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

Post-debate: Advantage Blue

So the media stories are underway, led by the all-Republican-plus wayward son of a Republican President panel at MSNBC, and the headline is: Bush Comeback!

Surprise surprise!

It's amazing how the psychology of this works. Looking at Bush's performance you could reasonably describe it as forceful, aggressive, pertinent, or as loud, shrill and emptily repetitive. But because you did the negative story last week, well...

The talking heads pretty well agreed that the debate was a draw, as do some pro-Kerry bloggers. We disagree. In the coming days probably, but certainly by election day, it will become obvious how badly Bush lost this debate because he did not appear presidential, and Kerry did. Kerry was direct, empathetic, he didn't talk down to the audience, and though at times he was quite sharp and direct in his criticism, he ended up giving due deference to the president, yet making a case for why he would be a smart, confident and effective President.

Bush looked like a guy trying to save his job running a little Texas oil company that is going broke.

Bush was more coherent in his answers than last time, and it does seem true that the debate itself was remarkably substantive, owing chiefly to the intelligence and relevance of the questions by citizens in the audience. Bush probably heartened those supporting him who got wobbly because of his last debate performance, particularly with his 'doing things that are unpopular, because they are right,' which is an admirable sentiment, except he is so wrong about the right part.

At times he gave the illusion of being in command of facts, although the facts he listed were often bizarre, as his list of environmental accomplishments. He brought up the Dred Scott decision, pretty strange in itself, and spoke weirdly and inaccurately about it, which won't win him many black votes.

But his tone was aggressive to the point of being unhinged. Those neocon commentators loved his 'fight' when he ignored the moderator and spoke right through him, but swing voters are only going to be alarmed by such uncontrolled behavior.

Kerry made progress on explaining his analysis of the problems and the solutions he proposes. He made progress in refuting the flip-flop charge and in showing the confidence and strength to defend the country. He related more directly to the audience and the people asking questions. He remembered one questioner's name long after there had been several intervening questions, and referred back to her question. He gave his examples in terms of Missouri (where the debate was held) including the stunning observation that if Missouri were a separate country, the number of troops it is sending to Iraq would make it the third largest coalition partner.

Kerry won because the bad news this week---whether or not he dwelt on it---adds further doubt in the minds of voters that Bush is going to be a successful second term president, and Kerry continue to give voters reason to be comfortable with him as the alternative, as someone who will be a better President.

As for the media, we heard few insightful observations and turned it off. The Washington Week bunch---the PBS guardians of the CW---were just as bad as the rest. While they insulted the intelligence of voters by repeating that Kerry's answers were too nuanced, at least one of them proved he was too stupid to understand the answer by getting it wrong (and being indirectly corrected by a female fellow panelist.) It wasn't particularly difficult to understand: Kerry said he voted against the partial birth amendment because it had no provision for allowing these rare abortions to save the mother's life. Too nuanced? Get real.

The current drip drip of bad news may well be pushing the electorate in the direction of getting real. They may well be looking for someone with solutions, and someone who offers a fresh start.

Speaking of which we should announce our bias, since several of the tactics we suggested in this column and to the Kerry campaign via their website were specifically employed. But Kerry's success tonight was due to his successfully blunting the Bush attack, offering detail in his answers, relating to the voters in the hall and at home, and in continuing to appear presidential. Bush's one-note petulance continued to diminish him, despite the media relief at finding some justification for their pre-scripted headline.

pre-Debate

It's game day. The buzz on Bush is that they're going to throw everything including the kitchen sink (i.e. "liberal") at Kerry. They will attack his "record", that is the distortions of his voting record in the Senate, hoping to score points, seed doubts, and force Kerry to play defense all night.

Doubts are creeping into the establishment press that Bush can recover. Howard Kurtz, WPost keeper of the CW, opines that Bush is sounding desperate. We just heard excerpts of his "new, hard-hitting" stump speech, and Bush's delivery hasn't seemed to improve much from the first debate. His timing does seem off, even in front of a friendly audience, but then we've thought that before when others hailed him as another Churchill. But a little doubt has crept into our certainty that this is all a set up for the Bush Comeback storyline. A little doubt, not a lot. We still think that's what we will hear, regardless of what happens at the debate.

How will Kerry do in the town hall format? He's done a lot of these. We've heard him be really sharp, and engaging. But it was in this format that he also tended to ramble, and made his biggest voted for/voted against gaffe. But these are the playoffs, the finals. He'll step up. He may well surprise some voters---certainly some talking heads---with his mastery of the town hall form. He may have won the Iowa caucuses because he was always willing to answer everyone's questions at a public forum.

One national poll shows Kerry at 50% and leading. That 50% is a very good number. Our idea of strategy for this debate is for Kerry to continue to hit Bush on Iraq, then close the deal on domestic issues next week. But a lot will depend on the questions. It's easier for candidates to be creative with their responses when the questions are asked by a press person. But not directly answering a voter's question looks insulting.

Kerry also mentioned on Thursday that he would be talking in more detail "in a few days" about Iraq. Maybe that's what they've got planned for tonight. But it would be smart to have something that Bush hasn't heard, that could throw him. The month's employment figures come out in a few hours. We doubt they are going to be good. And Kerry has got to bring up the price of oil, in terms of impact on people today and the economy going into next year.


UPDATE: The jobs report was indeed quite bad. With the price of oil at record levels, Wall Street is beginning to show worry. Kerry has another opportunity tonight, this time on the economy. The WPost also has a story that quotes a proposed federal budget for Bush's next year that has severe cuts in education and homeland security. Kerry can continue to use Bush's detachment from reality as a theme that links Iraq and the economy. His tone in doing so will be crucial. Bush's only strategy of hacking away with his blatantly dishonest account of Kerry's record will test his powers of geniality tonight, because he is not facing an audience likely to be all that responsive to attacks. He's done this pretty well before---with the self-deprecating head bobs, and soft spoken "there's a difference between my opponent and me. He's a weakling flip flopping traitor on the side of evil, and I am the strong, resolute Mr. America who talks to Jesus. You decide." We'll see just how rattled he is tonight.

Journalists among the mediaheads are starting to express somewhat coded concern about the latest Bush's attacks being factually insupportable---in other words, a string of distortions and lies. Because being "objective" means you can't say that they are lies, supposedly. But the Bushies are spending a lot of money to disseminate these lies. This makes the debates even more crucial.

Our bottom line continues to be that the media has already written its lead: the Bush comeback. It'll be strongest on Fox, MSNBC and CNN, but at least one of the networks will also lead with it.

Our overall belief continues to be that Kerry needs to stay even, that voters continue to see him as they did in the first debate. He doesn't have to score the kind of victory he did in that debate. As long as he is pretty even in the polls, and especially if he is even slightly ahead by election day, the un-polled new voters and minority voters will give him the popular vote and electoral vote victory.

Falling Apart Part 2

Why the first debate may have been a watershed moment, regardless of how the next two play out:

The New York Times > Arts > Frank Rich: Why Did James Baker Turn Bush Into Nixon?

Rich talks about the echo chamber trap of a Bushie operation that got too good at manipulation, and began to believe its own imagery. But this is when it really counts. Some 64 million people watched the first debate; some 43 million watched the vp debate, which is just a couple of million fewer than watched the highest-rated Gore v. Bush debate. It will be interesting to see the audience for Friday's debate---will it be larger or smaller? We'd bet larger. Which is why Kerry has to continue to do well.

The headline on Friday's debate is already being written: the Bush comeback. It's utterly predictable because it's the only available story line that GOPers will allow. Some Bushies are already signalling it by saying that if Bush doesn't do well, he's finished. Of course they won't say he's finished! And unless Kerry wins the polling by another 4 to 1 margin---very unlikely given the expectations---the pundits will be able to say that Bush has recovered.

Meanwhile the Bush pretexts for Iraq continue to unravel, as the news from Iraq continues to be grim and tragic. The New York Times, exposing in devastating detail the misstatements on Iraq's nuclear program (the aluminum tubes that experts said were a no-brainer, they just weren't right for what the Bushies said they were only right for, the centrifuge in the nuke program) is calling for Condi Rice's resignation.

We've got a better idea. Vote the whole rotten bunch out.

Falling Apart

Newsweek has catalogued more Cheney misstatements but focused on the most important in terms of justifications for the Iraq invasion. They also summarize the report announced Wednesday by the CIA that Saddam hadn't had weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade, and in particular his nuclear program was defunct. Here's that story, which by the weirdness inherent in media conglomeration, appears on the MSNBC site---where the right leaning panel awarded kudos to Cheney for his debate performance:
MSNBC - Rewriting History

Factcheck Wednesday: Character Flaw Anyone?

In a dramatic if petty statement that the talking heads loved, Dick Cheney managed to package two lies in a distortion, when he said that Edwards was absent from the Senate so much his hometown paper took to calling him Senator Gone, and that Cheney presides over the Senate "most Tuesdays" for the past 3+years and had never met Edwards.
1. It wasn't The hometown paper, but a small weekly, which had published one editorial months ago with an aside about Edwards, though it noted that he had a better attendance record for someone running in the primaries than his opponents, and that he hadn't missed a vote of consequence.

2. Cheney met Edwards on at least two other occasions, and there's a photo going around of the two of them sitting side by side.
Both since Cheney has been v.p.

3. the most egregious lie of the bunch: In the past 3 + years Cheney has presided over the Senate on exactly two Tuesdays. So has John Edwards. (The presiding officer job is rotated when the v.p. isn't there, which apparently is most of the time.) It's possible he forgot meeting Edwards, but this "most Tuesdays" is just a flat out lie, which makes his whole point based on lies.

Here are the facts:

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

The media pilloried Al Gore in 2000 for a few minor misstatements and called it evidence of a character flaw.

Other postdebate chatter:
Instant polls showed Edwards did better with undecided voters, independents and voters in swing states. Which supports our observation that he was successful in targeting key constituencies.

The CNN political analyst made an interesting point: that the Bushie strategy is to make Kerry the issue, not an up or down vote on the Bush administration, and that Bush (or "The President") was mentioned fewer times than Kerry in the vp debate. There's a grain of truth is in this observation. While Edwards successfully took it to the Bush-Cheney administration, the advice to Kerry to turn every question to a criticism of Bush in the next debate has some merit. The strategy would depend however on using a few succinct words as self-defense before going on the attack. For instance, if Kerry deflected Bush criticism of him as not supporting the military, Kerry could say something like: General X, Admiral Y and xx other distinguished military leaders support me, and I don't think they would if they believed I didn't stand for a strong defense. And then attack Bush.

Debate and Reality

The ABC instant poll had Cheney winning the vice presidential debate by a few percentage points; the CBS instant poll favored Edwards. Aaron Brown and his CNN cadre had it as a draw; Scarborough bullied the MSNBC panel into awarding it to Cheney (Ron Reagan dissenting), while the MSNBC online poll went heavily to Edwards.

By late evening the CW (Conventional Wisdom) was that Cheney prevented the Bush slide from becoming a free fall, though Cheney doing better than Bush could be a problem; and that John Edwards showed he could be a legitimate "heartbeat from the presidency." Both did "what they needed to do."

Now the faxes and emails will be fast and furious, spinning and correcting the most blatant falsehoods Cheney uttered; unfortunately there will hardly be time to get them all sorted out before Bush and Kerry take the headlines again, assuming Mt. St. Helen doesn't first.

Another part of the CW that's safe to say is that both candidates played well to their base. Cheney was the professorial assassin the GOPers love. Edwards acquitted himself well, and gave good soundbite too. Some Dem bloggers thought Cheney looked old and tired, snarly and mean, though the first round of media pundits didn't see it that way, at least not yet.

Cheney is a pretty effective liar. With a straight face he could accuse Kerry of being weak on defense because he voted against weapons systems that Cheney himself, as secretary of defense, had recommended be discontinued. Edwards immediately pointed this out, but Cheney went deaf.

But a couple of the more seasoned newsmouths pointed out that while the outcome of the debate was debatable, events and the outer reality are driving this race, and that's not good for Bush and Cheney. Kerry and Edwards are now relentlessly focusing on the gap between reality and the Bushwah rhetoric on Iraq. Edwards put it exactly the right way: he kept talking to the audience at home and saying, you can see what's going on for yourself. As several talking heads said or implied, the Bushie problem is that they just don't have an answer for Iraq.

Edwards repeated and expanded on the "fresh start" theme, so of course we approve. But he did a few other things that none of the pundits we heard have so far noted. We said that after the big first debate victory changed the dynamic, all Edwards and Kerry have to do in the remaining debates is stay even, and chip away at various key constituencies. John Edwards did at least that. First, from the very beginning, he repeated many of Kerry's key points, at times almost word for word. That's the disciplined message the wags said the Dems couldn't manage. He added his reassurance to the Kerry message of strength, truth-telling and intelligence.

Later in the debate, Edwards scored significantly with one big constituency: Ohio.

On a question about jobs and poverty, Cheney talked about public school education. Edwards called him on it, and then talked about jobs and poverty. The debate was in Cleveland, and one of the startling stats he gave was that one out of two children in Cleveland lives in poverty. If this holds up it's an astonishing number. Several of Edwards' other examples on jobs and health care were drawn from Ohio. All this may have gotten by the national press, but we're betting it hit home in Ohio. And PA and Wisconsin.

And yes---the trial lawyer thing did come up (see earlier post), Edwards did use it to talk about health care, and representing middle class families against big insurance and HMOs with a poignant example. And Cheney took the bait to talk about tort reform. Even the moderator went to sleep.

Cheney may have offered a larger choice of sound biteable lines but Edwards got the most devastating one---and it's the one playing right now on the Endless News. He recites the bad news, the declining incomes, the higher health care costs, the mess in Iraq, turns to Cheney and says, Mr. vicepresident this country can't afford four more years of this.

That's the line that will resonate. If bigger news doesn't intervene in the next 48 hours, Cheney's "misstatements" could blunt whatever buzz he may have gotten. Already they're running tape of him implying the link between Saddam and 9/11 that he denied, and a picture of him standing next to John Edwards, who he claimed he had never met before the debate. His whopper on Halliburton, and his goofy analysis of declining car bombings in Israel because Saddam is gone should be fresh meat in the morning.

Wednesday Bush tries to take back the spotlight with a "major" foreign policy speech.: Stay the course. It's hard work. Poland. Kerry running for president by criticizing him endangers our troops. Elect Kerry and terrorist nukes will go off in your hometown. That sort of thing.

More Iraq and foreign policy on Thursday, and the new jobs report on Friday will certainly color the prez candidates debate that night. Hold on folks. We're in for a bumpy ride.

Here's hoping that...

in the debate tonight Cheney says something negative about trial lawyers. And that John Edwards uses this opportunity to talk about some of his trial cases, representing citizens in need of health care against big HMOs, etc. Not only does he get to defend trial lawyers--who are pretty popular with Dems and many Indies, since they represent them when necessary---but he talks about health care issues, the Two Americas, plus he gets to reinforce the identification of Cheney with big rich corporations like Halliburton. Plus voters get a positive feel for Edwards as a champion of the underdog. Sweet. Will Cheney do it? There are signs that the Bushies are desperate beyond what the poll numbers would seem to justify. So he might. Maybe we'll get even luckier and he'll talk about "tort reform." Few non-wealthy people care about it, and even fewer know what it is.

The Great Debate

Before the vp candidates square off, and the town hall meeting of the prez candidates on Friday, here’s a rundown of some of the running debate now going on in Washington….


POINT: al Queda and Saddam were working together.
President Bush, Vice-president Cheney
COUNTERPOINT: There was no such connection.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Sec. of State Powell, 9/11 Commission, etc.

POINT: Bush admin. planned well for Iraq occupation and troop levels were adequate.--President Bush, Sec. Rumsfeld

COUNTERPOINT: Planning was inadequate and there were not enough troops to keep order in Iraq.--Paul Brener, Bush's chief administrator of Iraq

POINT: U.S. is making progress in Iraq, things are getting
better.---President Bush
COUNTERPOINT: Insurgency is getting worse, and things are much worse than the White House says.---CIA, Army Intelligence

POINT: There are 100,000 trained Iraqi troops---police, guard, special units and border patrol.
President Bush
COUNTERPOINT: Number of troops trained at "minimally effective" level=22,700, including 0 border guards.
Pentagon

POINT: Suspected terrorists had to be detained at Guantanamo prison for up to three years without hearings or counsel, to be interrogated and to keep them from engaging in another terrorist attack on the U.S.
---President Bush
COUNTERPOINT: This detention was "hopelessly flawed from the beginning" and hasn't prevented a single terrorist act.
--senior Pentagon intelligence official

POINT: Tubes imported by Saddam were proof he was making nuclear weapons.
Pres., V.P. National Security Advisor Condi Rice
COUNTERPOINT: Tubes weren't for nukes but were suitable for rocket parts.
--CIA nuclear weapons experts, in official reports 2002

POINT: Homeland Security Department is great success in stopping terrorism in U.S.
---President Bush
COUNTERPOINT: Homeland Security has dropped the ball and so no credible single list of potential terrorists in U.S. exists
---official of Homeland Security Department

POINT: 10 million Afghans have registered to vote.
--President Bush, at every campaign stop
COUNTERPOINT: 10 million exceeds the estimated number
of eligible Afghan voters.
--UN

More on the Homeland Security debate:

Lack of Single Terror Suspect 'Watch List' Criticized

New Votes

The polls are showing an even race, experts warn that an incumbent who isn't getting better than 50% is in trouble, and now the long rumored surge in new registration is impressive enough to get coverage in the mainstream media, as in this New York Times story:

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Voters: As Deadlines Hit, Rolls of Voters Show Big Surge

Other stories indicate the gains are in urban areas, especially in PA, Ohio and Florida. These new voters aren't being counted in the polls. The polls are also likely behind in their estimates of newer "groups" like Muslims who may or may not constitute a voting bloc. However, one story says that the Kerry campaign is making significant inroads with a large Muslim population in Florida.

We keep having visions of black voters and other voters who were kept from voting or didn't have their votes counted in Florida in 2000, marching en masse to voting places on November 2 and demanding their rights. The polls don't measure emotion.

why it is a changed political landscape

Today the CNN/USA Today Gallup Poll also shows Bush's lead gone (they had him 8 pts up). So Howard Kurtz, the erstwhile conscience of the Establishment press, fesses up to why the polls (like negative commercials) are important: because they drive the media coverage. His column also contains a tidbit of the Fox faux pas mentioned here earlier.

A Changed Political Landscape, Or an Isolated Peak in the Polls? (washingtonpost.com)

Why is the correct answer: the landscape has changed? Partly because it's so close to the election. Partly because Bush's unfavorables have been high even when he was leading, so the stage was set for Kerry's move up when he showed credibility. And because Bush's credibility has been hurt, which blunts the effects of his negative commercials and negative statements on the stump, since they were already effectively countered in the debate.

Not that it's over by a longshot. But this race is at least even until the end, barring some major miscue or Surprise.

Howlers

Since the debate, a number of howlers from the media just seemed to explode: mere hours after a Daily Show joke about a reporter who writes his account of the debate several days before the debate takes place, AP accidentally posted just such a story, hours before the debate started.

Then Fox News ran a story with quotes from Kerry after the debate that were faked. Their reporter said something like he was just kidding and it wasn't supposed to get posted on their web site.

Then Fox (or Faux, as some are calling it) ran quotes from a Communists for Kerry organization, which turns out to be a group of Republican college students (and they weren't really hiding that fact.) Add this as well to the list of "undecided voters" interviewed by media that turn out to be GOPer activists---including a GOP political consultant. Needless to say they all had bad things to say about Kerry.

Here however is another Kerry misquote originating and repeated in the New York Times---exactly the kind of crap that dogged Gore last time. No wonder it's getting harder to teach journalism in this country. What models can you offer?

The Daily Howler

Movement

Cautious pundits wondered if the Kerry victory in the first debate would translate into better poll numbers. One widely quoted pro figured Bush's lead would diminish a couple of points.

But in the first poll since the debate, NBC finds that Bush's lead is completely gone, and that in a two-way matchup, Kerry leads.
MSNBC - The Race is On

October and Surprise

If it's not the great echo-chamber effect of the media---and we suspect this time it isn't---then John Kerry did himself a world of good by winning the first debate. Now the rest of October looks a whole lot better. Anticipation is high for the Edwards-Cheney debate. If the Bush performance was a wake-up call for Cheney, it might do him some good, but Cheney is Cheney. Kerry's performance has given John Edwards inspiration. Dems are likely licking their chops waiting for this one.

The usual trend is for audience to fall off for the second and third debate, but as one of the better informed political analysts pointed out, this didn't happen with the Bush-Clinton debates: the audiences kept growing, once they realized that Clinton was for real (although Ross Perot was the entertainment). He expects the same to happen this year. If so, Kerry could land the knockout punch in the next debate, which will include domestic issues. He doesn't have to total Bush so much as seal the deal with Ohio and PA, and get back in control in the other battleground states where he was leading up to last week or two. Then the final debate, on domestic issues, leaves Kerry talking about health care, jobs, education, science, etc. and Bush talking about tax cuts. Kerry still has to make convincing cases, but if he's even up by then, the issues favor him.

Kerry may have already won PA with the first debate. If he convinced enough suburban women, Dems as well as Reps, that he's presidential and prudent, strong and smart.

If Kerry does no worse than come out pretty even in the next two debates, he'll still be riding a tide of Dem enthusiasm, which should motivate the most crucial element of all---turnout on election day.

But what about the October surprise? A terrorist attack on US soil? Kerry is not so automatically damaged by this as might have been the case last week; it depends on his response. More problematic is the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden. Kerry put so much emphasis on getting bin Laden that this could be a scramble. But when asked about the possibility not long ago, Kerry had a ready answer, so this possibility is probably being planned for.

Should we mention that Kerry emphasized homeland security, which we said in July he should, and that he used our "fresh start" line? No, it would be immodest. And as everyone knows the way to get ahead in politics is to be modest.

Reaction Shots

The two sides agreed to rules that ruled out reaction shots. They made the agreement public (for the first time) and Bill Moyers did a terrific piece on the debate commission and how it foils actual debate. So the networks revolted and they showed both Kerry and Bush side by side, split screen, for major parts of the debate.

We started watching on C-Span which kept both men on screen all the time, but it was too distracting. So on the merits of argument, Kerry had a good first half, and Bush had a pretty good first half. The second half was all Kerry.

But it turned out that in addition to the merits, the split screen showed GW smirking and pouting and looking like he didn't want to be there with this pesky challenger---exactly the affect that clocked his dad in a crucial debate with Clinton. Kerry wins on style, too? Who would have predicted that?

Kerry must have taken the measure of this guy, because he did one especially effective thing---he refused to be baited. Giving Bush no direct argument on "mixed messages" except to show him up, he left Bush repeating and repeating, sounding more and more hollow.

The pundits afterwards were the usual trip. Very gingerly in their evaluations until the instant poll results started to come in---Kerry winning in the ABC and CBS surveys, and in MsNBC's call-in survey that got close to a half million calls, Kerry won 70%, Bush 30%. And suddenly all the pundits were saying that Kerry clearly was the winner, and they knew exactly why.

Spin Thrift

by Theron Dash

Why even have this debate (set to begin in an hour and a half as I write this)? The pre-wash spin cycle has already awarded the victory to Bush. The pundits have decided the test will be likeability, and they've decided---partly on the basis of polls---that Bush is the likeable candidate. So he'll win, unless he makes some horrendous goof, and even then, he'll do it likeably.

So they've not only made likeability the defining test, they've defined who is likeable. You know, it ain't necessarily so. I don't find GW Bush likeable. I wouldn't want his smirk, his demanding ego, his pathological lying and his idiot mouth in my back yard. He's the guy at the bar I put as much distance from as possible.

John Kerry is curious, he reads widely, he's interested in the world, he's been places and done things, he has a good sense of humor and appreciation of wit. He'd be a fascinating companion for an afternoon or an evening. Then all politicians get wearing, like actors. Kerry plays guitar and tosses the football around. So do I. I'd sure rather do that than have to watch Bush clear brush, or respond to his need for constant praise.

Anyway, likeability polls or not, think on this: a few months ago when Bush was dropping like a stone in the re-elect polls, he was still voted more likeable. And he was annointed the most likeable in 2000, yet he became president only because some supreme court justices liked his daddy. The unlikeable Mr. Gore got like a million more votes.

So let's make John Kerry President. I don't mind if we give the Most Likeable consolation
prize to Bush.

D-Day is Thursday

Thursday is D Day, the so-called debate,that is being positioned as the last chance for John Kerry to convince voters he should be President.

Opinion poll results are driving news coverage which is setting very high expectations for what John Kerry has to do to "win" the debate on Thursday. Though there are no discernable standards by which one wins or loses, except the consensus of the conventional wisdom, which could change completely if contradicted by voting results of election day.

There's some noise from those who study these numbers that the polls are getting less reliable. Some talk that they are conveniently reflecting the results their corporate sponsors find to be in their interests. And since polls drive coverage which sets the conventional wisdom...they can wind up meaning something regardless of how right or wrong they are.

But when it all starts to feel like 2000 again, stomachs fall and eyes turn to the borders. What's different this time? Howard Dean says elections are won not by appealing to so-called swing voters but by energizing the base. The Kerry campaign seems to be adopting that philosophy, though the media seems to think it's more from necessity than choice. But it's clear that there is a strong anti-Bush sentiment that wasn't there in 2000. Kerry and Edwards are talking that talk.

Gore kept Clinton at arms length, and if he hadn't he'd probably be President. Kerry's not making that mistake either. Even from a hospital bed, Clinton can affect electoral votes.

So what does Kerry need to do on Thursday night? According to the media, the impossible. He has to come across as an appealing guy, and he has to beat up Bush. Hard to know what that would look like.

Our unsolicited advice is simple: stand still, look into the camera, be clear. Talk about goals for Iraq as well as means. Don't smile unless something is funny. You're the serious one, go with your strength. Don't take any crap, but don't lose your cool. Oh yeah, and relax.

Kerry probably can't play it too safe. His best chance to befuddle the media is to come up with something in advance that will throw Bush obviously off his game. His second best chance is to improvise it on the spot. He may need to do (that is, say) something unexpected to win the expectations game.


You may have noticed that the Bushies are quietly pulling back from doing anything controversial. They've dropped attempts to drill in the Montana wilderness, and to have hemp food banned as part of their war on drugs. (We're not kidding---they were about to take it to the Supremes.) They've gotten good reaction for moderating, and they need to, because even the polls that show Bush ahead also show that by a very wide margin people expect him to make big changes if he's reelected.

I wouldn't bet on that. This is just electioneering. The insanity will return and we promise you it will get worse. This was Weimar compared to the Reich to come.

You Said It

"I don't think Iraq will have a perfect election. And if I recall, looking back at our own election four years ago, it wasn't perfect either."

General John Abizaid
top U.S. military commander for Iraq
Meet the Press Sunday 9/26/04

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.

Iraq, Terrorism and Vietnam

Stories in various news media, notably the New York Times, indicate that military intelligence assessments of Iraq prospects are bleak, that things have gotten worse, and civil war a distinct possibility. These findings were presented to President Bush in July. Even as he never wavers on his blind course over the bluff, he continues to present sunny assessments to the American people.

Those July assessments, notes CNN, appear to be coming true in September. An article in the Los Angeles Times (linked here)
Democrat Takes Off the Gloves on Iraq Debate

says that a slight uptick in support for the Iraq war seems to be evidence that the Bushie strategy of positioning it as an element in the war on terror is working. The article goes on to say that this has persuaded the Kerry campaign to become bolder in exposing the ways in which Iraq situation is demonstrably adding strength and numbers to the al Qeda cause and to terrorism in general.

That the Iraq debacle is making America less safe is, first of all, demonstrably true, and secondly, an argument that can get the attention of voters, especially white women voters who (according to at least one respected analyst) are responsible for much of the up and down movement of the polls. When security is foremost on their minds, they track towards Bush. When they focus on health care, they go to Kerry. (National polls out today show Bush’s lead of the last week disappearing.) If they are persuaded that Bush's Iraq policy is making America less safe, is threatening homeland security, they will be more inclined to listen to Kerry.

It is at that point that Kerry should talk about his goals for Iraq, as we wrote in our previous posting. We would add to that, he should make prison torture part of the issue, and ending that excess as un-American and counterproductive, one of the goals. It was the prison torture scandal that turned the public against the Iraq war.

The increasing violence and death in Iraq is pushing anti-war Americans to more extreme positions, and threatening Kerry from the left. (It is probably responsible for Nader's 5% showing in one Minnesota poll.)

While the resemblance to Vietnam grows hourly, the situation is not quite the same. While the U.S. could have and should have withdrawn from Vietnam altogether (and as is becoming increasingly evident, would have, if JFK had lived and been re-elected in 1964), Iraq is in a different part of the world. The U.S. should withdraw militarily as rapidly as possible, but it cannot disengage diplomatically, and that's a complicated balancing act.

If the U.S. were to just walk away from Iraq completely, the consequences would be both quick and long-lasting. Because of the world economy's sensitivity to oil supply, the U.S. stock market could crash and the country could plunge into a deep recession almost immediately. The region is so volatile, with so many countries at each other's throats, some with nukes, that the consequences could be catastrophic.

That said, even if Kerry becomes President, it will take immense skill and leadership, and a lot of luck, to get the U.S. out of there without complete chaos. And that's if the current Iraqi "government" isn't overrun before January. It could even be the case that the insurgents are making a concerted push right now to be in control in case Kerry is elected, and might be able to set up negotiations with the large factions in the country, supported by the Iraqis who just want some security and peace, and running water. And to never see another American soldier or Republican again.

There is no future for the American military in Iraq, and no immediate future for American business. Once that is acknowledged, the real work of mitigating this immense disaster G.W. Bush has unleashed on the world can begin.

Kerry and Iraq

The tragic situation in Iraq is getting worse with alarming speed. It now seems possible that there will be complete anarchy or civil war, including the toppling of the current so-called government, before November.

At the same time media pundits insist that Kerry's position on Iraq is unclear, or that he does not offer a clear alternative to the Bush policy. We hear this as well from some voters who are otherwise sympathetic to Kerry, and very anti-Bush.

Kerry has become quite blunt in describing Bush’s mistakes, and he talks in necessarily general terms about what he would do as President: involve other nations in diplomatic efforts and so on. Why isn’t this enough? Perhaps what people need to hear now aren't means but goals. What does he want to accomplish in Iraq?

Offering a clear alternative is getting to be especially crucial as the situation in Iraq rapidly unravels. Chaos in Iraq does not mean that voters will automatically repudiate Bush by rallying to Kerry. They could just as well rally round the President, especially if American troops are in an especially bad position.

There are great risks for Kerry in getting too specific as the situation changes and remains so dangerous. But as he talks about leadership in a new direction, he does need to give voters a sense of what the new direction is, and where it is leading.

It may be a delicate balancing act, but I am convinced that Kerry needs to emphasize ending the war, ending the violence, bringing the troops home safe and soon. He must say something about his vision for Iraq's future, which could be as simple as a stable state that is not a threat to the U.S. or to its neighbors.

Stating these goals offers a context in which the means he outlines make more sense. For instance, many are rightly skeptical of the willingness of other nations to send troops. It would make little sense to do so in the current context, so the first emphasis would have to be on diplomacy. It could be quite complex, involving many nations and honest brokers (including Islamic ones) and many groups and factions in Iraq. But many parties within and outside Iraq have an interest in peace and stability. Finding common ground for diplomatic solutions is a goal.

Many experts are saying that there is no future for the U.S. in Iraq. Without "cutting and running" the U.S. must extricate itself, and Kerry needs to find the language to balance those factors. But he must emphasize an end to violence, and essentially an end to the U.S. occupation.

Talk about goals, about the direction, before the means: that's what we believe people are asking for when they say Kerry must provide a clear alternative, and a clear idea of what he would do to end the violence in Iraq.

Is Somebody Out There Listening?

Maybe it's a psychic thing, or maybe somebody in the Kerry campaign is reading us, but we've noticed that the candidate concentrated on Iraq and health care just after we reccommended it, and a line we contributed to the Kerry blog on what questions he should ask Bush in a debate (Mr. President, do you really believe that after I defended this country under fire as a young man, I wouldn't defend it as President?) has turned up as an affirmative statement in Kerry's speeches.

And now he's actually used the words we've been promoting as a theme: a fresh start.
They aren't real prominent but you can find them in the following interview with Time magazine, which incidentially is a pretty clear statement of what Kerry has been saying lately on the campaign trail. Here's the link

CNN.com - 'I've been in worse situations.' - Sep 13, 2004

We finally caught up with this excellent Joan Ryan column in the SF Chronicle. The moment she refers to at the beginning---the father and his reaction to the news of his son's death in Iraq---is an emblem of this war, and may wind up being its symbol.

Don't look too closely at the war

The Real News Continued

The current "unusual" wave of huge hurricanes and the storms they spawn is likely to continue in coming years, due to one or several factors, probably including global heating:

Guardian Unlimited Special reports Devastation linked to global warming

A nation of wusses

Three years later and we’re still scared? What’s wrong with this country? Yes, 9/11 was terrible and traumatic, and it’s worth finding out what the U.S. had been doing wrong, and worth even more to do what really can be effective to minimize terrorism against America. But we’ll never do either in a climate of fear.

A substantial part of the population, polls say, are afraid they’ll be killed in a terrorist attack. Despite the fact that they are statistically more in danger of being killed by falling down the stairs while talking on a cell phone. Around 3,000 people died tragic deaths three years ago, and in the three years since, more than 10 times that many died each year of cancer from smoking and bad stuff in our air. Five times as many people die each year because they don’t have health insurance.

Your life is more in danger in New York City crossing the street or taking a taxi than from a repeat of 9/11. Do you live in fear of getting behind the wheel of your car?

Instead, we’ve had exactly one incompetent guy tried to light explosives in his shoe, and now tens of thousands of people every day stand in line like sheep to take off their shoes for inspection before being granted the privilege of inhaling stale air and not getting a bad meal in a cramped airliner seat. We must be grateful that nobody tried to light their shorts.

Now any one of us can be pulled away from the airport counter, hustled to a room and questioned like people caught stealing Bush’s remedial reader from the White House bathroom, because of a bad joke, the attempted smuggling aboard of a dangerous nailclipper, or maybe a foreign-sounding accent, or just as likely for no reason at all---because a name sort of matches a name on a list compiled by---well, nobody knows who compiled it, or why names are put on it, and certainly how to get names off when there’s a mistake. And like sheep we just let this go on. Why? Because we’re wusses.

We have a lot of help. The GOPers keep it alive but the New York and Washington based media does, too. Some of that is understandable---they knew people in the rubble, they were nearby---but those images can't be bad for ratings either. By now the actual events of that day are long lost in what has come to adhere to the images of it, as our parrotheads and other leaders repeatedly tell us what to think about it. Or more properly what to feel.

The people of London and other cities in England during the Blitz endured a 9/11 nearly every day for years, and apparently with a great deal more grace. If you want some justified fear, try getting sick without having health insurance, or losing your second job that’s the difference between paying the rent that means your kid has a place to live so she can go to school and gets at least one hot meal a day.

It’s not just that it’s unseemly to be so chicken-hearted. It’s dangerous, because fear clouds the mind. You think with your glands and do what seems the fastest and easiest to avoid danger. If you’re right, you escape. If you’re wrong, you perish. If the panic echo of 9/11, kept alive by the fear-mongering GOPers, leads America to retain the destructive services of G.W. Bush because he offers a simplistic analysis and simple solutions which also happen to be worse than dead wrong, we will perish as a free and prosperous people, and we’ll take the future with us.

Certainly terrorism is an important threat, now and even more so in the future, to the stability of our society. But fear of terrorism, and the manipulation of that fear by the Bushies, has already done more damage to America, to freedom here and to American standing in the world, than terrorists could dream of. And it’s done too little to stop terrorism now, and has worked against stopping terrorism in the near future.

Bush keeps to his steady course, which we’re supposed to admire as he heads us crashing into the iceberg that’s been clearly visible for months.

It’s 9/11, do you know where your Homeland Security is? Off making deals with huge corporations run by GOPer donors for expensive technologies of dubious usefulness, while there’s not enough money left for police to patrol borders or the streets, ports to inspect cargo ships or air freight, or fire and rescue to respond if something happens.

Meanwhile a select few Americans keep getting richer, keep getting more gravy in tax cuts, while the bottom falls out for most everyone else, and the rich-run media projects these images of wealth to the 9/11th of the world that’s indelibly poor if not outright starving and suffering through lives we can barely imagine. But some of the people in those exploited and usually invisible countries have figured out that vastly destructive power comes in very small packages, and that technology can be turned against those who have it.

But of course terrorism can’t be springing from that. Those terrorists are the embodiment of Evil, they were obviously born that way. They Hate Us, and Our Way of Life. They want to Take Away Our Freedom. They are swarthy and speak ugly guttural languages, they have religions of Hate not Love (and so we must kill them) and are really aliens from the godless planet of Hell.

Face to face with someone out to kill you, you defend yourself and those around you. Soldiers know this, and soldiers who have operated well and honorably under fire have the skills necessary for such defense. And sometimes you attack the enemy before the enemy can attack you, assuming you are real certain of the enemy, and its ability and intent to attack you. If not, everyone in the world is potentially an enemy. Fear becomes what we call paranoia, which politically is expressed as institutionalized fear, as a massive cult of fear.

9/11 remains vivid, and Americans (some pollsters say) are bored with Iraq, they’d rather let George II do it (so sure of his right to rule even as a young fool that he could contemtuously blow off even the safe duty he drew thanks to his family connections, while the kind of people he is sending to die, maim and be mained in Iraq were sent to die, maim and be mained in Vietnam) and watch Donald Trump purse his lips and say those immortal witty words, “you’re fired.” More than a thousand American soldiers have died in Iraq, with 8 or 10 thousand more wounded, there and in the region, and nobody seems to know---or for that matter care--- how many Iraqis. But that's over there, in Hell. Call me when Baghdad Disneyland opens.

Iraq may hold together until November 2, but nobody credible in the world believes it will be a beacon of democracy any time soon, and most are pretty sure the current government will fall and civil war will ensue. After November, we can expect Shock and Awe bombing as we’ve never seen, and we’ve at least heard of some before. After that, the necons will be loose, and the reality of not enough money coming in or armed forces stretched too thin, won’t impress them any more than it has already. Look out world, you haven’t seen WMD like you’re going to once GW is reelected. Saddam was wishing for nukes, but North Korea and Iran are doing more than wishing…

If this election rides on the fear engendered by 9/11 the chances are 9 out of 11 that our fear will become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Put back in office the man who most voters voted against last time, and it will then be time to be afraid. To be very afraid.

This is a link to the Boston Globe story discussed below:

Boston.com / News / Nation / Bush fell short on duty at Guard

UPDATE: All the noise you may have heard about possibly forged documents has nothing to do with the documents in this story. Nothing in the Globe story or in the blog entry below is based on information in the documents that may or may not have been forged. Not that you would know that from how the story is being reported on 9/10. GW Bush is still the president who is willing to spill the blood of other men and women but was not willing to risk his own, or even go through the motions of pretending to do alternate service in the safety of the U.S. Yes, it's about character all right: the character of the man in the White House who doesn't now own up to what he did then, and apparently hasn't learned anything except how to manage appearances better.

If A Shoe Drops on CNN, will we hear the sound?

CNN's Aaron Brown program on September 8 was one for the time capsule. What will future viewers, if any, think of it, think of them, think of us? A heartbreaking breakdown of the 1,000 American soldiers who were killed or died in Iraq, a so-called controversy on whether the University of Utah has the right to ban guns on campus, campaign reporting than manages to obfuscate the issues in the guise of clarifying the strategy and dynamic; a couple of authoritative studies that conclude that Iraq is deteriorating, that the situation there is worse now than it was before the American invasion, and that the most likely outcome is civil war.

Oh, and the reports that George Bush, the resolute leader of men to their deaths, consistently shirked his dubiously won National Guard duties, and by rights should have been shipped to Vietnam for his failures to keep his word and do the bothersome minimum his political influence bought him.

So catastrophic is this reporting that CNN couldn't face the implications of what it was presenting. So instead of covering the revelations arising from documents obtained by the Boston Globe and CBS News, and the thorough reporting both of these experienced and professional news organizations did on the subject of George W. Bush's dishonorable non-service, Brown and Co. reported first and foremost on White House reaction. "The White House said" began and ended each fragment of the story, and the questions to reporters was, what about what the White House says about this. Is this how they covered the non-story of the allegations made against Kerry's Vietnam record, not by responsible and thorough reporters, but by political enemies? Not exactly.

And Jeff Greenfield doubts that this clear evidence that should shame Bush from office, that is so morally corrupt in a man who sends others to fight and die to satisfy his delusions, is likely to change many minds. Why won't it? Because only those who want to believe it will believe it. Where is the objective judgment that all will concede tells the truth? he asks.

Are they talking about the same two stories? In one, the official record and the overwhelming evidence produced by journalists is that John Kerry earned his medals, acted heroically under fire in Vietnam, and has essentially told the truth about his experiences. In the other, the official record and the evidence painstakingly accumulated and evaluated by journalists shows that G. W. Bush failed to complete the drills he was obligated to perform in the Texas National Guard, failed to complete the drills he was obligated to perform when he transferred to the Alabama national guard unit, and failed even to serve at all with the Boston national guard as he promised to do. He obtained his national guard appointment due to political influence, and apparently got his honorable discharge despite his failures to meet his obligations, also because of political influence.

He even specifically "misspoke" or lied when "the White House" said he had stopped flying his fighter jet because his National Guard unit stopped using that plane. As weak and wimpy as this excuse is, the records show it is false anyway. The plane in question remained in use. G.W. just never bothered to show up again.

This is the man more than half of American voters polled believe is a strong leader, the best to lead the nation in Iraq and the war on terror?

Right. And Nixon was our greatest defender of the Constitution, and our greatest Civil Rights leader was Bull Connor.

Are we really going to permit GW Bush to be president for another four insanely awful years, just because John Kerry can't stand still when he talks? GW has gone beyond depending on telling the Big Lie in order to remain in power. He has become the Big Lie.

A Fresh Start

Now it begins in earnest, and it appears the Karl Rove lies and distraction machine has had its effect. It again becomes possible that the administration that presided over the most disastrous four years since World War II with the most profoundly destructive implications for the next fifty years, may be rewarded with another term.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign is fighting back with a clarity not seen since the primaries. But we return to our belief that the theme that could mean victory is simply FOR A FRESH START.

To energize the base and to win swing voters and inspire non-voters, we need to inspire emotionally while we make sense on the facts. We need to be positive at the same time as we relentlessly expose the damage that Bush has done, that must not be rewarded with four more years.

There is power in words, and these words---A FRESH START---are optimistic at the same time as they imply Bush's failure and the need to repudiate his administration. In themselves they do not attack anyone personally. Whether the implication is "throw the bums out" or a more neutral "time for a change," these three words say it.

Yet these words are primarily oriented towards the future.

They express what this campaign is already saying, especially since the Willy Horton Writ Large GOP convention. They don't concentrate on blame, yet the action required is crystal clear: for A FRESH START, vote for Kerry-Edwards.

If you are convinced this is an effective combination of words to use, it may be up to you to use them---in your letters to the editor, or any other communications you have in support of saving the future by getting Bush out of power. It may have to be a slogan, an idea that percolates up from a few individuals and possibly gets noticed by the campaign. But even if it doesn't, even if it clicks with one voter enough to earn one vote, it will have made an important contribution. Especially in a race which may be extremely close.

Now we turn the lectern over to Morgan....



Focus for Fall

Kerry has been hammering away at the folly and tragic cost of the Iraq war, and that's good. But prominent in his Iraq critique should be mention of the issue that stirs emotions, particularly of swing voters: the prison abuses, like Abu Grav.

Kerry reportedly was advised by Bill Clinton, shortly before going under the knife, to concentrate on economic issues, including the highly appropriate one of health care.

Kerry should emphasize most of all the health care crisis. Jobs, lower incomes, income disparities, are all vital issues, but it is easy to obscure them with apparently contradictory numbers. The facts in the health care crisis are stark. The platitudes that perhaps once were true simply aren't any longer: America is not the healthiest nation in the world, with the best health care system in the world, as most have long believed.

An American girl born today has a life expectancy lower than that in 18 other countries. An American boy is expected on average to live as long as a boy born in Brunei, and not as long as boys in 30 other nations.

Among the world's 13 wealthiest countries, the U.S. has the lowest (or nearly the lowest) life expectancy at birth and life expectancy for infants. It is worst (or nearly worst) in infant mortality and low birth weight. An American infant is more like to die than an infant in Croatia.

We're used to thinking of heart attacks as being the province of busy, wealthy middle-aged white men like Clinton, but in fact cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in poor black neighborhoods. This is where the vast wealth of the few really pays off: a woman born in a wealthy Washington neighborhood can expect to live 40 years longer than a male born in a poor DC district. It's a more potent killer, thanks to the stress of poverty, than drugs or homicides. So is cancer. And so is the amorphous category of "untreated conditions."

People die younger in Harlem than in Bangladesh.

The major health role of income disparity is expressed in various factors, but the most obvious one is health insurance. The wealthy have it (or don't need it), and they get better care.
The result is not just in getting life-saving surgery, but in getting simple check-ups and relatively simple care to follow up on what's found. But when care is postponed and then is given haphazardly, grudgingly, and in inferior ways, the result can be measured not only in dollars lost to the economy, but in human suffering. The suffering of people you see every day of your life.

In 2002, some 40 million Americans had no health insurance, including some 20 million with full-time jobs. Some 75 million Americans under age 65 were without health insurance for all or parts of 2001 and 2002. And it's worse now.

New figures from Kaiser, a leading health insurer, show costs of health insurance rose 11% just in 2004. The cost to insure a family for a year is now approaching the annual income of a worker earning minimum wage.

The Institute of Medicine blames gaps in insurance coverage for 17,000 preventable deaths a year. That's 5 times the death toll of 9/11, every year.

Health care is an issue that unites the poor and the middle class workers and families, small business and even large businesses being hampered or crushed by rising health care costs---rising faster than income for one thing, up 50% since Bush took office---and significantly, many health care professionals, including doctors and their organizations, and even some health insurance executives.

The U.S. health care and health insurance system is destructive and on the verge of collapse. It is a potent issue for John Kerry and John Edwards. All Bush has done is increase the burden on Medicare recepients while enriching drug companies and adding to the deficit. It's virtually all cost and no benefit, except to the already wealthy. Sound familiar?

John Kerry pledges to introduce legislation to create affordable health care insurance for all Americans as his first proposal to Congress.

Health care and health insurance is of immense personal importance to me. I am one of those Americans who lost health care coverage during the reign of GW Bush. I am six weeks older than Bill Clinton. Clinton has had the best medical care possible for at least the last decade, and had no apparent health problems, yet he required open heart surgery or he likely would have had a major heart attack that would have disabled or killed him.

As Senator Hillary Clinton pointed out, they have great health insurance, and Bill Clinton got the best care by the best doctors in reputedly the best hospital in the world for his condition.

If later today I were to have chest pains, or require any kind of care, it's very likely I would either not receive it, or it would be inferior and inadequate. If I had what Bill Clinton had, I wouldn't be facing rehabilitation, I would be facing imminent death.

With John Kerry's health care plan, at least the debate will be revived, and perhaps something will be done. This election could literally be life and death for people like me. It is life and death, and the difference between health and suffering, for millions.

The Real Second Term

GW will paint his second term plans in glorious platitudes tonight. His administration has been particularly fond of giving reassuring names to brutal programs that do the opposite of what they are called, and of making bold announcements but either not following through or acting in the exact opposite way. Our gutless press makes this a lot easier. GW's only talent has always been marketing, and the p.r. presidency fits in so well with the media that is nothing but advertising.

But reality cannot be forestalled forever. The piper must be paid. One concrete indication of Bush's second term plans came last month in a Office of Management and Budget memo, instructing every government agency with domestic programs to cut their 2006 budgets, especially---as the Washington Post reported-" popular programs that Bush has been touting on the campaign trail."

Here are some of the currently underfunded but well established and effective programs that will be cut further immediately in the second term: Head Start, WIC (the primary nutrition program for women, infants and children, administered by states), job training, home ownership aid, and a number of cuts in education. These programs of course benefit the poor, which more recent statistics show, have grown in number and are deeper in poverty during the Bush years; and they benefit the middle class, which nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office studies recently say have gotten the least benefit from the Bush tax cuts and are bearing most of their cost.

Expect the Bushies to push for even greater and more permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, to be paid for by the middle class, the poor, and everyone's grandchildren. Expect the remedy for Social Security and Medicare to be as costly, complicated, ineffective and ultimately profitable for favored private companies, as was the experiment with prescription drugs.

The Bush remedy for soaring gasoline prices is to make his oil buddies more money by ruining the Alaskan wilderness for centuries but yielding little oil. Every other industrial nation and even some huge auto and oil companies recognize the need for clean renewable energy, but the U.S. remains fixed in the past, as the future dies. The same on global heating and the climate crisis. The same on our fatally broken health care system---even the head of CA Blue Cross calls for a system of universal health insurance. P.R. and fundamentalist slogans won't make any of these daily tragedies and future catastrophes go away.

The trend is clear: more people falling out of the middle class, into poverty, where the so-called safety net is another advertising illusion. When are Americans who watch too much TV going to understand that because they want to identify with the rich and famous, this doesn't make them rich and famous? And those people who seem so friendly and down to earth, are always going to be friendly and down to earth with their wealthy friends, and their wealth comes largely from exploiting the gullibility of those who couldn't get them on the phone in a million years?

In foreign policy, some who troll those waters in Washington believe that the neocons that brought us a tragic war in Iraq are not really chastened but merely lying low until after the election. With Bush freed from facing the voters again, their ideological rigidity, their almost religious fervor and belief in their simplistic ideas, will once again drive American foreign policy and suppress internal freedom and dissent, as in the early days of Iraq and the Patriot Act. And why not? If they get away with the invasion of Iraq, based on willfully phony info, demonstrating stubborn ineptitude and arrogance, causing death, destruction and untold suffering---if they can do this and the electorate doesn't repudiate them but returns them to office--why not diss the rest of the world again, stretch our society past the breaking point to support their toy soldier video game wars?

These observers believe that in the second term, neocon Condy Rice will run the State Department, neocon Rumsfeld will move over to the White House as the national security advisor, and somebody like neocon Paul Wolfowitz will run Defense.

So get ready for war in Iran and/or North Korea. Get ready for Patriot II, and the power of the Bushies and the bureaucrats to spy on email and phone calls, examine every kind of personal record, with no recourse or remedies. What happens today if you find yourself on a no-fly list by mistake? It's not just a bureaucratic nightmare, because nobody knows which bureaucracy is responsible. It's something out of Kafka, it's happening to people right now, and in the second term, it will happen to many more. You don't have to do anything except have a name or physical description somewhat similar to somebody that someone told someone else might be suspicious. It can't happen to you? It can't happen here?

There will likely be no Supreme Court willing to protect individual rights against corporations and government, as Bush fills slots bound to open up in the next four years with rigid rightwing justices. It will be the Scalia and Clarence Thomas court.

You can forget about already weakened health and safety regulations, and especially consumer protections. Corporations will rule, and they will be allowed to lie, to cheat and steal, with impunity. As long as they put on a happy face. Like a lot that government does, it doesn't seem to matter until you need it, and it's not there.

A government that doesn't help the common good, help individuals in need or protect either individuals or the common good, isn't likely to be devoting resources to a common future, or to looking for what may help individuals and the common good in the future. So among those aforementioned cuts are slices in medical and scientific research. Not even mentioning the travesty of stem cell research, or other blatant bans and promotions that seek to establish the most extreme version of so-called fundamentalist Christianity as the ruling state religion.

At the moment, a tight race for the presidency seems to be getting even tighter, as John Kerry seems to be losing ground to a relentless and shamelessly lying p.r. campaign funneling through the GOPer convention, from the cheap façade of Arnold to the fulminating hatred of Zell Miller and the slick mendacity of the dangerously deluded Dick Cheney and GW Bush. This is no time for overconfidence. This is no time for nitpicking. Are you really going to turn up your nose at voting for Kerry because you don't like his looks? If you care about your children and your parents, if you care about nature and the planet's future, if you stand for justice, equality and civil liberties, you must do all you can to deny George Bush this second term.

The non-condemnation condemnation

It said so on the CNN crawl---Pres Bush condemns Swift Boat ad. Sorry, didn't happen. Bush, as he's done through his press secretary before, condemns all ads not sponsored by candidates or parties, including the Swift Boat ads, BECAUSE he doesn't like ads not financed by candidates and parties and their contributors. (Mostly because most of those ads are against his policies.) He did NOT condemn the Swift Boat ads BECAUSE THEY ARE LIES. In fact, other GOPer spokesfolks were on TV defending them, and making additional outrageous charges.

But the backlash, as well as the truth, has begun. See this Seattle Times article:

The Seattle Times%3A Nation %26 World%3A Debate continues to heat up over Kerry%27s vet record

Why they're crazy in the red states

The author of the story linked below drew himself a map of the United States according to suicide rates. He found that states with lower rates correlated almost exactly with the blue states, or the Democrat/ Gore-voting states in 2000. The states with much higher suicide rates tended to be the red GOPer/Bush-voting.

Did the author conclude therefore that GOPers are crazy? No, that would be more the kind of thing we'd say. He does point out that more people are likely to own guns in these states, which makes suicidal impulses easier to turn into suicides. But his major conclusion is that these are the states where mental health care is less available or stigmatized, or both. He points out that as on most health issues, the Bushies talk a progressive game but they fail to finance and support mental health services and their accessibility.

Boston.com %2F News %2F Boston Globe %2F Opinion %2F Op-ed %2F A suicide map of the US

Though this is probably a more reasonable analysis, we'd like to push it a bit further. There are plenty of people in this country who still regard psychological problems not as health matters but as evidence of character weakness, lack of manly courage, and symptoms of irresponsibility.

Everyone fears the prospect of losing the daily certainty of an accurate sense of reality. So denial is natural, not only of mental illness but even of any psychological influences at work in the "normal" person. The idea that one is either entirely and always sane, or else one is entirely crazy, is held by many people who may even deny they believe this.

This probably has something to do with a prevalent idea of sanity as functionality: in other words, if you can do your job, you're sane. If you can't, you are insane. There is no in-between.

And for millions of Americans, there is in fact no in-between. If you can't do your job (or jobs), sooner or later (usually sooner, if not immediately) you are cast out of the mainstream and into the street. You may as well be insane. You may as well be dead.

But there are also millions of Americans who do their jobs, who even look quite competent, yet wreak havoc on themselves, their loved ones, and in the case of those with powerful positions and/or involved in politics, on many other people, on in fact the entire planet---when they act in ways they may be convinced is rational, but in fact has a strong component of irrationality in perception, analysis and/or motivation.

So much of our political life, and a great deal of our national policy, is driven by emotions triggered by unconscious factors that appear to the people involved to be entirely rational. In general we have so little psychological self-knowledge that even to question our motives or actions is profoundly threatening.

In this the blue states, smug in multisyllabic rationalizations and stubborn two dimensional, machine-thought, are no more immune that the red states, smug in their virtuous ignorance and hypocrisy. So red and blue alike drip with the blood of the innocent.

Perhaps the best article so far on Bushies subversive use of lies and slander against Kerry, McCain and Max Cleland, is this one, published in that radical left wing terrorist propaganda liberal media outlet, Business Week:
BW Online %7C August 23%2C 2004 %7C Flinging the Foul Mud of Vietnam

Link to brief story about a new documentary on the Iraq war that finds it makes an overwhelmingly credible case counter to the Bush narrative---especially intriguing as it is from Reuters, which emphasizes financial news and is therefore read by GOPers...

Entertainment%3A Reviews Article %7C Reuters.com

Focus on now

In the Sunday Chicago Tribune, an editor there who has maintained silence for 35 years on his Vietnam war experience has gone public with his account of events as a swift boat commander---the only one still alive who was actually there for one of the actions Kerry's critics are lying about. He supports Kerry's account completely.
The story can be found at the Chi Trib site, an almost as detailed story at the NY Times, but since both are "subscription" a more accessible link is this one:
Reuters %7C Latest Financial News %2F Full News Coverage

Why are the actual Vietnam vets involved doing this? Several who previously supported Kerry were severely criticized for their actions in Vietnam by historian/author Douglas Brinkley in his biography of John Kerry. Combine that with resentment over Kerry's testimony when he returned, now taken utterly out of context in the new swift boat ads, when he reported having heard at the Winter Soldier hearings in 1970 or so, Vietnam soldiers detailing how they had committed various atrocities or witnessed them.

In Maxine Hong Kingston's latest book, THE FIFTH BOOK OF PEACE, she tells of her work with a group of Vietnam vets. They learned meditation. Eventually they met and embraced Vietnamese who literally had been their enemies---officers and soldiers on the other side. But their openness to new ways of dealing with their experiences, to nonviolence and dialogue, and especially their forgiveness of their enemies, did not extend to Americans who had protested the Vietnam war. They hated them. They were the unforgivable enemy, more than 30 years later.

As early as a first draft physical in Chicago in 1968, we met Vietnam veterans who trashed the war in no uncertain terms. By the early 70s, soldiers in uniform greeted as a brother a contemporary with long hair, because "you guys were right." The political danger John Kerry represented to Nixon in the 1970s was precisely as a well-spoken leader of what was becoming the most dynamic force in the anti-war movement: Vietnam veterans. Nixon's men found their own Vietnam vet mouthpiece, and today he has resumed his career as one of the ringleaders of the anti-Kerry vets.

But there were lots of veterans who felt personally attacked by any criticism or even reporting on the conduct of the Vietnam war. The Vietnam vets in Kingston's book needed more than meditation. They needed some shadow work, some guidance in understanding their projections. Most veterans of that war and most wars have been shamefully abandoned by their government. Many didn't get the medical care they needed, let alone psychological care that would expose that government's cynical use of them.

Now they are being exploited by wealthy friends of Bush, and encouraged in their delusions and lies.

We hope that the belated but now overwhelming exposing of these lies will mean this matter gets a rest. But we aren't all that hopeful it will happen on its own. We suggest that Kerry make an aggressive move to reframe the debate---not on the Vietnam war, but on the war in Iraq. The one the American people are now paying for, the one Americans are now dying for, in increasing rates.

Though the press has moved away from evaluating it, the situation in Iraq is stark. The military situation is worse. The political situation is dire. Billions of dollars have gone to Halliburton and other Bush crony corporations for reconstruction they haven't done, and the Iraqi people are suffering and angry.

More and more is coming out about Iraq and war on terror prison abuses, and the abuses of the Patriot Act that have, among other internal acts of subtle terrorism, placed thousands of Americans unjustifiably on no-fly and watch lists, including at least one black congressman and none other than Senator Ted Kennedy. Even these powerful members of the U.S. government can't get their names taken off these lists.

The only virtue of this press attention on Vietnam controversy is that press is going to be listening to what Kerry says. If he comes out with a full bore attack on Bush policy in Iraq, it will be heard. It is the issue that resonated throughout the primaries, an issue that independent voters are troubed by, and now is the time to return our focus to it. No president can do anything about Vietnam. This president chosen in 2004 must do something about Iraq.

Can't Find It At Amazon? Orwell's 2004

Wasn't it just a few entries ago we quoted the GOPer propaganda expert saying the real power of negative ads is in defining a story for the "free media", including the phony news outlets? The so-called Swift Boat Vets ads have become the textbook example in just two weeks, as a half million dollar ad buy in a handful of states has become the best known 15 seconds of the campaign, thanks to it being run over and over by rabid right talk shows and journalistically challenged cable news outlets.

For the story of the ad, why the people who appear in it are lying, and who financed it---not just GOPer fat cats, but those with direct ties to the Bushes and especially GW's secretary of cynicism, department of lies, distortions and dirty tricks: Karl Rove--here's a link to the New York Times story of 8/20.

The New York Times %3E Washington %3E Campaign 2004 %3E Friendly Fire%3A The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad

For a sickening chronicle of the media's compliance, you can go through the recent archives of
the Daily Howler.

Pack journalism, first exposed as such in Timothy Crouse's 1972 book, THE BOYS ON THE BUS, is weakness enough in the information media upon which a free society depends. So is the usual domination by owners rich enough to own the presses. But then the Fairness Doctrine was thrown out, meaning that rabid right radio could spread lies with no redress. Then TV news became a profit center, and then 24 hour operations on cable, with the emphasis on pretty faces and fast talking provocateurs. Spill all that over a population kept stupid by a combination of social pressure, bad schools, slogan culture and a 25 hr work day, and you've got the makings of Orwell Updated from 1984 to 2004. Big Adolf would be green with envy.

News from Pews

The Pews Foundation poll, that is. Here's a nugget:

"With foreign policy and defense issues at the forefront of the presidential campaign this year, swing voters' views on a range of these issues take on added importance. On eight of the 11 foreign policy issues in the poll on which there are significant partisan gaps, opinions of swing voters are closer to those of Kerry supporters than to those of Bush voters. "

Here's the link to the relevant page:

Part Five%3A Opinion About the Bush Administration%27s Stewardship%3A Foreign Policy Attitudes Now Driven by 9%2F11 and Iraq

Two priceless headlines on google news

Translation Error Cited in Sting Case
(a terrorist suspect may go free)

and just below it:

Rumsfeld Favors Slower Reform of U.S. Intelligence

We can't go any slower, dude.