This Just In!

Mainstream press finally investigates Bushie mantra that Kerry flip-flops on Iraq, finds charge baseless. Kerry's position consistent over two years. Here's the story!

NEWS ANALYSIS / Flip-flopping charge unsupported by facts / Kerry always pushed global cooperation, war as last resort

Not that it will be too surprising to readers here.

The media is in a tough spot because their mistakes, shortcuts and derelictions of duty get enormously magnified, with major impact especially in a campign like this--- but that's their responsibility.

It's the deceptive short-cuts that are most insidious. On CNN's Aaron Brown last night, he referred to the "discredited CBS story" on Bush's National Guard favoritism and evasions. But the story has not been discredited. One document and its source are in question. Most of the story is utterly solid.

And their political reporter again referred to John Kerry's "vote for the war." Kerry did not vote for the war, as he has explained and others have explained many times. His vote in the Senate was to authorize the President to take a series of steps that could end up with the use of force. It's just not the same thing. A vote for the war means Bush said, "I want to go to war on Iraq, and send the troops in there tomorrow. Are you with me?" What Kerry voted for was very different. Bush said, "I need authorization to use force so Sadam will know I'm serious and he'll let the inspectors do a thorough job, so we'll know if he has WMDs or not. Meanwhile I will get our allies together in case we have to go to war, but before we do anything like that, we'll have a thorough well thought-out plan for Iraq afterwards, and we'll have everybody on board---our major allies, our experts---before we do anything It would help my credibility if you would vote this authorization, even though I probably don't need it."

You can fault Kerry for believing Bush when not a lot of other people did. But it's not accurate to say he voted For The War. The news people should know this, they should know most of all that the statement is contested, and that in continuing to use their deceptive shorthand, they are parrotting the Bush campaign argument.

Is it too "nuanced?" To say that is to believe that the decisions that people make every day are too complicated for them to understand. Everybody who does business or who shops for insurance or has to get a car repaired or anything else in normal life, has to deal with a string of contingencies---I'll do this first and if it works, great. (The inspections, which Bush didn't allow to be completed because they weren't finding th eWMD he wanted them to find) If it doesn't, I'll do that, but I'll need some help to get it done, so I'll talk to a few friends and associates first and see if they can help me.
Now what else do I need to do to make this successful? Plan ahead for later. Yeah. Sounds like a plan.

Who is left?

With the country polarized and solid chunks committed either to Kerry or Bush, just who are the campaigns fighting over?

Some wags say that as time goes on, they are fighting over the "swing voters," the "undecideds" who are comprised of the dull-witted, uninformed and uninterested. If they vote at all, it will be on emotion, whim, or for some crazy reason noone can predict or even account for.

Not a pretty picture.

The press is saying the genuine undecideds are women concerned about security. Right now Bush's best argument for them is that if he doesn't keep doing what he's doing in Iraq, all those terrorists he created will come over here.

But other folks who study these things say the press is making a lot out of a little, that the Security Moms don't really exist.

Increasing attention will go to groups that don't make it on the poll charts, because they haven't voted much before, or at all. So the groups that could make the difference this year include:
young first-time voters
Native Americans
African Americans and non-Cuban Latinos in Florida
families of National Guard and Reserve troops


For those disheartened by the opinion polls, a bracing call to arms by the stellar SF Chronicle columnist Jon Carroll

JON CARROLL

And while you're on a Carroll roll, here's his next column, in which his modest proposal is the death penalty for Republican Senators.


JON CARROLL

Number of Iraqi security forces Rumsfeld said last year
the U.S. would train.................220,000

Number of Iraqi security forces Rumfeld said this year
the U.S, would train..............80,000

Number of Iraqi police who have successfully
completed training to date.....................0


The polls got your down? Here's a bolstering summary of where things stand and the rest of the campaign:

AlterNet: Election 2004: John Kerry's Tipping Point

campaign roundup and rhythms

John Kerry delivered an address on Iraq. While lacking some of the positives we feel would be useful, it is a searing and specific indictment of the Bush Iraq war. He does again call for "a fresh start" in Iraq. He needs to expand that, and to stress the goals of ending the violence and the bleeding. The speech is here:
John Kerry for President - Speech at New York University

Immediately the rhetoric rachetted up from Bush, who essentially accused Kerry of giving aid and comfort to the enemy by criticizing his war.

How voters will react to the increasingly violence and chaos in Iraq is the key question defining the rest of this campaign. Will they decide it must end, and vote for Kerry? Or will they be frightened into sticking with the guy who reassures them he can keep them in their mutual fantasyland without cost?

Bush got lucky when CBS screwed up on documents it used in reporting his shameless non-service in the National Guard. The furor fed right into the Bush attack machine, and obscured the real story: the documents CBS used may be physically inauthentic, but the facts based on undisputed documents and solid reporting from U.S. News and the Boston Globe are shameful enough for a president who sends young Americans and innocent civilians to their deaths for an abstraction that attracts votes and makes his corporate friends even richer, but is nothing but destructive in the real world.

The media is reporting that agreement is close for 3 debates. This would indicate that the Bushies are quite confident they have the momentum, and that anytime Bush appears on TV, he gains.

The rhythm of the campaign has played out without many surprises so far, although the state polls that show Bush holding onto his lead are troublesome. It raises the stakes even more for the debates, and above all, the first debate. The future of America could be decided on September 30.

How strange is all this, that Bush could be if not ahead then even close? CNN apparently polled other western countries, and in most places it wasn't even close. Bush would lose by anywhere from 20 to 75 percentage points in most of the world. He would lose by something like 70 points in Canada.

The worst news of the weekend was that Ralph Nader successfully got on the ballot in Colorado and Florida. The election could very well come down to Colorado and Florida. On the issues, even on the principles of democracy, Nader is almost always right. But the real world effect could be apocalyptic. And noone can claim innocence--- it’s not as if the catastrophe of 2000 hadn’t happened first. Nader may become the first saint with his own special circle in the depths of hell.

Every election someone suggests that the voters who aren't counted in polls, and who normally don't vote, could determine the outcome. Probably the last time that actually happened nationally was the first time the apocalyptic religious right came out in force. If it happens this time it could be a number of possible groups. Bush's approval numbers are low for an incumbent, and below 50% in most categories of how the country is doing, whether he should be reelected. The poll numbers may favor Bush at the moment. But the uncertainties nearly all favor Kerry.