Shot In The Dark

Wrapup

I was thinking about the debate on the way home. I don't think I could call it a win for either candidate, honestly.

Here's how I think the analysis will break:

• Wonks will give points to Kerry for coming across fairly well - in ways that matter to wonks.
• However, Bush fairly clearly clobbered Kerry on message; he stayed on his. He looked and sounded hesitant several times - but that's one of those things I think matters a lot more to wonks than to mainstreet. The message itself - attacking Kerry's vacilllation - was loud and clear, and repeated many, many times.

  Kerry did OK - but I think you'd have to be deluded to think he did any better than a weak draw. Bush did OK - and I think his message will play a lot better on mainstreet than it did among the professional observer class.

  I like Ed's wrapup at Captain's Quarters:

  My assessment: Personally, I don't think either man did badly, although I think that Bush mauled Kerry about the "coerced and bribed" remark and Lockhart's "Allawi is a puppet". Also, his in-debate reversal on whether invading Iraq is a mistake will get some play. I'd give the edge to Bush, but you know I'm biased. Now C-SPAN has the lame phone callers, so I'll switch to Fox instead.

  Good panel discussion on Fox. I don't agree with everything being said, but Brit Hume is leading the discussion and doing a good job of moderating it ...

  Another thought -- one of Kerry's problems is that Bush has a number of home runs he can hit, thanks to Kerry's vacillations over the past nine months, and Bush hammered on Kerry for his policy flip-flops all debate long. Kerry's counter is that Bush is too resolute, which hardly damages a leader during wartime. ...

  I missed the Republican spinmeister, but Joe Lockhart claims that the debate will be all about the "annoyed smirk". Eh? Actually, I think that sells this debate short. It actually produced substantive policy statements and differences between the candidates, and they both behaved in respectful and professional manner. Is Lockhart really that desperate? ...

  I think so. I don't think this debate will help Kerry much at all. He succeeded in not coming across as a creep, although the flipflops were definitely there. "Not a creep" never got anyone elected.
  Posted by Mitch at 11:19 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Liveblogging The Debate

I'm here at the Stroms' house, with a galaxy of Twin Cities' bloggers:

• King Banaian,
• Atomizer, Saint, Elder and the fetching Mrs. Elder from Fraters,
• James Lileks,
• Jo from Jo's Attic,
• the Nihilist in Golf Pants,
• Rocketman, Mrs. Rocket (not to mention the Rocket Daughter) from Powerline,
• John LaPlante from Policy Guy
• Peggy from
  What If

This is my first shot at liveblogging - stay tuned.
7:52PM - King Banaian is going to be playing the Tradesports Electronic Market. Bush is down a buck, Kerry is running at a pretty absurdly wide spread. I think. I'm not, like, an economist or anything...

8:00 - And here we go. Jim Lehrer is...sonorous. The topic is foreign policy - good.

8:03 - They candidates are onstage. Kerry looks - brown. Not orange, anyway.

8:03 - Margaret Martin makes the world's best mushroom soup.

8:04 - first question to Kerry - "do you think you do a better job than President Bush of preventing another 9/11". He spent a solid minute running out the clock.

8:05 Kerry: "I know I have a better plan for Iraq". Fair enough. What are the details?

8:05 - "Iraq is in shatters". Shatters is a noun?

8:06 - Bush's rebuttal. He's starting slow. I think this is a good thing - running at his own pace, not getting rattled. Good speaking technique. He's on topic, answering the question. Good answer.

8:07 - Question for Bush, do you think a Kerry election will make another 9/11 more likely? "I don't believe it'll happen, because I believe I'll win". That got a nice round of nods around the room. He's doing well - no flubs. I think he's gotten much better at public speaking in the last four years. I think he stuck this one.

8:08 - King says the market is steady.

8:10 - Kerry's rebuttal. First lie of the evening; the 9/11 Commission didn't say what Kerry said. Kerry give a long list of generals that'd endorsed him. His line about Tora Bora - oof. I'll get back to that.

8:11 - Question to Kerry, what would he do differently than Kerry. He's he's calling for more inspection. First "Vietnam" reference!.

8:13 - John Kerry - you know where Bin Laden is? Really?

8:13 - Bush's rebuttal catches Kerry on his flipflop. "Kerry said anyone who didn't recognize this doesn't have the judgement to be President. I agree with him". That got the first round of applause in the room.

8:15 - Bush is BANG on message. "To say that Bin Laden is the focus of the war on terror is to not understand the war on terror". Bingo. A few halts on this question, but I think the President is doing very well.

8:16 - Another great line about mixed signals. "There WILL be elections in January".

8:17 - Kerry's rebuttal - "Iraq was not even CLOSE to the center of the war on terror, until the president invaded". "You dont' go to war unless there's a plan to win the peace".

8:18 - KErry stuck his foot in it - troops without body armor? King: "You stuck your foot in it, bitch". That brought a yell from the room.

8:18 - President is BANG on that flub! "What message does that send our troops? The allies, the Iraqis?"

8:19 - Kerry is looking rattled.

8:20 - Homeland security question for Kerry: "Waht would you differently w/Homeland security?" He's dodging the question, trying to turn it into a question about funding of cops.

8:21 - He's trying to make tax cuts a national security issue! That drew a groan.

8:22 - King - "Kerry's not in control of his answers".

8:23 - Bush refutes Kerry's answer pretty handily. "I've tripled the budget!". He's giving specifics.

8:23 - "The best way to secure the homeland is to stay on the offense"

8:23 - Kerry's trying to tie the tax cut to security again.

8:24 - Bush. VERY strong call to the offensive - got more nods of approval.

8:25 - Question for Bush about bringing the troops home.

My observation at this point - Bush is MUCH better on the stand than before. He's on message, cool, collected - and even his few fluffs come across as human and concerned, rather than comical.

He's doing great.

8:26 - "We'll get you home as soon as the mission is done". "A free IRaq is essential for the security of this country".

8:27. KErry's message to the troops - "Help is on the way". "There's a sense of American occupation". He repeats the meme that only the Oil Ministry was guarded when we liberated Baghdad. Strom: "Asshole". He's calling for a summit

8:28 - Bush "What kind of message does "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" send to the troops. "That's not what commanders in chief do when you're trying to lead troops".

8:29 - Kerry's second Nam reference. "I"m going to lead those troops to victory". Really?

8:30 - Elder notes that Kerry keeps referring to Generals Shalikashivili and Shelton. Kerry's on about summits. King: "I'll be the best damn conference organizer ever!"

First Halliburton reference!

8:31 - Bush - "That was totally absurd". Bush is absolutely killing Kerry here. "What's the message going to be - please join us in Iraq for the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time?" Invocation of Tony Blair, Kwasniewski. He's listing the Japanese, Arab summits (the irony was eagerly noted around the room)

8:33 - Rocketman knocked my beer over. I know I missed some good stuff...

8:35 - Bush: "We will not achieve this if we send mixed signals". Second reference to this; the campaign knows it smells Kerry blood on this one.

8:36 - Kerry's denigrating the coalition again! Like 4,000 Poles are chopped liver!

8:38 - Kerry question - give an example of the President lying. "We all know that in the State of the Union, he talked about nuclear materal that didn't exist". Is he being paid to throw this?

8:39 Me: "Is he being paid to throw this?" King: "All I know is, he's making me money".

8:40 - Rocketman: "KErrys doing better than I expected. Very well". I don't see it. Saint: "It's a rout. An outrage. It's that bad". For Bush.

8:41. Bush response: "I don't think Kerry was misleading when he called Iraq a menace in 2002". Good lord, he's got the sound bites down.

Third invocation of "That's not how a Commander in Chief acts!". It's a great line.

8:42 - KErry took the "misleading" bait. I think the president has turned the momentum of the "Bush Lied" track. Kerry: "I've had one consistent message" drew a chorus of laughs. Bush: "The only thing consistent about my opponent is that he's inconsistent". Bingo.

8:43 - Question for Bush - "Is the war worth it?" He's coming across as human I've seen a president. He's got the personal anecdote ready - great stuff.

8:44 - King - "He was ready for this one", re the anecdote. He's racking up huge points on this. Atomizer: "I think Bush is up on this one". Bush is going slow; picking his words. He's not rattled. I think he sees he's in control. This is good. COncludes "I think it's worth it Jim. In the long term, a free Iraq and Afghanistan will set a powerful example for the world. It'll say we did our duty". Powerful stuff.

8:45 Kerry: Third and fourth vietnam references.

8:46 Another summit reference! Jo, asked to score the debate: "I'm just watching".

8:47 - Bush response: "If I were to ever say "this is the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time", the troops would wonder how can I follow this guy? You can't run the war on terror if you keep changing yor position. KErry's plan simply won't work!".

8:48 - Kerry: "The POttery Barn rule - if you break it, you fix it!". That drew a chorus of groans. "I have a plan!"

8:48 - Kerry - can you give us specifics for ending US involvement in Iraq?

8:49: Kerry: "Haflujah". Three fluffs to none!

Kerry's raving about US "long term designs in Iraq".

8:51 - BUsh is calling Kerry on the "Puppet" cracks. Draws a round of hoots from the room.

8:52 - Kerry: "The IRaqis could be free". Hmm.

8:53 - Bush responds to Kerry's slag on Allawi - he sets up how high the stakes are.

8:53 - Quesiton for Bush: Is another preemption more or less likely? "I hope I never have to...never dreamt in 2000 that I'd have to. but they attacked us!." Another Mixes Messages references.

8:54 - King: Markets: Bush is 67 up a buck, Kerry 33.5 down 2.5.

8:54 - John LaPlante - "I think Kerry's getting in good jabs".

8:55 - Kerry - "Hussein didn't attack us. Bin Laden did". He's repeating the Tora Bora meme again. Fact; Special Forces specifically said that they'd prefer going into the Tora Bora with the locals, instead of waiting for the heavy US troops from the 101st Airborne and 10th Mountain. Lie.

8:57 Bush - "To think another round of resolutions would have caused Hussein to disclose and disarm is ludicrous".

8:57 - Kerry cites number of countries that could also build nukes, Darful genocide.

8:58 - Qustion for Kerry, your concept on preemption: "PResident always retains that right". BUT! "YOu have to pass the global test! You have to justify it with the world!" That drew a round of catcalls.

8:59 - Kerry's fluffed a couple of lines. Jo: "He's rattled".

9:00 - Bush - "I'm not sure what he means, passing the global test?" Drew the biggest cheer so far.

9:01 - Bush went off onto talk about why he rejected the INternational Criminal Court. I think this is a mistake.

9:01 - Question for Bush - DO you think Sanctions can resolve he nuclear problems in North Korea and Iran?

9:03 - Capable, if not exactly smooth, answers.

9:04 - Kerry response - I think he scored a point or two here.

9:05 - But now, when asked by Lehrer, he reverses himself! Bush clobbers Kerry on redirect! "we've already sanctioned Iran! We can't sanction them any more!" Bush won a bunch of points back.

9:06 - Question about Darfur for Kerry: Kerry retruns to sanctions talk against Iran.

9:08 - King: "Kerry not prepared for this question". Kerry's bloviating about the AFrican Union.

9:09 - Bush - "It was not my administration that put the sanctions on Iran - that was before me!" Re Darfur:

9:10 Question For Bush: "Is ther ean underlying character issue that you think disqualfies Kerry from office?" King: "Wow, that's a loaded question!" Fourth mixed message reference! But Bush has defused the loaded question very well. "I admire his service, but I just know how this world works, and there must be certainty form the US president!".

9:13 - Stem cell research?

9:14 - Nihilist in Golf Pants: "It's pretty close".

9:17 - Kerry's going to shut down bunker buster nukes to prevent proliferation? King: "Wow. Why's he doing this?

9:18 - Bush responds nicely.

9:18 - Rocketdaughter is about to fall asleep.

9:19 - Bush invokes missile defense plus his increase on nonproliferation funding and nonproliferation victories. Halting, but good...

9:20 - Lehrer asks both - is nonproliferation the key issue? Bush: "I can't tell you how big a mistake it is to have bilateral talks with North Korea". Good point. "I don't think that'll work".

9:20 - Last question, for Bush, Re Putin's change in democratic processes in Russia. Good catch on Bush's part, re opposing their consolidation.

Elder is fading fast. Saitn is trying to turn th Fraters' computer over to Atomizer - they must be getting lit.

9:22 - King: Bush is 67 after brushing in the mid 68s. "Bush is Running Away", per the Tradesports Market. Kerry's 33.4 - down 2.6 so far.

9:24 - Kerry - a "Mission accomplished"reference. Elder: "Cheap shot!"

9:25 - Bush "He saw the same intel I did! I'm not going to hold it against him that he called it a grave threat!"

9:25 - Jo: "Have you been looking at Bush's facial expressions?" He looks...quizzical, sez Elder

9:26 - Kerry's Closing. To sum it up in a sentence - "Who's the candidate that's going to bring everyone home". Another Nam reference!. He's got the tropeomatic going full speed. Kerry: "I believe the future belongs..." Elder: "To the children!"

9:28 - Bush's closing. Stronger intel, reformed miltiary, "the military will be all volunteer" (!), sovereignty, liberty in the middle east. Solid closing. "We've climbed the mighty mountain, and I can see the valley below. It's a valley of peace". Hopeful.

Final responses:
Saint Paul: Bush wins!
Elder: Slight edge to KErry, but insignificant.
King: Bush holds serve!
Jo: "Absolutely no doubt - Kerry got squashed like a grape. It washed off the orange".
Strom: 65-35 Bush
The Fetching Mrs. Elder - no big zingers.
Nihilist in Golf Pants: "Kerry did a good job by not looking creepy.
Atomizer: "Nobody Lost".
Rocketman: "I think Kerry helped himself" - but not enough to generate a bounce.
Mrs. Rocket: "I was hoping Kerry wouldn't do that well. Kerry seemed more normal".
Rocket Daughter: (she kept her counsel)
John LaPlante: "I need dessert!"

Jo again: "I thought he was calm, composed - like he was searching for rhetoric someone else gave him."

King: "Kerry's expectations were so lowered - and Bush came across as well as everyone expected".

Overall? Bush did well. I agree with King - the media drove the expectations so low, Kerry had to just avoid stumbling on his tongue. Bush did a serviceable job. Will it give Kerry a bounce? I'm not sure - I think Bush's relentless hammering on consistency will draw some sniffs in the beltway, but I think it'll play well in Peoria.

Profile of a Hobby Hack

By way of explaining why he - an apparently-boundlessly-angry and bitter columnist - is a journalist, and the likes of Ed, Rocket Man, Trunk, the Fraters, King, Lileks and I aren't, Nick Coleman relates:

I covered Minneapolis City Hall, back when Republicans controlled the City Council. I have reported from almost every county in the state, I have covered murders, floods, tornadoes, World Series and six governors.

In other words, I didn't just blog this stuff up at midnight.

Perhaps when Nick Coleman was a reporter - nearly 20 years ago - that might have been true. But for the past 18 years, he's been an opinion columnist - strong emphasis on opinion.

But we'll come back to that.

Coleman continued:

Do bloggers have the credentials of real journalists? No. Bloggers are hobby hacks, the Internet version of the sad loners who used to listen to police radios in their bachelor apartments and think they were involved in the world.

Sad loner? Bachelor apartment? Hm.

I started in radio when I was 16, Nick Coleman, and spent 13 years in the business. In that time, I was everything from teenage disc jockey and reporter to, at 23, the first conservative talk show host in the Twin Cities. So I learned a bit about the media and how it works. Reporters (and opinion columnists) know little of the world but the microcosm of the newsroom. I've looked at reporters from both sides now.

I spent a stretch as a freelance reporter; I didn't have the family connections Nick Coleman had, so my career didn't go that far, but I know a thing or two about chasing down politicians, interviewing businesspeople, riding with cops, confirming my facts (!), cultivating sources. Reporters (or opinion columnists) kvetch about bloggers. I've been both.

I spent three years working as a disc jockey in bars ranging from dumpy to sleazy - so I know a lot about deviant behavior; I've met a lot of people who claimed to be undercover cops, former SEALs, pop stars, can pick apart a sob story with one hand tied behind my back, and have a "baloney detector" that competes with Coleman's. Reporters (and opinion columnists) talk about the seedy underside of pop culture; I used a pool cue to get out of a jam or two on that underside.

I spent five years as a technical writer - so when I look at a "military memo" that screams "Microsoft Word" and "Proportional Font" and "Auto-Kern" and "displays no evidence of military doc SOPs", it's because I've been there and done that, and been paid for it. Reporters (and opinion columnists, or at least some of them) related the story. I contributed to it.

I've designed software for eight years; I observe human cognitive processes as they relate to computers and other complex systems. Reporters (and, almost never, opinion columnists) bloviate about "user-friendliness". I define it. Reporters and opinion columnists write about the new economy. It's where I earn my living.

I'm a parent. I've changed thousands of diapers. I've sat through dozens of school converences, class skits, bandaged a million owwies, helped with mounds of homework, and bought enough bikes to carry a small army.Reporters (and at least two opinion columnists whose new-parenthood is a constant topic) write about the stresses of parenting; I can describe the smell of pea-soup diapers on a 95 degree day, with the same authority as any of them.

I've been poor. The day my youngest was born, we got power shutoff and eviction notices simultaneously, after an employer shafted me on a month's pay. Reporters (and a few upper-middle-class opinion columnists who see themselves as modern-day Robin Hoods) write about the life of the urban poor. I've been one.

I've climbed the economic ladder. I taught myself first one, then another new trade, while raising kids on no budget. I've seen my income go from four digits to the comfortable fives. I've found reserves of ingenuity in myself that I never knew existed. Reporters may write about upward mobility (something opinion columnists like Nick Coleman and Laura Billings have never experienced). I did it.

I've been a small businessman. I've sold my expertise to other small businesses, stretched my budget as I waited for clients to pay up, watched prospects go from "hot" to "not" as I wondered where the next gig was going to come from. Reporters and opinion columnists try to write about it, not that most of them understand. It was my life.

I've been divorced. I've watched a marriage crumble from the inside. I've felt the acid rise from my stomach every morning as I contemplated the odds a man and father faces in the family court system. I've watched that system, the huge sausage grinder, make mincemeat of other people, families and lives - and, through the grace of God and a good lawyer, managed to avoid same for all concerned. Reporters and opinion columnists might try to address the issue, once in a while. Maybe. It was my life for a solid year.

I'm a single parent. I've had to juggle a job, sick kids, housework and my own sanity. I've had to haggle with daycare, spend my "vacation" time tending sick children, and spend evening after evening waking up next to my son's bed after passing out singing him to sleep. I've bemoaned my lack of social life, and watched relationships wither and crumble because I had no time to spend on them. Reporters and opinion columnists may write about the life of the single parent. I am one.

And yeah, I'm a blogger - one that's made the jump back into the dreaded "right wing hate radio". Reporters ignore both fields, and opinion columnists are vocal in their ire over both - but neither really understands why they have become the institutions they have. I'm a bit player in both fields - but no more a bit player than opinion columnist Nick Coleman is among journalists.

So - am I a hobby hack, as Coleman puts it? Some loser sitting in a "bachelor apartment" (what the hell is he talking about?), pretending to be "involved in the world?" I'll let you be the judge on the "hack" part; I have 2,000 readers every weekday; I'll let them judge. Is it a hobby? Yep. I do it because I enjoy it; the reader can take what he/she needs and leave the rest.

Like most bloggers - like everyone in the Northern Alliance - I am up to my neck in a world Mr. Coleman can only observe. I have a life, including 41 years of experiences in avenues of life you, Nick Coleman, can't imagine. I have beliefs I've arrived at after serious research and soul searching. I know things because I've wanted, or had, to learn them. It's why I blog.

And as for being a political stooge, unlike the bloggies, I don't give money to politicians, I don't put campaign signs on my lawn, I don't attend political events as anything other than a reporter, I don't drink with pols and I have an ear trained to detect baloney.

Leave aside the transparent, overwhelming stench of bias that has permeated every Nick Coleman column I can recall, going back to 1986; it's true, I'am a partisan.

I'm honest about it. Most bloggers are, which is why I filter the information I get from Powerline differently than that I get from Jeff Fecke; they are both honest about their beliefs, and they can be taken into account when reading.

Nick Coleman and the Strib, and most of the mainstream media, however, either deny their biases (which with Coleman are patently obvious) or declare that they are above such things. Which had led us to abuses both great (Memogate) and small (nearly every Nick Coleman column in memory).

Yesterday, Coleman sneered that journalists were like astronomers, and that bloggers were a howling mob of supersitious yokels. I won't bother to challenge Coleman to show us an example of our yokelism - he can't and he knows it, and he (like his pusillanimous colleague, Jim Boyd) doesn't have the balls to confront the people he's defamed.

But the invitation is still good. Nick Coleman - join us at Downtown Jaguar this Saturday. Noon to 1PM, or 2PM til 3PM are all wide-open. We'll have a chair and a mike all warmed up for you. And since we're just a bunch of ignorant buffoons, it should be short work for you.

Right?

Watching the Watchmen

What a month it's been.

Since bloggers made history (albeit with a small "h") at the national party conventions, Memogate has shone a spotlight on blogging, bloggers, and the contribution we can make to our nation's common discussion.

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that, due to the sheer number of blogs, bloggers, and other open, unmoderated (barring pure peer pressure) forums, these debates may be the most intensely scrutinized performances of their kind in history.

Hewitt notes in the Weekly Standard:

Old media's refusal to note what ordinary Americans are talking about is the latest in a series of stubborn refusals that began with elitist indifference and ideological bent and which are ending in irrelevance. There have been others (Rathergate and Christmas-not-in-Cambodia) and there will be more.

We may have another moment tonight. Jim Lehrer takes his seat as debate moderator with the PBS brand as firmly affixed to his back as CBS is to Dan Rather's. Moderating a presidential debate never carried much of a risk for the mother ship in the past, but in this era of new media, any detectable bias on Lehrer's part will result in a cyber-tsunami headed towards PBS affiliates across the country.

The key is "detectable," and the arbitrators of that won't be the folks who ignored [John Kerry's pumpkin-orange tan] on Wednesday morning. It will be the viewers themselves, working through the blogosphere, posting on FreeRepublic.com, calling into talk radio, and canceling their pledges to local PBS affiliates if their verdict on Lehrer's performance is negative. If Lehrer goes in the tank for Kerry, expect an enormous blowback--as predictable as the one which followed CBS's foisting of forgeries on the public. Only PBS is much more vulnerable to viewer dismay than the Boss Tweeds at Black Rock.

I will be joining most of the Northern Alliance, and countless hundreds of other blogs of all political stripes, in live-blogging the debate tonight. Please check in on Fraters, Powerline, Captain Ed and (in St. Cloud, I suspect) King, as well as the Stroms and many other local bloggers as we liveblog the festivities in an event that will no doubt make Nick Coleman's teeth grind at night.

We may not be journalists, but we're very, very picky about things like leadership of the free world.

Saint Is No Journalist

Saint Paul may not be a "journalist", but he has the best riposte yet to Nick Coleman.

He checks Coleman's facts, and finds many of them sorely wanting. He also checks Coleman's pedigree, and finds it revelatory.

It's Coleman's peevish response to the Fraters' hilarious - and clearly satiric - Newspaper Newlyweds series that really got Saint going.

Coleman led and ended his rant with graceless references to the Fraters' riffs on the Coleman family checkbook:

I am a very wealthy man, born into privilege and power, and a stooge of the Democratic Party.

Oh. That reminds me, Smithers: Bring me the heads of some Republicans, would you? Also, set out the good silver. Fritz is coming over to give me my marching orders.

Dad-ums would be so proud, wouldn't he, Muffy?

Nick Coleman's a regular working stiff, right? In step with the regular Joe Lunchboxes of the Twin Cities, taking shots at the "Big Cheeses" (???) of the world.

Guilt?

Saint has the goods:

Regarding being born into privilege, Nick Coleman's father was among the most powerful men in the state, including four terms as Senate Majority Leader, from 1973 to 1981. His step mother, Deborah Howell, worked at the Minneapolis Star from 1965 to 1979, rising to the post of City Editor. In 1973, Nick was given a job as city hall reporter, for the Minneapolis Star. In 1979, Deborah Howell moved to the Pioneer Press serving as Managing Editor, then Executive Editor, until 1990. In 1986, stepson Nick was given a columnist position, at, guess what, the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

And he's claiming not to have been a beneficiary of privilege? His chosen profession straddles the realms of his (step)parental spheres of influence - politics and journalism. His employment history follows in lock step coordination with that of his stepmother. Would he like us to believe his career trajectory in this town is based exclusively on his talent (cough cough) and not the doors opened to him because of his familial connections?

Maybe that is what he truly believes. It wouldn't surprise me that a man who defines journalism as "to scrutinize the actions of those in power" would create delusions about his own power dependent life circumstances. How else could he sleep at night?

Thankfully, in this new world of media and information access, Coleman doesn't get the final edit on reality. Not even of his own life story. Nick, welcome to the future.

Coals to Newcastle

Jay Reding on Dick Morris' new critique of the Kerry campaign, especially its "all war, all the time" strategy:

As Morris notes, Bush has a double-digit lead on the issue of the war to begin with. Kerry is assuming (and in this he's correct) that in order to win he has to knock down Bush numbers on the war.

The problem with that is that no dove candidate has ever won the Presidency in a time of war. In the midst of Vietnam, when body bags were flying in by the hundreds and the situation was far worse than Iraq is now by an order of magnitude, Richard Nixon still beat the living tar out of his dovish Democratic opponent. In every wartime election, the hawkish candidate always wins.

And John Kerry decided that he’s going to run on the anti-war platform. He's going to try to convince us all that Bush "lied" and "misled" us into war. The problem is that while the radical Democratic anti-war base believes that, nobody else does. To borrow a phrase, this issue does not play well in Peoria. If people don't believe the hysterical screams of "Bush lied"� now, a speech by Kerry won't do it.

Which lends some credence to the notion that Kerry's gone all dovey on us to save the base.

Journalism 101

Little Green Footballs on CBS' latest slipshod journalism.

Says Charles::

CBS News is now trying to cover up their failure to identify Beverly Cocco as a chapter president of “People Against the Draft.�

The transcript of their broadcast from last night is here: CBS News - The Issues: Reviving The Draft.

The following line has been added to the "transcript" since I first read it and linked to it earlier today:

Beverly Cocco is so concerned she is involved with the organization "People Against the Draft."

Rathergate.com has a video capture of the broadcast, and this line is absolutely not in Richard Schlesinger's report as it aired last night.

Good thing they've got all those editors and checks and balances to keep them ethical, huh?

Via Powerline)

Posted by Mitch at 07:23 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Bottom Five List

I caught this last week on Cold Fury, and figured it was still germane:

Top ten things Kerry and the Democrats would never, ever do merely to get elected:

1. Promote defeatism in a crucial conflict, in direct contradiction of his own past statements, thereby helping to create the very American defeat he falsely claims to be so concerned about
2. Mock and belittle important allies in a pathetic effort to suck up to allies-in-name-only, whose motivation and interests are in direct conflict with the US’s own
3. Attempt to swing an election their way using fraud, deception, and a biased and compliant national media
4. Attempt to undermine the incumbent in time of war by unconscionably spreading lies and innuendo about him and his intentions
5. Ally themselves with people and groups who are clearly unpatriotic and anti-American

....okay, I'm sorry, gang, but after going through those five and mentally striking through them, there's clearly no point in continuing. Obviously, there’s nothing whatsoever that Kerry and the Dems won't do to get elected.

It's going to be interesting watching the parade of dirty tricks in store for the next month.

Handicapping

Vodkapundit is doing debate prep. Beats doing it myself.

What to expect?

If Kerry whups Bush and whups him good, then he can stop worrying about states like New Jersey, Minnesota, and New Mexico - which would put a minimum of 30 EC votes back in his pocket. That's no small change. What would count as a whupping? Taking Bush off message, making him do that blinking thing, making Bush look like the flip-flopper. Any and all of which Kerry could do.

If Bush whups Kerry, then, again, it's all over. What would count as a whupping? Leaving Kerry speechless (something I'd pay real American dollars to see), making Kerry look unnervingly boring, successfully painting Kerry as an overly-nuanced flip-flopper. The first two whups probably aren't doable - Kerry is just too nimble a debater. The third is the trap Bush has been setting for Kerry for months. All that remains to be seen is, can the trap be sprung? Well, that depends on Kerry - and any trap relying on the willingness of the intended victim isn't all that likely to work.

Bad Form

Remember The Caine Mutiny? When Jose Ferrer is interrogating Captain Queeg (Humphrey Bogart)? He wins the case when Queeg's injured pride flies into a tantrum on the stand.

Today we saw a Queeg moment in the Strib.

I've met Nick Coleman, in person and electronically. In person, he's an aloof, charmless man who gives one the impression he's looking at his watch even when he's looking at you.

Electronically...

Two years ago, I wrote a piece about Coleman which, oddly, was perhaps the most backhandedly complimentary thing I or any member of the Northern Alliance has ever written about him.

He wrote an email. There was an assumption of privacy, so I won't reprint it - but the gist of it was "I know you are, but what am I?"

Not especially graceful.

Perhaps you've heard - Nick uncorked on bloggers in the Strib today. It showcases what a dinosaur Nick Coleman has become.

Coleman writes:

This just in: I am a very wealthy man, born into privilege and power, and a stooge of the Democratic Party.

Oh. That reminds me, Smithers: Bring me the heads of some Republicans, would you? Also, set out the good silver. Fritz is coming over to give me my marching orders.

Dad-ums would be so proud, wouldn't he, Muffy?

Nothing in the opening paragraph is true, but bloggers and talk-show barracudas have said so, tossing stuff against the wall to see what sticks.

It's this thing called "Humour". All the proles are doing it these days, old boy.

NicK! It's not all about you!

It's what you represent!

I happen to enjoy the idea of me as to the manor born, so I have taken to wearing an ascot to my corner pizza parlor.

But this is not about me. It is about the war against the media. A lot of it, we deserve. But a lot of the attack against the mainstream media is coming from bloggers, which is like astronomers being assaulted by people who swear that aliens force them to have sex with Martians.

Get that? The media are the astronomers - high priests of empirical knowledge against a mob of drooling philistines.

Why don't you admit we are being invaded by Venusians?

I say: If you think Dan Rather is kooky, read some blogs and you, too, will be found in a daze, muttering, "Kenneth, what is the frequency?"

But put on haz-mat gloves before you touch the mouse.

Words fail.

This is the best the Strib can come up with? "War against the Media?"

He's talking, of course, about my Northern Alliance colleagues - Scott Johnson, John Hinderaker, Captain Ed, and the guys behind the "Lord Nick" stuff, the Fraters. All of them people with better social skills, reporting skills, personalities and senses of humor than Coleman. Coleman follows in editor Jim Boyd's footsteps, defaming bloggers generally and (without having the guts to name names) specifically.

Yes, yes. The traditional media have faltered badly, from the run-up to Iraq to the Rather-CBS fiasco over forged memos. The media are being ripped by everyone from Bruce Springsteen to Vice President Dick Cheney, which covers a lot of ground. We are rattled, and in danger of losing our way. Even David Broder, the Washington Post's dean of media, is worried. He says, "News organizations on which people should be able to depend have been diverted into chasing sham events."

So far so good.

Yes, David. But one of the shams we're chasing is the supposed threat of the blogs, who are to journalism what ticks are to elephants. Ticks may make the elephants nuts, but that doesn't mean they will replace them. You can't ride a tick.

Coleman is delirious.

Listen and learn, Nick Coleman: We're not interested in being "elephants". We just write. And we fact-check you. We - all of us - have been fact-checking you with particular glee for the past few years, in our blogs and on our little radio show. And in this past month - on Kerry's Kambodian Adventure, and Jim Boyd's little slander, and now Memogate - we've been right, and have not only beaten you to the story, but basically humiliated the mainstream media in every case.

I am a professional journalist. Oh, the shame. How I show my face in public is a mystery.

But that's my defense: I show my face in public. I have been a reporter longer than most bloggers have been alive, which makes me, at 54, ready for the ash heap. But here's what really makes bloggers mad: I know stuff.

I covered Minneapolis City Hall, back when Republicans controlled the City Council. I have reported from almost every county in the state, I have covered murders, floods, tornadoes, World Series and six governors.

In other words, I didn't just blog this stuff up at midnight.

Nick Coleman; get over yourself. We all "show our faces" in public. A little fact-checking on your part would have shown you that (you DO know how to Google, don't you?)

More importantly, we all "know stuff". We all bring life experiences and backgrounds at least as rich as yours; we're lawyers, computer geeks, marketeers, engineers - and that's just the Northern Alliance. We raise kids, have hobbies, meet people - live life.

When it came to Rathergate, for example,

And in doing that, we learn a lot of things - and once in a while, that means we'll know something that you, Mr. Coleman and the rest of you reporters, don't. Two of us worked in typography, and have vastly deeper backgrounds in the area than any normal reporter. Two of us are working lawyers, with research skills that'd shame all but the most elite investigative reporters. You brag about having covered city council meetings - but that's just the stock in your trade. We all have trades (yes, we get out of our mothers' basements); lawyers, programmers, designers, engineers, marketeers, columnists, professors - and each of us is at least (ahem) as proficient in our trades and professions as you are in your craft.

And as for being a political stooge, unlike the bloggies, I don't give money to politicians, [just free publicity - ed] I don't put campaign signs on my lawn, I don't attend political events as anything other than a reporter, I don't drink with pols and I have an ear trained to detect baloney. [Which you've made your stock in trade - ed.]

Do bloggers have the credentials of real journalists? No. Bloggers are hobby hacks, the Internet version of the sad loners who used to listen to police radios in their bachelor apartments and think they were involved in the world.

Bloggers don't know about anything that happened before they sat down to share their every thought with the moon. Like graffiti artists, they tag the public square -- without editors, correction policies or community standards. And so their tripe is often as vicious as it is vacuous.

After this column in particular, Coleman protests too much.

On the one hand, Mr. Coleman, we DO have editors; our audiences let us know instantly when we've screwed up. And if we truly do come across as the drooling cretins Coleman portrays, we lose our readership - or at least the serious readers (see: Kos).

On the other - well, let's just say that sources at the Pioneer Press tell me that you gave your editors kind of a workout.

"Hobby hacks?" Well, it's a hobby. If I were a hack, I doubt I'd get 2,000 readers a day.

That's the job of journalism -- to scrutinize the actions of those in power.

If you think bankers will do it, your brain is blog mush.

We are scrutinizing those in power - whether it's Dan Rather or John Kerry or Nick Coleman or Jim Boyd or, dare I say it, any biased hack who uses his position of "trust" to mislead the public.

So, how is it that nakedly partisan bloggers who make things up left and right are gaining street cred while the mainstream media, which spend a lot of time criticizing themselves, are under attack?

So many questions.

Am I partisan? Absolutely. I'm absolutely up-front about it. I'm a conservative Republican. And on of the reasons I blog is because, after all of your prate and gabble about your non-partisanship, you are still one of the most nakedly partisan "journalists" in the Twin Cities. You slather a coating of feel-good journalist dogma over it, but it's true. And you're not as honest about it as any good blogger.

Does Coleman think partisanship and truth are mutually exclusive? Especially on purely empirical matters like memogate?

And do me a favor - show us what time the media, especially the Star/Tribune and most especially Nick Coleman himself, spent criticizing themselves, and what actual effect that's had on their coverage?

Criticizing yourself is easy. Taking criticism from others - that's another thing. It's hard. It's also an opportunity for growth.

So I've offered Nick Coleman the opportunity to join us on the Northern Alliance Radio Network on a Saturday of his choosing, for a full hour. No editing, no constraints, just discussion. A man of his erudition and experience should have no trouble rhetorically clobbering a bunch of drooling bloggers. Right?

We'll keep you posted.

UPDATE 9/30 - No response from Coleman yet on the invitation to be on the show. I'll sweeten the deal; Coleman can appear with us live at Downtown Jaguar this weekend. That way, he'll be among the public that loves him so. Or if he'd prefer, he can appear on any other Saturday, in person or via telephone (in case he's worried about getting frothed on).

C'mon, Nick - we don't bite.

League of Drooling Philistines

It's pretty predictable; Nick Coleman's petulant poison pen piece about bloggers touched a nerve with the Northern Alliance - but when it comes to Coleman, that nerve is virtually desensitized. We've beaten Coleman like a bongo drum, The Scholars, Lileks, Ed, numerous pieces at Fraters, as well as lots of our friends - Irreconcilable Musings, Tom Swift,
Doug, Chumley and, earliest of all, Wog.

Most amazingly, though? Even some of the lefty blogs - Flash sounds off, and even the New Patriot in their own way.

It can't last, but it's sure fun.

The Portable Coleman

Saint Paul has the essential response to Nick "Stand Aside! I'm a Journalist!" Coleman's little poison pen screed.

Read it.

Letter to Nick Coleman

Here's the email I sent to Nick Coleman:

Mr. Coleman,

I'm Mitch Berg. I'm a host with the "Northern Alliance Radio Network", a show put on by a group of local bloggers - including the ones you obliquely talked about in your recent column. We're heard from noon-3PM every Saturday on AM1280, and worldwide via the web.

We were wondering if you'd be interested in coming on the show for an hour one of these Saturdays to talk about, as you call it, "The War on the Media". You're obviously a talented, impassioned defender of the current media, and we are among the foremost barbarians at the gates - could be a fun hour, no?

We'd be happy to arrange an hour (we usually do interviews in the 1PM hour) any Saturday convenient to you.

Mitch Berg
"The Northern Alliance Radio Network"
Saturdays, Noon-3
AM1280 The Patriot,

Did that seem sufficiently mouth-frothy?

The First Battle

Longtime contributor Fingers sends this piece from the Standard. Iraq isn't Vietnam. It's Guadalcanal.

Iraq isn't Vietnam, it's Guadalcanal--one campaign of many in a global war to defeat the terrorists and their sponsors. Like the United States in the Pacific in 1943, we are in a war of national survival that will be long, hard, and fraught with casualties. We lost the first battle of that war on September 11, 2001, and we cannot now afford to walk away from the critical battle we are fighting in Iraq any more than we could afford to walk away from Guadalcanal. For the security of America, we have no recourse but to win.

The author is a former counterterrorism planner who is currently serving in Iraq.

Read the whole thing.

Kerry's True Multilateralism

Safire has a great editorial on the terrorists newest, most ghastly propaganda weapon, their current ritual of kidnapping/ransom demand/publicized murder.

Safire notes:

responsible journalists should consider the wisdom of allowing media-savvy terrorists to play them like a violin.

Sensationalism sells; on TV, "if it bleeds, it leads." Audiences are surely drawn to tearful interviews with worried spouses and children. Bloggers get "hits" from posting the most gruesome pictures. Cable ratings rise by milking the pathos in the drama created by the Zarqawi network: First comes the kidnapping report; then televised pleas from the kneeling, doomed innocents; then coverage of marches and vigils to plead for the payment of ransom; finally, in one case out of four, the delivery of dismembered bodies and gleeful claim of blame.

Do we have to become conduits for this grisly, real-death kidnap choreography? We are obliged to report it, but we need not go along with the terrorist propagandists in milking the most horror out of it.

We know that the primary purpose of the kidnap weapon is to drive the coalition forces out of Iraq and to prevent a free election there.

It is, indeed, a pure propaganda effort on the terrorists' part.

Comes John Kerry - soon-to-be electoral footnote and multilateralist with no demonstrated talent at diplomacy. But he's performing admirable outreach, doing his best to magnify the efforts of the butchers in Iraq:

John Kerry, who has evidently decided to replace Howard Dean as the antiwar candidate, has helped to magnify the terrorists' kidnap weapon. In a scheduled commercial Kerry personally approved, just before charging that George Bush had no plan to get us out of Iraq, the Democratic campaign underscored the message Zarqawi has been sending: "Americans," said Kerry's announcer, "are being kidnapped, held hostage, even beheaded."

Though undoubtedly accurate, that paid evocation of horror by a political candidate is a terrible blunder.

Terrible, stupid blunder, one that directly undermines the cause of freedom in the Middle East.

If the terrorists were paying a PR firm for the publicity their campaign was getting (rather than merely butchering people for it), Kerry's moronic ad would have justified every dime of the campaign.

It's bad enough for some thoughtless media outlets to become an echo chamber for scare propaganda; it's worse when the nominee of a major party approves its use to press his antiwar candidacy.

It's not just "worse"; for a candidate whose supposed cachet is his foreign policy and diplomatic chops, it's grotesquely stupid. John Kerry has shown that he is not the man to set and lead US foreign policy; he is one to let foreign governments, even our enemies, set our agenda.

We are dealing with the most brutal propaganda weapon yet devised. Strong governments counter it by refusing to pay money or policy ransom.

Make no mistake; John Kerry is not strong.

But this action is of a piece with his actions after Vietnam; he was not above exploiting the suffering of the Vietnamese people and his fellow veterans to further his political career, his nation be damned. He wasn't above selling out the MIAs for votes. And today, he's not above exploiting the murder of innocent people, and leveraging thugs' propaganda, to try to eke out a few more.

Forget that John Kerry would be a disastrous president. He's a disastrous candidate, not only for his own party, but for the nation as a whole.

Posted by Mitch at 06:09 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Have You Ever

Another of Sheila's #@$#@@*( memes.

Affirmatives in bold.

01. Bought everyone in the pub a drink - Yeah, but the joke was there were two other people there.
02. Swam with wild dolphins - Yeah, that's a big sport on the Great Plains...
03. Climbed a mountain - I walked up a very, very tall foothill when I was in Colorado the first time. Being a lowland kinda guy, I think it counts.
04. Taken a Ferrari for a test drive
05. Been inside the Great Pyramid
06. Held a tarantula.
07. Taken a candlelit bath with someone
08. Said 'I love you' and meant it
09. Hugged a tree - but only as a joke
10. Done a striptease
11. Bungee jumped
12. Visited Paris
13. Watched a lightning storm at sea
14. Stayed up all night long, and watch the sun rise
15. Seen the Northern Lights. - That's one of the things I miss about autumn and winter in North Dakota.
16. Gone to a huge sports game
17. Walked the stairs to the top of the leaning Tower of Pisa - The Dom in Köln and the Cathedrals in York and Freiburg!
18. Grown and eaten your own vegetables I have a garden.
19. Touched an iceberg
20. Slept under the stars
21. Changed a baby's diaper - I figured about 12,000 of them.
22. Taken a trip in a hot air balloon
23. Watched a meteor shower
24. Gotten drunk on champagne
25. Given more than you can afford to charity
26. Looked up at the night sky through a telescope
27. Had an uncontrollable giggling fit at the worst possible moment
28. Had a food fight
29. Bet on a winning horse
30. Taken a sick day when you're not ill
31. Asked out a stranger.
32. Had a snowball fight
33. Photocopied your bottom on the office photocopier.
34. Screamed as loudly as you possibly can
35. Held a lamb
36. Enacted a favorite fantasy
37. Taken a midnight skinny dip
38. Taken an ice cold bath
39. Had a meaningful conversation with a beggar
40. Seen a total eclipse
41. Ridden a roller coaster - Once. I have a problem - if I ride a ride more violent than the bumper cars, I chunder. Every time.
42. Hit a home run
43. Fit three weeks miraculously into three days
44. Danced like a fool and not cared who was looking
45. Adopted an accent for an entire day - Many ways. I played Henry II in Lion in Winter, I've spent entire days speaking nothing but German when I was there (and I have always done the accent well enough to fool most non-Germans) - and when I was in England, Scotland and New York, adopted the local accent just to see if I could pull it off. By all indications, I could.
46. Visited the birthplace of your ancestors - Been to Scotland, England, Germany and France, so technically, sort of.
47. Actually felt happy about your life, even for just a moment
48. Had two hard drives for your computer - Hah! I have THREE on my main desktop box! All your base are belong to me!
49. Visited all 50 states - 25 and counting!
50. Loved your job for all accounts
51. Taken care of someone who was shit faced - story of my life, in high school and college...
52. Had enough money to be truly satisfied
53. Had amazing friends
54. Danced with a stranger in a foreign country - At a party in Basel.
55. Watched wild whales
56. Stolen a sign
57. Backpacked in Europe
58. Taken a road-trip
59. Rock climbing
60. Lied to foreign government's official in that country to avoid notice
61. Midnight walk on the beach
62. Sky diving - Soon!
63. Visited Ireland - Ireland, Schmireland. I've been to Scotland. My anscestors pillaged their anscestors.
64. Been heartbroken longer then you were actually in love - Nope. Not with a person, anyway.
65. In a restaurant, sat at a stranger's table and had a meal with them
66. Visited Japan
67. Benchpressed your own weight - Close, but no cigar.
68. Milked a cow
69. Alphabetized your records
70. Pretended to be a superhero
71. Sung karaoke - I do Bruce VERY well. And I once had an entire bar dancing to "Jump Around" by House of Pain. And I do an impeccable Johnny Rotten, although Sex Pistols are very rare at karaoke...
72. Lounged around in bed all day - that is so not me.
73. Posed nude in front of strangers
74. Scuba diving
75. Got it on to "Let's Get It On" by Marvin Gaye
76. Kissed in the rain
77. Played in the mud
78. Played in the rain
79. Gone to a drive-in theater
80. Done something you should regret, but don't regret it
81. Visited the Great Wall of China
82. Discovered that someone who's not supposed to have known about your blog has discovered your blog
83. Dropped Windows in favor of something better - Oh, Lordy, I dream about dumping Windows and going Linux at home...Er, I've just blown any chance for a date, haven't I?
84. Started a business
85. Fallen in love and not had your heart broken
86. Toured ancient sites
87. Taken a martial arts class
88. Swordfought for the honor of a woman - I didn't sully the purity of a swordfight with any such thing.
89. Played D&D for more than 6 hours straight D'nD, Traveller, and Twilight 2000. I think the record was a weekend with two 11 hour sessions of Traveller in one weekend, back in college. Ooof - now I've really hosed my social life...
90. Gotten married - Oy, vey.
91. Been in a movie - Was a gaffer and an audio guy on a couple of indies. Suppose that doesn't count.
92. Crashed a party
93. Loved someone you shouldn't have
94. Kissed someone so passionately it made them dizzy .
95. Gotten divorced - Double oy-vey.
96. Had sex at the office
97. Gone without food for 5 days
98. Made cookies from scratch
99. Won first prize in a costume contest
100. Ridden a gondola in Venice
101. Gotten a tattoo- Came perilously close once. Long story.
102. Found that the texture of some materials can turn you on
103. Rafted the Snake River
104. Been on television news programs as an "expert"
105. Got flowers for no reason.
106. Masturbated in a public place long long ago
107. Got so drunk you don't remember anything
108. Been addicted to some form of illegal drug
109. Performed on stage
110. Been to Las Vegas
111. Recorded music - I have a four-track cassette player. Back when I had a band, I wrote and recorded demos for about 100 songs. We also recorded a five-song cassette in a real studio once. In a perfect world, it's what I'd do for a living.
112. Eaten shark
113. Had a one-night stand
114. Gone to Thailand
115. Seen Siouxsie live
116. Bought a house
117. Been in a combat zone
118. Buried one/both of your parents
119. Shaved or waxed your pubic hair off
120. Been on a cruise ship
121. Spoken more than one language fluently
122. Gotten into a fight while attempting to defend someone
123. Bounced a check - Oy, vey.
124. Performed in Rocky Horror
125. Read - and understood - your credit report
126. Raised children
127. Recently bought and played with a favorite childhood toy
128. Followed your favorite band/singer on tour
129. Created and named your own constellation of stars
130. Taken an exotic bicycle tour in a foreign country - Exotic? Well, I biked around Holland a lot...
131. Found out something significant that your ancestors did
132. Called or written your Congress person
133. Picked up and moved to another city to just start over
134. ...more than once? - More than thrice?
135. Walked the Golden Gate Bridge
136. Sang loudly in the car, and didn't stop when you knew someone was looking
137. Had an abortion or your female partner did
138. Had plastic surgery
139. Survived an accident that you shouldn't have survived.
140. Wrote articles for a large publication
141. Lost over 100 pounds
142. Held someone while they were having a flashback
143. Piloted an airplane
144. Petted a stingray
145. Broken someone's heart
146. Helped an animal give birth
147. Been fired or laid off from a job - Many, many times. I was in radio; you never quit jobs in radio.
148. Won money on a T.V. game show
149. Broken a bone
150. Killed a human being - in my heart, many times.
151. Gone on an African photo safari
152. Ridden a motorcycle
153. Driven any land vehicle at a speed of greater than 100mph
154. Had a body part of yours below the neck pierced - someone stabbed me in the hand once. I bet that's not what they're looking for.
155. Fired a rifle, shotgun, or pistol - All three, plus a submachine gun and a few assault rifles. Not simultaneously .
156. Eaten mushrooms that were gathered in the wild
157. Ridden a horse
158. Had major surgery
159. Had sex on a moving train
160. Had a snake as a pet
161. Hiked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon - Longtime goal.
162. Slept through an entire flight: takeoff, flight, and landing
163. Slept for more than 30 hours over the course of 48 hours - That is so not me.
164. Visited more foreign countries than U.S. states
165. Visited all 7 continents
166. Taken a canoe trip that lasted more than 2 days
167. Eaten kangaroo meat
168. Fallen in love at an ancient Mayan burial ground - Gotta say, this is a bit down on my list of priorities.
169. Been a sperm or egg donor - only if you count conceiving two kids...
170. Eaten sushi
171. Had your picture in the newspaper
172. Had 2 (or more) healthy romantic relationships for over a year in your lifetime - Do they mean having had two healthy relationships that lasted more than a year? Or two healthy relationships at all, regardless of time? Or...oh, fugeddaboutit. I don't qualify in any case.
173. Changed someone's mind about something you care deeply about- I changed a local politician's mind on concealed carry reform about five years ago.
174. Gotten someone fired for their actions
175. Gone back to school - Taken classes, but ever "gone back" fulltime.
176. Parasailed
177. Changed your name
178. Petted a cockroach
179. Eaten fried green tomatoes
180. Read The Iliad
181. Selected one "important" author who you missed in school, and read
182. Dined in a restaurant and stolen silverware, plates, cups because your apartment needed them
183. ...and gotten 86'ed from the restaurant because you did it so many times, they figured out it was you
184. Taught yourself an art from scratch - Several musical instruments. Does that count?
185. Killed and prepared an animal for eating
186. Apologized to someone years after inflicting the hurt
187. Skipped all your school reunions - Are you kidding? I love my highschool reunions! But I doubt I'll ever attend a college reunion; at least, not for my own graduating class. Most of my real friends in college graduated a year ahead, or 1-3 years behind, me.
188. Communicated with someone without sharing a common spoken language I
189. Been elected to public office
190. Written your own computer language
191. Thought to yourself that you're living your dream
192. Had to put someone you love into hospice care
193. Built your own PC from parts
194. Sold your own artwork to someone who didn't know you - Music!
195. Had a booth at a street fair .
196: Dyed your hair
197: Been a DJ - At five radio stations, about 20 bars, and at weddings and parties.
198: Found out someone was going to dump you via LiveJournal
199: Written your own role playing game - Not the whole game, but I wrote a character generation guide for Twilight 2000. I was going to sell it to Game Designers Workshop - but the company tanked. So I turned it into a website. It sort of turned into the default character generation guide for the game, worldwide.
200: Been arrested

A Month

It's now been a month sinceany significant poll showed John Kerry ahead among likely voters, and nearly three weeks among likely voters.

Gandelman notes:

As we said in our post on the debates below: John Kerry no longer has to "close the sale." He lost the sale to George Bush. He now has to re-pitch the sale -- then close it. Polls are not showing him undergoing a massive surge. The FIRST DEBATE is likely to clinch this race for one of the candidates.

Perhaps. But I'm trying to think; has anyone ever successfully used the debates to comletely repackage a campaign?

That's a straight question. I can remember a lot of horseraces that were clinched in the debates, but I can not in my politically-aware life recall any candidate that was getting beaten managing to re-task a campaign starting at the debates.

Anyone?

The Dinosaur's Birthday Party

The Strib gives us a look into the bad old days with this editorial on the 20th birthday of the Utne Reader.

If you've missed it, Utne (as it's now called) is a bit of a Reader's Digest for the free-range-alpaca-wearing, Volvo-driving, unisex-ponytail-wearing, MPR-worshipping, Kucinich-voting set.

It fills a specialized editorial need that, in the Strib editorship's social circles, isn't that specialized:

In those days, the friend to have was a magazine addict -- somebody who kept up a whole bunch of subscriptions to interesting publications, so you didn't have to, and who liked to pass along the gems he found. Somebody like Eric Utne of Minneapolis, who one day had the brilliance to see that all his foraging in the fringes of periodical publishing could be the basis of an actual business.

Thus was born the Utne Reader, a newsletter-looking thing that became a real magazine with its fifth number, and this month has delivered its 20th anniversary issue to some 225,000 customers. Aiming to publish something that would make the world a bit kinder and a bit greener, Utne produced a reader's digest, and an enduring icon, of lefty/veggie/spiritual/communitarian living.

And along the way, become perhaps a bit green but not in the least bit kind.

I have no problem with Utne; I used to read it until the preening condescension became too oppressive.

But here's the interesting part about this article:

It comes off a bit self-admiring, but hearty congratulations are in order for Utne, both man and magazine -- if not for groundbreaking journalism then for one brilliant concept and 20 years of reliable execution, pointing an eclectic readership toward the material that matters most in their lives.

Nowadays the Web makes it easy to find and share instructions on making your own aromatherapy soaps, but it has also increased the ratio of chaff to wheat, so it's harder than ever to find out what you want to know but don't yet know you want to know. For help with that problem, Utne readers still know where to turn.

Can you feel the wistfulness of the editorialist for the good ol' days, when "democratization of the media" meant "more niche-y gatekeepers", rather than "Visigoths trampling our organic gardens"?

Utne, like so many of its' (mostly-extinct) compatriots, is still a dead-tree, top-down, highly-capitalized operation, the kind of thing any Strib editor could step into and feel comfortable (either managing or reading).

'...it's harder than ever to find out what you want to know?" Really? So hard that you'd rather let Eric Utne pick what you want to know, rather than running wild on Google?

They Get Paid For This: Part VIII - They're Not As Good As Us

"Atrios" writesabout the notion of democracy in Iraq.

He doesn't believe in it.

He starts:

I'm a bit puzzled by the recent rhetoric regarding Iraq. Too often we hear things like, "well, it'll be up to the Iraqi people then..." "The Iraqi People" are not capable of any kind of collective action, and there is not as of yet any way to implement some kind of aggregation of their preferences. That requires institutions and government.

Er, institutions and government - Saddam's - were the problem, not the solution < / ex-libertarian off >.

Look - neither of my kids drives yet. That's no reason for me to not talk about what a responsible driver does; they'll need it someday.

In this case, "collective action" in Iraq (ugh) requires the institution of democracy - something that took years to pull off in Japan, and two tries in Germany.

So is there a reason we can't speak of the expectation that "The Iraqi People" will assume this responsibility?It's simple to sigh and say "uh, hey, Iraqis! can't we all just stop killing each other and get along! life will be better then!" If everyone could agree to do that, life would likely get a lot better for the vast majority of the population, excluding the x% of people there (Iraqi or non-Iraqi) who may be truly twisted folks who do wish to continue to destabilize things through violence, and who would therefore be unhappy with a more stable Iraq. Let's label those people "the terrorists.""Unhappy with a more stable Iraq?" Unhappy? Like people who've ordered medium rare steak and gotten "well-done"?

And George Soros pays this guy paid to blog!

He's not done:

But, there are lots of reasons an Iraqi may feel it is in his/her interest to take up arms against US troops and Allawi's guard which have nothing to do with the fact that they're Islamic militants dedicated to establishing some sort of pan-Arab theocracy. You may be a bit pissed off because a few too many of your friends and family have been hit by US bombs. You may do it because you figure your odds of survival are better if you do, because your neighbors are putting a wee bit of pressure on you or your family.

See how many times the word "may" pops up in the above paragraph? It's a weasel word; yes, some Iraqis "may" take umbrage at US involvement in their country, but among armed terrorists they are a minority; focusing on them is a nice bit of rhetorical onanism, but it tells us nothing about the larger problem we face in Iraq.

The Brooksian pundits imagine that collectively the people of Iraq could sit down with Kyra Phillips and Tom Friedman and have the purpose of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" explained to them, and everything would be okay (and then Brooks could kill anyone who didn't get on board).

"We" imagine no such thing.

These people need to consider what it's like to live in a war zone, with people you know getting killed, and understand that the incentive structure might lead to some unpleasant behavior. And you have to throw in the fact that while most Americans think American lives are more important, and in fact imagine that all good people should agree with that, we shouldn't expect that they will...

Notice the ofay assumption? Leaving aside that this is the sort of rhetoric that'd earn you a "C-" in a sophomore English class; "Atrios" is saying that the freedom of a bunch of little brown people who speak a funny language isn't as important as ours.

I don't know a single person with a conscience - left or right - who thinks the lives of Iraqis are "less important" than an American life. But many of us think the security of our nation is less important than the lives and securities of a few thousand murdering thugs.

But accounting for all of that would be pretty nuanced for the likes of Atrios...

O'Reilly is Losing His Mind

Is Bill O'Reilly the equivalent of a teenager dhing her hair pink to rile her father? Or is he just a stealth idiotarian?

O'Reilly, long a favorite of conservatives, surprised Wallace with some of his views on political issues.

He said he is pro-gun control, against the death penalty, for civil unions and for gay adoption (as a last resort instead of state custody). And O'Reilly said he's not necessarily voting for President Bush this November.

"I've known (Democratic presidential nominee John) Kerry for 25 years. He's a patriot. I'm listening to what he has to say," he tells Wallace.

I never really liked O'Reilly much, even when I thought he was right about some things.

(Via Centrisity)

The Drumbeat Begins

You're a Democrat.

Your attacks on George Bush, when not being folded, spindled, mutilated, and tossed to the curb by an aggressive and asymmetric alternative media, are falling on deaf ears. Your former comrades in arms revile you by a 10-1 margin.

Electorally, you need to capture every Gore state and at least one significant Red state - but the latest public polling shows that you are not likely to get a single Bush state from 2000, you're losing Blue states (Wisconsin, Iowa), facing very rough runs in some other traditional Blue states (Minnesota, Oregon), and are showing abysmally in states that should be as Blue as North Dakota is Red (New York, New Jersey). You're losing women and Hispanics in droves. Your foreign "policy" "ideas" are being debunked by events, as you are ridiculed for turning viciously on our real allies, and as France and Germany hang you out to dry.

What do you do?

Why, debase the foundation of our democracy, of course.

Jimmy Carter - ol' Goofytooth, a man I'm about to promote from "Worst President of Mitch's Lifetime" to "Worst President of the 20th Century", is doing for American Democracy what he did for Nuclear Non-Proliferation:

Voting arrangements in Florida do not meet "basic international requirements" and could undermine the US election, former US President Jimmy Carter says.
He said a repeat of the irregularities of the much-disputed 2000 election - which gave President George W Bush the narrowest of wins - "seems likely".

The article, by the BBC, doesn't deign to substantiate this.

Mr Carter, a veteran observer of polls worldwide, also accused Florida's top election official of "bias".

"Veteran observer of polls worldwide?" His impotence as an advocate of fair elections in socialist countries is legendary.

We can expect dirty tricks aimed at the President. But systematically undermining the legitimacy of the electoral system itself?

Are they sure they want to do that?

Further proof that Hewitt's right - we have to make this a landslide. If it's not close, the cheating is irrelevant.

Enter Envoy

John Kerry says he'll bring his formidable diplomatic prowess to the table in bringing our allies into the war on terror.

He'll have to be a formidable diplomat indeed.

Accordgin to the the Financial Times:

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.

Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations with European allies and increase international military assistance in Iraq.

"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview.

The dirty little secret Kerry won't tell; the French and German decision to stay out of Iraq has much more to do with

• their complicity in the Oil for Food scam
• The enemies they've made in Iraq, especially in those likely to wind up in power now that the nation is free, and
• French and German internal politics. The Germans are currently ruled by a left/farther left coalition of Sozialdemokraten - think Highland Park DFLers - and Grüne, the Greens - think Minneapolis City Council. That coalition in particular wouldn't go to war, anywhere, for any reason, even if a lucky-wearing John Kerry carried them up the Diyala River on his swift boat.

...than with the Euro public's hatred of Bush. Between Kerry's slander of Allawi earlier this week, and his "Allies'" rejection of his key foreign policy "qualification"...what's left?

Whither Rather?

Patterico has a few notes about Dan Rather's potential future.

Read the piece. Money quote:

It is somewhat ironic that the current anchor generation--Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings--all came in at about the same time in the early 1980s, all young guys replacing iconic figures who had gotten old by the standards of the day. Whoever succeeds Rather, whenever he finally goes, will certainly not have anything approaching the agenda setting power that Rather inherited from Chronkite. Indeed, I will be mildly surprised if the networks continue to maintain nightly newscasts 10-15 years from now. The local affiliates could almost certainly make more money running syndicated programs or even expanding their own newscasts to 60 minutes.

Five or six years ago, people started pointing out that the era of network news was drawing to a close; some even predicted that one of the Big Three would tank in the upcoming decade.

We'll see...

Continue Reading

Occasionally, I get a complaint about this blog. Some of the complaints revolve around the content. Que sera.

Yesterday, I got the latest appearance of one I've gotten periodically since I switched this blog to Movable Type last spring: someone didn't like the way I split longer articles into a lede and a link to the rest of the story.

I keep going around on that. I split articles because I know a lot of my traffic is here from other sites. When someone visits a site, cold, they usually give a blog a couple of seconds to grab their attention. I figure if I present a couple of articles in the first page-full of material, they'll be that much more likely to stay; each visit isn't dependent on the quality of just one story to be turned into a regular. I hope.

I understand why people don't like the stories split, too. It all makes sense.

In the end, I like the way the page flows when I can break it up the way I do. Usually.

So I guess I can only offer one thing to those of you who don't like the split stories. Sorry.

What, after all that you expected me to write something more?

Social Networks

Last year when I first wrote "Berg's Law of Liberal Iraq Commentary", I listed the four major reasons we went to war in Iraq:

• WMDs (which, we now know, Hussein had the institutional knowledge to re-build very quickly)
• Repeated violations of UN resolutions
• Human rights outrages
• LInks to terrorism (as opposed to "imminent threat of immediate attack)

According to Belmont Club, we need to add a big fringe benefit.

The linked piece is about social networks. Our CIA/Special Forces operators have made great advances against terror networks - including nabbing Hussein himself - by examining the terrorists' social networks.

In so doing, they've learned a lot about how terrorists' organizations work.

One huge point - terrorist organizations can get much bigger, and much more effective, when they have entire nations in which to organize, train, and run their operations.

Wretchard quotes Vladis Krebs:

Al Qaeda may have been able to grow much larger ... when it ran physical training camps in Afghanistan. Physical proximity allowed al Qaeda to operate as a hierarchy along military lines, complete with middle management (or at least a mix of a hierarchy in Afghanistan and a distributed network outside of Afghanistan). Once those camps were broken apart, the factors listed above were likely to have caused the fragmentation we see today (lots of references to this in the news).

[Krebs'] last paragraph is crucial to understanding why the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the toppling of Saddam Hussein may have cripped global terrorism so badly. Without the infrastrastructure of a state sponsor, terrorism is limited to cells of about 100 members in size in order to maintain security. In the context of the current campaign in Iraq, the strategic importance of places like Falluja or "holy places" is that their enclave nature allows terrorists to grow out their networks to a larger and more potent size. Without those sanctuaries, they would be small, clandestine hunted bands. The argument that dismantling terrorist enclaves makes "America less safe than it should be in a dangerous world" inverts the logic. It is allowing the growth of terrorist enclaves that puts everyone at risk in an otherwise safe world.

The US strategery - remove terrorists' safe havens, whether by direct military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, or by support of surrogates in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Philippines - thus performs an invaluable service; it makes it extremely difficult for terrorists to operate far enough "in the open" to spend less time on their own self-preservation than on planning actual observations.

Which is the right strategy in the right place at the right time.

Debunked?

Beldar Blog has issued "a challenge to those who claim that the SwiftVets' allegations have been "debunked" or are "unsubstantiated" (as opposed to "questioned on some aspects"), as current lefty/media lore relentlessly intones intones:

But on none of these issues I've just listed [read the piece] have the SwiftVets' allegations been "debunked" or proven "unsubstantiated." Andrew Sullivan or the NYT repeating over and over that they have been simply don't make them so. To employ the legal jargon of summary judgment proceedings, a rational factfinder could conclude from the evidence that the SwiftVets have produced on each of these allegations that, indeed, they're true. A trial judge who dismissed these allegations outright, without letting the factfinder (typically a jury) consider them, would certainly be reversed on appeal and told to let the jury do its work. They haven't, in lay terms, been "debunked" — but rather, they're fiercely disputed by competent evidence (some of it eyewitness, some of it circumstantial, some of it documentary).

Hence my challenge for the weekend to my readers — you're probably a minority, as these things go, but I know from my comments pages that you're out there — who may agree with the NYT or Mr. Sullivan:

Can you identify even one specific and material SwiftVets allegation that you believe to have been fully "debunked" or fully proven to be "unsubstantiated"?

So, lefties - care to throw down?

I don't think any of you can answer it.

Operation Shame On You?

Luke Francl from the New Patriot draws our attention to a new project:

Kos diarist Cyberactor is launching Operation Shame On You, a letters campaign that will take on newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000, contrasting their reasoning with what actually happened in the last four years.

They're reserving some ire for the Pioneer Press, which shocked the whole Twin Cities by endorsing Bush in 2000.

Francl notes:

Some salient points from the PiPress's endorsement:

- Bush led his party towards the center
- Bush doesn't believe slashing taxes is all Americans need
- Bush lacks foreign policy experience (at least they got that right), but his advisors, particularly Dick Cheney will make up for it
- Bush will be a unifying leader

Wow. Where to start?

• Bush did lead the party toward the center. To get the nomination, he had to neutralize Pat Buchanan and fight off a strong challenge from my guy, Steve Forbes. Since then, he has bought Ted Kennedy's education plan lock, stock and barrel, and spent enough to qualify as a Tip O'Neil-caliber spendthrift.
• "Taxes all Americans need?" Consider the absurdity of that statement.
• "Foreign policy experience" - well, I'd say trading some Foggy-Bottom-"Polish" for actually dealing with terrorism is a perfectly acceptable trade.
• As to being a unifying leader - well, nobody said leadership was a popularity contest. He's unified more than half the nation, and a couple of dozen other nations; it's a free country, and nobody has to follow. Tito was a real unifier.

However, I strongly urge you to support the Pioneer Press; they are the lone Twin Cities daily to make even the most token effort to provide some political balance to the news.

It's a nice switch.

Aid and Comfort

"Don't blame us", the left cavils, "and our lies and context-deprived rantings about Iraq, and our candidates' demonstrable desire to wash their hands of the nation, for the recent surge in violence!".

Oh, I think I'll listen to those who do.

One of Cap's correspondents - a Marine in Iraq - reports:

I also wonder if Senator Kerry realizes that he is partially responsible for the recent upswing in violence. This, by the way, is not speculation... this is straight from one of my interpreter's mouth.

When Senator Kerry said that, if elected, he would pull us out of here in four years, the insurgent leadership had a rousing round of celebratory automatic weapons fire. The insurgents can easily hang out another four years, taking 10 casualties here, 3 there and they know it. And they know that a massive upswing in violence with resulting casualties will make President Bush look really bad and increase the Senator's chances of election.

Hey, who are you gonna believe - someone in country, or a giggly fratboy in DC writing a blog?

Waaaaaaah

Generalissimo Duane calls our attention to John Kerry's continuing threat to stomp his feet and hold his breath until President Bush stops actually trying to get elected:

Presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) — responding to a Republican group's ad that portrays the senator as soft on terrorism — accused President Bush (news - web sites) and Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) of "despicable politics" in a new commercial that the Democrat's campaign rolled out Saturday.

Kerry's ad claims that the Republican ticket is "using the appalling and divisive strategy of playing politics with the war on terror, a strategy that undermines the efforts to combat terrorists in America and puts George Bush (news - web sites)'s own ambition ahead of the national good."

As opposed to claiming "foreign leaders" are "secretly rooting for him"? As opposed to undercutting the troops' mission, declaring the war wrong, flip-flopping on the whole thing depending on which way the wind is blowing? That kind of politics?

Kerry's people like to dish it up, but they sure can't take it.

What You REALLY Mean...

Joe Carter has a fantastic post on reading between the lines

He gets most of the basics.

To wit:

“I don’t kiss up to anybody.” -- Translation: I’m a tactless jerk.

“I don’t care what anyone thinks.” -- Translation: I’m deeply insecure and constantly worry about what everyone thinks of me.

“It’s not you, it’s me.” -- Translation: Let’s not kid ourselves, you’re definitely the reason we’re breaking up.

“I’m just crazy like that.” -- Translation: I’m the type of geek who thinks other people are impressed by my goofy behavior.

“What do you do for a living?” -- Translation: What socio-economic category can I place you in so that I may judge your value as a human being.

“Money isn’t everything.” -- Translation: I’ve come to the realization that I will be broke for the rest of my life.

“We need to talk about our relationship.” (Spoken by a woman) -- Translation: We need to talk about what you’re doing wrong.

“Fine, let’s talk.” (Coming from a man) -- Translation: Please, please, let’s get this over with before the football game comes on.

“Deep down, he’s really a good kid” -- Translation: I can’t bring myself to admit that my kid is a hellion.

“I’m just not good at taking tests.” -- Translation: I’m too lazy to actually study.

“I prefer a guy with a sense of humor” -- Translation: I prefer a guy who can make me laugh as long as he is also rich and good-looking.

“Do I look fat in these pants?” -- Translation: Your verbal reinforcement that I'm thin enough is the only thing keeping my self-esteem out of the toilet.

“It was really nice meeting you.” -- Translation: Five minutes from now I won’t even remember your name.

“Sure, you can call me sometime.” -- Translation: I will be changing my phone number tomorrow.

“You look great!” -- Translation: I forgot just how terrible you looked the last time I say you.

“What are you thinking” (Coming from a woman) -- Translation: What are you thinking?

“Nothing.” (Coming from a man) -- Translation: My mind is -- as usual -- a complete blank.

Of course, he misses some good ones:

"People say I'm too honest for my own good" - I'm tactless, self-centered clod.

"I work hard and I play hard" - but I think real soft.

More?

Against All Odds

Say what you will about public radio - and I've certainly said a lot about it myself - but once in a while they uncork a winner.

I'm currently listening to Red Runs the Vistula: The Warsaw Uprising of 1944.

This is one of history's most horrific and inspiring moments; it's a story of hope, as the Poles rose against the Nazis after five years of unimaginably brutal occupation; betrayal, as Stalin called for the uprising, then sat and watched the Germans mop it up (the Armja Krajowa, or Home Army, was mostly non-Communist, and likely to form the core of the anti-Soviet faction in Poland after the war); and most of all, unimaginable heroism.

Poland's experience in World War II, and the following 45 years of Soviet domination, have a lot to do with their stance in the war on terror.

Give it a listen, or read the transcript.

The Weekend

It's Sunday, the day I traditionally never blog.

So here I am on post 4. A typical leftyblog would be yelling Hypocrite! Hypocrite! right about now. Go figure.

Had a great day yesterday. Lot of housecleaning in the morning; it was the Midway's "Neigbhorhood Cleanup Day", where the district council gets a bunch of trash companies to pull a bunch of industrial dumpsters and garbage trucks into the huge empty lot behind the University Rainbow, and charges $10 a load to let you dump stuff off. It's a huge event locally, and I took full advantage. The main floor of the house verges on presentability; I'm going to work on the second floor starting soon here.

Then we went to Sponsels, a huge apple orchard in Jordan, MN. It's an annual event for us; daughter got to go on a horse ride, while son and I took a hayride into the orchard to pick a couple pecks of apples. These apple orchard trips used to involve me reaching up as high as I can (I'm 6'5) to get the good apples, the kind the short rabble can't get to, and hoping the kids are waiting around with the bag. But this time Son scampered up into the upper branches before I could tell him not to, and brought down a peck's worth of the most gorgeous Connell Reds I've had in years. Ate at a nearby diner, came home and watched DVDs.

But today - more painting.

And less blogging...

Quote of the Day

Michele Catalano writes about a comically-slanted piece about bloggers in the NYTimes.

That the piece got everything wrong and brought a comical political slant to the contribution of blogs to the arc of the Rathergate story is both obvious and something Michele explains better; read her piece.

But at the end, she cuts to my own motivations for spending so much time and otherwise-productive effort on watching the efforts of the big lefty blogs.

Michele writes

The site stats of Kos, Marshall and Black may be huge, but their heads are larger, looming like three enormous, helium balloons above the blogosphere.

It will be interesting to see how the results of the coming election will effect those balloons. A pin positioned in just the right place will cause a collective pop loud enough to cause an aftershock in the blog world, leaving Matthew Klam with 5,000 words to write and only Wonkette's baby blue eyes and expletives deleted with which to fill the pages.

We at the Northern Alliance - especially the Fraters and I - have been commenting at length on the dearth of good left-wing blogs. I've addressed the local angle...

...but the big, dark, dirty secret of the A-list of the left-wing blogosphere is, there's really no there, there.

Read the big ones: Atrios and Oliver Willis and Pandagon are all giggly fratboys with the intellectual acuity of a TV-addled eight-grader. Matt Yglesias is better, slightly, but still given to long rhetorical trips with not enough logical gas. Josh "ua Micah" Marshall seems to be decaying before our eyes, as the stress of watching the gathering meltdown of the Democrat party seems to be grinding him to a rhetorical pulp as we watch. Kos has gone from being a fairly intelligent blog to a loathsome groupthink forum, as bad as "Democratic Underground". Wonkette, I'm convinced, was never meant to be anything but a yuk; unlike the big guy lefty bloggers, she delivers everything with tongue so firmly in cheek, it verges on readable, and probably doesn't fit into the gallery of swollen noggins Catalano describes.

So what happens if the boom drops - as appears iincreasingly possible - on the morning of November 3? These bloggers have pushed the rhetorical bar so very, very low, I have to wonder where they can go?

They Get Paid For This: Part IX - Are You SURE You Want To Do That?

Oliver Willis - a young blogger who has become less cogent and readable as his traffic and popularity on the left have grown, who is employed by George Soros, did something very dumb yesterday.

Emphasis added:

I think it's kind of funny that the wingnuts at sites like Powerline have discovered the subtle art of "nuance" (the same thing they've been slamming Kerry for since he doesn't use kindergarten sentences like Dear Leader).

Powerline are "wingnuts?"

Granted, they may not be capable of logic like this:

But here's the thing. Dear Leader didn't say anything resembling "Senator Kerry's words would have us believe" (not that the sorry excuse for a President could get such a complex sentence out), but blatantly lied and blatantly claimed that Kerry said: "he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today". Look. Black is black and white is white, and George W. Bush is a heck of a liar, and Goldstein's a hell of an idiot apologist. John Kerry never said that. He just didn't.
An example. If Kerry said "George Bush admitted that he's the shittiest president since Nixon", that would be a lie, because Bush would never say that. Now, were Kerry to say "George Bush is the shittiest president since Dick Nixon" he would be telling the truth in truckloads.

So, we have a gratuitous dictator reference, eight unsupported assertions (saying "he just didn't!", three flaming ad-hominae and an out-of-context assertion intended to mislead...

...but Powerline are the "wingnuts"?

Good News for Fraters - Bad News for Garofalo

Congrats to the Northern Alliance's pals at "New Patriot", who (sez Chuck Olsen), got a mention on Janeane Garofalo's unlistenable homage to college radio, "Majority Report".

However, there's some muted bad news for Air America here.

Look at New Patriot's SiteMeter page. You can see their hits on September 24, the night they got their big mention. 220-odd-visits. Not bad.

Now, check out their traffic on September 13. their second-biggest day with 280-odd visits.

Who was talking about New Patriot on 9/13? That's right - the Fraters.

Remember that, regional bloggers - Fraters Libertas has 17% more oomph than Air America!

How's That?

HughHewitt is one of the best talk show hosts going - and I'd say that, even if he weren't a huge supporter of the Northern Alliance.

However...:

It must have been this way all across Paris in the summer of 1914. Sadly, the young colonel clutching news that he'd been given command of the Hackenberg fortress along the Maginot Line is David Brooks, sentenced to the New York Times just as old media crumbles in reputation and readership.

That young colonel would have looked puzzled indeed: The Maginot line was built in the 1930's.

Casus Belli

As predicted in this blog over a year ago, there is evidence that Iraq had dismantled its nuclear weapons program - but retained the knowledge to reconstitute it when the coast was clear.

With a hat tip to Ed, I note a new book by a former Iraqi weapons scientist.

This should only be news to you if you get your information from the mainstream media:

In The Bomb in my Garden, Dr Obeidi details Saddam’s quest for a nuclear bomb: "Although Saddam never had nuclear weapons at his disposal, the story of how close Iraq came to developing them should serve as a red flag to the international community."

In the book, published tomorrow, Dr Obeidi details his research through nearly a quarter of a century under Saddam, including the designs for key components and prototypes for nuclear production, buried in a plastic drum next to his rose garden. Probably just two of Saddam’s most trusted deputies knew the whereabouts of the research, he says.

While only the former president knows fully why he did not restart his nuclear programme, Dr Obeidi believes Saddam may have realised the scope of the massive undertaking. UN inspectors had dismantled the programme, removed stockpiles of enriched uranium and exposed Iraq’s international network of suppliers - and Saddam was doing well from the UN’s oil-for-food programme, while increasing his control over a population reliant on him for basics.

To get caught importing the components needed to produce a nuclear weapon, the scientist says, would have ended the programme. Yet Saddam kept his Iraq Atomic Energy Commission running, apparently without weapons programmes, as late as 2003.

"All we had left was the knowledge in our heads and the documents buried in my garden," Dr Obeidi writes.

In a forthcoming report, US weapons inspectors with the Iraq Survey Group are expected to conclude that Saddam had intentions of reinvigorating his weapons programmes, but no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Ed draws the logical conclusion:

It should also teach the world about the futility of so-called "inspections regimes" when dealing with fundamentally hostile and dangerous dictators. Saddam had long dreamed of creating an Iraq-centered pan-Arab political entity that would challenge both East and West and, through a monopoly on oil, control the world. But oil alone would not secure Saddam's Greater Arabia, and so he tried to build WMD in order to counter the power of the Americans, and to a lesser extent his Russian and Chinese sponsors.

Remember - building nuclear weapons was a Nobel-Prize activity 60 years ago. Today, it's basic craftsmanship. The knowledge and the material are the only things separating a tinpot dictator from the nuclear club.

Hussein had the knowledge. And he had the money to buy the material.

Shocked?

First, let's understand this; I don't believe you can judge a book by its cover. Pictures are misleading. Stereotypes are bad. Yep yep yep.

That said...

A story in today's Strib is entitled Teacher's drug arrest shocks International Falls.

Looking at this picture...:

...before reading the story, "Shock" isn't exactly the noun that popped to mind.

I know. That's very wrong.

Why Do You DO That, Mitch?

Occasional correspondent GK emailed me:

Mitch

Why are you spending so much time reading lefty blogs lately?

This can't be good for your mental health"

You can tell?

Seriously, there's a method to my madness. I think.

It's a little over a month until the election. I'm starting - just starting, mind you - to feel a little teeeeny bit optimistic about the President's chances of carrying this election off. Not that I ever felt that Mad How had a chance, or that John Kerry is anything but a tragic electoral joke - but between the full-court media press that John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson have spent so much time exposing, and George Soros' bottomless pockets, and the pent-up hatred of so many narcissistic baby-boomers and solipsistic college humanities majors and superannuated pseudo-socialists, I never felt I could take anything for granted. Still don't.

But I'm starting to feel the momentum settling into place. Lurch is retreating from battleground state after battleground state, is in dead-heat races in Democrat playgrounds like New Jersey, Illinois and Minnesota, will probably lose Wisconsin and Iowa (both of which I'd considered safely Blue when I made my infamous predictions with Hugh Hewitt last January), and can't even muster a crushing lead, at least according to some polls, in bluest-of-blue New York.

And if Kerry loses, I want to be able to watch the mental meltdowns that ensue on the left - and be able to frame those breakdowns in the context of their usual narrative. I figure six weeks of unobtrusive observation should suffice.

And it gives me so much material. No, seriously - I've written probably 15 of those "They Get Paid For This..." pieces, and it's not slowing down. I have to stop, of course - I'm probably the only person remotely interested in fact-checking the likes of Atrios, Willis and Pandagon (certainly none of their regular audiences, as evidenced in their Nuremberg-sized comment sections, are...).

Anyway - it'll be over soon...

They Get Paid For This: Part VII - Pesky Semantics

Oliver Willis - who, I remind you, is a blogger I used to mildly admire - notes:

These ads should have been running for months. And Fox News Channel, The Official Network of the Swift Boat Vets, refuses to air it.

A few finer points for Willis, and the mindless lemmings who may take anything he says for fact:

• An ad isn't news. Accepting advertising is not the job of the news division of any network. In theory, they are kept rigidly separate; this is important for journalistic detachment (not that Willis would know about that, working as he does for the George Soros-funded "Media Matters," he'd have no idea about keeping money separate from news).
• The Swifties, despite the endless incantations of the left, actually relay some documentable facts - in fact, I have yet to see any of their claims debunked in any way.
• The claims on these ads read like a lot of typical conspiracy-fodder.

For that matter, I've seen these ads on no other networks either.

They Get Paid For This: Part VI - Clueless and Huge

Why do I do this?

Reading lefty blogs, I mean?

Do I believe that anyone that believes in the tripe that the likes of Atrios and Oliver Willis and Kos write will change their mind over what I write here?

Well, hope springs eternal. I have to hope that people aren't that stupid, although experience - observing the popularity of Clay Aiken, Fear Factor, bla bla bla - tells me I'm wrong.

By way of this, Duncan "Atrios" Black writes:

[Some lame leftyblog] tells us that [Andrea Mitchell] just informed the world that Bush is a very popular president.

Very popular presidents don't consistently have favorability ratings below 50.

Atrios' audience is mostly Democrats - hence mostly have no better knowledge of the history (or these current events, for that matter) of Bush's pretty-consistently 50+ point approval rating than any others.

"Popular" presidents can do whatever they want with polls. Good presidents ignore polls and do what's right.

"Atrios", who can't seem to get his facts straight, is employed by the George Soros-funded Media Matters.

Sympathy Stocks: Buy

Much has been made - at least among conservative and 9/11 blogs - about the phenomenon of the Security Mom - mothers whose prime motivation in this election is the security of their families and children. It's a phenomenon being used to describe Kerry's weak showing among women. (Of course, men have always been "security parents" - working guys with kids have always been the base of the GOP. It was the security of the kids I wasn't going to have for ten more years, chief among other things, that brought me to the GOP in my early twenties).

But how do we know this is actually penetrating with the real, actual public?

As you know, I firmly believe that money talks, and Willis walks; people get serious about predicting the future when actual money is on the table.

And who in America has the most vested fiduciary interest in knowing the mind-set of America's women?

Oprah.

Yesterday's show was on children being taken hostage and living with endemic terrorism. It included segments on the Beslan Massacre, children living in Iraq, and much more. It was as cheesily, brilliantly emotionally manipulative as anything Winfrey has ever done (I heard some audio clips on the radio today); mothers with real-life Sophie's Choices, children defying Fedayin thugs to work with Americans (!)...

< screeech >

Yeah. You're right. I expected Winfrey to pull out some anti-Bush palaver at that point, too. Yet the story focused on the absolutes; terrorists bad; womenandtheirchildren benighted yet noble; Americans in white kevlar helmets, terrs in their black dishdasha...

Now, since Oprah's entire formidable fortune is based on reading women correctly, what does that tell you about the state of half our our electorate today?

The Poll That Matters

Forget the Gallup, AP, CNN, Minnesota and Quinnipiac polls. This one has the juice:

What is the Presidential Mask Election Predictor? In 2000, due to the popularity of political masks, BuyCostumes.com began publishing statistics on each Presidential Candidate's mask sales. It was soon apparent that the mask sales were as good a resource as the polls being published by major national media groups. Seeing the similarities, BuyCostumes.com then looked into some data on political mask sales in election years. Not only did they ask five different mask manufacturers, they also spoke with 12 national stores about their sales history all the way back to 1980. Their findings were astounding and right every time....

Right every time? What's their track record?

Year Winner Loser
1980 Reagan = 60% Carter = 40%
1984 Reagan = 68% Mondale = 32%
1988 Bush = 62% Dukakis = 38%
1992 Clinton = 41% Bush 39%
1996 Clinton = 56% Dole = 40%
2000 Bush = 57% Gore = 43%

And the current polling? Bush = 56%, Kerry = 44%

OK, seriously now; while this is presented tongue-in-cheek, there's a serious component to this. Polls are easy; someone calls, you answer; talk is cheap.

But the Presidential Mask poll, like the Iowa Electronic Market, involves the actual transaction of money. It's not just hot air - people get serious when they have money riding on an outcome (like the IEM), or when they're spending something they have to work for to get it (like the masks).

I'm not calling this race, naturally (although if you're reading this in California or Oregon, and thinking of voting Kerry, feel free to stay home from the polls). But it's one more light at the other end of the electoral tunnel.

954 Points

Retired Air Force Colonel John Wambough has what, in a sane world with a rational Democrat party, would be the last word on Bush's Air Guard service:

Read the whole thing, of course - but the money quote is here:

An issue that keeps popping up is: why Lt. Bush didn't take an annual flight physical? The answer is simple. Lt. Bush was not going to continue flying F-102's in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron. His squadron was scheduled to convert from an operational to a training squadron. Since Lt. Col Killian is deceased, it is impossible to know the dialogue that went on between Lt. Bush and Lt. Col Killian. What we do know is that Lt. Bush received an honorable discharge.

Like all Guard members, Lt. Bush was required to accrue a minimum of 50 points (annually) to meet Guard service requirements (a minimum of 300 points in six years). What the liberal media may not have covered in their many articles about Lt. Bush's ANG service is that Lt. Bush accumulated 954 points - exceeding the six-year Air National Guard requirement for service - threefold. Of course, everyone knows this, right? All those investigative reporters must have brought this fact out a dozen times. I just must have missed it.

Wambough includes the annualized point totals that Byron York publicized quite some time ago:

May-68 to May-69
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 253

May-69 to May-70
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 340

May-70 to May-71
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 137

May-71 to May-72
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush -112

May-72 to May-73
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 56

Jun -73 to Jul-73
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 56

Ref:
http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx
Minimum Annual Requirement - 300
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 954

So Bush served for six years. In those six years, he accrued enough service points for eighteen years of minimal guard service.

So, Democrats - where's the beef, here?

Read the rest of Wambough's piece, by the way - it's great fodder for the next time your annoying liberal officemates start yapping about the Guard "issue".

Teaching Old Armies New Tricks

Americans are used to the notion that our military can pretty much pick up at any time, and fight any war, anywhere. It's enshrined in US military lore:

From the halls of Montezuma
to the shores of Tripoli,
we'll fight our country's battles
on the air or land or sea...

...says the Marine Corps anthem. It's a stirring bit of mythology - and, in the sense of national strategy, that's what it is. A myth.

Militaries just don't work like that. Not in the long term.

The ways of the military are pretty opaque to most people who aren't in the service. One of the most opaque facets of the military is the fact that it's a fairly simple beast; it has a fairly short attention span, in terms of being able to absorb new concepts, missions and doctrines.

The military is far from alone at this. Imagine, if you will, General Motors. They make cars; they've made 'em, as GM, for about half a century. They make cars very well - and they make 'em pretty much the same way they've made them for the last hundred years, really, conceptually; a huge, comprehensive supply chain conveys immense dumps of components and parts to a number of centralized factories. The factories put the cars together on big assembly lines, and ship them to a nationwide system of dealerships, which sell and service the products. The process repeats millions of times a year. Changing the process - as the big automakers had to back in the '80s, when Japanese and German cars began to cut huge swathes in the US market - involved immense, painful readjustment and billions of dollars in reinvestment.

And that's just an industry. Imagine doing that in government.

If you grew up like most Americans, learning what you know of military history and the institutions of defense from Alan Alda and Mike Farrell every Tuesday night on M.A.S.H., you probably think "war is war". And in any sense larger than TV drama, you'd be wrong.

Imagine General Motors being told, on about a year's notice, that it had to switch en masse from building cars in huge assembly lines with generations-old supply chains and distribution systems, and start building - remember, on a year's notice - solar-powered cars in plants distributed among the fifty states. Or imagine the Internal Revenue Service being required to toss out the current income tax system and have a National Sales Tax up and running. On three years' notice.

Absurd? Well, maybe. Sure - both institutions could do it, in theory, if they had to. And then they'd probably have to take an organizational deep breath.

Sure. And the US military has done it five times in the last 100 years.

1. In 1917, the US Army was still configured to defend a huge frontier against Indian tribes, bandito incursions and the odd pseudo-colonial skirmish. The Army numbered in the tens of thousands, relied on volunteers (what we call the National Guard, now) to take on any job that involved more than a few thousand men (the Spanish American war) and, like any frontier police force, was very short on things like modern artillery and machine guns. Almost literally overnight, it had to expand by a couple of orders of magnitude, absorb new technologies (tanks, airplanes, chemical warfare) and learn to fight effectively in the meatgrinder of the Western Front - the tactical polar opposite of the wars it had fought since the end of the Civil War. The Navy had to go from colonial police squadron to a battle fleet capable of mixing it up with the Germans, the second-mightiest of the day, as well as escorting convoys against submarines. And it did it within a matter of a year - with immense problems (we bought all of our tanks and combat aircraft, many of our machine guns and even infantry rifles and uniforms, from Britain and France).
2. In 1940, we had to shift from a colonial Army and a Navy that was designed to fight in the Pacific against Japan (the assumption had been that the British would carry the Atlantic - an assumption made when it wasnt' assumed the Mediterranean and Indian Oceans would be theatres of naval war for Britain, stretching the Royal Navy incredibly thin). The Army had to go, again, from a token force to several million men, again nearly overnight. Moreover, it had two missions; fighting the Germans in the compact, dense terrain of Western Europe, and again in the vaste wastes of the Pacific. Each theatre required different doctrine, training, equipment and logistics; Patton's mechanized armies had very little in common with MacArthur's amphibious light infantry, to say nothing of Nimitz' ultralight Marines. The Pacific Fleet was adapted to huge, slashing attacks with immense carrier task forces; the Atlantic Fleet focused on the mathematical, methodical pursuit of the U-Boot and the industrial transport of millions of men and their gear from the East Coast to the beaches of Normandy.
3. From there, the military had to adapt to the Cold War; a huge, industrialized, hypothetical operation in a nuclear, chemical and biological environment in the dense urban areas and wild mountains of Western Europe and Korea. The US, along with NATO, prepared to meet a vast tide of Warsaw Pact tanks and armored infantry, supported by thousands of pieces of artillery and thousands of aircraft; NATO's own fleets of tanks, anti-tank missile gunners, artillerymen and infantry scouted every hillock from the Inter-German Border to the Channel for places to stage ambushes and surprise counterattacks, hoping to make the Soviet attack bog down it its own wreckage before Europe fell. The Navy trained obsessively to fight the USSR's immense submarine fleet. We built our own huge fleets of anti-sub submarines and surface escorts; more important, the Navy's culture morphed into that of the Anti-Sub Warfare escort. Our navy was big enough to simultaneously absorb multiple cultures - the descendants of the Carrier warriors of WWII and the anti-sub (and submarine) operators each had their own niches in the fleet, depending on each other but never quite mingling. Smaller fleets - the British and Japanese, notably - morphed almost entirely into Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) operations. Smaller armies - Germany, Norway, the Netherlands - devoted all of their budget, training and operational thought to planning for the steel surge across the Iron Curtain that never came.
4. In the middle of that time, the US (and to some extent, the UK and France) had to swerve to deal with guerilla wars in the third world. Tactically and operationally, these sorts of wars were the polar opposite of the war all three nations were preparing for halfway around the world. France and the UK were able to keep the wars where they belonged, strategically - missions for their special forces and intelligence services. The US was politically unable to so contain Vietnam; it widened into a full-scale ground war that, nonetheless, was completely different than the one that had consumed most of the US effort for the previous twenty years.
5. At the end of the Cold War, the threat of the huge nuclear/armored fist slashing deep into the European heartland vanished. The main war threatening the US and Europe today is...well, the one we're fighting today, in the alleys and suqs of Iraq, the valleys of Afghanistan, the books of international banks and the customs gates at Twin Cities International.

The problem with NATO is, they're still stuck firmly in #3. They have not had the impetus or need to move their defense-related thinking out of the 1980s, and they haven't. The German Bundeswehr is built around 12 divisions of heavy, mechanized Panzers and Panzergrenadiers (armed with some of the best tanks in the world, the Leopard II) - and no means of getting them out of Germany to fight. Which isn't a problem, that's what they were designed for, to defend Germany, not liberate Iran. But the fact is, each of NATO's armies is still designed for Scenario #3, above - fighting the Cold War. Each does it in their own way - the tank-heavy German, Belgian and Dutch armies, to the Norwegians with their focus on anti-tank guerilla warfare in the mountains, or the Danish focus on bogging down attacks in their myriad islands. But in no case have any of them, save the Brits, refocused on #5, the war we have today.

They've had no reason to! Leaving aside the myopic, short-sighted, corrupt reaction of the French and Germans to the War on Terror - their militaries have had no reason to change missions, and hence make the immense investments in doctrine, training, and equipment needed to really adapt to a new mission.

John Kerry relentlessly intones that he'll bring "our allies" into the war - meaning presumably any future operations, since he's apparently given up on Iraq.

Yesterday, NATO pledged to offer troops to help train the new Iraqi security services. It's about time. At the same time, Captain Ed notes a key fact about NATO:

We have over 150,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and all of the NATO members have just 25,500 deployed anywhere ... and they're overextended. And the other dirty little secret is that the NATO countries lack the transport capabilities to get much more of their troops anywhere else in the world; they rely on the US for that. Simply put, outside of training, NATO involvement in Iraq or anywhere else only has political use. Militarily, involving NATO would be pointless.

Militarily, involving almost any military outside its home operating turf is pointless. The exceptions are the US, whose military is both huge and has fully integrated itself into Scenario #5, above; Britain, ditto; Australia, whose military shares most traits with the Brits, and whose military contributions are usually limited to special and light forces that can be easily transported by US and British assets; and whatever odds and ends of other militaries that can be hauled about the world by the US Air Force and Navy. It's worth noting that NATO Special Forces - which are by their nature light and very easy to move around the world - are another exception; German, Danish, Norwegian and Canadian special forces served in Afghanistan, and did a fine job. But they are an exception; no war can be entirely won by special forces, and they're a very expensive proposition for policing territory.

People like John Kerry and virtually every lefty blogger, by the way, ignore the massive effort it's taken for some of the nations involved with us in Iraq, the "coerced and bribed" Poles and Bulgarians and South Koreans and Japanese and others, to generate the involvement they've had. The Poles and other Eastern European nations' militaries really have only one mission at present - deter Russian aggression (which is unlikely, but history is a living thing in Eastern Europe). On the other hand, no nation in the world has a clearer mission than South Korea, whose troops have trained and equipped themselves for 50 years for exactly one mission, defense against the North. That they can send a long brigade of men to help in Iraq is little short of miraculous, operationally-speaking.

What's the point? Several, really:

• John Kerry can make all the (intentionally) vague blandishments about his diplomatic prowess he wants - but there really is no earthly way NATO will be able to send any significant, regular (as opposed to special forces) support to any military operations outside Europe anytime soon.
• By "Anytime soon", I mean until NATO's militaries spend the money and, more importantly, time and intellectual energy to consciously re-task their military from Cold War defenders into forces capable of fighting the war on terrorism outside their own borders, and until Europe and the UN decide to take the war on terror seriously (or not be actively complicit with the terrorists.
• That effort is neither simple nor trivial; it is, in fact, something that is frequently accompanied by massive social change.

Ask the next Kerry supporter you see about this. See what their answer is.

They Get Paid For This: Part V - Attack of the Giggly Fratboys

I've made a concerted effort, lately, to read more lefty blogs.

I've discovered something interesting; while I've publicly wondered about the dearth of good lefty blogs in Minnesota, the local left has an embarassment of riches compared to the national scene.

Thanks to the miracle of Sharpreader, I can now browse the content of dozens of blogs without having to bother with actually finding them.

With the biggest of the lefty blogs, that's a distinctly mixed blessing.

I've spent a few days reading the work of a couple of the bigger lefty blogs, Atrios and Oliver Willis. The reading has spawned a new series of posts, "They Get Paid For This", so named because "Atrios" and Willis work for Media Matters For America, a Soros-funded lefty spin site that has apparently discovered how to spend other peoples' money to create "Democratic Underground"-quality broadsheeting.

After browsing Atrios for a couple of weeks, here's a fairly typical post, about one of Kerry's flipflops on one of Bush's war resolution. Atrios notes about Bush's resolution:

At the time he signed the resolution, he claimed it was a vote for peace.

Our goal is not merely to limit Iraq's violations of Security Council resolutions, or to slow down its weapons program. Our goal is to fully and finally remove a real threat to world peace and to America. Hopefully this can be done peacefully.

And, even today, as the ad is running he says:

Of course, I was hoping it could be done diplomatically. But diplomacy failed. And so the last resort of a president is to use force. And we did.

He claimed then it was a vote for peace. He told Congress it was a vote for peace. He then says that the vote for peace that he asked John Kerry to make was actually a vote for war. The previous March he'd said, "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out." So, he told people it was a vote for peace even though he'd decided it was a vote for war. Maybe war is peace. Who the hell knows anymore.

< Sarcasm On > - So apparently Kerry is an idiot? < Sarcasm Off >

That's right, Duncan Black; sometimes to get back to peace, you need to win a war. Most moderately-intelligent people - and that includes a few Massachusetts liberals and even a couple of lefty bloggers - know that when the war comes to you, you either have to win it, or lose it.

"Atrios" basically launched the "Big quote / snarky one-liner" ("Oh, yeah. Bush is honest!") school of blogging favored by so many leftybloggers. One of his big disciples is fellow Soros employee Willis.

Maybe Willis should stick to the snarking. When he tries to string together actual narrative, he gets into trouble:

As Bush makes stuff up along with his puppet government representative, a bomb explodes in Iraq. And they say they can hold elections today. This has gone from a sick joke to just a total denial of reality. Bush right now looks like OJ saying he's looking for the real killer.

Got that? Leave aside the unsupported assertions that spring straight from groupthink and institutional spin (this whole freedom for Iraq thing is Made Up, now, according to the left; and since a car bomb has gone off in Baghdad, the whole "liberation" thing is obviously a scam); Oliver Willis - webmaster and giggly fratboy - is calling Allawi, a man who wakes up every day knowing that hundreds of thugs would gladly trade their lives to lob a grenade at him, a man who has the job of reversing 30 years of Stalinism (and reversing it instantly, apparently) a "puppet".

Suddenly, the local leftybloggers - even the wackjobs - are looking pretty good in comparison.

301-237?

According to CNN, if the election were held today Bush would win, and win big.

Quite a sea of red, there - and of the blue states, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Minnesota are all very much in play at the moment (as are Colorado, New Mexico and Florida, in some polls). That's a potential swing of 52 "Blue" votes and 41 "Red" votes, giving Bush at least some cushion, if the poll is accurate (always the key caveat).

A separate Florida poll conducted September 18 to 21 by Quinnipiac University showed Bush ahead of Kerry, 49 to 41 percent, among registered voters.

But the most movement has taken place this week in New Hampshire and Iowa, two states where voters got to know Kerry early during the race for the Democratic nomination.

Several new polls show Bush posting sizable gains in both states -- especially Iowa, where the president led Kerry by 6 points in a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. A survey conducted in late August showed Kerry with a 6-point lead in the Hawkeye State.

Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri going Bush, with Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon and even New York uncomfortably close?

While the news is encouraging, remember (assuming you're a Bush supporter) that it's just a poll. We can lose this election. It's up to you to get out and volunteer.

More on that in coming weeks...

John Fund was Right

John Fund warns, in his latest book, of massive voter fraud in this election; the immense, systematic fraud boggles the mind:

The U.S. has the sloppiest election systems of any industrialized nation, so sloppy that at least eight of the 19 hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were actually able to register to vote in either Virginia or Florida while they made their deadly preparations for 9/11.

And it's starting again:

An outfit called the "New Voter Project" claims to be nonpartisan but is being bankrolled and staffed by leftists. The organization is already active in Wisconsin and already involved in trouble. Thousands of "voters" registered by this group in the last few weeks have submitted registration forms without the legally required proof of identification. This has forced village and city clerks all over the region to send out notices asking for the information. Why would so many of these forms be filled out without identification?

You tell me...

...Here’s the method to the New Voter Project madness. In Wisconsin, you can register to vote at the polls on Election Day. You have to produce identification when you register. But sending in a phony registration in advance puts you on the voter list before the election. Already-registered voters don’t have to show any identification. By putting perhaps thousands of fake names on the voter lists, it will be possible for fraudsters to show up at the polls and simply claim to be the person who was already "registered."

Expect two things:

• Much more of the same, and
• for the left to squeal like stuck pigs when they're called on it.

(Via The American Mind)

Squeeze, Release, Watch, Repeat

Regular correspondent Fingers - an old friend with extremely extensive knowledge of military matters, left a great comment earlier today.

Since John Kerry and the Dems seem to want to make an issue of Iraq, it seems especially appropriate.

Fingers said:

A number of months ago the military tactic of "squeeze, release, and watch" was outlined to the press (and actually talked about). While not the most decisive method possible to stop the insurgents, the 'squeeze and release' method does allow a chance for a diplomatic solution meanwhile buying time for the Iraqi defense forces to grow and train to be able to eventually assume responsibility for their own internal problems.

The press, through malice or ignorance, inevitably misses this.

There are several concentric goals going on:

1. Kill terrorists
2. Build a stable, democratic, small-l "liberal" nation to shake the roots of Islamofascism and Pan-Arab authoritarianism
3. Build goodwill toward the west and democracy in Iraq.
4. Build the infrastructure to allow the Iraqis to see to their own security
5. Have a base of operations against other terrorists in the region (Iran, Syria), as well as to influence events in nations that are on the knife-edge (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan)

Of course we could carpet-bomb Fallujah - it'd solve #1, but that'd undermine #3, which'd endanger #2 and #5. The Marines could do the whole job themselves, solving #1 again, but retarding #4 and #2.

For people who obsess over "nuance" and "sensitivity", you'd think Democrats would have less trouble twigging to these sorts of things.

Fingers continues:

The downside is that it gives the terrorists a chance to infiltrate more insurgents into the disputed areas. The good news is....it also tends to draw them like flies to dung so we can kill more of them in a centralized location when we 'squeeze' again.

Which is a vital distinction.

The Democrats are spinning the situation like this: "There's been no victory parade, ergo we haven't "won". Since we haven't "won", we're in a quagmire, just like Vietnam!"

Huge difference; in Vietnam, the Viet Cong and the NVA were able to control huge swathes of the country, and seriously impede our ability to move troops, to say nothing of things like commerce and civilian traffic, around the country. Ambushes of small units were frequently incredibly bloody affairs - entire patrols, even platoons (30-40 men) were not-infrequently wiped out to a man in Vietnam, in ambushes not that far from "secure" areas. They were able to seriously contest control of significant geographic areas in the country.

Not so in Iraq. Troops are getting killed, but not entire patrols; if we want something to get somewhere, it'll get there. The fedayin are not in control of any place, and they have no safe haven within Iraq that isn't subject to being overrun without notice.

Which isn't to say they aren't operating, and causing mayhem; they are. But mayhem is all it is; they are in no danger of winning anything - the war, any significant city, anything that they can raise a flag over and proclaim out of Coalition control.

Their only goal is to cause us, the people, to lose heart - or do something irredeemably stupid, like elect John Kerry.

Fingers continues with a vital point that is usually forgotten, and hard to keep your mind on in any case:

Counter-insurgency operations by their very nature are not immediately decisive, and do tax the patience and constitution of the forces (and that their home country's populace) performing them. The key is RESOLVE.

That, indeed, is the big lesson of history; insurgents only win when they can see a light at the end of the tunnel, and the light is near enough to make their (often ghastly) sacrifices worthwhile. Look at some famous insurgencies:

• The American Revolution: The insurgents suffered terribly - and the revolution nearly stalled at some points - but once the British started to waver on the cost of keeping us under the crown (remember, there was a significant pro-independence faction in Parliament at the time), it was all over. It took seven years for it to be official, although the Brits' real will to conquer ended at Yorktown; from that point on, victory was basically inevitable.
• The Chinese Revolution: The light was always there - as was an iron will on the part of Mao Zhedong, which quashed any dissent, flagging, or documented pessimism on the part of his guerrillas. Their will was vastly greater than that of the corrupt Kuomintang, which eventually capitulated.
• The Malaysian Emergencies: Britain fought two insurgency wars in the jungles of Southeast Asia in the fifties and sixties, against Indonesian-backed insurgents and the Indonesian military itself. The Brits wrote the book on counterinsurgency warfare; special forces and intelligence found the enemy among the locals, backed by judicious use of the RAF and crack British infantry when things got hot. The rebels, seeing no light at the end of the tunnel, gave up.
• Algeria: The French and their proxies in Algeria fought an incredibly brutal counterinsurgency in Algeria, the worst of modern times. Then they cut and ran. At the risk of oversimplifying, the French fought hard for a while - and then lost the will to fight the war.
• Vietnam: The US defeated the insurgents - the left keeps losing sight of that fact. But the rise of the anti-war movement in the US gave the insurgents an end-goal that they couldn't win in the field, and they exploited it masterfully.
• The Troubles: The carnage in Ulster defies easy explanation - but when the IRA started bombing British targets outside Ulster, the Brits resonded with strength, determination - and enough subtlety to avoid things like rolling artillery barrages in Londonderry. The war was at home, of course, for the Brits, who endured many bombings and other outrages in London and other Brit cities - there was little question of capitulation while car-bombs were rocking The City.

So Fingers is right - staying the course until the war is really won is vital.

So what will we do? Keep killing the terrorists? Or elect a President whose only consistent position (at all) seems to lead, through one circumlocution or another, to "surrender with honor?"

Option 1 will only go on until the terrorists realize that they will never, ever win. Kerry, like George McGovern, is their light at the end of the tunnel.

Statements like the one made by the sister of the latest 'beheading victim' that "we should bring everyone home," when disseminated widely by our media merely help fuel the resolve of our opponents and make our job that much more difficult.freedoms, I feel it is important to point out that during a time of conflict such as we are in, relatively poorly funded foes need not devote much coin to intelligence gathering when they merely need a satellite dish and internet modem to let our free press do the job for them.

That's why the alternative media - talk radio and the blogosphere - need to stay on this story.

The Captain is actively seeking the stories of servicepeople in Iraq, to try to counteract the relentless, cynical drumbeat of pessimism from the left. There's still much more to do, including the big kahuna of them all - pounding a pike through the heart of the terrs' big hope, a Kerry Presidency.

Let's all get on that.

Times I Need a Digital Camera

I work on Shepard Road in Saint Paul, just across the street from Crosby Park, a big nature preserve and park on the banks of the Mississippi River.

Yesterday, I was driving back from doing some errands when I saw a big furball of birds above the park. That's not necessarily unusual - the area is crawling with geese, especially this time of year, and we also have the swarms of the other little birds whose names elude me.

But these were big. "Gulls", I thought as I watched. But I didn't quite believe it - the wings were too far forward on the birds' shoulders, and they had pronounced "finger" feathers (I don't know the technical name for those feathers - work with me here...). For starters, they weren't flapping away; they just extended their wings and lazily arced through the air in a big ball of birds. The stretched-out wings flitting back and forth made the ball look like it was shimmering against the sky.

Eagles? I'd never seen eagles swarm before - I've only seen three eagles in one place in the wild before. Couldn't be.

But one of my coworkers - who knows birds - confirmed it when I got back to the office. Young eagles will apparently swarm like that, occasionally.

Which amazes me - along with realizing that there are that many young eagles growing up along the Mississippi.

I'll have to check out there today, and see if I can have my camera ready when I do...

The Candidate from Fantasyland

I keep referring to Goebbels' "Big Lie" dictum when referring to the Kerry campaign. I'm sorry about it, in a way - once you've invoked Naziism, your argument really has noplace else to go.

And yet I can think of nothing less that applies. John Kerry has slipped into...what? Fantasy land? Only if I'm feeling charitable.

Otherwise, how can I read anything he's saying in a title="Yahoo! News - Kerry Says Bush in 'Make-Believe World'" href="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20040922/ap_on_el_pr/kerry&printer=1">this article as anything other than the Big Lie - an attempt to sway the ignorant and simple with a lie they either can't or won't debunk on their own.

Here goes:

President Bush (news - web sites) is living in a make-believe world in his understanding of Iraq (news - web sites), misleading the American people and attacking Democrats on phony issues, presidential rival John Kerry (news - web sites) said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

And it seems clear that, in proportion with the population of Iraq, he's right.

"Even today, he blundered again saying there are only a handful of terrorists in Iraq," Kerry said in a brief interview. "George Bush (news - web sites) retreated from Fallujah and other communities in Iraq which are now overrun with terrorists and threaten our troops."

So, John Kerry, what does this mean?

Does this mean Kerry would have:

• carpetbombed Fallujah to show those dang Terrorists who's boss?
• Gotten the French to liberate Fallujah?
• Left the whole country, not just one city?
• Depends

Kerry went on:

Kerry said that in criticizing his statements on Iraq, Bush was "living in a make-believe world," unwilling to tell the truth or to understand the situation in Iraq.

Problem is, Kerry hasn't shown us any understanding of "the situation" either.

The Democrat said he had laid out "steps to win the war, not to change, not to retreat, steps to win.

Along with steps to pull out at one arbitrary deadline or another, regardly of the job's completion, and every step in between.

Most cynical - and, er, Goebbels-ical - is this line:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, citing the war in Iraq and other trouble spots in the world, raised the possibility Wednesday that a military draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect President Bush.

Kerry said he would not bring back the draft and questioned how fairly it was administered in the past.

Answering a question about the draft that had been posed at a forum with voters, Kerry said: "If George Bush were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can't tell you."

You're right, John Kerry. You can't tell us.

Because you're lying.

The military doesn't want draft. Our military would not be what it is today - intensely professional, exceptionally motivated - if it were made up of draftees. We'd be like any European army (except that most of them are abandoning conscription, too).

And - oh, yeah - it's the Democrats who are proposing the draft, not the President.

This needs to come out in an ad for Bush/Cheney.

In The News

The Strib's Bob Von Sternberg writes about blogs starting with a familiar face:

Scott Johnson had just gotten off the phone with Tom Brokaw, even as a TV crew was camped outside his office in downtown Minneapolis, while he tried to explain Tuesday what it feels like "to be sitting in the eye of a hurricane. It's unbelievable."

Johnson wasn't getting his 15 minutes of celebrity because of his day job as an attorney and senior vice president of TCF National Bank. Rather (as it were), the attention has come because of his role in helping torpedo a story about President Bush's military records that blew up in the faces of CBS executives and their anchorman Dan Rather.

I suppose even the Strib had to cover Powerline eventually.

The story gets the usual plaudits:

Bloggers are credited with keeping afloat the story of Sen. Trent Lott's admiring comments about the now-deceased Sen. Strom Thurmond and his 1948 segregation-based campaign for the presidency, until the mainstream media swarmed all over it. They nurtured controversy about Kerry's Vietnam record alongside veterans opposed to Kerry.

There seemed to be no mention of Powerline's other big credit. Peculiar.

They Get Paid For This: Part IV

Oliver Willis is back in the seat of honor!

On Monday, in a piece entitled "Bush's Base Speaks Out - (Bush's Base!, mind you!), Willis writes:

Click here to watch a video of adulterer/pervert/professional Christian Jimmy Swaggart share his compassionate conservative views on homosexuality and why George W. Bush is the man for him:

News flash - Jimmy Swaggart is an embarassment!

... I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died."

Wow. That Swaggart. Just like every Republican, isn't he?

Yes, nothing like the Taliban at all.

That's right.

Swaggart sent forth mobs to stone gays to death. Swaggart executed women who weren't dressed right, and kept girls home from school. Terrorists issued forth from Jimmy Swaggart's fiefdom to immolate innocent people by the thousand.

No difference at all!

Oliver Willis gets paid for this by Media Matters".

I Said WHAT?

I'd like to say thanks again to Doug from Bogus Gold for his interview with me the other day. It's been linked a place or two.

It was an interesting experience. Doug is an excellent interviewer.

The interesting part is that Doug and I come at interviewing from two whole different perspectives. I've been a reporter, producer, talk show host. To me, interviews are things you do, and then edit wholesale to find what you need, or at least focus ruthlessly.

Doug, of course, comes from anthropology. Interviews are more of a completist artifact, which is why he captured our conversation completely - every um, ah, and false start.

And Doug did a great job. But this last few days, it's been strange - I listen to myself talk, and think "Dang - I am scatterbrained, I do ramble, and I sometimes flirt unsuccessfully with coherence..."

Atomizer may be more talkative than I am during the next NARN broadcast...

Not Dead Yet

"Eventually, Jane Fonda apologized for her actions. But John Kerry refuses to."

The new Swiftvets ad should put the Swifties, and their explosive allegations, front and center again.

The media will, of course, do their best to bury the facts - as indeed Ed shows us the WaPo is doing already.

Says Ed:

So far, the Swiftvets have caused Kerry to retreat on at least four points of his Viet Nam narrative, which Farhi fails to mention in his recap. The "several links" innuendo is nothing more than that; no one has shown any indication that the Republicans have coordinated anything with the Swiftvets, while the Democrats have people working both in the Kerry campaign and in 527s like MoveOn simultaneously. This Post article by Farhi is a poorly researched hack job, obviously rushed out to attempt to blunt the effects of this latest Swiftvet ad.

You'd think after the CBS debacle, mainstream news outlets would be more careful.

Uh oh. Ed's getting mad.

WaPo - you don't want to get Ed mad.

He Gets Paid For This, Part III

I don't mean to keep pounding on the same lefty blogs.

But this piece, by Oliver Willis (who I used to blogroll, and consider a fairly reasonable blogger) may be the stupidest thing I've seen from a B-list blogger:

Professional hate-monger Charles Johnson is calling me names again. How cute. I suppose he had to remove his hood to get the words out (looks like he got here via the hack-esque radio host, Hugh Hewitt).

"Hack-esque?" Ollie - he lit you up like a bag full of dog poop!

Willis continues:

The funny thing is, neither bumps my traffic up as much as a link from Atrios.

Which means that Atrios' readers go where they're told...

I had the wrong link up for Psycho Chucky, glad he noticed. You need eagle eyes to paint those swastikas.

I've seen enough.

Oh, yeah - Media Matters pays Willis to support his blog.

Another Blogger In The News

The Strib writes a profile of local gay, black Republican minister Dennis Sanders.

Kudos to Dennis, who I've featured in this space because of his blog, "Moderate Republican".

Here's the funny part: the article is called For this GOP member, usual labels won't fit

"The Usual Labels?"

The Rev. Dennis Sanders laughed at the suggestion that he's your typical gay, black, Republican minister.

"No, I'm more of a moderate, old-style Rockefeller Republican, which makes me even more of an oddity," said Sanders, 34, a vice president of Minnesota's Log Cabin Republicans and a minister at Lake Harriet Christian Church in Minneapolis.

The Rev. Terry Steeden, senior minister at Lake Harriet Church calls Sanders "an anomaly," describing the Flint, Mich., native as a man who "encompasses some very meaningful old traditions, but, on the other hand, is a rebel ... with a cause."

Well, rebels are just fine.

But let's get back to the labels:

"Labels at least help identify who a person is," Sanders said. "It's only a problem when the labels basically become the people.

"People who have labeled me have asked, 'Why would you stay in a party that doesn't want you?' Well, I'm a Republican, but I hope people don't think all Republicans sit and listen to Pat Robertson."

Ah. So that'd be one of those labels - intolerant, fundamentalist...?

In Sanders' blog, he pays the same obeisance to the man every Democrat regards as the "good Republican", Arne Carlson:

Sanders became interested in the Log Cabin Republicans, a small organization that backs gay-friendly Republican candidates for office, in 1992, when gays in the military was a big issue.

Minnesota's governor at the time was Arne Carlson, whose political career defied stereotypes and labels. Carlson, a longtime Republican, campaigned for governor in 1990 as an independent. He was elected with the blessing of Republicans only after the party's endorsed candidate, Jon Grunseth, withdrew from the race just weeks before the election after being accused of sexual misconduct involving adolescent girls.

"Moderates" and Democrats in Minnesota all seem to miss Arne Carlson, in the same way as their national compatriots miss Nelson Rockefeller; he was a Republican who liked high taxes, intrusive government...

...he was one of them!

Anyway, kudos to Dennis. And here's a challenged to the Strib; come to a real GOP meeting; see how many of those "labels" apply.

And then they can tell us where the "labels" come from...

They Get Paid For This: Part II

Atrios - the #2 leftyblog - writes:

Nick's right that Dan Rather's "crime" eerily parallels certain mistakes made by a certain commander in chief.

Atrios is onto something!

Dan Rather consulted every other news anchor and managing editor in the business, all of whom also agreed that the memos were perfectly legit. In fact, the combined fact-checking departments of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the London Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Minneapolis Tribune, the Trybruna Lyuda, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CBN, New Yorker and Air America all agreed that the memos were the real McCoy.

And just like Bush, Rather went ahead based on that reassurance!

CBS screwed up by not making more of an effort to verify the documents, but let's remember that part of the reason they screwed up was because the White House gave their implied seal of approval when they were contacted.

"Honest, officer! I saw her in that skirt, and I couldn't control myself!

Doesn't take away from the screwup, but it does make it more interesting.

No, what makes it interesting is that, despite masterful ideas like this one:

I'm not yet ready to accuse Rove of a masterful 5 cushion bank shot, but if I were, say, writing a political thriller about one President Smush who had an advisor name Snarl Stove who had a history of doing exactly that kind of thing, I would pat myself on the head for thinking of such a brilliant plot device.

...it seems that we mere conservatives were right all along:

At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said Monday he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released.

Wow.

I didn't know Lockhart worked for Rove!

Who knew?

Media Matters pays "Atrios" to support his blogging habit.

Your Neighbor's House

Imagine the family that lives down the street from you - the Smiths - has a teenage son - let's call him "Robbie" - who gets waaaaay involved in mischief; petty vandalism escalating to drug dealing, culminating with terrorizing the parents into submission while he turns his parents' house into a crack den.

Robbie and his friends/colleagues then started working the whole neighborhood; there was a string of break-ins and assaults, unbroken but for one where Robbie and his pals broke into Mr. Uwaitski's house to rob the liquor cabinet. You and a few neighbors ran to the rescue, and you managed to kick a few of the friends' asses, but you never caught Robbie; the police wouldn't let you charge into the house. But the blight was spreading; some of the neighbors were too cowed to react; and at others, the unruly teenagers were starting to take over. Once, someone - you think it was Robbie - slashed your father's tires while he was visiting Mr. Uwaitski.

But after a big break-in on your property, you had enough.

You begged - begged - the police to get involved (but the idiot city attorney, Ms. McDegaulle, told the cops that if you acted, you'd be just as bad as Robbie). The other neighbors - the McEspinosas, the O'Schmidts and the Stalindstroms - bowed out; they figured talking with the crack dealers was better, especially with the rumors that Robbie had a shotgun.

Finally, you got your biggest, best pals - Bruce "Digger" Anzacski, Neville "Cecil" Churchill and Stosh "The Professor" Kowalskison - and broke in to the Smith house one night, kicing down the front, back and side doors simultaneously. One of Robbie's friends tried to flex on you; you smashed the table with your golf club, and he ran like a scared bunny. Another one tried to throw a toaster at Neville, but he smacked it, and the kid, with a cricket bat, and he fell to the floor, whimpering. The rest of the teenage thugs, cowed, either ran out the door or hid in the basement and attic; Robbie was pulled, snivelling, out of the closet. Rumor had it one of the friends had ditched the shotgun; Robbie never learned how to load it. You unlocked Robbie's parents and siblings from the bathroom, and restored them
to their rightful place in the home. They were a little upset about the table and the toaster, but they were happy that they were back in control of the house, and turned to the job of cleaning up.

Suddenly, little seven-year-old Miranda started crying; one of Robbie's friends was hiding behind her doll house, holding a steak knife to her favorite Barbie's throat.

You and Neville dashed upstairs while Stosh guarded the living room. The punk - we'll call him "Ham" - was making lots of noise, throwing things around. Of course, you could have shredded the doll house, the Barbie and Mam all together with the golf club - but you didn't want to break Mr. Smith's property, and certainly you didn't want to put Miranda through that. So you talked, waited, tried to get Ham to leave on his own.

Which was fine as far as you were concerned. But outside, on the sidewalk, a crowd gathered. Some of them - Atrios DiLuzzionale, Willis Oliver and Dan Rat Hair - were prancing up and down the sidewalk; "Quagmire! Quagmire! Anzacski, Churchill and Kowalkison were bribed!" Which was fine - you'd always ignored those pompous little fops, along with that other guy, Jay Savagefinger, who kept chanting "smash the place!". But the other neighbors - the McEspinosas, the O'Schmidts, the McDegaulles and the Stalindstroms - were nodding their heads occasionally, despite little Jeffy Smith saying "Thanks! Thanks, neighbors, for putting Robbie in treatment!", which only caused DiLuzzionale, Oliver and Rat Hair to plug their ears, point at you, and yell "Move on! Move on!"

But the thugs in the neighboring houses? They weren't happy...

So while the DiLuzzionales and the Rat Hairs heckled, you knew one key truth; the Smiths weren't going to tolerate Ham in their kids' room for long. Mr. Smith wasn't much of a fighter, but he's had about enough.

"Unimpeachable"

Ed at Captain's Quarters has the essential evisceration of Bill Burkett.

Too many money quotes to list. Just read it, and forward it to any friends that still back CBS.

One of those "Foreign Leaders" is Storing It For Him

Via the Professor, this interview on Second Amendment-y stuff with John Kerry.

OL: Are you a gun owner? If so, what is your favorite gun?

Kerry: My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I don’t own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle.

An Instapundit reader asks:

1. How did you acquire this assault rifle? Is it an illegally imported, untraceable souvenir?

2. Is it a fully-automatic weapon or a semi-automatic?

3. Where is the gun now? Is it legal for it to be kept there?

4. How can you support a law that forbids other people owning a weapon that you already own?

Indeed - is this one of the weapons covered by the ban that Kerry castigated the President for allowing to lapse last week?

Let us know, John Kerry (or any of his supporters). Maybe you can fill in some of the proof he was in Cambodia, while you're at it.

They Get Paid For This, Part I: Atrios

I have kids. They're verging on teenagerdom.

I'm used to arguments that go like this:

ME: "I asked you to put away the groceries".

CHILD: "I forgot"

ME: "Well, it's kinda important..."

CHILD: "OH! So you're saying I'm the worst kid in the world because I accidentally forgot to put away the groceries?"

ME: "No, not the 'worst kid'...oh, knock it off..."

Atrios is one of the big lefty blogs.

And in this piece he employs a form of argument not unfamiliar to any parent.

He starts out:

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage alleged Friday that insurgents have stepped up their deadly assaults in Iraq because they want to "influence the election against President Bush," a statement that drew a sharp condemnation from the campaign of Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry.

The Republican line, of course, is that the terrs would prefer a gutless appeaser like Kerry win the election over a man who's come halfway around the world and killed so many of them and put a huge American force in their midst.

Silly idea, that.

It is apparently the first time that a Bush administration official has linked the escalating violence in Iraq to an effort by insurgents to help defeat Bush in November.No, it's not.

But here' are the parts that resonate with every parent of teenagers:

Look, can we all at least agree on one thing -- if the "I didn't do it" administration is re-coronated, that come November 3, EVERYTHING IS THEIR FUCKING FAULT...

Huh-wha?

Like the likes of Atrios were going to say anything but that?

It's related to this bit here:

Now it isn't just the terra ists, but insurgents in Iraq who are trying to influence our election by killing people. I bet they sit around watching the Sabbath Gasbags before they start shooting, the political junkies that they are.

Or this:

So, that's where we stand. All the bad people in the world have united with a common goal of electing John Kerry. Anything bad that happens, anywhere, anytime, by anybody, happens because somebody is trying to deny George Bush his throne.

Right. It'd have nothing to do with Terrorists figuring their life expectancy will be longer - and their mission easier to accomplish - if John Kerry is in charge.

Which is, y'know, the truth, and a little over half of the United States knows it.

Atrios gets paid to support his blogging.

Posted by Mitch at 06:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Alliance? What Alliance?

We've gone over this many, many times: John Kerry constantly refers to getting our "allies" involved in the war (that we're going to pull out of).

We respond "except for France and Germany, they all are, already".

And of course, it's really not that important...

A broader European coalition to help out in Iraq? Don't count on it. There isn't much that France and Germany could contribute, beyond some marginal peacekeeping forces, even if they wanted to. And they are likely to remain unwilling to do so even if John Kerry is elected.

But isn't this the key to John Kerry's foreign policy?

Of course it is.

Which is why any conservative that follows this stuff endlessly reiterates - there's no there there.

European militaries are just nothing to write home about

In Bosnia, where the French and Germans did collaborate in the sort of coalition Kerry favors, the United States had to deliver an embarrassing 85 percent of the missile strikes because of the primitive condition of the European air forces.

Why is Europe so weak? The trend began well before the end of the Cold War. Increasingly, Europe opted for the free-rider approach, happy to let American taxpayers shoulder the major share of the burden...A broader European coalition to help out in Iraq? Don’t count on it. There isn’t much that France and Germany could contribute, beyond some marginal peacekeeping forces, even if they wanted to. And they are likely to remain unwilling to do so even if John Kerry is elected.

Read the whole thing.

Nuance

John Kerry's sister Diana shows us what her bro means by building alliances:

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

Ms Kerry, who taught school in Indonesia for 15 years until 2000, is heading a campaign called Americans Overseas for Kerry which aims to secure the votes of Americans abroad -- including the more than 100,000 living in Australia.

Let's see; trying to single out our allies as victims? Calling our genuine international allies "trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted"?

Wasn't Kerry trying to run as the suave internationalist?

Channeling Wellstone

If the Democrats have learned anything in the last ten years, it's that gun-control is a completele non-starter.

John Kerry is trying to channel Paul Wellstone, relentlessly repating strawmen to draw attention away from his cynicism on the issue.

He makes a big show of his "love of hunting":

Democrats in West Virginia know that many of their state's voters guard their gun rights jealously, and that their fear in 2000 that Al Gore was out to take their weapons -- stoked by Republicans and the National Rifle Association -- helped seal the former vice president's defeat.

That's why Kerry stood on a stage here last week, proudly hoisting a shotgun and telling a throng of mine workers that he would like to go "gobble huntin' " with them as soon as possible.

This brings out a couple of issues - one of them being that many hunters are not that bright:

The scene boosted Kerry's image with at least one voter attending Kerry's Labor Day rally. "It cleared one problem up for me, with the guns," said Paul Cooper, 62, of Madison, who wore his Navy garrison cap under the hot sun. "He can't be against our guns, or want to take mine, if he's got one of his own."

Which is, of course, twaddle; Dianne Feinstein, Bill Cosby, Punch Sulzberger, William F. Buckley, Laurence Rockefeller, the bodyguards for anti-gun nag Rosie O'Donnell, and many more lefty celebs and pols have guns, but don't trust you to own them.

And John Kerry is one of them:

Kerry is the poster boy for a secret scheme hatched by billionaire Andrew McKelvey`s Americans for Gun Safety, (AGS) whereby anti-gun rights Democratic candidates cloak themselves in rhetorical camouflage, falsely claiming to embrace the Second Amendment and trying to con hunters into believing that their rights are somehow separate from those of other American gun owners.

Don`t take my word for it. Here`s what AGS wrote in its blueprint for "Taking Back the Second Amendment," prepared last year for the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Kerry is following all the dots.

It is a battle plan for deceit that counsels anti-gun rights candidates: "The problem that Democrats have on the gun issue has far less to do with the typical policies they espouse than the rhetoric they employ." (Emphasis added.) In other words, it`s not how you vote, but what you say.

So, now confiscatory firearms prohibition is called "sensible gun safety," although the abhorrent concept of the knock-in-the-middle-of-the night is just the same as it always has been.

This is nothing new; Paul Wellstone, who earned his NRA "F" many times over, portrayed himself as a friend of the hunter; Kerry's parroting the same line today.

Most gun owners aren't stupid enough to buy this, of course; the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and most of us know it.

But if you know a hunter who shows signs of buying Kerry's line, please, please smack them for me.

Five Points?

Last week, it was the news that Illinois and New Jersey - very blue states - were in serious play (the President may be ahead in Jersey, and tied in Illinois despite Chicago's dominance of the state's voting climate).

Before that, rumors that California was uncomfortably close, and Ahnold hadn't begun to campaign.

Now, according to the latest Rasmussen poll, Kerry is up by five points.

In New York - the bluest of the blue states.

As I write this, the Rasmussen site is being inundated with traffic, so I can't find the numbers for Massachusetts. But if Illinois, New Jersey, and now New York are even remotely close, and assuming Rasmussen is accurate (always a dicey assumption with any poll)...

As Drudge says, "developing hot".

The Great Alliance-Builder

In 1991, George HW Bush assembled a coalition of dozens of nations, as disparate as Denmark, Syria, the Ukraine and New Zealand, to fight the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein. It was perhaps the greatest coalition ever assembled in history, at least diplomatically-speaking.

13 years later, John Kerry - who would subsume US diplomacy and security to "coalitions" he'd somehow manage to assemble from nations that rejected George W. Bush after 18 months of trying - couldn't put together a "coalition" of his former comrades in arms.

Carroll Andrew Morse writes about Kerry's shortcomings as an alliance-builder.

Money quote:

John Kerry was handed what should have been a baby-step in the presidential-simulator. Manufacture an alliance of veterans. For a candidate who is centering his foreign policy on the notion of building alliances, creating an alliance of men with whom he shared common background should have been an easy task.

John Kerry failed to build a credible alliance. Unilaterally speaking for the group of 23 veterans represented in the 1969 photograph highlighted the failure. His use of the photograph was based on a fraudulent coalition of just 3 of the 23.

The only thing that mattered to Kerry about the 19 men in the photo was how their image could be used to advance his leadership ambitions. He ignored the fact that they might not want to be used as part of his campaign. The views and concerns of the little people did not matter. He failed the fundamental challenge of alliance building -- accommodating people with disparate interests.

Read the whole thing.

They say the personal is political. George W. Bush is an affable guy with the ability to close a deal in real life; its' shown in his politics, in Texas and internationally. He's a fellow who's been able to act decisively to deal with crises in his personal life, as he has with crises in the nation's life.

So what does John Kerry's personality say about him as a leader? The man who:

• Can't run a competent presidential campaign against an incumbent who, let's be honest, was dealt a soft hand politically-speaking
• Passes the buck for his failings down to his subordinates (remember the skiing incident?)
• is by all accounts an imperious man with an exaggerated sense of self-worth (remember the incidents where he jumped the line in the department store)?
• Most importantly, crumbles when the pressure is on. Do you think he can retire to Nantucket and quit talking to the press if he is (heaven forfend) President, and a serious crisis erupts?

Ugh. No.

No.

The Goebbels Card

On Friday, "Carson", a commenter in a thread about incivility in politics today, took umbrage with my invocation of Joseph Goebbels' "Big Lie" statement. Carson, a local blogger, said:

You know what they say when in the argument, someone references Hitler and the Nazis...

Speaking of... there are only two people that I usually here comparing Goebbels and liberals.

The first is Michael Savage. And the second is Bill O'Reilly. Fun group to align ones self with.

Well, I only go into O'Reilly/Savage territory when I absolutely have to. So you know it's serious.

It's serious.

I've been saying for months now - since the end of primary season - that the Democrats' main talking points have involved relentless repetition of a series of tropes with only dubious relation to the truth, in the hope that the endless reiteration would create the impression in enough minds that they were facts.

There have been a number of these issues that have been popping up with almost supernatural regularity:

• "The Swifties Lied"
• "Iraq's a QUAGmire!"
• "The Economy's In the Tank!"
• "Bush was selected, not elected!"
• "Bush was AWOL!"

I'm going to try to tackle each of these, in (more or less) order over the next couple of days.

Mapes - Too Convenient?

Allahpundit wonders:

If you believe WaPo's article from earlier today, Mapes was investigating this story since mid-August; she finagled a sit-down meeting at that time between herself, the source, and Dan Rather; she later expressed absolute confidence in the source and how he had come by the documents. All that being so, even if you assume the worst anti-Bush gullibility on the part of Mapes and Rather, is it really likely that a single known crackpot like Burkett could have perpetrated a giant hoax upon the entire CBS News division using ridiculously amateurish forgeries? And that the whole thing would suddenly unravel neatly in an on-camera interview?

No kidding. The way this story is wrapping up has all he trappings of trying to toss Mapes overboard to the sharks as the rest of the leaky boat quietly paddles away:

CBS News plans to issue a statement, perhaps as early as today, saying that it was misled on the purported National Guard memos the network used to charge that President Bush received favored treatment 30 years ago.

The statement would represent a huge embarrassment for the network, which insisted for days that the documents reported by Dan Rather on "60 Minutes" are authentic. But the statement could help defuse a crisis that has torn at the network's credibility.

If you accept - as I do - that a huge swath of the mainstream media seems to be willing to sacrifice a bit of credibility to see Bush defeated, the loss of some credibility and a senior producer is acceptable.

Allahpundit continues:

There's no way. I know the RatherBiased guys will disagree with me and say that yes, Dan Rather really is that stupid and blind with Bush-hatred. But there's simply no way the entire News division could be too. At least, not to the point where they'd let it destroy their professional reputations. Something's up.

I have to agree.

Even though most news people trend left, most of them pride themselves in being able, as far as they can, to avoid at least the appearance of bias. I know reporters who are casually, caustically biased in their personal views, but bristle at the notion that they'd allow it to affect their coverage (and, at least as far as overt bias is concerned, I think most of them are right).

So I agree. I think the story is still just getting started.

Perry On

Steve Perry, uberliberal editor of the City Pages, isn't happy:

Q: Are the Democrats really as stupid as they look?
A: No one is really as stupid as the Democrats look.

One gets the impression Steve Perry is throwing in the towel.

He goes on:

The first Kerry Edwards yard sign appeared on my street last week, ironically, just as the president was parlaying his Unreality TV moment into a double-digit lead in the latest Time and Newsweek polls. My reaction to the sign was reflexive: never heard of him.

Aside from making out in public with women who are not his wife, John Kerry has so far seized every opportunity within reach to ensure a Bush win in November. No Democratic presidential candidate since FDR in 1932 has been feted with such a rich smorgasbord of incumbent Republican disaster.

Y'know, I can remember five Republican incumbents in my life; Nixon (vaguely - I was nine in '72), Ford (sort of), Reagan, and both Georges Bush. And in every case, the hard-left has always called the status quo "a disaster for Republicans". For Ford, of course, it was - the economy was vastly worse than even the worst of the Clinton recession. George 41 had largely himself and Ross Perot to blame for losing in '92, of course.

But as much as the left would like to make Bush look like Hoover, the simple fact is that George W. Bush was dealt a lousy hand when he entered office - and has responded like any good president, if not great one, would do.

But that's not Perry's point:

And W's résumé is substantially worse than Hoover's, since it includes not only domestic economic outrages (tax cuts designed for the wealthiest 1 percent, staggering deficits, worse-than-stagnant employment reports) but also a fabricated foreign invasion that has now cost over a thousand American lives as well as tens of billions of dollars, an unseemly portion of which has gone to Bush/Cheney pals in the energy sector.

Give Perry a break. He has to establish his bona fides with his prime demographic, people who think MoveOn is a credible source.

The question was never whether this election would be a referendum on Bush--that was bound to be the case--but whether John Kerry and the Democrats would be the ones telling that story to the people.

Question: Isn't that an incredibly cowardly way of approaching that question?

If Bush is indeed as bad as the likes of Perry make him out to be, shouldn't clobbering him be child's play?

"Of course", says Perry. "If only...:"

And what has happened? Kerry on the Bush tax cuts: I am not a tax-and-spend liberal! Kerry on the economy: There's this offshore tax break I'd eliminate. Kerry on Iraq: I would conduct needless and immoral foreign invasions more responsibly. Kerry on Bush/Cheney cronyism: Huh?

It's impossible to see how diehard partisans of the Democrats can endure this campaign without learning a thing or two, but they seem to be holding up thus far. Their collective wailings fall along two main lines: Kerry is regrettably timid, or Kerry is hewing to the "middle" to woo those fabled centrist swing voters. Indeed, some true-blue Dems (the clinically delusional ones) still rise to defend Kerry's craven non-strategy of standing back in the weeds while Bush, theoretically, sinks Bush.

There's just one trouble with all three critiques: They assume that the men and women charting the course of the Democratic Party are some of the dumbest people on earth. Can they not see that this election offers dramatic and even unprecedented potential for galvanizing anti-Republican reaction and bringing new voters out of the woodwork?

Of course they can see this. They refuse to act on it because new blood would mean new demands of a very old sort on a political machine that has spent the past generation trying to rid itself of public association with "special interests" such as labor, minorities, greens--the people. Who needs the headache of taking them back aboard? Better to keep on flouting them and hope they will vote for you anyway out of desperation. The voters that Democrats thereby leave on the table are their traditional base. But no more.

To paraphrase Pauline Kael, "Of course a Howard Dean or a Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader would have won! Everyone I know would have voted for them!"

No, really!

But they could win so easily. Yes. So what? Given the choice between winning what might prove an unruly victory and running yet another me-too campaign that will likely lose (but without upsetting their real base, which consists largely of the same funding sources as the Republicans'), they take the second path every time. The Democrats are not stupid. They are cynical. They have no interest in changing the rules of the game, and toward that end they are even more loath than Republicans to invite new people into the "process."

And it's here that I find agreement with Perry. The Dems loathe change; the Republicans pay it lip service, and wait for everyone to come to the party on their own.

But here's my big question for the likes of Perry - is this election still a "referendum on Bush" if he wins in a landslide?

Toss The Rafts

CBS is apparently ready to try to cut the memos loose:

[CBS executives] decided yesterday that they would most likely have to declare that they had been misled about the records' origin after Mr. Rather and a top network executive, Betsy West, met in Texas with a man who was said to have helped the news division obtain the memos, a former Guard officer named Bill Burkett.

Mr. Rather interviewed Mr. Burkett on camera this weekend, and several people close to the reporting process said his answers to Mr. Rather's questions led officials to conclude that their initial confidence that the memos had come from Mr. Killian's own files was not warranted. These people indicated that Mr. Burkett had previously led the producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, to have the utmost confidence in the material.

It was unclear last night if Mr. Burkett had told Mr. Rather that he had been misled about the documents' provenance or that he had been the one who did the misleading.

In an e-mail message yesterday, Mr. Burkett declined to answer any questions about the documents.

My fearless predictions:

• CBS will stall until after the election, and allow Dan Rather a show retirement - or a figurehead position to finish out his contract - as a face-saving gesture as much for them as for Rather himself
• By 9AM, Kos, Josh "ua Micah" Marshall and Atrios will be asking "when can we get to the important issues?"

The essential Joe Gandelman has more:

The shoe hasn't quite dropped to the floor -- but CBS has let the shoe go.

When the shoe finally drops, there could be a loud bang...and some careers could be over.

Read the rest.

Hollywood Parallel?

David Strom - the junior contributor to Margaret Martin's "Our House" blog, has the perfect simile for the Kerry campaign these days:

The Kerry campaign is beginning to look a lot like a large-scale replay of the Caine Mutiny.

Kerry, "old yellowstain," is seeing conspiracies everywhere.

Bush is lying.

About everything.

About what in particular?

Everything. His service in the national guard...his economic plan...the war...Michael Moore's belt size...

The charges are flying by the hour. First there is Halliburton. Now, a "secret plan" to expand troops in Iraq.

(Of course, as you may have guessed by now, Kerry himself has advocated increasing troop presence in Iraq, but never mind that...)

All these accusations are coming out IN ONE DAY! Talk about stepping on your own story!

The key is the strawberries.

Read the whole thing.

Well, you sorta just did, but there's more.

All Bogart references should, of course, be vetted with Red.

Please please please...

...oh Lord, let the left keep believing this sort of thing.

From the increasingly-incoherent Oliver Willis

I think Bush has problems with his base. Even with the Iraq war supporters, I don't see the motivation like there was to remove the Clintonians (in the guise of Gore). I think some percentage of fiscal conservatives see the upside of a divided government. Bush's campaign also seems to be quite focused on getting the religious base agitated, though you would have thought he would be past that stage by now (in that way, Kerry's been able to speak to his base from January, where Bush had no need to be involved in the primary season).

I think the independents were more pro-war than the Dem base, but as the situation worsens they may feel regrets and see Bush's continual declarations of progress a little hard to stomache as the body bags fly in each day.

Kerry has to hit on Iraq/national security and economic issues every day. Every day.

Problems with the base - a base that is over 90% behind the President?

"Hitting" on Iraq and national security - with what? Kerry is toothless; many politicians are whores in the bedroom and generals on the hustings; Kerry would seem to invert the two.

Look at Kerry's website; show me a "national security" plan? Anything?

Please, Democrats; hit on Iraq and national security every day. It'll be like Ross Perot hitting on sanity or Jesse Ventura carping about intelligence.

Doug Interviews

Doug from Bogus Gold did an interview with me on Saturday. He published it last night.

We ended up talking for about an hour at Keegans...no, that's not really true. He asked questions, and I babbled on for an hour.

Doug is a fine interviewer, and like any good interview, his piece gets at some fundamental truths...

...in my case, that if you put a beer or two in me and leave a hole in the conversation, I'll talk your ear off!

Thanks to Doug, though, for a great time.

Suspicions

Sean Hackbarth at The American Mind has some goods on Bill Burkett.

Reliable source for Dan Rather?

You be the judge.

King's Blog Pimped

SCSU Scholars has a whole new look, and it's pretty dang good.

Check out the Northern Alliance's education and economics blog every day.

Heads Begin To Roll

According to Bird Dog at Tacitus, the first head has rolled in relation to Rathgate.

Oh, not a CBS staffer or anything...:

A radio talk-show host said Saturday he has been fired for criticizing CBS newsman Dan Rather's handling of challenges to the authenticity of memos about President Bush's National Guard service. "On the talk show that I host, or hosted, I said I felt Rather should either retire or be forced out over this," said Brian Maloney, whose weekly "The Brian Maloney Show" aired for three years on KIRO-AM Radio, a CBS affiliate here. Maloney says he made that statement on his Sept. 12 program. He was fired Friday, he said.

Of course, there's no way to directly confirm that Maloney wasn't gassed because he had, say, terrible ratings. He was also not a CBS employee - he was employed by an affiliate. This could also be a matter of timing; like if The Patriot diced me tomorrow; since my last topic was Rather, that correlation could be drawn, faulty as it would be.

Still, it's interesting; broadcasting and news are business that don't give rat's patoot about ego; if you screw up, you're fired (and if you don't screw up, usually, you get fired, too).

So why is a critic the first person to get jetisonned from a CBS-affiliated operation, rather than a "gatekeeper", one of the senior producers at CBS News and/or 60 Minutes that are putatively responsible for preventing fraci like this?

Weekend at the Berg House

In no particular order:

• If we could pull a show out today, we can do it any time. We had, for the first time in seven months, literally nothing planned when we went into the station today. Zip. And yet by the end of the day, we had a fabulous show - one of my favorites ever. Got interviews on the fly with Senator Dave Kleis and Jed Babbin. Great stuff all in all.
• Went to Keegans for a drink with Doug from Bogus Gold. Had a great time.

  

  Mmmm. Beer.

  And then who should come into Keegans' but John Rocket Man, Mrs. Rocket, and the Rocket Daughter? Is Terry Keegan reading this? He probably made his sponsorship budget back today alone!

• Came home to start my fall yard learning. My neighbor, the Insane Woman, came by to talk about how she's going to sue all the rest of the neighbors. She has those excessively, disturbingly bright eyes that the very, very bipolar have; always darting about, accusing, as the conversation rambled past 10, 20, 25 minutes. I never made an answer longer or more involved than "yep, those neighbors...".

Updates at 11.

The Flaking Begins?

First things first: One poll doth not a trend make.

We're clear on that, right?

That said, the latest CBS News Poll, conducted just after the GOP convention, has some interesting figures.

The poll tracks :

PRESIDENTIAL HORSERACE
(Registered Voters)

Bush-Cheney
Now
50%
Last week
49%

Kerry-Edwards
Now
41%
Last week
42%

I don't know that I like "registered voter" polls as much as "likely voter" polls - although "likely" voters tend to trend more right.

But that's not the big news.

The theory is, if Kerry's campaign starts to look like a lost cause to the far-left base, they'll start flaking off to the hard-left candidates that more closely reflect their ideology.

So look at this:

Nader-Camejo
Now
3%
Last week
1%

Ralph Nader may be on the ballot in some states in November, and he receives 3 percent of the vote. Without Nader on the ballot, Bush's lead is slightly smaller, at 8 points; in a two-way contest, Bush would receive 50 percent to Kerry's 42 percent.

There are lots of reasons the Nader/Camejo numbers are rising; polling inaccuracies, sampling inrregularities, the weighting the numbers get in the tabulation process...

...and, of course, more voters on the left becoming discouraged with the Whiffle-candidate's chances, and deciding to vote their consciences.

Then there's this:

Voters in 18 battleground states favor Bush over Kerry by 53 percent to 39 percent.

Again, polls are for entertainment purposes only.

But that's a dang good number.

The Real Debate

Behind the presidential race, the most important campaign in the country this year is the Senate race in South Dakota.

Jason Van Beek at South Dakota Politics is going to be live-blogging the debate between candidates Tom Daschle and John Thune tomorrow morning on the Russert show.

Tune in, and log on.

UPDATE: Yes, I meant John, not Dave, Thune.

You can take the boy outta Saint Paul, but you can't take the Saint Paul outta the boy...

They Have a Theory. Which is Theirs.

The covert operations wing of the Northern Alliance, our colleagues at Spitbull, have been prowling the left wing of the blogosphere, and they've found something; some lefty blogs have a theory why the best right-wing blogs are getting so much traction (relatively) in the mainstream media:

The left side of the blogosphere has watched with consternation the swift ascent (from comment to blog to major media story in the time it takes to commute to work) of the forgery charge that spawned RatherGate. And now, they've come up with a theory to explain it:

[T]he lower stickiness of top right-wing blogs compared to top left-wing blogs leads to greater message consistency in their half of the political blogosphere than in ours. ... This consistency helps stories from the right-wing blogosphere reach the national media more often than those from the left-wing blogosphere

"Stickiness" is the number of "Toys" found on a blog - comments, trackbacks, polls, links to other blogs, games and so on.

Might there be something to it? Compare and contrast Kos and Powerline. Kos is a veritable arcade of flashing lights and shiny toys; polls, open threads, comments, comments on comments. The big lefty blogs - Kos, Atrios and so on - often feel more like social clubs than news souces.

Nothing social about Powerline. Just the facts, maam.

Still, says Eloise, the theory dodgest the point:

Nope, the sheer lusciousness of the story had nothing to do with it. It's not every day we get to see a pompous media figurehead come face to face with the inconvenient fact he ignored to make his pretty story--although maybe it'll happen more often now that the blogosphere has started flexing its muscles. Nor did the story's apparent truth affect its meteoric rise. It was the non-stickiness of the right-wing blogs, dammit!

She's onto something.

Responses

Elder from Fraters a key list of addresses and contacts for those wishing to respond to CBS' abuse of the public trust.

Elder is continually updating this list; it's going to be a good resource.

The Gap, Plugged

Last week as Memogate broke, one of the big glaring, non-typographical sirens that erupted was the mention of Brig. General Buck Staudt - a man who had apparently retired from the Guard nearly 18 months before the alleged memos were written.

Finally, Staudt is on the record:

Retired Col. Walter Staudt, who was brigadier general of Bush's unit in Texas, interviewed Bush for the Guard position and retired in March 1972. He was mentioned in one of the memos allegedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian as having pressured Killian to assist Bush, though Bush supposedly was not meeting Guard standards.

"I never pressured anybody about George Bush because I had no reason to," Staudt told ABC News in his first interview since the documents were made public.

The memo stated that "Staudt is pushing to sugar coat" a review of Bush's performance.

Staudt said he decided to come forward because he saw erroneous reports on television. CBS News first reported on the memos, which have come under scrutiny by document experts who question whether they are authentic. Killian, the purported author of the documents, died in 1984.

So what?

So CBS' memos' last, tenuous claim on legitimacy has had a stake pounded through its heart.

And the lefties' biggest, nastiest trope - that Bush benefitted from political clout to get out of gong ot Vietnam - took another gut shot:

Staudt said he never tried to influence Killian or other Guardsmen, and added that he never came under any pressure himself to accept Bush. "No one called me about taking George Bush into the Air National Guard," he said. "It was my decision. I swore him in. I never heard anything from anybody."

Let it go, guys.

Narrow the Slogan Gap

iowahawk notes that Josh "ua Micah" Marshall has discovered Kerry's problem: There's a slogan gap.

And he wants help:

Kerry needs a catch phrase or catch question about the Iraq war, one that provides offense against President Bush's oft-stated, extremely lame, but also somewhat effective line that the world is safer with Saddam Hussein out of power [Ask the Iraqis how "lame" it is - Ed.].

In political rhetoric, coherence and clarity almost always trumps substance. So substance must be rendered very coherent and very clear.

Josh "ua" then takes his shot at the assignment:

There's a pretty obvious response to the Bush line: Yeah, Saddam sucked. It's great that we're rid of him. But at what cost? A thousand American lives, upwards of half a trillion dollars and blowing up the whole world order?'

Er, there's that "coherence and clarity" thing again...

Marshall asks for help.

Iowahawk responds:

I Will Keep Our Enemies Guessing, Too

Projecting American Strength Through Intricately Complex Nuance

The Thinking Man's Self-Confessed War Criminal

Vote For Me or My Running Mate Will Sue

Those Atrocity Stories? Dude, I Was Just Shitting You

I Will Do For You the Many Wonderous Things I Have Done For Massachusetts

Fear Not, America, I Have Deigned to Lead You

I Will Never Recuse My UN Ambassador from the Vote to Ask for a Permission Slip to Defend This Country

The Next Time America is Attacked, I Promise To Open Up a Carafe of Whupass

Post-Emptive Leadership For A Safer World

I Have Three Words For George Bush -- Bring It On

I Have Five More Words For George Bush -- Call Off Your On-Bringers

Restoring America's Seat At The Global Popular Table

Come Home Again, America... No Wait, Stay There Again

There Once Was A Man From Nantucket, If You Get My Drift

Shaggin' Billionaire Bag Ladies So You Don't Have To

Some Look at Things As They Are And Say, 'Why?' Others Look at Things As They Are Not And Say, 'Why Not?', And I Suppose A Few Might Look at Things As They Are Not, And Say 'Why?', and Vice-Versa, and So Forth, And One Might Be Tempted To Look at These People Looking at Things And Ask 'Who?' But This Would Not Be Constructive, Because The Important Thing To Realize Is That Some People Like To Look At Things, And This Is Precisely My Point

More suggestions?

Self-Correction: It Swings Both Ways

I blew this one.

I was hardly alone, but oy, did I chunder.

Earlier today, I ran a piece about a group of Kerry supporters ripping a Bush/Edwards sign from the hands of a little girl on her dad's shoulders. The image - see below - was enough to rip any dad's heart out - assuming his heart was in the right place in the first place.

Which may have been a premature assumption.

Ed is among many bloggers who report that there's something fishy about the story.

One of my commenters, when I originally posted on this story, noted that if I protest on the side of civility in politics, I sure wasn't doing it in my original piece on the subject.

They're right. I'm not being especially civil right now. That's not a good thing.

I'm sick and tired of the abuse Republicans take. I'm tired of the drumbeat of Goebbelsian Big Lies coming from the left, about the SwiftVets and the economy and the situation in Iraq. I'm tired of people genuflecting to the alleged balance of the mainstream media, while the biases are as plain as the nose on your face (if you nose was plastered with Kerry/Edwards stickers). I'm tired of the endless petty acts of venality I'm seeing coming from the left - like this, and this, and this, and the endless vandalism of all things Republican in Saint Paul that seems to claim most GOP lawn signs, sticker and so on in the weeks before every election.

Do people on the right commit such acts? Sure.

Am I tired of it? Not as tired as I am of the possibility of ending up with John Kerry as president...

The Face of the DFL

Power Line draws our attention to this:

Rocketman notes:

In the photo [above], three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while sitting on her father's shoulders. Her Bush-Cheney sign was grabbed by Democratic thugs and ripped to pieces, reducing the child to tears. We are picking up more and more reports of this kind of behavior by Democrats on the campaign trail.

I'm trying to remember the last time Republican thugs did anything like that?

Yesterday, a threesome of wan, pasty-looking art-school washouts were standing across from the parking lot at the Bush rally, holding signs. I was walking next to a small group of very tough-looking twentysomethings in wife-beater tank tops and very worn jeans - they looked like "Bricklayers for Bush", they were boisterous and exhuberant and just a little bit, er, rowdy.

The "protestors" were yelling some insulting stuff. The Republican toughs looked them in the eye, smiled, and walked past.

Note to DFL thugs; tear up my sign, morons.

Hey, Ho

Johnny Ramone, guitarist for the Ramones, is dead at 55.

The best musicians - especially in the world of garage rock - are the ones where you can tell by watching and listening that they're not showing you everything they have; that there's a reserve of...something that you haven't seen yet. Johnny Ramone left you that sense both on the guitar and, back in the eighties, in his personal life:

Mr. Ramone was often at odds with the members of his band, over dress, politics and relationships. A staunch Republican, Mr. Ramone clashed with Joey over that singer's liberal causes, and when the band was inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Mr. Ramone said, "God bless President Bush, and God bless America."

Three Ramones down, and I feel just a little lonelier today.

Thursday

This may be a first in the blogosphere; I got to MC a rally with President Bush.

Last Saturday, after the NARN broadcast, I got a call from a member of Bush/Cheney 04's Minnesota team, asking if I would be interested in MCing the "Focus on Healthcare with President Bush" rally. I figured, "how many times does a guy get to do this?", and I agreed.

The day didn't start out especially well; I went to the dry cleaners to pick up my suit - they'd lost the jacket. I hate that shirt and tie look, but that's what I did.

I'd only been to Blaine (a north 'burb of Minneapolis) once or twice in my life, and I'd never been to the National Sports Center - a huge complex of soccer fields, running tracks and an olympic-caliber Velodrome - and was amazed to see that the immense facility had a little two-lane exit from Highway 65. Traffic was backed up for miles by the time I got there, and I was early. It took some fairly aggressive driving to get there in time.

The nice thing about being the MC, though, was that was the last line I waited in. I walked past the long line of ticketholders and straight to the Special Services table, went through the Secret Service screening, and got into the building fairly effortlessly.

The building held about 4,000 people, and it was jammed to a sweaty, noisy capacity. My job was to MC the "Pre-program" - all the speakers and events designed to keep the crowd awake and on-message while we waited for the President to come down from his first appearance of the day, in Saint Cloud.

One early highlight - I introduced myself as "Mitch Berg, from the Northern Alliance Radio Network, at AM1280 The Patriot...", expecting a small smattering of applause, if anything. The station actually got a bit of a rousing round of applause and cheers - very heartening for the little station that could.

I introduced:

• Mac Hammond, local evangelist, for the invocation
• Charlie Hemler, local first-grader and future governor, who said the Pledge
• Debbie Kennedy, the wife of District 6 congressman Mark Kennedy
• Saint Paul Mayor Randy Kelly
• District 3 congressman and fellow Jamestown, ND native Jim Ramstad

I think that was it!

Lucky break of the morning - the campaign guys hadn't typed the name of the person singing the National Anthem on my agenda. Or the person's gender or anything else. I said "And now, for the national anthem by..."...

...
....

I looked around, hoping some inspiration would whack me upside the head.

Finally, I saw a woman waving at me from the first row, pointing at herself. Well and good - but I still didn't know her name. "Ah, here we go - the national anthem, sung...by..."

The woman stood, so I could see the name placard on the back of her seat. "...Helen Thul!"

She was amazing, by the way.

I wrapped up the pre-program, which led to about half an hour of piped-in music and frantic searching for concession stands with water - the arena was very hot, and I could see I wasn't the only person with cottonmouth.

Finally, the president arrived.

The campaign has developed quite a sense of theatrics over the years; at Bush's rally in August, the president pulled into the arena in a bus to blaring music. This time, the PA announced Governor Pawlenty - who entered to deafening waves of applause - and then, just as that was dying down, the President. The President came down the ropeline, shaking every hand and kissing every baby offered (and it was amazing how many babies were arranged along the ropeline.

That's me shaking hands with the Prez (photo courtesy of Laura Hemler).

The topic was healthcare; the forum was a panel discussion. There were three people on the stage; a woman from a community health center, an older guy on medicare, and a working stiff with a medical savings account. Each spoke a bit on their topics; the President staged it in the form of a conversation, riffing on the panelists' comments, frequently to great comedic effect. I was sitting very close-by offstage right, and I could see the President seemed to genuinely enjoy the give-and-take of the format.

The panel was bookended by standard stump speeches on the economy and, afterwards, the war. It was interesting - you could tell when the President was on-script and when he was winging it. When he was on-script, or when he was interacting with the panelists, he was a very effective speaker. In that area in between - where he was extemporizing - he was less effective, sometimes halting, visibly sorting about for the right phrase. Still, the guy knows how to give a stump speech that can reach people; I've seen him speak twice in person, now, and he has a genuine gift for making you feel he's talking right to you, the speaker's technique of making eye contact with everyone in the room.

The campaign seemed upbeat and energized - I'd imagine good polling numbers will have a good effect on people.

All in all, a very good day.

Should Be Powerline's Logo?

From Wog

Drummed Out

Via Jay Reding, we read Kevin Drum has declined to dive fully clothed into the fever swamp:

I think it's time for everyone to give up on this. The memos are almost certainly fakes, they're sucking up media bandwidth that could be better used elsewhere, and Dan Rather is toast. Besides, there was really nothing in them that told us anything new.

True in so many ways.

Read the whole thing.

Damnation with Faint Praise Part II

Miss O'Hara points us to a WaPo/ABC poll with some interesting context.

Kerry has a 36% approval rating.

How does that compare with other public figures?

Michael Jordan: 83 (2000)

Tony Blair: 76 (2003)

Pope John Paul II: 73 (2003)

Democratic Party: 54 (2004)

John Ashcroft: 49 (2003)

Michael Dukakis: 47 (1988)

Prince Charles: 45 (2003)

Herbert Hoover: 43 (1944)

Jesse Jackson: 38 (2003)

Vladimir Putin: 38 (2003)

John Kerry: 36 (2004)

Martha Stewart: 36 (2004)

Joseph McCarthy: 35 (1954)

Yeah, it's a bunch of numbers that have been cherry-picked at selected points in hisotry.

But still - tied with Martha? 11 points down from the Duke?

That's gotta hurt.

Signs of Agreement?

Pious Agnostic has a double-header today - this fascinating comparison, and this rather hopeful-sounding story:

These guys were soiled from a day's labor, their clothes covered with sawdust. We struck up a conversation as we waited. They were tree-trimmers from Mobile, Alabama, who had come down to Orlando because of all the work available after our run-ins with Charley and Frances. Two of them were about my age, the third seemingly much older. We discussed how sucessful they'd been at finding work, not knowing the area; and also their intentions to go back to Mobile, since Ivan was bearing down on it, as we could see on the television in the waiting area.

The news story changed to Kitty Kelly's new book, and highlighted her allegations that president Bush used cocaine at Camp David during his father's presidency.

Everyone in the room agreed that the story was horseshit; and that Bush was a fine guy and would be reelected.

There's hope for the president when three black entrepreneurs from Mobile, Alabama and white office-worker from Orlando all agree on this.

To quote the Professor - indeed.

The Couch Test

Kerry's in a putative dead heat with Bush, say the pundits.

But answering a phone poll is easy. Dragging yourself off the couch on a chilly November night to go stand in line at a polling station? That's hard.

You gotta want to be there.

Is Kerry going to pass the "drag yourself off the couch test?"

Maybe not.

This from the NYPost:

While the Fox News survey taken last week after the Republican convention shows Bush with a small lead over Kerry, the internal data indicates big shifts against the Democrat.

For example, Kerry is now seen unfavorably by a record 44 percent of the voters (his personal worst), giving him a slightly higher unfavorable ratio than Bush — whom 43 percent dislike. (Bush's edge comes from the fact that he gets 51 percent to rate him favorably, while Kerry has only a 46 percent favorable rating.)

But worse, the poll shows that Kerry must face a basic problem: His own voters don't like him very much.

Until they legalize telephone voting, the "registered voter" polls are of little value...

Take Out That Nose Ring

Malkin links to a story about an outrageous bit of behavior.

Crumble?

Kerry's Black August seems to be still falling out.

Wouldja believe Illinois - among the bluest of the blue states - might be in play now?

The turn in this election tide could set up a political stunner. Illinois is a Democratic powerhouse in national elections, and John Kerry does maintain a small lead in our exclusive CBS 2 poll, but President Bush appears to be gaining support among voters.

Illinois no longer looks like a sure thing for Democrat John Kerry. His once 13 percentage point lead is now down to four points. That's exactly our survey's margin of accuracy, meaning the contest could be a dead-heat.

I can't vouch for the poll's accuracy, but all other things being equal, it's good news for Bush.

Almost as good, if true? New Jersey, which has been reputed to be wobbly for a while, is showing for Bush in this Survey USA poll. SUSA is commissioned by the GOP, of course, so it may be biased. As Geraghty says:

It will take another poll or two to confirm that Bush is ahead. But this last bunch of polls suggests its time to take New Jersey out of the “safe Kerry” pile and into the “toss up” pile.

Kerry's shrunk his map. "Safe" Kerry states are suddenly looking dicey - and Kerry hasn't budgeted money to defend places like Jersey and Illinois, at least not yet. The polls, for what they're worth, are generally drifting toward Bush, especially the polls that bode the best for long-term prospects (approval on matters like the war, terrorism, leadership and the economy).

OK, left - how is it that Kerry pulls this off?

And if you say "Guard records", go to the back of the class.

Pay No Attention to the Stack of Fakes Behind the Curtain

Here's the part that bugs me.

It's hard to talk about my reservations about Bush's Guard story without violating "Godwin's Law" - the internet convention that says any time Hitler or anything Nazi is invoked in an argument, the argument is basically over.

So thanks to a bunch of Usenet stooges who couldn't keep their Ribbentrops in their pants ten years ago, I'm supposed to do without perfect historical analogies?

I'm claiming immunity for this one - the example is perfect. But I have another idea.

Goebbels said...you know it, don't you? I don't wanna see the same hands, here. Everyone?

He said that if you repeat a big lie often enough, people will assume it's true.

But I don't want to invoke Goebbels. People get pretty touchy about Godwin's Law.

Much of the lefty blogosphere has been chanting "the dox are real the dox are real the dox are real" for the past week. As a parenthetical, I'm going to start using a new term:

Willis: verb, to endlessly repeat an unproven or false premise, in order to make it appear true. See "The Documents are Real", "Bush was AWOL", etc.

For example, the entire lefty blogosphere has spent the last week Willising; yesterday was a rude slap upside the head for some.

Now, the fallback position:

In any case, the whole “fake but accurate” line shows how tone-deaf these people are; it’s like saying a body in a pine box is “dead but lifelike.” It boggles, it really does: the story is true, the evidence is faked, but the evidence reflects the evidence we have not yet presented that proves our conclusion – ergo, we’re telling the truth. They just can’t give it up; they just can’t say the memos were typed by the guy in the “Dude, you’re getting a Dell!” commercial and leave it be, because that that puts the knife in the story regardless of what happened. So they keep going.

None of this stuff would pass the stink test with an eleven-year-old, and the eleven year old would know it's time to quit Willising.

And if I were a Kerry supporter, I'd move my stock to a "Strong Sell" when I realized that my candidates best hopes were not even based on 30 year old allegations of shirking duty - but merely Willising about them!

So Apt

The new CBS News blog:

Meet Marion Carr Knox, the host of CBS' new daytime talk show, Opportunity Knox! Ms. Knox, who is also known in a completely unrelated matter as secretary to President Bush's National Guard commander, will talk with guests in front of a live studio audience about matters related to today's active senior.

More real than reality, really...

Please. No Wagering

As Fraters pointed out earlier today, the Star Tribune's latest Minnesota Poll is showing John Kerry with a nine point lead over the President.

The left is tittering with glee; they think they'll hold Minnesota this year.

And they may just.

But Powerline was pointing out the flaws in the Minnesota Poll two years ago.

And so was I. This bit was from five days before the 2002 election:

In the meantime, the poll shows Mondale leading Norm Coleman by 8 points, 47-39.

Eight point in five days?

The Minnesota Poll should come with a disclaimer: "For Entertainment Purposes Only".

What A Nightmare

I'm trying to imagine evacuating an entire major city, in this case New Orleans.

Behind the Curve, Part II

Minnesota Republican Watch is a not-very-coherent opinion blog covering the liberal perspective on Minnesota Republicans.

They uncorked this one the other day:

Senate District 42 Republicans are claiming that documents produced by CBS News/60 Minutes regarding President Bush's military service are fake.1 This, however, has not been conclusively proven.

"Conclusively?"

Is this what they're telling each other in the fever swamp these days.

Before we get to "conclusive proof" - Dan Rather being escorted from Black Rock by a security guard holding a box of his stuff - we get to the stage of "overwhelming evidence".

There is overwhelming evidence the dox are fake.

There is none that they are legit - even Marcel Matley, Rather's hand-picked source, is bailing on Rather.

From the Boston Globe:

Whooah, there. You mean the Boston Glob article that's shredded every which way under the sun and pretty much tossed out as a pathetic joke?

Just checking.

Keep up the good work.

Everybody's Doing It, Part II

Howard Fineman, via Malkin:

Let me admit that I have written for the Internet in my pajamas.

If you were with CBS today, seeing tens of thousands of amateur journalists piddling on the grave of your once-great network's credibility, that'd be bad. Seeing them doing it while cavorting about in jammies?

Something about having people cavorting about you in jammies makes ignominy much worse...

Generalissimo!

Hugh Hewitt's producer Generalissimo Duane has a blog!

On the one hand: Duane, like most producers, is a very sharp guy. For a new blog, it's a great read! And thanks for the kudos!

On the other: Get permalinks! If Hugh could do it, you can do it! (Please, please tell me you're not hand-coding the site...?)

Welcome to the pool!

All Collegiality Aside...

A few months ago, when did my review of local lefty blogs, one that was suggested (by Chuck Olsen) was Minnesota Liberal. At the time, ML had been dormant for many months.

It's back - and I'm kinda sorry I mentioned anything.

After three months of not posting, blogger Jake Carson is apparently trying to make up for lost time - not with post volume so much as by cramming as many topics as possible into every given post.

Apparently the Minnesota GOP Party doesn't like the Minneapolis Star Tribune's political polling.

They are telling the Star Trib to fire their pollster and hire someone else. Which of course makes sense because they don't bias all their information and sampling methods.

Mr. Carson? Which "they" are we talking about? There are two possible subjects, here, the MNGOP and the Strib...

Just another example of the GOP's slime tactics. If you are not one of them... you are EVIL.

Evil is such an indiscriminate word. We prefer grossly, chronically, comically inaccurate.

Or an Angry Democrat. Well damn right we are angry. They have taken over our political system and put our country into chaos.

Note, gentle reader: third paragraph, third thesis. And it's not "your political system", and we didn't "take it over". We won the last election, we won the Congressional elections in 2002, and we're going to win the Presidential election this year.

About this point, you're asking "Mitch - why are you going on about this blog?

Because pretty soon here, he steers, Bo-And-Luke-Duke style, into the weeds.

And if they want to play "gotcha games" with cameras [Huh? Ed.]... here is a fine example of the Republicans in this state.

He posts this picture:

And no, it's not Minnesota Republicans in action. It's a Minnesotan (or group of 'em) exercising their First Amendment Right to say something that offends the ever-loving piss out of you. Is the truck's message cheaply manipulative, driving the gay marriage debate to its basest emotional level? Sure it does. But there are three key things to remember here:

1. They that have that right (until the left finally gets around to banning "hate speech", or whatever speech offends and inconveniences, anyway).
2. You have the right to respond
3. Again, Mr. Carson, you need to get some facts straight.

To wit:

This is the truck that was driving around near the Minnesota State Fair grounds. Until the driver was arrested. The truck is sponsored by Minnesota Citizens for the Defense of Marriage. If you go check out there events page, they were at the AM1280 The Patriot's state fair booth getting people to sign petitions for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

No, they weren't. I was there four of the 11 days, and never saw anyone from the organization at the booth.

Which is a diversion from the real point - what about gay marriage? There are legitimate reasons to oppose it - ones that individuals may agree or disagree with, but are in any case worth a rational debate. The Kissing Guy truck adds little to the debate - but then, either does American Liberal, who merely tries to smear by association:

The Patriot broadcast the Savage Nation- a program hosted by a man that has said he wants gays to get AIDS and die.

The Patriot also broadcasts a variety of hosts - Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager - whose opposition to gay marriage is reasoned, articulate, and based on social, legal and economic reasoning as well as religious belief, as well as some hosts - some among the Northern Alliance, for starters - who have been wrestling with the issue for a long, long time. I, for one, once supported gay marriage. I still support - mildly - civil unions.

Savage, Schmavage.

This is a radio station that is frequented by the Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty and U.S. Senator Norm Coleman.

Again with the pesky facts; they not only "frequent" the station, most of the hosts actively support them both. For good reason.

I'm not sure exactly why, but Mr. Carson seems to feel he has a scoop with this photo...:

...showing us talking with Senator Coleman. I dunno - is "Minnesota Liberal"'s "audience" shocked that Senator Coleman might be found interviewing on an unabashedly conservative talk show?

This photo is Coleman with the right wing Northern Alliance bloggers at The Patriot booth at the state fair. And congrats to those bloggers. They have officially made themselves trivial. Check out their ongoing debate over the Bush National Guard memos at the Powerline blog.

So trivial!

Continue if you want guys... but you still have not come up with any evidence that shows Bush fulfilled his Guard duties. Your leader was AWOL.

Yes, we have, and no, he wasn't.

The blog is called "Minnesota Liberal". But since I'm counting seven subjects in about a dozen paragraphs, it might better be called "John Kerry's Next Policy Advisor"

Left Behind

We at the Northern Alliance have been asking for a long time - where are the good lefty bloggers in Minnesota? In fact, we made it an issue some time ago.

A group of local leftybloggers have begun The New Patriot.

Criticism? Well, you'd think ten bloggers could manage more than a piece or two a day, but it's a new effort.

Oh, and the politics are all wrong. But we'll get to that later.

Seriously - congrats. We'll look forward to more.

For Your Social Calendar...

Jo missed the NARN on the Prager show, but had an interesting suggstion:

I still feel as if I have missed out, so maybe the NARN guys will throw it on the Best of NARN CD? Will they be in their pajamas for the cover? I know, I know by now the pajama jokes are getting old. Although in tribute to the buffoon Jonathan Klein maybe all blogger parties or gatherings in the future we should wear our jammies?

That may be the best single Blogger Party idea we've come across yet...

Prager

So the Northern Alliance - or at least King, Lileks, Trunk, Elder and I - sat in for Dennis Prager yesterday.

It started out to be a loooong day; technical problems downstream from Los Angeles kept us off the air the first hour; Salem's network control in Dallas played a "Best of Prager" until they fixed the problem.

What did we do? Well, since as usual we had four hours of show planned for three hours - we crammed all four hours into the two we had left. Scott "The Big Trunk" Johnson always gets a little hyperactive about booking guests for national shows - and they're all good, all the time. We had Charles Johnson from Little Green Footballs, John Fund...

...in short, tons and tons of stuff, for a two hour show. Lileks put it well:

The show went fast, as ever – radio time is not like any time you’ve ever experienced, and oddly elastic. When it’s going well it shoots by like caffeinated mercury on a griddle, and when you’re bombing the minutes actually come to a full stop, and you can hear the air brakes hiss to signal that time, and possibly your career, are no longer moving.

It wasn't a problem yesterday, of course; if anything, doing shows like Prager and Hewitt are easier than the local show, because they're so broken up; the phone banks are always full; you're never more than a few minutes way from the sanctuary of a stopset.

Anyway - it was two hours of breakneck, crazy fun. Thanks to Scott, James, Elder, King, Chumley, and everyone involved!

Piling On?

Handwriting Analysis is a deeply soft science, a ludicrous one on which to base ones' defense of Dan Rather's "National Guard" documents...

...but just in case you were, Dn Rather's "handwriting expert" has jumped ship on Rather anyway:

The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.

This echoes both the distinction between handwriting analysis (a very inexact science) and typography analysis (a more empirical field) that the blogosphere's been beating on, and the continuing defection of the mainstream media from Rather's side.

Wretchard from Belmont Club notesIt continues unmercifully by citing the evidence of electronic typesetting expert Joseph M. Newcomer who declares "I am personally 100 percent sure that they are fake". The Washington Post goes on to detail numerous factual and formatting errors in the CBS documents, mentioning among other things, word processing characteristics, wrong addresses, styles, inconsistencies in dates before introducing the additional repudiation of key 60 Minutes source Bobby Hodges. Deserted by its original document expert, CBS is then reported to rely on a new consultant called Bill Glennon who says 'IBM electric typewriters in use in 1972 could produce superscripts and proportional spacing similar to those used in the disputed documents' before admitting that he was 'not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online because CBS did not give him copies when asked to visit the network's offices...It is an unmerciful public flogging; the kind one would not wish upon a donkey...it is hard to see how CBS can maintain their story a single day longer."

My question - how does Dan Rather back away from this? '

Lileks' theory - they fire Andy Rooney - sounds more and more plausible...

Sunset

The National Bad Columnist Warning Center has issued a Nick Coleman warning. The warning indicates that conditions are favorable for a self-righteous, alarmist, yet ill-informed burst of hot wind from Strib columnist Nick Coleman.

Yes - the Feinstein assault weapon ban is a thing of the past, for now at least.

There'll be carnage in the streets, in the special little world in Nick Coleman's mind.

Bet on it.

The ban, of course, is a big political football for the professionally-indignant - but not much else. Remember - in the twenty years before the ban, exactly one crime was ever committed in Minnesota with a legally-owned "assault weapon".

After 10 years, the federal ban expires Monday because for a majority of politicians, the issue is too hot to touch no matter what the public thinks.

No one is more agonized about this than California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat who sponsored the legislation in 1993 and for whom it had become a signature issue.

"This is the darkest time for me in my Senate career," she said in an interview last week. "I really believe people are safer because of the ban. I really believe the number of weapons on the street has diminished."

The expiration of the federal ban will not mean Armalite's renewed product line will be sold in California gun shops, however. Since 1989, California has had an assault weapons ban even stronger than the expiring federal law.

Unusually for a dead-tree media outlet, the bitter truth actually leaks in - well below the jump, naturally:

There is conflicting information about whether the ban has made any difference in reducing gun crime, which was its goal.

In a 1997 report, the Urban League said the ban has had only a limited effect on the number of gun murders because assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines, the domestic production of which also was banned, weren't involved in that many such crimes in the first place.

"We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple wounds per victim," the report said.

A June assessment of the ban by the University of Pennsylvania's Jerry Lee Center of Criminology said one of the reasons the ban on domestic manufacture of large-capacity magazines hasn't had much impact is because merchants could still sell those produced before the ban took effect in 1994, or those models that are imported.

"Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement," the center said.

But that's not good enough...

But the report also noted a danger in letting the ban expire.

"If the ban is lifted, gun and magazine manufacturers may reintroduce assault weapon models and large-capacity magazines, perhaps in substantial numbers," it said.

"In addition, pre-ban assault weapons may lose value and novelty, prompting some of their owners to sell them in undocumented second-hand markets where they can more easily reach high-risk users, such as criminals, terrorists and other potential mass murders."

Right. Exactly the ways they weren't used back before the ban, when they were widely (and cheaply!) available.

Note to any Republican legislators out there; take this off your list of bones to throw the Dems. The first time you caved on "assault weapons", I joined the Libertarians. You don't want to know how far I'll go this time.

The New Longbow

I love Wretchard's simile:

The real catastrophe for CBS is that Killian incident is probably not an isolated setback so much as proof that maneuvers which worked in the past can no longer be attempted with impunity. The equivalent of the longbow had arrived on the media scene. When the longbow was first deployed on the European battlefield, it was obviously a formidable weapon.

Such was the power of the Longbow, that contemporary accounts claim that at short range, an arrow fired from it could penetrate 4 inches of seasoned oak. The armored knight, considered at one time to be the leviathan of the battlefield, could now be felled at ranges up to 200 yards by a single arrow. One account recalls a knight being pinned to his horse by an arrow that passed through both armored thighs, with the horse and saddle between!

But it was long years before it was taken seriously. After all, mounted cavalry was the aristocratic weapon and the longbow that of the despised yeomen, the medieval equivalent of bloggers in their pajamas [The historian fails to note an analogue for the more serious blogger, the one who blogs from the basement in their underwear - Ed.]. It took Crecy, Poitiers and finally Agincourt to bring home the fact that the longbow threat was real. As the Christian Science Monitor remarked:

The English longbow plied by yeomen ended the military power and social reign of knights. "Shining" armor fell to a taut string, a cured piece of wood, and a tipped arrow. The military dynamic of the Middle Ages - knight, squire, and armorer - ceased.

It did not bring an end to history: a new dynamic replaced the old, but an era had passed.

And, it's worth remembering, the knight returned; while the armored noble on horseback vanished, his heirs returned centuries later, flying biplanes and driving tanks. The same basic idea held - the technology changed, but the notion of the elite super-soldier has endured.

The parallel? The mainstream dead-tree/big-stick media aren't dead. But the battlefield is changing. Will they adapt to the changes?

The Enron of the Left

Remember Enron?

Here's a recap: A major - industry-leading, really - business collapsed as a result of immense corruption. The collapse helped punctuate a recession, and undermined the moral climate of the entire nation in those uncertain days before and immediately after 9/11.

The collapse of Enron - brought about by equal parts corruption and bad business - caused huge dislocation. And it led to huge reforms in the world of business.

So is the Memogate controversy, which speaks directly to political corruption at one of the biggest "unbiased" networks in the business, any less vital an issue than book-cooking at an "energy" company?

The link is to Powerline, the essential source on this story. What happens if CBS is finally, irrevocably "found guilty" in the court of public opinion? 1/3 of America's network news' integrity impugned; their hangers-on at the NYTimes and the Boston Glob tarred by association (although the Glob seems to be backing away); the rest of the nation in on the dirty little secret the right in this nation has known for decades - the media is corrupt, and that corruption is focused on politics?

9/11 Story

Flash at Centrisity talks about his own 9/11 experiences, in a very moving post (apparently the first in a series).

It begins:

September 11, 2001, has multiple meanings for me. Most people think of the tragedy that shocked our nation. So do I! But 9/11/01 would have been a powerful day in my life regardless of it's now historical significance. I was in a custody battle, and ever since May 2001, I knew that September 11, 2001, would be "Custer's last stand".

It's all worth a read.

I'd almost rather face a platoon of Al Quaeda than Ramsey County Family Court.

Internationalism

Russia seems to be learning what Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Portugal, the UK, South Korea, Israel and most of the other nations involved in the day-to-day war on terror have learned; you can't go it alone, but but you also can't trust bogus international organizations to help. You have to link up with the nations that are actually capable of doing something - and aren't in bed with the enemy.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said:

"Since the threat has an international character it is impossible for one state, no matter how strong it is, to beat that invisible enemy without cooperation," he said.

He added that the United States was best placed to understand Russia's situation because it had also been the target of major attacks, and he said he had discussed the issue with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld twice this week.

"In this sense it seems easier to find grounds for an understanding with the United States than with some European states," Ivanov said.

That's important.

Apply this to John Kerry's purported strategy for dealing with the war on terror - the constant payment of obeisance to the powers that were in bed with Hussein all along.

Who was Ivanov referring to?

France and the Netherlands angered Russia by asking for an explanation of what had happened at the school siege in the North Ossetian town of Beslan, where children, women, men and their captors died in a maelstrom of explosions and gunfire.

They're learning.

Russia has not specified where it believes the militants have their bases, but analysts believe the Kremlin sees neighboring Georgia as the main suspect for harboring rebels.

Ivanov said any strikes on bases would be without warning and would use any means except nuclear weapons.

"In war -- and war has been declared on us -- all means can be used," he said.

That's gotta bug the French.

Rap Sheet

Jo directs us to an MRC piece detailing - and I do mean detailing - the relative harshness of 60 Minutes' treatment of President Bush, vs its relentless softballing of Kerry and Edwards.

Failing the Absurd Test

The left blogosphere has been hanging its Memogate hopes on the notion that there was a typewriter - one - in 1973 that might have been able to produce a proportional-font memo with special typesetting characters.

This guy found one.

But the price tag? Oy:

I'm referring to the IBM Selectric Composer. This machine resembles a sophisticated electric typewriter in most respects, but is in fact a full-fledged cold-type typesetting machine. (Cold type as opposed to hot type, machines like the Linotype that would cast entire lines of type in molten lead as the typesetter worked. Ah, those were the days.)

Whenever the topic has turned to the Selectric Composer, it has been dismissed out-of-hand as being far too expensive an item to find in an office on an Air National Guard base: The machine sold for anywhere from $3,600 to $4,400, and fonts were extra and not cheap. Furthermore, the Composer was widely agreed to be far too complicated and slow a machine to use for typing up memoranda, especially ones that were destined to go into a file and not even be distributed.

Update: Many commenters have pointed out — and I'm trying to read 'em all, I promise! — that I'm talking about $3,600 to $4,400 in unadjusted 1973 dollars here. If you use one of the widely available deflation or purchasing-power calculators, you end up with an equivalent in 2004 dollars of between about $16,000 and about $22,000. Bottom line: despite its fairly innocuous appearance, the Selectric Composer was no ordinary office typewriter. It was a pricey little number.

The big question, though - could it - a typesetting typewriter that was highly unlikely to have been found in a National Guard orderly room - have produced the memo?

No.

Read the whole thing.

Send a copy to Marcel Matley and Dan Rather.

How To

Longtime reader Silver send this - Pious Agnostic's advice to would-be forgers.

Beat The Retreat

The Boston Glob is backing sloooowly away from their defense of CBS's report on the Bush National Guard dox:

In a CBS Evening News report last week, the network aired four documents that appeared to be typed by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, Bush's commanding officer, saying that Bush's flight status had been suspended because he had failed to perform at Texas Air Guard standards and had not received a required physical exam. CBS said the documents came from Killian's "personal files."

But Killian's son and widow disputed the authenticity of the records, saying they did not know how the documents might have been obtained while asserting that Killian had never complained about Bush's performance or about pressure he might have received from superiors in the Guard.

Hodges, in his interview with the Los Angles Times, also said he could not recall Killian objecting to Bush's performance or the fact that he failed to take a physical. "I have no recollection of anything like that happening," Hodges told the newspaper. Killian died in 1984.

New questions about the authenticity of the CBS documents were also raised yesterday by the Dallas Morning News, which reported that the one in which Killian appears to complain that Colonel Walter "Buck" Staudt was "pushing to sugar coat" an evaluation of Bush is dated a year and a half after Staudt was honorably discharged.

The newspaper said it did not interview Staudt but had obtained his discharge order, which it said is dated March 1, 1972. The memo in which Killian appears to complain about pressure from Staudt is dated Aug. 18, 1973.

Read the whole story.

You will find no mention, by the way, of where the furor of fact-checking arose - the blogosphere, especially Little Green Footballs and Powerline.

But the the thin, gray, martini-swilling line is starting to crumble.

So just a quick run-down on the basic facts behind Doxgate, starting with Hugh Hewitt's excellent list from earlier today:

*Lt Col Killian didn't type;

*Lt Col Killian's family says he did not maintain such records;

*Guard regulations prohibited the maintenance of such records;

*General Bobby Hodges didn't vouch for the docs as CBS said he would;

*Colonel Buck Staudt --cited in the memos as pushing Killian to "sugarcoat" a Bush evaluation-- had retired more than a year before the meo was allegedly written;

*Bloggers have been overwhelmed with e-mails from active duty and retire dmilitary who scoff at the form of the memos;

*Typewriters with proportional spacing were rare in '72/3;

*Typewriters with superscripting capabilites were rare in '72/3;

*Typewriters with perfect centering ability were non-existent '72/3;

*Typewriters with the "kerning" function didn't exist in '72/3;

*Most experts, from Dr.Cartwright at Rice, the above-referenced Dr. Bouffard and Farrell Shiver, range from certain to almost certain in their conclusions that the docs are not legit;

*CBS doesn't have the "originals" and didn't reveal that fact until pressure mounted;

*The fake docs are easily and exactly reproduced on modern word-processing equipment, underscoring the ease with which the bad forgery could have been produced contrasted with the near impossibility of Lt Colonel Killian's producing them in 192/3;

*Lt Col Killian lacked motive to write and maintain such records;

*Despite intense media interest in the president's TANG career that extends back at least four years, someone sat on these docs until seven weeks before the 2004 election and after the RNC convention;

*CBS has a history of obtaining docs damaging to the Bush Adminsitration which in all likelihood came from Democratic partisans;

*CBS won't reveal its source;

*CBS has a history of blowing stories that involved fake documents; and

*Dan Rather has not appeared opposite a serious journalist to answer extended questions on camera, even though his reputation and the reputation of his network are being shredded and a confidant witness would demand a hearing with a Russert or a Hume.

Add to that:

• As former and serving military people have said in comments and email to this website and the Northern Alliance website, the memo observes none of the conventions of military memos
• If you're my age or older, and you ever took typing class, you remember that when typing a business letter or memo, you always put the abbreviations of the typist and dictator at the bottom of the letter. In other words, if I were typing the memo for Colonel Jerry Killian, I'd type "JK/mpb" at the bottom of the memo. Since men of Colonel Killian's rank and age very rarely typed in that era (executives typing their own memos is a product of the computer age and the ubiquity of word processing), and the family has established that Killian didn't type, there should have been initials at the bottom of the page. And those initials should make it simple to track down at least one witness to these documents' authenticity. If it's possible.

More?

Sugar Coat

The Boston Glob grandiloquently claims that the Rather/TANG memos are purrfectly legit:

But specialists interviewed by the Globe and some other news organizations say the specialized characters used in the documents, and the type format, were common to electric typewriters in wide use in the early 1970s, when Bush was a first lieutenant.

Philip D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, had expressed suspicions about the documents in an interview with the New York Times published Thursday, one in a wave of similar media reports. But Bouffard told the Globe yesterday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time.

But Dr. Bouffard was misquoted pretty seriously:

"What the Boston Globe did now sort of pisses me off, because now I have people calling me and e-mailing me, and calling me names, saying that I changed my mind. I did not change my mind at all!"

"I would appreciate it if you could do whatever it takes to clear this up, through your internet site, or whatever."

"All I'd done is say, 'Hey I want to look into it.' Please correct that damn impression!"

"What I said to them was, I got new information about possible Selectric fonts and (Air Force) documents that indicated a Selectric machine could have been available, and I needed to do more analysis and consider it."

[INDC quotes via Powerline].

This issue will play out, at least in the major media and the lefty blogosphere, like the Swifties; lots of firm declamations ("it's all lies!"), no actual evidence.

Politics, Goebbels-style.

Never Forgive, Never Forget

There are many great 9/11 commemorations on the web today. The Patriette may have the simplest, and best, one.

As to me? Tomorrow.

Behind the Curve

If you've been hiding under a rock, you might not know that CBS' "documentary evidence" about Bush's TANG service was under intense, hostile scrutiny.

The MN DFL site has has apparently been under a rock and a mattress; they're liking to the CBS dox as if they're fully legit. The link above is to "Minnesota Democrats Exposed", which grabbed the screen shot.

As this is written - 6:38PM Saturday night - the links are still on the DFL website. Let's see how long it takes.

Best-Laid Plans

I had my traditional big 9/11 piece roughly 3/4 done. I had an involved fisking of Kos' rather pathetic defense of Dan Rather ready to go.

I also had kids sleeping over, and a very long week to sleep off, and a show to prep for later today.

More, as they say, later.

Saturday!

We'll have John Fund, plus Michele Catalano and Lieutenant Citizen Smash, on the NARN show today.

Tune in!

Oops

What's the left blogosphere saying about the phony dox rhubarb?

Oliver Willis:

Are the TANG docs real? It seems to be up in the air now, though CBS claims that they also cleared the content with Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the time. Dunno. I do know that the TANG charges aren't really sexy.

Which certainly hasn't kept Willis from baying at the moon about it.

Josh "ua Micah" Marshall sniffs...:

They don't go as far as to say they're certain.

But the questions raised now no longer seem to be limited to amateurs or people doing experiments on their own copies of Microsoft Word.

...but leaves himself plenty of wiggle room:

But something in all this doesn't fit.

Atrios goes for the strawman:

I'd have a good laugh too if Dan Rather got punk'd, but the wingnuttery belief that the proportional fonts were Bill Gates's invention is hilarious.

But, in any case, CBS more than stands by their case.

Ah. Well, then, they'd have to. Wouldn't they?

Because they could build a pyramid with all the heads that'll have to roll if this really turns out to be a forgery.

Fontana?:

Of course, the point is not whether the documents are fake; it's whether there's room for confusion. Quine-Duhem, anyone?

No thanks, I just ate. And no, the question that really matters is are the dox fake. CBS News' credibility is riding on it - or should be - for every sentient American.

Fecke?:

Finally, one sentence from the ABC story sticks out: "Many Democrats are worried that if they are found to be forgeries, it will be a setback for Sen. John Kerry's campaign to defeat Bush in November. "

Why would that be? Did John Edwards slip these documents to Dan Rather? Did John Kerry use the printer in the grassy knoll? The Swift Boat Vets were lying up one side and down the other--did any Republicans worry that the lies would be a setback for Bush?

The sad fact is, I would expect that this will be a setback for Bush even if the documents are shown to be forgeries. Sadly, what those Americans paying attention heard was something bad about Bush's service. If they hear these documents were fakes, they'll be mad--at CBS. Maybe.

Jeff's been moving too many loans in the fever swamp. It might be said that the alternative media is Bush's greatest asset in this election, and this story has pushed tons of bloody chum into the water. The Swifties (who, by the way, were not lying "up one side and down the other" - they've not even been credibly attacked yet, other than by people who just say so) aren't gone yet, and while the dead tree media has declared the story dead, the right's alternative media has just gained a stupendous amount of mojo.

The big story? Forget about TANG - even if Bush didn't fulfill the letter of his obligation in the stricted bureaucratic sense (and Byron York pretty much trashed that notion), he's had four years of actual national leadership to be rated on.

No, the real story is that as much as the major media try to deny the elephant in the living room, iit's there. The notion that our media isn't actively carrying water for the left (to say nothing of "is objective") is dying the death of a thousand cuts.

And if this CBS forgery bit pans out, maybe a slash across the jugular.

Fearless Predictions Part II

CBS is going to take a bath.

The Kitty Kelley book on the Bushes will backfire on Kerry.

Teresa Heinz-Kerry will be caught beating John Kerry with a coat hanger, apoplectic with rage.

Tiffany Lied

Ed, as usual, is at the bleeding edge of the CBS Forgery case:

Starting with the latter, it appears that CBS and 60 Minutes simply lied about the sourcing of the documents to its readers. They may not have realized that the documents were forgeries -- they didn't check very hard to find out, though -- but they told their readers and listeners that the documents came from Killian's personal files, which implies that they came to CBS directly from that source. CBS vouched for that chain of custody, knowing that it came from the Kerry campaign, a vital piece of information that its customers could have used initially in determining the veracity of the story.

So what else has CBS aired directly from Kerry's oppo research team without telling us? The most obvious would be CBS' companion interview with Ben Barnes, who claimed to have spoken a few words on Bush's behalf to get him into the TANG. CBS claimed his motivation was to relieve his soul, but failed to mention that Barnes has donated almost a half-million dollars over the past five years to Kerry and the Democrats, and is Kerry's third-largest individual contributor.

But the Kerry campaign has it even worse. Thanks to a barrage of ads from the Swiftvets, Kerry already has suffered damage to his image in voter evaluation of his honesty and integrity. If his campaign passed off forged documents to news organizations to smear George Bush, it will destroy the shreds of his credibility in such a way that he may not even be able to win re-election in his next Senate campaign.

Read the whole thing, and scroll up and down.

This is amazing stuff.

Type Cast

When I entered college, in 1981, my alma mater had just started a computer science department. The equipment was fairly revolutionary in its day; a DEC PDP11/44 running UNIX. Jamestown College was a very early adopter, in the great scheme of things.

One of the big selling points of UNIX at the time was that, if you wanted to learn a very complex dot-inset command language, you could use "Roff", a "simple" text formatting program that could do very basic page layout; setting margins, spacing, that sort of thing. The learning curve was brutally hard (although I learned it - boys love toys). At the end of the day, if you did everything (and I do mean everything) right, your term paper would come out (from a dot-matrix line printer or an NEC Spinwriter, basically a daisy-wheel typewriter hooked up to the computer) looking as if a very competent typist had typed it. Assuming you used spellcheck properly.

If you read further through the manual (or the UNIX "manpages"), you learned of the next big thing - "TRoff", or "Typesetting Roff". Designed to work with the day's state of the art keylining and typesetting equipment - the type found at large printers, for things like books and brochures - it was an order of magnitude more complex, giving the user access to radical innovations like proportional fonts and curved apostrophes and quotation marks.

Stuff we take for granted today. Freeware word processors and downloadable fonts have made typesetting, once (and in the world of professional printing and publication design, still) an art form, into child's play.

Nine years before I entered college, at an air national guard base in Texas - at a time when the military in Europe, to say nothing of the stateside military, was being starved of funding to pay for Vietnam, what do you suppose the odds were that personnel memos were being prepared on that sort of equipment?

As Powerline, Captain Ed and the Freepers all noticed, there's something
fishy about this memo, which was presented on CBS the other night.

A correspondent of Powerline noted earlier
today:

Every single one of the memos to file regarding Bush's failure to attend a physical and meet other requirements is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman. In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing (especially in the military), and typewriters used mono-spaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction high-end word processing systems from Xerox and Wang, and later of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were no widespread until the mid to late 90's.

Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang and other systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used mono-spaced fonts. I doubt the TANG had typesetting or high-end 1st generation word processing systems.

I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively.

Look at the document. Proportional, Times/Roman font. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks. Things that we regard as commonplace now, that were the province of the professional printer back then.

Another Powerline correspondent writes:

2) I also used a Variype machine in 1971. I fooled around with it in my spare time. It was incredibly difficult to set up and use. It was also extremely hard to correct mistakes on the machine. Most small letters used two spaces. Capital letters generally used three spaces. I think letters like "i" may have used one space. Anyway, you can see that this type of machine was piloted by an expert, and it would NEVER be used for a routine memo. A Lt. Colonel would not be able to identify a Varitype machine, let alone use it.

3) US Navy paper at the time was not 8 1/2 x 11. It was 8 x 10 1/2. I believe this was the same throughout the military, but someone will have to check on that. This should show up in the Xeroxing, which should have lines running along the sides of the Xerox copy.

4) I am amused by the way "147 th Ftr.Intrcp Gp." appears in the August 1, 1972 document. It may have been written that way in non-forged documents, but as somone who worked for ComCruDesLant, I know the military liked to bunch things together. I find "147 th" suspicious looking. 147th looks better to me, but the problem with Microsoft Word is that it keeps turning the "th" tiny if it is connected to a number like 147. And finally......

5) MORE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF FORGERY: I had neglected even to look at the August 18, 1973 memo to file. This forger was a fool. This fake document actually does have the tiny "th" in "187th" and there is simply no way this could have occurred in 1973. There are no keys on any typewriter in common use in 1973 which could produce a tiny "th." The forger got careless after creating the August 1, 1972 document and slipped up big-time.

One more question - especially for those of you who were in
the military before the age of ubiquitous computers; does the format of the
date look right? The military has a different format for dates - I won't
say what it is, the better to let an expert tell us.

Experts - by that, I mean I'm throwing it open to you out there. What do
you think?

Good Hands

Jay Reding noted about Clinton's surgeon:

Thankfully he was in very good hands. Dr. Craig Smith is one of the world’s foremost cardiac surgeons. Not only that, he's also a major donor to the Bush campaign...

Need I say more?

Blogging Lesson

People ask me: "Mitch - you're a pretty successful blogger. I can never seem to get mine over that 5 hit a day plateau. What's the secret?

Well, I'll tell you.

I woke up this morning, as usual, around 5:30ish. No ideas. Nothing in the "Draft" folder worth finishing. Zip. Bupkis.

And after 30 months, I've learned one thing; the one cure for blogger's block is to write stuff. Even if it's krep ("Ken JENNINGS? What the...?).

So I sat down and I trolled the usual spots - the PiPress, the Strib, Memeorandum and ground out five or six pieces; not that any of them are any good, but they're out there.

I don't know if that sort of thing makes anyone a better blogger. You be the judge (as always).

But it sure does take the intimidation out of blogger's block.

Call it a self-imposed Stockholm Syndrome.

Well By Law

Apparently Joe Soucheray has infiltrated the Kerry inner circle:

"And I intend to have not just a Department of Health and Human Services, but a Department of Wellness."

Note to all bloggers: Please please please repeat this as widely as possible.

Chris Suellentrop - the Slate writer who penned the piece - continued:

Again, what? Apparently this idea comes from Teresa Heinz Kerry, who told the Boston Herald in January 2003 that she would, in the Herald's words, "be an activist first lady, lobbying for a Department of Wellness that would stress preventive health." Oh, boy. Preventive health is a fine idea, but do we need a new agency - I assume it's not Cabinet-level - to handle it?

Note to the Kerry campaign; depression is a problem. Consider a Department of Happiness.

I Hadn't Seen This One...

Via Wog - who you should be reading, by the way.

The End of Pax Colemania

For 11 years - since former Democrat Norm Coleman was first elected mayor - the St. Paul city government has held off on tax increases. Coleman, and his conservative Democrat successor Randy Kelly, have managed to veto or fight off every successive DFL attempt to hike taxes.

But now that Kelly has broken ranks with the DFL - the big rank, by endorsing George W. Bush for president - the Kathleen Soliah wing of the St. Paul DFL has got to react.

And they are.

The PiPress notes:

St. Paul should raise an additional $1 million from property owners next year, the City Council said Wednesday, as it threatened to end an 11-year streak of flat taxes.

"It's an extremely modest proposal," said 4th Ward City Council Member Jay Benanav. "It really only addresses public safety, kids and seniors. I think this 2 percent increase is extremely modest. … Anything less doesn't provide our citizens with the public safety or recreational services they need."

Read between the lines.

Randy Kelly is an East Side DFLer - read "Union Guy".

Jay Benanav - my "representative" at the City Council in the same sense that Betty McCollum, Ellen Anderson and Mark Dayton are, a man so far to the left he'd embarass Paul Wellstone - represents the preening, Volvo-driving, Kathleen-Soliah-supporting, "No Blood for Oil", male-ponytail-wearing, Highland Park wing of the DFL.

This proposed tax hike is a payoff to the St. Paul public employees unions to break ranks with Mayor Kelly.

He was joined by Council Members Dave Thune, Lee Helgen and Kathy Lantry in a narrow 4-3 vote to set a maximum $53,389,883 levy for the city. It is the first — but not final — step toward a historic tax increase.

But the main hurdle will remain high: Mayor Randy Kelly vowed again Wednesday to veto the hike, and the council clearly does not have enough votes to override Kelly next week, the legal deadline for setting local taxes.

And Benanav, Helgen, Thune and Lantry know it, and knew it all along.

Expect to see "Fire trucks, kids and the elderly" used a a cudgel over Kelly's head all autumn, as the DFL tries to exact its pound of flesh for Kelly's apostasy.

And look for Kelly to hang tight, and work to bring out the people he must be banking on - St. Paul's influx of non-union, younger, non-government-employed residents, and the Asian immigrant community, which is traditionally DFL but certainly a candidate for conversion.

Will it be enough to keep Kelly in the mayor's office?

Well, if I have anything to say about it it will.

"A property tax increase is absolutely unnecessary," Kelly said at a briefing after the council vote. "We increase revenue in the '05 budget, which is enough to meet the public priorities without raising property taxes."

But There's No Bias

Spoons asks a great question:

Ever see an anonymous source from the Clinton Administration -- or from the Kerry campaign, for that matter -- identified like this?

... "It's not a fear of the format," said the adviser, who refused to be identified to avoid annoying Bush.

Look for more and more of the supposed basic tenets of American journalism - fairness, balance, detachment - to fall by the wayside as we get closer to the election.

And There Was Rejoicing

Ken Jennings deposed in a bloodless coup?

We don't know:

A report posted Wednesday on TV Week's Web site said the brainy software engineer lost in a show taped Tuesday, walking away after his 75th straight game with about $2.5 million overall in cash and prizes. The magazine cited unidentified sources and said the show would air later this fall.

Now we can work on this "Richard from Survivor" person.

The Sound Of A Dog Not Hunting

Bush racked up enough points to qualify for his full hitch of Air National Guard service.

Not bad for a deserter, huh?

Byron York has gone over the numbers:

Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

So in other words, Michael Moore is wrong?

According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

So do the math: 1142 points (I'm adding in my head, give me a break) divided by fifty is...

...a pretty serious Guard career.

That brings the story to May 1972 - the time that has been the focus of so many news reports - when Bush "deserted" (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went "AWOL" (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren't unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

So - where does that "Bush was a deserter" bit fit in here?

Posted by Mitch at 05:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Chips Off The Block

As part of my radio career, I spent about a year doing voice-over work. It was my full-time income for a while - which isn't to imply that I was a big voice-over guy so much as a reflection of how low my bills were when I was 25.

I developed a fairly sharp ear for voices; I got to know some of the bigger names in local voice-over work, and learned to tell their voices apart from all the others on the dozens of commercials I'd hear daily on the radio and TV.

And over the last dozen or so years, while watching TV or listening to the radio with the kids, I'd toss in little things; "Did you notice how Bart Simpson and Chucky Finster have the same voice?" They'd wrinkle their eyebrows and give me that "Jeez, what a nerd you are" look, and go back to watching.

But more and more lately, I'll hear it: "Dad! Meg Griffin and the girl from That Seventies Show are the same person!"

I'm not sure whether to be proud or scared...

Someone Taping This?

Madeleine Albright is on Today, listed as a "Kerry Advisor".

The interview, with Katie Couric...

...oh, words fail. If the content of this interview could be publicized, it'd be the best Bush ad since the third Swifty spot.

Did you know that if we'd followed John Kerry's advice in the months leading up to the war, things'd be in great shape, and we wouldn't be observing the thousandth death in action?

Sorry, folks. If Kerry were in charge in Iraq today, our troops would be fighting the fedayin one day and Portuguese the next. And some of our troops would be talking about double-dog secret missions into Iran...

Russian Responses

This fascinating piece from Belmont Club explains much about hamfistedness of the Russian response to the Beslan massacre - and offers some clues as to why Kerry's promises of internationalization of the war on terror are hollow.

Here's the best section of this excellent piece:

When President Bush stopped to consider his response to September 11, he had a range of options available only to a nation as unimaginably powerful as the United States of America. Japanese newspapers reported that President Bush was offered the nuclear option immediately after the attack, probably as an extreme in a range that included filing a diplomatic protest on the opposite end of the spectrum, which he rejected, choosing instead to do what no other country could do: take down the state sponsors of terrorism and pursue the terrorists to the four corners of the earth. America's unmatched power allowed President Bush to select the most humane course of war available. No European power, nor all of them put together, could have embarked on such a precise campaign for lack of means. It was a rich man's strategy, a guerre de luxe.

But no one who has seen the rags and hodgepodge of equipment issued to the Russian Special Forces can entertain any illusion that Vladimir Putin can go around launching raids with hi-tech helicopters, or follow around perps with robotic drones before firing, or use satellite-guided bombs to wipe out enemy safe houses that have been seeded with RFID chips. Nor will those detained by Russia gain weight the way detainees have done at the "inhuman" Gitmo prison. That's an American way of war which even Europeans can only regard with envy. The poor must respond with less. When the Nepalese saw the video of their 12 compatriots executed by terrorists in Iraq, they did what you could do with a box of matches: they burned the mosque in Kathmandu. To paraphrase Crosby, Stills and Nash, 'if you can't hit the one you should then hit the one you're with'.

When the ignorant likes of Kerry and Dean play to the ignorant (about defense) likes of their supporters, talking about "internationalizing" the conflict, it's stories like this that show how very, very wrong they are.

Because Europe's militaries aren't a whole lot better-trained and better-equipped than the Russians' (and the Russian special forces have always had a fairly decent reputation). Outside the British - who've managed to maintain the excellence of their military despite draconian budget cuts since the end of the Cold War - most European militaries are shells of their former selves. The once-superb German military is basically a peace corps with guns.

To the Kerry mindset, it'd seem that anyone with a gun is equal. It's just not so.

"T" is for "Blogs Beginning with T"

Almost done...

t a c i t u s - Anarchic, usually-excellent groupblog.

The American Mind - Sean Hackbarth's blog - one of a zillion well-written blogs by sharp guys that I blogroll, and an excellent one.

the dissident frogman - Wonderfully satirical and, yes, dissident French blog.

The Spoons Experience - Wondefully, caustic conservative blog.

Tony Pierce - Not just a blog. It's an adventure.

TwinsGeek - The best baseball blog ever - even if it's been absorbed by the Twins.

Through the Grace of McCain Feingold

If you're a 527 organization, you are supposed to stop with the radio and TV ads now; the election is less than 60 days off.

Of course, there are loopholes:

printed communication, direct mail, voter guides, or the Internet

It's here I'll note that blogads on Shot In The Dark are both reasonably priced and exempt from McCain-Feingold restrictions.

Here's the money involved with 527s, courtesy of Command Post

Committee	Receipts	Expenditures	% Spent	Remaining
Service Employees International Union	$16,652,296	$8,808,017	52.9%	$7,844,279
Joint Victory Campaign 2004 *	$41,685,706	$35,780,404	85.8%	$5,905,302
America Coming Together	$26,905,450	$24,196,532	89.9%	$2,708,918
Sierra Club	$3,440,782	$830,871	24.1%	$2,609,911
League of Conservation Voters	$2,804,000	$541,882	19.3%	$2,262,118
Progress for America	$2,266,810	$689,560	30.4%	$1,577,250
Coalition to Defend the American Dream	$1,425,381	$101,507	7.1%	$1,323,874
Democratic Victory 2004	$1,302,600	$0	0.0%	$1,302,600
Voices For Working Families	$3,668,280	$2,396,272	65.3%	$1,272,008
Media Fund	$28,127,488	$27,208,905	96.7%	$918,583
America Votes	$1,937,036	$1,176,590	60.7%	$760,446
Democrats 2000	$705,145	$56,342	8.0%	$648,803
Floridians Uniting for a Stronger Tmrw	$606,049	$28,683	4.7%	$577,366
United Auto Workers	$1,050,469	$542,182	51.6%	$508,287
Natural Resources Defense Council	$782,500	$277,897	35.5%	$504,603
Democratic Attorneys General Assn	$1,000,009	$527,827	52.8%	$472,182
Music for America	$1,550,200	$1,096,671	70.7%	$453,529
United Food & Commercial Workers Union	$780,518	$370,306	47.4%	$410,212
American Dental Assn	$730,499	$335,732	46.0%	$394,767
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees	$13,658,207	$13,274,331	97.2%	$383,876
Democratic Legislative Campaign Cmte	$3,544,667	$3,205,115	90.4%	$339,552
Communications Workers of America	$2,263,913	$1,926,066	85.1%	$337,847
Grassroots Democrats	$1,445,528	$1,137,544	78.7%	$307,984
American Federation of Teachers	$606,299	$322,945	53.3%	$283,354
Partnership for America’s Families	$3,071,211	$2,855,110	93.0%	$216,101
New Democrat Network	$7,172,693	$6,970,070	97.2%	$202,623
Ironworkers Union	$695,742	$511,631	73.5%	$184,111
National Assn of Realtors	$1,450,000	$1,306,711	90.1%	$143,289
AFL-CIO	$4,109,799	$4,002,600	97.4%	$107,199
EMILY’s List	$4,162,226	$4,070,369	97.8%	$91,857
Florida House Victory	$666,550	$585,434	87.8%	$81,116
Environment 2004	$645,921	$629,190	97.4%	$16,731
Americans for Jobs, Healthcare & Values	$1,000,000	$994,137	99.4%	$5,863
Americans for Progress & Opportunity	$1,306,092	$1,305,667	100.0%	$425
Arkansans for the 21st Century	$1,023,949	$1,024,812	100.1%	($863)
Alliance for Florida’s Future	$647,443	$648,493	100.2%	($1,050)
Conservation Strategies	$500,010	$513,096	102.6%	($13,086)
Republican Leadership Council	$743,303	$765,596	103.0%	($22,293)
Hotel/Restaurant Employees Intl Union	$1,403,387	$1,493,772	106.4%	($90,385)
Sheet Metal Workers Union	$995,305	$1,288,677	129.5%	($293,372)
Laborers Union	$2,163,448	$2,459,716	113.7%	($296,268)
GOPAC	$841,849	$1,243,622	147.7%	($401,773)
College Republican National Cmte	$3,647,093	$4,789,820	131.3%	($1,142,727)
Carpenters & Joiners Union	$738,718	$1,917,054	259.5%	($1,178,336)
Club for Growth	$5,538,847	$6,755,054	122.0%	($1,216,207)
National Federation of Republican Women	$558,019	$1,848,856	331.3%	($1,290,837)
National Education Assn	$821,831	$3,505,627	426.6%	($2,683,796)
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers	$723,121	$3,613,709	499.7%	($2,890,588)
MoveOn.org	$9,086,102	$17,435,782	191.9%	($8,349,680)

Find your favorites.

Human Nature

From The
Unsealed Room, via Red, this reminder that the worst in some people swine brings out the best in some victims people:

Like Korzchak, Kanidis didn’t
just accompany his students, he guarded their lives. On Friday, when the children began to lose consciousness from the stuffy air and their thirst, Yanis went to the terrorists. “You have to give them something to drink, at least to the smallest children,� he insisted angrily. One of the terrorists hit him with the butt of his rifle, but the teacher continued to yell: “How dare you!? You claim you are people of the Kafkaz region, but here in the Kafkaz even a dog wouldn’t turn down the request of an old man!�

His efforts bore fruit. The terrorist allowed the teacher to wet one of the bibs of the children and pass it around to dampen the mouths
of the little ones who were choking from thirst.

The hostages who escaped told how the teacher repeatedly risked his own life in order to save the children. He moved explosive devices that the terrorists had placed near the young students, and tried to prevent them from detonating others. When the first bomb exploded next to the windows of the school, parents and children began to run out. The terrorists, trying to prevent their escape, threw a grenade at them. The elderly teacher ran to the grenade to prevent it from exploding on the children. One of the terrorists shot at the teacher to try to stop him and Yanis was wounded in the shoulder ­ but didn’t give up. With the laast of his strength, he continued to run, jumped on the grenade, covering it with his body. The grenade exploded, and the body of the teacher absorbed the explosion, protecting the children around him from injury.

Read it all, naturally.These stories are always, at best, bittersweet; this man, a hero and truly a moral giant, died - and yet the catastrophe happened.

It reminds me that the genuinely naive in this world depend on the goodness of people like Mr. Kanidis rising to the highest levels of human goverments. It doesn't happen.

The most genuinely irritating bumper sticker I routinely see on the backs of Volvos in Highland Park:

You Cannot Simultaneously Prepare for Peace and WarAlbert Einstein

In truth, the quote should read "Preparing for peace without preparing to defend and enforce that peace is meaningless and futile".

Live from New York

I liked this bit from Rocketman's convention
wrapup:

I took a taxi from the Garden to where I'm staying, and the cab driver, who at least professed to be a Bush fan, had the radio tuned to a station that claimed to be the number one news station in New York. Riding in the cab, I listened to a grotesque example of media bias. There was a brief news report on the President's speech, which included an excerpt that lasted perhaps 15 seconds. The report then transitioned into an account of Kerry and Edwards campaigning in Ohio. The station played Edwards' speech--it may have been live, I'm not sure--in what appeared to be its entirety. It went on for at least 15 minutes, and Edwards was still blasting away at Bush when I finally, with great relief, jumped out of the cab. No wonder so many New Yorkers are Democrats.

I've always wondered how, in the capital of the world's free markets, so many eople can be so Democrat.

But it makes sense, really. While NYC is the capital of the state of Free Enterprise, it's impossible to jam 12 million people into such a relatively tiny space without mindbendingly-massive infrastructure - and massive infrastructure pretty much means "big government". Life itself depends on government in New York; it becomes an organism that must be fed, cared for, and supported, or the city will fall to pieces (faster) around them. Stronger government - Giuliani - means the city is more livable, while weaker government - Dinkins - means life is more difficult. Existence itself is tied to government - which is exactly parallel to life in the Democrat party itself.

But the news media can only do so much. There was a cartoon in this morning's New York Post, which I haven't been able to find online. It depicted a big, tough-looking elephant marching along, leaving deep footprints. The elephant was labeled "GOP convention." John Kerry was lying crushed and dazed inside one of the footprints. With appropriate margin for hyperbole, that sums up my view of the convention pretty well.

We can only hope.

But if Rocket Man is feeling better about things, that's a good start.

"S" Is for "See? Almost got through the alphabet..."

Lots and lots of "S" blogs.

So get to it!

Schmaltz und Grieben - So many reasons I blogroll this; it's the most-improved blog I know of, anywhere in the blogosphere; Alois was reading me long before anyone else was; it's always a good read. They are, inexplicably, proud of being the only "backwards blog" out there (their stories start with the oldest and scroll down to the most recent); it's an innovation whose time has not yet come.

Scrappleface - Funnier than The Onion, consistently - and still, even through the satire, a better political analyst than 99.47% of the blogosphere. A treasure.

Sergeant Stryker - A great group milblog.

Shark Blog - Another of my "Sharp Guys With Good Political Blogs" blogs. And just as good as the others!

Sheila A-Stray's Redheaded Ramblings - Red is like a manic, female Lileks, only instead of expending energy on weekly changes in page layout or scanning matchbook covers, she just...writes. Any of her many obsessions will draw a weekday onslaught of dozens of long, exquisitely-detailed posts in an impossibly short time; Cary Grant, Lucy Maud Montgomery, her commonplace book, the letters between the Adamses - who knows what the new day will bring? She must go through three keyboards a year. Endlessly fascinating.

South Dakota Politics - One of the sharpest political blogs there is, anywhere. The big blog dog covering the biggest Senate race of the year, Daschle versus Thune.

Stephen Silver - Eclectic, funny, and - although he might rankle at the description - probably the best lefty blog I have read lately.

Steve Gigl - Another entry i the Sharp Guy with a Good Blog category. Steve is mostly local, though, which is even better.

Swing Voter Weblog - Formerly "Smart Genes", now "Swing Voter Weblog". Rick Heller is a terrific writer, a stated moderate (he's behind the "Centerfield" blog, which see) and was one of the first people to blogroll "Shot In The Dark".

I'm Glad...

...that I'm not the only guy to whom this idea came to mind:

I got to thinking about how much John Kerry reminds me of the M*A*S*H character Frank Burns. Follow me on this:

• Sure working at a MASH unit was dangerous but the only character I could see putting himself up for medals would be Frank Burns
• Ferret face
• Couldn't you see Frank talking up his service while at ther same time describing his comrades as "sicko animals"?
• Couldn't you see Frank exagerating his service exploits and then threatening to sue anyone who told a differing story?

Somehow I don't feel so bad...

...although for my money the comparisons with Cliff Clavin.

Like Cliff, if reality isn't attractive enough he's seemingly not above making up a better one.

And while he doesn't exactly live with his mother like Clavin did, he does seem to have spent his entire life hanging onto the apron strings (and checkbook) of older, wealthier women.

Evil

Few do outraged photoblogs better than Jay Reding.

His piece on Beslan is as good as any:

There are those who want to argue that we’re no better than they are. There are those who want to argue bullshit like “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.”

Bullshit.

Who’s freedom did the children of Beslan die for? The freedom for al-Qaeda to rape, murder, pillage and oppress. They day people start forgetting the difference between freedom and tyranny, good and evil, right and wrong, is the day tyranny, evil, and wrong begin to reign free.

Just look at Beslan.

What he said.

Or close your eyes, pretend it's not what it is - an all-out war against the infidel world

Step Off The Duke

The comparisons between Kerry and Dukakis bother me on two counts.

First: I don't think it's inconceivable that this past weekend's polling isn't being ginned to create overconfidence and complacency among Republicans. I have nothing to base that on, I just never trust pollsters, and nothing is beneath the major media in their attempt to elect Kerry in this election.

Overheated conspiracy theories aside, though, the comparisons bother me for another reason; Dukakis wasn't a bad person. Like Paul Wellstone, he was a person of principles so intense they caused visible pain when speaking.

Roger L. Simon puts it better:

Dukakis, whatever his (considerable) deficiencies as a candidate, was a man who usually tried to fight for his principles, whether you agreed with them or not...

Kerry is the opposite. He has never seemed committed to any issue. That goes back to the days when he supposedly was against the war in Vietnam and then volunteered to fight in it (the only one I knew of at Yale then to do such a thing - we all assumed it was resume padding for future electoral battles and we were right). And now he brags about his heroism in that same war after coming back to oppose it vehemently. No wonder Clinton is advising him to shut up. I'd advise him to resign. To have a man with this lack of values in the White House in this era is terrifying.

Leave Michael Dukakis alone. He's been the butt of enough jokes. He's teaching government now (at UCLA and elsewhere) and I'm told by a friend who would know he is an excellent professor. Good for him.

Maybe we should put it this way to the new "JFK": I knew Michael Dukakis. And you, sir, are no Michael Dukakis!Wouldn't that be the political epitaph from hell?

That "Scree Scree" Sound You Get When the Wheels Are Coming Off

K-Lo reports on a disastrous Kerry Rally in Ohio.

(Via Jay Reding

The story - of a rally gone terribly awry in traditionally-Democrat Steubenville, Ohio, is one of really, really bad planning on the Kerry Kampaign's part.

And timing...:

….The Kerry campaign not only made a mistake in their timing, but they also chose to hold the rally in a public park which should be open to all the public. Mistake number three. The police chief, sheriff, and mayor all agreed with me that protesters and their signs would be allowed inside the Kerry rally site. Freedom of speech is alive and well here in Ohio. The Kerry campaign flipped out!

So, now add another 500 local Bush supporters to the Kerry rally. They tried to turn up the music but they could not drown us out. According to the Herald Star (local press), "The crowd, estimated by officials as 3,500 strong, was almost split in half with people for and against the Massachusetts senator." John Kerry must know he has a problem when over 15% of his audience was booing him. We were respectful and did not heckle him - but upon arrival and when he sought our applause he got something he didn't expect. As the press arrived a feisty nine year old little girl began shouting, "We want Bush!", and we all chanted along. The campaign staff was beside themselves. This is history in the making! Even places like Steubenville are not supporting John Kerry. He is in serious trouble.

Read the whole piece.

Freedom of Religion

An extremist Moslem cleric in Britain has endorsed the targeting of women and children:

Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect al-Muhajiroun, said that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course of action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule.

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Mohammed said: "If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq.

"As long as the Iraqi did not deliberately kill women and children, and they were killed in the crossfire, that would be okay."

And y'know what? That's fine.

No, not the targeting of children; if Islam truly is the "relgion of peace", Allah should have a special circle of hell reserved for the likes of Mr. Bakri and the hopefully-painfully-expired terrorists in Ossetia.

No, it's good that he's coming out in the open about this belief.

Every Mosque in the world should follow suit - either embrace the evil we saw this past week, or condemn it.

Mosques and Islamic organizations in the US - all of them, at least the ones that haven't spoken already - should lead the way. Their freedom to worship is guaranteed, as it should be; but they should make their beliefs on terror, the war, and the mass-murder of innocents very, very clearly known.

What are they saying about this?

"P" is for "P Comes Before R. Got It"

That'll teach me to blog at 3AM.

Pair 'o Dice - If there was ever a guy who needed to do a blog, Tom Swift - perpetual St. Paul GOP gadfly and bane of the St. Paul school board - was him. And now he is! After years of fencing with the "E-Democracy" bureaucracy, it's about time.

Patriette - Like Rachel Lucas, only never seems to use the term "assclown", which is a good thing. And she moved from Texas to Minnesota, which is even better!

Pejmanesque - - One of my favorite analysis sites.

Plastic Hallway - Excellent new Minnesota blog by frequent NARN contributor Chumley Wonderbar.

PolicyGuy - Devoid of hyperbole, John LaPlante's blog is an excellent read for a lot of the subjects that aren't...well, hyperbolic enough for most blogs to cover. Always a fascinating read.

Priorities and Frivolities - Bob Tagorda's blog, one of the most reliably interesting and astute analysis sites there is.

"R" is for "Really - Check 'em Out"

The blogrollcall continues after a long weekend.

Rambling Rhodes - I've gone around and around, trying to figure out the best way to describe Ryan Rhodes' site. "Wonderfully warped" is the best I've been able to do so far. Lame, I know. You try to do better.

rphaedrus - On a (hopefully-brief) hiatus at the moment - and still the best blog the left in the Twin Cities has to offer.

You Be The Judge

This:

Or this:

We Weren't The Only Ones

At the Minnesota State Fair this last few days, we were astounded by the numbers.

Not just the numbers of people - in fact, our little corner of the fair, on Judson by the International Bazaar, was actually kind of a calm backwater, compared to the Midway or Dan Patch Avenue.

But the numbers we noticed were the buttons, T-shirts, caps and bags with logos for the various presidential campaigns.

Our poll was completely unscientific, of course - but we saw at least five or six pieces of Bush/Cheney paraphernalia for each piece of Kerry/Edwards swag.

Is that because we were at the Patriot booth? Maybe to some extent; certainly the audience that gathered around the Patriot studio was largely there because they agreed with our message.

But we were counting people walking by at random on Judson, too - and there's no reason to think they were skewed toward one party or another. They were random passers-by...

...and they were overwhelmingly wearing Bush/Cheney gear.

I'm not the only one noticing, of course. Lori Sturdevant writes (emphasis mine):

"The DFL booth has the best crowds I've seen in a lot of years," [U of M Poli Sci prof and everyone's local political expert D. J.] Leary said as moms pulling kids in wagons and elderly people pushing walkers entered from several sides. "There have been years when this booth might have been surrounded by crime scene tape, for all the interest it drew.

"I tell my DFL friends, that's the good news. The bad news is, the crowd at the Republican booth is just as big."

On Carnes Avenue, people were filing into the small, narrow GOP booth as steadily as if it were a cheese curd stand, and leaving with lots of Bush/ Cheney buttons on their shirts and in their hands.

A few streets away, a smaller crowd cooled off -- or, depending on their predilection, heated up -- by watching anti-John Kerry attack ads in the Republican National Committee's 18-wheeler, Reggie the Registration Rig.

If one counts the pro-Bush display at the Minnesota Taxpayers League's Grandstand table, the president's reelection effort is a State Fair triple threat. The polls might still show Kerry with a small lead in this state. But by my fair reckoning, he has some catching up to do.

So it's not just me.

Both booths were crowded, indeed. And here I'm going to swerve into my own observations; while the DFL booth was busy both times I walked through, the people seemed to be regulars; I didn't get the impression that there were lots of new faces in the booth. Besides me.

The GOP booth felt like it had an energy about it; people had a spring in their step, an optimism in the air that seemed (to my admittedly-biased ears) lacking in the DFL booth.

Speaking of things that I wasn't the only one to notice - it was fascinating to see Safire arrive at this conclusion (again, I'm adding the emphasis):

The Labor Day Bush trend (which could, by the nature of swing voting, be reversible) has Democratic politicians between dismay and panic. As usual, they are crying foul at a veterans group's answer to Kerry's blunder of running on his Vietnam war and anti-war record. As insiders shake up the staff, outsiders pre-emptively lay the basis for post-election excuses, positioning themselves for embittered told-you-so's.

Too Clean?

Susan Estrich whines that Democrats - the party of Begala and Carvile - need to start playing dirty:

What their records suggest is not only a serious problem with alcoholism, which Bush but not Cheney has acknowledged, but also an even more serious problem of judgment. Could Dick Cheney get a license to drive a school bus with his record of drunken driving? (I can see the ad now.) A job at a nuclear power plant? Is any alcoholic ever really cured? So why put him in the most stressful job in the world, with a war going south, a thousand Americans already dead and control of weapons capable of destroying the world at his fingertips.

It has been said that in the worst of times, Kissinger gave orders to the military not to obey Nixon if he ordered a first strike. What if Bush were to fall off the wagon? Then what? Has America really faced the fact that we have an alcoholic as our president?

In the meantime, Kevin Drum moans:

or all the hatred of Bush among liberals, we still aren't as dedicated to our cause as conservatives are to theirs. After all, they're dedicated enough to figure that fighting fair is just a sign of weakness. For better or worse, we're not quite there yet.

I dunno. Maybe the Dems' problem is an excessively rosy self-image.

Professor Bainbridge starts the catalog:

• A Democrat Congressman says the Bush administration is taking America "into a snake pit of fascism."
  
• Getting former astronaut and Democrat Senator John Glenn to trot out the Hitler comparison.
• Three liberal protestors tried to disrupt Bush's convention speech (funny, I didn't see any conservatives trying to disrupt Kerry's speech to the DNC convention).
• Liberal protestors who tie up city streets and inconvenience people just so they can satisfy their narcissistic jones.
• A featured speaker at a NOW rally says Bush "savagely raped " women "over and over."
• Zillionaires like George Soros trying to buy the election for Kerry through the 527 loophole, of which Democrats have made far greater use than the GOP.
• Unions using members' dues to fund political activities that almost uniformly support Democrats.
• When a state police union bucks the tide by considering supporting Bush, Democrat legislators threaten retaliation.
• Democrat operatives working overtime to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot, thus besmirching the very name of their party.
• The Democrat's media allies planning a 60 Minutes smear of Bush's National Guard service.
• Kitty Kelley's book smearing Bush that will be released as a last-minute October surprise.
• Michael Moore's fantasies turned into a feature-length campaign ad.
• Bruce Springsteen getting around campaign finance laws by organizing an anti-Bush concert.
• Free advertising for the left at nearly every Hollywood awards show where one or more acceptance speechs attack Bush.
• The incredible media bias towards Democrats, which Newsweek editor Evan Thomas says is worth "maybe 15 points" for Kerry.

If this is fighting fair, I'd hate to see what happens when the left decides to be unfair by their own lights.

Steve Taylor adds:

What I find especially remarkable is that the “attacks” that have some Democrats frothing are not based on some personal likening of John Kerry to brutal dictators, but rather to his Senate record and the fact that he has a habit of being on more than one side of an issue. If chanting “flip flop” hurts Kerry’s feelings, then perhaps he isn’t cut out for the high-pressure job of President of the United States.

The main area that I can understand the anger on the part of the Democrats is that of the Swift Boat ads (at least the first one). The attack on the medals is harsh and difficult to prove, and is a clear attack on Kerry’s charater and veracity without the needed clear-cut evidence needed to back such charges. Now, the second commercial is factually accurate, so if the Kerry campaign can’t handle the truth, well, you know the line.

Taylor also has a laundry list:

• Al Gore accussed the President of “betraying this country” (rather strong words, since the penalty for treason is death–and what could be worse for a President to do than to betray the country?).
• Senator Kennedy called the war a fraud “made up in Texas” and fraud.
• Judge Calabresi of the 2nd Circuit likened Bush to both Hitler and Mussolini (he did later apologize).
• Andrew Greeley likened the Bush administration to Hitler’s in the 1930s.
• Of course, there’s the MoveOn.org ad comparing Bush to Hitler.
• Here’s a long list of ‘Bush = Hitler’ Allusions.
• Update: Here’re two more: Michael Moore refered to Bush as a “deserter” in front of Wes Clark withou repudiation from Clark.
• Update: DNC National Chair Terry McAuliffe accussed the Presient of being “AWOL” during his Air National Guard Service.

There are more - many more - of course:

• The left's last-minute dropping of a decades-old DWI charge, which may have cost the President a clear victory (if the polls leading up the election are to be believed).
• Bloated demi-human homunculus Larry Flynt's eternal threat to bring tons of dirt on Bush to the campaign, whatever that means.
• Locally, the incidents where thugs roughed up Republican activists last weekend at the MN State Fair. Quick - where are the Republicans roughing up the Democrats? Show us.
• The Democrats' eternal claim that Republican policies will throw old people into the street and close kids' schools (or the one we heard at the fair - that the GOP wants to gut the Americans with Disabities Act)
• The Democrat-controlled apparatus at the schools and the government employee unions essentially using their jobs as forums to spread scare stories about Republican budget policies to children and recipients of government services.
• Or this
• Or this, or this.
• Or this

The Dems are lying to themselves if they think they're the oppressed lilywhite crusaders for justice..

Christmas Purchasing Plans?

Chumley's got an idea for you.

Blogger Bash II

After today's NARN broadcast, the NARN hosted a blogger get-together at the International Bazaar Beer Garden at the State Fair.

The turnout, as expected, was lower than the last one - it was the fair, dangit! - but we still had a great time, and met some fascinating people.

Jo from Jo's Attic has a picture with most of the participants.

Til next time (and there will be a next time!)

Chumely has photos of our interview with Norm Coleman.

What a kick.

Boing

Bush's numbers get the bounce that was was declared a thing of the past after the bounce-free Democrat convention, according to Time. Chuck at Big Mouth puts the numbers in a convenient table.

How is the blogging left - which seems to have been obsessing over polls for the last six months - reacting?

It's only one poll, but this is definitely bad news for John Kerry: Time has Bush up 52% to 41%. Ouch.

Oliver Willis, who has thankfully dropped his "Like Kryptonite to Stupid" tagline, and who would seem to have learned to be careful at parroting DNC spin, as we see below:

Looks like Bush is getting a pretty good convention bounce, up 52-41 in this new Time poll (and probably others that will follow). Then again, if getting that kind of boost requires booing the health of former presidents (UPDATE: Turns out this probably isn't true, I stand corrected -- still after this past week nothing would surprise me), I'll stay a Democrat.

It definitely wasn't true - listen to the audio.

Ann Althouse:

Yes, when Kerry got no bounce, the spin was: conventions don't really produce bounce anymore. So what can you say now? I predict: the Republicans did very bad things at the convention and thereby unfairly obtained the bounce that they got; if they had conducted an honorable convention, like the Democrats, there would have been no bounce.

And finally, the always-poll-obsessed Daiy Kos?

It'll be interesting to see what the RV's show. In the meantime, Zogby has Bush up by 3 in a similar time frame and also with likely voters. I refer you to the earlier thread, with relevent comments on LV vs RV. [Likely versus Registered Voter] Clearly, Time and Zogby use different LV models.

. More later.

Fair to Warm

The Northern Alliance will be live at the Fair again today and tomorrow.

Today - Senator Norm Coleman, Congressman Mark Kennedy, publican Terry Keegan, Parade of Bloggers,and of course the "Minnesota Organization of Bloggers" post-program production meeting at the International Bazaar beer garden, after the show.

More tomorrow!

Elder Saves the Day

I was invited to David Strom's Keynote party last night, but I had to cancel - I was sick as a dog.

Fortunarly, the Elder live-blogged the event.

Oh, Crap

The Ossetia School Siege is not turning out at all well:

News breaking just now that terrorists have set off explosives in the gymnasium where from 400 to 1,000 people have been held hostage by Chechen Islamic terrorists. The roof has collapsed, from demolitions charges maybe, probably on the children. Casualties -- there's an antiseptic word -- will be heavy. The terrorists will all be killed, but who gives a damn, they've done their dirty work. The good news is that some children and other people have escaped. These are small mercies. The tactical situation seems confused. A goat rope. Survivors are being taken out on stretchers. Kids almost naked.

If only the US wasn't so busy chasing around Iraq, we could have gotten Bin Laden. Right?

But wait - terrorist atrocities aren't always directly linked with Bin Laden?

Sickening. We have to win this thing.

In the Beginning, There Was The Plan

Yesterday, I wrote about the continuing, bottomless vapidity of Kerry's alleged foreign policy.

A few commenters responded.

"Jeff S." asked:

Mitch, ever consider that a plan to "win the peace" may have less to do with troops or battle? Must everything be framed in terms of military action for you?

No, and I didnt. Re-read the post.

Plans are like poop. Everyone can produce them. It's the ability to pick them up and do something useful with them that separates the wheat from the chaff.

Anyone can make a plan. The blogosphere has produced tens of thousands of plans for Iraq. I produced a few. Politicians do them all the time.

They say "talk is cheap". Plans are giveaways, like the little sample packets that grocery stores leave on your porch to get you to try them.

Everybody has a plan.

Planning is nothing. Implementation is everything.

Do you think there was a grand plan for Germany or Japan after WWII? Do you think anyone cared about "winning the peace?" Japan's constitution was written by Douglas MacArthur. The Marshall Plan wasn't hatched in 1943, carefully honed alongside Overlord, and thoroughly debated during the '44 campaign. It was a reaction - a pro-active one - to a difficult and unseen situation.

What war has had a plan for the peace?

World War I. Long before WWI ended, grave academics like Woodrow Wilson had a plan, the "Fourteen Points"; the Versailles treaty would so punish the belligerents of 1914 that no nation would ever want to follow suit; the League of Nations would make war obsolete.

We know how it worked.

Which isn't to say that making plans is irrelevant or totally useless; my last family vacation is evidence of that. Just that "having a plan" is the easy part. And making good plans for concrete tasks is vital - and, if you've worked in IT any time recently, very rare.

Jeff S. continues:

Besides, even if Kerry had no plans at all (a point I'm not convinced of yet), that's still far better than a guy insisting on following the wrong plans and ignoring those who have actually studied the problems.

So we don't know what Kerry's plan is, but Bush's is "the wrong one"?

So Kerry's nonexistant plan, before it's even rolled out and faced reality, is still better than Bush's reality - which, if you leave out the partisan rhetoric is actually pretty good, given the surprises it's faced?

Because repeating "things have gone wrong!" (and they have, and it's inevitable) doesn't mean the liberation of Iraq hasn't been a success. Most of the country is peaceful. Large parts of the Shi'ite south are fairly tranquil; the Kurdish north is safer than North Minneapolis (I'm exaggerating - or will be, until I can find stats to compare).

More importantly, dictators have been given something they never got when Clinton was in office; notice. Notice that they are being watched, and sized up for a quick, decisive demise. It's gotten to some of them; Gadaffhi has gotten out of the terror business; the Saudis and Pakistanis have gotten serious about wahabbism on their soil; and when was the last time you heard about India and Pakistan threatening nuclear war?

By any rational measure, the war on terror has been a success; we've gone three years without a significant attack on US interests anywhere outside Iraq, which is better than we did during the Clinton Administration (with the '93 WTC bombing, the Cole, the Khobar towers, the attempt on George "41" Bush, the Mogadishu incident, the Kenyan embassy bombings and, says Laurie Mylroie, the Oklahoma City bombing all linked to islamofascist terror, a ratio of a major terror attack per year).

More importantly, we've taken the offensive, a precondition to winning any war. I repeat this a lot in this space, because it's not just an important point, it's one that most Americans miss; it's not taught in history classes; it's not obvious from the sort of conflict that most Americans, in normal times, are most familiar with, the struggle between law and crime. The war on crime is by necessity defensive; in our society, people are innocent until proven guilty, and the legal system has procedures for moving from that presumption to that of guilt.

But you can not fight a war on the same lines and expect to win; letting a coherent, organized enemy set the agenda and determine the pace, the targets and the timing of the war is suicide (as it was for the Taliban and Hussein).

And I've seen no - none, zero - evidence that John Kerry understands this, or has a plan at all, much less one that doesn't involve responding to attacks rather than rooting out and destroying the attackers before they can act.

And that's not good enough.

At least with Kerry there is room for discovering a better path. I don't think Bush has any inclination to learn the roots of terrorism, it's all just Good v. Evil to him, a Manichean fantasy shared by the neocon wingnuts who have taken over the Republican party over the last few decades.

The roots of terror are obvious to anyone that's read Bernard Lewis. Islamic envy and rage over being left behind on the world stage; the hatred borne of being left behind; Wahabbism and the Klan of the 1870s through the 1930s are very much in parallel.

But dealing with those roots is necessarily the job of the governments in the area, most of which are noxious dictatorships that either foster Wahabbism, coexist with it, or whose hamfisted attempts to fight it have done no good.

In any case, the US' job isn't to serve as social engineers even at home; where's the mandate to engineer foreign societies?

Unless they attack us. Which Iraq and Afghanistan did.

Jeff F. responded to Jeff S.:

Quite frankly, I love that this is all about Kerry for the right.

That's one of the left's more comical conceits.

Yeah, the election's about beating, hopefully trouncing, Kerry. But in the real issue - the war that came to us - Kerry is a diversion.

George W. Bush has--let's all say it--a lousy record as President. The economy is in the tank. Unemployment is up (indeed, filings are up this week!) Iraq isn't exactly a quagmire, but Wolfie's lotus blossoms haven't materialized, and neither have all those tons of WMDs. And through it all, Bush has steadfastly stuck to his guns, whether or not his strategy is working.

Jeff Fecke is - let's all say it - wrong.

The President's record is lousy only among people who are "all saying" it, all the time. The economy is growing between 2-4%, and it's said the market is only holding back because of the threat of a Kerry win in November. As that threat hopefully recedes, things will get even better. Unemployment is down over the past year - and if you count non-wage income (America's millions of 1099 workers), job growth is looking much better (but the media never cover that).

So of course the right has to go after Kerry--because the only way they can win is to show he's worse than the guy in charge right now.

Um...yeah? There is the little matter of an election. Perhaps you've heard of it.

So Mitch--I'll turn the question on you. What is Bush's plan going forward? How is he going to change what he's doing to make our country more secure?

Why should he change anything?

He's doing the right thing, in the larger sense, already.

Will changes have to be made as we go along? Absolutely.

Because the important part is not having a plan. The important part is being able to pursue the plan, notice the realities that cause the plans to change, and change them in a way that keeps the plan pushing forward.

It's something Bush has done; imperfectly, with problems, some of them serious. Which is how the real world works.

Kerry has generated many, many plans in his career. He has not had to implement any of them against furious opposition (foreign armies!) over a multi-year period in real-world conditions.

Indeed - John Kerry's legislative legacy is nearly nonexistant! The man can't even get a significant bill passed!

He's supposed to fight a war?

Planning is easy. Real life is hard.

Not as hard as believing Kerry is up to this job, though.

Second Great Minnesota Blogger Get-Together

We at the Northern Alliance would like to remind you that if you're a blogger, or a blog fan, we'll be holding the Second Great Minnesota Blogger Get-Together, after this Saturday's NARN broadcast.

We'll meet at 3:30pm at the International Bazaar beer garden. The International Bazaar is the big cement building north of the Patriot booth on Judson Avenue, just south of the Space Needle.

Let us know if you're interested, in the comments section!

Why Can't Willie Do Civics?

Will Saletan states the obvious with a big side of whine.

He starts off with a bang:

The 2004 election is becoming a referendum on your right to hold the president accountable.

Right. Which is what it is every four years.

Someone could run on a platform of suspending the Constitution and installing and emperor. We could have a referendum on ending our experiment with democracy.

In Will Saletan's world, we probably are.

The case against President Bush is simple. He sold us his tax cuts as a boon for the economy, but more than three years later, he has driven the economy into the ground. He sold us a war in Iraq as a necessity to protect the United States against weapons of mass destruction, but after spending $200 billion and nearly 1,000 American lives, and after searching the country for more than a year, we've found no such weapons.

The economy is growing at a healthy clip - but it's in Saletan's interest to keep repeating that it's not. The war wasn't about WMDs (it was one of four justfications), and it never was - but again, it's in Saletan's interest to keep acting as if it was. It's the big lie, and it's pretty much all the left has these days.

Saletan continues:

When patriotism is impugned, the facts go out the window. You're not allowed to point out that Bush shifted the rationale for the Iraq war further and further from U.S. national security—from complicity in 9/11 to weapons of mass destruction to building democracy to relieving Iraqis of their dictator—without explaining why American troops and taxpayers should bear the burden. You're not allowed to point out that the longer a liberator stays, the more he looks like an occupier. You're not allowed to propose that the enormous postwar expenses Bush failed to budget for be covered by repealing his tax cuts for the wealthy instead of further indebting every American child.

"Not allowed to?"

And yet Saletan does exactly that!

If you dare to say these things, you're accused—as Kerry now stands accused by Cheney and Miller—of defaming America and refusing "to support American troops in combat." You're contrasted to a president who "is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America." You're derided, in Cheney's words, for trying to show al-Qaida "our softer side." Your Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts are no match for the vice president's five draft deferments.

I'm trying to remember - what's the Latin term for "non-sequitur?" I can't remember.

I've heard not one credible conservative dig at Kerry's patriotism; merely his voting record, his veracity, and the sanity of his policies.

Dissent does not make one "unpatriotic" - but patriotism does not make ones' policies sound, or ones' dissent cogent.

Kerry's policies - to the extent that he's revealed any - are not sound. His foreign policy at best cribs from Bush, and at worst is a disaster waiting to happen; wars are never won on the defensive, and Kerry's long-term ideal is purely defensive.

And even if Bush were wrong about everything else, the mere fact that he is all about taking the offensive against terrorism is reason enough to vote for him; it is the only issue that really matters.

But everything else isn't wrong - the tax cuts are working, they're not for the rich (I'm not rich, and they helped me), the economy is growing, unemployment is at 1996 levels and falling...

...and the only thing the left has to throw at the President is 35 year old medals and three-year-old economic tropes.

And a candidate that more and more is being marketed more as a victim than a leader - a victim of big, baaad Republicans and all that nasty information they have...

Hateful

Zell Miller's speech was indeed animated last night; John and Ed covered it well, read about it there.

However - is there anyone who seriously believes that the lefty media wasn't calling Miller's speech "hateful" even before Miller took the stage? That the "h" word wasn't in every dead-tree lede in the business ten minutes after Miller was announced as a speaker?

Remember - any lefty speaker can foam at the mouth and shoot blood from his or her eye sockets, and be called "animated" or "spirited". If a Republican - or worse, an apostate Democrat - shows any emotion at all, it's called "hate".

Pulled Into Nazareth...

...feeling 'bout half past dead.

Well, the half past dead part, anyway.

Left work early today with a raging headache, hurting all over. I consulted one of those online diagnostics sites. Near as I can tell, I have Dengue Fever.

Took a nap, and I'm a little better, but I have to go to two school open houses in the next two hours.

Notify JB Doubtless

Nothing is too wierd.

NARN New York Bureau

I just heard Captain Ed and Rocket Man on the Dennis Prager show.

I tried to call in, but Prager ended up missing the real story behind Ed and John - the fact that they almost singlehandedly drove the major media to the truth behind Kerry's excellent adventure, and they are case studies in how the blogosphere is outflanking the left's monopoly on the media.

Well, I'll get through next time.

Twice

Ed quotes Terry MacAuliffe on Kerry's alleged time in Cambodia:

Q: Does it bother you that the Democrats have nominated a candidate that told a fable about spending Christmas in Cambodia on the floor of the United States Senate?

A: John Kerry went to Cambodia twice. He was over in Viet Nam and at one point, as you know, he took some CIA operatives into Cambodia, and he did a lot more than George Bush ever did for his country. George Bush never got to Viet Nam.

Twice.

Oh, my.

That's very specific - not "a couple" or "several" times. Twice.

That must mean there were dates and times and places, all in equally-specific detail, as well. Right?

Specific dates and times and places where the US Navy SEALs and the CIA opted to eschew traditional means of infiltrating neutral countries - covert means, like parachutes, choppers and good old shoe leather - to opt for a hot-shot Yalie Lieutenant driving a boat that sounded like a large-block engine with glass-paks, and a silhouette like a small tract house.

I'm sure those dates and times will be forthcoming.

Won't they?

What Policy?

The lefties say "John Kerry has a foreign policy!".

"Prove it", say the right.

"Look," says the left, "He just gave a speech about it!

So let's take a look...

Kerry spoke Tuesday at the American Legion convention, and touched the global War on Terror.

Or...did he?

Kerry's problem so far, as re the War on Terror, is that his statements have been resolutely content-free.

In a sharply worded challenge to President Bush, Democratic Sen. John Kerry said Wednesday "extremism has gained momentum" as a result of administration missteps in Iraq, but said the war on terror is a winnable one with the right policies.

OK. And those "right policies" would be...what?

"When it comes to Iraq, it's not that I would have done one thing differently, I would have done almost everything differently" than the president, the presidential candidate said in a speech to the national convention of the American Legion.

Er, right, Senator Kerry.

So what would those things have been?

Kerry spoke dismissively of a statement Bush made Monday - then rescinded on Tuesday - that the war on terror might not be winnable.

"I absolutely disagree," he said. "With the right policies, this is a war we can win, this is a war we must win, and this is a war we will win." Kerry said. "... In the end, the terrorists will lose and we will win because the future does not belong to fear, it belongs to freedom."

Yes, Senator Kerry, but again, what are those
policies?

Forget the plural even - what is one of those policies?

Just one!

But wait - Kerry does start to get specific in a bit here:

He accused the administration of failing to keep faith with the nation's 36 million veterans by underfunding VA programs that leave thousands of former servicemen and women without adequate, timely health care and reduced retirement and disability payments.

"The job will be done when the government stops asking veterans for increased co-payments, enrollment fees and other charges to shift the burden of care to more veterans and drive more than a million veterans out of the system," he said.

Doh! He's talking about veteran's benefits - which are to fighting a war as welfare policy is to building an economy; only tangentially related. It's the sort of soft-focus, entitlement-related issue that Democrats can get into, make a lot of concerned noise about, and seem to be compassionate without actually dealing with any of the real problems facing the nation.

More on Iraq:

I would have made sure that every soldier put in
harm's way had the equipment and body armor they needed.

Well, that's a nice switch.

"And if there's one thing I learned from my service, I would never have gone to war without a plan to win the peace," he said.

Oy.

"Planning to Win the Peace" is the "no blood for oil!" of the spats and
frats set. One can never "plan to win the peace"; if no battle plan
survives its first contact with the enemy (and even in the supremely-successful 2003 campaign, the plan was in flux from day to day), then plans to "win the peace" are even more doomed; an enemy army reacts to a battle fairly predictably; a liberated people much less so.

And besides "consulting with allies" and making sure everyone has their flak jackets zipped up, what is Kerry's plan?

What?

More later.

"O" is for "Oy, What Blogs"

The blogrollcall marches on!

Our House - What must it be like in the home of Minnesota's most reviled political figure, David Strom? Pretty dang cool, according to Margaret Martin's pithy blog.

Outside The Beltway - Excellent political digest blog, from the right.

Medication Check

Powerline on the Franken Smackdown.

Wizbang has more.

Ditto Drudge.

The NARN's ongoing challenge to Franken still stands. Try to shout us down, lithpy boy.

At the fair. Judson Avenue, noon-three, Saturday and Sunday.

You can have Jim Boyd's seat.

'Nuff Said

Ed pretty well toasts Salon's hatchet job on the RNC Blog Patrol.

Money 'graf:

In short, Follman decided it would be more fun to take cheap shots at fifteen people who work hard to give their readers their personal take on the convention by ridiculing their story choices as unprofessional. Well, Mr. Follman, we aren't journalists in the sense that Salon.com hires -- we're bloggers, with a different if overlapping audience with such outlets as Salon itself. We weren't hired to be journalists, we were invited to blog the convention.

I have nothing to add...

...other than to note in passing the crushing irony of Salon dinging anyone for over-promising and under-delivering...

Simile of the Day

I have to think my dad, a former speech teacher, would love James' description of Ahnold's speech:

A good Arnold speech is not full of subtle rhetoric, cozening shifts in vocal tone, facial nuance. It’s like watching a strong man chop an oak tree: the last blow will be just like the first. (Except that after the last one, something falls on someone’s head.)

To Drive Your Enemies Before You...

Ahnold kicked donkey.

Favorite excepts:

To my fellow immigrants listening tonight, I want you to know how welcome you are in this party. We Republicans admire your ambition. We encourage your dreams. We believe in your future. One thing I learned about America is that if you work hard and play by the rules, this country is truly open to you. You can achieve anything.

Everything I have my career my success my family I owe to America. In this country, it doesn't make any difference where you were born. It doesn't make any difference who your parents were. It doesn't make any difference if, like me, you couldn't even speak English until you were in your twenties.

America gave me opportunities and my immigrant dreams came true. I want other people to get the same chances I did, the same opportunities. And I believe they can. That's why I believe in this country, that's why I believe in this party and that's why I believe in this President.

Smack.

The GOP needs to hammer this message hard. The Democrats treat immigrants like a pimp treats his stable.

Of course, he addresses the great GOP conundrum:

Now, many of you out there tonight are "Republican" like me in your hearts and in your beliefs. Maybe you're from Guatemala. Maybe you're from the Philippines. Maybe Europe or the Ivory Coast. Maybe you live in Ohio, Pennsylvania or New Mexico. And maybe just maybe you don't agree with this party on every single issue. I say to you tonight I believe that's not only okay, that's what's great about this country. Here we can respectfully disagree and still be patriotic still be American and still be good Republicans.

He then resolves the conundrum - at least well enough:

If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government...then you are a Republican! If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group... then you are a Republican! If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does... then you are a Republican! If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children ... then you are a Republican! If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world ... then you are a Republican! And, ladies and gentlemen ...if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism ... then you are a Republican!

He gave John Edwards exactly what he deserves:

Now, the other party says there are two Americas. Don't believe that either. I've visited our troops in Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Germany and all over the world. I've visited our troops in California, where they train before they go overseas. And I've visited our military hospitals. And I can tell you this: Our young men and women in uniform do not believe there are two Americas!

They believe we are one America and they are fighting for it! We are one America - and President Bush is defending it with all his heart and soul!

How about those foreign policy nuances?

He knows you don't reason with terrorists. You defeat them. He knows you can't reason with people blinded by hate. They hate the power of the individual. They hate the progress of women. They hate the religious freedom of others. They hate the liberating breeze of democracy. But ladies and gentlemen, their hate is no match for America's decency.

And the conclusion:

Let me tell you about the sacrifice and commitment I've seen firsthand. In one of the military hospitals I visited, I met a young guy who was in bad shape. He'd lost a leg had a hole in his stomach ... his shoulder had been shot through.

I could tell there was no way he could ever return to combat. But when I asked him, "When do you think you'll get out of the hospital?" He said, "Sir, in three weeks." And do you know what he said to me then? He said he was going to get a new leg ... and get some therapy ... and then he was going back to Iraq to serve alongside his buddies! He grinned at me and said, "Arnold ... I'll be back!"

Ladies and gentlemen, America is back! Back from the attack on our homeland - back from the attack on our economy, back from the attack on our way of life. We're back because of the perseverance, character and leadership of the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Is he the Austrian Reagan? If you leave out policy, maybe.

And what does it matter? It was a great speech.

Kerry'd best not be too complacent about California.

Rudy Didn't Fail

Matt Yglesias gets a fair amount of respect from conservative bloggers.

He's frequently called "one of the good ones".

As this piece shows, it's all relative.

He starts out all right:

As the mayor of a large city, one that had been the target of terrorist attacks before, Giuliani does have some experience with homeland security. But it's not a very good record.

After the 1993 bombing attack on the World Trade Center, Giuliani decided that the city needed an emergency-management-command center and so he had one built -- in the World Trade Center. Critics suggested that locating the facility in a building that was likely to come under attack wasn't a very good idea. [Those critics. Aren't they always right, in retrospect? - Ed.] The critics were right. The heroic work and sacrifice of so many members of New York's police and fire departments is made all the more poignant by the knowledge that they weren't even properly equipped for the mission with, for example, interoperable communications systems that would have let them coordinate their work. How much blame can we heap on Giuliani for these failings? Some, though he was no more caught unaware by the attacks than 95 percent of American politicians, so a reasonable person would forgive.

So far, so...good? Well, there've been no gross misstatements so far.

But, again, would a reasonable person make him the featured national-security spokesman for a major political party?

Apparently, Bush's political advisers would.

Here, Matt slips into the weeds.

Giuliani is no national security spokesman. He's a character witness.

After all, their entire security pitch is based on the notion that you should neglect issues of expertise in favor of the sort of strong, reassuring rhetoric that Giuliani offered in mid-September of 2001.

I had to read this sentence five or six times.

It still makes no sense.

The Bush Administration has been all about expertise - which is why you have the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell rather than hamsters like Richard Cohen and Mads Albright.

Bush is the leader. Unlike the likes of Clinton and Gore, he doesn't pretend to be able to micromanage the issues under his purview - just give them a direction, something Clinton never did, and Kerry shows no signs of being able to do.

This is the campaign of a president who didn't see fit after 9-11 to change up his security team and consider appointing someone with extensive experience in counterterrorism or Arab issues...Instead, he stuck with the same gang of missile-defense advocates and Iraq hawks who, shockingly enough, produced a response oriented around missile defense and invading Iraq rather than counterterrorism and engagement with the realities of the Arab world.

So Matt Yglesias proposes replacing alleged myopia about missiles - in the face of a real threat from North Korea and China - with a new myopia focused on suicide bombers?

Yglesias would treat the symptoms. Bush is cutting to the root - imperfectly as such missions will always be in the real world.

The irony is that the left used to criticize the defense establishment for "preparing for the last war"; now, the likes of Yglesias want to institutionalize it.

And that's the best idea they have.

Kaus on Cook

When, oh, when, will Mickey Kaus install permalinks?

Because storiesl ike this are too good to have to scroll down for:

ABC's "contest to lose" blooper was explicitly based on Cook's incumbents-never-win-the-undecideds analysis. Today Cook declares

[I]n the absence of some major external event or a monumental screwup by Bush or Kerry in this fall's presidential debates, neither candidate is likely to build a significant, sustainable lead.

Why do we think that this CW is any more true than the "contest to lose" CW? Isn't it possible that, in the teeth of media resistance, Bush will build a small-but-significant lead (absent some huge setback on Iraq or the economy)?

That's been one of the mantras the Dems, especially my old compadre Slash the Spin Tivo, have been falling back on; ChallengerGetsTheUndecidedsChallengerGetsTheUndecidedsChallengerGetsTheUndecidedsChallengerGetsTheUndecideds, like a good Catholic spitting out the rosaries.

Now - what?

And now with talk of turmoil in the Kerry Kamp...

These are going to be eight of the most interesting weeks ever.

M is for More Blogs!

Having fun yet?

memeorandum - A curious and fun experiment in web content aggregation that serves as my first stop for weekly show prep.

Michelle Malkin - Dude.

Midwest Conservative Journal - MCJ frequently serves as a sort of support group for my own disaffection with the liberalization of my own Protestant denomimation; MCJ articulates this better than I'll ever be able to.

moxie - Like Wonkette, only interesting. And I figure if I blogroll her, it increases my chance of getting a date someday.

Pressure Group

Western standard has the new clout figured out.

He starts:

Let's see now: you and I have been complaining about those embarrassing backless hospital gowns since when? Early in the previous century? We've expressed our discomfort and sense of humiliation in front of doctors and nurses, in Carry On movies, in "Me and My Illness" memoirs and no doubt, even in letters to hospital administrators (written by cranks and serious people alike). Little kids cringe and cry, but so what?

Nuthin.

Then, a handful of Muslim women complain (through their translators, apparently) and ta-da! No more revealing "johnnies"! Don't ya just luv dhimmi life?

Read it all...