You have just witnessed the strength of street knowledge

I was expecting Kerry to loose this debate. Fuck me. Jeezus what was I thinking.

For some reason, I thought that the guy I knew to be a twit was going 'win' by playing Yosimite Sam once again, while the guy I know to be a BadAss MotherFucker, who has killed commies face to face, taken on Richard Nixon, Broken open the Iran Contra scandel, and banged Morgan Fairchild, was going to loose by trying to be too ... shit, I can't even remember.

Well whatever the fuck I was thinking, Kerry won. I don't care how it looks on the Drudge Report or the 15 second recaps on CNN when I am sober; If Kerry lost that debate, I never want to be on the winning side.

First Impression

Holy shit. That wasn't even close. Bush looked scared and unprepared; the only time his answers weren't proceeded by awkward minutes of dead-air came with the closing comments, which he, no doubt, had memorized the night before. Literally, his worst press conferences didn't droop to the sheer, embarrassing depths of this one.

In the here and now, it was vaguely embarrassing to watch Bush, an experience not dissimilar to seeing a friend trying to fake his way through the school play when you know full well that he spent the last three months stoned. He tried to cover this by reciting the same ridiculous tag-line over and over: "the Commander-in-Chief cannot send mixed messages."

The few "gotchas" that Jim Lehrer set for him, Kerry ably dodged: whether it was the question about the number of lives the war in Iraq was worth or Lehrer's opening to call the president a liar when he stood ten feet away.

Having ripped Kerry in the past, I found little to fault in tonight's performance. He was in command of the issues and presented them cogently and deliberately. The president, on the other hand, spoke and behaved as if he had just recovered from a hangover.

I can imagine that somehow right-y pundits will spin this as a Bush victory, referring to Kerry's "political" answers. But one candidate offered facts, figures - y'know, actual data - to support his positions. Bush offered nothing more than talking points delivered with all the certainty of a teenager caught milling around his folks liquor cabinet.

In terms of Round One, this is point, set and match, KERRY.

Now, let's see what the polls do....

Drink! Mark II

I just received another Presidential Debate Drinking Game over email. It’s probably too late to catch most of you this time around, but you can save it for the next two. To give credit where it’s (apparently) due, it comes from David Martin of Ottawa, Canada. Here are the rules:

- Every time President Bush says the word “safer,” take a drink. If he uses the word “democracy” in the same sentence, make it a double.
- For every John Kerry reference to the UN, have a drink.
- If Bush uses the phrase “compassionate conservative,” you must chug your entire beverage.
- Take one drink for every three times Kerry points with his left hand.
- Any previously recorded Bushism, like “misunderestimate” or “subliminable,” used by the president during the debate requires one drink.
- If Kerry exceeds the time limit for any response, take a drink.
- Back-to-back offenses require a double-shot and a No-Doz.
- A reference by your candidate of any of the following requires one drink: 1) Florida; 2) North Korea; 3) The Axis of Evil; 4) Saddam Hussein; 5) the American people.
- And for an exciting twist on the game, anytime anybody mentions Vietnam, everybody has to take a drink.

Ah, Screw it...

I had intended to devote this afternoon to an item on tonight’s debate, specifically the debate over foreign policy, and why it matters despite the highly, restrictive, the cowardly rules of engagement. A long Ron Brownstein wrap-up of the pre-debate polls is what really whetted my appetite, especially the article’s contention that 19% of likely voters in an LA Times poll confessed that the debates “could alter their vote.”

When I went further into the article, however, I came across this little nugget:

“But that finding might overstate the fluidity in the electorate: 92% of likely voters said they were certain they would support the candidate they now favored; the other 8% said they were open to reconsidering. Like many respondents, Jim Bianchi, a Chicago chemist leaning toward Bush, said the debate could change his mind, but it would take ‘something dramatic.’”

Slate’s Today’s Papers (TP) led with the 19% figure, which really pisses me off because I count on that column’s shifting cast of authors to catch the details beyond the leads. So, for the first time in since TP has been part of my morning ritual, I have to suggest they dropped the ball.

Returning to the rules of engagement for the debate, I had intended upon noting that the Commission on Presidential Debates, less an organization than a cabal run by the two leading parties, should be deeply ashamed at acquiescing to the format. When you think about it, this is really a sad joke on the American electorate. A news event of any kind that operates under the thorough control of interested parties – and this goes double when there are only two interested parties – is no news event worthy of the name.

Honestly, the media should duck out on the debates until they, the nominally disinterested media organizations, call the shots. If conservatives want to piss and moan about the liberal media (for which they really should go to hell – more on this at a future date), split the responsibility between CNN and frickin’ FOX. I don’t care who does it, so long as it’s not the Commission on Presidential Debates.

From here I intended to move on to another very salient question: the extent to which there’s really any substantive policy differences between the candidates. Now the more I look at this, the less inclined I am to believe there are. Essentially, you're looking at differences in style, not substance; this is not trivial to be sure, but, given that the fundamentals, even the details, are often the same, we’re hardly looking at night and day. Maura Reynolds, writing in the LA Times, best sums up the question on which we’re likely voting:

“In essence, the central question is: Is it better for the United States to be liked or feared?”

Really, that’s it. If you read either Reynolds article, or the NY Times article I’ve embedded into the text, you get a pretty good run-down of the numerous overlaps between the two.

But beneath all that, and ignoring the fact that I accidentally wrote the piece that I didn’t think I was going to, I have only one hope for tonight’s debate. That hope is that John Kerry will respond to the first question, no matter what it is, with the following:

“My fellow Americans: You have watched this president for the past four years. By now, you know that he will answer any question Mr. Lehrer might pose with a canned response, one that you’ve all already heard hundreds of times on the campaign trail. What’s more, the debate format, to which I wrongly acceded, does nothing less than encourage such canned responses."

“Tonight’s debate may or may not tell you something new, but it will most certainly confirm one thing: the president is adept at learning and repeating a series of largely inaccurate talking points. All that separates the incumbent from a trained monkey is the ability to speak English – and the line of separation in this case is not a stark one.”

“I’m not about to go through the motions of answering my opponent’s canned talking points with my own, to reduce complex questions of policy to 90-second platitudes. If you wish to know how I propose to lead this country, please visit my web-site. You've seen how my opponent leads and, if this is not enough for you to turn him out of office, you deserve the shoddy government you're getting.”

“In the meantime, I refuse to stand beside to this half-witted douche bag and pretend we’re giving you anything but spin. I’m out of here. I’ll see you on the campaign trail.”

Would this doom his campaign? Sure. Especially if he insults the voters in the process. But he'd get to call Bush a douche bag. And I'd pay to see that.

Exercise in Futility

The naivete of this post almost pains me, but I feel like it's worth knowing so here goes. If you want to separate fact from fiction in the aftermath of tonight's debate, Dan Froomkin, the guy behind the Washington Post's White House Daily Brief, offers his services tomorrow. Here's his post on the subject:

Bloggers Unite to Fact-Check the Debate

And here's another way to make sure that the substance of Bush and Kerry's comments are fully and quickly assessed.

Some key political bloggers, who have so effectively proven their ability to hold the press accountable, will tonight be posting their own debate fact-checks -- and will be asking their readers to find and document substantively incorrect statements by the candidates, as well.

I've already talked to several bloggers on both sides of the political spectrum and they're on board. I urge others in the blogging community to join in the experiment. Just make sure you e-mail me at froomkin@washingtonpost.com so I know you're out there.

In tomorrow's column, I'll link to the bloggers who are actively fact-checking and I'll try to highlight some of the best and best-documented posts.

This, of course, raises two questions. Do I contact Mr. Froomkin? This is a very real question as I'm hip to the wisdom in jonb's previous post. And, really, can one check facts howling-drunk? Cock-eyed and pissed off? (The latter best matches my predicted state of mind by 7:30 p.m. PST). One the one hand, delusions of granduer aside, I'm all for pimping the site. On the other, I don't think Froomkin's going to post anything reading:

"You ask me for distortions, outright lies even? Go through the transcript and highlight everything that frickin' man-chimp Bush says; take the words, grunts and mangled phrases, and negate it, change it to its opposite meaning and that, my friend, is reality. That frickin' guy only seeks truth to abuse it."

"You listen' Froomkin? Blumpkin? Whatever the heck your name is? ."

So, there's that to consider. I think the spate of typos would be enough to keep me out of the running. Anyway, Froomkin's blog sounds like a good place to check tomorrow morning. I don't think having these facts will materially affect the race. If you can find Froomkin's column, you probably already know most of the corrections. Still, I'll throw Froomkin's link out tomorrow.

Drink!

Whether you watch it at the bar with me or at home, there are some important rules for tonight's debate. Kerry needs to convince people he is a strong leader and not a vacillating bureaucrat. We need to help him convince us by...being drunk.

Therefore every time he says the following words, take a drink:
*(facing the / owing the / deserving the)Truth
*Strong / Stronger / Strength / Strongest

Bush also has an agenda. He wants to convince us that things are on the right track and that the bad stuff is not his fault. We need be on guard against these twisted lies by....being drunk

So every time Bush says these words, take a drink
Free / Freedom / Freer / Freest.
Safe / Safer /Safety / Safest
[UPDATE]tera / terism / terist /evilDewer
September 11

Unsolicited advice for Kerry--Ingore the first question on Iraq and say:

Thanks for the Question. I am not perfect. I frequently argue points in a wordy way has allowed my opponant to take my words out of context and make me look like I change my mind all the time. Thats politics I suppose, but I am grateful for this opportunity to set the record straight on my only position on Iraq.

Ever since the Senate authorized force and got weapons inpsectors back into Iraq, the president has listened to extremests who have been proven wrong instead of the military and intellegence experts who have been proven right. That is my position. The fantasies that he has bought into has caused us to go to war with too few troops, too few allies, and strategies that have turned whole cities over to terrorists. His fantasies about the war paying for itself allowed him to justify massive increases in federal spending and even a trip to Mars!

The worst part is that the president does not seem able to learn from his mistakes. He is still listening to the same goofballs who a strong leader would have fired years ago.

Whether you agree with Dick Cheney now when he says the world is better without Hussein or Dick Cheney in 1991 when he said that determining Iraqs government is not worth one AMerican life, we are where we are. My plan builds a stable Iraq in four years with allies sharing the burden so that we can avoid a draft. Bushes plan is to keep trusting the nice men who say everything OK. The choice is yours.

Thats my position on Iraq.

DuDo That Bigboote!

AKA, why debating Bush is a lot like shooting rubberbands at the stars.

Q: You sometimes seem deliberately anti-intellectual.
A: I know it comes across that way. I don’t think it’s fair. This will be an administration of people well suited to their jobs. I’m secure enough that I want smart people around me. I’m comfortable with people who have high intellects.
Translation:
I'm not aware of too many things.
I know what I know if you know what I mean

A charge to keep I have,
A God to glorify,
A never dying soul to save,
And fit it for the sky.
To serve the present age,
My calling to fulfill;
O may it all my powers engage
To do my Master’s will!
Translation
Religion is the smile on a dog

"My mother always said when you're eating pretzels, chew before you swallow,"
Translation:
Choke me in the shallow water, before I get too deep.


Q: Who is your favorite philospher and Why?
A: Jesus because he changed my heart
transaltion:
Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks
Religion is the light in the fog

"There's not a course that says the self-esteem!"
Translation:
What I am is what I am, you what you are or what?!?!

A Management Note

I know that posting on this site without an account isn't the most straightforward thing. The easiest thing to do is to post anonymously. But I was going to ask, unless you truly wish to remain anonymous - if, for instance, you want to blame the world's problems on Jews or Albanians or the Tri-Lateralist Commission - just stick your name at the end of the post, so we all know whom we're addressing. That way, I know who's reminding me that I once bought Tin Machine...and once considered buying the 2nd one as well.

That said, fire away.

Oh, and another note: If you watch closely, you might notice some subtle changes to my posts. It's usually no more than a word here or there; I try not to alter the overall argument because, well, that's kind of unfair. I suppose that was the upside of the old email format: if I messed up, I was forced to live with it. As an obsessive, I can't leave these things alone if I think I misspoke in some way. Anyway, consider it kind of a puzzle and marvel at my belief that verb use matters as much to you as it does to me.

Equal Time

Assuming that people are reading this thing (hello out there), they may have noticed that the majority of time we've spent on this blog is devoted to the idea that George Bush is a King Idiot and that the world is burning down around our ears. The chaos in Iraq, as well as the administration's delusional ramblings on that subject, serve as apt symbols for a sense that things ain't jake in the wide world.

Ignore Iraq for a moment and look at the GWOT (that's Global War on Terror) as a whole. From that vantage point, the question of where are now becomes less clear. For instance, David Ignatius wrote a column for yesterday's Washington Post making the argument, based on the writings of a respected French Arabist, Gilles Kepel, that the jihadis have, so far, matched us mistake for mistake. If you bring the relative balance of power into play - i.e. we've got the hardware and the more savory message - the Big Picture isn't so horrible as it might seem. Ignatius, channeling Kepel, makes his most compelling point here:

"Kepel argues that the insurgents' brutal tactics in Iraq -- the kidnappings and beheadings, and the car-bombing massacres of young Iraqi police recruits -- are increasingly alienating the Muslim masses. No sensible Muslim would want to live in Fallujah, which is now controlled by Taliban-style fanatics. Similarly, the Muslim masses can see that most of the dead from post-Sept. 11 al Qaeda bombings in Turkey and Morocco were fellow Muslims."

The key here is to keep things in perspective. Despite their talent and appetite for brutality, the jihadis have one hell of a hard sell to make: they offer little more than an austerity, bigotry and brutality, nothing more appealing, really, than a big "Fuck You" to the West in the form of a return to the Middle Ages. Nicholas Kristof, in tangentially related column, offers some insight into what this might look like. (Modest digression: If you haven't read Kristof's column, please do; it's just about the most sad, yet inspiring thing I've read this week.) That's not a lot to get excited about, no matter how poor and aggravated one may be at Western decadence and imperialism.

Sadly, though, hints of the jihadis' appeal mixes even in this message: that "fuck you" offers pride through defiance. It's enough to fuel an insurgency in Iraq that is, to a real extent, illogical and self-defeating.

Against this backdrop, the invasion of Iraq is doubly sad. It serves little immediate purpose in the GWOT, but it also gives these hyper-alienated fanatics a chance to kill boys from Missoula and Dubuque. And if this is a life and death struggle, as the Bushies vigorously assert it is, we need to focus on projects with immediate purpose and work on the grand schemes later with the patience and intelligence they deserve. (Right, one more digression: the Washington Post did a wonderful job of framing the foreign policy debate in editorial today. Read this before you watch the debates and judge the candidates accordingly.)

Still, there are those, Norman Podhoretz to name one, who would argue that things aren't as bad as they seem, even in Iraq. To his credit, Podhoretz accepts that the security situation is worse today than it was six months ago (while not accepting the broader truism that nearly everything else depends on security; but, hey, that's his right). Podhoretz, however, hitches his hopes to the power of democracy to eventually trump the chaos. The thinking here is that, once a sufficiently legitimate Iraqi government takes power, the appeal of the insurgency, which is largely to overwhelmingly home-grown, will gradually dissipate, at least for native Iraqis. Assuming that the U.S. then draws down our forces in response, the "foreign fighters" more and more frequently will be gunning down fellow Muslims, thereby removing what little legitimacy their carnage currently maintains. That, in turn, gets you back to Kepel's more compelling argument for a collapse of the jihadi movement.

We all know that we went into Iraq on the back of very lofty rhetoric about nation-building and democracy. Podhoretz' work relies on a lot of the same logic, which has, heretofore, been proven wrong by wave upon wave of blood. There's no getting around the fact that, in the short-term, we failed to achieve our initial goals. That's tragic, but it's also history. We've still got to fix what we can in Iraq and leave (and we better fricking leave) behind the best thing we can. If we avoid the worst-case - collapse into a failed state/terrorist hive, a la Fallujah - we can a least return to square one: i.e. status quo ante bellum minus one psycho-thug dictator.

After 1,050 dead Americans, the sight of our plummetting credibility courtesy of Abu Ghraib and the myriad intelligence failures, tens of billions of dollars, one has to swallow damn hard to call it success. But, as some libertarian once said over at Tech Central Station, if we end up roughly where we are today - i.e. a semi-legitimate client state not run by a megalomaniacal monster - it will be a practical, not a moral failure. Only the worst-case constitutes total failure. Well, either that or a major measurable spike in terrorist recruitment...

Put your money where my mouth is

I don't know if anyone but Jeff and I read this little blog, but if you have ever thought about giving $10 to a polical campaign, today or tomorrow is a good time to do it. After that its too late for it to do much good.

Set it and Forget it!

One problem that plagued the Republicans in 96 and the Democrats now is that we don't understand how moderate / independant / swing / non rabidly partisan voters could possibly vote for the sort of slime wad that was running the country. After casting about for a reason, we (and they) usually settled on the depressing conclusion that we had nominated a sorry ass looser. Down ticket candidates start running away from the head of the ticket, consultants second guess each other so that they can point back at what they would have done to turn things around and get hired next time, etc.

But, while I think Clinton was a good president and Bush was a bad president, they are both excellent presidential candidates. Bush is almost unbeatable and the fact that Kerry has a snowballs chance in hell shows how much he has done right.

Byt Why is Bush almost unbeatable? The Bush Cheney reelction campaign did not take September 12, 2001 off. They immediately started thinking of ways to use it against the Democrats. The Democrats could not see that this was happening until over a year later. By that point the fact that the Bush administration had failed to protect America from a devistating attack was no longer a plausable narrative. A new narrative had taken root. America had sent signals of weakness during the Clinton years, so the Terrorists thought they could get Away with it. Unfortunately for them, Red America was in charge and was ready to fight back.

Everyone who thought that September 11 was a time of national unity against a common danger is to blame for Bushes strength s a candidate, because for the republicans it never was. It was raw material for a tacky and blatant republican infomercial. Guilty Democrats includes John Kerry and John Edwards, and everyone to the right of Michael Moore and Bill Mahr. If we want to nominate a candidate who does not seem like a sorry ass looser on September 29, 2008, who we pick is far less important than whether or not we have been able to replace the current narrative.

UPDATE: I should point out that in saying that all the democrats are to blame is not the same thing as saying they should have used 9/11 as a partisan cudgel, or were not doing the right thing. A) They had no way of knowing that the attack would not bring out a better leader in George Bush and B) War really does call for unity.

They should have supported the president, just done it in a way that was savier to the messages being crafted. "We will offer the same level of support that the Republicans would have offered Bill Clinton had he failed to thwart the terrorist attack planned for December 31, 1999.", "We will help the President do whatever needs to be done to prevent another attack from occuring on his watch", etc.

Win or loose

Kerry has a patriotic duty to win. Not to run a good campaign, not to do his best, not to raise the profile of important issues, not to get the most votes, but to win the presidency.

But there is one exception that I would make to that. If focusing on Iraq is a loosing strategy, its better to loose. Think of the alternative.

Imagine Kerry were to win based on, say, anger over outsourcing, with the electorate thinking that since Bush had already won in Iraq, that W warrior mojo was no longer needed. What happens when Iraq 'suddenly' starts forcing its way into the headlines? We could have a very ugly situation on our hands. Every bombing and shooting would be associated with Kerry's liberalism, after all, weren't things fine when Bush was in charge? We might half remember some problems on page A9, but it sure didn't seem like we were loosing control of the whole country in 2004! The GOP would lurch to the right and the Democrats would be finished as a national party. We could find ourselves with one national, pro war party that would completely control all aspects of our federal government. This would not happen over a run of the mill foreign policy mistake, but I think Iraq could go well beyond that into the realm of true clusterfuck.

Now, I think Kerry will stave off the total disaster that Bush is on track to bring us, but he won't succeed to the degree that Bush is pretending to have already succeeded. There is just no way. To use a geeky metaphor to go with my geeky hobby, the holodeck simulation of a grateful and liberated Iraq (with a few bad guys we are mopping up) is flickering, but still works on people with an allergy to depressing news. Kerry is trying to shut off the holodeck and tell people that we are in trouble and need to face reality.

The best case outcome is that we wake up in that blue room with the green grid on the ceiling and see that that W has more in common with Roscoe P. Coltrane than Dirty Harry, We fire his ass, and hire Kerry to fix the mess.
The worst case is if Kerry fails to shut it down, wastes cycles that could have been used talking about education and outsourcing, and looses, having repeatedly told people things that will soon be self evidently true.

In no case will Iraq be blamed on being insufficiently warlike.

Wonks v. Hacks

“…the American people are reluctant to believe that their president has made errors of judgment that have cost American lives. To convince them otherwise, there is no substitute for hard evidence: documents, photographs, transcripts. Often the only way for the public to get such evidence is if a dedicated public servant decides to release it without permission.”
- Daniel Ellsberg, NY Times, September 28, 2004

Daniel Ellsberg was the “dedicated public servant” who released The Pentagon Papers to the American press. He wrote an op-ed in today’s NY Times calling on anyone toiling in the bowels of Bush’s bureaucracy to do the same today. Ellsberg knows too well what he’s asking of them. When he released the Pentagon Papers, which documented the extent to which the Johnson and Nixon administrations had mislead the American public on Vietnam, he had to shift the documents from one media outlet to the next to keep ahead of legal challenges to their publication. More than that, Nixon’s thugs attacked Ellsberg personally, smearing him as mentally unstable and setting G. Gordon Liddy’s Plumbers to his psychiatrist’s office to back it up.

The whistle-blower who would follow Ellsberg would face the same – or perhaps worse – today. It’s not ethics that separate Bush’s hit-men from Nixon’s, but a talent for keeping their hands clean even as they throw mud.

Ellsberg's call to arms is badly needed for this reason: John Kerry is not the man to knock Bush out of office, not on his own. For all his qualities as a human being, or as an engaged, thinking individual, Kerry faces the real prospect of losing to a sleazy huckster whose failings have topped the nightly news for the past 18 months. He is, frankly, a horrible candidate. As Michael Turner put it in an article in Newsweek:

“One of the great mysteries of this election is the inability of John Kerry to challenge George W. Bush on his national-security credentials and to hold his administration accountable for its monumental failure in Iraq. These two issues remain the soft underbelly of the Bush campaign. That the Kerry campaign hasn't effectively exploited them is disheartening. That he's allowed Bush to actually spin them into strengths is mind-boggling.”

Fortunately for Kerry, Bush has burned enough careerists across the federal bureaucracy that the leaks could very well continue to November 2. In his op-ed, Ellsberg cites the July National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) leaked from the National Intelligence Council (NIC) as an example of the bureaucracy turning on the Bushies. The Times today ran what amounts to a follow-up on to yesterday's Novak column, repeating Paul Pillar’s name as an active participant in an attempt to correct the record. While Pillar denied leaking the July NIE – and he only spoke at the dinner that Novak discussed on condition that he not be named – he must be aware that Novak’s column places him squarely at the center of the storm.

The Times’ write-up on that story does its readers the service of putting the players in context: many of the same people who worked up the July NIE are the same ones who, two months prior to the invasion, warned the Bushies of chaos and insurgency in post-Saddam Iraq. But, given that this story is only a week old, and given that one faceless bureaucrat’s name has two days circulation, there’s no telling where it goes from here. Pillar declined comment today, but he's part of the skeleton reaching out of the closet, giving further credence to Kerry's attacks on Bush. Without these, I think the election would already be over.

The apparent war between the political appointees, who are, no exaggeration, fanatically devoted to Bush, and the careerists constitutes the best hope for bringing Bush’s reign of ideology and incompetence to an end. In an article for the New Yorker, George Packer reminds us why the Bushies can’t be trusted to tell the color of the sky. Here’s his lead:

”Earlier this year, the United States Agency for International Development, or U.S.A.I.D., hired a team of independent experts to go to Iraq and evaluate the agency’s programs there. The experts came back with a mixed review that included plenty of reason for worry: the reconstruction o Iraq was taking place in an ad-hoc fashion, without a consistent strategy, without the meaningful participation or advice of Iraqis, within paralyzin security constraints, and amid unrealistic claims of success. But something happened to the report on the way to publication. U.S.A.I.D. kept sending parts of it back for revision, draft after draft, weeding out criticism, until the agency finally approved a version for internal use which one member of the team called ‘a whitewash’ of his findings. Another expert said, ‘It’s so political, everything going on out there. They just didn’t want to hear any bad news.’ Pointing out that some of the numbers posted on the agency’s Web site were overly optimistic, he concluded, ‘They like to make their sausage their way.’”

The rest of this article lays out in language both concise and thorough, the way in which politics has infected every aspect of the war in Iraq. What’s worse, the same manipulation of information – which, in this case, may safely be called outright lies – undermines the entire war. All of these lies taken together, which have lost every last collision with reality, have done more to destroy American credibility than 100 Farenheit 9/11’s ever could.

Mysteriously, this fact is lost on the majority of the war’s supporters and each and every W fanatic to a man. Jeffrey Dubner, in today’s American Prospect, cataloged a series of comments from committed conservatives , all of them harshly critical of Bush’s policies across the board. And yet, despite concessions of administration “incompetence,” cold realizations that things are worse than they had imagined, even admissions of outright shame, Dubner reports that: “With three notable exceptions, the people on this list have explicitly or tacitly supported George W. Bush’s re-election.”

Confronted with this list, conservatives would no doubt argue that Democrats support John Kerry, warts and all, out of fear of the alternative. And it’s certainly true that I go after Kerry. The difference here, though, is that I lambast Kerry for strategic, political failures, not for absolute failures in policy. Iraq should be Bush’s Waterloo. There is nothing that says one cannot applaud his speeches, or even appreciate the fact that he invaded Iraq to liberate them from murderous oppression, while simultaneously admitting that he is both corrupt and incompetent and in desperate need of replacement.

If there is truly a war between the wonks and hacks, I’ve got one thing to say to the wonks: Bring it on….PLEASE.

Hawks and Their Betes Noire

Christopher Hitchens served up a piece in Slate late last night, castigating various Democrats and liberals for embracing a kind of wicked eagerness to see the world blow up, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. He begins the post with a complaint againt liberal fears that Osama is on ice somewhere, waiting for October to come out of the freeze when Bush really needs that boost in the polls; apparently, Teresa Heinz Kerry implied as much at a campaign stop. Hitchens views this as part of the mania among Dems to see Kerry replace Bush next January, noting that much of this is driven by despair at the Kerry campaign. As he puts it:

"A few pin a vague hope on the so-called 'debates'—which are actually joint press conferences allowing no direct exchange between the candidates—but most are much more cynical. Some really bad news from Iraq, or perhaps Afghanistan, and/or a sudden collapse or crisis in the stock market, and Kerry might yet 'turn things around.' You have heard it, all right, and perhaps even said it.

Hitchens, as he does at times, overreaches. What's more, Kevin Drum, typing away on the Washington Monthly's site, points out how badly Hitchens, along with die-hard pro-war hawks, obsess on this kind of trivia while missing what actually matters:

So what is the real danger to the war effort? Apparently it's DC scuttlebutt about whether the Bush administration will suddenly capture Osama next month as part of an 'October Surprise.' That's important.

In a sense, Hitchens' pieces encapsulates everything that's wrong with so many pro-war hawks. They've defined a new kind of political correctness in which every rhetorical slip is immediately seized on as a sign of deep moral corruption, while actual issues of national security are hastily swept under the carpet because it's somehow better to have an incompetent fellow traveler in the White House than a liberal who might actually get something done. In this world, writing a column about Teresa Heinz Kerry's Osama-baiting is more important than writing about the almost unbroken string of real-world failures by the Bush administration — failures that are almost certain to continue for another four years if he's reelected."

Throughout his article, Hitchens raises the entirely apt point that anyone should be happy with a safe and democratic Iraq (even if it ain't gonna happen any time soon) and anyone should be thrilled about Osama getting captured - even if either or both happen in late October and result in four more years of Bush. But Drum's article gets at what actually matters in this election.

How square am I?

Let me tell ya. I like Al Gore. I think he is really funny when he wants to be, right on the issues, and on one issue, the environment, was something of a visionary. His only mistake was in thinking that the American people were smarter than they are, which is why he campaigned much more on why his presidency would be good for America (which is would have been) and not enough on why he is a better human being than Bush (which he is). This caused him to win by too narrow a margin to keep power, given that his most hardcore soldjas were wishy washy liberals while Bushes most hard core soldjas are barabarian thugs.

So I am exited to watch GoreTV even though I am older than its target. (Thanks to Bruce for the link)

Pre Debate Polls

Kerry is behind. Last week Bushes lead shrank, either because of Kerrys stepped up focus on Iraq or in spite of it, but that shrinkage looks like it has stopped short of a tie in Ohio, and the presidents Brother can more than make up for Kerrys 2 point lead in Florida, meaning that Bush would win the election if it were held today.

Not good, considering the fact that Bush will almost certainly gain from the debates.

The one ray of hope I have for the debates is that Bushes lead is based on a caracature of John Kerry as a weak, indecisive, aloof, contemptable polititian that has been created by the Bush campaign, rather than with real satisfaction with the President. Kerry still has a slight shot, which was not true of Dole in 96 or Mondale in 84. He has to do three things; Come accross as better than his caracature on Thursday (doable), Reenforce whatever doubts that public has about the Presidents character, and force the media to treat the presidents claims about Iraq as the partisan talking points they are.

Time to slump off to work.

[UPDATE] Kerry narrowed the gap in Ohio to 1 point in todays Rassussen poll 47-46. When you consider that Undecideds are off the ballot, 250000 new democrats registered this year, and Nader could not get on the Ballot becuase he could not get 50000 signatures, Kerry would win Ohio and (the election) if it were held today. Too bad about the debates.

Biggest News Today

So there I was fighting against a fidgety campus-wide net - jammed, no doubt, by students downloading equal parts porn and barely legal music files - when NPR's Marketplace spit out a report about trouble in Nigeria. It was word that rebels in Nigeria's south had declared "all-out war" beginning October 1 that really caught my ears.

It sounded big so I moved over to Google News. Nope, the usual headlines: tropical storm Jeanne and Bush calling Kerry a pussy. Panning a little further down I found articles the Pakistani authorities commenting on the death of some jihadis (and getting a verbal high-five from "US Officials"), more "stay the course" crap from the military brass, oh, and an article on Cat Stevens (if he's not coming in armed and doesn't frequently incite folks to terrorism, um, who cares what happens to him? His music was annoying).

Not until I made it to the business section of the page did I get any kind of article on this. That's mainly because the only reason this is getting reported at all comes down to the fact that the Nigerian, um, situation seems to have played a role in pushing oil prices over $50 per barrel. Given that, I thought I'd see more of this - and maybe I will tomorrow.

Or, then again, maybe not. That AP article focuses on our region, effectively dismissing a looming Nigerian civil war as just another one of those "Africa things; it points to other factors for the surge in prices - mainly the hurricane parade.

Whoops. Never mind. Between the time I started writing this, the link on Google (still in the Business section ghetto) went from 111 related articles to about 264. I suspect we'll hear more about this tomorrow. The question is, what will the attribute the spike to: hurricane-fueled capacity woes or African civil wars?

One simple Question

This is so cool.

Why (A Lot of) Conservative Media Sucks

I've thought along these lines before, but I like the way this guy phrases it. This gets at the problem I have with National Review On-Line or, say, the Wall Street Journal editorial page; it's pure cheerleading - not for conservativism, which would be fine - but for the Republican Party no matter what it does. It comes from TAPPED, The American Prospect's blog and was posted by Nick Confessore:

I noticed that Hugh Hewitt has a new book out. I found the title very revealing: If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It. Note that Hewitt doesn't name-check "liberals" or "the left" or "leftists." He's talking about Democrats -- a party, not a set of political beliefs with which he happens to disagree.

Now, I'm not naive enough to think that when today's conservative authors talk about "liberals," they don't actually mean "Democrats." They do. But Hewitt's kind of taking the fig leaf off here, for which we should probably be grateful. He's admitting that he and his ilk are apparatchiks -- party functionaries -- and nothing more.

convictions

"Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes."
-Tom Delay

"If you have confidence you will gain the confidence of Others"
-todays fortune cookie from Bambboo Kitchen

Undecided voters don't care about what a candidates positions are, they don't have the patience for policy debate. They care about why the candidates have the positions they have and what that says about their leadership qualities.

Since Kerry won the nomination, Bush has painted Kerry as a political opportunist who pretends to hold to popular positions because he always has his finger in the wind. The fact that you sorta agree with Kerry on who should pay for the war effort is more evidence of his poor character, since it shows that he is telling you what you want to hear.

Kerry responded for most of the campaign by arguing that his positions were right on the merits, and that his character was evidenced by the fact that he has devoted his life to the service of his country. It was better than Gores attempts to focus people on the issues, but it was not good enough.

Last week Kerry started to punch back the right way, saying that Bushes claims regarding Iraq were evidence that Bush lived in a fantasy world and his position on Iraq was evidence that he had the coutrage to tell people hard truths.

When watching the debate on Thursday (if you are going to watch it), try to pay attention to how much time the candidates spend arguing on behalf of their positions vs. how much time they spend talking about the convictions behind those positions. Baring a major fuck up from one of them, whoever spends more of their time talking about the later will have won the debate.

Impressions on Fatherhood

With nearly six months done, I don't claim to have much insight on what it's like to be father. What I do have is one distinct, likely personal, impression: The whole thing feels like a real long baby-sitting gig. Somehow I believe that Lily's real parents are out on some long dinner date and that one of these days they'll knock on the door and take her home.
Maybe this will change at some point...

Novak: King of Loose Lips

Bob Novak strikes me as a man as infatuated with being connected as he is with sharing that fact with the world. He's the reigning useful idiot, someone to whom insiders can dish dirt with absolute assurance that he'll immediately stuff it into his columns. This is a good example of symbiosis: the insiders get to promote and smear anonymously through Novak's column while Novak gives his ego a pat. The Plame Affair is a good example of this dynamic in the hands of the unscrupulous; "a recent column" on an early, second-term withdraw from Iraq under Bush is a purer expression of useful idiocy, a possible case of one side of the White House policy divide floating a trial balloon.

Cautions aside, there's a saying: even a stopped watch gives the right time twice a day. Novak's column in today's Chicago Sun-Times builds on something never publicly aired: the idea that the CIA - or at least a goodly portion of it - is actively warring against Bush. This line isn't entirely new: people like Ray McGovern and Tom Englehardt have argued the same thing before, but they've been forced to connect the dots without some available "expert" on record to back them up. Throughout the second half of Bush's first term, leaks have picked up, many of them seeming to come out of the intelligence bureaucracy; the July National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that the NY Times got hold of, which pointed to a bleak end-game in Iraq, is only the latest (though it's especially sweet because it hit the target squarely; I credit this for putting Bush on the defensive as much as Kerry's recent speeches).

What's interesting and, frankly, exciting here is that Novak's column opens the possibility of a "declaration of war." He's got the name of an active CIA operative (significant because he gives the press someone to chase and a visible, real-life person to speak for disgruntled analysts and agents; the effect isn't unlike Joe Wilson's star turn, or Richard Clarke's) and a semi-public event for the declaration.

This might finally be the CIA "renegades" coming out of the closet, a Revolt of the Burned. I suspect that a considerable number of CIA professionals want Bush gone. The suspicions of "pressure" and favoritism sparked a hail of anonymous gripes during the run-up to the war; the naked attempts to shift the intelligence failures onto the CIA and away from the White House would likely have further poisoned the well. Given this, I doubt the dinner described in Novak's column, or the leaked July NIE, are the last well-timed political mines Bush should expect between now and November.

Last post for a while, I promise

Will someone tell him there is a difference between not shifting in the wind and pissing into it

(On second thought, wait until after the election.)

Update:attaboy John

Debates

Kerry is a great debater. That is a huge disadvantage because there will be no debates in this campaign, only a series of political game shows where the candidates are given the opportunity to recite talking points. They won't be allowed to talk to each other, and they won't face follow up questions if they ignore the moderators 'questions' and just say whatever the hell they want. Although debates have been trending in this way for decades, the agreement made by the candidates pushes the envelope in new ways .

Bush is a lousy debater in any normal sense of the word. This is a devastating advantage because he will not have to overcome a desire to make sense, answer questions, or engage intellectually with anyone.

I am not being even a tiny bit factitious. Whoever in the Kerry campaign thought that making formatting concessions in order to get one more of these events on the schedule had not read his Uncle Rhemus.

untapped potential

There are two lies that liberals tell themselves. The first lie is that Cat Stevens is a peace activist and not a fundamentalist goon. The second lie is that there is a massive liberal majority in America who stays home because the Democrats are too centrist. There is just no evidence to support that idea, and people who don't vote, when bribed to learn about the issues and indicate their preferences, split their votes almost the same way that voters do.

That said, there is good reason to believe that people who are more inclined to vote for left wing candidates but not informed or motivated enough to vote for Gore or Nader in 2000 might show up this time around, while there is no evidence that the non voters who would be inclined to support right wing candidates are any more willing to register.

From the New York Times:

The analysis by The New York Times of county-by-county data shows that in Democratic areas of Ohio - primarily low-income and minority neighborhoods - new registrations since January have risen 250 percent over the same period in 2000. In comparison, new registrations have increased just 25 percent in Republican areas. A similar pattern is apparent in Florida: in the strongest Democratic areas, the pace of new registration is 60 percent higher than in 2000, while it has risen just 12 percent in the heaviest Republican areas.

Ra Rah Rah.

testing links in new window

stupid evil scientists are controling your thoughts and preventing you from existing in four simulatanious days

More polls

OK, I found more information on the deep South, and it looks like Bush is not loosing any of his base. Kerry is doing better than Gore among Democrats in general and African Americans in particular but I am no longer thinking that some big shift is happening in red America.

But there is some good news. In a major Daily tracking poll, Kerry is only seven tenths of a point behind Bush. Four days ago he was four points behind. It is hard to say whether this is because of Kerry's critique on Iraq or because the Killian memo story has dropped of the headlines. In a sense it does not matter because war has dominated the news and Bush has lost ground. Hopefully now everyone will realize that we can pour a forty on the ground in front of the idea that Democrats should campaign on economic issues instead of national security.

[UPDATE] More good news from Time, where Kerry has cut Bushes lead in half over the last week. Bush is still up by 6, but a majority are now saying that Iraq made us less safe, that the situation in Iraq is worse that Bush claims it is and, best of all, 60% of voters consider Kerry likable.

More Quick Questions for Bush supporters

Do you think that the president seriously believes that there is a gay conspiracy to ban the bible or is he just scapegoating a minority?

Are enacting more scheduled top end tax cuts more or less important making the social security payments owed to retiring baby boomers?

Will there come a point at which the Iraqi populace no longer shares your belief that things are better without Saddam Hussein in power? When will we hit that point? What is Bush doing to prevent it?

Sad but true

CBS could have recovered from airing a story that included forged documents. They could have recovered from making some defensive growls that made them look a little stubborn and foolish. I don't know if the deserve to recover from this crap

The network should do away with its news department and stick with CSI spinoffs for a year or two. I don't like ceeding another piece of the information pizza to Murdoch, but an openly hostile right wing media enviroment is better than a media environment that includes equal parts effective right wing propaganda and craven, whoring, cowardly attempts at journalism that are less concerned with breaking stories than avoiding emails from a few assholes in sweatpants.

Hats off to Jon

If anyone happens to use and enjoy the links (they're SO frickin' cool!), you owe Jon some thanks on that. I've been harassing him off and on today, begging for technical assistance. Our new toy appears to be up and running. If two over-size posts don't betray my excitement at kicking the tires on this little vehicle, I don't know what would.

Beat to the Punch (damn you, Jon)

''I am a tool of nobody."
- Iyad Allawi, Interim Iraqi PM, September 23, 2004

Ann Kornblut, writing in the Boston Globe, echoed comments ricocheting around the Web yesterday when she noted that, “Apart from the heavy Iraqi accent, [Iyad Allawi] sounded almost like a Republican official introducing President Bush at a campaign stop.”

Though she overstates her case a bit, she didn’t pull it entirely out her ass; she found some Democrats to go on record with the same charge and the similarities in tone and phrasing between Allawi’s comments struck several other, admittedly liberal commentators. If you read the transcript from yesterday’s Rose Garden press conference, you get plenty of good and bad on this count and it breaks about even.
For instance, Kornblut seized on one statement in particular to support her equation of Allawi as Bushie shill:

“I know it is difficult, but the coalition must stand firm. When governments negotiate with terrorists, everyone in the free world suffers. When political leaders sound the sirens of defeatism in the face of terrorism, it only encourages more violence. Working together, we will defeat the killers, and we'll do this by refusing to bargain about our most fundamental principles.”
“I understand why, faced with the daily headlines, there are those doubts. I know, too, that there are -- there will be many more setbacks and obstacles to overcome. But these doubters underestimate our country and they risk fueling the hopes of terrorism.”

Who could those doubters be?
In fairness to Allawi, he’s standing smack next to the hand that feeds him. Wisdom often trumps candor in such settings.
Returning to those comments themselves, and when dealing with anything or anyone Touched by Bush – as Allawi most certainly is - it’s always useful to watch what they do, not what they say. For instance, an obvious example came with Allawi’s offer of amnesty to insurgents in late August in the wake of the latest Sadrist uprising; American advisors muted the proposal to irrelevance because it originally extended even to Iraqis who had killed American soldier, as clear a statement as needed, really, as to the limits on Iraqi sovereignty. In this case, though, there’s also something to be learned by reading what else Allawi said.
In some of his comments Allawi is playing a double-game familiar to anyone versed in Bushie rhetoric, lumping all those attacking Americans and Iraqis under the general rubric of “killers” and “terrorists.” He builds on this by hinting at the old canard about not negotiating with terrorists. This is all part of the larger, botched equation: the notion that in the “central front” of Iraq, as well as the Global War on Terror (GWOT) as a whole, all the various players, from former Baathists to Al Qaeda nutters, are fighting the same fight.
Move down to the Q & A, however, and he discusses negotiating with “killers” and “terrorists” – and at length to boot. In doing so, Allawi lets the proverbial cat out of the bag. All observers of the insurgency I’ve read reject the notion of an over-arching insurgency. They argue instead that we’re facing a series of smaller, self-interested “insurgencies,” each of them overlapping in what Good Ol’ Rummy would dub “coalitions of convenience.” Allawi recognizes this when he describes his talks with Sunni tribesmen and his attempts to pry them away from the “foreign fighters” and into the political process:

“There are insurgents and terrorists who are active there for geographical reasons. The people of Fallujah are adamant that they should -- whenever they are capable -- to get rid of the insurgents. We have been talking to them, I have been talking to them, engaged in dialogue.”

While you can accuse Allawi of abusing language – the “people of Fallujah” have demonstrated overt, widespread hostility to the occupation – his comments on Fallujah get at the largest hole in entire “global war on terror without negotiation” fallacy. Hostility toward the “occupier” brings all the “mini-insurgencies” together: without it, separate, even competing interests come to the fore (and, logically, augur the potential civil war reportedly described in the July National Intelligence Estimate that our president dismissed as a “guess” last week). Allawi’s rhetorical posturing aside, his government IS negotiating with “terrorists” and “insurgents,” even in Fallujah, the name brand city of Iraqi refusal. What’s more, he’s right to do so. Negotiations ended the standoff in Najaf earlier this month: Sadr backed down, but only after a face-saving cover provided by Ayatollah Ali Sistani, cover which continued yesterday, perhaps as part of a larger bargain to sideline Sadr.
Quietly, the same approach is coming to Fallujah. The Washington Post, quoting American commanders, suggest that “precision air-strikes” inside Fallujah are producing rifts between the “foreign fighters” and the natives (if you look for this info in the link, you've got to go pretty frickin' deep, but it’s in there). These air-raids work hand-in-hand with the dialogue Allawi described in yesterday’s “presser” (love the journalism-geek slang):

“If you do not want the multinational force in Iraq -- I was talking to Fallujah people recently, to tribes, ex-army officers, ex-Saddam loyalists -- if you want the multinational force out, win the elections, go to the United Nations, talk to the Security Council, and tell them we don't need the multinational forces. But I tell you what is going to happen. If you ask the multinational force to leave prematurely -- this is me talking to the Fallujah people -- your country will be in ruins, and we cannot now, on our feet, stand and fight terrorism and global terrorism.”

Contained in all of that is a crucial point, both for Iraq and the GWOT: We are NOT fighting a single, unified political movement. One of the first, if not the first, steps in winning this fight comes with striking at those fissures, breaking down these “coalitions of convenience.” This will require negotiations with those who have claims and grievances that can be realistically accommodated and violence against those whose grievances cannot. Removing these aggravators – for example, returning Iraq to the Iraqis as soon and as completely as possible, as well as shifting our rhetoric to match – offers the best hope for isolating the die-hard jihadis, who live only for war and take savage, ultimately (hopefully?) meaningless potshots at progress that they have no real hope of stopping, at least not on the global stage. Alarmingly, they might pull this off in Iraq.
While Allawi behaves as if he understands this, he lends credence to Democratic suspicions by employing the same dip-shit cowboy rhetoric that our president loves so well, simple-minded terms of abuse that do nothing so much as keep the rest of the world on edge while convincing too many Muslims that the West is warring against their faith. Rather than corral disparate groups into armed and paranoid unity, why not isolate the true terrorists in both language and action?
In the meantime, Allawi’s comments prompt suspicions that he’s picking sides in the 2004 election. He let out more than a few howlers, including suggestions that 15 of Iraq’s 18 provinces are “completely safe.” Wha? But siding nakedly with Bush raises another issue: What’s happens if John Kerry takes over next January?

Options and Denial

Despite the new format, I’m still having trouble making links and rich text behave as I want, no, demand that they do. Why without rich fonts, how am I to use italics to separate large quotes, offer links to articles to prove to all of you that I’m not lying….but that I’m merely relying on the lies of others? Crap factory.
As Gloria Gaynor once shouted, “I will survive.” I’ll just have to post ugly. And here goes:
It’s not everyday the New York Times’ Bob Herbert says something so accurate that it borders on the profound. But he nailed it in today’s column:

“At the moment there is no evidence the president understands anything about the war. He seemed to believe the war was over in May 2003. And he seems not to know how to proceed now."

Amen.
Over the past two years, we’ve all endured insinuations that those who didn’t snap to salute the Iraq war didn’t “get” the true meaning of the Global War on Terror (hereafter, GWOT). We’ve watched as the president dragged Iraq from the sidelines and inadvertently (or, according to the sickeningly amoral “flypaper strategy” deliberately) stocked it with terrorists, thereby making true his statement that Iraq is the “central front in the GWOT.”
Tragically, and it is that, the past year and a half have made it clear that it was Bush who didn’t get something very crucial: Reality.
Proof that Bush and his advisors truly believed the war was over in May 2003 comes with failure to cope with the war’s aftermath; the “Mission Accomplished” stunt is merely an apt symbol. The Bushies acted on a belief that the appeal of democracy and free markets was almost primal, something that no one could oppose no matter the circumstances. The war in Iraq painfully exposed his naivete and ignorance of history, even human nature.
In some ways, I don’t blame him for this. Tens of thousands of Iraqis embrace rage and violence, behavior supported by a kind of self-defeating irrationality. After all, the sooner the country is subdued, the sooner American forces have no reason to remain (those “enduring” bases aside). They don’t seem to grasp that, politically, Yanqui can’t go home under a barrage of bullets: that is, after all, no way for a self-respecting superpower to behave.
So here we are, stuck deep in the muck fighting enemies with dozens of separate, sometimes competing goals, but all united by the desire to kill Americans as individuals and to humble them collectively. As the horrors of Saddam recede into the past, we’re providing Iraqis with new Days of Hell, fresh hardships for which we own a damning share of the blame. Each day that both the American presence and the blood and chaos persist is another 24 hours for young Iraqis to conclude that it is, indeed, America’s fault, that’s it’s time to dust off that Kalishnakov and earn $150.
Confronted with this mess on the nightly news and on the campaign trail, the Bushies cope by accusing their detractors of undermining the war and “giving comfort to terrorists.” This article lists a string such attacks forwarded by GOP operatives. Not only does this insult the democratic process, it provides cover for “staying the course.” But that’s only a rhetorical device to mask the second of Herbert’s points, namely, that Bush doesn’t quite know how to proceed.
When one examines the status quo, why the hell would you choose to perpetuate it? The obvious reply to that returns to Bush’s highly unjustified infallibility complex.
There are no easy answers and patience will be a big part of any outcome. In the here and now, however, sticking to it is far too much like sticking your head in the sand. There are alternatives to that, alternatives that do not involve retreat. A couple days ago, a woman named Jessica Matthews threw an op-ed into the mixer, in which she suggested some simple changes in how we discuss and organize the occupation. The steps described are simple, but they all point to one clear goal: altering the misconceptions and rumors surrounding our motives for the war. They run the gamut from halting construction of the 14 “enduring bases” we’re currently building on Iraqi soil, through moving out of the Green Zone (she suggests moving to Camp Victory – the switch is symbolic, not suicidal), to more substantive steps like demonstrably and transparently disavowing American interest in Iraqi oil.
All the steps Matthews describes serve one goal: communicating to the Iraqis that we’re there for them, not Halliburton and that we’ll be gone – really and truly gone – soon. And this is important because, whether or not you believe that Bush went to war for Halliburtoon, there are plenty of Iraqis who do.
None of these steps will save an American soldier tomorrow, but it might down the road. Another, fairly ironic outcome may follow: rather than deal with American companies by fiat as they did under the CPA, they may choose them out of gratitude.
Here’s Matthews simple proposals:

There is no one way forward. Bush only pretends there is – and has his surrogates tar the opposition – to save his job and paper over the failures.

Quick thought

Does anyone think that having the Prime Minister of Iraq campaign for president Bush adds to Alawis legitimacy in Iraq? Does anyone deny that this is what Alawi is doing?

testing links

Pedantic
Mind Control

Kerry Cheerleading

When I was drinkin' my coffee this morning, Kerry was giving what he is billing as another 'important speech'. This one was on the War on Terrorism (as opposed to the important speech earlier this week on the war in Iraq). It was great. He will never have as smooth of delivery as Clinton or (the teleprompted version of) W, but he was concise and very critical of the president without seeming shrill. He mentioned Osama Bin Laden at least 10 times, which made me happy.

It is tempting and unproductive, to whine about the fact that if Gore were president, Fox News would be running a "America living in fear: 1107 days without catching Bin Laden" message on their ticker every seven seconds. But in our world it is up to the Kerry campaign to remind everyone of the fact that Americas number one enemy is free three years after he attacked us, and that Bush can't seem to do shit about it. Kerry started down this path today.

The guts of his speech was seven things we need to do to defeat the Islamic fundamentalists (I like the fact that he knows who we are at war with and does not refer to it as 'terra'). They were all smart, sound and boring, a good mix of offense and defense, intelligence gathering and military actions. The punch was not in the agenda but the outrage that the government was not doing these things already. The immediate Bush campaign response was that Kerry was shifting around again and a day after he said that he would have left Hussein in power he now thinks we need to do more to fight terrorism, and anyway, this is all stuff Bush is doing. This might have worked for a while, but I don't think even our pathetic press corps will let them get away with it. Whether Bush allocated money for chemical plant security or scanning shipping containers is a matter of public record, and the charge that Bush left the country vulnerable to a nuke in a shipping container is every bit as effective as the charge that Kerry changes his mind, windsurfs and speaks French. The charge that Bush would leave Bin Laden in power as the head of an international terrorist organization is just as effective as the charge that Kerry would have left Hussein in charge as the head of an isolated country crawling with weapons inspectors.

Kerry is attacking the phony foundations of Bushes strength, and doing it well. He might loose because of earlier tactical mistakes that allowed Bush to define him unfairly in peoples minds. He might loose because 30-45 year old unmarried women in Ohio think he has 'sad eyes'. But this week he is running a nearly perfect campaign. This week he once again seems not just a preferable alternative to Bush (after all, my cactus is also a preferable alternative to Bush), but a tough and competent leader who I actually want to be president in the affirmative sense.

Ra Rah Rah.

October Surprise

The more paranoid liberals out there are pretty convinced that the Bush administration has Bin Laden on ice and is waiting for until October to bring him out. I don't buy it, but I don't see how it hurts Kerry to demand that Bush keep his promise to capture or kill him, and that he move heaven and earth to do it before the election.

If Bin Laden turns up, Kerry is probably finished either way, but this way he avoids having it play as 'good news for Americans, bad news for Kerry' which could make the difference between loosing and loosing in a landslide that throws every senate race into the hands of the GOP. If Bin Laden does not turn up, then Kerry will made it his issue.

Testing, testing...Is this thing on?

I think I might have finally stumbled on board here. This is, mind, the second attempt. I messed up the first invitation by failing to respond properly to the emailed invitation, a mishap borne of my inability to settle on a screen name. I'm still not entirely sure which name will appear. I'm smart that way.

First of all, thanks to JonB for setting this thing up. I'll hit this thing at least once a day (hopefully) with some kind of screed, not all of them about Iraq (hopefully) or even politics for that matter. There's my obsession with gross food and low-end alcoholic beverages to consider. I'm going to try to figure out posting and linking - to see what I can get away with in terms of using other people's material. I don't want to piss anyone off or get sued.

Anyway, I look forward to abusing a whole new medium and sparing the inboxes of friends and family.

Master of Reality

Lets take a looksie at just a couple of choice nuggets of Bushy goodness from today's press conference.

Q: And do you believe, given the situation on the ground and Fallujah and other northern cities in the Sunni triangle, that elections are possible in four months?

BUSH: I do, because the prime minister told me they are.

and later:

"...And the CIA came and said, "This is a possibility, this is a possibility and this is a possibility." But what's important for the American people to hear is reality. And the reality's right here in the form of the prime minister."

Bush is sticking with his version of reality, continuing to scorn the filter in favor of the nice men who tell him whats really going on. Personally I think he would be better to go with a "Things are even worse than you think, which is why we need someone the terrists is afraid of callin the shots" approach. But that implies that this is all just strategy. At some point I have to concede what Bush will not; Reality just might be as grim as it appears, which is to say that Bush might really believe this shit.

Whats happening in the deep south?

Lets, you and I, compare the results of the recent ARG poll (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com) with the results of the 2000 presidential election (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html). In the last election Bush did almost as well in states like Georgia and South Carolina as he did in the more conservative leaning parts of the Midwest like Indiana and Nebraska. Today it looks as though Bush has lost a great deal of support in the deep south.

I would be interested in seeing any trend lines on the southern states to find out if this is a recent phenomenon. (If you know of any, please post them in the comments) Regardless, it does not take too many happy pills to see Kerry taking one or two of these states. Just combine an expected record breaking African American turnout with the rightmost wing of the republican party not wanting to vote for an immigration reforming, Mars tripping, Nation Building, Falluja non nuking, scion.

Keep in mind that undecided voters break two to one against the incumbent, so a 48 to 46 lead will evaporate on election day.

Welcome to smokefilleddoom

This is a new blog started By Jon and Jeff. Its primary purpose is to spare the drunks in the Hungry Tiger from Jons political ranting (by allowing him to foist them off on the vastness of the interweb) and to allow Jeff a place to nurture his writing talents. The main topics will be, in no particular order, politics, food, tv, rock and roll, beer, fatherhood, and whatever else we feel like.