Hunting The Muse

Dean Augury For GOP

Mathew Gross: What the RNC Learned From Dean...

Some insight about the Republicans based on Dean history that I hadn't heard before - evidently the massive waves of Dean door-knocking in Iowa was actually because they knew things were dire. Huh.

From The Comments...

My thread on Toby Keith has turned out to be quite popular. Here's a comment that I thought was pretty interesting. This high-schooler has got some guts.

Oh Dear. We're screwed. I have lost all faith in mankind. I know this is off topic, but I just have to get this off my chest. I'm going to tell you a tale of Hypocrisy and injustice.

My High School was letting people dress up in costumes on the 29th. I decided to go as Jesus (Is that wrong?) For an Hour and a half, students and administrators stared and laughed at my costume. Once I reached my PE class, some stupid Right Wing Evangelists come up to me and bawl me out. One even came up face to face with me. He said. "You're Not Jesus! You can't do that!"

I said "Uhh...I'm pretty sure God has a sense of humor too."

"Well stop this s**t right now. You can't do the things our lord did!" He retorted.

I fought back. "Well, didn't Jesus say that if we had faith the size of a mustard seed, we could accomplish the things he did?"

And here was his very Christian Response. "NO HE DIDN'T. WHY THE F**K ARE YOU DOING THIS! YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO THIS!" (Very Christian)

I said. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone."

He said "Shut up, you're not Jesus. You can't say that!"

I said "So, just because I'm neither Jesus nor a Christian I can't follow Jesus's philosophies?"

His intellectual response was "Shut Up."

This is where a pending republican kid got in. "How can you hate George Bush, who is a devout Christian, and portray Jesus?"

I said "What about gang members who wear rosaries while they do drive by shootings?"

He said "Well those are gangs."

I said "Oh, so let me get this straight. Wearing Rosaries and doing a drive by shooting is self contradictory. But a hardcore Jesus Following Christian ordering an attack on civilian targets is the lords work?"

This is where the evangelist guy stepped in again and commanded, not asked, commanded me to take my costume off or else.

I said "No. Just because you're an evangelist doesn't mean you hold any supremecy over me or anyone else. In gods eyes, We are all worth the same. You are equivalent to the athiests."

He said "Take it off B***h!"

I said. "Oh yeah, I'm really sure Jesus wants you to beat someone up. Yeah, the real christian thing to do is to threaten the life of anyone who dresses up like him."

Well, he went to the administrators and said that my costume was offensive. Yeah he, as an evangelist, is willing to let the school participate in a satanic holiday and let people dress up like satan or other demonic entities. And I dress up like Jesus, the universal symbol for peace and love, and I am offensive. Makes perfect sense. Well, the administrators came with a police officer and I was taken to the office. They informed me that my costume was offensive. Once I decided to attack their policy they snapped before I uttered my sentence and said "We are not here to debate the issue, the fact is you are offensive!" For you see, previously this year, I wore an "I Hate New York" T-shirt and they apprehended me. I told them my rights and I whooped their asses in a debate on their policies. So now they know if they let me speak, that it would make their policies look hypocritical. So, they didn't allow me to plead my case. They called my mom so she could give a change of clothes. I had to give my mom my costume so I could wear it for the rest of my time at school. I didn't draw to far into conclusion until the very end of the day, when this one girl in my class came up to me. When I was being taken away, I waved hi to her and she smiled and shook her head. Now in our sixth period, she came up to me and said.

"Can I use that?"

I said "What."

"I'm going to be a director when I grow up. I just thought it was a cool Image, Jesus being taken away by police officers. I want to use that in one of my movies."

I told her okay. Then she told me.

"You know, you are a lot more like Jesus now than you were when you had your costume on. I mean, When Jesus came to earth to rid the land of sin. He was persecuted and unjustly accused of being a blasphemer and a heretic by the people he was trying to enlighten. Here you are held on the same accounts of blasphemy by the people who claim to be a follower of Jesus. In Jesus's time, his accusers would rather let a murderer go free than Jesus. In our time, these right-wing idiots decided that it was alright to dress up like satan and vampires. And they subject you to punishment because you dressed up like Jesus. If anything, these people made you more like Jesus than you did yourself."

Of course, I was well aware of this. But hearing that from another persons mind was all the satisfaction I could ask for.

Well, that is the end of my story. I hope I didn't dehumanize evangelists or republicans. I am well aware that some republicans are cool, and some evangelists actually follow the teachings of christ. I just found this little situation Ironic.

Euthenasia

I probably would have won the costume contest too. Damn.

Kerry's RollingStone Interview - John Kerry

RollingStone.com: News - John Kerry:

I've spent thirty-five years dealing with these kinds of issues. When I came back from fighting in a war, I fought against the war here in America. As a senator, I led the fight to stop Ronald Reagan's illegal war in Central America. I helped expose Oliver North and Manuel Noriega. I've been at this for a long time. You know, I led the initial efforts to change our policy on the Philippines -- which ultimately resulted in the elections, and became part of the process that helped get rid of Marcos.


I negotiated personally with the prime minister of Cambodia, to get accountability for the killing fields of the Pol Pot regime. I've negotiated with the Vietnamese to let me and John McCain in and put American forces on the ground to resolve the POW-MIA issue. I've spent twenty years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; I've been chairman of the Narcotics Terrorism Subcommittee. I have five times the experience George Bush does in dealing with these issues, and I know that I can get this done.

See, that didn't take too long to say. Would've liked to have heard that in the debates, or at least had it more fully featured somehow in this campaign...

This one made me stop, close my eyes, and smile:

You don't get angry when Bush outright lies about you?

No, I don't get angry at it. I think it's sort of pathetic.

Transcript of Osama's Speech

FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - Transcript: Bin Laden Video

Where's the rest of it? I want to read the rest.

Update: There's more excerpts not included above here.

"We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.    "He (Bush) adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab rulers and called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating terrorism..... "

Update: Word is that it was an 18-minute speech, and only seven minutes of it was broadcast.

Does it help or hurt? I think it hurts Bush among those voters that don't pay a lot of attention. It underscores that Osama's still out there. I think it helps Bush with the voters with the overactive sphincters. "Ahhh! Terrorist on TV! Vote Bush!" And I think it helps Bush for those who innately trust Hardball and Fox News. And I think it hurts Bush for those that have a mind of their own. So... overall it's a wash. I think that after a couple of days pass, it'll be a net negative for Bush. Depends on how it is spun, though.

10/29 EV Status

How's it looking so far? It's really hard to say. If you go by today's polls, then it looks like Bush is winning. There are two states that I strongly disagree with in this scenario, though. First Hawaii is going to Kerry. Everyone's reacting to these two polls that show Bush threatening, but they're completely misleading. Kerry's got Hawaii in the bag. The other state is MN. That state has same-day voter registration. There's no question that that benefits Democrats, who always want more turnout. So what does that mean?

It means that not counting Michigan, you have each candidate at 250 EVs. Michigan is 17 EVs, which means it would only take each candidate to 267 EVs, which isn't enough. It means Michigan doesn't matter. So in this scenario, it means that whoever wins PA wins the election.

Now, that's assuming polls are accurate (aside from a couple of obvious adjustments).

But there are plenty of other pro-Democratic arguments to make. And here's where I am unsure. I'm in a bubble, I admit it. So I don't know if this is just whistling past a graveyard. We Democrats were stunned about the 2002 midterm elections. We thought we would be making gains in Congress, and instead we lost ground. I'm not sure we learned our lesson from that. But, here are the bubble reasons.

• Undecideds: There are still a few undecideds - around three or four percent. It's less than in 2000, when we had 7% undecided at this point. Undecideds right now believe 2:1 that it's time for a new direction. Most people believe undecideds will break against the incumbent by a wide margin.
• Registrations: Democrats have evidently won the registration wars, and recent registrations aren't usually included in polling.
• Turnout: The argument is that Democrats will win turnout.
• Otherwise inaccurate polls: Even aside from registration and turnout, the argument is that the polls themselves are inaccurate by counting too many Republicans in their samples.

So, you see how it goes. If it turns out that Democrats have grown faster than Republicans, and we have more motivated turnout, and we have all these young people and cell phone owners show up to the ballot lines that have never been polled, and, and, and (just clap your hands and believe!), then we could have a Kerry blowout.

But it's hard. That's an awful lot of faith to have. The GOP surprised us in 2002 using their 72-hour strategy for the first time, and they'll be using it again.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone is anymore making a serious argument for a Bush blowout.

Great Movie Reviews In History

This has got to be one of the funniest sentences I've read in a long time. From Capone's review of Polar Express on aintitcool.com:

But the spectacle that Zemeckis and his animators create around the arrival of Santa Claus is one that Leni Riefenstahl herself would have been proud of.

Seriously. If you can't make a clear delineation between Santa and Hitler, you might just have had a traumatic childhood. :-)

CA: Diebold Not Allowed

ABC News: Touch-Screen Trouble

California has decided at the last minute to not allow any Diebold machines to be used. Wow.

Which actually makes me more nervous about them being used in other states...

Bush Curse Frees Sox

MyDD :: Bush lands the Curse on Cardinals

Jerome at MyDD has the goods on the Bush-Cardinals connection...

I actually remember that whole controversy about the fake applause... a nice full circle.

Eminem: Mosh

If you haven't seen Eminem's new video yet, you must.

Perfect for people who are anti-Bush and have also hated Eminem in the past. You'll be amazed.

Voter Disenfranchisement

There's been some news and comments about voter disenfranchisement on both sides of the aisle. The Republicans trying to disenfranchise minorities and old women either by intimidating or confusing them, or using the rules to depress their vote (guaranteeing long lines at the polls, etc). And, Democrats trying to discourage the evangelical part of the Republican base, and keeping Nader off the ballot.

First, I'm not an expert on ballot rules from state to state, but I don't think there's anything that keeps anyone from voting for Nader as a write-in candidate, and having that vote counted. Is there? I'm actually a bit confused on this point because Nader's ballot drive mentions things like "certifying him as a write-in candidate". Isn't anyone certified as a write-in candidate by default?

If having Nader off the ballot means that a vote for Nader won't even be counted, then I'm inclined to think that's unfair to the people voting for Nader. But, right now I really don't think that happens - please correct me if I'm wrong.

Aside from that, having a candidate on the ballot is just a marketing benefit. There's limited physical space on the ballot, and a candidate has to exhibit a certain level of support in order to get the visibility. There's not really a catch-22 there, because if a candidate is reliant on the ballot placement in order to get exposure, then there's obviously no chance of them winning.

I do think it's a shame that ballot access rules are so different from state to state. You'd expect different numerical requirements, but the percentages should probably be more in line.

That said, in many of these states, Nader hasn't been even close to meeting the requirements. And whining about disenfranchisement in those cases is disingenuous. When you compare Nader's fraudulent signatures to the Dem's legal efforts to challenge those signatures, I think it's clear who it is that is trying to game the system.

And really, it's beside the point. The Democrats are not trying to disenfranchise any Nader voters. They gain nothing by keeping them from going to the polls. They gain a lot by convincing them to vote for Kerry instead, but they'd actually rather Nader voters go to the polls, because if they were to switch their votes to one of the other two candidates, they'd be more likely to choose Kerry.

So it isn't comparable to Republican efforts to keep people from voting.

Some things that Democrats point out do sometimes have an effect of keeping religious fundamentalist evangelicals from voting enthusiastically. But this is because the Republicans are hypocritical when you compare their actions and convictions. Pointing out that Bush has been arrested multiple times, or has a drug past, or a drunken driving past, can be relevant. If it honestly didn't matter to the conservative voters, then their vote patterns wouldn't change. But the fact that it depresses their turnout proves that Bush's history matters to them, and that they were first under the impression that Bush was more moral than he claimed to be. Finally, these exposures are truthful - just because it has a pro-Kerry benefit doesn't mean that they're not relevant.

And again, Democrats are doing nothing to actually keep these people from the polls - they're not putting polling places in strip bars or pagan temples. They're not shutting down polling places in rich areas, or passing laws to not accept ballots from precincts that were within 1000 yards of a church. They're not setting up highway checkpoints staffed by atheists and devil-worshippers to intimidate the good Christian folks.

The Republicans are, however, making large lists of minority voters to personally challenge them at polling places. They are still sponsoring lists that falsely note minorities as being felons. They are still trying to keep ex-felons from voting when they are allowed to vote. They are setting up highway checkpoints staffed by white cops to intimidate black voters. They are limiting the number of polling places in minority-rich neighborhoods. They are making phone calls to tell people that their voting precinct has been changed. They are forcing challenged voters to fill out provisional ballots instead of real ballots. They've passed laws saying that voters who cast provisional ballots at the wrong precincts (many of whom will show up at the wrong precincts at the instruction of pro-GOP groups) will have their ballots thrown away. There are tens of thousands of missing and late absentee ballots in states run by Republican secretaries of states.

I don't know how to make it clearer. There is no even-handed comparison between what the Democrats have done, and what the Republicans are doing. None.

State Of The Polls

Most election followers are familiar with the importance of Florida and Ohio. If Bush gets both, he probably wins. Not definitely, but probably.

But there are some wildcards. On Kerry's side, there are Colorado and Arkansas. In Arkansas, Bush has had a lead, but there's evidence of Kerry peaking at the right time. I believe that all the Gore states plus NH and Arkansas are enough to push Kerry over the top. The other is Colorado. Zogby shows Kerry ahead, although he might be an outlier there. But Michael Whouley (who managed Kerry's Iowa comeback) has been very high on Kerry's Colorado chances. On the other hand, Kerry's pulled back from Colorado in the last couple of days. CO is definitely enough to put Kerry over the top with the Gore states and NH. Finally, NV is still in Bush's column, but very close.

On the Bush side, there are a few more options. First, he's currently polling ahead in NM. It's only 5 votes, but it would cancel out a Kerry win in AR or CO. If Kerry gets NV, a Bush NM win would be moot since they are both 5 EVs. The other states are in the upper midwest. Bush has pushed ahead in Iowa in three straight polls, and Wisconsin in four straight polls. Winning both would give Bush 17 EVs, all but canceling out a Kerry win in Ohio. Finally, even MN is close with 10 EVs. If Bush gets all three of those, Ohio won't even matter for Kerry if he doesn't also get Florida. If Bush gets two of the three (which is how it looks right now), Kerry needs one of Ohio or Florida, and either AR or CO.

So as it stands right now, going by the polls, Bush has the advantage. Kerry is said to have the "undecided" advantage and the turnout advantage, but we can't be sure either way. I personally believe the thing about undecideds breaking 2:1 towards the challenger on election day, but... it is an uncomfortable position to be in.

Wildcards? Rehnquist's health has made the Supreme Court more visible as an issue. And, the hundreds of tons of explosives that were stolen in Iraq - it reflects badly on Bush.

Accidental Bush Votes

The Travis County Democratic Party has a memo about some voting errors.

Basically what happened is that voters were picking "straight democrat", and then finding that the ballot had them marked down as a Bush/Cheney vote (which they were then able to correct before submitting the ballot).

When pressing ENTER after marking Straight Democrat, some voters inadvertently turned the SELECT wheel one click through the ballot while meaning to go to the final "PROOF" page.  If you hit ENTER at that point, your cursor is over the first candidate on the ballot: Bush/Cheney.

Interesting, eh? That's either bad UI design by a nonpartisan, or... really good UI design by a Republican...

Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11

I rented it from Netflix and watched it last night, for the first time.

I had been putting off watching it because I figured I pretty much knew everything that was in it, and my vote was already solid. Plus, while I enjoyed Bowling For Columbine, it also left a bad aftertaste because I thought it went over the top on Heston. I felt bad for the guy. Sometimes Moore has this talent at displaying what feels like false indignation for something that we are (and he is) actually truly indignant about.

Anyway, the moment that got to me most was watching the Iraqi woman screaming about her village being destroyed. I can't imagine anyone watching that, even the most right-wing fundamentalist, and not being affected by that. She was screaming "Allah Akhbar" and those sorts of things that are unfamiliar to us, but her words would be interrupted by these wracking sobs... and sobs sound the same all over the entire world. It's impossible not to relate to it. When you hear those sobs, that's where you get a glimmering of how deep the wrong is.

I think that no matter how opposed we are to the war or to this administration's choices in the war, we don't get touched by how evil the effects of it are until we see scenes like that. We know it's wrong even while we don't always feel the depth of the wrong. Even if we're opposed to it, we are still on the wrong side of a gap between what life is like here, and understanding what life and death are like there. It's the emotion that can help bridge that gap. And yet, it's the area of emotion that I think gives Moore the most trouble with these films.  Here's what I mean:

Lila Lipscomb was hit and miss for me. I don't doubt that all her emotion was genuine, but there was again some of that feeling that I could just sense, that it was undermined a bit by Moore silently shouting, "See? SEE?!" in the background. What's so frustrating about that is that even though it's there, he's RIGHT. But people pick up on it, and it undermines the presentation. I don't know why. My best theory is that he's got a lot of (understandable) frustration against his viewership, worried that they just won't get it unless he underscores it. He needs to trust the audience more. He's improved since Bowling For Columbine, but he needs to work on it more. One of the hardest lessons to learn about conviction is that there is a difference between expressing/communicating your own conviction, and evoking those responses in others. The Iraqi woman wasn't trying to convince us to feel badly for her. She was just unashamedly showing us all her grief, and as a result it was deeply affecting. I think that's a lesson for Moore. Moore confuses his roles as an affected citizen, and as a filmmaker. He has his own emotional responses to his subjects, but he's weirdly private about it, choosing to channel his emotionality through his films even while he's trying to seem dispassionate and "out of the way" at the same time. So the result is that there's this sense of him being both in and out of the frame at once, and it's distracting. He needs to pick one of the two approaches. Without doing so, it's almost like he isn't taking responsibility to fully express his own feelings about the issue, so he pressures us to express his own emotions, rather than ours.

I think Moore could make an amazing artistic work exploring his own feelings about an issue, and I also think Moore could make an amazing documentary. The combination just doesn't work well for me, though. I like his emotional take on the issues, but while watching the movie, I also want there to be room for my take, too.

I think what could be an incredible documentary is a documentary about Moore, shot by someone else. Make a movie about him making his movie. Catch him in his unguarded emotional moments. I think that it's only then that people would grasp how much of a flawed hero Moore is; that he is greater than his films.

O'Reilly Scandal

In the past, O'Reilly has expressed an interest in eventually running for office. I haven't written much about the whole sex scandal, but I do think that one result of this is that the chances of him ever running for office have greatly declined. The lawyers of the two parties are in private talks now, and the issue will likely settle. Which means a lot of evidence will likely exist that will not become public. Which increases the danger of it becoming public later. That's my take on it, anyway.

Republicans Playing Dead?

So, the Sinclair stations aired their stuff today (for those who didn't know, a company that controls TV affiliates that reach 25% of the nation had instructed their stations to pre-empt normal programming and broadcast a partisan hack job against Kerry, leading to protests and shareholder lawsuits that convinced Sinclair to announce they were backing down), and it was actually surprisingly balanced. We were expecting October Surprise, and actually got something that was still somewhat anti-Kerry, but not really damaging.

And, the press has been buzzing about the GOP releasing a new television ad that mentions Kerry and then... something else about a pack of wolves. The media tried to whip themselves into a tizzy by comparing it to Reagan's 1984 bear commercial (find it on the right), but... audiences are laughing at it, people are finding the wolves cute, it's so easy to bring up Bush "crying wolf" again, and now even the wolves are having their say.

So, the big hit hasn't really come yet. Is it coming?

Bush is rumored to be taking a day off in Crawford TX on Saturday... it's also rumored to be a lie because he pulled the same thing when he visited Iraq for Thanksgiving... is this a feint, or is it really all they've got?

Electoral Map Update

It's looking more likely that Kerry will get Ohio. However, Bush is close in MN, WI, and IA. If Bush gets two of the three and retains his other 2000 states, Ohio won't matter.

He Just Doesn't Get It

Win Back Respect has a new ad that hits Bush hard about an appearance he made at a D.C. Washington Correspondents Dinner. At the dinner, Bush made jokes about not being able to find WMD. Looking under the desk in the Oval Office, etc: "Nope, no weapons of mass destruction here!"

The Correspondents Dinner has a tradition of self-deprecating humor. The president roasts himself; makes fun of his own mistakes or foibles.

The question is where the cost of the mistake is. Self-deprecation is appropriate when the result of the mistake is your own humiliation. It means you have a sense of humor about it, enough to show that you are bigger than the humiliation.

The failure to find WMD had plenty of cost. Bush and his handlers evidently believed that the only cost was that it made him look silly; that it was a hit on his credibility. Self-deprecation is about overcoming that momentary lack of credibility. It's incredible that they thought that was the only issue, and that making fun of it was enough to overcome it.

It proves that they saw the other costs of the failure - including deaths of soldiers - as irrelevant. In fact, it's worse - it proves that the other costs of the failure didn't even register to them. Because it wasn't just about them believing they were irrelevant - it was that they didn't believe they were even worth acknowledging to the entire media.

Republicans are completely incapable of self-deprecation, because it involves actually acknowledging a mistake or vulnerability. Bush's joke wasn't an admission of vulnerability. It was a crass declaration that the failure to find WMD didn't even matter to him. In a way, it was the opposite of self-deprecation, because rather than admitting humility, it exposed arrogance.

I think the ad does a good job of exposing that arrogance.

Lost: White Rabbit

Argh!!! I don't know what the hell is wrong with ABC! My Tivo started recording at the exact right time, and recorded for a full hour, but I missed the last few seconds! Anyone know what happened the last minute or so?

The last thing I saw was Doctor dude mentioning his dad in Sydney to Kate. Camera was on her.

Bush The Serpent

You know that snake in The Jungle Book? The one with the pinwheel eyes that tries to hypnotize Mowgli? That's Bush! It's not just that Bush is a bully, it's that he tries to hypnotize the voters. He and especially Karen Hughes. Their MO is to repeat an allegation over and over again until people think it's true - to the point of completely ignoring directly relevant counterpoints. It was weird how often Bush did that in the debates. Didn't even modify the attack to Kerry's response, just plain old repeated it. His response over and over again is simply, "Trust me." More aptly, "Repeat after me:" followed by the attack of the day. They're not even so much attacks, as coaching the rest of us to mindlessly adopt his talking points.

So here's the web ad that needs to be produced. Or even a political cartoon. Take the Jungle Book snake, singing "Trust in mee....... trust in mee....." and put Bush's face on it. Mowgli is America.

Bush The Bully

I am completely certain that if we can manage to throw him out of office, even if it's really close, that within a couple of years (maybe within one more change of administration), it will be an easy consensus that he was one of the worst and most damaging presidents in our history.

It's all because of the kind of bully he is, and what, in psychology circles, they call "learned helplessness".

This quote from a Jack Womack I saw over on William Gibson's blog brought it home:

We can see that the person now in office has led us into a terrible situation, and clearly has no idea what to do, and if reelected will continue to do more of the same. But his opponent has not given us a sufficiently exact plan of action indicating what he intends to do during the next four years -- regardless of what events might take place in the meantime. Therefore, obviously, the right thing to do is to stick to the idiot we know...

With a bit of distance, it's completely obvious they are being held to different standards. It's like the entire nation just needs to be comforted and reassured that it really is okay to make a change. This election isn't so much about battling Bush as it is battling our own fears. We just need to succeed in shaking off the cobwebs, and then after that it will become a lot clearer.

Demand Dries Up For US Bonds

Bearish on Uncle Sam? (washingtonpost.com)

I don't know much about macroeconomics, but I know a little bit. Seems like the US has finally come close to drying up its world economic goodwill. That's really scary.

But a rash of new data, including Treasury Department figures released yesterday showing a net sell-off by foreigners of U.S. bonds in August, has stoked debate over whether overseas investors -- private individuals, institutions and government central banks -- are growing dangerously bearish on the U.S. economy.

Zogby: Kerry President

Zogby International has an article - scroll to the end - where Zogby flat-out predicts that Kerry will be president.

Supreme Court and Bush

The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial Observer: Imagining America if George Bush Chose the Supreme Court

I personally don't think there's much chance of Stevens retiring in the next four years if Bush is re-elected. But the chief justice probably will, and O'Connor might. Anyway, this is an editorial that gets scary about what Bush appointments could lead to. It's a bit shrill, but I'm in support of being shrill about the Supreme Court - Bush has shown no desire to nominate judges that would get bipartisan support.

Week's Observations

Republicans are trying to neutralize the vote fraud argument by implying that Democrats are fraudulent in mysteriously finding so many new Democratic registrations.

Some Republicans are trying to make the argument that Kerry represents worse governmental fiscal health, when Bush has just asked for the government to raise its debt limit for the fourth time in four years.

Kerry will probably regret making his pledge that he will not raise taxes on those making under 200k in his first four years.

Here's a resource on vote fraud allegations and evidence in Oregon. Editable, in case you find more instances that are not included.

Thankfully, the Mary Cheney argument has dropped off the radar - people disapproved of Kerry saying it, but it doesn't seem to correlate to a drop in Kerry support.

The abortion rate is up since Bush took office. It's probably more honest to say that it's because of the rise in poverty than it is because of refusing to fund contraception education, although that certainly doesn't help. And Bush is on the wrong side of both issues.

Regarding Buffy. I've always been somewhat bad at grasping symbology and metaphor in art and music - I'm better at inventing it. So even though I watched the entire seventh season of Buffy, I never grasped its possible intent of critiquing Bush's foreign policy.

A pledge for us to sign, to stop a stolen election. (And a really cool domain name.) Two years ago when all the protests were happening regarding the Iraq War, I felt caught between two friends with vastly different philosophies on protesting - I felt they both had good points and had trouble reconciling how I felt. One felt the societal expression of rage was healthy and needed, another didn't disagree on a personal level but felt that - especially when a protest turned violent - that there were enough people that equated public rage expression with violence, that the protests were more often than not counterproductive to the aims of the protest. (Apologies if I have misrepresented either of you.) I almost felt my way through it but didn't quite get there. That's all going to come up again depending on how the election goes. I did see Archbishop Desmond Tutu praise the protesters on The Daily Show so that sort of counted for something. It is hard to make a distinction between violent protests and nonviolent protests when you are never sure what kind of protest it is until after the fact.

And, regarding Florida. I'm typing it here in case there is need to say "See, I told you so," after the election. Florida had a 2004 felon list. They have since declared it "junked" because of this whole thing with there being too many false names (similar to the 2000 list, which was never corrected). However, it wasn't really junked - the list was still sent to all the counties, and they can use it at their discretion. The press can't just ask the Secretary of State and trust her when she says it was junked. The press needs to contact each of the counties and confirm that they will not be using the list. I would not be surprised if it comes out later that some counties used the list anyway.

Finally, in general, poll "internals" look very good for Kerry, even though the headlines of the polls usually don't. There appears to be a large Bush margin in safe Bush states, which is padding his numbers and is mostly irrelevant. Higher turnout always means good things for Democrats. Higher turnout means more new voters. New voters are not accounted for in polls. So all polls that you see assume that new voters will not disproportionately benefit one party. Now, ask yourself. Which party is more motivated to register and vote in this election? I've had a secret hope of what would symbolize how much latent frustration and rage there is against Bush, and how much support there is for change and Kerry. Its abbreviation is GA.

Koin 6 Gay Marriage Panel

I'm watching Koin 6's gay marriage panel right now - debating Amendment 36.

Brian Stahl, parent of two sons - one gay, one straight - says:

What it effectively does is: one of my sons, simply by uttering the words "I do" in getting a marriage license, has thousands of federal protections, hundreds of state protections automatically conferred on them, whereas my other son doesn't. Unequal treatment of my sons, being brought up to know we want equality in Oregon, is wrong, and we'll be voting No.

And Kelly Clark, attorney responds:

The marriage statutes and the traditions of marriage have always made distinctions. We don't allow people, for example, who are already married to get married. We don't allow people who are not a certain age to get married. We don't allow peope who can't consent to get married. There are rules and have always been rules and distinctions about marriage. One of them has been that it has been between a man and a woman. To that extent, there have always been distinctions made in the concept of marriage in the west. This is no different.

It just pisses me off so much that people would see Clark's point as reasonable. That some people can't see what he's saying. That a gay marriage is "no different" than bigamy, or underage marriage, or a relationship not based on consent. Clark sees the difference as irrelevant. He uses the point of bigamy as a reason to not allow Stahl's son to get married. And what is the rationale behind underage laws, and lack-of-consent laws? It's protection. Protection of the underage, and protection of those who can't give consent. Protection of one party in the relationship. Who in a gay marriage would be protected here? Clark discards the protection argument, leaving only arguments of morality. And as far as I'm concerned, arguing that gay marriage is immoral is bigoted.

As far as I know, this would be the only limitation of marriage based purely on questions of "morality". Every other distinction I'm aware has to do with matters of power and responsibility, of someone being defended. Who's being defended here? There are plenty of snarky responses to that question, but how about a serious one? Who's the party that needs defending against gay marriage here? Who's the victim in a gay marriage?

Vote No on 36.

Buffy The Republican Slayer

High Stakes 2004: Whedon Fans for John Kerry & John Edwards

Joss Whedon endorses Kerry/Edwards - and sponsors house parties!

Bush Philosophy

"By remaining resolute and firm and strong, this world will be peaceful." - George W. Bush

That's a common quote by him, on the campaign trail.

Just think about it for a little while. Let it roll around in your head.

Then try remaining resolute and firm and strong with your significant other. See how far that bullshit takes you.

Post-Debate Thread

The third debate was hard to digest. In a sense, it was just like the others. Bush presenting a version of himself highly inconsistent with the marketed image of himself (and, inconsistent with the other two debates as well), and Kerry, highly competent and consistent as always.

After a few days, though, it's clear to me that Bush won the third debate. And it's just because of that blasted lesbian comment.

I thought what Kerry said about Mary Cheney was inappropriate. I also winced. But I didn't wince because of how it was inappropriate.

Let me back up. What was inappropriate about it was that he used the daughter of his opponent for his own purposes. That's the only thing that was inappropriate about it. But I thought it was a bit thuggish; kind of bizarre given Kerry's general style. He's normally so much more artful. There's something about using the daughter of your opponent for your own purposes - even if she is a campaign official - that is a bit out of bounds.

Now, those are my standards. Not Republican standards. Republicans would do that in a second. There are so many areas of hypocrisy there that I'm not going to try and list them.

Why did I wince, though? Because it came across as incredibly obvious to me. Something akin to a pander, except that it wasn't playing to any base in particular. We Democrats aren't huge fans of Mary Cheney. And diehard Republicans weren't going to respond by thinking that Kerry was a good guy for saying it. It was nothing more than Kerry's attempt to subtly slip a knife in, except that he was using a hammer. And the other reason I winced is because I knew, I just knew, that these asshole hypocrites could make a major case out of it - that they could take advantage of it, that they could go full-out cross-eyed crazy with indignance about it. These guys do false outrage and blustery indignance better than anyone, and they will stop at nothing to do it - two years ago they dishonored the death of Senator Wellstone to make their political point. Could there be any doubt about them using the Vice President's own daughter to pander to bigotry?

So that's what they did. Kerry gracelessly set out the wedge - saying to the GOP, "well, do you like gays or not?" A great question, but he did it in a political "dirty tricks" manner that makes most political outsiders uncomfortable. Kerry, who up until then had been extremely good at not even giving the GOP an avenue to attack, served up a fat softball for them to hit out of the park.

So what do we have? We have an army of scared, desperate right-wingers that are in charge of the media. Some are pandering to the family-values crowd; how dare he invade privacy? Some to the conservative propriety crowd; how could he be so rude? Some to the love-the-sinner, hate-the-sin crowd; how dare he call her a LESBIAN? And all of them are milking it for every drop they can. Those are their panders. But their motivations are entirely different.

It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense. VP Cheney having a gay daughter is a huge source of "cognitive dissonance" to his supporters. And remember that cognitive dissonance is what a rationalization fixes. There are legions of Republican supporters that have coped with this reality in any way they could - by pretending it wasn't there. Some would deny her very existence, some would pretend she wasn't acting on it, some would simply see it as a necessary evil that Cheney had to put up with because it was his daughter, and family is about accepting each other's sins.

But then there is Kerry calling her a lesbian - the word that in many conservatives' ears, isn't just an indication of private sexual nature, but of advertisement, behavior, and choice. It's salacious to them. It ripped away the curtain from everything they are trying to hide from themselves. It said that they can pretend they are tolerant all they want, but that they are still bigoted. The Republicans are vulnerable on this point, and many of them that are still trying to feel good about themselves feel guilty and ashamed of their bigotry - and there was Senator Kerry, exposing their vulnerabilities to the world. No wonder they felt like it was a cheap shot.

Lynne Cheney called it "cheap" and "tawdry". Not "inappropriate" or "rude". I think it was salon who nailed it here - these are the words of sexual shame. Disapproval of a sexual behavior. How dare Kerry say my daughter is a lesbian?

Elizabeth Edwards called her words for what they were; an indication of shame about her daughter. She was right. They are right. And it's not that Lynne is ashamed of her daughter. She's ashamed of herself, about her daughter. But this is the point - the Democrats don't yet have the leadership to be able to make that case. The public's point of view is malleable on this because it's very complicated, but the Democrats do not have the oxygen. Not unless all of the nation is willing to consider this deeply enough.

It isn't that Kerry's point was inappropriate. It wasn't. But his approach was clumsy, and it was provocative, when it was not a good idea to provoke them. And it was inappropriate enough in the Republicans' eyes that they're going to lead - bully - their way into making everyone think it was inappropriate. How DARE Kerry mention Cheney's daughter - no no, no need to consider your feelings about her being gay, that's irrelevant - how DARE Kerry say her name? That's a PRIVATE matter between the CHENEYS. For THEM to deal with PRIVATELY, within their FAMILY.

And then we're back to where we were. The Republicans artfully protecting their ambiguity, where a gay family member is treated like a respected community member going off to rehab. A private nod of understanding about how strong families are able to deal with the strain. And as a bonus, John Kerry put in his place for transgressing on their private shame.

You know, it's good if this sparks some discussion, discussion that is long overdue. But not at the cost of the election. We could have waited three weeks.

Jon Stewart on Crossfire

Every once in a while, we sit and fantasize about what we'd REALLY like to say to those blowhards on the political cable tv shows. Jon Stewart went on Crossfire today and actually said it.

He also called Tucker Carlson a dick. And when Carlson snidely said that Stewart should just take a job at a journalism school, Stewart shot back, "You should go to one!"

Watching this is like going over the rainbow. He's rebelling so strongly against the format of the show that Carlson and Begala seemed like the fish out of water. Salon mentions it in their latest war room - they make the point that Stewart treated Crossfire like what it pretended to be - a show to talk about tough issues - and it showed that Begala and Carlson were completely out of their element.

And, for the first time, I grasped that Stewart could actually do a lot more good for the country on a show that wasn't The Daily Show. Before I wanted him to stay on TDS forever; now I want him to quit ASAP. TDS's format could continue to exist without him, but Stewart is the only one who could create the kind of show he'd like to see.

Vote Registration

Well, I think the registration deadline in Oregon has passed (right?), and I still haven't gotten my voter registration card. Anyone know who I check with? I'm in Multnomah County. I registered at the DMV and dropped the card in the slot.

Update: Thanks to the editor at communique. I checked and I'm registered. Whew!

E.C. Predictions

2004 Presidential Electoral College Predictions This is another good site for Electoral College predictions. It takes the polls collected by 2.004k.com and predicts probability of victory for each party.

electoral-vote.com is still pretty good (see sidebar), but all these sites have flaws in that they are giving equal weighting to nonpartisan and partisan polls, and right now, the GOP partisan polls have the advantage - screwy samples, screwy weightings, etc. Many of the polls rely on samples that show the country as 38% Republican, which is ridiculous and not borne out by the turnout figures in previous presidential elections. So they are all weighted wrong. Plus, on top of that, voter registration has significantly favored Democrats, and that's in stone now because most registration deadlines have passed. So I think there needs to be another site that compares all the different polling groups' internals, and weighs the raw numbers appropriately.

GOP: KOTV (Keep Out The Vote)

MyDD :: One Party Wants You to Vote; One Party Does Not

A great short post detailing the GOP's many sick efforts to suppress the vote.

Wacky Rumor Of The Night

So, lipreaders saw Bush say to Kerry, "Can I talk to you a little later? [...] Where you gonna be? [...] We'll find each other." And Kerry evidently looked surprised. And with all the medical rumors going around about Bush, the Hunting The Muse Wacky Rumor Of The Night - that the royal we passes on, but does not subscribe to - is that Bush will resign or concede tomorrow.

Debate Thread

Remember, you can aim/ichat "musedebate" to send commentary on the debate.

I saw the moderator on The Daily Show and thought he was a nice guy, but I've heard since then he's a bit of a GOP shill. I've been told to expect a lot of wedge issue questions for Kerry, and softballs for Bush.

The stage looks identical to the Jim Lehrer debate.

Big smile, John. Big smile. He looks good.

Here we go.

Strange first question - will we ever be as safe as we were in the good old days? "The measurement isn't 'Are we safer' - it's 'Are we as safe as we ought to be?'" Good.

Dailykos consensus - Bush looks orange. I don't see it, but... there's dailykos for you. ;-)

Bush's voice is much calmer. So far. And he's wearing his happy face. And, out comes the "nuisance" attack.

"Gosh, I don't think I ever said 'I'm not concerned...' one of those exaggerations." And, the dkos consensus is that yes, Bush said exactly that. Here comes a video clip.

Okay, flu season. Flu vaccines. Wow, Bush is answering... was the question telegraphed? I'm not so sure this is a political issue. Ohhh.... here he's talking about medical litigation stuff. Again, Kerry's got to come back on this one. The goal is to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits, not the damage limits. Okay, good - Kerry brings it to the health insurance matter.

Bush isn't screwing so far, but Kerry is doing well as usual. "This president has turned his back on the wellness of America."

"A plan is not a litany of complaints." What? Calls it bait and switch. Kerry smiles in return. However, Kerry doesn't seem to smack that one back as well as he could.

Question: how to pay for things without raising taxes for those under 200k. Kerry, "pay as you go".

Bush: "Rhetoric doesn't match his record." Kerry is smiling a lot in reaction. Bush is saying that Kerry is ... hold on. What? PayGo? PayGo?

PayGo! Bush is reduced to baby talk. Well done, Kerry.

Bush has a plan to CONTINUE to grow our economy... I guess in the direction it has been growing? In the negative? You can't cherry pick a couple of months.

dkos comment: Wow, it sounds like Bush would do a lot if he... were... president... ?

And a line: "Getting lectured by Bush on the economy is like being lectured by Tony Soprano on Law & Order."

Schiefer is evenhanded so far - kept a rebuttal opportunity from each candidate.

Okay, I think Kerry is getting into his zone, that's good. Good stretch on sending the jobs overseas, how you get a tax credit.

"We've increased Pell Grants by a million students." Fact check? Is that what Kerry said wasn't true?

dkos comment: "It's your money... that's why I gave it to the rich!"

"Charlie, anyone can play with this votes. Everyone knows that." Good job smacking it back to Bush.

Bush starts to whine about Kerry's record... Bush didn't look good there.

Wow. "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?" Wow. Man... I'd like to see Kerry show some leadership here. But I don't know what the right play is. Still, this counts as a question that is tailored more for Bush.

Wow... Kerry mentions God a lot in the homosexuality thing. That'll comfort centrist and liberal religious folks, and really piss off the fundies.

Kerry invokes Kennedy. He invokes Kennedy again. And talks about God a lot. Wow. People will remember that.

Bush mentions a "culture of life"... which is a code phrase.

Man, these tax free savings accounts plans... I don't like them, especially in conjunction with health insurance plans. What good does a tax savings account do to someone who is poor enough that they don't pay federal taxes and can't afford health insurance?

Because of that paragraph, I didn't really listen to what Bush was saying. My bad!

Ugh, Shiefer: "A MASSIVE plan..." "Where are you going to get the money?" Didn't he already ask a question like this?

Bush says he's not so sure that it's credible to quote the news media... and then his ear starts to bleed and he said "never mind." hahahahaa

Shiefer: "We all know Social Security is running out of money." Ugh. It's so much more complicated than that. Social Security is actually much healthier than that. It's something that has been exaggerated by Grover Norquist and all those guys.

Good. Kerry on Bush's Social Security plan: "That's an invitation to disaster." That's exactly what it is.

Bush: "Most of the tax cuts went to lower and middle income Americans." Fact check time! Big lie. And now Bush looks like he's about to cry.

Hmmm... immigration. Most old-style conservatives don't think Bush is doing enough on this route.

Gap between richer and poorer is rising. Good question for Kerry, to balance out that other one that was tailored for Bush.

Very nice line - I'm tired of politicians that talk about family values but don't value families.

okay what's the deal with the mitch mcconnel minimum wage plan?

Bush is saying that the NCLB act is actually a job act. So now he's ignoring minimum wage to talk about it. And now he's just speaking platitudes again, with no details.

Here's a key moment of the debate. Moderator asks Bush about roe v wade, Bush declines to answer fully, cuts his answer short. Kerry is slamming Bush on the education matter. Great moment - right now I'd say that the debate is turning into a clear win for Kerry.

Followed by a softball question for Kerry where the moderator actually says "back door draft" - things are going well for Kerry.

Bush about the armed forces: "People I've talked to - their support has been high" or something. What's that about him requiring loyalty oaths before he talks to them?

Okay, Bush FINALLY brings up the first Gulf War.

Good interplay on the assault weapons question - it favored Kerry.

Affirmative Action question.... Kerry says that Bush hasn't met with the Congressional Black Caucus. I'm not sure that's right.

Rethugs are going to fall all over themselves praising Bush's words about religion.

I'm not sure there is much to say about the rest of the debate. I've just been watching. I think Kerry was the same guy we've seen in the prior two debates, and Bush was too. Overall the pattern is that Bush makes an allegation, Kerry takes it apart, and Bush dumbly makes the same allegation. Bush's only hope is for people to be stupid enough to elect him.

Post-Debate spin coming up. I'll have final thoughts later.

Pre-Debate Thread

Remember anyone can IM me at "musedebate" (AOL/AIM/iChat) if they have thoughts to share.

Tom Brokaw on MSNBC comes out and disagrees with Chris Matthews on Chris's contention that Bush won the second debate. Russert is also saying that the undecideds that haven't decided on the incumbent yet are probably going to break against him.

Brokaw: "More than any other election that I've covered since 1968, I think people have a lot of questions, and a lot of profound concerns about what is going on in the world..." and then he immediately brings up Iraq. Good.

Andrew Card is trying to downplay how big a night it is, and hoping the people don't judge Bush on style. hahaha.

They're going to make Kerry look like a lllliberal tonight. That'll be fun. I don't think liberal is as bad a word as it used to be.

Laura Bush and Heinz-Kerry just met and shook hands and whispered. Quote from another: 'I think they just whispered, "Did you just get a weird phone call from Bill O'Reilly?"'

Ach, I hate these pre-show things. On to the debate.

Live Blogging the Debate

I'll be liveblogging the debate again at 6pm.

In an experiment, I've also made myself available via AIM for the duration of the debate. Feel free to message me at username: "musedebate" during the debate, and I'll include any and all funny comments that we all make during the debate. It's a collective affair! Join me in roasting the President!

Yikes: O'Reilly

Drudgereport (I'm sorry, I just can't link to it) has news on a sexual harrasment accusation against O'Reilly. Just... back away. I don't take satisfaction in him being accused, or in it happening. It's just ugly. And it's a big distraction in political circles from the election.

In other news, it looks like there is something to the Wu allegations. His congressional site has an apology. There are now questions about his re-election, although there seems to be a consensus that Wu is handling the situation responsibly so far. And there's a discussion about it over at dailykos - lots of ambivalence.

My own beef with it is how the Oregonian handled it. A multi-month investigation, most of it completed months ago, but it comes out three weeks before election day. And in the meantime they endorse Ameri while making no mention of the investigation.

Music Status

The two big musical projects lately have been shopping for a grand piano, and preparing for my big fall project.

The grand piano has been a dream for a long time. I started playing piano when I was ten; comparably late for most pianists. I had a Baldwin upright that had synthetic felt on the hammers, a one-year exception for the Baldwins, I believe. They had to be fluffed up all the time. I didn't mind the Baldwin, but I always felt I deserved a grand.

My parents scoffed (good-naturedly) at my arguments that a grand piano made you a better pianist. Honestly, it was an argument I was pulling out of my butt. You know, it psychologically making you better and all that. I knew there wasn't a chance of them buying a grand. But I still felt like I deserved one.

I stopped playing piano regularly when I graduated from college nine years ago. (Actually... nine years ago yesterday. Huh.) Long story about trying to keep music in my life in way or another since then. Suffice it to say that two years ago I decided it was time to buy a house. I didn't really care all that much about the house. But I was going to get a grand piano, and I needed something to put around it.

So, I've got the house now. And honestly, I wanted it to be as easy as getting the house, and then going out to buy the piano the very next weekend, but of course, it's much more complicated than that.

It turns out that there's a whole ton of pianos. (Well, millions of tons actually, but... figure of speech.) And it's not a matter of Steinway, Yamaha, and all the other ones, as it first seemed. It turns out that there are actually plenty of pianos that are every bit as good as Steinway pianos, just not as well known - and for not as much money. Steinways are great pianos and great investments, but their extra value is in "status". But for a pianist, the only real reason to get a Steinway is if you compare pianos and decide you like Steinways. If you decide that you want a slightly different action or tone, however, there are a ton of good choices.

And so now, I am going around playing different pianos, and in the process, being treated quite flatteringly by some very well-dressed piano salespeople. As of right now, my three favorites are pianos that you probably haven't heard of before, since I hadn't. They're all in the 6'4" range - bigger than a baby grand, but not a concert grand. They are the Charles Walter (6'4"), the Mason & Hamlin (5'8"), and the Estonia (6'3"). They are very different. I think I like all three of them better than the Steinway - not so much because of the tone (the Steinway tone is gorgeous), but because of the action. The first two are American made, and the third one is, well, Estonian made. Estonia is a country, see. The American sound is richer and has more harmonics than the European sound. It's more "complicated", and then we start using words that make us sound like wine tasters. I think I prefer the American sound. But the Estonia is really very clean, and calm, and it's a beautiful piano. But I still think I'm leaning towards the American sound - there's something it that gets really immersive and gutsy when you are swelling the music. But, the Charles Walter supposedly has a wimpy low end, and isn't a very "loud" piano, while the Mason & Hamlin has amazing design patents but dubious present-day craftsmanship, almost a factory mentality (the other two are hand-made by piano technicians). And, the M&H is significantly more expensive.

I am told that I should check out a Grotrian if I can find it, and I'm going to go try out a Pleyel.

I tried out a Baldwin grand and hated it.

Interestingly, I tried out a Bosendorfer (the gourmet piano everyone knows about and talks about) and - I didn't like the tone very much. Although when you're on the 9'6" Imperial Concert Grand, you're so impressed with yourself that you're not really even listening, so who cares?

I also haven't tried out a good Yamaha lately, but I almost feel embarrassed to go try one out. I guess that pianists that actually shop turn their noses up at Yamahas. Horrid little beasts.

Ironically, I have learned that a grand piano really does make you a better pianist, and it's not just psychological. The physics of how the keys work are more consistent, more responsive, and allows for more subtle variation in touch and tone than you can do with any old upright or even a smaller grand. There's a ceiling on how advanced your playing control can be on a smaller piano. I hit that ceiling when I was in school. It'll take me a while to get to that level again, but it's another reason I'm excited to have it.

I'm hoping to get the piano by the end of the year. Maybe in the next month. It's a bit hard to think about anything big right now, of course, three weeks before election day. But I can feel the purchase happening somewhat soon. And then I don't have the faintest idea what I'm going to do with it. What piece do I learn first on my piano? There are a hundred very boring blog entries that could potentially be written about that very subject.

As for the big major fall project, that's something else. Another entry, another time...

Wu Sex Assault Allegations

Great. Just great.

Evidently, there are allegations of David Wu sexually assaulting a young woman, 28 years ago. Let's take a whiff:

Early in the reporting, The Oregonian approached Wu for his side of the story. Over several months, his campaign manager repeatedly said Wu would not comment on "unsubstantiated allegations."

Several former Stanford officials and professors, as well as friends of the woman, provided accounts of what they said was a violent encounter.

The woman did not seek out reporters to tell her story. A reporter contacted her, and she declined to comment for privacy reasons. Reporters talked numerous times with a representative of the woman in an attempt to confirm the various accounts.

So, a clear case of he-said, she-said. Except that neither of them are saying anything. And, over several months, only to come out three weeks before the election? Is that just a coincidence? What was it about the timeline that made now the most appropriate time for it to come out? Why not six weeks ago, or six weeks from now? Did it just happen to correspond to three weeks before the election? Or was it timed?

Let's look again:

Wu's ex-girlfriend has steadfastly declined to comment, both in person and through an intermediary, citing privacy concerns.

Reporters contacted scores of former Stanford students, current and retired university officials and professors, law associates, and former campaign staffers and friends of Wu to determine what occurred.

Current Stanford officials would not discuss what happened between Wu and the woman or the university's handling of the matter, citing university policy and student confidentiality laws.

The meat of the article comes from an interview that happened in May - the woman who gave the interview died in August.

I'm not the biggest fan of David Wu. I didn't like his Medicare mischief, and his replies to me about the Help America Vote Act have been less than satisfying. But if there was actually anything serious to these allegations, evidently an open secret in Democratic circles since before Wu took office six years ago, it shouldn't have been withheld until three weeks before election day. Shame on the Oregonian.

Update: - Only three days previously, the Oregonian endorsed Wu's opponent, Gol Ameri. Note how it makes no mention of these allegations or the investigation they had underway. The Oregonian shouldn't have made an endorsement in this race when they were so heavily invested in this multi-month "investigation". This is an incredibly transparent conflict of interest.

Roll Call!

I was reading this post over at salon about the microaudiences of various bloggers. I've got enough of a readership now that I never feel like I'm shouting into a void, so that's nice. But it makes me curious.

So, roll call. Who's a regular? And if you're not a regular, who comes back occasionally just to see what's happening here? Please leave a comment, or if you don't want to be public, drop me a note. And in addition to just saying "here!", if you can, let me know - what sort of entries of mine do you like? What would you like to see more of? What, if anything, would you like to be different? Some of you know of my plans to transition this weblog to something that is more consistently themed with politics and technology. Would that make you more or less likely to become (or remain) a regular? There's a point at which I'm interested in refining my efforts a bit, towards the tastes of those who've already seen fit to stick around...

Thanks. :-)

We Have Them, Too...

I think there are Democrat "political operatives" doing their thing over at dailykos. Some of this stuff about Bush skipping his physical and possibly suffering from pre-senile dementia - with exhaustive lists of all of Bush's symptoms - just seems a little bit too organized. It's step by step, it escalates at an even rate, and it seems kind of spoonfed. Plus, it's a classic whisper campaign.

Edwards on Sunday Morning

John Edwards was on several of the Sunday morning news shows today. On two of them, the host made a pointed and final comment wishing for the safety of John Edwards and his family on the campaign trail.

What's up with that? Have there been physical threats against the Democrats that we don't know about?

Voting Rule Battles

Here's another article where the writers twist themselves into a pretzel in order to be evenhanded.

In the battlegrounds of Ohio and Missouri, Republican secretaries of state have crafted election rules that Democrats say could disenfranchise legitimate voters likely to cast ballots for Kerry. Republicans say Democratic election officials in New Mexico and Iowa are making it easier for potential Kerry supporters to vote.

Come on! In both cases, Democrats are trying to enable MORE voters, and Republicans are trying to RESTRICT voters from participating.

In fact, if you read the whole article, you see example after example, with Republicans always trying to throw OUT voters, and Democrats trying to include them.

Who's on the wrong side here? Come on, can there be any clearer proof that Republicans are anti-democracy? They know that the more fair an election is, the less power they have. That's an indictment right there. There's no reason to be even-handed here. The Republicans are pro-fraud, the Democrats are anti-fraud, and there's no way around that.

Oregonian Endorses Kerry

It's not up on oregonlive.com yet, but will be in the Sunday paper.

When George W. Bush took office in a deeply divided nation, he promised to reach out to unite the country.  If anything, he has helped make the rifts deeper.  That may be his real failure as president.  John Kerry can do better.

The Oregonian endorsed Bush in 2000.

Post-Debate Thoughts

I was hanging out on the dailykos discussion boards tonight while watching the debates. People were pretty pumped about the first presidential debate, and so I thought that overall there was a bit of circular reinforcement going on. Lots of talk about Kerry wiping the ground with Bush, etc. I think it's not quite that extreme.

Now, for those who are clear on their political beliefs, as I am, these debates are irrelevant other than hoping and praying that your guy makes a compelling enough case to convince other voters. So, in that sense, Kerry completely won the debate, because in my view, his politics are superior to Bush's. But frankly, this is really part of the battle underneath. There are still a lot of voters that don't really know the politics of these two candidates. Bush won in 2000 by convincing voters he was more moderate than he really was. He doesn't have that luxury anymore. So, completely aside from questions of performance, if these debates can actually expose each candidate's politics honestly, I think it's a losing battle for Bush. He has a political record now. On a strict policy level, more people prefer Kerry's policies. They just need to see who each of these candidates really are - and each time you get Bush defending tax cuts for the rich, anti-abortion bills that don't have health exceptions, and silly environmental policies, it exposes Bush that much further. So, in that sense, if Kerry is able to continue doing that as he did tonight, then it means he wins the debate on that level, even if the stylistic performance is poor.

But, what's left is that actual performance. That's the surface, and it's what the press is reporting on when they talk about who won. And there it's a bit harder to determine who won. Basically, the debate was more closely matched than previous debates. On a strictly impressional level, Bush made more of an impact. Right now, more of my memories involve Bush swaggering and being animated - which, in a way, forgives some of his bluster and strident tones. Kerry had less presence than his first debate, seemed a tiny bit more hunched over, and was a bit more long-winded, which weirdly seems to translate to a leakage of substance. He's like an old warship that often needs to be patched up before it can really blow something out of the water.

Neither candidate did very well in answering the citizens' questions, which annoyed me. I think there's potential to score major political points by QUICKLY diverting an opponent's attacks in this kind of debate, in favor of spending the rest of the time responding to the voters. That's part of what Clinton was so good at.

Finally, Kerry chose to hit back with a couple of snarky comments rather than with reason, which I think is the wrong choice. There are better responses to Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time. He had a cute one for that, but it didn't actually put it to bed. There are better responses to what flip-flopping is about. There are better responses to the medical lawsuit issue.

But, I think that Kerry parried very well on three or four occasions, and I think that Bush just basically doesn't parry. He just pretends a rebuttal doesn't happen, and repeats his first attack. A skilled debater could make much better use of that trait by responding to the attack on the merits, and showing his opponents' inability to modify the attack. Kerry did that a couple of times, but not enough.

The other big story about the performances, though, was that Bush didn't really improve his manners at all. He was rude and overbearing, practically unhinged in places. It was not a presidential temperament whatsoever. Kerry was better in this regard, although he looked slightly sleepy. Bush came across stridently even towards his questioners. Overall, he seemed like a bit of a baby - very unprofessional.

Bush's horrible performance in the first debate gave him a gift in a way, in that the low expectations gives him a good story if he improves. Same old story with him - this is the guy who claimed victory in improving Texas' education record in going from what, 50th by a huge margin to 50th by a slightly less huge margin? But I have a theory about this. I think that part of Bush's "horrible performance" in the first debate was just the pinprick of having Bush's actual personality exposed. The sight of the contrast between his genuine self, and the Bush image that had been painfully constructed over the previous months. Same with Kerry - his competent self contrasted with the picture that had been painted of him. In other words, I think that if these two debates had swapped places, then this debate would have been seen as a similarly catastrophic performance by Bush. It's less dramatic now in the second debate because it's less of a shock, which makes the spinners feel emboldened to say that Bush has his momentum back.

I think the spinners will get their own surprise in the next few days as they see Bush's support continue to sink like a rock. I don't know what can help Bush now. I'd like to see Kerry refine his approach a little bit for number three, but I think a performance like tonight will still be an effective performance. There are no more job reports before the election. The only remotely positive surprise that is left out there is capturing Osama or Zarqawi, but I don't think that even those will be enough - at best, it will be Bush cleaning up his mess before he leaves.

Debate Thread

We're live again... and also on the dailykos2 channel at irc.easynews.com .

Freudie says, "Holland says HI!"

And here we go. Charlie Gibson. Gallup identified these folks as neutral, which given their pro-gop bias, might actually mean these folks are leaning towards Kerry. Unless their pro-gop bias means they are crooked, in which case....

Wow, no citizen knows they will be called upon. I'm glad I'm not one of those citizens.

The moderator will intervene "forcefully, but politely." Heh.

I think Bush and Kerry are saying "Peas and carrots, peas and carrots, peas and carrots" to each other during the applause.

Okay, Kerry with a chance to knock down the wishy-washy stuff. So far so good. Isn't 1.6 million jobs the wrong number, though? Oh wait, I'm trusting Cheney. Sorry.

Bush still looks awful. Awww... Bush talking points. Boy. I think Bush is underestimating the American people thinking they will fall for just repeating former talking points without clarifying them.

Wow, he's sounding defensive against the second questioner.

ABC is doing the split screen more often when Kerry is talking than when Bush is talking. It reduces Kerry on the screen.

I wonder how Bush's laughing at Kerry will play.

"From tyranny to elections" sounds effective.

Kerry came up with a prepared response to Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time. It wasn't what I wanted, but it was passable.

Bush is saying that being popular is linked to doing the wrong thing.

Kerry had a very good response about how winning the war is different than winning the peace.

I am really torn on how important it is for Kerry to answer the questions directly, versus bringing it back to already-known campaign themes. I'd like to see more answers to questions.

The internets! Damn the internets! Bush finally comes out with a clear denial of the draft. But damn those pesky internets!

Okay, thirty minutes in, Bush freaks out on the moderator. That was weird.

Bush says that we aren't allowing Canadian drugs for safety issues. Someone's canadian girlfriend just said "Yeah, we use sticks and fire to make our medications."

Kerry had a great Canadian drug response. His counter-rebuttal was great as well. A very good moment in the debate.

Now Bush is just lying - "he's going to tax everyone here".

Bush is talking about tort reform - Kerry should smack this down and he hasn't yet. Point out how Bush's tort reform plan is a bad plan. The problem is how to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits, not how to limit the damages against bad doctors.

Question about Bush not paying for his expenditures, even not counting the war. I actually couldn't really even follow Bush's answer.

After Kerry's pledge that he will not raise taxes on those under 200k, Bush says he will. And what are battling green eye shades...? What?

Bush is just denying reality. He just keeps on saying Kerry is saying stuff he isn't saying.

Bush is a great environmentalist. He's in favor of harvesting forests, three million new wetlands, and did you know that he's the one that proposed the hydrogen automobile? Plus, he's got more wood than he knows what to do with!

Kerry is really dominating on the domestic portion of the debate.

Bush is going to save money for people on health insurance by 0.5% by reforming frivolous medical lawsuits. Yay Bush. He's also going to announce a tax on green eye shades.

factcheck.org has evidently confirmed that Bush is part owner of a timber company.

Kerry does well to bring up the embryos created by fertility programs. But I don't think either candidate has really handled the stem cell answer very well. Overall, Bush might have handled this one a little better, but most citizens disagree with his stance.

Bush will not nominate a pro-slavery supreme court justice. That's enough for my vote! Game over, man!

Final two questions. Someone not wanting their tax dollars used for abortion. It was a good part of the answer to say he couldn't legislate an article of faith. Later... "It's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe." Very good - it counteracted Bush's whole "certainty" (simplistic) angle, which may have played well with a lot of voters.

Name three instances where he has made a wrong decision. What a funny question. And he's not naming an example, other than implying blame towards some of his appointees.

Bush was simplistic once again. When challenged, he just repeated his original points, without responding to the challenges. Over and over again, he proves his lack of credibility. I think that's how Kerry is winning, is that his best quality is his credibility. It's a horrible matchup for Bush.

And, so that's what undecided voters look like. Huh.

Lobbyists

Hrm. There are thirteen lobbyists for every representative. Muse to yourself about citizen lobbyists and how citizens could organize and pay for them.

Job Numbers

It appears that the job number hurt Bush after all - 90,000, when you need 150,000 to break even. But, we were right to be worried that the numbers would be lied about... (see screenshots)

That really happened. I am really creeped out.

Election Prediction

Mathew Gross: Prediction Time-- a Challenge to My Fellow Bloggers

We're all going on record to predict the election. Here's mine.

Bush gets Florida, Ohio, Missouri, New Mexico. Kerry gets Arkansas. Kerry gets CO just barely, but the vote splitting measure is close in CO. Kerry wins all of Maine, but one congressional district is being recounted. If the CO measure passes, then it's 270-268 Kerry if he retains Maine, 269-269 otherwise.

The vote splitting measure fails, and Kerry gets all nine CO EVs and a presidential win - but wait! The GOP is demanding a recount on the CO measure! The Kerry campaign begins to challenge the recount, as well as the constitutionality of the measure, pointing out that it is the CO legislature, not the people, who determine how the EVs are awarded. All of a sudden, boxes and boxes of uncounted ballots toward the measure start to appear. Mixed in to the boxes are several absentee ballots for residents of... Maine! The boxes are discovered in a Boulder dormitory down the hall from the president of the Young Republicans club. The room is that of a young, meek, nerdy political science major, a Big Brother to disadvantageed youths writing his major project on Vaclav Havel and Archishop Desmond Tutu. The room is discovered by dozens of Republican operatives pounding on his door, and the boxes are covered by hundreds of "Defend America, Defeat Bush!" bumper stickers, an assault weapon, and a piece of DNC stationary with nothing but a hurriedly scrawled picture of a gun pointed at the White House, and an underlined proclamation that "DemocRATS will RULEZ!!"

Meanwhile, a certain West Virginia Republican elector is in the news again, after saying earlier in the year that he might not cast his electoral vote for Bush anyway. Would it be for Kerry? that would make it 270-268 Kerry...

The argument that the "Havel coverup ballots" must be counted is kicked around the courts, until it reaches the Supreme Court on the four year anniversary of the Bush v Gore argument. Later, on a day forever to be known as Black Tuesday,

• The Supreme Court rules 5-4 that the "Havel coverup ballots" must be counted in the name of democracy, including the Maine absentee ballots. This leads to Maine's remaining EV being awarded to Bush, and to the CO vote-splitting measure passing.
• The Supreme Court releases a 5-4 decision that upholds the constitutionality of the Colorado measure, congratulating the citizens of Colorado for a wonderful experiment in citizen democracy. A footnote in the decision encourages California to pass a similar measure, while conversationally dropping the fact that some states, like Texas, would probably never see a similar law due to the intricacies of their referendum processes.
• Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg hold a press conference to give a blistering dissent of the decision. It is read aloud. Stevens' dissent ends with the simple words: "This is a coup. I dissent. So should the people."
• The WV elector is found dead in his hotel room. It appears to be an accidental suicide, judging from the humiliating position of the body, but upon further digging, a DNC business card and a dead rat are found nailed to the wall. The media immediately proclaims it as a frame-up perpetrated by the Democrats in order to cast doubt on the Republicans.

The 269 tie goes to the House, where Tom Delay, bizarrely present after his defeat was overturned by the Texas Supreme Court, is seen stroking a gavel, muttering "My preciousssss..." A million citizens are violently protesting outside the House of Representatives while the vote is held. The National Guard is called in by the Bush Administration in a statement where he stresses the need to protect democracy...

The Blircle of Blife

evhead: Next?

Bush's Global Test

Atrios has the results of Bush's Global Test.

Bush Is A Puppet

What kind of president do we have if he can't even be trusted to come up with his own words in his own debates?

Check this thread for a discussion of Bush wearing a hidden earpiece during the debate, being coached for his answers. Find the photo downthread that shows the bulge in his jacket.

And in particular, check out this video of CNN accidentally picking up a frequency of someone repeating Bush's words - BEFORE Bush says them - while Bush is giving a speech. In other words, of Bush dutifully pausing, listening, and repeating the words that are privately broadcast to him.

Update: Hmm. If you listen to the last clip closely, you may notice that the "echo" voice is identical in inflection and tone to what Bush says. It's quite possible this is merely a technical glitch with CNN's feed, of the audio being broadcast twice.

Jobs Report

Look out for the jobs report due on Friday. Advance rumors are that it will be heavily politicized in favor of Bush.

For accurate results, the numbers we'll really want to see are the seasonally adjusted U-6 numbers. It includes people who are out of work and are too discouraged to keep working, and people who want full time work but are forced to only work part time.

Here is a link on how to find it. Bush's administration started at 7.3%. It's currently at 9.5%.

This is the style of unemployment reporting that was used during the early part of the Reagan administration, before they changed it to report numbers that sounded better (the U-3, currently at 5.4%).

But even this won't solve the problem of invented numbers. Partisan groups will be reporting the numbers, and they're liable to be as wrong as Cheney's many falsehoods during the debate. Dig deep.

Lost Episode 3

Does anyone know what happened at the very end of Lost tonight? The music was playing, Iraqi guy tossed an apple to the jerk, and it was just about to focus on the back of Locke, that creepy whistle-maker with a secret. I'm sure there was going to be some sort of reveal there. What happened from that point on?

Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time - Pony Up!

One consistent criticism from the GOP has been asking how the Dems would inspire cooperation and coalition right after saying "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time".

They haven't responded to this very well. They need to point out that in matters of diplomacy, credibility matters. Acknowledging that Iraq is a problem is the first step towards solving it. What you have to do is appeal to their reason, and their self-interest. It isn't just a matter of certainty, of claiming that everything is going to plan, in the hopes that reality will catch up to the charade. That's how you lose credibility. When you admit there's a problem, you gain credibility. Then you can reason with your allies that it is in their self-interest to help solve the problem. When the allies see us start to take the problem seriously, it will inspire them to take seriously the prospect of participating in the solution. Right now, they have absolutely no reason to want to participate, because there's been no acknowledgment that there is a problem. How can you be part of the solution when you don't even admit there's a problem?

General Patterns - Problems and Solutions

I think this election is about problems and solutions. The Democrats are trying to challenge the solutions, and the Republicans are responding by saying that the problems are too important to switch leaders.

But here's the issue. I think we can concede the point that the Republicans generally have a good understanding of the problems. We agree on the problems.

But look at their solutions. Too many frivolous medical malpractice solutions? Instead of limiting frivolous lawsuits, they want to limit the penalty against bad doctors. Education? They pass an education bill but refuse to fund it. Terrorism? They invade Iraq.

Bush and Cheney just don't have good solutions. They're taking action, but their actions have little connection to the real problems we face. And often times, they refuse to even admit there's a problem. It all adds up to one thing - incompetence. Incompetence is the inability to solve a problem, and that's what we have with Bush and Cheney.

VP Debate Thread

Okay, this isn't exactly live, but I'm PRETENDING it is, thanks to the magic of TiVo!

My friend Tamara and I listened to most of the debate on the radio tonight while driving to Seattle. Our impressions so far were that we found Cheney infuriating because he would pepper the debate with facts that were so esoteric that they were hard to attack on their own terms, and would use so many of them that it would be impossible to attack every single one of them anyway. We also thought that early on, Edwards wasn't answering many questions directly and that he should answer more of them. Tamara was especially angry at Gwen Ifill because many of her questions came across as slanted against Edwards, like asking him if he was naive. But, it was an audio format and I'm curious how much the visual changes things. I also haven't yet checked any press about the debate.

So, on we go... to John and Dick.

Big smile, John!

They both look pretty good while writing at their desks.

Wow, Dick is pasty.

Dick is connecting Iraq to terrorism again... Iraq's terrorist links were weak at best.

Cool, John is talking straight to Dick. I think that came across well... better than the radio.

I don't like that Edwards and Kerry both say that they've basically got to just improve the same process that Cheney and Bush have already put in place. They need to draw more of a distinction. Like "increasing the speed" of training.

Edwards bringing out a prepared line about the connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

"Wrong War at Wrong Time" - it frustrates me that Kerry and Edwards still haven't smacked this down like it could be. More on this later.

I really dislike the "Saddam would still be in power?" question - it's not a question, it's a slanted frame, slanted against the Democrats. The truth, of course, is that an ineffectual Hussein in power probably is preferable to all the death and destruction that has happened in the last two years, but the Democrats and Gwen know damn well that they can't say that out loud.

Cheney is flat out lying that he hasn't suggested there being a link between 9/11 and Hussein. Edwards can smack this down again by saying that Iraq having WMD was a question, not a certainty to react to.

This state sponsors of terrorism thing is stupid, because how many countries are we going to invade? It's not a sufficient condition.

This was something that Edwards deserved 30 seconds for a response, but Gwen didn't give him it.

However, Gwen let a great bit sneak in - the number of people who are replacing Osamas. The problem with the administration's approach is that their incompetence has led to probably hundreds of future Osamas.

Cheney continues his accusations of incompetence - distortions. What a pessimist! When he says things like, "He just got it wrong." it sounds effective, though, even if it isn't true.

So far, Edwards is coming across very well visually. It's very different than the radio. It's amazing how much of a difference it is.

Cheney comparing things to El Salvador. I don't think this was a good thread by Cheney, just because most voters won't know enough about it to judge it on their own terms.

Edwards is given a good chance to smack down the global test attack, and he does so. Good. That was well-handled. It was a stupid attack by the GOP, because it was clearly a misrepresentation, and they had to have known that the Dems would have a chance to set it straight. Misrepresentations aren't good tactics unless there isn't an opportunity for the victim to defend themselves. But the GOP can't help themselves.

Another fact battle here. Cheney's trying to take the price down lower and lower. I had a car salesman that tried to do that to me once.

Cheney's being a bully here. I think he's over-reaching. It'll be interesting to see how he comes across to everyone else... "your rhetoric would be more convincing if you had the record to back it up. You don't." Hrmmmm.

Cheney is continuing to try and distort Kerry's record. Aww, Cheney got applause at the convention. That's nice, Dick.

I think Cheney is underplaying Kerry's Gulf War I vote. I'd like to hear more of an explanation on that one. See, at the time, the first Gulf War was actually a really bad idea. It doesn't matter that it was "well-fought". There were very good reasons to oppose the war. The problem is that the Democrats have abdicated it since then, and several have bragged about supporting the first Gulf War - ever since Gore did. So Kerry would probably have trouble explaining it. But so far, they haven't really taken him to task for it. Weird that they would let that one slip.

Dick insults Howard Dean and every other Democrat in the world. Wow, he's got my vote.

Oh, very good point by Edwards. The thing about Cheney criticizing Kerry voting against the same weapons that Cheney agreed with him on needed to be pointed out. (Sorry for the tortured sentence there, but it's less insane than Cheney's line of thought...)

Cheney mishandles the Haliburton point. He comes across worse here visually than he did on the radio. He looks stumped.

Honestly at this point, I think Edwards has the edge - on the radio, I thought it was a draw at this point.

Okay, Gwen has a good question about the prospects for internationalization here, but she asks Edwards if he and Kerry are being naive. That's just uncalled for. It's another slanted frame against them.

The suspense is killing me now, so I'm going to go check the press. TiVo paused...

Hrm, some reports show it as a victory for Cheney, but close. Yet, they show the presidential race tightening at the same time. Of course, the one poll that showed the Cheney victory also had a stuffed ballot box - many more Republican participants than Democrat participants. And a CBS "undecided" poll has Edwards winning.

Oh... Cheney mumbles through a promising line of attack ("They don't have a plan, they have an echo.") with a delightfully stupid insistence that our Iraq coalition in Gulf War II is virtually identical to the coalition in Gulf War I, because, you know, it's about the same number of countries! That's laughable.

He's getting desperate - "demeaning". But, again coming to the point of how to inspire coalitions by saying "Wrong War..." - that STILL needs to be handled.

About Allawi's speech - wasn't it written by a Bush campaign official?

Okay, about Cheney wanting to count the lives of the Iraqi army, and how Edwards is demeaning them by not counting their deaths. What about honoring their lives, by giving them a better policy so we aren't just throwing Iraqi bodies at a problem that isn't being solved? Who's really demeaning the Iraqi soldiers?

Hahahaha... during the split screen, the feed of Cheney just went black. Hooray symbolism!

Edwards has some really good statements here, but I'm unsure if he's actually answering the question...? Something about today's intelligence report...? Gwen wasn't clear about this at the beginning of the debate, either. I have to go check headlines.... okay, it's a weapons inspector report that undercuts the rationale for the Iraq war... why is she asking it like it's something that reflects positively on Cheney?

Cheney talking about Zarqawi... didn't they have an opportunity to get him, and they passed it up? What was it I heard about that?

Didn't Libya say they would have surrendered their nuclear material sooner if not for this administration's response to 9/11 or Iraq or something?

Great point by Edwards of there being 60 countries with Al Q'ueda members.

Cheney mentions factcheck.com - it's actually factcheck.org - I've actually delisted that site in the past because they came across as too right-wing.

hahahaha... I heard that factcheck.com is actually a George Soros site. That's hilarious.

Cheney ignores Israel/Palestine to bring up Haliburton and attack Edward's record. This is Cheney's big attack. I said "Oof" when listening on the radio. Edwards had a great counterattack, though. AND, I heard later that Cheney lied. They met before.

Edwards' response about not talking about Israel came across as whiny on the radio, but funny on the television.

I don't like Edwards' snark about Cheney talking about education.

Oh gawd. Edwards talking about them losing jobs, and Gwen's hand comes up in the frame as if to motion, "So??" What the hey was that all about? I don't like her.

A commenter on dailykos says that she's pro-GOP and a friend of Condi Rice's.

111 million citizens benefitting from tax cuts... that's not all the taxpayers. Guess which ones didn't benefit, the richer or the poorer? And, what about payroll taxes? It's regressive, and huge burden on the non-rich.

More Cheney misrepresentations on Kerry's record (98 tax raises). Good responses by Edwards (600 tax cuts).

One thing I like about the split screen view is that it makes it look like Cheney and Edwards are drinking out of the same mug. Ewwwww!

Another crappy Gwen question about gay marriage: "Are you trying to have it both ways?" Another bad frame.

I don't understand Edwards' contention that a state doesn't have to recognize another state's marriage. I thought they did. A dailykos commenter said there's precedent to requiring states to recognize other states' marriages, because of the miscegenation battles from years past (which has a lot of parallels to this battle).

Okay, regarding medical malpractice. The problem - they both agree - is too many frivolous lawsuits. Edwards' solution is to limit the number of frivolous lawsuits. Cheney's solution is to limit the penalty against bad doctors. Which makes more sense?

It occurs to me that when there's a market for something that turns into a problem, the GOP's instinct is to limit supply, while the Dem's instinct is to identify and then limit the demand. In most cases, aiming for demand is better towards addressing the root of the problem. However, I haven't thought of many counterexamples, so I'm sure that could be torn apart easily.

Edwards is kicking ass on the medical issues.

Hey, Cheney's attacking the S-Corp, calling it a loophole! Cheney's the enemy of small businesses that are S-Corporations! Good move, Dick!

Hey, didn't Bush promise a whole bunch of funding for AIDS, and then play allocation games with the funds so it turned out to be a lie? Oh good, Edwards mentioned it.

A governmental experience question. This is a classic question, they knew it was coming. Prepared answer, etc.

The last few questions are things I didn't hear on the radio.

Cheney admits he doesn't want to run for President in the future. No big surprise.

"He is ready to be commander in chief." Good line. Cheney mirrors the approach.

"Without mentioning them by name." Don't say your running mate's name? What a stupid question. What's the point?

"What's wrong with flip-flopping?" It's a great question.

Hmm, a question that slants against the GOP, that's good. Wasn't able to bridge the partisan gap, etc. Why can't you do it in the House anymore, Dick? Because it was the Democrats who used to be in power! That's why it was easier! God, a horrible answer by Dick.

Dick is running out of gas.

I think Edwards got stronger as time went on. It seemed like a football game that way - the powerful runner playing smashmouth against the heavy and wheezing defensive line.

Oof. Light flickering. Pres don't see it but you do. That was a great closing statement. I felt time stretch out. I will remember that.

Cheney is phoning his in. And god, more doom and gloom. "A chemical or biological agent into one of our own cities!" Gawd, what a contrast from Edwards.

Hell, I'm biased - that's obvious - but I think this is a clear win for Edwards.

SNL-Kerry's Positions

My opponent would like you to believe that I’ve changed my position on the war. The fact is I have one position, and one position only. Was Saddam a threat? Yes. I’ve said so since day one. What his regime a danger to the security of the U.S.? Of course not. Did he deserve to be removed? You bet. Was it the right action to remove him from power? No way. Was he in possession of weapons of mass destruction? Absolutely. Did he possess these weapons? No, he did not. And that has always been my position.

That's from Saturday Night Live's debate sketch, with Seth Myers as Kerry.

That's some damn good writing. Because honestly, every one of those sentences can be read as being correct, accurate, and consistent. Yes, Saddam was certainly a general threat to some degree. But no, his regime wasn't any significant danger to the security of the U.S. Those were both true at the same time. Yes, he deserved to be removed from power, as do many dictators worldwide. No, it really wasn't wise to go right in and remove him from power the way we did - the situation was more complicated than that. So again, both true at the same time. And yes, he was in possession of WMD at one time in the past. But no, he didn't possess them during the Bush administration. Aside from SNL's abuse of timetense in that last one, the whole thing is actually pretty consistent.

But it sure SOUNDS crazy. And SNL did a better job stringing it all together here than the Bush administration has ever done. It's excellent writing, because it actually didn't even misrepresent Kerry - it just made the explanation as clumsy as absolutely possible.

So really, it just comes down to Bush having to hope that people are stupid - stupid enough to believe his side of the story.

Murder Death Kill!

All you need to know about the GOP Convention...

GOP Releases Video

U.S. Newswire : Releases : "RNC Releases Kerry vs. Kerry Debate Video"

It's stunning how desperate and stumbling the GOP is all of a sudden. With few exceptions, just about every exchange in this video is:

1. A long clip of Kerry slamming Bush
2. Another long clip of Kerry slamming Bush in a different way, that in no way contradicts the earlier clip
3. The video calling it a flip-flop.

They're basically making a greatest hits of Kerry's attacks against Bush, and airing it for us, on their dime! Sure, there are a couple of clips there that aren't very flattering, but most of them are either strongly-worded criticisms about Bush, or plainly obvious out-of-context partial sentences, or statements that Kerry has already clearly explained and inoculated himself from.

The Bush campaign is weird. They're good sometimes, but when they're off balance, they come across as completely clumsy and desperate. It's what happens when you expose a bully, because bullying is all they've got.

Bush Campaign Office Ransacked

The Seattle Times: Local News: Bush's state headquarters for re-election burglarized

So, in Washington State, a Bush campaign office was burglarized, and the campaign workers are trying to take every opportunity to accuse the Democratic Party of being behind it.

Wasn't there just an article recently about how Karl Rove, while working on a campaign in Texas, secretely sponsored a low-blow attack on his own client so he could blame it on the other candidate? It worked, his candidate won.

In short, just because the Republicans say the Democrats did it, it doesn't mean the Republicans didn't do it themselves.

Kerry Wins Debate; Stock Market Rises

The stock market had a nice Kerry Rally today. Dow up 112.

BOOM!!!

SAY IT LOUDER, SISTER!!!!!

Yeeeeeeeeehaw!!!!

Update: All right, all right... it's really more of a "Sssssssss....."

Spin War Stories

Curly Tales of War Pigs: post debate

This is probably the funniest spin story I've heard about the aftermath of last night's debate. The post-debate GOP conference call basically ended up with callers endorsing Kerry. They're trying to claim that Democrats infiltrated the call, but I'm not so sure. Bush exposed his own incompetence enough that there was plenty of reason for true-blue Republicans to throw up their hands and give up...