The New York Times and Washington Post are among the newspapers endorsing John Kerry this weekend. So far the cumulative circulation of the papers endorsing Kerry is five times greater than for Bush.

The NYTimes Magazine also carries one of the most depressing stories of our lifetime, a profile of GW Bush by Ron Suskind, author of the Paul O'Neill book. Suskind a very smart, energetic and thorough researcher with keen ear for the telling anecdote. The Bush he portrays is truly frightening. Blissfully detached from reality, he makes decisions according to what he calls his intuition or his faith. While intuition and faith have their functions in mental, emotional and spiritual life, it's clear that Bush's pipeline to God is mostly the voice of his shadow-dominated unconscious. But according to Suskind it gives him his most attractive quality: his certainty.

This is so scary because Bush could win reelection. Because things are FALLING APART BEFORE OUR EYES and Bush is still even or ahead in the polls. Things are falling apart so totally in every sphere that at best it's going to be a struggle to see things through, even if Kerry is elected. Even if a Democratic Congress is elected with him. But without that, without at least Kerry in the White House, we face truly apocalyptic times. And maybe that's just fine with GWB.

The Newsweek poll is another that shows Bush slightly ahead, this one outside the margin of error, particularly with likely voters. In a different poll--maybe Marist, we forget--- of over 1000 voters, Kerry was well ahead, both in raw numbers and among registered voters, but even or slightly behind within the margin of error when this same group was whittled down to people who said they were likely to vote.

It's getting hot and heavy out there on the trail, and hot buttons are being pushed on both sides. Kerry has mentioned to a reporter that if Bush is re elected, the revival of the draft is likely. If this becomes part of his campaign speeches and commercials, it could move the poll numbers.

But the hope mostly is that somehow all the efforts of people to get out the antiBush and proKerry vote will win the election, and give America a fresh start---and all of us a fighting chance.

A FRESH START FOR AMERICA

So says the sign on the podium at John Kerry's speeches today. It could be the campaign theme for the home stretch.

To reFRESH your memory as to why this is a good slogan, check our archives: July 22, 2004.
(We actually sent the substance of this post weeks earlier to our one national Democratic Insider---who may or may not read our email any more---as well as various operatives of the Kerry campaign. Nobody ever replied so we'll settle for some psychic inspiration credit.)

It's Not Over

The major sentiment among political observers is that John Kerry has momentum and George Bush is slipping towards defeat---an opinion shared by none other than GOPer pollster Frank Luntz.

But so far this is not reflected in polls. There is one poll showing Kerry with a one point lead, a couple showing a dead heat, and 3 tracking polls showing an unaccountably bounce for Bush. There seems to be no reason for this, but one of them is the usually reliable Zogby poll. So it isn't over by a longshot, and turning out unpolled voters becomes even more crucial.

The most recent polls in the midwestern battleground states however do show Kerry gains. And there is one small surprise---a tightened race in Arkansas. Tight enough perhaps that a visit by Bill Clinton could make the difference.

The New York Times suggests that Nader could be the destructive factor many feared he might be, especially in these battleground states. However, his running mate in the past two election cycles, Native American activist Winona LaDuke, has come out publicly for Kerry. This may help motivate poll workers on the reservations to get the vote out for Kerry on election day.

Debate Numbers

The first audience estimates are in: over 51 million viewers, a larger audience than the second debate, despite two baseball playoff games at the same time.

Our assumption is that this means voters were still looking at John Kerry, and the polls indicate that they continue to like what they saw. This should translate to independents and undecided going to Kerry, and those leaning towards Kerry solidifying their vote for him.

If you assume that watching baseball is still a mostly male avocation, then the audience for last night's debate must have included an awful lot of women. Kerry made specific connection with women's issues and with issues of family economics, and he continued to show as well as tell, the strength that some pollsters saw as affecting women who were moving towards Bush before the debates began. And that poll that showed college educated women giving Kerry the debate by 20 points, also figures into the calculation.

updates

Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe, who before the third debate opined that Bush had an easier job, saw the debate as a clear Kerry win and Bush loss.

Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / Bush's dodge and duck

As for the "mystery," we note that in the past hour or so, US forces began a significant attack on Fallaja.
And also in Iraq, the Green Zone in Baghdad was penetrated, with two Americans killed (Defense Department people).

Fraud and a High Level Mystery


The state of Oregon is beginning an official investigation into the Republican National Committee-backed company accused of destroying Democratic voter registration forms in that state, the same outfit as in Nevada.

It is interesting that this fraud was possible because of the poor job situation, and many people needing the few bucks they'd earn from this temporary job. Yet the allegations consistently are that they were ordered to register only Republicans by management, and it was management that destroyed valid registrations. Yet it was these poorly paid people who blew the whistle.

OregonLive.com: NewsFlash - State opens investigation into voter fraud allegations


The Presidential Mystery

Our hearing-impaired brother kept insisting last night that after the debate, when President Bush and Senator Kerry met in the center of the stage, that Bush asked Kerry if he could contact him later. He clearly saw Bush then ask "where will you be?"

Not that we don't trust our own brother, but the Atrios blog links to an observer who describes himself as deaf, and he verified that he lip-read Bush's words, asking if he could contact Kerry, and then asking, where will you be (later).

What was so urgent that Bush himself would ask for this contact? Normally, we assume, this already extraordinary request would be made by one top level aide to her or his counterpart.

Both candidates resumed their normal campaign schedules today.

We suspect that something's up, something involving "national security" that rival candidates are traditionally informed of in advance. The October Surprise?

It will be fascinating to see if events in the next few days bear this out, or if the mainstream media picks up on this story. What did Bush need to talk to Kerry about?

Here's an interesting take on the debate from London:

ThisisLondon

More good news

In the crucial battleground state of Pennsylvania, a judge has just ordered that Ralph Nader be taken off the ballot, because too many signatures on his petition were forgeries. Although there are some indications that the Bushies are moving their resources out of the state, the polls are still showing a close race. The 1% Nader might have taken from Kerry could be significant.

More Debate Reaction

Gallup snap poll has Kerry the debate winner. Stories in the morning NY Times and AP report indicate Bush contining to spiral down. The Democracy Poll (a Democrat-affiliated outfit but objective numbers) of 1,030 likely voters showed the biggest movement towards Kerry of any of the post-debate polls. The group was tied at 48-48 % before the debate; afterwards it was going for Kerry 50-47% . Other interesting numbers: Kerry won debate by 5 points among the whole group, but by 6 points among Independents and 9 points in battleground states. Among college educated women: 20 points.

Three for Three

The post-debate polls are unanimous in proclaiming John Kerry the winner of the third debate. Although some of the mighty media stars called it a draw (as per prediction), several lesser analysts (the kind who actually talk with voters) gave it to Kerry.

The CBS poll of a selected group of uncommitted voters was the most revealing. They gave the debate to Kerry 39% to 25%, with 36% rating it a tie. But some other numbers were very interesting. Before the debate, 29% said that Kerry took clear positions on issues. After the debate, it was 60%. And 70% said they had learned something from the debate.

Kerry continued to look presidential. He was calm, methodical and focused. He made eye contact with the camera often, especially when he was making his most forceful points. Once again he used revealing statistics referring to Arizona, where the debate was held. He did two things: he shored up the general impression of him as presidential and as commander-in-chief; and he carefully calibrated his answers to appeal to many specific groups in his base, as well as to voters in the battleground states.

So he was much stronger in saying he supported Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose; he talked about affirmative action and the legacy of racism; he talked with great understanding about the lives of homosexuals in this society. In his answer about religion, he even mentioned receiving a Native American blessing.

It was a tactical performance rather than a great performance. He didn't leave the viewer with memorable lines. Unless we're remembering incorrectly, Latino issues weren't mentioned except for immigration. Other important domestic issues that didn't even come up significantly were the environment, broad energy policy, and surprisingly, stem cell research. All of those are Kerry strong points, and together they say a lot about what will make a Kerry administration different.

But Kerry did successfully deflect the Bushie issues. He had a much better answer on assault weapons and gun control, deftly including a little anecdote that involved him hunting with a police officer out west. Take that, Mr. lawn order outside cleaning the brush.

Bloggers are emphasizing Bush's smirks, his inappropriate chuckles, bad jokes, and even foaming at the mouth. It was clear that Bush wanted most of all to be done with these debates. But we think he had some good moments, though it's not clear how he helped himself, even with his base. But some of that depends on whether the "liberal senator from Massachusetts" is still as powerful a mantra as it once was.

Like Cheney, Bush deflected questions about jobs with answers about education. When he was asked about racism, he talked about education. He began to leave the impression that people are unemployed and/or black because they are uneducated, possibly stupid.

Essentially, there was nothing surprising about this debate, except that it was surprising how little it resembled what most commentators thought it would or should be. Bush did not liberal-bash all night. Kerry did not go at Bush with devastating lines in a frontal attack.

Perhaps Kerry was looking ahead, too. It will be interesting to see how his demeanor of calm confidence played with voters. If the CBS group is any indication, he continued to make progress in his mission.

Rampant Republican Fraud

For an update on the rapidly spreading scandal of voter registration scams see the latest Kos:

Daily Kos :: Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.

The outfit in Nevada operated in many other states, where allegations have also been made of destroying Democratic registrations. And the company has been tied directly to the Republican National Committee.
If the establishment press and major media get on this story, it could be a major scandal in this election.

More Pre-Debate

Bob Sheiffer of CBS, moderator of the upcoming third debate, was interviewed on Fox Tuesday. He indicated he'll be asking questions on immigration, the "culture issues" and safety from terror, at least two of which should make Bush happy. If only because of oil and gasoline prices, he'll have to ask about energy policy. But it doesn't look like the evening will be spent solely on the big issues of health care, jobs and the deficit.

When it gets to terrorism and the Patriot Act, maybe Kerry should steal a line from Jon Stewart and say, they failed to get Osama bin Laden, but they did get the guy who wrote "Peace Train."

The CV on campaign tactics is that the Bushies are concentrating on their base, while the Kerry campaign is going after undecideds. One pundit says this makes Kerry's debate tasks much harder, because all Bush has to do is repeat liberal, tax and spend, and his stupid "he can run but he can't hide"line, while Kerry has to make a quick case against Bush and pivot to his vision for the future.

We're looking forward to Bush uttering that 'he can run but he can't hide' line and having Kerry look at him and say, you see anybody running? Or trying to hide? I'm standing right here, telling America the truth.

The reason for this different tactical approach is not often discussed however. Could it be that Kerry is confident of his base, knows that in reaching out to other voters he increases the confidence of his base that he can win, and so does both jobs simultaneously? While Bush is just trying to make sure he pushes the right buttons of the people he has no respect for, but counts on for his power?

Within what the pollsters can measure (and it's not clear how much they are missing---maybe a lot) there appears to be but 5% undecided, but maybe 20% who are still persuadable. A poll in PA shows that while supporters of both candidates are locked in, those favoring Kerry are locked in tighter. Because of Kerry's success in the debates so far, it's likely that more persuadables are leaning towards Bush, though clearly the Sinclair people and the Rove ravers are counting on the Swift Boat Liars and things like a whispering campaign against Teresa H. Kerry (which Molly Ivins predicts) to peel away the persuadables leaning towards Kerry. But Kerry's last big chance to get at those persuadables is the third debate. After that, it's one voter at a time, luck and the news.

This is going to be really nerve-wracking because it won't be until the vote count starts that there's any real indication of how powerful this "hidden" Kerry vote is going to be. (The first time voters, new registrations, Latinos, Native Americans, pushed to the edge families of reservists and guard, single low income working women, pissed off Arab-Americans and Cuban Americans, and righteously angry black voters in Florida.) Some people think it's going to be very powerful.

Kerry and Edwards are certainly right that the Bushies will say or do absolutely anything to win. In Florida, unions and others have filed suit against GOPer state government officials for denying registration to thousands on technicalities, and failing to notify them that they are not really registered, as required by law. Now there's a scandal emerging in Nevada, where a former employee claims that a private outfit called Voter Outreach of America, aka America Votes, which purported to register voters at malls and so on, has been throwing out Democratic party registrations, because the company's mission is to register only Republicans. This employee rescued some of the forms discarded, and when they were checked out, those people who thought they'd registered were not on the rolls. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

But it is worth saying to anyone reading this who registered for the first time this year, or changed their registration: be sure to call your local election officials and verify that you are indeed on the registration rolls, so you don't get a nasty surprise on election day.

If you did fill out registration form and you aren't on the rolls, and the date for registration in your state has passed, contact the local Democratic party, and they will likely go to court on your behalf.

UPDATE on the Sinclair airing of the anti-Kerry propaganda: the blogosphere has struck another blow, as advertisers for local Sinclair stations are getting hundreds of phone calls. There are unverified reports of advertisers pulling their ads because of it.

Meanwhile, the pr guy for Sinclair has been calling the attempts to stifle the voices of those aggrieved veterans (who presumably didn't get enough air time with the Swift Boat Liars ads) the equivalent of "Holocaust deniers." And the whole business has drawn attention to what corporate power can really mean now that the Bush FCC has allowed media giants to own more and more TV stations and newspapers. Sinclair is trying to buy more, and therefore has a vested interest in supporting Bush. Which is clearly what they are doing, with a film made by the guy at the Washington Times who published a book whitewashing the Rev. Moon, after getting Moon's approval of the manuscript. Hey, not even Gary Trudeau could make this stuff up.

Debate Prep 3

The third debate will be the last time that either candidate has a substantial audience of voters. The last three weeks of the campaign will be dominated by TV ads and on-the-ground campaigning in the battleground states, but nationally by news stories and images. It is a dangerous period for John Kerry because of the Bush campaign of shameless lies, which he will not have the opportunity to answer that the debates afford him.

Most polls now indicate that Kerry won the second debate as well as the first, but this is no time for complacency. Kerry has to make a final and lasting impression, powerful enough to overcome the relentless distortions of an incumbent president whose approval rating is so low that he can't talk about his accomplishments and must concentrate on bashing his opponent with tried and true tags of tax and spend liberal.

Kerry has to be crisp direct and powerful. Some of his answers in the second debate that talking heads have criticized, were good responses in the situation---he connected with the citizens asking the question. But in the same format as the first debate, Kerry has to be laser-sharp.

What Kerry can do in this debate is take his argument to the final step. He has established that Bush has made bad decisions leading to catastrophes abroad and at home, affecting voters and their families. Now he must hammer away with the idea that Bush will continue to make bad decisions in a second term, because he won't change. He won't admit mistakes, he defends all these wrong choices.

Not only does this close the basic argument-Bush is out of touch, makes wrong choices, is stubborn, is in denial, etc.---but it speaks directly to a major Bush vulnerability. Even his supporters are among the large majority who tell pollsters that Bush must make major changes in a second term. They're dreaming. Kerry should point to Bush and say, he's not going to change. It's going to be four more years of the same. He's telling you that himself.

He can list Bush's disasters and ask, do we really want four more years of this?

Kerry can also inoculate himself a bit against the last 3 weeks of attacks by "complimenting" the Bush campaign on its shameless use of distortion and hot-button issues, and saying: they are very good at public relations. They are very bad at telling the truth. They are very good at selling. They are very bad at delivering what they promise. They're good at making slick commercials, and very bad at making good decisions for America.

Kerry has to be prepared on taxes, health care plans and costs, and there's little doubt that he'll bring up stem cell research to honor his friend, Christopher Reeve. On economic issues, he's got a succinct briefing courtesy of Paul Krugman's new column.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Checking the Facts, in Advance

The media storyline is to tantalize viewers with the prospect of "a knockout punch" in the third debate. The virtue of having given the "Bush comeback" storyline to the second debate is that it isn't available for the third. But expectations for Kerry in this debate will be very high, and so we can expect the predominately conservative pundits to say he didn't measure up to them. Our guess is that the media will say that the third debate was a draw, because that's the storyline that generates interest in following the rest of the campaign. In the conscious or unconscious struggle for audience, the media won't say the race is over. People might stop watching. They are more likely to suggest a momentum shift in Bush's direction because it's a better story than momentum continuing for Kerry.

The second debate was watched by some 47 million---not the more than 60 million that saw the first one, but a 25% larger audience than watched the second debate in 2000. The audience for the third debate may say a lot about how decided or undecided the electorate still is. Fewer viewers in a year of high interest would indicate more people have made up their minds. Friday's audience may have been suppressed by the fact that it was Friday. The audience for this debate should be higher, if interest remains strong.

This is not a time for Kerry complacency. He may have won the second debate, but it clearly energized Bush. He's much sharper and more engaged on the campaign trail. The national polls and the battleground state polls so far have not moved decisively against him. His job approval is 47%, and most re-elected incumbents had job approval of over 60%. So he's vulnerable, but he's definitely not toast yet. If Bush can control himself in the third debate and not let Kerry get to him, if he appears more presidential than he did in the first two debates (and he was better in the domestic issues second half of the second debate), he's going to come out of this with more confidence.

At the same time, Kerry is also getting better on the trail, with sharper lines in his speeches, and better delivery of them. Some of those injected into this debate can provide new soundbites that probably more people will see than will see the debate itself.

Finally, this debate is Kerry's opportunity to emphasize the "fresh start" theme that can reach voters who are troubled by Bush but not comfortable with "rejecting" the President in a time of war. A fresh start is a positive, a vote for something that still implies a change. It's a line that has begun to appear in Kerry and DNC ads as well as in Kerry and Edwards speeches. If it becomes a major theme in ads for the rest of the campaign, it should be a major part of Kerry's summation at the debate.

Is this It?

Is this it? Is this the October Surprise Karl Rove has been promising?
The arch-conservative and Bush-backer owner of the Sinclair Broadcasting Group has apparently ordered its more than sixty TV stations to air an anti-Kerry "documentary" in the tradition of the Swift Boat Liars commercials, a few days before the election.

This is unprecedented in American television history. According to law, the airwaves that carry TV signals belong to the public, and the government, acting on the people's behalf, gives the rights to use these airways to commercial concerns that provide a service that benefits the public. For many years, the Fairness Doctrine decreed, among other things, that major political candidates be given "equal time." But the Fairness Doctrine is defunct (right wing talk radio wouldn't be possible otherwise) though there are other rules, and network news operations tend to be more and more careful about being even-handed in coverage as Election Day approaches.

As Aaron Brown or someone on his CNN program put it, it is as if CBS decided to air "Fahrenheit 9-11" the week before the election. The Sinclair move is causing consternation and furious activity. The Democratic Party is going to the Federal Elections Comission, claiming this amounts to giving the Bush campaign an extended campaign commercial for free. Various Kerry supporters are quickly organizing protest actions, ranging from phone calls and mail to Sinclair, its local stations and their advertisers, to investigating which stations have their license renewals coming up, so their licenses can be challenged.

Many of Sinclair's stations are in battleground states, including Florida (Tampa, Tallahassee), Pennsylvania (two stations in Pittsburgh), Ohio (Dayton and two stations in Columbus), Missouri, Wisconsin and Iowa.

The Sinclair move, as boldly anti-democratic as it is, puts some free speech advocates in a painful position. While some state that Sinclair has the legal right to do this, others are not so sure they do. But we believe the vulnerable point is at the local station level, and that pressure on individual stations, either directly or through advertisers, could inspire some defiance and defection, and then the whole thing might unravel.

There is also the risk that protests could call more attention to the program, but that is a risk that has to be taken, because the content is so inflammatory: several Vietnam veterans and former POWs claim that Kerry's antiwar activity was used against them while they were prisoners, a claim denied by other Vietnam vets and former POWs not interviewed in this "documentary." Besides lies, it uses the same sort of distortions featured in the Swift Boat ads.

Whether or not this happens, or has much effect on an issue that may have had all the impact it is going to, this is exactly the kind of campaign we can expect the Bushies to wage, from the end of the third debate until election day: Lies and distortions meant to have powerful emotional effects. The rabid right is without ethics or morals of any kind in politics. It's all about power. The most pitiful part of it is that many of the people who support these tactics, and even many who dream them up and implement them, are being exploited with the same cynicism, and they will be left behind with the rest of the masses. The Bushes of the world will stay rich and privileged, with their sense of entitlement intact. They have no more respect for the people serving them than they have for the poor that their servants mock. Nor will their minions reap the big rewards. They will be kept around as long as their masters need them and they function well. But there will always be hungry new servants who will work for less. Eventually they will be eaten alive by their more ambitious colleagues, who in turn will fall.

The Big Mo

A new Gallup poll has Kerry up 49-48 among likely voters. This poll previously showed a much larger lead for Bush than other polls. It also shows that Bush's approval rating in office has dropped to 47%. Anything less than 50% is bad news for an incumbent seeking reelection.

A Zogby tracking poll (Zogby was the most accurate pollster in 2000) done over the weekend has Kerry up by three points. The momentum from Friday's debate is Kerry, as it was from the first debate. The Gallup Poll showed Kerry winning the second debate by 45-30%.

endorsements part one

Could be that newspaper endorsements will be more important this year, if the election hinges on undecideds who are interested, and on turnout of newly registered voters who need lots of reinforcement. The weekend round saw these for Kerry, plus the Oregonian ( which endorsed Bush in 2000), both Seattle dailies, Detroit Free Press and Arizona Daily Star, which makes East, West, South, Southwest and Midwest represented:

The Atlanta Journal Constitution: "It's time to give competence a chance."

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Based on his record, President George W. Bush has not earned re-election. He has mishandled the war on terrorism, shut his eyes to disagreeable facts, left the next generation in hock and presided over a sharp loss in jobs, health insurance and prosperity for millions of Americans."

The Philadelphia Inquirer: Bush's "was a presidency of high promise that lapsed into multiple disasters. On his watch, useful surpluses have become a sea of red ink... His plan for a second term is not to repair those mistakes, but to expand and entrench them... Most worrisome, his response to the stunning blows of 9/11 has gone fatefully awry. He has left Americans less safe than they could be and America less admired than it should be."

Undecideds Deciding for Kerry

It's a small sample in a battleground state of PA, but it supports our prediction so we'll post it: as a result of Friday's debate, more undecideds have decided for Kerry than for Bush.


PennLive.com: NewsFlash - Week 3: Kerry firms up support among once-undecided voters