The Pride of the Parties

I'm headed to Milwaukee on Tuesday to act as a poll monitor for the Democratic party. At each poll, there will be a Republican attorney as my counterpart. My job: to ensure that everyone who shows up to the polls gets to vote. His job: to interfere with the operation by challenging voters. See, when you start creating a ruckus by challenging people who are trying to vote, it intimidates other voters and, the Republicans hope, lowers voter turnout. Historically, the less people vote, the better the result for Republicans.

Wisconsin election law is great, though. You can't challenge a voter unless you have good cause and sign an affidavit stating the cause. So, if my GOP buddy starts challenging people randomly, he will be ejected from the polling place.

Of course, they know this. So look at what they've done to try to manufacture some "cause" for challenging folks. Yes, they've come up with 37,000 registrations they claim are defective in some way, i.e. missing apartment numbers from addresses. Now some good Wisconsin who thinks he is all registered and ready is in for a rude interruption when he tries to exercise his right to vote on Tuesday.

Some Republican snotnose is going to put a finger in his face and challenge his right to vote.

This is a transparent effort to frustrate the smooth operation of the voting process. See, in Wisconsin, if you show up to the polls you can vote. It's damn near that simple. You can show up unregistered with no ID and nothing showing your address, and all it takes to vote is a friend next to you to swear that you're a Wisconsin resident. Even if a Republican challenges you, you still get to vote and your vote is counted, but the ballot is marked as challenged.

But the Republicans have seized on missing apartment numbers as a good enough reason to try to screw some citizens out of voting. These people would put the Packers O-Line in front of the poll entrance in minority neighborhoods if they could. It feels damn good to be on the side that is trying to allow people to vote. Damn good.

A Blessing for Bush; a Curse for the People

As Osama bin Laden scares the bujeebus out Americans once again with his latest threatening tape, the Republicans see it as a "little gift" to George's prospects of victory on November 2.

From the NY Daily News:

"We want people to think 'terrorism' for the last four days," said a Bush-Cheney campaign official. "And anything that raises the issue in people's minds is good for us."

A senior GOP strategist added, "anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush."

He called it "a little gift," saying it helps the President but doesn't guarantee his reelection.

John McCain on the development: "It's very helpful to the president."

Bush, meanwhile, has not specifically mentioned bin Laden in the 12 hours since the tape's release. Not surprising.


Looking back, didn't this guy once say back in 2001, he's gonna smoke him out of their caves, get 'em running, and then he's gonna get 'em. What part of Bush's three-stage approach are win in right now?

Are we still smokin'? He evidentally is, detached from reality.

Hearts-Full-of-Inexplicable-Hate-for-Gay-People Watch

As the thinking branch of the right wing in America remains uncomfortably silent about Bush's proposed Anti-Gay Amendment to the United States Constitution, the march of the radicals continues unabated. Some Republicans, like Dick Cheney, have voiced their concerns about the shameful amendment. Even as they do, though, they give the old look-at-the-ground, kick-a-pebble mumble that they guess they'll support the President anyway. Many more thinking Republicans simply pretend it's not part of their platform.

Well, sorry folks, but it is. And the only pretend argument you've got is that denying rights to gays is "good for families" or something like that. Well, I encourage you to read this editorial by the daughter of one of the sad constitutional crusaders.

I was 24 years old when my mother, through a series of mishaps, found out I was gay. My mother came over to where I worked, screaming, and told me I was "dead" to the family. She called me "sick," "crazy" and "of the devil." She said that I would never see my family again.
For more than five years after that day, I heard nothing from my family. No birthday cards, no invitations to Christmas or Thanksgiving events. It wasn't just the loss of my immediate family that was difficult, but the loss of my extended family as well. Since my mother refused to be in the same room with me, it forced my aunts and uncles to choose sides. I have not been to a family reunion in more than a decade.

. . . For all of the struggles my family experienced while I was growing up, none has been more damaging to its foundation than my mother's religious extremism and fervent black and white ideology. We have not been in the same room together for more than 11 years. My mother's religion has left us not merely splintered, but broken. It leaves no room for compromise or even mutual respect for people that have different ideologies.

Yes, family values at their best.

HAT TIP: Fellow Kerry supporter, Andrew Sullivan

Bush Cries Uncle

COLUMBUS, United States (AFP) - President George W. Bush called Democratic rival John Kerry 's charges that Bush failed to catch or kill Osama bin Laden especially shameful" given a new tape by the terrorist mastermind.

The President remembers how much it stung when McCain told him he should be ashamed of his dirty campaign attacks (and Bob Dole agreed). He's been waiting ever since to stick Kerry with the same barb. The difference, of course, is that there is nothing shameful about pointing out that Osama Bin Laden is still at large. See, it's true.

"Unfortunately my opponent tonight continued to say things he knows are not true, accusing our military of passing up a chance to get Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora," an Afghan stronghold, in 2001, Bush told cheering supporters here.

Right, because Osama wasn't present during the battle for Tora Bora, right? And the failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was not a mistake, right? WRONG. This guy will really say anything to get re-elected/appointed.

"As the commander in charge of that operation, (retired general) Tommy Franks has said: It's simply not the case," Bush said. "It is especially shameful in the light of a new tape from America's enemy."

Alright, so Tommy Franks, a familiar face on the Bush campaign trail, won't admit that he made a mistake, either. The rest of the intelligence community and military officials outside the U.S. Central Command beg to differ. The common understanding is that "Franks, the war's operational commander, misjudged the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to capture or kill al Qaeda's leader." Also, it appears that although he won't admit error, Franks has learned his lesson: "Without professing second thoughts about Tora Bora, Franks has changed his approach fundamentally in subsequent battles, using Americans on the ground as first-line combat units."

"If we'd ever known where Bin Laden was, we would have gotten him," said the president, who told a crowd of thousands that US intelligence placed bin Laden in several countries.

Er.. wrong again, sir. "Captured al Qaeda fighters, interviewed separately, gave consistent accounts describing an address by bin Laden around Dec. 3 to mujaheddin, or holy warriors, dug into the warren of caves and tunnels built as a redoubt against Soviet invaders in the 1980s. One official said "we had a good piece of sigint," or signals intelligence, confirming those reports."

Speaking to reporters outside the campaign rally here, White House communications director Dan Bartlett said that the tape should not affect the way Bush campaigns but that Kerry should have marked a 12-hour truce.

"You would think that there would be a, maybe, 12 hours to let the American absorb what has just happened today," he said.

Hilarious. Bush's spokesman actually said that Kerry should stop criticizing Bush for 12 hours because a terrorist who escaped on Bush's watch released a videotape. It's obvious that, with the swing state polls shifting for Kerry, Bin Laden reminding us that he's still on the loose, the FBI investigating Halliburton, and gross negligence in Iraq war planning (looted explosives) dominating the media, Bush is running scared. Still, I have to admit I'm a little surprised that the self proclaimed "War President" is now crying for Kerry to leave him alone.

Yes, we know, Mr. President. It's hard work.

Great quotes need repeating

Americans' civic duty to vote in our fine republic is paramount. This coming election is no exception and in fact it may be the most important election in recent memory. For inspiration, one is reminded of Wesley Clark's remark after 9/11.

On election day, remember:

"You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion."

New Yorker Endorses a Candidate for the First Time

The damage visited upon America, and upon America’s standing in the world, by the Bush Administration’s reckless mishandling of the public trust will not easily be undone. And for many voters the desire to see the damage arrested is reason enough to vote for John Kerry. But the challenger has more to offer than the fact that he is not George W. Bush. In every crucial area of concern to Americans (the economy, health care, the environment, Social Security, the judiciary, national security, foreign policy, the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism), Kerry offers a clear, corrective alternative to Bush’s curious blend of smugness, radicalism, and demagoguery. Pollsters like to ask voters which candidate they’d most like to have a beer with, and on that metric Bush always wins. We prefer to ask which candidate is better suited to the governance of our nation.

Throughout his long career in public service, John Kerry has demonstrated steadiness and sturdiness of character. The physical courage he showed in combat in Vietnam was matched by moral courage when he raised his voice against the war, a choice that has carried political costs from his first run for Congress, lost in 1972 to a campaign of character assassination from a local newspaper that could not forgive his antiwar stand, right through this year’s Swift Boat ads. As a senator, Kerry helped expose the mischief of the Bank of Commerce and Credit International, a money-laundering operation that favored terrorists and criminal cartels; when his investigation forced him to confront corruption among fellow-Democrats, he rejected the cronyism of colleagues and brought down power brokers of his own party with the same dedication that he showed in going after Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal. His leadership, with John McCain, of the bipartisan effort to put to rest the toxic debate over Vietnam-era P.O.W.s and M.I.A.s and to lay the diplomatic groundwork for Washington’s normalization of relations with Hanoi, in the mid-nineties, was the signal accomplishment of his twenty years on Capitol Hill, and it is emblematic of his fairness of mind and independence of spirit. Kerry has made mistakes (most notably, in hindsight at least, his initial opposition to the Gulf War in 1990), but—in contrast to the President, who touts his imperviousness to changing realities as a virtue—he has learned from them.

Kerry’s performance on the stump has been uneven, and his public groping for a firm explanation of his position on Iraq was discouraging to behold. He can be cautious to a fault, overeager to acknowledge every angle of an issue; and his reluctance to expose the Administration’s appalling record bluntly and relentlessly until very late in the race was a missed opportunity. But when his foes sought to destroy him rather than to debate him they found no scandals and no evidence of bad faith in his past. In the face of infuriating and scurrilous calumnies, he kept the sort of cool that the thin-skinned and painfully insecure incumbent cannot even feign during the unprogrammed give-and-take of an electoral debate. Kerry’s mettle has been tested under fire—the fire of real bullets and the political fire that will surely not abate but, rather, intensify if he is elected—and he has shown himself to be tough, resilient, and possessed of a properly Presidential dose of dignified authority. While Bush has pandered relentlessly to the narrowest urges of his base, Kerry has sought to appeal broadly to the American center. In a time of primitive partisanship, he has exhibited a fundamentally undogmatic temperament. In campaigning for America’s mainstream restoration, Kerry has insisted that this election ought to be decided on the urgent issues of our moment, the issues that will define American life for the coming half century. That insistence is a measure of his character. He is plainly the better choice. As observers, reporters, and commentators we will hold him to the highest standards of honesty and performance. For now, as citizens, we hope for his victory.

The endorsement of Sen. Kerry is more of a denouncement of Pres. Bush than anything. But well worth the long read. Read it here.

A Guide to the Ordinance Issue

Concerned about the 400 tons of explosives looted in Iraq? Well, don't let the White House and the wingnuts throw sand in your eye. Don't listen to strange Pentagon voices blaming it on the Russians. And, now that Bush has made an incoherent statement about the explosives, Olde Media has shifted from fact-gathering into horse-race mode... can't get a clear picture there.

If you are serious about learning the truth about what happened, Josh Marshall's blog has been fact-intensive and clear-eyed from the beginning.

A Fine Good Morning to America

... from our statesmanlike president.

New Mexico Anyone?

This will be my last post before we find out who will lead this country in the next four years. That assumes, of course, that we know on election day or the day proceeding. Any Texans out there looking to get involved, I will be leaving Austin for New Mexico on Friday to help with the Kerry Campaign. I'll be heading back after election day. I might have room for you in my car. Drop me a comment. As for everyone else, get involved, do your part and get out the vote.

Andrew Sullivan Follows His Intellect

... and endorses Kerry. While I have often disagreed with Mr. Sullivan (i.e. on the necessity of the Iraq war), I have always been impressed with his intellectual honesty.

But, in every election, we decide on unknowables. When I read my endorsement of George W. Bush of four years ago, I see almost no inkling of what was about to happen and the kind of president Bush turned out to be. But we do the best we can in elections, with limited information and fallible judgment. I should reiterate: I do not hate this president. I admire him in many ways - his tenacity, his vision of democracy, his humor, his faith. I have supported him more than strongly in the last four years - and, perhaps, when the dangers seemed so grave, I went overboard and wilfully overlooked his faults because he was the president and the country was in danger. I was also guilty of minimizing the dangers of invading Iraq and placed too much faith, perhaps, in the powers of the American military machine and competence of the Bush administration.
Writers bear some responsiblity too for making mistakes; and I take mine. But they bear a greater responsibility if they do not acknowledge them and learn. And it is simply foolish to ignore what we have found out this past year about Bush's obvious limits, his glaring failures, his fundamental weakness as a leader. I fear he is out of his depth and exhausted. I simply do not have confidence in him to navigate the waters ahead skilfully enough to avoid or survive the darkening clouds on the horizon.

Read the whole thing (yes it's a bit long) and wonder with me how so many thoughtful "conservatives" disagree.

Fear and Loathing

Did you see Bush on TV, trying to debate? Jesus, he talked like a donkey with no brains at all. The tide turned early, in Coral Gables, when Bush went belly up less than halfway through his first bout with Kerry, who hammered poor George into jelly. It was pitiful. . . . I almost felt sorry for him, until I heard someone call him "Mister President," and then I felt ashamed.
. . .
Nixon hated running for president during football season, but he did it anyway. Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for -- but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him.

You bet. Richard Nixon would be my Man. He was a crook and a creep and a gin-sot, but on some nights, when he would get hammered and wander around in the streets, he was fun to hang out with. He would wear a silk sweat suit and pull a stocking down over his face so nobody could recognize him. Then we would get in a cab and cruise down to the Watergate Hotel, just for laughs.

Yes, folks, the good doctor is in.

Why, now that I think of it, I believe in G. Bush, too!!

Kudos to Schaller for putting things in perspective. By far the best read of the morning. Don't miss.

100 Reasons to Dump Bush

The Nation posts its "100 Facts and 1 Opinion:
The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration," with links.

Read it and weep....

A Friend, A Restaurant Patron, A Hack

Big ups to our good friend T'OD over at CC, who was recently quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle as an Ohio citizen-on-the-street:

Across the street from the Ohio statehouse is a lunch spot called "San Francisco Oven,'' which boasts "A taste of the Bay Area.'' Inside, patrons offer opinions that reveal a diversity that would be hard to find in Northern California.

"President Bush has done a great job,'' Terrence O'Donnell, a 28-year-old attorney, said over lunch on Friday. "I have no doubt the nation is safer.''

His lunch companions are split. One is for Kerry, the other is for Bush.

"I'll tell you why Ohio is even,'' O'Donnell said. "People are more open minded here than in other parts of the country.''

Nice job, bro. Of course, it should have said "a 28-year-old Republican lobbyist who will be working the polls for the Republican party on election day, challenging the qualifications of liberal-looking voters in an effort to disrupt the voting process." But this is Olde Media. We don't really expect them to do background.

Puppy Chow

There has been a sort of feeding frenzy in the media over Bush's new "puppies" ad. Scary! The point of the ad? Kerry and the "librels" voted to cut intelligence spending "even after the first terrorist attack on America."

Holy Crap! Kerry voted to cut funding after 9/11??

Nope. See, a little text pops up on the screen for a second, with a tiny number down in the corner showing that the vote was from ... 1994.

The nerve of John Kerry! Voting to cut intelligence spending after the attack on Pearl Harbor!

If you're tired of misleading ads, check out this one. Devastating, because it's spot on.

THEY STOLE OUR GRASS, MAN

This weekend, Notre Dame (5-2) faces Boston College (4-2 with an easy schedule). It's been three years since we've seen an Irish victory, but this weekend will change all that.

Just ask defensive end Justin Tuck:

"There's a lingering feeling from last time," Tuck said. "They stole our
grass. So we're excited about this one."

Because simply they are better than us...

Chicago Bears receive flu shots before the rest of us: Vaccinations to players despite a shortage that has caused the shutdown of all 16 flu clinics in the area and has left countless senior citizens still waiting for shots...

Though the Bears did not receive a letter [requesting whether top corporations' employees received flu shots improperly], Dale Galassie[, executive director of the Lake County Health Department,] said he would have hoped that young, fit professional athletes would not be offered the vaccine.

"I certainly wouldn't anticipate them meeting the Centers for Disease Control's high-risk category unless they interpret that they're under risk because of an extreme travel schedule," he said. "But they have their own plane. Everyone should be stepping up … and giving it to those who need it. I'd like to know why an athlete in top shape is being given a flu shot."

Now the article states that the Lake County Health Department reacted with outrage to this news, but just playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, in a capitalist system, shouldn't goods of a kind go to the highest bidder on an unfettered, free market?

Why no longer is there such an outrage to starving, malnurished children in the nation's ghettos? Why is it okay to lobby to cut off aide to single mothers because they continue to have numerous children despite living well below poverty levels, Reagan's so-called "Welfare Queens" but, by no means, don't cutoff granny's flu shot? And what about education, or lack thereof, in the crumbling areas of the city? Perhaps, by allowing the flu shot to be cometitively bought, it would encourage those precluded because of their financial restrictions, mainly elderly and "at-risk" persons, to work a little harder in life, pick themselves up by the proverbial bootstraps?

But that would be simply un-American....or would it?

Just a little food for thought on this fine Friday morning.

Silver Linings

Those of us who have some vague association with Chicago and follow politics like the baseball boxscores know by now that the Chicago Tribune endorsed George W. Bush for president last weekend. Due mainly to my bias, but also my principles, I was, to say the least, disappointed in my hometown paper's choice for 2004.

The Chicago Tribune, one-time home of the late-great Mike Royko, is by local standards a fine paper rising head and shoulders above the city's dish rag, the Chicago Sun Times, previously owned by media mogul and king of sleaze, Rupert Murdock. The Trib also has traditionally been a popular conservative newspaper despite the fact that Chicago itself leans politically far left.

With that in mind, I wasn't completely caught off guard with this weekend's endorsement, but a little, small fact I didn't realize until today cheered me up a bit:

[The Tribune has] endorsed the Republican candidate in every presidential election since at least 1872, and [supported] Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate in all but two or three cases.

So raise your chin up, Chicagoans, as you always seem to do after every disappointing loss. This latest setback is no different than every season in baseball, football, hockey, and except for a brief 6-year gift from the gods, basketball. Crack open an Old Style, rip open that bag of White Castles, and smile. As much as things seem to change (space ships for football fields, Migs Field no more, bean-shaped sculptures, french-style bus depots, condos in Cabrini, new Trump tower, a Democratic governor), in reality, they remain very much the same.

A Thought

Stepping outside of the all immersing 2004 political campaign, I ran across the following excerpt I once read. It made me think about this great country and definitely raised many concerns. One problem with mankind is we are self interested. Generally speaking, our politicians and people of wealth and power will legitimize their daily actions as pursuing a great democracy or doing what is best for the country. I think campaigns, partisanism and political battle are destructive to the almighty USA. Guys like Hannity, Rush just scream hate for any differing view. And sure, the other side has characters but not to the extent of Hannity or Rush(M. Moore). But, it didn't seem to be this way until recently, but what do I know?

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know it doesn't make people close to their government to be told that this is a people's government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing to do with knowing one is governing.

What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.

.........And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.
Milton Mayer

No, I am NOT comparing anyone to Hitler. This is just food for thought. Every American should question their motives and the motives of those they support. Only if we could go back to when politicians were selfless and truly sacrificed their self interest for the strengthening
of the country. I will now step off my soapbox.

Another Sad Day to Be a Republican

Still more bullcrap from Republicans trying to get-out-the-vote* - this time in Pennsylvania.

* vote not to be got-out where voter is pro-choice, Democrat, or intellectually honest conservative.

Conversations with Ben: Jon Stewart

My buddy Ben and I are polar opposites when it comes to everything, how we dress, taste in food, women, leisure, our physical attributes, and our sports teams, but where we differ most is our politics. Most of the time we argue about whether the war in Iraq is just. We began that argument three years ago and still it is the most popular discussion. In the process we've lost our friends, family members, been late for work, forgot to take out the trash, whatever.

Typically, our polemics run for days, sometimes weeks, and never seem to be resolved, with neither one of us ever budging. While I'm no Thomas Jefferson and he's no John Adams, I do think our arguments can be entertaining nonetheless.

Recently, we had a discussion about Jon Stewart's appearance on the political show Crossfire. After Abe posted the transcript, I read it finding it very funny and worth reading. When Abe linked to the video, it got better. I thought for sure that the consensus was that Stewart, the popular antagonist, schooled the hosts of the show, especially the bow-tie wearing co-host Tucker Carlson. I guess not....

FROM OUR E-MAILS:

RUDY: Did you hear about Jon Stewart on Crossfire?

BEN: I read portions of the stewart transcript on drudge. Stewart is a total jackass. He is as intelligent as a "jay walker" on Leno. He throws out cliches like they are facts. I love the fact that his ratings have dropped.

RUDY: Everyone is raving about his appearance on the show. I thought he made some
intelligent points and effectively attacked the Crossfire hosts on their own show (who does that?). In fact, it was pretty hilarious even though Stewart intended it to be a serious discussion.

I don't know about your cliché statement but if they are clichés, then he makes pretty effective use of clichés. In fact, by your reasoning, anyone can be as funny as long as he is throwing out clichés. You should write a book Maybe I'll go on the road using every known cliche so I can be famous like Stewart.

By the way, interesting to note that his show is a FAKE news comedy show.
You conservatives should not feel threatened by a FAKE news show that follows a bunch of puppets making prank phone calls. I remember Henry (our mutual friend) saying once that Stewart's show was the Left's answer to Fox News. I'm not quite sure what that says about Fox News;) or, I guess, the Left.

I think based on its popularity alone, there's a place for the show, like "Not
Necessarily the News" in the 1980s and that news segment on SNL with Dennis Miller. It's as if people are attempting to escape the seriousness and dullness of the news by flocking to the Daily Show without escaping the news entirely.

In fact, CNN and MSNBC have tried to steal the Daily Show's thunder by integrating a
comedy segment in their shows. I believe Larry King has something similar, which seems oddly out of place.

BEN: It is fake, but as you have learned and know now the masses are asses. I am not worried about people like you and Carl watching it because you two are intelligent and can decipher, hopefully, the fake. However, he has become a news source for many and those folks do not know that he is a comedian espousing b.s.

On your point of comedy, I think Carlson is a real comedian. The left loves him. In fact, Bill Maher, called him the best conservative who actually stands on values. Carlson was a big supporter of the war in Iraq and when we didn't find WMD's he changed positions. Many on the left, including his co-hosts Begala and Carville, applauded him and mentioned he was intellectually honest. I believe that last part, intellectually honest, is the key to this election and why Kerry doesn't appeal to people. Dean, whom I totally disagree with, was intellectually honest. Gephard and Lieberman were also honest. Kerry, on the other hand, has had every position known in mankind on Iraq and many, many social issues. It's not Kerry's position that some disagree with because after all whether you support the war or are against it, John Kerry agrees with you.

RUDY: A poll taken states that viewers of the show are smarter and more knowledgeable of the issues than those that are not viewers of the show. It's important to note that you can't get the jokes unless you are knowledgeable about the issues. It's just an undeniable fact. It's like law
school: we joked about cases all the time (hairy hand, state qua state, "I'm going to 12-b-6 your ass," etc.) and found the jokes hilarious but outsiders (i.e., normal people), looked at us in horror and thought we were incredible nerds with no lives and definitely didn't get our jokes, no matter what the explanation.

BEN: Making fun of someone's english or lack thereof, is not being knowledgeable about the issues. Maiking (sic) fun of one's stances on issues with soundbites and showing the contradiction is not being knowledgeable about issues. Showing clips of someone's reaction is not being knowledgeable about issues. Further, please provide me the poll that backs your assertion. I highly doubt what you are saying is true and I don't believe such a poll exists.

RUDY: Ben, I truly appreciate your candor, but seriously SHUT UP until you have all the facts, you embarrass yourself, and me, for knowing you. A couple of links as you requested, my ignorant friend....

I like this one the most, stating that viewers of Daily Show are more
educated than those of the O'Reilly Factor (may want to switch your
shows you say a lot about yourself):

Here

Others:
Business Journal
CNN
Mydd

One on Daily Show's gaining popularity:
Boston Globe

Do you need some more....because there are plenty.

BEN's reply: [Insert Crickets]

That was several days ago and I haven't heard from him since. I wonder if he's okay....

Poll Watcher: Flashback from 2000

We're now officially two weeks before the 2004 presidential election and the results from the most recent national polls range from a virtual tie to a 2 percentage point lead for the incumbent, well within the typical margin of error of 4 percentage points. Although I'm highly skeptical of the polls, especially the dailies seen on the Post, it can be addicting.

During my crazed surf through all my daily sites, I wondered what the polls were like two weeks before 2000 election (now, remember the election was held on Nov. 7 last time, not the 11/2). For what it's worth, a cursory search found the following:

From Oct. 27, 2000:

--Another poll shows race is too close to call

Republican George W. Bush reclaimed a one-point lead over Democrat Al Gore in Friday's Reuters/MSNBC daily tracking poll, as the U.S. presidential race remained too close to call.

The survey of 1,206 likely voters in the Nov. 7 election, conducted Oct. 24-27 by pollster John Zogby, found the Texas governor with 44 percent and the vice president with 43 percent. That represented a two-point decline for Gore and a one-point advance for Bush over the past 24 hours.

Green Party nominee Ralph Nader polled 5 percent; Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan stayed at 1 percent and the rest remained undecided. Gore had spent three days in the lead before Friday's survey.

The race remained well within the statistical margin of 3 percentage points. A candidate would have to be more than 6 points in the lead to be outside that zone of uncertainty - something neither candidate has achieved since the poll began Sept. 29.

Results of an ABC News poll from Oct. 23-25 had similar results. The poll showed Bush with the support of 48 percent of voters, Gore at 45 percent, Nader at 3 percent and Buchanan at 1 percent. The margin of error was put at 3 percentage points.

But a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll taken at the same time gave Bush a wider edge. The poll showed the Texas governor getting 49 percent of the vote, the vice president 42 percent, Nader 3 percent and Buchanan 1 percent. The margin of error was put at 4 percentage points.

- Reuters News Service and The Associated Press

Two from Oct 23, 2000:

--With barely over two weeks to go for the US Presidential elections, Republican candidate George W Bush has established a lead of nine points over his Democratic opponent and Vice President Al Gore, according to just released CNN/USA Gallup tracking poll.

If the election were held Monday, 50 per cent of voters would choose Bush and 41 per cent would favor Gore, the poll suggested....

--Almost every poll at the national level is showing the Texas Governor, Mr. George W. Bush, ahead by between three and 11 percentage points, with the Green Party candidate, Mr. Ralph Nader, making a difference in States that are crucial to the Vice-President, Mr. Albert Gore....

The Draft: A Litmus Test for True Democracy

I support a draft for the war in Iraq. As of last week the Gallup polls showed:

In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?
Yes 47% No 52% No Op%1

All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?
Worth going to war 44%
Not worth going to war 54%
No opinion 2 %

This article came out in the New York Times. This is proof that if Bush gets reelected he will go back to breaking every campaign promise just like he did after the 2000 power grab. Essentially, the Selective Service is gearing up for a draft of medical professionals. Considering the increasing and daily casualties of war, we will surely need folks to support the recovery of our troops. I believe an all out draft will be necessary if Bush pursues his ideological march toward American way of life in the world. Yesterday in NJ he spoke about his goal of spreading democracy throughout the middle east:

we will win the war on terror and make America safer by advancing the cause
of freedom and democracy. Free societies are hopeful societies, which do
not nurture bitterness, or the ideologies of terror and murder. Free
governments in the broader Middle East will fight the terrorists, instead of
harboring them. And this is why a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan are
vital to peace in that region, and vital to the security interests of our
country.

Victory in the war on terror requires victory in
Iraq. (Applause.) (YES HE REALLY SAID THIS) If a terror regime were allowed to re-emerge in Iraq, the terrorists would find a home, a source of funding and vital support. They would correctly conclude that free nations do not have the will to defend themselves. When Iraq becomes a free society at the heart of the Middle
East, an ally in the war on terror, and a model for hopeful reform in a region
that needs hopeful reform, the terrorists will suffer a crushing defeat and
every free nation will be more secure.

If President Bush is sincere in his desire to spread democracy and America's way of life across the globe, he better be willing to sacrifice thousands of American lives for it. I think the poor guy just simply screwed up in his assessment of Iraq. He figured we could get in, put American puppets in place at the head of government and then financially benefit from the rich resources. When this did not happen due to the insurgency, he was required to put forth the message that the over one thousand dead troops died for a cause. This cause is to spread democracy across the middle east. Scary thought and if this is not fascism, I don't know what is:

Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority
suppression of the opposition through censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism.

Our current troop enrollment can not support this far reaching task. I think a draft would be great RIGHT NOW. This way all the folks who support the war will have to take a second look at their opinion. Will they still believe so strongly when it is their 18 year old leaving to fight? Will they vote for Bush when it is their husband, wife or loved one that has the risk of being killed on foreign land only to be flown back in secrecy so as to avoid public disapproval of the countless caskets draped in American Flags. I think that is fair: Look: Trust me, this is not a scare tactic, even though someone like TOD over at CC will surely comment as much. This is the right way to handle this issue in a democracy. Even though I do not agree with the war in Iraq, if public opinion stayed above 50% after a draft begins, I will accept it as the will of the people.

The American people have received one of the largest tax cuts in American history. We live in an age of extreme comfort. Our consumption of natural resources is so selfish and unreasonable. And yes, I do own one of these , so I am part of the problem. Lets sacrifice for this war and if America can still support the war and Bush overall, I will keep my mouth shut, I promise.

Following the Polls: Don't You Believe Them

I follow the political polls for presidency as if I am following stock on the Dow. Both are interesting and entertaining but do they really tell the true story of what's going on?

The HILL (via Political Wire) makes an interesting note that with the widespread use of cellphones, telephone polling may be a thing of the past:

Legal restrictions are preventing political pollsters from reaching millions of Americans this election cycle because they rely exclusively on cell phones, according to pollsters and other election observers.

The inability to reach such voters, mainly young people, is contributing to the growing perception that phone surveys are skewed and inaccurate and should become a thing of the past, they argue.

Zogby on the cellphone problem:

Shawnta Wolcott, director of communications for Zogby International, which reaches voters by telephone as well as the Internet, conceded that the cell-phone-only crowd is affecting pollsters’ ability to reach voters.

“We acknowledge it is a problem, but it has not compromised the quality of our polls at all,” Wolcott said. “It has affected the way we reach respondents across the board because we only call those with listed numbers, so in response we just stay on the phones a little longer and keep calling people back.”

While it's estimated that only 5% of the electorate is affected, I do know that at least two of the bloggers at 2GL fall within this unaccounted for minority. So if you're not being called by the pollsters, you're not the only one.

Speaking of Russia...

Man, that Putin sure likes Bush. Remember in June, when he pretended that he had received a super-secret tip before we invaded Iraq that Saddam Hussein planned to attack America? Funny how everyone just kind of smiled and shook their heads. That crazy Pootie. Boy, he'll say anything to help his buddy Bush.

Then the Poot moved to centralize power in Russia and cut off support for his opponents. No more voting for Russia's governors! No more voting for parliamentary candidates! Silly Poot. He doesn't care much for democracy, does he?

The most Bush could do was stammer out something about being "concerned about" Putin's attack on Russian democracy.

Old Pooter knows that Bush may act a little peeved, but under it all Bush likes his soul. On the other hand, here's how Poot described Bush:

. . . just as a person, which is probably also an important aspect – I
don't know if he will like me saying this or not – it seemed to me that he is a
pretty spiritual person, nice to talk to, maybe even – again, perhaps I
shouldn't say this – maybe a bit sentimental. But I think that is a good sign.

Of course it's a good sign, Pootie Poot! It means that after a massive power grab, all you have to do to calm George down is either (1) call him up and sing soft country ballads over the phone until he forgives you, or (2) publicly proclaim that terrorists hate Bush and love John Kerry.

Today, Putin chose the latter.

Bush's Amerika

Required reading.

As I read Suskind's incisive article, I was newly impressed with our American democracy. Even if George Bush is re-elected, I'm just glad this kind of journalism is on the record for posterity so 50 years from now Americans will look back and see that some of us recognized how scary the Bush Administration was.

See yesterday, Olga, a woman who came to Chicago from the Soviet Union 30 years ago, cut my hair. We were talking about what life was like under Communist rule and she actually said it wasn't much different for her. But when I asked about freedom of speech, she said "oh, the bad things you see on t.v. about the President, that would never happen in Russia." She said that didn't really matter much to her, though, because she never really has much to say about politics anyway. But I keep returning to the thought of a country where I couldn't criticize the President and where the media existed only to support him.

Damn, I love this country.

In other news, the Bush Administration recently threatened to sue Rock the Vote for suggesting that a military draft may be necessary in the future, and Sinclair Broadcasting plans to channel political propaganda over the public airwaves into 24% of American households.

How Old Are You? You Wear A Bow Tie...

Oh man. Jon Stewart takes it to the chumps over at Crossfire.

UPDATE: Watch the video.

Senor Presidente Give Me Some of That Stuff You're Taking

Contrary to President Bush's assessment in Iraq, things are still going bad. I thought for a while we were making progress. Afghanistan had elections, although how legit they were remains to be seen. Iraqi armed forces seemed to be fighting well along side American troops.......and then this happened. I am confused, I thought you said things were getting better Mr. President. I thought this was the most secure area in the world. If ill equipped third rate freedom fighters are capable of making fools of us, isn't it time for new leadership? I think we can do better than this.........

A Proud Day?

Was it only Thursday that T'OD over at CC said that Republicans' history of criminally interfering with citizens' right to vote was a thing of the past? It was. On Thursday, he proclaimed: "It's a proud day to be a Republican."

Now, I find that a little surprising, because on Monday six Republicans in South Dakota resigned in shame from their jobs working for the Republican Party's "get out the vote" effort for improper treatment of absentee ballots. Then on Wednesday, a gentleman in Nevada turned in his employer, Voters Outreach of America, for "registering" voters, then throwing out the Democratic registrations while keeping the Republican registrations. The FBI is looking into that one.

Maybe T'OD figured that Thursday was a proud day to be a Republican because there were no new resignations of Republican officials or new investigations into Republican voter registration improprieties.

I hope he enjoyed Thursday.

Because Friday President Bush's New England Campaign Chief, accused of criminally interfering with citizens' right to vote, resigned in shame. You might remember a few months ago, we at 2GL noted that Republicans in New Hampshire jammed phone lines in order to prevent Democrats from voting and that a couple Republican state officials resigned because of it. Oh yeah, they also pled guilty to conspiracy. (Ashcroft's Justice Department has postponed their sentencing until after the elections.) At the time, there was suspicion that this conspiracy went higher than just these Republican officials. Now, it appears that the conspiracy extended at least as high up as President Bush's shamed New England Campaign Chief. Does it end there? We'll see.

Talk About Fake Outrage...

Kerry mentions Mary Cheney in a flattering light in the debate last night. The response from the Republicans?

Howl! Cry! Whine!


Alan Keyes, Illinois Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate literally accuses Mary Cheney of being a "selfish hedonist" like all other homosexuals. The response from the Republicans?

....

2GL Doesn't Censor, Even Nonsense

Not sure what happened to Soup's post. FYI, though: if the Administrator deletes a comment, then Blogger automatically states, "Comment deleted by blog administrator." (see sample comments) But Calvary Charge wouldn't know that because it declines to allow comments be added to its Blog.
Talk about censorship.

Soup, because our love for you is so strong, feel free to re-post your obviously insightful and meaningful commentary. We at 2GL apologize for any inconvenience.

How Would Bush have Behaved During the 60's Civil Rights Movement?

Kerry was clearly the victor in the debate last night. Although President Bush was more energetic than the first podium style debate, he still lacked substance and a detailed understanding of the complexities of our world. One question that I believe has gone unnoticed as far as the pundits are concerned was when Schieffer asked
Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
I frequently debate my conservative friends about equality and the right to marry for gay and lesbian Americans. Texan Republicans usually tailor their answer around God and Christianity. The usual, "Marriage is an institution created by God and it is between a woman and a man" is typically evoked. This is where I ask the question that Schieffer asked. You will notice that our Commander in Chief who has "strong convictions" and "knows what he believes" suddenly is not sure, take a look at the transcript:

Question 6: Do you believe homosexuality is a
choice?

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, let's get back to economic issues.
But let's shift to some other questions here.
Both of you are opposed to
gay
marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want
to ask
you a more basic question.
Do you believe homosexuality is a
choice?

BUSH: You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't
know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that
is to
treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important
that we do
that.
And I also know in a free society people, consenting
adults can live
the way they want to live. And that's to be honored.
But
as we respect someone's rights, and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn't change
-- or have to change -- our basic views on the sanctity of marriage.
I
believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it's very important that we protect
marriage as an
institution, between a man and a woman. I proposed a
constitutional
amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that
activist judges
are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the
surest way to protect
marriage between a man and woman is to amend the
Constitution..........

SCHIEFFER: Sen. Kerry?

KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you
were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you
that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.
I
think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who
struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they
were
living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.
And I've
met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally
sort of
broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they
felt
God had made them. I think we have to respect that.
The president
and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe
that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
But I also believe
that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great,
unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't
discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you
afford people. You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner
in
a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why
I'm for
partnership rights and so forth.

Mr. President, you are either discriminating against a class of people or you are not. You either allow this group of people to have the same economic advantages as heterosexuals or you don't. You can't have it both ways and you can not say "you don't know". I would accept this answer, but for the fact that YOU pushed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. By doing this, you have taken a stance on the issue. Is this an issue for presidential politics? Of course not. But you have brought this decisive issue to the forefront and now you have an obligation to know. Senatory Kerry, you also have an obligation to support gay marriage as a champion for the causes of Democratic ideals. If homosexuality is not a choice, then we, as God following people, have a moral obligation to afford them all the same rights as other God created human beings.

Sad State of Affairs

I've stated before how George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, has singlehandedly lowered the bar for becoming president. Monkeydyne has his resume up.

Just think, that C student, who sat next to you in your basketweaving class and who also was arrested for stealing a Christmas tree drunk and also for driving while intoxicated, could be your president someday.

Funny, huh? Like when a clown cries.

Now Bush is Accused of Cheating at Last Week's Debate

Odd story at Salon regarding the rumor that Pres. Bush was recieving assistance through an earpiece during last week's debate. (play 20 second commercial for free one-day pass on Salon, nothing more required).

It's Official: Bush First Since Hoover to Have Net Job Loss

Today's job report further bad news for Bush Administration:

From the WS Journal:

Employers added 96,000 jobs to their payrolls in September, fewer than economists forecast for the last employment report before Election Day. The numbers highlight a modest pace of hiring that has become an issue in President Bush's bid for re-election.

Al Hunt opining for the Journal:

The final major economic report before the presidential election was a setback to President Bush and will provide further talking points for challenger John Kerry in tonight's debate.

The government report that only 96,000 jobs were added to the employment ranks last month was bad news for the Bush campaign in at least three ways: it was only about two-thirds as large as expected, the gains actually didn't keep pace with the growth of the population and it assures that Mr. Bush will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to experience a net loss of jobs during his administration....

In the debate tonight, look for Mr. Kerry to note that during the Clinton years an average of 2.8 million jobs were added every year, or about 230,000 a month.

CalPundit can add this to his list.

Dreadful Losing Streaks

Among the worst losing streaks in sports history, you have the Tampa Bay Bucaneers who were 0 for 1976 going 0-14 en route to 26 straight losses. You also have the Prairie View A&M NCAA football team who went 80 straight games dating from 1989-1998 without a win. And who can forget the lovable losers, the Boston Red Sox and the Chicago Cubs, who've gone 86 years and 98 years, respectively, without winning a World Series in Major League Baseball. While on the flipside, you have the Miami Dolphins of 1972 going 17-0 in the 1972 NFL season, the UCLA Bruins men's basketball team going 88 straight games without a loss, and North Carolina's NCAA women's soccer had a 103-game unbeaten streak.

In the world of fighting terrorism here at home, John Ashroft and the DOJ has its own losing streak. They own the distinction of not having one conviction in the 5,000 foreign nationals detained in antiterrorism sweeps since 9/11, says David Cole of The Nation. Zero for 5,000 that's not too impressive in any league and tack on the Supreme Court case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (and companion cases), which overruled the Bush Administration's detention policy toward enemy combatants, and it has not been a banner couple of years for Ashcroft.

Top Bonehead Mistake of the Debates thus far...

...goes to current VP Dick Cheney for instructing viewers of Tuesday's debate to this site, for the real scoop of the election. Factcheck.com rather than Factcheck.org, what the VP had intended, chose to redirect web surfers to George Soros's anti-Bush site. Top headline on Soros's site: Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush.

Bet he wishes he had that line back. Factcheck.com received over 50,000 hits in the first hour after Cheney's gaffe, then 100 per second thereafter.

Another one for the file

Just another lie to be filed under the "don't believe a word this man says" category.

Cheney and Edwards met at least three times previously:

On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast and sat beside him during the event.

On April 8, 2001, Cheney and Edwards shook hands when they met off-camera during a taping of NBC's "Meet the Press," moderator Tim Russert said Wednesday on "Today."

On Jan. 8, 2003, the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in by Cheney as a North Carolina senator, Edwards aides also said.

It's almost inexplicable why he would state a bold face lie on national TV and not realize the media would be all over it. Perhaps, the best explanation for Cheney's conduct the past four years is not that he's evil but the man is clearly senile. The latest meeting of the two VP candidates was a little over a year ago.

Open for the Pass . . .

Uh oh. I've been called out on the post below by Soup over at CC. Specifically, he has a hard time understanding my position on gay marriage.

Well, I'm for it, Soup. Across the board, I'm for it. Laws forbidding it are unfortunate. State constitutions forbidding it are worse. A federal constitutional amendment forbidding it would be a terrible blemish on our nation's history.

Now, I recognize that people have various reasons for believing that gays should not be married and various positions on how gay relationships should be treated. Some believe that gays should have all the legal protections of marriage, but not be "married" per se. Some think gays should have no such rights. Some are just old-fashioned, I'm sure, and resistant to progress. Others have serious reservations about gay relationships because of their religious beliefs and the teachings of their churches. Others, undoubtedly have, as I said in an earlier post, hearts full of inexplicable hate for gay people. I doubt anyone will disagree with that. Whatever their reason for being anti-gay marriage, I disagree. Seems pretty simple.

In the post below, I discussed the Edwards - Cheney debate, and commended Cheney for his very human response to Edwards' comments on the topic. As an aside, I noted that I am for gay marriage rights, but said that for the purposes of the debate discussion my personal views on gay marriage were "neither here nor there". Soup suggests that this means I don't care and will give Edwards and Kerry "a pass" on this issue. Do I care? Absolutely. Am I giving them a pass?

Well, Kerry and Edwards both oppose gay marriage, but believe that it is a matter for the states. They both oppose the United States Constitutional Amendment supported by the Bush Administration. What do I think about the Kerry/Edwards position? I disagree with it, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

Consider someone who strongly believes that billionares should never pay a dime in taxes. This "no taxes for billionares" person would surely support Bush, while at the same time disagreeing with Bush's mere "lower taxes for billionares" position. Does that mean he's giving Bush "a pass" on billionare taxes?

I think it's interesting that Soup brings this up, because the majority of people I know who are Bush supporters believe that Bush's Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment is a preposterous political tool and do not support the amendment. As I mentioned below, even Cheney cannot bring himself to say he supports the miserable thing. But these folks are voting for Bush anyway. Are they giving Bush a pass?

Is our friend Soup?

Edwards v. Cheney

Obviously a less decisive victory for Kerry- Edwards than last week's drubbing, but in my opinion Edwards was the affable and hopeful JFK responding to Cheney's dour Nixonian grumblings. My early impression was that these two had a far more persuasive command of the issues and the English language than the guys at the top of the ticket. The obvious conclusion at the end of the two debates is: Edwards needs Kerry's gravitas and experience . . . Bush needs Cheney's. Now, who is at the top of the tickets?

Cheney did his best to stick to the administration's tactic of victory through fear, several times suggesting that only he and Bush could stop a terrorist from detonating a nuclear bomb in the middle of your city. He seemed very tired, sort of listless, and often mean spirited in his attacks. Nice line about never meeting Edwards before. Unfortunately is it a lie.

The gay marriage issue. I thought Edwards gave a good answer, though pret-ty stan-dard really. I disagree with all of the candidates on this issue, personally. People should be able to marry whoever they want. But that is neither here nor there. Cheney's response to Edwards was the most revealing moment of the debate, and the only time Cheney exposed himself as a genuine, empathetic, feeling human being. He simply thanked Edwards for his kind words about Cheney's family. We know that Cheney disagrees with Bush's preposterous and divisive amendment. I was genuinely touched when he didn't try to give a prepared and spinned-up answer. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration has made the hate amendment a central focus of this campaign. It just means that Bush's own vice president is admirably above it.

On to Edwards. I thought he had a solid grasp of the issues and a convincing and plain way of telling you what he thinks. He obviously knew that his job is to get Kerry elected, and he referenced Kerry in every answer (even when he wasn't supposed to). Why didn't Cheney mention Bush? Edwards easily won the much-Republican-hyped "beer at a barbeque" test. You want Cheney snapping at you over who gets the last brat? Hell no. Want to see Edwards with a few too many Old Styles in him telling stories about his hometown? Definitely. I thought Edwards did a great job of sticking it to Cheney on his own record... lobbying to cut weapons programs, voting to keep Nelson Mandela in jail, etc.

Like I said in the beginning. Not as decisive a victory as when Kerry slaughtered George "My Job Is Really Hard" Bush last week, but still... chalk another debate up for Kerry/Edwards.

Bush's Follies

Terrist Terrist Terrist Terrist.

Ladies and gentlemen, in case you missed it, the entire GOP convention. It might take a minute to load, but hoo boy. It's worth it.

HAT TIP: Atrios.

Cuticle Carl

Josh is all over the hot scoop that Fox News is blatantly partisan. But didn't we all know this by now? It's pretty well accepted. You don't really see thoughtful conservatives defending Fox News as a balanced, neutral source of news. They recognize that the network is an extension of their party's propaganda machine. Even the Fox slogan "Fair and Balanced" seems to come at you with a little wink from the network. This is Republican media. There is no secret about it.

That's why it's so funny when the network props ultra-serious Brit Hume up there to defend findings that Fox News' coverage of the Kerry campaign has been ridiculously skewed. You can almost picture Hume's furrowed brow when he says:

"Our day-in, day-out coverage by Carl Cameron has been extremely fair to Kerry, and the Kerry campaign has recognized this," he says.
"We did a lot on the Swift Boat Veterans. We thought it was a totally legitimate story and found it an appalling lapse by many of our competitive news organizations that were treating that story like it was cancerous." But even there, Hume says, "we were abundantly fair to John Kerry's side."

Yes, this is the same Carl Cameron who published the story with fake quotes from Kerry. Come on, Brit. Just wink, smile, and say "no comment".

So, since we all already knew that Fox News is a joke, what's the real story here? The scoop is that they're not even funny. I mean, if you're going to make up fake quotes from Kerry, is this really the best you can come up with, Carl?

"Women should like me! I do manicures."
"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great?"
"I'm metrosexual --- he's a cowboy."

Show us some wit, bro. Give us something approximating cleverness. You're better than this. If you're going to run with the manicure bit (which is a pretty weak choice of material to start with), at least have Kerry droning on with a long-winded description of his nails or something. Have him attacking Bush's choice of manicurist. Maybe the "global test" his fingernails must pass. Something, man!

Fox Screws

And finally -- Fox News' reaction to Kerry's sound trouncing of Bush in the debate.

You're really not going to believe this one.

If you needed any more evidence that Fox was run by juvenile conservative ideologues, there you go.

I Say Rosy, You Tell Congress

You may recall that Joe Lockhart, who has stepped up to the plate as Kerry's no-bullcrap spokesman, recently made the following comment about Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi's speech to the U.S. Congress:

"The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."

Republicans exploded into histrionics. How dare Lockhart suggest that the White House was telling Allawi what to say! Some called Lockhart's concerns "absolutely unacceptable coming from a Presidential campaign in wartime" and called for Kerry to fire him. Others called it "astonishingly irresponsible campaign rhetoric" and disgraceful.

Bush's spokesman himself said that Lockhart sounded like a terrorist.

"That echoes what the enemy is saying in Iraq, and that echoes what a lot of the terrorists have said," Mr. Mehlman said. "I think that's an unfortunate statement."

Well, if Lockhart was suggesting that the White House helped draft Allawi's speech, he was a little off. It was Bush's reelection campaign!

From the WaPo:

The unusual public-relations effort by the Pentagon and the U.S. Agency forInternational Development comes as details have emerged showing the U.S. government and a representative of President Bush's reelection campaign had been heavily involved in drafting the speech given to Congress last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Combined, they indicate that the federal government is working assiduously to improve Americans' opinions about the Iraq conflict -- a key element of Bush's reelection message.

Think about that for a minute. The reelection campaign.

So, let's get this straight. The Bush reelection campaign gets to tell the Iraqi Prime Minister what to say to our Congress, and if Kerry's campaign tells the American people you can almost see the hand moving Allawi's lips.... they sound like terrorists?

That, my friends, is astonishingly irresponsible campaign rhetoric, and is unacceptable from a presidential campaign during wartime.

Failure of the GOP Rapid Response

After Kerry pounded Bush on all fronts in the debate last night - substantive grasp of issues, clarity, concise precision of ideas, coherent message, grace, and yes... the all important "who is more presidential" front - one might wonder how those who have cast their lot in with this failed president would react. What excuses might they offer for Bush's miserable performance and incoherence?

Some gems:

It was very clear to anyone watching that Bush won the first debate by exposing Kerry's flip-flopping and his wavering on key issues, such as Iraq. - Yeah, bro. Very clear. I think that's the general consensus.

In my opinion, nobody “won,” although Kerry probably helped his battered image slightly by not collapsing into a quivering mass of orange Jell-o. - Right... what does it mean to win, really. I mean, if Bush blinked stupidly in a forest and nobody was watching, would Bush still look like a fool?

The questions were biased against Bush! - No sir, the facts are biased against Bush.

Overall: Bush gets a big win, by hitting all his messages over and over again. - I think you're missing a few "over"s in there.

Bush won because he sounded like Gary Cooper from High Noon,while Kerry sounded like Mrs. Olsen from "little house on the prairie". - Yes, who could forget when Cooper walked calmly down that dusty road, blinked seven times, rolled his eyes, and complained about how hard his job was.

You get the idea that being a Senator has prepared [Kerry] well for 90-minute gab sessions, while Presidents just don't have the time for this sort of thing. - Perhaps the most desperate excuse. Yes, no time for Bush to discuss policy. Too busy watching TV, eating pretzels, and falling off bike. Try him next month when he gets back from the ranch.

President Kerry

CNN / GALLUP POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE
Kerry: 53
Bush: 37

CBS POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 44
Bush: 26
Tie: 30

ABC POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 45
Bush 36
Tie: 17

Want to laugh?

Check out these jokers. ... and even some of these, some of the fringiest right wingers, can't fool themselves into believing Bush won.