while people remain ambivalent or deeply split about gay marriage, very few people like the idea of having unelected judges tell us that the Constitution mandated all along a radical change in a thousands-of-years-old institution, in ways nobody was even talking about 15 years ago.

3. Don't overplay the "trial lawyer" angle. With apologies to Walter Olson, who notes Edwards' reliance on "junk science" in his career as a lawyer, you don't want to argue Edwards' own cases (he knows them better than anyone), and not everyone hates trial lawyers. What matters more is showing how Edwards is financially dependent on the trial bar and has consistently opposed any meaningful reform of the system, which has the additional effect of revealing the true hollowness of his anti-special-interest rhetoric.

For the record:

1. Howard Dean's getting a lot of undeserved grief over that yell at the end of his Iowa not-really-a-concession-speech, but it sounded more like a yee-hah! to me. Still, the speech as a whole was a bit more animated than we'd expect from a guy trying to look presidential, and as often happens in presidential politics, it may be unfair based on one speech, but the general attack (that Dean is way too hot-headed and impulsive) is dead on the mark as far as his campaign goes.

2. Mickey Kaus quotes Chris Matthews saying that after the Iowa backlash against Dean and Gephardt, the candidates are gunshy about going negative. Bad timing! As I pointed out four years ago, New Hampshire voters love negative campaigns (remember McCain, Buchanan, Gene McCarthy).

3. New Hampshire is now critical for Dean, of course: he needs to win, and win convincingly, to avoid an implosion, and some recent polls show precisely that (Kerry's quick surge from 10% to 27% shows that some of his recent losses in the NH polls had been people who liked him but gave up on his campaign as being out of the race). It's also critical for Clark: if he finishes lower than second, he's going to South Carolina without having been a story in either of the first two primaries, and he's in trouble. A strong third place finish, at least, is probably needed to keep Lieberman on the ropes rather than the mat; if he polls less than 10% again, he just might give up after all, leaving Edwards as the most pro-war candidate left in the race. New Hampshire can help Kerry and Edwards, but can't really hurt them unless Kerry just gets crushed.

Nothing scratches the blog itch quite like a little bout of list-making. With that in mind, I decided to draw up a list of my all-time favorite books. For reasons that will become obvious, I limited myself to one book per author, and in some cases the one book is something of a stand-in for a larger body of work. The top 10-15 of these are the real immortals, the ones I go back to again and again. In some cases, I suppose, I've also stretched the definition of "book," but hey, it's my list. I also decline to apologize for the paucity of literature and the prominence of baseball memoirs on this list; I've always preferred polemics, analyses, humor and great storytelling, and I've never made pretense at being deeply intellectual in my interests:

25. Michael Lewis, Moneyball: This would rank higher except that so much of the story was already familiar to me, although in a few years' time I might change my mind. I discussed Moneyball here.

24. Raymond Woodcock, Take the Bar and Beat Me: I enjoy my job and the law, but not to the point where I can't see the humor in the profession of law. Woodcock, a reformed lawyer, graduate of Columbia Law School and practitioner at a big New York firm that has since gone under, wrote a scathingly humorous look at law school and the legal profession, and one I highly recommend to anyone considering a career in the law. Woodcock's take is blithely cynical in some places, but also self-critical, as he looks at how the law changed him, including his divorce (an occupational hazard of lawyering).

23. Leo Durocher, Nice Guys Finish Last: Leo's book, like Leo himself, is funny, vindictive, manipulative and an essential key to understanding six decades of baseball history, from Leo's run-ins with Ty Cobb to his frustrations with Cesar Cedeno.

22. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged: A cliched choice for conservatives, although I came to read this one relatively late in life (just a few years ago) after I was pretty well set in my thoughts, and I still haven't read any of Rand's others. It's a tale well-told (even if John Galt's didactic speech drags a bit), skillfully playing on the unfairness, pettiness and venality of a system that gives some people the ability to decide how to dispose of the fruits of others' labors.

21. Joe Garagiola, Baseball is a Funny Game: Garagiola's was one of the first baseball books I read as a kid, and dog-eared it rather severely. It's unmistakably pre-Ball Four in its G-rated treatment of the game (it was published in 1960), and thus will seem horribly dated to the modern adult reader, but still manages to capture the earthy humor of ballplayers and the genuine love for the game of guys like Garagiola and his boyhood pal Yogi Berra, who came up from a working-class Italian-American section of St. Louis. Garagiola also captures an up-close look at important figures like Branch Rickey and Frankie Frisch. A similar collection of humorous stories about the game from the 1970s can be found in the late Ron Luciano's books.

20. Stephen Carter, Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby: A tough choice between Carter's books on church and state, affirmative action, and judicial confirmations, so I picked the one I read first. Carter describes himself mostly as a political liberal, but he fits comfortably in the neo-liberal camp in his willingness to challenge orthodoxies of the Left, especially on questions of race and religion. His writing is also a model of clarity and directness.

19. Scott Turow, One L: Yes, this was particularly influential because (like most everybody else in my law school class) I read it the summer before starting law school at Harvard. Harvard and law schools generally have changed a good deal since the 1970s, but Turow captures perfectly (and contributes to) the essentially internal psychodrama of the place. I'm also giving Turow credit here for his works of straight fiction, which are intricate and absorbing, however seamy.

18. Stephen King, Christine: King's books are always gripping, most of all The Shining and Christine. The latter gets extra points here for King's vividly accurate portrait of the minds of high school kids and the real and imagined terrors that can overcome them.

17. Mark Bowden, Black Hawk Down: As frightening as any Stephen King book, but much sadder; Bowden not only rescued the Battle of Mogadishu from historical obscurity, but in the process drew a compelling picture of the modern American military and the men who populate it, the mindset and tactics of its Third World adversaries (sometimes in spite of decent men in their midst), and the gulf that separates the two. The book's indictment of foreign-policy adventures like Somalia is almost an afterthought but one that stays with you.

16. Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August: If Bowden provided a readable and engrossing look at war from the ground level, Tuchman's World War I classic did the same from the top down. Tuchman recognized the Shakespearean tragedy of the onset of the Great War, and presents the plans of the various generals and the vissicitudes of the onset of war to maximize that effect. I also loved her book A Distant Mirror, a chilling compendium of the ills (literal and figurative) of 14th Century Europe.

15. Raymond Smullyan, Alice in Puzzle-Land: One of the many things I got from my mother was a love of logic puzzles, and Smullyan is the master of them. This book isn't just a collection of increasingly brain-bending puzzles, like his book The Lady or The Tiger?; it's also a clever and stylish takeoff on Lewis Carroll's bizarre cast of characters. The book is out of print and hard to find, but it remains a favorite.

14. J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: I was a bit of a latecomer to the Harry Potter books, having seen the first two movies with my wife (who'd read the books) before diving into this, the third installment (I've subsequently read the first two to my son); now I'm hooked. Having read all five, the third is the best, with a taut, fast-moving plot carrying lots twists (granted that a number of the surprises are telegraphed in advance). Perhaps as importantly, for the adult reader, Prisoner of Azkaban introduces the series' serious adult characters (i.e., characters who are more than just quirky authority figures).

13. The Opinions of Justice Antonin Scalia: The Caustic Conservative: Yes, I'm cheating here by citing a book that hasn't been released yet, based on its likely contents consisting of judicial opinions. I'll narrow it down here to its essence: the two opinions I particularly have in mind, and which have greatly influenced my thinking about American government and its principles, are his lone dissent in Morrison v. Olson (in which he argued that the independent counsel statute was unconstitutional, in terms that his nearly unanimous critics eventually had to concede a decade later), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (his denunciation of the theoretical emptiness and illegitimacy of the Court's abortion jurisprudence). Taken together, the opinions set out a central theme of conservative thought about government: the need to draw governmental power only from sources whose legitimacy can be reaffirmed by keeping them accountable to the people.

12. Dr. Seuss, Horton Hears a Who: In enumerating favorite and influential books, too many people neglect the books they learned from first. But Dr. Seuss deserves a special place, and not only for charming this and many other hearers of his books to become readers of books in the first place. (I've also noted their usefulness in teaching children to read aloud). His longer books, with stories that have a moral to them, are masterpieces of precise and whimsical use of the English language, and in most cases manage to make their point without getting preachy, even on subjects (e.g., The Lorax and environmentalism) that are prone to heavy-handed one-sidedness. And they hold up so well that they are the rare children's book that an adult actually enjoys reading for its own sake.

My current favorite of these is I Had Trouble In Getting To Solla Sollew, which is a none-too-thinly-veiled slap at utopianism of all kinds. But the one that's endured the most in my consciousness since childhood is Horton Hears a Who, with a mantra that should be the creed of any pro-lifer: "A person's a person no matter how small." And its message of Horton's solitary courage when surrounded by neighbors who wish to define the Whos out of existence (one with undoubted Holocaust overtones) remains a powerful one for readers tall and small alike.

11. Baseball Prospectus 1999: I've arbitrarily picked the first of the BP books I bought. The Prospectus hasn't always been on the right side of the many arguments its staff has raised. Nor has it been as influential or groundbreaking, or nearly as entertaining, as Bill James' work; but the comparison is unfair. What matters is that they've consistently asked the important questions that were needed to move serious analysis of the game forward in the 1990s and beyond, and in so doing they've done a lot to drive the terms of debate ever since. I would never have understood baseball's post-1994 business environment and its ramifications without BP, and their work on projections, translations and pitcher workloads has often been groundbreaking. This is the first book I turn to every year to get a handle on the new season.

10. Tom Wolfe, Bonfire of the Vanities: Wolfe's novel about a Wall Street investment banker who becomes a cause celebre after hitting a young African-American teen with his car after taking a wrong turn in the Bronx just perfectly sums up all the ills of pre-Giuliani New York (only some of which have been fixed since then). The satirical bite of the book is only enhanced by Hollywood's ham-handed efforts to sanitize its portrait of New York's ethnic politics. My dad, who was on the NYPD until the late 80s, swears by the authenticity of many of the scenes in this classic.

9. Dave Barry's Only Travel Guide You'll Ever Need: If you've only read Dave Barry's columns and skipped his books, you've missed a lot. I had a tough choice between the Travel Guide and Barry's Short History of the United States, which is basically his annual year-end column writ large, but the Travel Guide packed in just an unbelievable number of laughs in a short space.

8. Lawrence Ritter, The Glory of Their Times: Simply the best oral history of baseball ever done, and the one all the others copied. Ritter got a number of ballplayers from the early 20th century to open up to him; all or nearly all of them are dead and gone now, but not their stories.

7. The Book of Job: As you can no doubt tell from the balance of content on this blog, I'm a Catholic who doesn't think about religion as often as I should. But the Bible undoubtedly informs my thinking in ways I can't even perceive, and when I have read Scripture, the book I've most enjoyed reading (from the Old Testament, ahem) is Job. Job deals with the toughest questions that face any believer in an omnipotent and benevolent God must grapple with -- why bad things happen to good people, where sin and suffering belong in the world -- and doesn't provide any easy answers.

6. Peter Gammons, Beyond the Sixth Game: The best assignment I ever had in school was when my sophomore English teacher, Mr. Donnelly, gave us a list of books to report on and one of them was this classic by Peter Gammons. Gammons is a lot of things to a lot of people, and these days he's best known for (1) having the game's most extensive network of sources, and (2) uncritically repeating everything those sources tell him (which is not unrelated to the maintenance of (1)). He is at times an open mind friendly to statistical analyses of the game, and at times gives a soapbox and his imprimatur to denunciations of statistical analyses of the game.

But first and foremost, Gammons is a guy who loves baseball, loves the Red Sox, and can really write. Beyond the Sixth Game is the tale of the Red Sox from 1976-1985, when Gammons was the Boston Globe's beat writer for the team, and it's a love letter to every fan whose heart was broken by those teams, and a cold-eyed analysis of how it happened (Gammons' thesis is that the ownership of the Sox failed to appreciate the new financial realities of the free agent era). His portraits of the players are detailed and affectionate (especially Carlton Fisk and Luis Tiant, two guys Gammons obviously really did think were very special people), and his narratives of the pivotal 1977 and 1978 seasons soar. No Red Sox fan - no baseball fan - should do without this book.

5. Peggy Noonan, What I Saw at the Revolution: Ask conservatives of my generation about Ronald Reagan or conservatism, and chances are pretty good that you will get a picture heavily influenced by one of his "wordsmiths," Peggy Noonan. The book is only secondarily a memoir, although it does capture (with Noonan's eye for sympathetic detail) numerous Washington figures of the 80s, as well as her previous boss, Dan Rather, of whom Noonan was very fond despite his politics. More importantly, it's a book about writing -- about a particular kind of writing (political speeches), how they get created, why they matter, and what's important in crafting them. It's also a tribute to a set of conservative ideals, and how they continued to inspire conservatives even when their practitioners didn't always live up to their promise.

4. The Orwell Reader: Yes, I'm cheating again by including an anthology. Another invaluable assignment -- the best thing I got out of college, academically -- was buying this book for Professor Green's British Empire class. I re-read it end to end again after September 11. Orwell hardly needs my introduction; his depictions of working-class life in the 1930s (coal miners, dish washers) are famously vivid, and his jeremiads against those who wouldn't stand up to fascism are the stuff of legend. My favorite essays are "Politics and the English Language" and "England Your England" (I reached for the latter in the opening of my September 11 column, as well as reaching for a scene from the Council of Elrond from the next selection) and I'm sure I'm not alone in those choices.

3. J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring: I had a tough choice here; The Hobbit was the first "grownup" book I ever read, back in the second grade, and it remains Tolkien's best-written book. But Fellowship of the Ring perfectly bridges the gap between the lighthearted adventure of The Hobbit and the epic sweep of Lord of the Rings, and launches the greatest fantasy epic of all time. The question: what will good men do in the face of unremitting evil? Tolkien's answer isn't always reassuring.

2. P.J. O'Rourke, Parliament of Whores: As far as I'm concerned, still the best book ever written about American government; O'Rourke brings his vicious humor to every branch and agency of the federal government he can locate. His chapter on farm policy is the best thing I've ever read on the subject, and his account of a Housing NOW! march is sidesplitting. Along the way he encounters everyone from Pat Moynihan to Mike Dukakis to Ken Starr. But the book does have just one terribly cringe-inducing line, in retrospect; in his look at American foreign policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan, O'Rourke states that

the main thing to be learned about foreign policy in this part of the world is that a wise foreign policy would be one that kept you out of here. There are some things you ignore at your peril, but you pay attention to Central Asia at the risk of your life.

If only.

1. The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract:

Well, you knew that was coming; if I hadn't limited myself to one book per author, I'd have had a top 10 of Bill James books. As I've repeatedly noted, James has had a tremendous influence not only on my thinking about baseball but on my entire thinking process. I picked the first edition of the historical book because it is, on balance, the largest compilation of James' most pointed and entertaining writing and original thought, effortlessly spanning twelve decades of baseball history and bringing even the most distant past vibrantly to life. (I reviewed the new Historical Abstract here).

Honorable Mentions:

Read More »

Dick Gephardt conceded with class and decency tonight; Gephardt drives me nuts for a lot of reasons, but I have to believe that he is, at heart, a decent guy. Next on the hot seat is Howard Dean, who now must win New Hampshire. What will be most interesting in the tracking polls in NH is whether Kerry's support revives: he was hemmorhaging support so badly in recent months that it was starting to look like his supporters were giving him up for dead. Given the chance to reconsider that view, will they?

Of the remaining five, the one who looks weakest is Joe Lieberman, who's seemed liberated lately by the sense that he's running now as a message candidate - no endorsements from the party heavyweights, given little respect by the media, he's just plowing ahead, trying to turn his party back to where it was just 4 years ago. I get the sense in his renewed attacks on Dean that he now believes that his campaign will accomplish something even if he loses. As he inevitably will.

I meant to link to this last week, but was busy: Dr. Manhattan breaks down The New Republic's endorsement of Joe Lieberman and how the TNR staff's reaction mirrors the fissure within the Democratic party -- and the nation -- over national security. (The Mad Hibernian noted the TNR endorsement here). The Democrats seem certain to head in the opposite direction from Lieberman; they will almost be compelled to do so to avoid a debilitating third-party candidacy. As I pointed out to Tom Maguire, this leaves TNR as a partisan magazine in search of a party.

If further proof were needed that Wesley Clark has wandered off onto the tinfoil-hat sections of the Left, you need look no further than the chief spokesman for that faction, Paul Krugman, in his Friday column. The Krug sets a simple test for the candidates, and only Clark and Howard Dean pass it:

Earlier this week, Wesley Clark had some strong words about the state of the nation. "I think we're at risk with our democracy," he said. "I think we're dealing with the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest administration in living memory. They even put Richard Nixon to shame."

In other words, the general gets it: he understands that America is facing what Kevin Phillips, in his remarkable new book, "American Dynasty," calls a "Machiavellian moment." Among other things, this tells us that General Clark and Howard Dean, whatever they may say in the heat of the nomination fight, are on the same side of the great Democratic divide.

* * *

Again and again, one reads that it's about the left wing of the Democratic party versus the centrists; but Mr. Dean was a very centrist governor, and his policy proposals are not obviously more liberal than those of his rivals.

The real division in the race for the Democratic nomination is between those who are willing to question not just the policies but also the honesty and the motives of the people running our country, and those who aren't.

On this score, the Krug at least has his taxonomy correct (although I'm not sure I'd leave Kerry out of the Dean/Clark faction). I'd disagree with him about Dean's Leftism, but that's for another post. The significant point is (as I've noted before) Clark's eagerness (like Dean's) to characterize any and all policy disagreements as signs of dishonesty, and their dalliances with dark conspiracy theories that lack even the slightest of evidentiary support. Jay Nordlinger in this month's National Review has a stunning collection of these from Clark, from his accusation that the Bush Administration is "occupying countries to extract their natural resources" rather than "buy them on the world market" to his bizarre claim that the Administration didn't use more ground troops to catch bin Laden in Afghanistan "because, all along, their plan was to save those troops to go after Saddam Hussein."

Blood for oil. Intentionally letting bin Laden go. And there's lots more where these came from; even Mark Kleiman calls Clark on the following:

Michael Moore, at a Clark fundraiser, said that he looked forward to a debate between "the general and the deserter."

Clark, asked about it later, said:

"I've heard those charges. I don't know if they are true or not. He was never prosecuted for it," and "I am not going to go into the issues of what George W. Bush did or didn't do in the past," and that holding Bush "accountable for his performance of duty as commander in chief" is "the issue is in this election."

Bogus, and as Kleiman points out, "deserter" is particularly strong language for a military man who parses fine distinctions about the term "relieved of command." Of course, I'm sure some people believe all this nonsense, in the absence of any evidence and often in the face of mountains of contrary evidence. Hey, Lyndon LaRouche has committed supporters too.

Matt Labash's look at songs written for Howard Dean is so funny it almost brought tears to my eyes:

While I'm hardly the first to state that the Dean campaign is remarkably free of people of color, I am, after spending a day on songsfordean.com, the person who has suffered through the most painful reminders of it in rapid succession. From coffeehouse bluesmen who over-enunciate every whitebread word, to hot blasts of undiluted folk so earnest that it could make the Weavers cry uncle, the songs are by and for white people. Sort of. There are two versions of the "Howard Dean Rap" . . . They use dated rap terminology like "chill" and "wack." One line goes, "Stop and stare, say hey, lookie there! / It's a doctor! Where? And he knows health care!" "Lookie there?" If they were real rappers, they'd get their asses kicked even in East Hampton, where Dean hails from. By the time they recite Bush's falling "P to the O to the double L" numbers, you just want to grab the first B-to-the-L-to-the-ACK person you can find, and tuck a reparations check into their breast pocket while apologizing profusely.

Labash also has some amusing thoughts on past presidential campaign songs:

[T]here's John Quincy Adams's "Little Know Ye Who's Coming." With the melody pinched from the Scottish "Highland Muster Roll," it's a sunny little ditty that reminds voters what's coming if they fail to elect Adams. The list is not encouraging: "Fire's comin', swords are comin', pistols, knives and guns are comin'." Additionally coming were slavery, knavery, hatin', and Satan, "if John Quincy not be comin'."

Read the whole thing.

The more I hear from Wesley Clark, the more I agree with people like Andrew Sullivan, Jay Nordlinger and James Taranto that he's a paranoid crackpot masquerading as a serious grownup. Clark's increasingly unhinged statements of late show a man who doesn't know when to stop pandering to the fringe (even by Democrat standards); and I suspect that a big part of the problem is that he's a novice at politics. Novice politicians sometimes fall into this trap: they aren't used to meeting big, diverse crowds of people, and when they meet those people and they all seem to agree with the candidate, the candidate starts to think that what goes over well with the people who attend his events is the same as what goes over well with the kinds voters who don't attend Wesley Clark events in Iowa and New Hampshire in the middle of winter.

Frank Gaffney, writing on NRO, tears into Clark for these remarks:

In a meeting last Thursday with the editorial board of New Hampshire's Concord Monitor, the would-be president made statements that no one staking a serious claim on the office, let alone anyone who claimed to be an expert about national security, could make. Referring to the murderous 9/11 attacks, he declared: "If I'm president of the United States, I'm going to take care of the American people. We are not going to have one of these incidents."

According to the Monitor, Clark, when asked to clarify his position in a follow-up interview that night, reaffirmed his belief that taking appropriate measures would keep America safe. "I think [9/11] could have been prevented...I think it can be prevented again if we have the right leadership. That's me. I will protect America."

If Clark thinks that a head of state can guarantee against terrorism (I'm waiting to hear him say the same about recession and war), it should sure be news to the men and women who have run Israel these last several decades . . . this is adolescent bravado; it's really not the stuff of a responsible adult, and is particularly surprising coming from a guy with Clark's long and distinguished record of military service. (Kevin Drum tries to defend Clark's statements, but he has to whitewash their actual text to do so and doesn't touch this one).

Taking the cake, of course, is Clark's support from wacko fictional-documentary maker Michael Moore; Drudge reported yesterday that Moore is endorsing Clark:

FLASH: Michael Moore to endorse Wesley Clark... Moore: 'He's an honest and decent man. I would like to see the General debate the deserter'...

Leaving aside the "AWOL Bush" crap, Moore isn't some campaign outsider; he's the guy who introduced Clark to Madonna two months ago, and the Washington Times describes him as "an early supporter of Mr. Clark."

Mickey Kaus reminisces about "working on" the Fritz Hollings for President campaign in 1984. Does this mean that the Sultan of Snark was actually supporting Hollings' doomed campaign, or just covering it? Either way, it brings back memories of the time Hollings was being interviewed by phone for a TV or radio program (I forget which) and the interview ended abruptly because he was talking on a pay phone and didn't have enough dimes to keep the call going.

Which is not, you know, usually a sign of a campaign that's going anywhere.

Dean's not satisfied being mean to George Bush; he's also trying to psychoanalyze him:

"This president is not interested in being a good president." "He's interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father," the Democratic presidential front-runner said. "He is obsessed with being re-elected, and his obsession with re-election is hurting the country."

Dean knows this . . . how?

Looks like Howard Dean is still getting the hang of that whole Jesus thing he was so big on last week. Check out this exchange:

"Please tone down the garbage, the mean mouthing, the tearing down of your neighbor and being so pompous," Ungerer told the former Vermont governor and Democratic front-runner. "You should help your neighbor and not tear him down."

"George Bush is not my neighbor," Dean replied.

"Yes, he is," Ungerer said, to which Dean responded: "You sit down. You've had your say and now I'm going to have my say."

Leave aside the rudeness to a questioner who was, in fairness, something of a heckler (although we expect our politicians to suffer fools a little more gladly than this). If Dean had a shred of Christianity about him, he'd recognize the absurdity of saying that President Bush "is not my neighbor." The whole point of Jesus' discussion of the concept of "love thy neighbor" in the parable of the Good Samaritan is that your neighbor isn't always who you want it to be.

Dean could have sidestepped this, of course, by pointing out that this isn't personal between him and the other candidates, that as a candidate for public office he has to give first priority to laying the facts before the voters, etc. But he had to go one step further and basically say that Bush is beyond the realm of decent folk to whom one owes even the slightest shred of human compassion. As I've discussed before, Christianity demands more even for Saddam Hussein (although Dean does, at least, feel he owes some measure of fairness to Osama bin Laden). It's one thing to say that that's hard to live up to -- it is. But by declaring that Bush is not his neighbor at all, all Dean is really doing is declaring that he's no Christian of any type.

Thanks among other things to the radically redistributive tax plan imposed by Howard Dean's school-funding scheme, Act 60, officials in the ski resort of Killington, Vermont want to secede and join New Hampshire:

They say the town's restaurants, inns and other businesses send $10 million a year to the state capital in sales, room and meal taxes, but the state returns just $1 million in state aid to Killington.

Of course, as Vermont officials note, this would require "an armed insurrection type of thing," particularly since Killington is 25 miles from the border.

So there you have it: "Howard Dean - not quite bad enough to make you want to take up arms to escape his policies!"

On another note, Tim Graham at NRO catches a Dean quote cited by Eric Alterman questioning the Bush Administration's patriotism, a common theme from Dean, Clark and Kerry this election cycle:

I think there are some similarities between George Bush’s Administration and Richard Nixon’s Administration: a tremendous cynicism about the future of the country; a lack of ability to instill hope in the American people; a war which doesn’t have clear principles behind it; and a group of people around the President whose main allegiance is to each other and their ideology rather than to the United States.

(Emphasis added).

Looks like the DC Circuit's trying to wrap up the last detritus of the Clinton years; we've got another opinion on attorney fees, this one denying Susan McDougal's application out of hand, noting that the statute on its face doesn't permit reimbursement of people who were actually indicted.

(Link via Howard Bashman).

OK, so it's silly to pay attention to politicians' clothes. But somehow, Wesley Clark's new sweater kick just makes him look like he's trying too hard to be Mr. Rogers, or Jimmy Carter or something.

It should come as no surprise that I've added a link to Blogs for Bush. Sooner or later I'll roll out my formal reasoning for voting to reelect Bush/Cheney in 2004.

I usually try to keep my politics out of my baseball posts - I respect the fact that not everyone who comes here for the baseball content agrees with my political opinions - but I'm making an exception here, so consider yourself duly warned. David Cameron at USS Mariner says of Pete Rose:

Rose is a scumbag lying weasel who has spent the past 10 years assailing the character of men who were telling the truth. Now, when it interests him financially and potentially leads to reinstatement, he's willing to say he was lying for the past decade and hope that we don't mind. There's absolutely no reason to put Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, and I hope he never gets to enter Cooperstown, even if he tries to buy a ticket from a scalper.

(Emphasis added). The point about smearing his accusers is particularly relevant; one of the things that most horrified conservatives about Clinton, especially given his constitutional status as the nation's chief law enforcement officer, was the smear campaign conducted against Ken Starr and others who sought to hold him accountable. Ditto for the convenience of his apology; George Will makes the parallel explicit: "Rose's coming clean is the most soiled conversion of convenience since . . . well, Aug. 17, 1998, when DNA evidence caused Bill Clinton to undergo a memory clarification."

Although I disagree with Cameron about Rose and the Hall, my argument on this point almost four years ago was always the same as about Clinton: his actions had disabled him from holding a position of trust:

Badgering the man to apologize also misses the point; the continuing ban on managing isn’t so much a punishment as a preventative measure, like impeaching a public official or disbarring a crooked lawyer (to give two obvious parallels). Nor would I accept his apology. Rose’s decade-long denial of his problems, as well as his numerous false denials at the time, even under oath, of various easily provable facts suggests that he is not to be trusted even when and if he ever makes a public display of contrition.

Following after the decision to deny the Clintons' legal fees for the Whitewater investigation, the DC Circuit denies Monica Lewinsky's application for $1.1 million in legal fees from the Independent Counsel investigation; the court recites the relevant details of the scheme to give Lewinsky a job and her offer of financial inducements to Linda Tripp to have both of them give false testimony, among other things, and concludes that she (and Clinton) would have been the subject of an investigation even in the absence of the Independent Counsel statute. (Of course, coming from the court that appointed Ken Starr and referred this investigation to him, this isn't a surprising conclusion).

One controversy I had missed over the Christmas holidays was the long-awaited spectacle of Howard Dean turning his fire on his own troops (in this case the DLC, the group that gave us Clinton), in a move reminiscent of John McCain's unraveling in 2000. Will Saletan had the ugly details (including an inflammatory reference to Dean as "Jihoward") here and here.

Ralph Peters can be a tremendously incisive commentator at times, but he really goes way overboard in this NY Post column, comparing Howard Dean and his followers to Communists and Nazis for some pretty tame offenses, like whining about criticism, speaking in generalities and trying to keep Dean's gubernatorial record under wraps. (Link via Kos). Peters clearly should have stuck to the general rules of thumb that before you compare someone to the Nazis or to Lenin or Stalin, you should (1) put down what you're writing and come back to it in 24 hours and (2) substitute "mass murderer(s)" wherever you have terms like "Gestapo" and decide whether that still sounds over the top.

There seems to be a lot of this going around now on the Right: attacks on Dean as a liar, a phony, etc. I'm no Dean fan, but this all seems both unnecessary and beside the point. First of all, calling someone a liar over every political disagreement is tempting because it's the stock in trade of Dean and his followers, but it's an unhealthy temptation. Besides, Dean has huge vulnerabilities if you take him at his word and take his record seriously; it distracts unnecessarily from this to go throwing mud at the guy.

Dean has shown some signs, it's true, of backing away from some of his worst ideas -- like raising everyone's taxes -- but if he tries to run from Dean the Angry Primary Candidate, there will be time enough to call him on it. For now, what's more important is Dean's ideas, which should be confronted openly.

The voice of a true man of the people: I can't even try to parody this guy (someone named "Neal Starkman") who writes in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that George W. Bush's popularity shows that the American people are stupid.

Liberal Oasis says that critics of the Bush Administration's handling of the Plame investigation should continue to be skeptical of new chief prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, despite his sterling reputation, because Ken Starr also once had a sterling reputation. (Link via Oliver Willis). Now, I generally think a lot of the criticisms of Starr were and are unfair, but before you compare Fitzgerald to Starr, you have to take account of one very critical distinction: Fitzgerald is a career prosecutor. Starr had never worked in a prosecutor's office; while he's a fine lawyer, his training was as an appellate advocate and an appellate judge, not a prosecutor. And many of Starr's missteps can be traced to the fact that he had no training or background as a prosecutor (as well as no training or background in news management, at which his adversaries were experts).

You know, Josh Marshall's column on this subject from January 5, 2001 stands up awfully well almost three years later, although it may be less prescient as it applies to 2008.

Those of you who prefer to skip to the baseball content, or who want to check the category archives, may have noticed that three of the categories here (Baseball, Politics and War, my three main areas of interest) load very slowly due to the huge number of entries since the blog started in August 2002 (as well as a few oddball archived emails from before that date). To remedy the problem for the new year, I've renamed the old categories ("Baseball 2002-03," etc.) and created a new set of categories ("Baseball 2004," etc.) to hold this year's entries. I've also changed the link at the top of the page so it goes to the Baseball 2004 category, and I'm notifying the few sites that link to my baseball category page rather than the main page to fix their URLs.

If you're looking for baseball entries from 2003 and earlier, click here for the Baseball 2002-03 category.

This is a slightly edited-for-publication version an admittedly overwrought email I wrote to friends during the lowest ebb of George W. Bush's 2000 campaign. For perspective, it's an interesting look back:

[D]o you have any idea what the Bush campaign is thinking? I mean, this has been a brillantly run campaign -- up to a point -- but it is really starting to seem that the people in charge (maybe the candidate himself) don't understand what their real assets are. Let's review a little history that we all recall:

In the primaries, those of us who supported McCain were told that Bush was preferable because he would sell the conservative agenda, just with a happier face than in the days of Newt. When McCain failed to trumpet his own conservative themes -- attacking the cultural-conservative base when he should have been pressing the fact that he had a more conservative record than Bush on school choice and Social Security reform -- I was left with no choice but to believe Bush.

I may not agreee with every particular but the platform is a thing of beauty, and when he gives speeches on its central themes -- we can all recite the priority list of Education, Tax Cuts, Social Security Reform, Medicare Reform, and Rebuilding the Armed Forces -- the candidate himself explains them extremely persuasively. In Texas, Bush zeroed in on his core issues and wouldn't be led astray or goaded into going negative.

Let's review:

Read More »