The Moderate Voice

I'm In A Peck Of Trouble...

...because, yes, this weekend I will again be Guest Blogger on Dean's World. That means we do all of our posting over there.

Click on the link above to get to Dean's World, or if you're the independent kind just type in www.deanesmay.com

All of our weekend posts will be over there. Our normal (and abnormal) posts resume here Monday morning.

And Now To The Verbal Extremism In The John Kerry Campaign

We made it clear below what we think of GOP suggestions that criticizing Iraq policies is somehow unpatriotic.

We feel the SAME way about this verbiage from John Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart, who already has shown himself less than a pro for getting him and his campaign entangled in the 60 Minutes documents fiasco. This Lockhart quote about Iraqi bigwigAyad Allawi, quoted by Andrew Sullivan, is just as reprehensible:

"The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."

We agree with Sullivan's assessment of why John Kerry, at this point at least, is losing.

GOP Admits Mailing Say Liberals Want To Ban The Bible

This swing voter is LIVID about this:

The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush.

The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.

A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable,'' said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions."

In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings.

"When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue,'' Ms. Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."

The mailing is the latest evidence of the emphasis Republicans are putting on motivating conservative Christian voters to vote this fall. But as the appeals become public, they also risk alienating moderate and swing voters.

An editorial on Sept. 22 in The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, for example, asked, "Holy Moley! Who concocts this gibberish?"

"Most Americans see morality more complexly," the editorial said. "Many think a higher morality is found in Christ's command to help the needy, prevent war and pursue other humanitarian goals. Churchgoers of this sort aren't likely to believe childish allegations that Democrats want to ban the Bible."

In statement, Senator John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, said President Bush "should condemn the practice immediately and tell everyone associated with the campaign to never use tactics like this again."

The administration has some GOOD arguments to make for its stands and actions -- but instead the GOP campaign is opting for demonization and vilification. And they expect to unite the country if they win???

Big Number Of Kidnappings=Big Number Of Executions?

The terrorists upped the ante in the kidnappings today:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) Gunmen abducted six Egyptians and four Iraqis working for Iraq's mobile phone company, seizing two in a bold raid on the firm's Baghdad office and the others outside the capital, officials said Friday, the latest in a string of kidnappings that have underscored the country's fragile security.

This seemingly reflects part of my nightmare scenario: that the terrorists (sorry Reuters, I will use the word you hate) would kidnap a large number of people. We haven't seen the second part of it yet: that they would start executing them on an almost daily basis to scare foreign workers and get press coverage showing the government's impotence (looking for a small group of terrorists with a hostage is like looking for a needle in a haystack).

Hopefully the second part won't come true...but with elections in Iraq, Afghanistan and the U.S. coming up we might want to at least mentally brace ourselves.

Is Banned And Deported Singer Cat Stevens A Victim?

John Hawkins makes a very convincing case that he isn't and should not be allowed to set foot in the U.S.

You Win Some, You Lose Some (And If You Calculate Correctly, You Win More)

At first we thought it was just our imagination... or perhaps creeping paranoia...that made us think President George Bush and other Republicans are suggesting that if you criticize the administration you're somehow giving aid and comfort to the enemy in Iraq and to the terrorists who seek to liquidate us.

But then we saw this in the Washington Post (obnoxious registration required) by Dana Milbank which reads, in part:

President Bush and leading Republicans are increasingly charging that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and others in his party are giving comfort to terrorists and undermining the war in Iraq -- a line of attack that tests the conventional bounds of political rhetoric.

Appearing in the Rose Garden yesterday with Iraq's interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, Bush said Kerry's statements about Iraq "can embolden an enemy." After Kerry criticized Allawi's speech to Congress, Vice President Cheney tore into the Democratic nominee, calling him "destructive" to the effort in Iraq and the struggle against terrorism.

It was the latest instance in which prominent Republicans have said that Democrats are helping the enemy or that al Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents and other enemies of the United States are backing Kerry and the Democrats. Such accusations are not new to American politics, but the GOP's line of attack this year has been pervasive and high-level.

How is this playing?

We talked to someone in Connecticut today who adamantly wants Bush, saying Kerry flip flops and is dangerous for the country due to this criticism of the adminstration. So it is gaining the GOP some votes, to be sure. And there is nothing illegal about this line of debate. Strictly talking as a political scientist, you can argue that given concerns over homeland security, it's an opening just waiting to be exploited.

But, talking as a swing voter, I have to flatly say this argument is pushing me away. This is still a democracy. We have elections every four years for the Presidency. NO candidate or party owns the White House or is entitled to it and its policies (even if I agree with them) must be fully debated since that's the nature of a democracy. If a policy is strong enough, it can and will withstand scrutiny.

Democrats who don't like the administration's policy and have questions are just as much patriots as Republicans who support it. Republicans who may feel the admininstration is not tough enough in its conduct of the war are just as much patriots than those who support it.

I SUPPORT the war in Iraq, our troops and the war on terrorism (I take a hard line on all of them). And I am personally so offended by this line of adminstration attack that it's coming close to overiding my support for the administration on the war (and emails from GOPers accusing me of being a McGovernite when I defend the critical American democratic principle of complete debate during an election without a party branded as traitorious for questioning those in power push me further).

Also, arguments that because we have troops in the field this subject is off base are flawed; there have been some news reports, etc. to suggest at least some of lower to middle level troops are not happy with present policy.

The war against terrorism and the war in Iraq have as their stated goals preservation of our democracy; that doesn't mean we jettison aspects of democratic debate to further polarize a polarized country, and paint some of our fellow citizens as somehow unpatriotic, to win votes. If our goals are to preserve democracy at home and on the battlefield, the overriding goal is to preserve it in the way we conduct our elections -- which means free and unfettered debate, minus intimidating flag-clutching rhetoric that seeks to portray critics as somehow against the country or ignorantly playing into the hands of its enemies (all within the framework of plausible deniability: "we didn't mean that at all" except everyone knows the true intent).

Milbank also notes other instances:

• On Tuesday, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry." On Fox News, Hatch said Democrats are "consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there."

• On Sunday, GOP Senate candidate John Thune of South Dakota said of his opponent, Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle: "His words embolden the enemy." Thune, on NBC's "Meet the Press," declined to disavow a statement by the Republican Party chairman in his state saying Daschle had brought "comfort to America's enemies."

• On Saturday, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.) said at a GOP fundraiser: "I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they would be more apt to go [for] somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops." Asked whether he believed al Qaeda would be more successful under a Kerry presidency, Hastert said: "That's my opinion, yes."

• The previous day in Warsaw, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said terrorists in Iraq "are trying to influence the election against President Bush."

Such accusations have been a component of American politics since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and surfaced in the modern era during the McCarthy communist hunt and the Vietnam War protests.

"Rhetoric this sharp and ugly is not by any means brand-new," said Jeff Shesol, a speechwriter for President Bill Clinton and author of a book about Lyndon B. Johnson and Robert F. Kennedy. "What we're seeing now isn't just offhand comments by outliers but clearly a decision by the Republican hierarchy to put this charge out there consistently."

Pollster Frank Luntz, who has advised Republicans on rhetoric, cautions that "statements like that can cause a backlash" against the accuser. "Candidates have to be careful of going over the line," he said.

Earlier this month, Cheney provoked an uproar when he said that on Election Day, "if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating" and that the United States would not respond vigorously. Cheney later said that he was not suggesting the country would be attacked if Kerry were elected. But a few days later, he said: "We've gone on the offense in the war on terror -- and the president's opponent, Senator Kerry, doesn't seem to approve."

The White House and the Bush campaign said they would neither endorse nor disavow the remarks by Hastert, Armitage and others. "Those statements speak to the great concern many people have about John Kerry's consistent vacillation under political pressure on the most significant issues the nation faces with regard to the war on terror," Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan had no quarrel with the remarks. "They are expressing their opinion," he said.

In other words: our supporters need to keep saying that if you criticize policy you are tacitly on the side of the terrorists or the candidate for the terrorists.

This will gain the GOP some votes, and they could win. But it if this keeps up they'll lose some -- and if this is what the Bush campaign needs to do to win, the old adage about a President's second term generally being more difficult than the first will surely be an understatement: Bush will face a highly-embittered country polarized multifold and if he has problems he will only be able to count on his supporters for support. He will have zero benefit of the doubt from others.

But this may well continue and if it does the GOP doesn't need (and won't get) this swing voter's vote.

Just Be Glad You Don't Have This Job, Dept.

Here is a job that is TRULY best relegated to man's best friend:

Dogs are being trained to sniff out bladder cancer from patients' urine, according to researchers.

Six dogs were trained to pick out urine samples of patients with bladder cancer from those of people with other diseases and healthy individuals.

Researchers at Amersham Hospital hope the findings will be useful in identifying specific chemicals that are released by cancer cells.

The average success rate was 41 per cent, compared with the 14 per cent that would have been expected by chance alone.

Dr Carolyn Willis, from Amersham Hospital said: "The study demonstrated that the dogs were not simply responding to smells associated with the presence of blood, inflammation or infection.

"It could be of tremendous value in identifying the specific chemicals that are released in cancer cells, that could be used as markers of cancer."

More Good News For George Bush

Two new polls put President George Bush ahead of Senator John Kerry. The debates are next week and could have a big impact. Still, there is now a clear upward trend for Bush in polling over the past few weeks. They say it's not over till it's over...but now we're in late September. Is it effectively over? Very little seems to be trending John Kerry's way.

Media Stupidity 101

This is amazing. Truly empty-headed, irresponsible and reprehensible.

Florida Welcomes Tourists

New tourism slogan:

Visit Florida And You'll Be Blown Away

Psychoanalyzing Dan Rather (A Big Job?)

Now the arm-chair, or should be say, task-chair, psychiatrists are on the job. This one from a psychiatrist I never heard of, Tina Brown (I could have sworn she is a journalist) writing a quit-intriguing piece in the Washingto Post (obnoxious registration required):

Are the media having a nervous breakdown?

The Dan Rather affair looks like yet another giant freakout in the patient's collapse. For Rather and CBS, all the conflicting tensions that torture journalists and producers day and night came together. The broiling partisan heat, the pressure to get out of third place with a scoop, the hot breath of cable news, the race to beat all the hacks and scribes who keep nibbling away at the story (your story, the story you've spent five years trying to get right), the baying of the bloggers, the sick sense of always being news-managed by the White House's black arts, the longing to show the Web charlatans and cable-heads that rumpled-trenchcoat news is still where the action is, the pounding inner soundtrack that asks: Am I a watchdog or a poodle? A journalist or an entertainer? A tough newsman or a mouse with mousse?

All this pandemonium in his ears is what made a legendary news icon go over Niagara Falls in a barrel, as David Gergen put it on CNN. And when the barrel hit the rocks, he stuck to the line that always used to work before in this movie: I Stand by My Story! Rather may have been eerily calm when he finally went on the air to announce, "I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically." But he looked as if his psyche had been through Hurricane Ivan.

And she puts it into perspective:

The New York Times betrayed the passive-aggressive guilt complex that lingers after the Jayson Blair fabrications by playing the CBS story above the fold on Tuesday's front page and the beheading of an American hostage in Baghdad below the fold, at the bottom. A Manhattan news factory screwed up big time -- and it wasn't us! Will Dan lose his job? That's the big news. An American hostage losing his life -- that's the small news.

And she notes the panic:

Journalists the length and breadth of the land publicly beat up on Dan, but privately -- even in the capital of schadenfreude -- they were not as gleeful as you might expect. Every editor, producer and reporter knows that the warp speed of the news cycle means we are all only one step ahead of some career-ending debacle. But still the panic to beat the competition trumps every other concern. Reports this month that Fox News had surpassed the other networks' ratings with its GOP convention coverage only inflamed the terror of mounting obsolescence.

Fear of missing the bandwagon is behind all the hype about the brilliance of bloggers who blew the whistle. You'd think "Buckhead," who first spotted the flaws in the documents, is the cyberworld's Woodward and Bernstein. Now the conventional wisdom is that the media will be kept honest and decent by an army of incorruptible amateur gumshoes. In fact, cyberspace is populated by a coalition of political obsessives and pundits on speed who get it wrong as much as they get it right. It's just that they type so much they are bound to nail a story from time to time.

She is RIGHT about this.

Bloggers consider this a victory -- and they should. But read the out put of blogs (including this one) and you'll see that blogs rely on the media for the primary info -- then comment or analyze on it.

What happens when blogs mistakingly pick up a BUM piece of info -- like the (in)famous Kerry-Says-The-Draft-Is-Likely-If-Bush-Is-Re-Elected baloney story a few days ago? Its genesis was an ABC headline which was picked up by Drudge -- and it stayed on the Drudge website long after it was clear that the ABC headline didn't reflect what was actually said.

Moreover, the Blogosophere has to face it's biggest test yet: is it willing to go after inaccuracies and falsifications in ALL areas of the political spectrum? Or is it just going to be to benefit and hurt one candidate? Will blogs insist upon accuracy and fairness in reporting right down the line, or only if it advances their own political agendas (on the left and right)? Blogs right now delightfully resemble the rebirth of the old political pamphlets, offering an array of lively voices and political ideas. But do they have a higher standard (seeking truth no matter who it helps or hurts)? If not, they're remain what they are - a growing political force with political agendas (and there is nothing wrong with that as long as its admittetd). Brown goes on:

The rapturing about the bloggers is the journalistic equivalent of the stock market's Internet bubble. You can see the news chiefs feeling as spooked as the old-style CEOs in the '90s who had built their companies over 20 years and then saw kids in backward baseball caps on the cover of Fortune. It finally drove them nuts. It was why we saw Time Warner's buttoned-down corporate dealmaker Gerald Levin tearing off his tie and swooning into the embrace of AOL's Steve Case.

The equivalent today is when news outfits that built their reputations on check-and-double-check pick up almost any kind of assertion and call it a "source." Or feel so chased by the new-media mujaheddin they start trusting tips garnered from God-knows-where by a partisan wack job in Texas.

Indeed, as someone who did grad work in journalism, the definition of a "source" and when to run a story based on its assertions has...ahem...mellowed quite a bit from when The Moderate Voice graduated from Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism in the 1970s. More:

A further symptom of the nervous breakdown was the spectacle of the intrepid CBS producer Mary Mapes -- she who was set to win all the prizes for her Abu Ghraib exposé -- crossing the line between independent journalism and political intrigue when she gave in to her source's request to put him in touch with the Kerry campaign. The way things have unraveled must be Karl Rove's wet dream: a living, breathing example of ostensible liberal media bias with which to bludgeon the rest of the press into an even deeper defensive crouch.

It's a case of gross incompetence in terms of journalist ethics or a lack of them. In either case, CBS would be wise to decide to "move in a different direction" and encourage her to "move on." Brown continues:

Documents or no documents, everyone knows Bush's dad got him out of Vietnam. Everyone knows he thought he had better, funner things to do than go to a bunch of boring National Guard drills. (Only a killjoy like John Kerry would spend his carefree youth racking up high-minded demonstrations of courage and conscience, right?) Like O.J. Simpson's infamous "struggle" to squeeze his big hand into the glove, the letter was just a lousy piece of evidence that should never have been produced in court. Now because CBS, like Marcia Clark, screwed up the prosecution, Bush is going to walk.

She undermines her piece here. Her characterization (even if she and others feel it's accurate) turns her good points into a partisan-sounding piece which will turn some folks off to her serious and well-taken points. But we disgress as she has obviously digressed:

Or maybe not. There are lies floating around that are a lot bigger than anything CBS or Bush is saying or hiding about what happened thirty-odd years ago in Texas and Alabama. They're about Iraq and they're about now, and Kerry is finally talking about them coherently enough to have a chance of getting some traction.

As for Dan and CBS, it wasn't really politics that drove them over the edge, was it? It was romance. That's the sad part. How good did it feel when they broke the Abu Ghraib story just a beat before Seymour Hersh at the New Yorker? How satisfying is it when a real news sensation takes hold instead of some tabloid trash moment (like Janet Jackson's flashing breast)? A veteran newsman is in the twilight of a long and distinguished career. He just wanted to taste that sweet medicine one more time.

Thank you Dr. Brown for the pyschological analysis. We are sure your diagnosis is backed up by years of study on psychology and isn't flippant arm-chair labelling.

But Brown has a point here: CBS and Rather were focused on breaking new revelations and leading the National Guard Story. Bloggers were focused either on genuinely fact-checking or in some cases unabashedly discrediting the allegations for political reasons. CBS and Rather were incredibly sloppy and intoxicated by The Addiction Of The Scoop and the bloggers, even with their varying (altruistic and absolutely political) motives, won. A long-term victory will occur when blogs show that these principles are applied to all maliciously wrong news reports -- or news headlines.

Our Posts Resume Tomorrow

The Moderate Voice is sick -- and this time (for a change) it isn't the Presidential race and rhetoric on both sides that's doing it (but perhaps it played a role).

So he is hopping into bed with his beloved copy of the National Enquirer, will improve his mind for a bit, get a good night's sleep and resume his pithy comments tomorow. (He's pithed off at the politicos anyway...and YES I do lisp when I write..).

About This Blog

We've gotten a batch of new readers...so we need to say a few things:

(1) Welcome!

(2) Do use our comment boxes for your own pithy comments. The pithier the better. We have lots of pith here -- so much that we have to wear a pith helmet.

(3) This blog is a bit different than most. For one thing, it's written by the only admitted dummy on the Internet.

(4) For another it is absolutely NOT affiliated with any political party. It was not started to promote the candidacy of any candidate, political party or cause. It was to comment on serious and non-serious issues and to adhere to some personal values which are hopefully reflected in the posts you read.

(5) At times we take potshots at Democrats, at times at Republicans. At times at Ralph Nader. And as much as we can at Dennis Kucinich and Alan Keyes.

(6) We will do some really serious, longer stuff and, at times, some downright silly stuff because life is too short.

(7) This isn't the blog of record: we might not cover every story. But it is hopefully a blog of ideas, so you'll often see posts linked to or quoting conservatives, moderates and liberals. We love ideas but we don't like name-calling (there are only a few bloggers who we will not put on our blogroll because they crossed our line).

(8) We update this all day (unless we're out of pocket most of the day, like today). Sometimes too much.

(9) We hope you'll visit here a couple of times a day. We're open every day (except Saturdays and Sundays when we usually Guest Blog on Dean's World).

The Management

Bartcop Asks: Is There Any Message In This?

The above is by Bartcop.
Hmmmmmmmmm.... (Play Twilight Zone theme now)

UPDATE: Are there any scholars reading this site (we are SURE there are)? If so, see if you can find out if there is:

--An outbreak of Mad Cow Disease in parts of New York State that voted for Hillary Clinton.
--Statistics on the incidence of Sleeping Sickness in states that voted for Al Gore.
--A high divorce rate, excess gas and high winds in areas where Rush Limbaugh gets his highest ratings.
--Reports of alien abductions on the one block that voted for Dennis Kucinich.
--Reports of suicides among members of the Illinois GOP that voted to nominate Alan Keyes to run for Senator.

Bid For 60 Minutes On Ebay....

...and, no, they're not selling some famous documents (or photocopies)....

Light Blogging Today

We'll be gone by early morning and totally out of pocket until later today. Our posts will resume here mid-to late afternoon.

So catch up on the posts you missed. Write some (hopefully not nasty) comments. And check back often. We'll be baaaaaaaaaaaaaack later....

Kerry's Comments On Bush And The Draft

There's a big fuss about John Kerry suggesting at a campaign event that if George Bush is elected it'd be likely he'd revive the draft -- but wait a minute, folks.

I saw it on TV. Unless I missed something he didn't use the word "likely" -- although he could in fact believe that (and some do).

Read the ABC News report. The word "likely" is IN THE HEADLINE -- but he NEVER SAID THAT:

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."

Then where did "LIKELY" come from? From ABC...and then from...you guessed it...Let The Spoons Experience tell you:

JOHN KERRY DID NOT SAY THAT A DRAFT WAS LIKELY IF BUSH IS REELECTED

Drudge's headline: "Kerry: Draft Likely to Return Under Bush" is utter bullshit.

Strangely, the story Drudge linked to -- found here -- was changed. An early version mentioned the draft issue, but by late afternoon, the story had been changed. The current version does not even mention the draft issue.

You can read some great posts discussing this issue such as here, here and here. But the problem here is these posts were all victim to the Drudge/ABC in totally inaccurate headline. And Kerry never said what ABC and Drudge said...unless I missed something when I saw the two newscasts tonight.

Jesse Taylor writes:"Christ - is ABC just running DNC press releases outright? I can't believe how overtly partisan and unfairly anti-Bush this is. He came within merely a few words of saying something kind of similar to that headline! Interestingly, the only part of this story that was relevant was removed - and it wasn't a Kerry quote, but rather a description of the above quote as Kerry "raising the possibility" that Bush would reinstitute the draft. "

So it's a controversy about something said -- except Kerry never really said it. The Drudge Report strikes again...(and as of late last night it's headline was still up, unchanged).

But, even so, we've posted on fears of another draft before and -- once and for all -- here is what we learned:

--The bills have largely been proposed by Democrats. Reportedly some of the Democrats have proposed these bills as a way to attatch political consequences to the war. It is no secret that when Richard Nixon nixed the draft at the end of the Vietnam war some of the moral outrage on American campuses over the war fizzled...as did big demonstrations (self-preservation was no longer an issue)

--Many bloggers with military backgrounds such as the great Donald Sensing (who is taking a break from blogging) have emailed us in the past or put comments on our past posts indicating they do not believe a draft will happen.

--There would have to be a political consensus among parties to shove a draft through. Right now -- although both parties do not like to admit it -- each party has a wing with somewhat differing views on military affairs that disagrees with the party's other wing (which may seek stronger or less military action). The reason why there is any sense of cohesion now is that it's election year and both parties want to w-i-n. So there is a verbal cease fire that would probably end if there was a move to re-start a draft without a huge reason.

--Politically, it'd be a powderkeg issue to formally reinstitute the draft (versus what some of the volunteer military over in Iraq now face with tours extended beyond what they signed up for).

--There is indeed a scenario where the U.S. would have to re-institute a draft: if the military was stretched so thin, and voluntary recruitments went way down. If there was an absolutely dire need, it is not unrealistic to predict that both parties might reluctantly agree to reinstitute a draft.

But:

--George Bush can't wake up one morning and re-institute the draft. Even if some Democrats are sending out emails to college students claiming Bush plans to do it. GWB couldn't do it alone if he wanted to.

--The clip I saw on TV didn't have John Kerry saying it would happen but he left open the possibility that could happen.

And it could...even if Kerry wins...

But it's likely it won't.

"It's 270 Electoral Votes..But For You..260!"

Q: What do American Jews seemingly like almost as much as Chinese food? A: John Kerry.

At least that's according to a poll commissioned by the American Jewish Committee. And, according to the Washington Post, it's because of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war:

If the election were held today, 69 percent of Jewish voters would support Kerry, 24 percent would back Bush and 3 percent would give their votes to Ralph Nader, the survey found. That's an increase of 10 percentage points for Kerry since December, when the previous AJC poll showed him with 59 percent of the Jewish vote.

But there is also a bright side of the survey for Bush. Though he has lost ground among Jewish voters since the beginning of the year, he is still five percentage points ahead of where he was in the 2000 election, when he received 19 percent of the Jewish vote, according to exit polls.

That probably isn't much consolation to Bush, who has been an adamant friend of Israel's government, to the point of alienating many other governments in Europe and elsewhere. The story goes on to say:

Although Jews make up only about 2 percent of the U.S. population, they are a significant group in some battlegrounds, such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and a major fundraising base for Democratic candidates.

The poll did not ask why voters support Bush or Kerry. But some of its findings suggest that the rising support for Kerry is connected to the war in Iraq, according to David A. Harris, executive director of the nonpartisan AJC. The survey found that 66 percent of U.S. Jews disapprove of the war, up from 54 percent in December; 57 percent think the threat of terrorism against the United States has increased as a result of the war.

"The president has not made any inroads among the middle-of-the-road Jewish voters, probably because, on issues like abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, gun control and church-state issues, he has stuck with his most loyal conservative constituency and has not tacked toward the center," Harris said.

TWO STICKING POINTS point...one the story mentions but doesn't document, the other that it doesn't mention:

(1) As David Adesnik of Oxblog notes to me in an email, the Post story doesn't offer anything that supports the contention that the war is what's making Bush lose support.

(2) Some American Jews are extremely uneasy about this President's intensely strong ties to the religious right. Indeed, some folks seemed upset at Bush's stance on the gay marriage issue not so much because of the stance on gay marriage (which as a concept still hits a raw nerve with many people who are not conservatives) but because he seemingly did it to shore up his religious right base. We get emails from some of friends and relatives who are specifically concerned about Bush's strong promotion of his religion and those who inject religion into politics.

Even so, it's a HUGE MISTAKE to assume Jews are a monolithic group. Go to any bar mitzvah and see the warring relatives and family factions, and you'll never think that again. And there are some (like some of my relatives) who are absolutely adamant, totally loyal Bush supporters, no matter who Bush has as allies.

And Mathew Yglesias adds this critical and valid point:

The poll, showing Kerry leading 69-24 (better than he was doing in the last AJC poll, but worse than Gore did in 2000 according to the exit polls), is said to have "a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points" based on its sample size of 1,000 Jews. That's nice, but the real problem here has got to be that there's some indeterminacy around the question of what we mean by "Jew" (take my friend Jeff Baum -- Jewish dad, shikse mom, Hebrew School, bar mitzvah, doesn't attend services or keep kosher) so we don't really know what this data is referring to, and it's not clear how you would obtain a representative sample of Jews since you can't use standard techniques like demographic weighting and so forth. Nor, of course, is the accuracy of the 2000 exit poll beyond dispute. And so forth.

The bigger question is whether American Jews will become part of the Bush coalition or sing "Tradition!" and stay with the Democratic party. That won't be known until election day -- but it does seem clear Bush administration efforts to woo the Jewish community at the very least may have fallen a bit short of the final goals.
Oy!

It's Civil War Between Generations At CBS

It's the Journalistic Practice Defenders versus the Loyal Company Soldiers in a Civil War at CBS.

The defenders are speaking out. The Loyal Company Soldiers are politely telling them to shut up and fall on their company swords.

At stake: whether there will indeed be tangible consequences in the aftermath of the Dan Rather/Wednesday night 60 Minutes fiasco surrounding fake documents provided to the broadcast and shoved on the air without the careful journalism confirmation practices taught at journalism schools or, even serious high school journalism classes.

On one side: Steve Kroft, a leading member of 60 Minutes' Sunday edition, who doesn't want his beloved show tarred with the same brush as the Wednesday night version. It's the Wednesday night version where Dan Rather diminished his journalistic legacy by first putting on the sloppily checked materials given to the broadcast by a dubious source, then insisting the story was solid for days on end. On the other: Don Hewitt, the 80-ish creator of 60 Minutes who is taking Kroft to task...for speaking honestly.

The New York Daily News says this on Kroft:

Kroft argues it's unlikely the Sunday show would have made the mistake of using the documents that bolstered Rather's report - which aired on the Wednesday telecast, formerly known as "60 Minutes II."

So much so, Kroft and staffers on the Sunday telecast want it to be clear - they weren't the ones that were duped.

"We're all afraid of that, that's our biggest concern," Kroft told the Daily News. "We've held off from saying it, we've held off from making any comments as long as there was some hope the documents would prove to be real.

"Now, I think it's our responsibility to try to draw a distinction between the two broadcasts," Kroft said, admitting that the original show had been burned in the past and had learned from its mistakes. "They've done a lot of great work over there ... particularly with the Abu Ghraib story, they didn't rush that story on the air. This one, for whatever reason, they did."

And it has this on Hewitt:

The second edition of "60 Minutes" was a contentious project from the start. Hewitt, the creator of "60 Minutes," fought against expanding the franchise but was overruled. The second show launched Jan. 13, 1999.

"I think they've acquitted themselves nicely," said Hewitt, who was forced out as executive producer last season. "When I objected to there being a second show, I didn't know how good it was going to be."

He scolded his old crew yesterday for sniping at their beleaguered colleagues.

"Now, when the other one is in trouble, they're piling on. It's unfair, uncalled for and not the way that grown men should act," Hewitt said.

Hewitt's wrong. His slightly intimidating quotations to the contrary, journalism professors, journalism students, journalists on local papers, freelancers -- not just bloggers -- all know that CBS erred in several ways. It:

--Ignored a story with so many red flags it looked like a Madrid bullfight.

--The story's producer put its "source" (who now says the real source was "Lucy Ramirez" -- but perhaps it was Lucy McGillicuddy) anti-Bush activist Bill Burkett in touch with the Kerry campaign, so Burkett could share some info and advice with Joe Lockhart.

Hewitt is WRONG to try to shut them up (which is what it sounds like he's going to do). CBS will only get this behind them by a brutal self-analysis and some perhaps not behind closed doors.

Hopefully more CBS staffers will, like Kroft, "pile on" Rather and the Wednesday night version of the franchise, so this kind of fiasco will never occur again -- or at least be harder to pull off.

It Could Happen To Anyone

Unconfirmed photo of wife

An honest mistake:

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - A Malaysian man shot and killed his wife after he mistook her for a monkey picking fruit in a tree behind their house, the New Straits Times said on Wednesday

The man, 70, is being held by police for causing death through recklessness after he fired a shotgun at what he thought was a monkey in a mangosteen tree on Monday, the newspaper said.

His wife, 68, had used a ladder to climb into the tree and was picking the tropical fruit when she was shot. She was pronounced dead on arrival at a hospital, the paper said. The couple lived in central Malaysia and had raised 13 children.

BLOG OF THE DAY: Tutakai

About once a month (or more) some bright reader think he/she/it has come up with a brilliant line: "And you call yourself a moderate?" Or, "How can you call yourself a moderate?" Or, "And this is supposed to be a moderate site."

What they're really saying is that because they don't agree with something here it MUST be a liberal or conservative or Democratic or Republican site -- which is all false. It has gotten old and I usually resist the tempatation to tell them to Teresa Heinz it or to Cheney themselves (see? We took a potshot at both sides) and either ignore it, or give a little lecture.

But what they're also saying is that moderate MUST be wimpy. A moderate MUST be wishy washy. A moderate CANNOT take a stand because if you didn't you couldn't be a moderate. And, again, I resist the temptation to tell them to Teresa Heinz it or to Cheney themselves (see? We now took a potshot at both sides TWICE!).

Anyone who believes the silly fallacies about moderates can have them drummed out of their skull by reading one of my FAVORITE new sites: Tutakai. It is the product of graduate student Jason Steck, who never fails to amaze by writing fresh posts that clearly required a lot of thought in both content and writing. Steck makes no bones about the fact that he is a "militant moderate" who will, in fact, take very strong stands.

For instance, as the blog world gets strained tendons patting itself on the back for displacing the Old Media, Steck has this cautionary post on blogs which includes these accurate lines (that you don't see on many blogs):

For all their bias, arrogance and errors ranging from the malign to the comical, major national news organziations continue to offer the best available means for gathering, disseminating, and reporting information with provisions for accountability. The blogging world could never produce the necessary accountability mechanisms because we don't know the source of information most of the time. CBS' blunder in not knowing its sources is an everyday feature in blogging.

The pajamaheddin good at secondary fact-checking, but that doesn't mean we'd be good at primary fact-reporting.

Read my post here that I wrote Guest Blogging on Dean's World about Steck's evolution from a moderate not quite sure who to vote for to one who is leaning very heavily towards Bush due to extremists attitudes and behaviors on the left (I am increasingly being pushed in the other direction for the same reason and even deleted my some readers comments from this blog this week). In fact, moderates DO vote with a passion the same as liberals or conservatives. Moderates DO take strong stands -- and they do care.

Steck deserves our Blog of the YEAR Award, actually, for his first post which was a classic that I've linked to several times. I urge you to read it in full and think about it. A few quickie highlights:

The first thing to understand about being a moderate is that almost no one will ever believe that you actually are a moderate. Bizarre as it may sound, people will believe that their right to label you trumps any right of yours to describe your own beliefs. They may create "tests" that you have to meet before they will consent to consider you a moderate -- generally, these tests will involve you agreeing with them in both style and substance.

This is where the militant moderate comes in. Its time that moderates stopped being rhetorical doormats for extremists of left and right. Both liberals and conservatives have ideas to offer and it is ultimately their loss in refusing to learn from and engage the other side. Moderates are in a position to draw upon the intellectual and rhetorical resources of both sides and to begin to construct a genuine middle road for public policy that avoids the wild vacillations between left and right.

It's a MUST READ and (if he sticks with it) Steck is destined for great things (not only in blogging or whatever he does where he communicates ideas).

Tutakai is a blog that keeps you constantly off guard, because he's constantly re-evaluating (even on who to vote for). He deals in ideas, and concepts -- not trying to score partisan points by recycling talk show talking points (of the left or right), or posturing like a wannabie or real talk show host, or by suspending principles to defend failings in a candidate he likes. Tutakai is a MUST stop for people of all parties and persuasions who truly like to think -- and read well-written, well-thoughtout essays.

For its originality, its posts of incredible quality, its unpredictability and strength of thought, its one-of-a-kind personality on an Internet crowded with increasingly similar ideologically-lock-step weblogs, and it's potential to become a leading blog for a new generation -- we are proud to name Tutakai our Blog of the Day.

He Has To Be Nuts Department

A surfer -- surfing Hurricane Ivan's waves.

ZOGBY POLL: Dead Heat Prez Race May Have To Be Decided In House Of Reps

The folks at Zogby (our favorite poll which seems to be overall the most accurate) contend there is now a major shift -- and raises the dreaded possibility that this time the House of Representatives may have to decide the election.

Zogby's website says:

The race for President of the United States continued to tighten during the last two weeks, as President Bush continued his long, hard slog back toward parity with Democratic challenger John Kerry, throwing the race into a virtual dead heat, the latest package of polls by Zogby Interactive shows.

Based on individual polls conducted simultaneously Sept. 13-17 in 20 battleground states, neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Kerry holds a clear-cut lead in enough states to win the Electoral College votes required to capture the White House.

They see 264 electoral votes for Kerry; 241 for Bush -- with 270 needed to win.

Two states remain too close to call: Florida (no surprise) and Arkansas, home to former President Clinton, who has recently generated sympathy with his successful quadruple bypass surgery and headlines with his emergence as a chief advisor to Mr. Kerry, fielding strategic questions from his New York City hospital bed. Arkansas, with 6 electoral votes, had been in the pocket of Mr. Bush, who won it four years ago. By itself, it is unimportant in the presidential election. However, paired with one other small state, it could make all the difference in the world. Because the race is so close this year, every little state matters.

Overall, they write:
--Kerry has lost traction.
--60 Minutes scandal raises more about news media than candidates.

The closeness of the race, as shown in this report, gives rise to that most intriguing of parlor game questions – could the Bush-Kerry contest end in a tie?

Using the current Zogby Interactive poll data, it is now easy to construct a plausible scenario in which this very thing could happen. In this newest series of polls, Mr. Kerry continues to nurse an eroding lead that now stands at 264 Electoral College votes to 241 votes for Mr. Bush.

Two states – Arkansas (6 votes) and Florida (27 votes) remain too close to call. Should Mr. Kerry capture Arkansas, home to former President Clinton, who is taking an increasing role in the Kerry campaign, and should Mr. Bush win Florida, which is being flooded with federal aide in the wake of four hurricane strikes and which is governed by the President’s brother, the race would favor Mr. Kerry, 270-268.

However, if two other states, Missouri, which now narrowly favors Mr. Bush, and Minnesota, which now narrowly favors Mr. Kerry, were to flip, we would have a 269-269 tie, and the election would be thrown to the U.S. House of Representatives.

And you thought the 2000 election was fun.

It also includes this statement from Zogby:

“Just before the Republican Convention I wrote that the main problem that President George W. Bush faced was that he had to wage a three-front war to win re-election. First, bring his own numbers up. Second, drive Senator John Kerry’s down. And, finally, he had to try to dissuade undecided voters, who generally are not leaning his way, from voting.

“My hat is off to the President. He had a good two weeks and was able to make notable progress on all three fronts. The President managed to raise all three of his key barometric readings – job performance, right direction for the country, and whether or not he deserves to be re-elected.

“But this battle is not over. This is not an eleven-point race – and never really was. My last poll showed the President with a three-point lead nationally and about 241 Electoral votes – less than the 270 needed to win. Mr. Kerry has 264 Electoral voters, but neither candidate has hefty enough leads overall or in many of the battleground states.”

OTHER VOICES: The Split Within The Administration

Citizen Smash (one of our favorite conservative bloggers, who is quite unpredictable and independent...and he also lives in our city of San Diego, although we've never met) has a superb post on the split within the Bush adminstration over Iraq policy:

YESTERDAY, conservative columnist Robert Novak predicted that if re-elected, Bush would pull out of Iraq within a year. The substance of Novak’s column is essentially gossip, and should not be taken seriously.

The real story behind Novak's column is that an ideological struggle is underway in the Republican Party, between the so-called “realists” and the “neo-cons” (neither of these terms is adequately descriptive, but that’s another topic). In simple terms, the realists represent the Old Guard of the party, who reject “Wilsonian idealism” in favor of careful coalition-building (Colin Powell), or in more extreme cases, isolationism (Pat Buchanan).

The neo-cons, however, favor a more aggressive approach to foreign policy. They believe that promoting democratic and free-market reforms around the world, and working to overthrow tyrannical regimes, is the most effective way to reduce threats to our national security. This policy was most famously promoted by the late Ronald Reagan, but largely fell into disfavor during the administration of George H.W. Bush.

Indeed, Smash points out what people often forget: although many people associate Bush I with being in effect a continuation of the Reagan years it was, in fact, in most ways a kind of hybrid administration. George Bush I started out promising a "kinder, gentler nation" which was a velvet-gloved sideswipe at his former boss. Smash goes on:

The current President Bush began his first term in the realist camp, but since 9/11, his administration has adopted a foreign policy with an aggressive neo-con bent (see The Bush Doctrine). This has left many of the Old Guard feeling angry and disenfranchised. But the perception in some quarters that Iraq is going badly has given the realists new hope – some of them cling to the belief that if Bush gets re-elected, and the Iraqi situation does not quickly improve, the neo-cons will be shown the door and the realists will take back over and extricate our military forces post haste.

This is, of course, pure fantasy. First of all, the situation in Iraq is not nearly as grim as the realists would have us believe....

He points to several factors here and if you add them with our post below on the fact that there is, in fact, some good news from Iraq, he's correct that day to day headlines may not accurately reflect the actual situation -- which is not as rosy as administration officials may say, nor as catastrophic as critics contend. He goes on:

Furthermore, the climactic battle of this conflict has yet to be fought. Several months ago, the decision was made to plan a massive offensive against the terrorist strongholds in Falluja and elsewhere using primarily Iraqi forces. Since that time, Iraqi security forces have been undergoing extensive training in urban combat in preparation for this assault. They will be backed up by American air power and armor, but most of the “boots on the ground” will be Iraqi – because ultimately, the Iraqis will have to take responsibility for their own security.

Remember that Smash is involved with the military. Take what he says seriously:

The likely time frame for this operation will be November or December (yes, after the US elections – but the timing would be questioned either way). In any event, it must be completed in time for the nationwide Iraqi elections in January.

Should this operation go horribly wrong, and the terrorists manage to bloody the US forces, there is a possibility that the realists will take over a second Bush Administration, as Novak's source confidently predicts. But we’re not there, yet.

The safe money today says we’ll be in Iraq for at least five more years, for better or for worse.
That's our view, too. And we also believe -- and we know that many disagree -- that even if Kerry wins there will be no pullout within a year. It's going to take a while for the U.S. to leave Iraq -- and its interests -- secured and intact.

UPDATE: Daniel Drezner has an excellent (as usual) post on the same subject. Here's a small taste of what he has, which will make you want to read it all:

A few weeks ago I was talking with someone far more plugged into Washington than myself. We were chatting about the neoconservatives and my breakfast partner raised an important distinction -- that one had to distinguish between the neocons who supported John McCain in 2000 (Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol) and the neocons who supported George W. Bush in 2000 (Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle). Both groups had the same overarching policy goals, but there was one important difference -- the McCain supporters understood that democracy promotion in the Middle East and elsewhere was not something that could be done on the cheap. In the case of Iraq, for example, the McCain neocons believed that statebuilding in Iraq would require a heavy force, while the Bush supporters bought into Rumsfeld's idea that shock, awe, and a light force could do the trick.

This split has persisted in the wake of what's happened in Iraq. However, there's now a deeper question that could really split the neocons -- is the Bush administration really interrested in democracy promotion at all?

This question isn't really inspired by the Bob Novak article -- which still sounds fishy to me. Rather, it's the Bush White House's non-response to Vladimir Putin's power grab -- a position which über-neoconservative Robert Kagan criticized in his Washington Post column last week...

Dueling Perceptions: D&R; Versions Of The Iraq War Tune

The electorate today got a crystal clear glimpse of the dueling Bush/Kerry perceptions of the Iraq war today when President George Bush spoke at the United Nations and Democratic rival John Kerry held a press conference shortly after.

Some quickie comments about these events, which we watched on TV.

BUSH'S SPEECH: If you read the transcript it was actually an excellent speech aimed at the U.S. electorate but it failed in "the room." United Nations deletates sat so quietly that it resembled the scene in Warner Brothers cartoons where Daffy Duck performs and there's so little applause that you can hear a cricket chirp. The speech re-iterated key themes for American voters, and expanded eloquently on them, but offered little new to UN delegates.

He got a smattering of strictly polite applause at the end. So it was a successful statement of his goals but in terms of its effectiveness as a speech by a U.S. President to the United Nations, it was possibly one of the most unenthusiastically received speeches by an American President in UN history. Once again, Bush's appeal seems mostly domestic, not international.

KERRY'S PRESS CONFERENCE: If you read the transcript of the press conference it's clear he regained his late-primary political chops. And when you watched it, he wasn't wooden but animated, quite convincing, effective and likeable. The question is whether he'll slide back again into Michael Dukakisland, if this is too little too late -- or if it's the first sign of John Kerry's legendary ability as a political "closer." Noteworthy: the press conference was carried live on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC.

This was the first time when watching John Kerry I was impressed with not only his delivery but his ideas and potential as a Commander in Chief. GOPers will say it reeked, Democrats will naturally call it a home run -- but all I know is that this skeptical swing voter was for the first time surprised by what he saw and heard. And pleasantly.

CBS And Democrats: The Inappropriate (To Say The Least) Phone Call

CBS will have to show TWO black eyes now that another journalistically bankrupt fact has come to light.

And the campaign of John Kerry is coming out of the latest revelation smelling more like skunk cabbage -- or something rotten -- than like a rose.

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

INAPPROPRIATE: I know of an editor at a paper in Kansas some years ago who got forced out when he revealed the pre-publication results of a paper's political poll to a candidate in a hotly contested election. Journalists do not cooperate by overtly or covertly working with the team of one candidate or passing tips onto them. If Dan Rather is not ending his career as a laughingstock (and he isn't) he will end it as a media figure greatly diminished from the one who burst forth on the national scene via his "big break" covering the 1963 Kennedy assassination.

Where did these CBS staffers and editors get their journalism degrees: at dental hygenists' school?

Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.

At the very least, Mapes should totally banned from working for CBS.

And remember this post is NOT being written a partisan: as a news producer she isn't supposed to be working to help either campaign.

"He had some advice on how to deal with the Vietnam issue and the Swift boat" allegations, Lockhart said Monday, referring to GOP-fueled accusations that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam War record. "He said these guys play tough and we have to put the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more."

Lockhart said he thanked Burkett for his advice after a three to four minute call.

Lockhart said he does not recall talking to Burkett about Bush's Guard records. "It's baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this," he said.

In all deference, Mr. Lockhart: you've been around the block. You should have known how compromising this could eventually look. You should not have taken a call from anything that even smacked of even an informal deal. And I assume you have a computer and could have checked Burkett out first. There were enough red flags to politely defer his call until after the broadcast. By allowing yourself to get advance warning you have fed members of the GAL (The Moderate Voice's Get A Life Club) who belong to both parties who love spending their precious time on earth creating conspiracy theories rather than focus on serious issues.

CBS News apologized Monday for a "mistake in judgment" in its story questioning Bush's Guard service, claiming it was misled by the source of documents that several experts have dismissed as fakes.

Burkett admitted this weekend to CBS that he lied about obtaining the documents from another former National Guard member, the network said. CBS hasn't been able to conclusively tell how he got them, or even whether they're fakes or not.

He now says they came from the mysterious Lucy Ramirez. How about Lucy McGillicuddy?

Kerry ally Max Cleland, a former Georgia senator, also said he had a brief conversation last month with Burkett, who told him he had information about Bush to counter charges against Kerry's Vietnam War service. Cleland said he gave Burkett's name and phone number to the campaign's research department.

Kerry spokesman David Ginsberg said nobody in the campaign's research department followed up on Burkett's offer of information.

Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."

Still unprofessional, Mr. L.

You should have known better. It put your campaign as appearing to be in collusion with Burnett and CBS. Too many issues will be coming up soon (debates, Iraq, etc) for this story to go on forever. But, Joe L: you always seemed the consummate pro and now we know you need to audit a basic journalism class.

FOOTNOTE: I had the pleasure of being interviewed today by a journalism student who's writing on blogging. From my conversation with him it's clear that YES journalism ethics IS a subject still being taught in journalism school. Lockhart should sit in on a class or two and CBS should clean house and replace ignorant staffers and producers with some young grads who know better. In fact, an undergraduate in Journalism 101 could have caught the red flag of not running that story without sufficient confirmation -- and would also know that newspeople don't work conjuction with campaigns to go after an opposing candidate.

There is no excuse -- even the monumental incompetence displayed by the CBS and Kerry camps .

A Presidential..ahem...Untruth...

....and Teenage Pundit caught it. And he's RIGHT.

John Kerry never said that -- and it's this kind of thing that turns off some swing voters (like me), even those (like me) who support the war (read my past posts on the war and on terrorism).

It's obviously quite different for someone to criticize the implementation and follow-through of U.S. policy and say the world was "better off" with Sadaam in power. Mistatement? Lie? And when partisans defend this kind of stuff they have no idea how it pushes some people (like me) away from their candidate -- just as Michael Moore had pushed me away.

Note To The Media And Columnists: STOP Stereotyping ME!!

Yet ANOTHER EXAMPLE of media stereotyping and I am sick of it!!!!

Read James Pinkerton in Newsday, writing about the new media and Rathergate:

So the "de-massification" of the media has been ongoing-and will keep going. In the '90s, Internet-based news-most notably the Drudge Report, which burst on the scene in 1998 by breaking the Monica Lewinsky story-proved that the "new media" could blow past older media. And now we have even newer media: the bloggers, the folks at home in their pajamas who collectively broke the "Rathergate" story.

Stop it!!!

Stop patronizing me and stereotyping me!

For YOUR information, Mr. Weisenheimer, I don't sleep in pajamas. So stop lumping us all together.

I am a NUDE blogger.

Correct this bigotry towards members of my group IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!!!!!

An Often Accurate Way To Predict

Mock stockmarkets. And they're often right. Dean Esmay has the absolutely fascinating details here -- and when you go to the links if you look you'll see a "sold out" item doesn't look good for John Kerry.

Michael Moore Tell Demmies: Don't Panic

Michael Moore may need a shave but he doesn't need confidence. He put a message on his website taking Democrats to task for defeatism in the face of sagging polls for John Kerry and Kerry's tepid campaign. A classic pep talk.

Should Democratic Vice Presidential CandidateJohn Edwards' Face Be On A Milk Carton?

Slate's Chris Suellentrop argues that Edwards is doing just what he was picked to do -- to work underneath the political radar...and we won't know if he succeeded until election day. Read this intriguing piece.

But Edwards is stepping out more into the limelight.

Don't Tell Dick Cheney This....

but someone disagrees with him...

The Emmys Are Silly

James Walcott has had it with the Emmys. A small excerpt:

The winners were mostly predictable, which made the dithering lack of preparation by the winners even more inexcusable. These are supposedly professional actors who, stepping on stage to accept an award, babble and hyperventilate and act like they just won a high school contest. Cynthia Nixon has been an actor since she was a teen--I met her on the set of Tanner '88, where she was playing the candidate's activist daughter--and yet "umm'd" between every other word in her acceptance speech. Sarah Jessica Parker went from her egregious giggly bit into near hysterics as she realized she wouldn't be able to remember and rattle off all the names she wanted to thank.

And those thanks have gotten more and more infantile. If you're going to make a serious statement about AIDS, as Jeffrey Wright did, rehearse it beforehand, don't tack it on to a list in which you thank your agent, etc. I'm sick of everybody thanking their agent and their stylist and their manager and, most of all, their "kids." What do one's children have to do with one's work on the set? It's a fatuous sentimentality....

Take in all of his wit -- and wisdom -- and read the entire post.

Reuters Tells Canadian Papers: If You Insert The Word 'Terrorist' Take Our Name Off The Credits

Reuters has gone to war -- with Canadian papers, that is.

It's mad because Canada's largest paper in an editorial said it was going to insert the word "terrorist" and throw out the British news agencies other politically neutral words like "insurgents" or "militants" (we would not want to offend those who believe there's nothing wrong with cutting off a terrified or screeching man's head, or burning and defiling the bodies of Americans, or blowing up children, you know).

At issue is the National Post, flagship of Canada's largest newspaper chain. According to a news story the paper's editorial

...said Reuters' "use of euphemisms" such as "militant," "insurgent" and "extremist" to describe some of the people in the Middle East and Iraq "merely serves to apply a misleading gloss of political correctness." The Post editorial concluded: "We believe we owe it to our readers to remove it before they see their newspapers every morning."

And Reuters' response?

David Schlesinger, Reuters global managing editor, said last week that he would like the Post and any of the other 12 newspapers in the CanWest Global chain to remove or reposition the Reuters credits from stories that have been "substantially altered." As a policy, Reuters avoids words such as "terrorist" and "terrorism," preferring "the absence of emotion in [its] vocabulary, so that events may be judged dispassionately" and its reporters in the field "can be protected."

Anyway, that's the way Britain's laughingstock parody of accurate journalistic labelling -- The Moderate Voice avoids words like news agency in referring to Reuters, preferring the absence of inaccuracy in our vocabulary, so its work can be judged with logic and its editors can have their political biases more clearly revealed -- has responded to the Canadian papers.

How They Envisioned A 2004 Home Computer Would Look In 1954

Well, they came close........

There IS Good News From Iraq, Too.....

....and Arthur Chrenkoff has it here.

OTHER VOICES: The One Who Will Win The Debates Is...

From Matt Yglesias:

Bush didn't try to back out of the "town hall" debate because he was afraid of the format. That was just a clever trick. He's going to kick ass in all three debates, but especially in the town hall. John Kerry's nuanced ways may go over okay with the elite press corps, but when he gets to speak mano a mano with average Americans, George W. Bush's rhetorical skills are unmatched.

Like regular people he eschews details in favor of broad principles and compelling moral language, positively exuding the combination of decency and boldness that people are looking for in a leader. The debates are going to be a rough ride for Kerry, whose strength lies in the formal address. If he manages to get through the ordeal without utterly humiliating himself, I'll be happy.

Indeed, Bush has won all major debates he has been in during his professional career (with the exception of possibly a couple of lackluster performances in the early Republican primaries until he found his footing).

Kerry is going to have is work cut out for him.

They Should Move On

Rick Heller, who Centerfield blog is always a delight due to its unpredictable positions on issues (it's worth a daily visit no matter what your political persuasion) has this suggestion:

Remember when MoveOn was founded, to try to move the national conversation on from where it was stalled around the impeachement of Bill Clinton. Well, in these precious waning days of the campaign, I hope we can move on from these distractions.

Dan Rather should take responsibility for his mistakes, and move on from his anchor position.

George W. Bush should be forced to take responsibility for his mistakes with regards to the Iraq War, and move on to the status of ex-President.

Lots of people with better performance records are losing their jobs these days. There's no reason these two guys should have tenure.

They Do Lots of GREAT THINGS In China....

...but not in architecture.

Catholic School Hates These Fruity Sweet Wrappers

It says they're obscene.

John Kerry Begins To Un-nuance

John Kerry has begun tossing out the "on the other hands" and punch with one-well aimed fist on the Iraq war issue.

For Kerry, much of the nuance is being deep-sixed and his message sharpened, as this transcript of his speech yesterday at New York University illustrates.

It was perhaps his best written speech yet. Still, at this juncture is it too little too late? Perhaps not, because news from Iraq (minus the good stuff we have in another post appearing tomorrow) is mostly bad and getting worse with a positive end-game not easily in sight.

We don't usually run pieces of speeches, but this reflects the campain's shift, so here are some excerpts:

In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America’s ideals. We must reach them.

To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.

Here he underscores the fact that he doesn't plan to be soft on terrorists, which answers Speaker of the House Dennis Halstert's (truly silly) statement that if America is attacked Kerry might respond by taking it to take it to the World Court. Kerry here once again confirms the fact that the political elites (not necessarily party militants) have a fairly good consensus on dealing with the terrorism issue. More:

National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made… and the choices I would make… to fight and win the war on terror.

That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

Significance: raising fact that no end game is in sight. There in fact could be one - but it's not evident amid mounting bad news of American military deaths, kidnappings and beheadings from Iraq.

The first and most fundamental mistake was the President’s failure to tell the truth to the American people. He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.

By one count, the President offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.

The GOP has successfully tarred Kerry with the "flip-flop" label -- when actually both Kerry and Bush should be sent casual shoes. And we don't mean loafers.

His two main rationales – weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection – have been proved false… by the President’s own weapons inspectors… and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.

Tough talk..He goes through a list of things the administration did that were wrong:

This President was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.

The administration told us we’d be greeted as liberators. They were wrong.

They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq’s infrastructure. They were wrong.

They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong.

They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong.

They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.

In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the President has held no one accountable, including himself.

In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.

And what he would have done differently?

I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein – who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.

The President’s insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the Commander-in-Chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the President himself. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be.

He calls for stronger alliances, involving the UN, better training of Iraqi security forces and other things.

For the best "take" on Kerry read the whole transcript (do NOT accept a liberal, moderate or conservative blogger's interpretation -- read it for yourself and decide for yourself).

Is Bob Novak Right? Is Bush Planning To Get Out Of Iraq ASAP?

"Independent" (yeah, right..) columnist Bob Novak often reflects official administration thinking -- but the question is: is Novak's latest revelation truly official thinking or a clever attempt by some in the administration to possibly neutralize voter unease over the war by suggesting Bush will pullout quickly if re-elected?

Here's what he wrote:

Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.

This prospective policy is based on Iraq's national elections in late January, but not predicated on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement. Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The United States would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction.

The reality of hard decisions ahead is obscured by blather on both sides in a presidential campaign. Six weeks before the election, Bush cannot be expected to admit even the possibility of a quick withdrawal. Sen. John Kerry's political aides, still languishing in fantastic speculation about European troops to the rescue, do not even ponder a quick exit. But Kerry supporters with foreign policy experience speculate that if elected, their candidate would take the same escape route.

Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.

I don't believe it for a second. I supported the war for a variety of reasons and have never called on the U.S. to withdraw. On the other hand, the post-victory occupation has clearly been an ill-planned toe-stubbing from day one. But if the U.S. just pulled out while the country was in chaos, divided, struggling with violence -- it'd be a fiasco. Kerry hasn't called for that kind of pullout, either.

Our guess: this is to defuse growing voter unease about the way and take some of the wind out of the sails of John Kerry's current big push on the war issue. This way GWB can have it both ways: insist we're there until the job is done but have it leak out through a columnist "inside story" that in reality he plans to pull out. Some swing voters might want to vote for Bush then. But Novak's column, and the number of people it reaches, can only go so far: Kerry shows no sign of letting up on the war issue and Bush responds by insisting the war was a justified one and the stabilizing the country is a crucial one. It can't be stablized in its present condition...so we'll be there for a while.

"Sky Captain" ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Last night I saw Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow -- and it is GREAT! It was the top film this weekend and deserves every penny of it (and more).

There are tons of reviews on the Internet, so I'm not going to do a long one here except to tell you:

(1) Forget the posturing reviews by critics who blast the acting etc and directing. The audience loved it, the film moved at break-neck pace and it was as good as any adventure-science fiction film I've ever seen. I took a 9 year old and a 12 year old and both want to see it again.

(2) In some ways it's reminiscent of Disney's ahead-of-its-time but ultimately boring "Tron," filmed as the Disney Studios' original post-Disney-death administration saw a decline in their company's fortunes, leading to the take-over by Michael Eisner. It's almost all digitally created.

(3) It's amazing when you realize that every ripple of water, every tree, every light, every moving car, and even tiny people in the distance or sitting in a theater were created in a computer.

(4) It has the look of an old Flash Gordon style serial and a comic book, but not as phoney as the (awful) movie Dick Tracy.

(5) Critics were way off the mark in saying there was no chemistry between the leads in this movie. They played it like it was a classic 40s period piece. Even the color tones are a bit muted, to give it the period look.

(6) Most delightful to me: a clear homage to the original King Kong. When you go see it compare this film's jungle scenes with the jungle scenes in King Kong. Almost a copy. Lovingly and masterfully done (I am a huge fan of the original King Kong and have read a ton of material on it).

How much did I love it? I'll go to see it one or more times -- to again look at the amazing techical work and savor some of the lines. Critics need to lighten up. It's meant to be a zippy celluloid roller-coaster ride, not a prim and proper symphony concert.

UPDATE: If you want a review, here's a good one.

A New Weapon To Use Against The Iraquis

The new idea: microwave weapons.

Cool! Now troops can "nuke" the Iraquis and make popcorn at the same time...

The Issue Of Character

Daniel Drezner has some interesting thoughts about what role it's playing in this election, who it's hurting worse, and why.

CBS & Rather Statements: We "Regret" Airing The Story -- Which Was A "Mistake"

CBS has essentially issued a retraction in a statement on the CBS 60 Minutes National Guard story, saying it could not authenticate the controversial documents that it was a "mistake" to run with it -- and offered a new bit of news in the process.

The statement says that the source Texas Guard official Bill Burkett "has acknowledged that he provided the now-disputed documents" and "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."

From the CBS website:
CBS News said Monday it cannot prove the authenticity of documents used in a 60 Minutes story about

President Bush's National Guard service and that airing the story was a "mistake" that CBS regretted.

CBS News Anchor Dan Rather, the reporter of the original story, apologized.

CBS claimed a source had misled the network on the documents' origins.

In a statement, CBS said former Texas Guard official Bill Burkett "has acknowledged that he provided the now-disputed documents" and "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."

The network did not say the memoranda — purportedly written by one of Mr. Bush's National Guard commanders — were forgeries. But the network did say it could not authenticate the documents and that it should not have reported them.

"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report," said the statement by CBS News President Andrew Heyward. "We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret.

"Nothing is more important to us than our credibility and keeping faith with the millions of people who count on us for fair, accurate, reliable, and independent reporting," Heyward continued. "We will continue to work tirelessly to be worthy of that trust."

And CBS will do more on this story. More from CBS:

Additional reporting on the documents will air on Monday's CBS Evening News, including the interview of Burkett by Rather. CBS News pledged "an independent review of the process by which the report was prepared and broadcast to help determine what actions need to be taken."

And Dan Rather? He said if he knew what he knows now, he wouldn't have used the documents.

In a separate statement, Rather said that "after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically."

"I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers," he said.

"We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry," Rather added.

The authenticity of the documents — four memoranda attributed to Guard commander Lt. Col. Jerry Killian — has been under fire since they were described in a Sept. 8 broadcast of 60 Minutes.

CBS had not previously revealed who provided the documents or how they were obtained.

Burkett has previously alleged that in 1997 he witnessed allies of then-Gov. Bush discussing the destruction of Guard files that might embarrass Mr. Bush, who was considering a run for the presidency. Bush aides have denied the charge.

In the statement, CBS said: "Burkett originally said he obtained the documents from another former Guardsman. Now he says he got them from a different source whose connection to the documents and identity CBS News has been unable to verify to this point."

Now the question is going to be: WHO was that source?

But by issuing this statement CBS has at least stopped the massive bleeding -- but not the bleeding. It waited so long it's credibility has been damaged; this wasn't just a case of bloggers but other key media outlets going after the veracity of CBS. If it had just been a case of bloggers CBS' retraction wouldn't have come. In fact, many journalists were dismayed by how this story ever got on the air, given the strict standards of confirmation on major stories practiced by not only most news outlets (including local papers) but also taught in journalism schools.

PREDICTION: This will likely increase interest in the media for more information on George Bush's military history. There were two issues here: the validity of the documents and whether forgeries were being held up as real, and questions about Bush's military history.

(For the record we don't care about the military history of EITHER candidate and it won't affect our vote. Swift Boat Vets or newly released documents on Bush? We care about other issues relevant to the 21st Century -- and will vote for the camp that most focuses on policies, not personalities. We don't agree with either candidate totally so this will make a difference in November.)

WHAT SOME OTHER VOICES ARE SAYING:
--Susanna Cornett:"That last is a good start, almost two weeks late. At least they didn't say "but the story is true". Not yet, anyway. But there's still a lot on the table, including the ultimate source of the documents. Was it Burkett? Or someone else? nteresting to see where this goes, especially given Burkett's long history of hatred for the Bushes, and his widely reported comments online that were available to any CBS staffer with access to Google (e.g. all of them). The "good faith" bit is something of a stretch in that light."
--Dean Esmay:"They're still not, apparently, admitting that many, many credible sources told them things they chose to ignore which cast doubt on other parts of the story that they aired. Therefore, it appears to this reporter that CBS News is still trying to weasel out from under this one, to merely state that the memos were questionable but not their contents. This despite the avalanche of evidence to the contrary. Rather plans a major apology on the CBS Evening News tonight. We'll see how far he goes, but it looks to me like he's still not going to fully do the right thing.
--Oliver Willis:"So CBS is saying not that they have been proven fake, but that they shouldn't have run them. Fine, though I do wish our media was less sloppy. Fox News outputs the journalistic equivalent of the Bush memos every day, but that seems to never be covered."
--THIS JUST IN! James Wolcott has this SCOOP!!!:

In a shock announcement that will reverberate through broadcast journalism, CNN has acknowledged that it can no longer vouch for the authenticity of host Wolf Blitzer.

After months of being buffeted by accusations and speculation, CNN subjected Blitzer to a series of forensic tests over the weekend and determined that his beard is a polyfiber synthetic and his lack of affect was attributable to a defective chip insecurely fitted into his fliptop head.

Read the whole thing!!!!!!!!!!!!
--Steven Taylor:

First off, I love “after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically"–how pathetic an admission is that? They can’t even come out and say that the documents are fake, as the rest of the world has concluded. No, now they are saying that they just there are sufficient doubts not to use the docs, not that the documents are forgeries.

And claiming that they were “misled” is too much of an absolving statement. The honest to gosh truth is that they were sloppy and did not engage in due dilligence with their research–it is that simple.

--Obsidian Wings:"I think it's fair to question why Rather rushed to air this story. He obviously knew it could harm Bush. He owes Bush an apology, as well as the nation."
--Daniel Drezner adds:

1) The statement implies that the documents got through the process because their source -- Bill Burkett -- lied to CBS about their provenance. This fails to mention the fact that their own document experts raised serious doubts.

2) CBS can mock the blogosphere all it wants, but it's worth pointing out the partisan (meant in the best sense) Kevin Drum recognized the dubious quality of Burkett as a source long before the nonpartisan staff at CBS: "I talked with Burkett at length back in February, and speaking as someone who believes his story about Bush's files being purged, I still wouldn't trust him for a second if he suddenly produced a bunch of never-before-seen memos out of nowhere."

--Allah has a lot of comments, reactions and questions about this controversy.
--Stirling Newberry of Blogging of the President says Democrats shouldn't wait for a document that'll win the election for them:"It means it is time to go on the offensive and stop waiting for the memo to fall out of the sky, because the truth is coming home every day - down an arm or draped in a flag, or on a pink slip, or in another phone message that says "I'm sorry we aren't hiring." The lesson is that this is about what is going on in the country, and not what is in a file someplace."
--TBogg:"For those keeping score at home, the fact that the Killian papers may be fake proves that George Bush did fulfill his National Guard service.Just like the fake Hitler Diaries proved the World War II never happened."
--Michele Catalano:

Burkett was set up by a big fish. Maybe Rather and CBS think a quick passive-aggressive apology (a week too late) and passing the blame to someone else will put an end to this. But I ask this: What happened to Rather's unimpeachable source? It's obvious that's not a reference to Burkett. So why not come totally clean and tell us who the source is?

I think Rather is going to get away with this and that pisses me off to no end. CBS will keep firing away at will at everyone except their man Rather. I mean, a man of such integrity and fairness, a man so honored and admired, cannot go down like this. He is Dan Rather and when the battlefield clears, he'll be sitting in a throne while the peasants lay bloody in the streets.

--Jude Nagurney Camwell aka Iddybud:In this case, the media turned bloggers' hard work into their own major storyline.While I applaud the exposé, it has become a sideshow that causes Americans, at this crucial time, to take the focus off important issues that affect our very security. I watched MSNBC today and their news-focus was 70% Dan Rather and 30% left for other issues.

Television journalists are egocentric and love to do stories on their own profession. Combine that ego with a right-tilted bent, and you have FOX News on an acid trip. Everyone in TV journalism should remember there is a war going on in this country and that Dan Rather isn't the one responsible for all the violence.... The media would never pick up on some of the left bloggers' developing stories because I firmly believe they are a tool of a corporate oligarchy that is obviously embroiled in a conflict of interest with the TRUTH.
--Dave Pell:

But ultimately, I never thought the documents or the story helped the Dems at all (although the CBS stonewalling and the size of this story likely hurts them). For weeks, the goal of the Kerry campaign has been (or should have been) to get the hell out of the 70s. This story just put them right back there.

If it turns out that these fake memos came from a Democrat hoping to try out some of the GOP's dirty tricks, then it will mark an epic failure of judgment. The story was a net negative when it looked like it was true. And it's a disaster now that it's been proven false.

--Michelle Malkin:

Why am I thinking of the Sound of Music?

I have confidence in confidence alone
Besides which you see I have confidence in me!

Update: From Dan Rather's statement today:

...I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically...

--In The Bullpen's Chad Evans has an extensive post. One highlight:

The simple fact of the matter is the CBS probably didn’t know the documents were forged at the time, however they were so interested in finishing a five year old story they didn’t care if they were authentic or not. They sought out documents and evidence that advanced their hypothesis while discounting evidence to the contrary. Is this a moral way of reporting news? Of course it isn’t.

60 Minutes is not a news show, it’s a televised magazine. They can and do push agendas and editorialize the news. In fact it’s what they get paid to do. The fine line between editorializing the news and presenting an editorial as fact was crossed the moment Dan Rather sat down for the Evening News the day after the 60 Minutes II segment and discussed the issue. This is where CBS is guilty and this is where the viewing public should be outraged.

--Josh Marshall:"CBS says that while they have no specific knowledge that the documents are forgeries they also say that they cannot authenticate them and that the story should never have run. This only prompts the question of why they took so much on faith from Burkett in the first place."
--Scott Rosenberg:

What really hurts, for CBS and the rest of the networks' news operations, is that, at this late date in media history, trust is the only advantage the broadcast networks can claim. They no longer deliver the news faster than rivals, they certainly don't deliver it in more depth or from more viewpoints or with more style. Their only remaining edge has been a sort of generic, fossilized authority. More people get their news from us than through any other channel, the broadcasters' unspoken claim went. That makes us the arbiters of the news. And we take that responsibility seriously -- you can count on us to get things right.

I don't think CBS's mishandling of the Guard memos story has much to do with left vs. right or Kerry vs. Bush; it's about the passing of an ancien regime. The twilight of the anchors has been upon us for some time, but with the affair of the memos, the flames are now climbing up Black Rock.

--Glenn Reynolds:"I want to know where the documents came from, and I want to know why Rather isn't more interested in getting to the bottom of all that -- and in telling us what happened. If he's not willing to do that, he should resign. Or be fired."
--Powerline's Hindrocket:

So Rather and 60 Minutes stay resolutely behind the curve. The significant part of the statement--"I no longer have...confidence in these documents"--could and should have been said on September 9. They still can't bring themselves to admit what everyone knows, that the documents are fakes.

And Rather's statement studiously avoids the only question that remains open: where did CBS get the forged documents? Specifically, did they come from the Kerry campaign? As we've noted, an email from Bill Burkett indicates that he gave materials to Max Cleland for use in the campaign. Those materials are presumably the forged documents. So Rather can't go much longer without answering the obvious question: did you get the forgeries from Max Cleland?

--Jeff Jarvis:

CBS and Dan Rather so royally screwed up and they didn't even help themselves when it finally came time to admit they screwed up. They should have come out telling all and explaining every step of the process -- reporting on their own reporting -- and falling over themselves to apologize to (1) the audience, (2) Bush, (3) journalism....

And what the hell is Rather doing just releasing a statement. You're a TV network, mate. You should be releasing your statement on video -- if not on the air then at least on the internet -- so people can hear your tone of voice and judge your contrition.

--Jay Tea at Wizbang:"I guess we all know just what Rather considers "unimpeachable" sources... paranoid nutcases and himself. Now if you'll excuse me, I feel the need to throw up."

Germany's Far Right Gains: Reason For Fear?

Germany's far right showed troubling strength in its gains in the recent elections. So should we worry yet? Experts say: not yet, according to Reuters:

Germany's far right has surged in regional elections in the former east amid high unemployment and unpopular labour reforms but the gains are unlikely to turn into national election success, analysts say.

"We are not seeing a slide back into the Weimar Republic," Everhard Holtmann, a political scientist from the University of Halle told German radio, referring to the period that preceded the Nazi's rise to power.

The National Democratic Party (NPD), which the government has likened to the Nazis and has tried to ban, won 9.2 percent of the vote in Saxony on Sunday, the far-right's best result in six years. In neighbouring Brandenburg, the German People's Union (DVU), held assembly seats with 6.1 percent.

While the votes have exposed a trend, analysts said the German far-right would continue to struggle in general elections, where protest votes are less common and links to big parties are traditionally far stronger.

The next general election in Germany is scheduled for 2006.

"I'd say the NPD have little chance," said Hans-Gerd Jaschke, an expert on the far-right at Muenster police academy, of the party's chances of entering the German Bundestag.

Gains by the far-right and ex-communists point to widespread anger at economic conditions in the former east, where unemployment is twice the level in the west, and at the government's reform plans.

Berlin's plans to cut jobless benefits have brought tens of thousands onto the streets, particularly in the east, and pushed the electorate to the political fringes.

Fair enough. But the troubling aspect here is that if these kinds of conditions helped foster gains at the polls, perhaps new or aggravated circumstances will increase the gains more. And there have been all kinds of signs (including an apparently facscinating new color movie about Adolph Hitler that humanizes hiim a bit) that German's new generation wants to chart its own course...which hopefully won't be to inch towards returning to the catastrophic errors of past generations.

We LIKE This Admirable, Lively And Unusual NEW BLOG

I was surfing on the net and, lo and behold, I found a name for a blog that was quite intriguing: Teenage Pundit. So I clicked on it (like I hope you will now and after you read this).

As soon as I got the page, I started reading and it was clear I wanted to not only read more, but add it to my already too-cluttered blogroll that is overwhelming my site. I read posts on this new blog that were witty, all over the place politically (which I like) and clearly the product of lots of thought.

And then I read something that almost blew me away: the Teenage Pundit is 13.

Go to this blog yourself and check it out. I especially love this post on Dennis Kucinich (but Kucinich's campaign must have made a mistake: if it's a Dennis Kucinich ad it should show MARS and not Earth). Read through the posts.

Even if you don't agree with him on everything he has a clear future not only as an (unpaid) blogger but as a (paid) writer and, most likely, a political analyist.

Since the Blogosphere attracts all types, I am sure some empty-headed members of the GAL Club (The Moderate Voice has the Get A Life Club for people who have nothing better to do but dump on people) may hassle him about his age. But I emailed him and noted to him that at least one high level blog uses a skilled 16 year old analyst -- and The Moderate Voice himself was a political junkie at age 13 who knew more about politics than any of his relatives (some of them felt quoting Time Magazine was The Truth were TMV read a zillion publications from all sides and did not simply regurgitate one publications reporting for his ideas).

We are SURE that we -- and a lot of other people -- are going to hear a LOT from Andrew Quinn in the future. And we do NOT say that because he's 13 and doing a blog -- but because he is doing a GOOD BLOG that we will visit each day.

And we hope you will, too.

It Looks Like the GOP Will Retain The House

It looks like it's "Goodbye to Democratic hopes to regain the House" this fall due to the truly poor campaign waged by John Kerry, according to the Washington Post. But Centerfield's Rick Heller thinks Kerry could get the word out that he could work with a GOP house, which could keep Kerry on a fiscally sound financial footing.

Overcoming Challenges: It Can Be Done

Click here to see an amazing story about overcoming challenges. Make sure you watch it ALL. To the very end. And you'll be amazed. Don't be turned off by the beginning. You'll think about it a lot, and foward this onto your friends. Love (from others) and persistance (from within) can make a difference.

How The Media Can Mislead Its Story Subjects

Actor Wil Wheaton, who has an excellent blog (we have added it to our blogroll under Other Voices since it has some great writing and -- THANK GOD -- it''s not yet another blog mired in partisan name-calling or shilling for a specific candidate) has a fascinating and instructive post on how a reporters cn sometimes mislead subjects they interview or otherwise feature regarding what they're going to write.

Before I get into that, though, I need to share with you how I did it as a journalist.

I really tried to be honest with my interview subjects and with one notable exception even people who didn't come out too good in some of my stories called me again and again -- because I was fair. But I did have one experience with a TV network myself when I went fulltime as a ventriloquist. This guy from a major network showed up and said how he wanted to use me for a feature on dummies. He interviewed me for a half hour and wanted to see me do a show.

My show was at stand up comedy night at a restaurant in Chula Vista, about 15 minutes from the border. The restaurant manager asked the field producer if he wanted the lights on and he said no he wanted it dark. They taped my show. They told me how much they loved it and that they would let me know immediately when the segment was schedule and that it would get me lots of business.

I later got a call from a friend telling me he had seen me on TV. I asked and he said, no they didn't mention my name. I tracked it down and got a copy of the bit. The segment began showing me and my dummy in the dimly lit room, with nothing identifying me, and the reporter saying: "What you see how is a ventriloquist working a dimly lit room in a border town. You want to ask "What's a nice dummy doing in a place like this?"

They didn't run one second of my interview with them -- but had called attention to the lack of light which THEY requested. And Chula Vista is not a border town, although it is not far away from the border. And, of course, they never told me when it aired -- since they apparently hoped I wouldn't see it.

Wil Wheaton, the fine young actor who was in Stand By Me and Star Trek: The Next Generation, is now a highly popular (non-political) blogger and writer and has a book out, Just A Geek. Read his WHOLE post of how he he says he was deceived by a magazine reporter but here are a few excerpts:

Last week, Entertainment Weekly called my manager, and said that they were going to write (about) Just A Geek (his new book) in this week's issue. I told my manager that I was concerned, because Entertainment Weekly has always written really cruel and misleading stories about me and my website, but the reporter assured him that this would just be a nice blurb announcing the release of my book.

Since the mainstream media have completely ignored me and Just A Geek, I was pretty excited that an influential magazine like Entertainment Weekly was going to give me a little ink.

That "nice blurb?" I just saw it on page 83:

And what did will see? Just guess. He saw this:

"Whiner of the Week"
In his blog-cum-memoir Just a Geek, the former Star Trek, TNG cast member, now 32, fills 260 pages endlessly lamenting, "I used to be an actor when I was a kid."

From what I've read about the book, it is quite GOOD. This looks like a review (and I am still ranked among Amazon's Top 500 Reviewers, which I may soon lose due to spending time on this blog) based on a SKIM versus a reading of a book.
Wheaton goes on:

It's pretty clear that the person hack who wrote this awful, mean-spirited, and misleading blurb didn't read the entire book, because I DON'T spend 260 pages "lamenting I used to be an actor when I was a kid." I spend the first chapter talking about those feelings, because it's an important foundation for the rest of the story. A responsible journalist would know that.

It's one thing to criticize the way I write, or opine that I spend too much time on one thing, and not enough time on another. That's totally valid opinion . . . but to completely misrepresent me and the content of my book this way is despicable.

It sounds like someone there was into imagery typecasting. It's sort of like what we see in our political campaigns these days: better to do a negative attack based on a stereotype within aggressive that reads or sounds good than take the time and do a thoughtful analysis on IDEAS.

FOOTNOTE TO WIL WHEATON: If it makes you feel any better, I'm going to order Just A Geek from Amazon. I'll read it totally and I'll do a review. Mine will take some time to do, I won't get a cent from it (as I don't get a cent from this time-consuming blog) but I guarentee you I'll take the time to read it, underline it, think about it -- THEN write about it.

Censoring Free Speech: Is It A Problem On The Left?

Earlier in the year, a huge issue was whether there was a trend in the U.S. towards cracking down on free speech. Musicians and actors who found themselves reeling from public backlash against their political comments against the war said it was indicative of an attempt to intimidate them. And then there was the infamous Janet Jackson breast reveal during the Superbowl Halftime show, the crackdown on language on radio, and Howard Stern getting booted from some stations for language and over-the-line subject matter (he later charged that Oprah Winfrey is getting away with some of the same stuff).

Most of that entails allegations that the left has been censored. But now, one of our favorite new blogs, Tutakai, makes the case that the left has its own problems with allowing opposing ideas to get a full airing. Tutakai's "militant moderate" Jason Steck writes about Michelle Malkin's battle to express her opinion. He saw her on CSPAN talking at Berkeley about her highly controversial new book "In Defense of Internment" which makes the case that internment or other "racial profiling" measures may be justified on the grounds of extreme national security. Some excerpts:

Now, let me say that I find Malkin's argument troubling. Even if we grant her contention, the idea that some such restrictions may be justified does not necessarily mean that a specific policy -- especially one as intense as internment -- is justified at a specific time and place. At a minimum, we should be seeking to narrowly tailor such restrictions rather than, as Malkin does, giving broad-brush approval by waving the national security talisman.

Nonetheless, while Malkin's argument can be countered, it should nonetheless not be censored. Yet this is precisely what protesters at Berkeley repeated sought to do, disrupting Malkin's speech by their frequent attempts to invade the premises, intimidate attendees, and otherwise use mob action. Attendees near the back of the room, where protesters were threatening throughout the speech to break past security and invade the room, are clearly fearful of impending assault -- you can see it on their faces. I mean, protest is fine -- they should be allowed to have express their views on Malkin's book. But protesters who use their free speech rights in ways that threaten others are nothing more than rank hypocrites. The free speech movement was born at Berkeley, yet now that campus seems one of the least free, with self-appointed arbitors of political correctness deciding for themselves who shall be allowed access to the public forum.

Indeed: it is HIGHLY ironic if you (like The Moderate Voice, who is more youthful in appearance -- and some say less psychologically mature -- than his actual years) remember how fiercly Berkeley students fought for "free speech" decades ago. And Steck notes that this attitude is sparking a backlash -- in him:

Just when my irritation at the extremely high degree of intellectual intolerance on the left starts to wane, a new major incident seems to emerge. These are not isolated cases -- this is a widespread cultural problem on the left. Liberals need to look in the mirror and ask whether they are really taking personal actions to protect the free speech rights they personally hold dear or whether they are, by neglect and misplaced loyalty, allowing those rights to become meaningless next to the power of the mob.

ALSO: Be sure to read his post here on the Dan Rather controversy.

Portrait Of A Blogger

Don't miss Bogus Gold's extensive interview with Mitch Berg of A Shot In The Dark (see our Blogroll under Right Voices). Click here for this MUST READING for people who visit blogs, bloggers (new and old) and blogging wannabies.

And Now There Are Three

Aha! It looks like sound political heads have prevailed in the Great Debate over the Presidential Debates: now they're back slating three debates for the Prez spot, a victory for an informed electorate in a bitterly contested election.
The Washington Post (obnoxious registration required) reports:

The campaigns of President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry have tentatively settled on a package of three face-to-face debates that both sides view as a potentially decisive chance to sway huge audiences ahead of the Nov. 2 election, Democrats and Republicans said yesterday.

Bush's campaign, which opened the negotiations by urging just two sessions involving Bush and Kerry, yielded to the full slate of debates that had been proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates, according to people in both parties who were briefed on the negotiations.

No agreement will be final until the two sides agree on details for the format of a town-meeting-style debate that Bush at first resisted but now is willing to endorse, the party representatives said.

Smart move by the Bush camp. Insisting on just two debates would NOT have gained him any votes, even if he didn't like the proposed format. His camp can also demand safeguards so that the "town hall" style debate is indeed not a stacked deck containing partisans versus independent voters.

The debates will be spread over two weeks just before the hectic homestretch of a bitter contest that had been tied for months until Bush recently opened a small lead in a number of national polls. The nominees will focus on foreign policy during the opening session, on Sept. 30 in Florida; they will take questions from undecided voters at the town-meeting-style debate Oct. 8 in Missouri; and they will conclude with a session on Oct. 13 in Arizona that will revolve around domestic issues.

A nice formula.

Vice President Cheney and Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards will debate Oct. 5 in Ohio. Each of the four debates will begin at 9 p.m. Eastern time and will run 90 minutes.

The Kerry campaign is guilty of virtual political negligence due to their non-use of John Edwards on a national scale. Any day his picture will be on a milk carton.

Edwards is an extremely likeable candidate. It'll be interesting to see how he stacks up with Vice President Dick Cheney, who did very well in his debate against Joe Lieberman in 2000 (I know of one lady in Connecticut who voted for Bush because she was impressed with Cheney).

The officials, who declined to be identified because they were not supposed to be discussing the matter with reporters, would not say when an agreement will be announced.

Both campaigns declined to comment on the state of negotiations. Bush-Cheney communications director Nicolle Devenish said: "The campaign maintains its position that it will not negotiate the terms of the debates in the press."

Kerry's campaign sees the debates as especially important, coming after a period in which he has been put on the defensive by the Bush campaign and its conservative allies. Polls paint a confusing picture of the state of the race, with some showing a virtual dead heat and others giving Bush a clear advantage. In many of the key battleground states, Bush appears in stronger shape than his challenger.

Bush's chief negotiator, former secretary of state James A. Baker III, agreed to three debates in part because of Missouri's importance as a swing state and because the president did not want to be portrayed as ducking his opponent, according to a source.

Baker is no dummy (pardon the expression). A savy move on his part. Right now we see a slick, on-message, well-coordinated Bush campaign versus a confused, strategy-of-the-week Kerry campaign. If Kerry can steady his campaign so it has some consistency then do well in the debates this could truly be a close election. But if his campaign continues drifting and he only does a passable job in the debates he's toast since some voters will wonder if he has the skills to govern -- and Bush will be judged to be, at the very least, the stronger of the two candidates.

A lot is riding on these debates.

GUEST VOICE: John Kerry Should Fire All The Clintonistas

Seth Farber, aka, The Talking Dog is urging John Kerry to turn up the heat -- but not in a way that you hear from the talking heads, Democratic activist blogs, or some Republican-leaning columnists who say they're independents. He writes in a post on his always lively (and unpredictable) blog:

Meanwhile, stateside, while Senator Kerry tries to hammer home... domestic issues... like unemployment, health care, budget deficits, the environment, tax fairness and the like... the President insists that the ONLY relevant subject is toughness on national security. And given the President's (extremely dangerous) sudden resurgence in the national polls (just weeks after I frankly wrote him off for dead), the voters would seem to agree with him on this.

Certainly, if he has not done so already, Senator Kerry needs to fire any and all staff members of his who ever had anything to do with either of the Clintons or their minions. Next, he must immediately assume that former President Clinton's advice to him, to IGNORE national security and defense and foreign policy issues and focus on health care at a time when stupid Americans are afraid of being blown up by brown-skinned foreigners (and many INTELLIGENT Americans are rightly concerned of said brown-skinned foreigners getting their hands on NUCLEAR WEAPONS) would, most assuredly, result in his defeat. Cynics would argue that Clinton wants a George W. Bush victory, and after four more years of Bush's combination of fundamental corruption and incompetence, assuming we have a country left, it will be softened up for the next restoration. The Hillary Clinton restoration, as only a Clinton can save us. (You don't LIKE HILLARY? THEN VOTE FOR KERRY NOW TO ASSURE THAT SHE REMAINS A SENATOR.)

Sorry: Kerry has nothing to apologize for on national security, and this is no time to start shying from this issue. You steered your damned swift boat into enemy fire: take this election there. Announce YOUR plans to crush Al Qaeda, take the battle to terrorists wherever they may be found, reduce nuclear arms proliferation, and protect this nation, and do so without at any time using the words "our allies", "the United Nations", "Vietnam", or even "NATO". If this can only be done by embracing the Bush agenda on the war on terror-- then adopt it. (You're stuck with it anyway, having voted for the damned war.)

National security (and fear of terrorists killing our children) is the 800 lb. gorilla in this room. Take it on. Steer into enemy fire and take this battle, Fightin' John. We'll save American lives, and ultimately, probably save Iraqi lives too.

CBS SAYS "OOPS!" ON VALIDITY OF 60 MINUTES DOCUMENTS

CBS officials are now inching towards officially admitting that they have omlette-sized egg on their faces since the (in)famous 60 Minutes documents casting doubts on President George Bush's National Guard service are fakes.

The New York Times (obnoxious registration required) has a classic lets-leak-out-the-bad-news-so-the-damage-is-lessened-later story, which minces no words:

After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a "60 Minutes'' report that raised new questions about President Bush's National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night.

The officials, who asked not to be identified, said CBS News would most likely make an announcement as early as today that it had been deceived about the documents' origins. CBS News has already begun intensive reporting on where they came from, and people at the network said it was now possible that officials would open an internal inquiry into how it moved forward with the report. Officials say they are now beginning to believe the report was too flawed to have gone on the air.

If that's the case, then in the end some heads will indeed roll. But since Dan Rather is a big celebrity head -- set to retire relatively soon -- he may get away with an apology or hedge statement, then fade away into an unlamented retirement (and ratings nosedive). More:

But they cautioned that CBS News could still pull back from an announcement. Officials met last night with Dan Rather, the anchor who presented the report, to go over the information it had collected about the documents one last time before making a final decision. Mr. Rather was not available for comment late last night.

The report relied in large part on four memorandums purported to be from the personal file of Mr. Bush's squadron commander, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, who died 20 years ago. The memos, dated from the early 1970's, said that Colonel Killian was under pressure to "sugar coat'' the record of the young Lieutenant Bush and that the officer had disobeyed a direct order to take a physical.

Mr. Rather and others at the network are said to still believe that the sentiment in the memos accurately reflected Mr. Killian's feelings but that the documents' authenticity was now in grave doubt.

This is truly a silly and damning atttitude. There are two issues: a)Bush's military service, b)holding up documents with a flourish as a journalistic "scoop" and learning that due to sloppy confirmation (we were told on one of the papers I worked on that investigative pieces required confirmation by THREE independent sources) it turned out they were forgeries. Saying "they're fake but we believe them to be true" won't lift the cloud.

The developments last night marked a dramatic turn for CBS News, which for a week stood steadfastly by its Sept. 8 report as various document experts asserted that the typeface of the memos could have been produced only by a modern-day word processor, not Vietnam War-era typewriters.

The seemingly unflappable confidence of Mr. Rather and top news division officials in the documents allayed fears within the network and created doubt among some in the news media at large that those specialists were correct. CBS News officials had said they had reason to be certain that the documents indeed had come from the personal file of Colonel Killian.

Sandy Genelius, a network spokeswoman, said last week, "We are confident about the chain of custody; we're confident in how we secured the documents.''

But officials 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.

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.

Don't Be Mad...

We'll be back. We're still Guest Blogging at Dean's World (see below).

Monday morning we resume our usual crap...we mean THOUGHTFUL POSTS...here.

Don't flea.

An Earthquake....

in Kentucky?? (Nebraska watch out..)

Attn John: More Bad Polling News

The CBS/NY Times Poll sees Bush ahead by 11 points, clearly (in this poll) gathering momentum. See our post below Polls Shmolls on the mish-mash of contradictory polls.

Free Republic/Powerline's Buckhead: A "Conservative Activist?"

The LA Times (obnoxious registration required) has a new article about Power Line's quoted "Freep" poster Buckhead, who helped break the 60 Minutes documents controversy - and the article, saying he is a conservative activist, is likely to ignite a new round of charges -- this time coming from Democrats:

WASHINGTON — It was the first public allegation that CBS News used forged memos in its report questioning President Bush's National Guard service — a highly technical explanation posted within hours of airtime citing proportional spacing and font styles.

But it did not come from an expert in typography or typewriter history as some first thought. Instead, it was the work of Harry W. MacDougald, an Atlanta lawyer with strong ties to conservative Republican causes who helped draft the petition urging the Arkansas Supreme Court to disbar President Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Times has found.

The identity of "Buckhead," a blogger known previously only by his screen name on the site freerepublic.com and lifted to folk hero status in the conservative blogosphere since last week's posting, is likely to fuel speculation among Democrats that the efforts to discredit the CBS memos were engineered by Republicans eager to undermine reports that Bush received preferential treatment in the National Guard more than 30 years ago.

As everyone knows (blogging legend by now), the Free Republic posts were picked up by the lively blog Powerline...which set of a snowball of activity by bloggers on the issue. More from the LAT:

Republican officials have denied any involvement among those debunking the CBS story.

Reached by telephone today, MacDougald, 46, confirmed that he is Buckhead, but declined to answer questions about his political background or how he knew so much about the CBS documents so fast.

"You can ask the questions but I'm not going to answer them," he told The Times. "I'm just going to stick to doing no interviews."

Until The Times identified him by piecing together information from his postings over the past two years, MacDougald had taken pains to remain in the shadows — saying the credit for challenging CBS should remain with the blogosphere as a whole and not one individual.

"Freepers collectively possess more analytical horsepower than the entire news division at CBS," he wrote in an e-mail, using the slang term for users of the freerepublic site.

MacDougald is a lawyer in the Atlanta office of the Winston-Salem, N.C.-based firm Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice and is affiliated with two prominent conservative legal groups, the Federalist Society and the Southeastern Legal Foundation, where he serves on the legal advisory board and has been involved in several high-profile cases.

Founded in 1976, the Southeastern Legal Foundation advocates "limited government, individual economic freedom, and the free enterprise system," according to its website.

The foundation has fought affirmative action and domestic partner benefits for government employees, and successfully challenged a Clinton administration plan to use proportional sampling, rather than a hard count, to estimate the population in the 2000 census.

MacDougald helped draft the foundation's petition in 1998 that led to the five-year suspension of Clinton's Arkansas law license for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

And MacDougald assisted in the group's legal challenge to the campaign finance law sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.). The challenge, ultimately presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, was funded largely by the Southeastern Legal Foundation in conjunction with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the law's chief critic, and handled by former Clinton investigator Kenneth W. Starr.

Etc. Register (it's easy) and read the whole thing.

Footnote: Declining to comment to a newspaper on a highly controversial story is always a big mistake. The "declined to comment" line will be constantly recycled through all of their reports. It will then be picked up by other news media, spark more calls and so on. The "declined to comment" is sometimes seen as a good response for a reporter since it's dramatic and -- to editors and reports -- suggests there's a reason the subject doesn't want to talk on the record. Big bit mistake.

And there IS the question: if there's nothing to hide, why not talk about it? And will the Blogosphere demand answers to the lingering questions on this?

Easy prediction: CBS will do a piece on the LA Times story.

Troubles Mount For Dan Rather

It truly sounds as if Dan Rather's career is going to end badly because bad news for him in the 60 Minutes documents controversy keeps trickling out....or should we say pouring out.

And when it rains, it pours.

Bloggers Don't Get No Respect...

...even from the left.

John Kerry Gets Focused

It sounds like John Kerry has finally gotten focused and perhaps both campaigns may start talking extensively about the 21st Century, instead of the 1970s:

Democratic Sen. John Kerry on Friday accused the Bush administration of hiding a plan to mobilize more National Guard and reserve troops after the election while glossing over a worsening conflict in Iraq.

"He won't tell us what congressional leaders are now saying, that this administration is planning yet another substantial call-up of reservists and guard units immediately after the election," Kerry said. "Hide it from people through the election, then make the move."

As a policy, we don't link to a site we love to read, the Drudge Report (due to scoops that didn't materialize and no retractions by this site later) but it is important to read this. Now continue reading the news report:

The Democratic presidential candidate listed examples where he sees Bush misleading voters about Iraq, seeking to turn the conflict into a liability for Bush even as the president polishes his credentials as the best candidate to deter terrorists and protect the nation. Kerry portrayed the president as out of touch with a serious and dangerous situation.

"With all due respect to the president, has he turned on the evening news lately? Does he read the newspapers?" Kerry said. "Does he really know what's happening? Is he talking about the same war that the rest of us are talking about?"

Kerry spoke as the House's top Democrat said the president should "stop being in denial" about escalating problems in Iraq.

"It's clear that this administration didn't know what it was getting into, or else they grossly misrepresented the facts to the American people," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "In either case, staying the course is not an option."

So it sounds like the Democrats have zeroed in on a theme. Actually, both sides should consider this a welcome development -- and a relief. Each side has a good case to make for their policy on the war. Fine. Accentuate these differences. Let's have point, and counterpoint. That's much more preferable than a campaign about who is a "liar" (Kerry or Bush) in terms of military records etc.

There are critical differences -- some nuanced, some much deeper -- between these two candidates on the Iraq war and some terrorism-related stances. Let's hear those, too. More:

Kerry said the president is avoiding hard truths about troops casualties, new insurgencies and troop shortages.

"He doesn't tell us that with each passing day, we're seeing more chaos, more violence, more indiscriminate killings. He won't tell us that the Pentagon itself has reported that entire regions of Iraq are now in the hands of terrorists and insurgents where they weren't before," Kerry said. "He won't tell us that, day by day, we're running out of soldiers and that we're now resorted to a backdoor draft of our reservists and our National Guard."

Kerry's assertion about troop deployments after the election drew an immediate denial from the president's re-election campaign.

"John Kerry's conspiracy theory of a secret troop deployment is completely irresponsible," said spokesman Steve Schmidt. "John Kerry didn't launch this attack when he spoke to the National Guard because he knows they know it is false and ridiculous."

Now the Bush campaign should specify why these charges are false and ridiculous. (Note: I have been a SUPPORTER of the war so spare me the comments and emails about my being against the war, since that's baloney).

The voters are entitled to a spirited, detailed give and take between these two candidates on the issues that truly matter -- the issues that impact us as we move further into the 21st Century. Meanwhile, Kerry's campaign has also zeroed in on some of the questions surrounding Vice President Dick Cheney:

Kerry's campaign also intensified its criticism of the vice president and defense contractor Halliburton, the company Cheney used to lead, as an aspect of the administration's management of the war.

"Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, has profited from the mess in Iraq at the expense of American troops and taxpayers," Kerry said.

Even here we say: OK. Now let Cheney fire back and explain why this isn't the case, and lay out the situation in detail.

And the GOP can also ask Mr. Kerry: specifically what is your solution? How would you do it differently?

This is more important than John Kerry's testimony against the Vietnam war, Dan Rather, Bush's records, Kitty Kelly's new book, the Swift Boat Vets, or trying to raise questions about the validity of his medals. (Warning to GOP: A retired reservist in San Diego yesterday told me he was very upset about Swift Boat Vets and questioning Kerry's medals -- and it's a turn off for him voting for Bush...even though he does not like Kerry).

Maybe not as much fun, since you can't vent rage by discussing it. But these differences between these candidates -- brought out in extensive pre-televised debates -- are going to impact many lives in the next four years. Is an issues-oriented campaign finally upon us?

A FEW OTHER VOICES:
--James Joyner:"It certainly appears if the Democrats are getting frantic over Kerry's poor showing in the polls, willing to say or do just about anything to see if it helps. The sheer desperation--and it's only mid September--is amazing."
--Mathew Gross: "Kerry is right on it."

Is Political Demonization Causing A Backlash?

The GOP (operatives, columnists, talk show hosts and bloggers) demonize John Kerry. The Democrats (operatives, columnists, talk show hosts and bloggers) demonize President George Bush.

They say it works -- it rallies the base and gets them out to vote. But what does it do the admittedly small but potentially potent voters in the middle? One of our favorite moderate blogs (yes others exist) is Tutakai, whose "miltant moderate" Jason Steck writes:

Many of us disagree with President Bush on many levels, but we are repelled and alienated by the over-the-top rhetoric that seems to dominate and overwhelm more nuanced opposition to Bush. Frequent comparisons to Hitler, breathless predictions of impending civil rights disasters, and willful descent into deception and even outright forgery are all justified to the anti-Bush people such as those on the Democratic Underground create a very strong disincentive to join in embracing the anyone-but-Bush policy enigma that is John Kerry.

If that's too diplomatic for you, read this:

As for me, it hasn't been any great attraction from Bush's policies that has led me to lean towards the "red states".... Democrats I see on TV are matched and often exceeded by Democrats I encounter in online forums and in person spewing forth the most vile and excessive interpretations of anything and everything related to the Evil "W". Forced to choose, I'll take snooty church ladies over raving lunatics.

Intellectual inclination and emotional backlash are at war in the mind of moderates. Many moderates would very much like to see changes in the foreign policy, fiscal profligacy, and social narrowness of the Bush administration. But when we look at the foaming-at-the-mouth alternative, we have to ask, "do we really want these people in charge?" And the chameleon candidacy of John Kerry doesn't give any concrete policies to reassure us.

He has other posts of interest to moderates...and liberals and conservatives who want to see what a potential swing voter thinks.

On Target

Yep. We agree with it. After a masters in journalism and working nearly 20 years for newspapers and on newspaper staffs we think Stephen Green is right on this one. Click here then click on his link. Yep. Sure looks that way (but don't take my word for it or any blogger, do a Google search on Andy Rooney, the Washington Post, ABC, etc. See what they say.)

The Politics Of Language

Language makes a difference in politics, and the GOP has it down to a fine art, the product of think tanks and years of calculated implementation, writes Dave Pell -- who also has a copy of How Progressives Can Win on his website.

A must for progressives and conservatives -- and even a "wishy washy...liberal...conservative...secret Democrat....secret Republican" moderates like me (or so my many emails from loving readers say).

Childpower

Kids are indeed inventive -- more than you think:

Deaf children thrown together in a school in Nicaragua without any type of formal instruction invented their own sign language -- a sophisticated system that has evolved and grown, researchers reported on Friday.

Their observations show that children, not adults, are key to the evolution and development of language, the researchers report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

"It is the birth of a language," said Ann Senghas of Columbia University's Barnard College, who led the study.

The living laboratory of up to 1,000 children at a school in Managua was made possible because of the neglect of deaf people before the 1970s, a time of political and social turmoil in Nicaragua.

Deaf children were isolated and almost never learned formal sign language, Senghas and her international team of collaborators said.

"They didn't let them go out and socialize. You meet deaf people who are 50 and they really can't communicate," Senghas said.

But in 1977, a school for special education opened in Managua, followed four years later by a vocational school. For the first time, deaf children could meet and learn together, and could stay together as they grew up.

No one was there to teach them formal sign language, so they made up their own.

"The founding cohort of children started out with gesture," Senghas, a psycholinguist, said in a telephone interview.

Indeed, I was at a Junior High yesterday and I noticed the kids making gestures as teachers walked past them -- quaint gestures, using a balled fist with one finger sticking up...

Putin Warns: Terrorists Beware

More warnings from Russia's President:

President Vladimir Putin said Friday the Kremlin was preparing to take preventive action against terrorists, even as a Chechen rebel leader purportedly claimed responsibility for a series of attacks that killed hundreds of people and threatened further violence.

Putin's comments were the highest-level warning yet that Russia could take some sort of pre-emptive action against terror groups in the wake of this month's deadly school hostage-taking in Beslan. Lower-level officials have threatened anti-terror strikes abroad, and it was not immediately clear whether Putin was referring to actions only at home or outside Russia's borders.

"Now in Russia, we are seriously preparing to act preventively against terrorists," Putin said, according to the Interfax news agency. It quoted him as saying that the steps would be "in strict accordance with the law and norms of the constitution, relying on international law."

Recalling the attempts to appease Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, Putin said there could be no "bargaining" with terrorists.

"Every concession leads to a widening of their demands and multiples the losses," Putin was quoted as saying.

"In this war there is no rear or neutral zone, and where terrorists don't meet the necessary resistance, their bases and coordination centers crop up," Putin said.

Andy Rooney: Dan Rather Should 'Fess Up

What was the old saying about you-know-whats deserting a sinking ship? Is that appropriate here?

Andy Rooney:

CBS curmudgeon Andy Rooney indicated yesterday he believes the controversial documents on President Bush's National Guard service are fake and said it could cost Dan Rather down the road.

"I'm surprised at their reluctance to concede they're wrong," Rooney said, referring to CBS brass.

Despite praising Rather as "a good, honest newsman," Rooney added, "I'm unsure if they're whistling in the dark instead of apologizing."

The flap over the documents has rocked CBS News, has Republicans calling for Rather's head and has people questioning the credibility of Rather instead of Bush.

Rooney doesn't think the network would try to ease out Rather over the memo mess, but he added, "It might have an effect on him six months from now."

A Milestone Movie Opens

The milestone movie Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is opening -- a cutting-edge movie, the likes of which has never been seen before. This review notes:

On the surface, "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" can be viewed as a fun-to-watch blast from the past, but look deeper, and one can see the future of motion pictures.

Writer/director Kerry Conran combines state-of-the-art effects with a 1939 time frame, a New York setting, a serial-series structure, a pulp-fiction story and a film-noir tone. The result is a visually staggering work that - according to the International Cinematographers Guild magazine - marks the first time a live-action feature film has been produced entirely from blue-screen composites and computer-generated animation.

Basically, Conran filmed his actors - led by Jude Law ("Cold Mountain"), Gwyneth Paltrow ("Shakespeare in Love") and Angelina Jolie (the "Lara Croft" series) - against a blue-screen background. Then, the filmmaker used a computer to insert all of the visual information - except for minimal props such as desks, chairs and file cabinets - in the frame around them after the completion of principal photography.

Thanks to the digitally enhanced footage, there are no sets, interiors or location footage, and Conran was able to create eye-popping images - such as 90-foot iron giants marching down the streets of Manhattan - that would otherwise be excessively expensive.

I'll be doing a quickie post on this site when I see it. The state-of-the-art-movie's log is above. Also, if you click here you can see a state-of-the-art BLOG.

THIS JUST IN!!!

NEWS FLASH:

From Andy Borowitz:

KITTY KELLEY: BUSH HAD AFFAIR WITH SINATRA

Explains Absence from National Guard, Author Says

Celebrity biographer Kitty Kelley stirred the controversy over President George W. Bush’s National Guard service again last night, claiming that the young Mr. Bush was absent from his Guard unit because he was carrying on a torrid affair with the legendary singer Frank Sinatra.

Ms. Kelley, who revealed her latest bombshell about Mr. Bush and Mr. Sinatra last night on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” said that the Bush-Sinatra affair has been one of the best-kept secrets of the Bush presidency.

“They are doing their darnedest to hush this thing up,” Ms. Kelley said. “A president having an affair with Frank Sinatra has always been the third rail of American politics.”

According to Ms. Kelley’s account, Mr. Bush frequently left his Guard unit in the years 1972-3 to join Mr. Sinatra on his standing-room-only tour of North America.

She went on to say that in the course of “sanitizing” the President’s military service records, Guard officials destroyed a treasure trove of love letters exchanged between the future President and the fabled crooner.

While many political observers expected Sen. John Kerry to be the beneficiary of the latest round of revelations about President Bush and Frank Sinatra, new polls suggest that just the opposite may be the case.

According to a survey of likely voters taken last night, 58% said they would rather elect a man who had an affair with Frank Sinatra than one who threw away his Vietnam war medals.

But in a positive development for the Kerry campaign, Senator Kerry today was named “Employee of the Month” at a Kinko’s in Abilene.

From The Borowitz Report

(FOOTNOTE: To those who MUST be told, Borowitz writes and performs satire -- great satire. So, no, Kelly did not really say that....)

Polls Schmolls: Now Poll Puts Bush 14 Points Ahead

Pick the poll you want to believe in, or put both of them on a dartboard, close your eyes and believe the one your dart picks: one day after two polls showed the Presidential race even, a new poll puts George Bush 14 points ahead of John Kerry.
The AP report:

A new Gallup poll being released today gives President Bush a huge 13-point lead over challenger John Kerry.

But that's sharply different from a Pew Research Center poll released just yesterday. It shows Bush losing his convention bounce, with the race once again neck and neck. Pew director Andrew Kohut says after months of deadlock, voter opinion is now unsettled. He says that's going to mean more variation in the polls.

A Harris poll out yesterday also shows the race even. But the Gallup survey gives Bush a 54-to-40 percent lead over Kerry in a three-way matchup in which Ralph Nader gets three percent.

The Pew poll had also given Bush a big bump coming out of the New York convention, but Kohut says the closeness now underscores Bush's vulnerability on Iraq and the economy.
We personally favor the Zogby poll above all of them (no matter what it shows and no matter what they others show).

The USA Today headline says: "Bush Clear Leader In Poll." Spin masters of both campaigns have their job cut out with this situation. Here's the Bloomberg report:

Among people identified as likely to vote in the Nov. 2 election, 55 percent backed Bush compared with 42 percent for Kerry, a four-term U.S. senator from Massachusetts. The poll of 767 likely voters was conducted Sept. 13-15 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Three other national polls released this week show the race in a statistical tie. Bush had 47 percent to Kerry's 46 percent in a Sept. 11-14 Pew Research Center poll. A Sept. 9-13 Harris Interactive poll showed Kerry with 48 percent to 47 percent for Bush. And an Investor's Business Daily poll conducted Sept. 7-12 found them even with 46 percent support each.

Some polls ``show the race even, some show us slightly ahead, some show us way ahead,'' said Reed Dickens, a spokesman for the Bush campaign. ``We have always said that this will be a close election.''

The Gallup survey ``is a rogue poll,'' said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer. ``There is a reason the Olympics don't count the high and the low scores.''

Or, they'll say this:
“It doesn’t look like the new consultants and strategies of attacks are the right ones” for Kerry, Bush campaign adviser Matthew Dowd told USA Today.

Kerry adviser Mike McCurry told the newspaper there had been some “bouncing around in the numbers” but the campaign sensed it was moving back to a much closer race since Bush received a boost following the Republican convention that ended on Sept. 2.

Meanwhile, the Christian Science Monitor reports that the vital state of Ohio is leaning towards Bush -- not good news for the Kerry camp.

UPDATE:
--Al Hunt warns and questions about the validity of polls:

The probable outlook: Polls will vary and conflict if this race remains tight. Also, poll watchers must remember that the best survey has a three or four-point margin of error; that means if it shows the race even, one or the other candidate actually could be up by a half-dozen. Here's a final guide: If almost all the election eve polls show one candidate up four or five points or more, take it to the bank. But if most show the race within a couple of points, plan on staying up late election night

--Jeff Jarvis:"I have a much simpler theory for the disagreements: Voters are gaming the pollsters.
Just as voters started taking pride in gaming exit polls, now I'll be a high proportion plays with pollsters' heads. It's insurgent citizens' media. But it's just a guess -- as good as any other guess."

The Bush Administration and Russia

David Adesnik's item on the adminstration's attitude towards Russian President Vladimir Putin's crackdown is a MUST READ -- not just for the "meat quote" he cites but for his own comment (Oxblog is one of our favorites).

Fighting Inertia (Via A Blog)

Some interesting thoughts from a delightful new blog, Fighting Inertia:

I'm a 37-year old suburban housewife. I can't believe I'm actually admitting it. In print. To people I don't even know.

It wasn't really supposed to be this way. I swear to you that for the first fifteen years of my life I was 100% certain that I was going to become a veterinarian. Or maybe President of the United States. By college, I had refined my goals somewhat, settling for CEO of a multinational company.

But I am none of those things. I'm a housewife fighting inertia. Fighting the urge to sleep a half hour later in the morning. Or an hour. Fighting the urge to watch Dr. Phil every day. Fighting the urge to play with my kids' Gamecube when they aren't even home.....

The problem is that where I used to see the big picture, I now see the small. I revel in the beauty of ripples on a lake, the feel of fresh snow under my feet, crisp and unspoiled or the exhilaration of working up a good sweat. While this feels good on a minute by minute basis, I'm petrified I won't ever actually accomplish ANYTHING!! Ask my husband how long I've been planning to clean out the basement . . .which may soon be designated unsafe for human, or for that matter any, life.

Something tells me that keeping a blog is made for me - - I love observing, have lots of opinions, and rarely keep them to myself. Maybe sending them into the internet ether is the best idea I've had.

Read the whole post...and explore this delightful blog (a nice change from the screeching political blogs, including this one).

The Tiger Meant to HELP Him

Roy Horn says his performing white Montecore was only trying to help him when he wrapped his mouth around the Las Vegas magician's head, dragging him offstage and almost killing him.

Thank God the tiger didn't actually save him, or he'd be dead.

But it's all a matter of perspective. The details:

Speaking to German broadcaster RTL, German-born Roy Horn said the tiger, called "Montecore," was trying to stop him from falling over on stage after he suffered a dizzy spell.

"It was an accident. Montecore understood the signals and wanted to save me," the illusionist-animal trainer said, adding: "It was unfortunate that his teeth hit my carotid artery."
Yes, that is an unfortunate accident -- sort of like the accidents that happen when Mike Tyson's fist mistakenly hits another boxer in the mouth.
Horn, who performed glitzy shows with white tigers and his partner Siegfried Fischbacher, insisted Montecore not be destroyed and has already visited the animal since his release from hospital just before Christmas.

Indeed, there are two views on what Horn does. One: he and his partner provided entertainment to the (gambling..whoops I mean GAMING) public by showing them a world-class magic and big cat show. He loves his animals and took great care of them. The other: a Las Vegas stage is not a big cat's normal performing environment and the animals are being made to do unnatural things onstage, and the animal acts clahss with the animals instincts. The animals, in this view, belong in a refuge or in the wild -- not being forced to perform. More:

Horn was clinically dead for about a minute and told RTL about the experience: "I saw flashing bright lights and my mother. My beloved animals were lying at her feet."

He had a simple explanation for his brush with death on his 59th birthday: "I was not allowed to die just yet, because my wings for being an angel were not quite ready."

Or maybe the tiger ate them.

Kidnappings in Iraq

The New York Times muddies the issue again. The kidnappers are t-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-t-s -- and did not sieze these people to play Gameboy with them.

Their will likely be threatened with and possibly eventually be beheaded. Why is "terrorist" considered an incorrect term here?

The Sexiest Newscaster

You all know who the sexiest blogger is (me...at least that's what a sheep told me this weekend) but did you know who the sexiest newscaster is? No, it's not Dan Rather.

U.S. Intelligence: Pessimistic On Iraq

In recent months the official line out of Washington has been that Iraq is turning the corner -- but it turns out U.S. officials see darkness around the bend.

Clearly, the American public hasn't gotten this kind of assessment before from official government agencies (vested interest) or President George Bush and adminstration officials (election year.)

But, as it turns out, the New York Times reports: "A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday."

In July? And we're just learning about it now?

More from the report:

The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.

"There's a significant amount of pessimism," said one government official who has read the document, which runs about 50 pages. The officials declined to discuss the key judgments - concise, carefully written statements of intelligence analysts' conclusions - included in the document.

The intelligence estimate, the first on Iraq since October 2002, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was approved by the National Foreign Intelligence Board under John E. McLaughlin, the acting director of central intelligence. Such estimates can be requested by the White House or Congress, but this one was initiated by the intelligence council under George J. Tenet, who stepped down as director of central intelligence on July 9, the government officials said.

As described by the officials, the pessimistic tone of the new estimate stands in contrast to recent statements by Bush administration officials, including comments on Wednesday by Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, who asserted that progress was being made.

"You know, every step of the way in Iraq there have been pessimists and hand-wringers who said it can't be done," Mr. McClellan said at a news briefing. "And every step of the way, the Iraqi leadership and the Iraqi people have proven them wrong because they are determined to have a free and peaceful future."

That's partially true, but also partially "spin" -- and apparently others feel that way, too:

The situation in Iraq prompted harsh comments from Republicans and Democrats at a hearing into the shift of spending from reconstruction to security. Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called it "exasperating for anybody look at this from any vantage point," and Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said of the overall lack of spending: "It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous."

And there's this:

Separate from the new estimate, Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued other warnings on Wednesday about the American campaign in Iraq, saying the administration's request to divert more than $3 billion to security from the $18.4 billion aid package of last November was a sign of trouble.

"Although we recognize these funds must not be spent unwisely," the committee chairman, Mr. Lugar said, "the slow pace of reconstruction spending means that we are failing to fully take advantage of one of our most potent tools to influence the direction of Iraq."

Less than $1 billion has been spent so far.

Bottom line: government agencies often must outline all possible scenarios that by necessity must include worst case scenarios. The proof of how Iraq is going will be seen every night on the evening news. What we're presently seeing is distressing, and October (and beyond) could be worse.

This will likely be a war with no easy solutions -- or valid simplistic slogans.

Democrats On Kerry: Wishful Thinking Or Reality?

"Humpty Dumpty had a great fall -- but he had a bad August." Democrats are hoping that's the case with John Kerry whose campaign they feel is now back on track after a terrible August.

Indeed, aside from his specific trials, tribulations, and roller-coaster-like dip in the polls, the main criticism about John Kerry -- to be blunt -- is that he has run a wannabe Presidential campaign lacking focus, conviction and an insufficient self-defense "fight or flight" mechanism. In a short period of time he has gone from a Serious Challenge To President Bush to Return Of Michael Dukakis.

But, CBS reports, Democrats are convinced he has now veered his campaign back on track:

Despite turmoil in the John Kerry campaign, key Democrats believe Kerry is back on-message and poised to overtake President Bush by Election Day. Following two weeks of Kerry campaign reorganization, optimism flourishes among Democratic insiders.

Veteran Democratic strategists agree that John Kerry had a poor August, was off message and allowed President Bush to drive the momentum of the campaign. That’s ending, in party veterans’ view.

While the cohesiveness of the Democratic campaign remains in question, Kerry’s coming turn around does not among many party veterans. They believe the Kerry campaign has sufficiently restructured and is now on track.

Certainly, in the past week, Kerry has been his best: clear spoken and fervent in driving home a difference between he and the incumbent.

It’s where former Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean wanted Kerry the past year. “He’s really needs to take it to the president,” the onetime Democratic front-runner said. Kerry overtook Dean in January; Dean believes Kerry will do the same with the president.

“The idea of taking it right to the president,” is what Dean said he likes about the Kerry of late. “The president is a very cheerful, charming person who is not very truthful,” Dean continued. “The only way to burst through that is to take it on.”

That's one perspective. But there are likely to be other analysts who would argue that if Howard Dean is pleased with the Kerry campaign now, John Kerry may have real reason to worry.

On the other hand, they say "if it's not broke, don't fix it" -- and the Kerry campaign has been strategically broke.

So perhaps this fix will work...since polls are highly contradictory...and the debates and unforeseen events could alter the sea of political certainty pronounced by some pundits and bloggers that the ballgame is already over.

Layout Problem Seemingly Fixed

It took hours and hours of my free time today (amid writing projects and contracts for my school programs) but the layout problem is FIXED.

We should be back to normal tomorrow (if this blog is ever really normal).

PS: Blogrolling has been on and off all day.

Harris & Pew Polls: The Race Tightens

The latest Harris poll indicates President George Bush's convention bounce has unbounced and that the race is now a dead heat -- in other words a virtual tie.

(SEE UPDATE BELOW)

These results are yet one more reminder (which all of the media and bloggers forget ) that polls are like a see-saw. What's important, aside from changing polls, is which campaign is getting its message out more effectively and consistently. On that score -- realizing this blog is NOT promoting any candidate -- the Bush campaign is clearly ahead. But perhaps John Kerry's revamping his upper echelon with new advisors, some of them top former Clinton people, will help.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Sen. John Kerry and President Bush are now enjoying almost equal levels of support, according to the latest Harris Interactive poll.

Immediately after the Republican convention in New York, several polls showed Mr. Bush jumping ahead of Mr. Kerry with a clear lead of between six and 11 percentage points. There's no such "convention bounce" for the president in the latest poll by Harris.

The Harris poll, conducted by telephone Sept. 9-13, shows Sen. Kerry leading Mr. Bush 48% to 47% among likely voters nationwide. The poll also found that a slender 51% to 45% majority doesn't believe that Mr. Bush deserves to be re-elected.

The previous poll in which likely U.S. voters were asked which candidate they preferred showed Messrs. Kerry and Bush tied 47% to 47%. That survey was conducted before the Republican National Convention in New York City, which ended earlier this month. An earlier poll in June indicated a Bush lead over Mr. Kerry of 10 percentage points, at 51% to 41%.

The latest poll was conducted within the U. S. among a nationwide cross section of 1,018 adults. It has a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points.

The two prime factors that could influence the final vote:

(1) The debates.

(2) Unforseen events.

Neither of these can be totally controlled by scripting, rehearsing or surrogates. In a race this tight, there are variables.

UPDATE: Another poll, the Pew Poll found the same dead heat.

It also adds this:"Several other recent polls have shown Bush, who bounced to a double-digit lead in two polls after the Republican convention, with a four- to seven-point lead over Kerry. A flurry of new state polls, meanwhile, showed Bush moving ahead in key states like Florida and Nevada and challenging Kerry in Democratic strongholds like New Jersey."

So you have a mass of contradictory polls so far -- which means the race is probably still up for grabs. (For our policy on polls and links on this site that'll help you follow some of them, see my comments in the comments section).

Maureen Dowd: Is Karl Rove A Scenario For The Memos?

Maureen Dowd's column raises the largely whispered scenario in the virtual sea of speculation over the 60 Minutes memos. GOPers will insist this could never happen or never would or it's paranoia. Many Democrats will believe it must the case.

But Dowd (who makes no bones about being a Bush critic) notes there is are allegations of allegations of a precedent:

There's no evidence - it's just a preposterous, paranoid fantasy at this point. But it speaks to the jitters of the Democrats that they're consumed with speculation about whether Karl Rove, the master of dirty tricks and surrogate sleaze, could have set up CBS in a diabolical pre-emptive strike to undermine damaging revelations about Bush 43's privileged status and vanishing act in the National Guard, and his odd refusal to take his required physical when ordered.

In this vast left-wing conspiracy theory, Mr. Rove takes real evidence on W.'s shirking and transfers it to documents doomed to be exposed as phony (thereby undermining the real goods), then funnels it through third parties to Dan Rather, Bush 41's nemesis on Iran-contra. A perfect bank shot.

The secretary for W.'s squadron commander in the Texas Guard told The Times that the information in the disputed memos is correct - it's just the memos that seem fake.

"It looks like someone may have read the originals and put that together,'' said a lucid 86-year-old Marian Carr Knox, who was flown up to New York yesterday by beleaguered CBS News executives.

She told Mr. Rather that her boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, wrote a "cover-your-back file,'' a "personal journal'' to keep a record about the politically connected Bush in his charge. She said the contents of that mirrored the CBS documents, but she said those documents were not on the right forms and contained Army terms rather than Air National Guard argot. She confirmed that young Bush had disobeyed a direct order from Colonel Killian to take a physical.

"It was a big no-no to not follow orders,'' she said, adding that the Bush scion's above-the-rules attitude caused some snickers and resentment among fellow officers.

Those who suspect Mr. Rove note that when he was Bill Clements's campaign strategist in a 1986 governor's race in Texas, he was accused of bugging his own office to distract from a debate, according to James Moore and Wayne Slater, authors of "Bush's Brain.'' They said it turned the election because after that, the Democrat could not get any attention.

Was the same scenario playing out yesterday evening on CNN? After a five-minute report on the CBS memo controversy, CNN spent about 30 seconds reporting that two more marines had been killed in Iraq.
This allegation will indeed keep this theory alive -- as will the alleged impact on the election.

And she adds:

House Republicans started clamoring for a Congressional inquiry into the documents used by "60 Minutes,'' saying it might be an attempt to manipulate the election. (Isn't that what the Democrats are scared the Republicans are doing?)

These same Republicans never wanted investigations into missing W.M.D., why Congress passed a Medicare bill based on faulty figures, Abu Ghraib or even whether those Swiftie guys were lying, for Pete's sake.

Another Map

A world map showing you where your favorite email -- spam -- comes from. (Send in the Navy Seals NOW)

The Foreign Policy Hour Of Truth For George Bush

(NOTE: Due to some layout problems we're deleting our blockquotes on this post)

President George Bush has what journalists sickeningly call (will use cliche) a "defining moment" in the near future: does he continue to praise Russian President Vladimir Putin as his bud or indicate severe displeasure (or at least in diplomatic terms "disappointment") with him over the Russian President's stripping away parts of Russia's young democracy?

For specific background on what Putin did, read our post here.

The Washington Postreports:

"On Sunday, President Bush visited the Russian Embassy to pay his respects to the victims of last week's terrorist attack at a Russian school and to express his admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Please pass on my very best wishes to President Vladimir Putin, a man who I admire," Bush told the Russian ambassador.

The next day, Putin announced plans that would significantly bolster his power by ending the popular election of governors and independent lawmakers.

While Bush administration officials, such as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, quickly raised questions yesterday about whether Putin's action will strangle democracy in Russia, outside experts said the administration's gentle handling of Putin stands in stark contrast to the president's repeated pledges to promote democracy and freedom around the world.

"Russia is one of the leading examples of how the war on terrorism has put the U.S. in a contradictory position in the world," said Thomas Carothers, senior associate and head of the democracy and rule of law project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "On the one hand, the U.S. is pulling back from democracy with needed security allies who are less than democratic, while simultaneously calling for the U.S. to push for democratic transformations in other parts of the world."

Colin Powell has already sent out a signal:

Yesterday, Powell again was signaling the Russians. "In an attempt to go after terrorists, I think one has to strike the proper balance to make sure that you don't move in a direction that takes you away from the democratic reforms or the democratic process that you are committed to," he said.
What is the significance? Robert Tagorda says it all:

"In addition to putting his own legacy on thin ice, Bush may also undermine the influence of Ronald Reagan....He paved the way for the current administration's ambitious platform to export democratic ideals in conjunction with a long-term security plan. Republicans need to recognize that, if Bush takes inadequate action on Russia, he threatens to shake up an important party tradition.

"On the other side of the aisle, John Kerry has an opportunity to call out the president. The administration, he can say, holds too many conflicting interests vis-à-vis Russia to promote democracy and, at the same time, advance national security. Unfortunately, Kerry has shown very little willingness to attack Bush from this angle. Consider his unclear stance on building a democratic Iraq. Recall his outlook on the Cuban pro-democracy movement. Kerry's realism gives me little confidence that he'll try to outflank Bush and force him to confront Putin's abuses.

"More broadly, of course, neither party has any serious desire to deal with such problems at this particular time. The November election is top priority. The fate of Russian democracy and other similar long-term concerns are easily set aside for the next term. Sadly, by that time, it may be too late to do anything constructive."

Yes, it is ironic that an election is in the nation's interest -- but because of the election policos don't act in the country's interest.

This breeds something called crisis coping....when it often could be easier if a problem is seriously addressed before it becomes a crisis.

They Liked The Job They're Doing So Much They Gave Themselves A Nice Raise

Why isn't this surprising?

With little debate, House lawmakers on Tuesday included themselves as part of a pay raise that all federal employees will receive next year.

The cost-of-living raise would be the sixth straight for members of the House and Senate, boosting the salaries of lawmakers, now $158,100, by about $4,000 in the new calendar year.

The civil servant COLA is part of an $89.9 billion Transportation and Treasury Department spending bill that the House is expected to pass Wednesday. The Senate has yet to take up the legislation.

The measure stipulates that civil servants get raises of 3.5 percent, the same as military personnel will receive next year. Under a complicated formula, that translates to 2.5 percent for members of Congress.

Like last year, the only House member to speak out against the automatic raise was Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. "Now is not the time for members of Congress to be voting themselves a pay raise," he said. "Let us send a signal to the American people that we recognize their struggle in America's economy."

But by a 235-170 vote, the House rejected Matheson's procedural attempt to get a direct vote on the pay raise. In 1989, Congress decided to make annual cost-of-living pay increases automatic unless the lawmakers voted otherwise.

The pay raise would also apply to the vice president -- who is president of the Senate -- congressional leaders and Supreme Court justices.

This year, Vice President Cheney, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Chief Justice William Rehnquist receive $203,000. Associate justices get $194,300 and House and Senate party leaders get $175,700.

President Bush's salary of $400,000 is unaffected by the legislation.

I thought a lot of companies were cutting back and slashing salaries, or benefits.

Nice to see there's one class of Americans who benefit, no matter what's going on in the economy. And they DESERVE it because they're doing such a wonderful job. The pay increases also help them better understand how the average American is living. And the fact they do it with little fanfare, why not? If they publicized it, no one would object because they deserve fat increases every single year.

PS: Note that this involves both parties. See? There is common ground in American (among elected officials).

The Map You've Been Waiting For

A detailed map of The Simpson's town of Springfield. Click on the quads and you can see parts of the town in detail.

We've Heard of HDAD (Hyperactivity) In Kids...But What About Adults?

Dean Esmay has some thoughts on that too-often neglected issue.

I agree with Dean on this. The catchall diagnosis for kids (especially boys is) "He's hyperactive, get him some Ritalin." In some cases, it may be just a kid who is spunky or not totally in agreement with the prevailing agenda. In others, HDAD was an authentic factor and Ritalin was prescribed and successfully used. And in some cases it has led to tragedy.

I know of one case of a 13 year old who is gifted. He has had problems in school and they were not getting better. He was in counseling and loved his counselor. It wasn't until the Ritalin was prescribed that he seemed to even off and some of the problems receeded (and he was happy about taking the medicine). At this writing he can't get into see his doctor until the end of the month and he already has some problems at school. In other words, there are some instances where it's useful -- but parents and educators often see it as a panacea. It's easier to give a pill then to look for problems and work with an often frisky kid.

In the case of kids, I've done many school programs in my normal daytime incarnation where I've picked kids I KNEW were HDAD to come up onstage, even if I got vibes that teachers didn't like them. In virtually every instance where I've done it these kids shocked their peers and teachers by showing off talent and skills -- and becoming the true stars of the show or workshop. I am NOT just saying this. It's clear they have some abilities and talents not being put to use in day to day schoolwork. Perhaps they are frustrations bottled up. And once they got a chance to literally perform in a different way, they delivered...multifold.

In adults, people know the problem is there. But, as Dean Esmay notes, even in these cases it could be a case of misdiagnosis. A career, a learning environment -- some outlet for specific talents -- can defuse a lot of pent up frustrations that emerge in various ways. So, DE is probably right:

(a) it's overdiagnosed in boys (who are generally more rebelliously spirited than girls)

(b) it's probably overdiagnoised in adults, too.

Controversial 60 Minutes Documents Now Traced To Texas Kinko's

Are we close to the unravelling of an unprecedented media scandal, second only to the infamous Hitler Diaries case?

It seems so: the latest Washington Post report says the controversial 60 Minutes documents alleging preferential National Guard treatment for a young George Bush have been traced to a Kinko's in Texas.

Kinko's...Texas...It sounds like "the reveal" of a whodunit. The Post reports:

Documents allegedly written by a deceased officer that raised questions about President Bush's service with the Texas Air National Guard bore markings showing they had been faxed to CBS News from a Kinko's copy shop in Abilene, Tex., according to another former Guard officer who was shown the records by the network.

The markings provide one piece of evidence suggesting a source for the documents, whose authenticity has been hotly disputed since CBS aired them in a "60 Minutes" broadcast Sept. 8. The network has declined to name the person who provided them, saying the source was confidential, or to explain how the documents came to light after more than three decades.

There is only one Kinko's in Abilene, and it is 21 miles from the Baird, Tex., home of retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, who has been named by several news outlets as a possible source for the documents.

Robert Strong, who was one of three people interviewed by "60 minutes," said he was shown copies of the documents by CBS anchor Dan Rather and producer Mary Mapes on Sept. 5, three days before the broadcast. He said at least one of the documents bore a faxed header indicating it had been sent from a Kinko's in Abilene.

Strong's comments came as CBS News President Andrew Heyward in an interview acknowledged that there were "unresolved issues" that the network wanted "to get to the bottom of." Since the broadcast, critics have pointed to a host of unexplained problems about the memos, which bore dates from 1972 and 1973, including signs that they had been written on a computer rather than a Vietnam-era typewriter.

"I feel that we did a tremendous amount of reporting before the story went on the air or we wouldn't have put it on the air," Heyward said in an interview last night, while acknowledging "a ferocious debate about these documents."

Asked what role Burkett may have played in CBS's reporting of the report, Heyward said: "I'm not going to get into any discussion of who the sources are."

Burkett, who has accused Bush aides of ordering the destruction of some portions of the president's National Guard record because they might have been politically embarrassing, did not return telephone calls to his home. His lawyer, David Van Os, issued a statement on Burkett's behalf saying he "no longer trusts any possible outcome of speaking to the press on any issue regarding George W. Bush and does not choose to dignify recent spurious attacks upon his character with any comment."

And there's more -- so read the whole thing.

This looks terrible for CBS. The symbolism of "Kinko's...Texas...." instantly creates an image of some guy at a copying machine staying up late, then faxing the final copy to CBS.

Not nice...and this is NOT a partisan comment (since I don't belong to either party): it is not going to help John Kerry on election day. It's bound to generate some kind of backlash.

And remember there are various possibilities: the documents were fake; the documents were real; the documents were fake but the content was real. But if the content is real it'll be virtually impossible to prove that, especially by election day. So in political terms the key is the veracity of the actual documents themselves since they were held up in a "now it can be told and see what we have" manner.

But, then, this is the beginning of a final chapter...and we don't yet know how all this will end. There could be more surprises on the way...

PS: An editor once told me: "If someone comes to you and says 'I have a story that'll bust this town wide open' be very careful. Usually he doesn't, or something else may be going on."

(The Real Dummy thanks Backcountry Conservative for giving us the first tip on this story).

Did White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan Mess Up?

You can make the case that he did...

UPDATE: Atrios comments on this as well -- and supports the above link.

Has Syria Experimented With Chemical Weapons

Another reason why attention should be focused squarely on Syria, no matter what happens elsewhere:

Syria tested chemical weapons on civilians in Sudan's troubled western Darfur region in June and killed dozens of people.

If its true, it's another indication that Syria is an instigator and enabler of terrorism and abhored state behavioir in the Middle East:

The German daily Die Welt newspaper, in an advance release of its Wednesday edition, citing unnamed western security sources, said that injuries apparently caused by chemical arms were found on the bodies of the victims. It said that witnesses quoted by an Arabic news website called ILAF in an article on August 2 had said that several frozen bodies arrived suddenly at the "Al-Fashr Hospital" in the Sudanese capital Khartoum in June.

Die Welt said the sources had indicated that the weapons tests were undertaken following a military exercise between Syria and Sudan.

Syrian officers were reported to have met in May with Sudanese military leaders in a Khartoum suburb to discuss the possibility of improving cooperation between their armies.

According to Die Welt, the Syrians had suggested close cooperation on developing chemical weapons, and it was proposed that the arms be tested on the rebel SPLA, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, in the south.

But given that the rebels were involved in peace talks, the newspaper continued, the Sudanese government proposed testing the arms on people in Darfur.

Details of what were in the weapons were not disclosed.

The Sudanese government has been accused of arming and backing Arab militias, known as Janjaweed, which have rampaged through the western Darfur region for the past 19 months.

Syria is more than a minor headache. Over the years, it has been accused of murdering its own people, cooperating with and giving cover to terrorists groups attacking Israel, and perhaps hiding Sadaam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

This report is troubling because, if true, Syria is experimenting with chemical weapons. How long has it been going on? And where does it intend to use them (I can guess and the first letter in this parenthesis is in the name of the country)?

FOOTNOTE: Some suggest these weapons are hidden Iraq weapons. Interesting theory but there is no proof at this point indicating that is the case. What we know is we have a report saying they used chemical weapons. We don't even know if that's accurate -- but it's troubling.

The report didn't say they used hidden Iraq weapons. Every news report doesn't have to be politicized to fit in with election year agendas, for either party.

Awwwwwwwwwww!

They may no longer be allowed to butcher foxes for fun in England anymore.

The New York Times reports:

After a day of rowdy demonstrations that saw five protesters storm the chamber at the House of Commons, legislators voted today to outlaw the centuries-old sport of fox hunting with hounds.

The vote, 356 to 166, followed an emotional debate between supporters of the ban, who called fox hunting barbaric, elitist and hopelessly outmoded, and opponents, who accused the government of intruding on people's civil liberties and trampling on their rural way of life.

Supporters said they would force the bill through the House of Lords, which has fiercely opposed any attempt at curbing fox hunting, by invoking a rarely-used law called the 1949 Parliament Act. The act allows for bills to become law in the event of a deadlock.

"Fox hunting is unacceptable in 21st-century modern Britain," said a Labor Party Commons member, Claire Ward. "What they are doing is wrong, and we need to stand against it."

But the debate was soon overshadowed by the raucous demonstrators and the mounting chaos outside. Five men managed to bolt into the chamber and confront members as they debated the bill, prompting a 25-minute suspension of the proceedings. The men were quickly tackled by doorkeepers and later arrested, but the intrusion raised alarming concerns about security at Westminster and prompted a new round of debate about the protests.

A few months ago protesters lobbed flour-filled condoms at Prime Minister Tony Blair as he spoke inside the chamber.

Well, maybe they didn't like the verbal intercourse and were on a roll...And more:

Those who support the ban say foxes, which are considered by many as vermin in Britain, suffer a slow and cruel death when they are attacked by hounds. Hunters dispute that characterization, arguing that dogs instinctively snap the fox's neck by shaking them, killing them instantly. They say that Labor politicians have needlessly turned fox hunting into an issue to score political points and annoy conservatives.

Public opinion surveys here show that most people oppose fox hunting with hounds.

But those who enjoy watching the foxes die are undaunted:

Hunting advocates said they planned to take the government to court if the bill passes Parliament, by contesting the act. "We will, if necessary, fight it in the European Court of Human Rights, where we believe we have a very strong case," the chief executive of Countryside Alliance, Simon Hart, said at a news conference.

If that does not work, opponents said they would blatantly ignore the law and leave it to the government to try and force the issue.

The bill, which has always stoked lingering class divisions and resentment in Britain, was overwhelmingly backed by Labor members of the Commons. In 1997, when Mr. Blair was elected, the Labor Party vowed to outlaw the so-called blood sport. But Mr. Blair has found the issue politically explosive and has been reluctant, until recently, to push for the ban.

If the ban were to clear Parliament, it would outlaw fox hunting with dogs in both England and Wales as of July 2006, before the kickoff of that year's hunting season. Scotland has already instituted its own ban.

It's clearly not a done-deal yet but if it goes through: good riddance to this "sport" ("sport," yeah, right).

Foxes like most animals are on this earth a brief time so we say: Bravo to the House of Commons.

Fox hunting is the British equivilent to another "sport" where the animal doesn't have a chance, bullfighting. I saw two of those in Madrid, Spain (on one bill with adult and teen bullfighters, a teen bullfighter couldn't get it right and the bull was virtually a grimacing ball of blood). Ernest Hemingway and lofty cultural explanations to the contrary, it just looked like a bunch of people hacking away and ganging up on a provoked bull who didn't have a chance.

A Sign John Kerry Is Getting His Campaign Back On Track?

John Kerry today sounded like a candidate who finally hit his stride today -- taking the gloves off in a speech that definitely offered an alternate view. Read a key excerpt of it here.

He's zeroing in on the Bush record -- this time from the perspective of those Americans who are not Bush partisans and Rush Limbaugh fans. The language he uses in the speech in this post linked above is also everyday, easy-to-understand language.

Is it too late for us to have a REAL horserace? There are some variables such as the debates. And there are harbingers, such as the candidate who is ahead by Labor Day usually wins. But it's "usually," not always.

What has been missing from the Kerry side so far has been a well-articulated, well-delivered alternative point of view. This speech achieves it. If he can clone this speech, Kerry's numbers could start going up.

UPDATE: The Blogging of the President's Matt Stoller writes about Democratic panic in Washington, D.C, but adds this:

I find this notion of panic quite silly. It reminds me of the dotcom boom mentality - Kerry, he's so five minutes ago. Please. One thing about Kerry is that no one really likes him, but he's able to make people feel comfortable voting for him. He's a lot like Nixon that way.

Indeed, the comfort level could be a plus, if it materializes (we'll see in polls in coming weeks). BOP has just hit the 500,000 visitors mark.

To Send Your Sympathies To Russia

Reader Jill Carter of North Carolina read our posts about the terrorist massacre at the school in Russia and asked where she could send letters from schools in her state. The Moderate Voice (who used to talk frequently to diplomats when he reported from New Delhi, Dacca and Bangladesh in his previous professional incarnation) suggested she immediately contact the Russian Embassy in Washington, DC.

So we say the same to other readers. If you want to express your sorrow to the school kids, teachers, etc. the best way to start would be to contact the Russian Embassy. They could either give you a direct address or receive your letter and pass it on.

Jill was nice enough to send us this website link to the embassy. We also see that they're taking donations (and list addresses). I still suggest calling the embassy and asking where to send condolance letters (if you send a letter to an address for a check it might get discarded, if the letter is to a bank).

John Kerry's #1 Problem

Is Democratic Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards in an "undisclosed location?" One of the biggest mysteries of the Kerry campaign is why they let the hugely likeable Edwards fall off the national media radar screen. Except for an occasional answer replying to Dick Cheney, etc. he's barely on TV anymore.

We read former Clinton aide/present Clinton foe Dick Morris' columns now with a mountainsized grain of salt, but he hits the nail on the head with this one. John Kerry's problem is that he doesn't come across as likeable or spontaneous (he seems remote and mechanical) -- and in the media age that's not a luxury but a necessity. Contrast the youthful Kerry at rallies and testifying before Congress and the 2004 Kerry. What happened in the interim?

His last shot at changing perceptions will be the debates.

Poll: Bush's Ratings Down Among Undecided Voters

(NOTE: Blockquotes have been removed on this post to try to fix a layout problem. JG)

Presidednt George Bush is slipping among undecided voters, according to a new poll:

President George W. Bush's approval rating declined to 44 percent from 56 percent among undecided voters since the Republican National Convention, a poll by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center found.

Bush, 58, leads Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry in polls after the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 convention. His favorable ratings on key issues in the Annenberg poll fell among voters who haven't decided whom to support or who aren't committed to a candidate.

``On a number of points, Bush lost ground on persuadable voters'' as the convention faded into memory, said Adam Clymer, the Philadelphia-based center's political director.

(Is that THE Adam Clymer who Bush dissed in 2000?)

This is highly significant, if it shows up elsewhere -- but everything will depend on the turnout on election day:

(1) Experts say the undecided or swing voters could help decide the election. They are smaller than ever in numbers this year but many of them can be found in battleground states.

(2) Karl Rove has made no secret of the fact that he considers this a "mobilization election" where the key to victory is to get the party's base on in droves (the GOP has the machinery in place for a massive get-out-the-vote drive and so to the Democrats). So the key thrust this year has not been to win over undecideds as much as to ensure GOPers get out to the polls or cast an absentee vote.

In other poll findings:

"Bush's strength remains the war on terror: 54 percent of registered voters polled Sept. 3-12 said the president would do a better job than Kerry fighting terrorism; 36 percent picked Kerry, 60, a four-term Massachusetts senator. Among uncommitted voters, 47 percent said Bush would do a better job fighting terrorism and 23 percent picked Kerry.

"The poll found 32 percent of uncommitted, or ``persuadable,'' voters approved of Bush's handling of the economy and 63 percent disapproved. In August, 39 percent approved and 54 percent disapproved. Bush's approval rating among these voters dipped from 56 percent in August to 44 percent in September.
"

And did the GOP convention give Bush a bounce among registered voters?

"The president's ratings among registered voters changed little after the convention, the poll found. Fifty-two percent approved of Bush's performance in office in September, compared with 53 percent in August. Forty-five percent approved of his handling of the economy this month, compared with 46 percent a month earlier."

So...again...the two partisan camps unwavering and their minds are made up. The small number of swing voters (like the Moderate Voice who gets blasted as a liberal by conservatives and by conservatives as a liberal) could play a key role (so those who blast a swing voter who might not agree 100 percent with your opinion should realize you are may be turning a swing voter into a vote for the other side).

CBS Eye Has Cataracts: It's Looking Worse Each Day

It's really looking bad for CBS when the LA Times runs an editorial that begins with the words: "CBS News was had."

And the editorial doesn't get any better after that. The opening:

CBS News was had. It's hard to reach any other conclusion about documents that CBS and anchor Dan Rather have defended as revealing the truth about George W. Bush's military service.

Their existence is all the more puzzling in light of today's Times story quoting the onetime secretary of Bush's commander as saying that she recalled typing similar memos questioning Bush's service, but as casting more doubt on the ones that were obtained by CBS.

But that's not all: The Sioux City Journal quotes CBS News' Bob Schieffer as saying he hopes the network does more reporting to definitively prove the memos' authenticity."

"I think we have to find some way to show our viewers they are not forgeries,'' Schieffer, CBS' chief Washington correspondent and host of the network's "Face the Nation,'' said at a news conference in Sioux City. "I don't know how we're going to do that without violating the confidentiality of sources.''

Schieffer was responding to a 60 Minutes II report last week that referenced memos allegedly written by Bush's former squadron commander, the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. The typed memos were part of anchor Dan Rather's investigation that asserted Bush benefited from political favoritism in getting into the Air National Guard.

He says of Rather:

"He is very confident of his sources,'' said Schieffer, who has talked to Rather daily during the flap. "He says he is absolutely convinced these documents are real.''

Backcountry Conservative reports a Fox News teaser saying CBS will issue a statement later on about the controversy. At first glance, it'd be assumed that due to the avalanche of unfavorable mainstream news media stories on the documents and the blogging uproar that CBS might be on the verge of pulling back on this story -- but Schieffer's comments suggest otherwise.

A third possibility: CBS could eventually say the documents are doubtful but they are convinced the content is accurate -- and then face demands to prove the content.

So it's likely that this isn't over yet (but we should know more later today). See this post below for more info on the 60 Minutes documents controversy.

The Muslim Fascists' Big Mistake

The forces who hide behind political and religious rhetoric while pursuing a strategy to drive up the body at all costs made a big mistake this time, Zev Chafetz writes in the New York Daily News.

Three years after 9/11, the grand, anti-fascist coalition of World War II is now falling into place. First, it was America alone. Then Great Britain threw in. Now, here comes Russia.

It has taken three years because Moscow's impulse is always to cooperate with fascism. Stalin made this mistake in 1939 by signing a nonaggression pact with Hitler and woke up two years later with the German Army marching through Russia.

Vladimir Putin's government (and before it, Boris Yeltsin's government and successive Communist regimes) made similar miscalculations. Russia helped Iran with its nuclear program, sold weapons and supplies to Saddam Hussein and Baathist Syria and gave political support to the Palestinians - and hoped these good deeds would preserve it from fascist jihad.

But then, he writes, something happened:

Then Muslim holy warriors showed up at the schoolhouse in Beslan, and Putin underwent a battlefield conversion to the Bush Doctrine. "We have to admit that we showed no understanding of the danger occurring in our own country and the world," Putin told Russians after the massacre. Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, chief of the general staff, promised to "liquidate" the terrorists "in any region of the world."

And now the terrorists should be trembling, because Putin in effect is saying: "No more Mr. Nice Guy" -- but the question is: was there ever one?

There's a lot more (and it's worth reading) but he ends on this note:

The Big Three have reasons to hang together. Russia will not soon forgive the massacre of its children, and Putin, if he wants to remain a credible leader, must turn his words into warfare. Great Britain remains committed to the Anglo-American special relationship (and Tony Blair, despite warnings from the British left-wing press, has paid no political price for this; on the contrary, he continues to dominate his party and Parliament).

As for the U.S., it will fight until the threats and the ghosts of 9/11 are vanquished. The American public won't accept any less.

(The Real Dummy thanks Citizen Smash for the tip.)

Larry Sabato: What You Should Watch For In The Debates

University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato's latest issue of his highly acclaimed Crystal Ball free eletter is out -- and this time it focuses on the upcoming Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates. You can read (and subscribe to) it in full by clicking here.

First, Sabato gives an overview of debates and their impact on elections. Read the original for that. We want to reproduce in full here the last part of this week's edition (with his bold face typesettings):

All of this is by Larry Sabato

What Does This History Teach Us About the 2004 Debates?

Nobody can predict the precise sound bites that will produce the headlines in 2004, though the candidates often simply repeat many of the applause lines from their stump speeches. Here, the moderators matter, because their attempts to push the candidates beyond bromides will help determine the usefulness of the debates. We wish them success, but certain lessons can be drawn in advance about the debates beginning Sept. 30:

1. This is John Kerry's greatest opportunity, as it is for every challenger to a presidential incumbent. He will be fully the equal of George Bush on the platform, as this is one of the few moments in an entire four-year term when a President is stripped of the presidential seal and all the trappings of office. If Kerry cannot pass the presidential threshold at the debates, he has no chance to win.

2. There are no teleprompters, so there will be unscripted surprises, and these moments are often the ones remembered by the voters and history. Here is where the quality of the questions from the moderators and panelists and citizens truly make a difference. An oddball query, a tightly constructed inquiry, and a tough follow-up can reveal the truth that will never be available in any other way during the long campaign.

3. Debates do have an effect on some undecided voters and persuadable voters. Granted, in many years, the vote changes are not large, but the possibility always exists, which makes these affairs must-see TV for good citizens. It's OK to tune in and watch for a train wreck!

4. At least as important is the effect on partisans. Millions tune in simply to root for their side. If they are pleased by the candidate's performance, they may get more excited and be more willing to volunteer time or talk up their nominee. Conversely, if their candidate turns in a poor performance, it can adversely affect party morale and perhaps have unfortunate consequences for party activities.

5. Every moment counts. There is no down time in a debate. A cutaway shot of a candidate looking bored--or glancing at his watch or sighing--sends nonverbal cues to voters. A touch of anger or arrogance in an answer, even if partly justified by an irritating question from the moderator or comment from the other nominee, can turn off undecideds.

6. The news media spin can strongly influence voters, especially if there is a consensus winner and loser. The classic case of this was in 1976, when citizen debate-watchers were relatively unconcerned about President Ford's Poland gaffe, until the media made it the story in the days following. It would be wonderful if the anchors would simply wind up the debate with a fair summary of each candidate's remarks and then sign off for the night, allowing each voter to make up his or her mind without direction. (It would also be wonderful if students would always read their assigned work and turn in their papers on time. In other words, it's not going to happen.) Still, the situation is very different today than in, say, 1976. Many voices and perspectives are heard on the all-news cable channels and in other news sources, many of them contradictory. In 1976, with only three rather similar networks, the number of voices could be counted on one hand. Perhaps there is less of a chance of media consensus on a debate in 2004, and thus less chance that the media can effectively spin a debate to one side or the other. We shall see. The show opens in just 16 days.

Political Toast-O-Meter: Bush Still Leads And Kerry Ignores Security At Peril

Political Scientist Steven Taylor, aka Poliblogger, has his weekl Toast-O-Meter up -- chock full of analysis and tons of links for news and political junkies. It's required reading.

Not unsurprisingly, this week he finds John Kerry to be burning toast.

Yes, it would seem safe to say -- given the number of stories quoting concerned Democrats, staff shake ups, and talk about shifts in strategy -- that if the Kerry campaign is not yet toast it's no longer fresh bread. It's hard to see Kerry campaign strategist Bob Shrum saving the campaign with some brilliant new strategy as the sun sets in the yeast (sorry I could not resist). Right now Bush is on a )poppyseed) roll.

Writes Taylor:

I continue to believe that the issue of security (Iraq and terrorism in general) is what will be the deciding issue of the election, and Kerry still lacks a coherent message on this topic. His shift to health care isn’t going to be sufficient to win the election.

The Toast-O-Meter still shows Bush looking Wonder-ful, while Mr. Kerry still needs to put out some fires. Not quite as good as last week for Mr. Bush, not quite as bad for Mr. Kerry, but Bush still has the momentum. And I predict that unless events intervene, Kerry’s incoherence on foreign policy will continue to erode his position and lead to a widening of the gap in the polls.

If Ivan Does Strike New Orleans

It could be catastrophic, this New Orleans native writes.

Truly Damning

This ABC News report almost leaves you saying: "End game."

The story's lead:

Two of the document experts hired by CBS News say the network ignored concerns they raised prior to the broadcast of a report citing documents that questioned George W. Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War.

If this report is correct, CBS basically ignored warnings from their own experts about the documents purporting to show President George Bush got favorable treatment when he was in the National Guard. The most damning part of this story is this part:

Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the weekend before the broadcast.

"I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter," she said.

Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents.

"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," Will said.

But the documents became a key part of the 60 Minutes II broadcast questioning President Bush's National Guard service in 1972. CBS made no mention that any expert disputed the authenticity.

"I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply," Will told ABC News.

I worked on newspapers for several years. There were two cases where we were snookered on feature stories. In one instance, the editors of the paper in Kansas for which I worked insisted on shoving the story through even though I told them we didn't have confirmation on a vital part of the story. They thought it was a hot story, put it on a national newswire -- and later had to rewrite it because the red flag I saw turned out to be....red. It was a hoax.

The same situation is in play here. Anyone on a blog can't write with any certainty, of course, but it is now sounding as if the producers felt they had a great story and were willing to overlook the red flags to get it on the air.

But in a hotly contested election, with a passionately divided electorate, if they were living up to CBS's proud history they would not have run the story until every doubt had been erased.

Note, also, that the rest of the news media now considers this a good story. There are several reasons for this. Other news outlet editors are probably not pleased that the CBS eye has given their whole profession a black eye. The news business is fiercly competitive and this is a story about a rival organization that either did sloppy work (if the documents are false or they can't prove they're false) or was duped. And they see other news organizations covering it and no one wants to be left out. If CBS' credibility goes down the toilet NBC, ABC and the others will gain disgruntled former CBS viewers and look much better due to their no-special-treatment coverage of Dan Rather's report.

And CBS's response?

It's essentially saying: prove we're wrong. The problem is, they haven't proven that they're right -- and stories like this that raise questions about their own response to their own experts make it more difficult for them.

Glenn Reynolds, aka InstaPundit, writes:"I have to say, I've spent years criticizing the media and this still makes my jaw drop."

A Waste Of Newsprint

Is this guy related to Andy Rooney? I'm not a Bush (or Kerry) fan, but this sounds like Andy at his worst, or a self-absorbed blogger at what he thinks is his best. Some people (on the left AND right) think it's witty to hurl around adjectives. YECCH!

The Worst Of All Political Worlds

An intriguging report in the Dallas Morning News (obnoxious registration required) suggests the controversy over the 60 Minutes documents may never be solved one way or the other:

The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush’s Guard service said Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real documents that once existed.

Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1956 to 1979 at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, said she prided herself on meticulous typing, and the memos first disclosed by CBS News last week were not her work.

“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”

Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed “unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”

“I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it,” she said.

But, she said, telltale signs of forgery abounded in the four memos, which contained the supposed writings of her ex-boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.

Indeed, that always seemed a possibily: that someone decided to make a "better" copy of original memos that had either deteriorated or been damaged.

In the end, this means the most definitive ending in this story (if there will ever be one) is that it's proven that the actual documents are fake. A segment of the electorate will believe that the allegations are false because the documents produced are fake -- and a segment of the electorate will believe that the allegations are true but the documents are fake.

And, in the end, it'll be far easier to prove (if the report is true) that the documents are fake than that the contents are real (how do you confirm that?).

Adventures In Straightjacketland

Did you ever get the feeling that Alan Keyes craves ATTENTION more than VOTES? Here's his latest political grotestquery via the Chicago Tribune (obnoxious registration required):

Declaring that his campaign strategy is dependent on controversy, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes told the state's top GOP donors at a recent closed-door meeting that he plans to make "inflammatory" comments "every day, every week" until the election, according to several sources at the session.

The sources said Keyes explained that his campaign has been unfolding according to plan and likened it to a war in which lighting the "match" of controversy was needed to ignite grass-roots voters.

"This is a war we're in," one source recounted Keyes as saying. "The way you win wars is that you start fires that will consume the enemy."

Aha! Now I get it.. More:

At the session, the sources said, Keyes denied that he has engaged in name-calling in his campaign. But he likened Democratic opponent Barack Obama to a "terrorist" because Obama, a state senator, voted against a legislative proposal pushed by abortion foes, sources said.

Mounting a non-traditional campaign based heavily on theologically based moral teachings, Keyes predicted he could lock up one-quarter of the black vote by stressing his belief that Jesus would not vote for Obama based on the Democrat's support for abortion rights, the sources said.

Oh.

And here's a winner that'll be SURE to get him votes, and also get voters to vote for the rest of the Republican ticket:

Keyes also said the repeal of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which created the direct public election of senators, was a "critical" issue of his campaign, the sources said. The Republican contender said the method spelled out until 1913 in the Constitution, in which state legislators chose U.S. senators, would bring more accountability to government.

There's more, but it's easier to appreciate if you're in a padded room.

Open Thread

Your rants, ideas, etc. (Last time we did this no one put anything on it). Here's your chance!

Nader Voters: Can You Get The Message?

Is there any doubt now about who your vote helps?

If you want to vote for Kerry, vote for Kerry. If you want to vote for Bush, just vote for Bush. This time in Florida there is barely any effort to disguise your role.

NOTE: In response to a comment:

By saying this we are NOT condoning the judge's reasoning. We are simply saying that there has been a patently silly verbal ballet going on with Ralph Nader and some of his followers on the impact of his vote and who wants him on the ballot.

What the parties won't come out and say is:

--We Republicans want him on the ballot to take votes away from John Kerry.
--We Democrats will do whatever we can to keep him off the ballot so his voters have nowhere to go and will have to vote for John Kerry or not vote at all.
--We Naderites are happy to accept any Republican help to battle the Democrats to get on the ballot because we have a right to be on it. We know it'll hurt John Kerry but we don't care and we'll use the line that our being on the ballot will energize voters, so we don't look like a "spoiler."

It's not illegal to be on the ballot and hurt John Kerry. But the Nader ballot issue is enmeshed in a game of disingenous politicalspeak. The same we-all-know-what-it-really-means verbal ballet went on when George Bush I had to face his votes being siphoned away by Ross Perot. The only difference was, when Perot first burst on the scene via his Larry "Softball" King interview, polls showed the he might actually have a chance to win. Perot took votes away from Bush.

In reality the Republicans would be politically negiligent if they did NOT encourage Nader to be on the ballot -- because that's the way our system is set up. Third parties can play a vital role in introducing new ideas and energizing an alienated part of the electorate. Even with the system totally stacked against them, one day a third party could conceivably displace a major one given the right personality and issue.

But a Nader vote is indeed a statement that will hurt one candidate and help the other -- and is welcomed by one of the parties. To insist that just isn't the case is the equivilent of insisting the Easter Bunny will be visit your house in April. Florida's action strips away any of the doubts.

PS: In the end we don't think this will make much difference. We think, barring some unforseen events or a sudden infusion of political genius, John Kerry's campaign as it is now being run by Bob Shrum will go down in history as Michael Dukakis The Sequel.

Another Sign John Kerry Is In Trouble

Just read Mario Cuomo.

Beware Of Comparing Polls

It's often like comparing apples and oranges so neither side should be complacent or give up (yet), one expert says.

Will Oprah Winfrey Start A Trend?

Oprah Winrey has ensured she's going to get great ratings -- and eye-gouging crowds clamoring to get into her studio audience for the tapings of her shows. But will she start a trend?

US talk show queen Oprah Winfrey kicked off the 19th season of her show by giving away 276 cars worth seven million dollars.

Winfrey provided all 276 women in her hand-picked audience with the Pontiac G6 sports sedans. Relatives of all the audience had written in to the show say the women were a deserving case.

Eleven of the cars were given out during the show while the rest of the audience got gift boxes. When the women opened the boxes they also had the keys to new cars, which makers General Motors Corp. estimate to be worth about 28,000 dollars each.

GM said the cost of the cars was the same as about 50 prime time television advertisements.

Now Jerry Springer is going to give away trailers.

John Kerry Needs To Get On Message

And, according to Ezra Klein, it's NOT "it's the economy stupid."

Some Californians Won't Have Fun On Saturday Night

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed this law.

The Draconian Snarl From Russia

A draconian snarl can be heard coming from Russia as President Vladimir Putin announced measures that effectively mean a clamp down.

It's a laundry list of measures to curtail freedoms proudly held up years ago as an examples of Russia's seemingly-miraculous conversion to democracy. Rattling them off is just mind bloggling.

Governors and individual members of Parliament? They'd no longer be elected but appointed by the president subject to regional legislature confirmation. The State Duma (lower house) reps? Drawn from party lists rather than elected. State and regional power? More power to the center; weakened state and regional authority.

The Washington Post quotes him as saying in a televised cabinet meeting:

"State authority must not only be adjusted to work in crisis situations...The mechanisms of its work must be radically reviewed in order to prevent crises."

He added that "the terrorists' long-term plans are aimed at disintegrating the country and shaking the state" and that "the country's unity is the main condition for resisting terrorists."

The catalyst for this apparent powergrab to more effectively battle terrorism is Beslan, where terrorists seized a school and 1,200 children, parents and teachers -- an ordeal that ended in 328 people dead, half of them kids. After that, Putin did make some changes, but nothing on the scale of the new announced measures.

In fact, it turns out, Putin had been unhappy about the way some things were set up before the terrorist massacre. The Post notes:

Since taking office on New Year's Eve 1999, Putin has constantly worked to rein in independent-minded governors, who under his predecessor frequently defied Moscow's authority. He kicked the governors out of the Federation Council, the upper house of parliament, and appointed seven presidential envoys, sometimes called super-governors, to supervise the governors in their regions

.
At the same time, he has not offered a detailed explanation as to why he's taking these huge structural steps in the still-young Russian democracy. Again, the Post article:

Putin did not explain why such a change would combat terrorism, except to say that authorities needed to suppress terrorism and "national parties must serve as one of the mechanisms for this." Putin's changes would require parliamentary approval, but since he already controls both houses, legislators and analysts predicted he would have no problem passing them by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, the Christian Science Monitor quotes Putin critics, who suggest he lept at a chance to get more power:

Critics say the measures - couched as a strengthening of central government to combat terrorism - will do little to enhance public security, are aimed at broadening the Kremlin's grip on Russia's far-flung regions, and may ultimately weaken Mr. Putin's rule.

"Now it's absolutely clear, Putin wants to use this opportunity to destroy the last vestiges of Yeltsin-era democracy," says Alexander Golts, a national security expert with the weekly Yezhenedelny Zhurnal. "Instead of attacking terrorists, he's attacking our electoral system."

Indeed, the Monitor reports that some of these changes have been on the drawing boards for a while -- so now was a time to unveil them:

The political changes have long been circulating among Russia's political elite, says Liliya Shevtsova, a political analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center, but their implementation has been "accelerated" by the Beslan tragedy.

"[Putin] apparently believes this is the most effective way of dealing with Russia's problems of terror and insecurity - it fits his ideology of authoritarian modernization," says Ms. Shevtsova.

But there is also a dangerous drawback, she says: "It undermines Putin's presidency because he will be responsible for all the mistakes of the sorry guys he has appointed. It undermines the system."

Writes Oxblog's David Adesnik:

Putin's war on terror is a sick and perverted mirror image of America's just cause. In the aftermath of Chechen terrorists' horrific attack on the children of Beslan, we stood as one with the Russian people. And now we must stand with the Russian people against the government whose authoritarian deception and incompetence has left them increasingly to terrorist attacks.

And Adesnik puts Putin's Putsch in blunt perspective for Americans:

Imagine our response in the United States if Al Qaeda continued to launch attack after attack while the Bush administration did nothing more than shut down the New York Times and CBS. That is the only (way) to understand what Putin has done.

To be sure: there's a lesson to be learned -- and not only from Russia:

--India's Indira Gandhi in the 1970s, amid opposition demonstrations against her, declared a State of Emergency, on June 26, 1975. It curtailed individual freedoms. She clamped down on the press and arrested oppostion leaders. She insisted it was for the good of India, later lifted it, was defeated in 1977 elections, got back in power in 1980 and was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in 1984. India was a rare case of a government rather quickly lifting a state of emergency and going back to the old democratic order.

--Spain wasn't as lucky. Generalissmo Francisco Franco imposed various state of emergencies over the years due to Basque separatist terrorists. Once Franco died in 1975, Spain began a slow transition to democracy, culminating in the first free election in 1978. It had taken decades to get the dictatorship with its iron-gripped central government out of the power it attained due to Franco's victory in the 1936-1939 Spanish civil war;it took the death of Franco himself to kill it. Once Franco left the scene, democracy slowly flourished and states regained more powers.

In the case of Putin, Adesnik points to the long, bloody history of government bungling, deaths, summary executions, tortures and suspicious disappearences in his handling of the Chechnya crisis:

Moral clarity in Chechnya means recognizing that this is a war of evil vs. evil that has taken the lives of thousands of innocent civilians on both sides. If so, is there anything that the United States can do other than wash it hands of the conflict?

Yes and no. There is no forceful action we can take, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we must tell our supposed allies in Moscow that their self-destructive war on terror has provided another base for the terrorists of Al Qaeda. The more that Russia abuses the Chechens and slaughters the legitimate Chechen opposition, the more room Al Qaeda has to operate.

It's often said that one key goal of many terrorist and separatist groups is to radicalize the population by creating a government clampdown. The clampdown creates more anti-government outrage and helps recruit angry young militants to the cause.

Therein lies the danger for Vladimir Putin, as a few pieces of Russia's young democracy die.

50 Other Things CBS Believes

A list from Stephen Green.

The Hunt Is On To Find Out Who Allegedly Forged The Controversial Documents Used By CBS' 60 Minutes

....and Dean Esmay warns bloggers that in this case they may be going too far.

Just What This Country Needs...

Yet another politician hurling verbal atomic bombs. Both parties use this kind of rhetoric to fire up their bases....but both parties now do this more than offer thoughtful solutions to problems. "Red meat" is hurled out to militants almost exclusively these days, to keep political passions rising. This leads to increased polarization, since each side demonizes the other to get their party members to the polls.

The tactic works in solidifying a party's base. And this year, more than ever, both political parties are aiming to mobilize their partisans to get out and vote in an election because the center is smaller than ever; if either party relied mostly on swing voters, they'd lose the election.

Is this the new Al Gore? Is he speaking his mind? Or is he pandering, figuring he can pay his dues in 2004 and emerge as a strong, decisive voice in 2008?

It almost doesn't matter since he carving out a new role for himself as a powerful surrogate speaker for his party's candidates -- saying what they could get in trouble for saying.

Some Sage Advice For John Kerry

From columnist Mark Shields in a column titled "Kerry Over? Not."

Hypocrisy Incarnate

The utter height of hypocrisy: he has seemingly shed his principles the way a reptile sheds its skin.

I met this famous journalist/columnist many years ago (a story for another day) when I was a college student and his honesty was so refreshing that I've admired him for years, even when I disagreed with him. But now, after standing on principle, he somehow changes his position when it seemingly suits his political fancies.

PS: I support the media protecting its sources. But you either do, or you don't. Someone should tell Novak.

There Is Also Good News From Iraq

And Arthur Chrenkoff has it.

So What's This Election About?

James Wolcott notes that elections are supposedly about the future...but not this one...and he tells you why.
(Broken link is fixed.)

Bill Clinton Blasts

Former President Bill Clinton has blasted Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court William Rehnquist and raked former Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan over the political coals.

Basically, the former President dropped the prevailing ex-presidents' political PC, where a president leaves office and usually becomes a bit more diplomatic verbally (except perhaps tip-toeing out for a few verbal potshots during an election year).

At issue is an interview he gave before his recent heart surgery to The Weekend Australian. Highlights:

In an interview with The Weekend Australian, Clinton dropped the affection with which he usually discusses Reagan and the civility he affords the current President to accuse both men of deliberately using racist electoral appeals to win the White House.

Clinton said Rehnquist, Reagan and Bush were part of a far-Right branch of the Republican Party made up of the "spiritual heirs" of white southern racists, who still used the tactics of personal destruction employed by racists in their campaign to block civil rights for blacks.

He accused Rehnquist of deliberately appointing a highly partisan Republican, David Sentelle, in 1994 to chair a three-member panel of judges empowered to appoint special counsels to conduct inquiries into presidents. Sentelle's panel sacked Robert Fiske, the counsel investigating allegations against Clinton, and replaced him with the more partisan Republican Ken Starr.

Starr was definitely a change from Sentelle. More:

Starr, who pursued dozens of allegations against Clinton before eventually catching him out lying to cover up his sexual liaisons with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, was "an ultra-conservative" who abused his position and should never have been appointed, Clinton said.

"Rehnquist could not have been unmindful of what he was doing," Clinton stressed. "But you know, Rehnquist is a very partisan Republican. Before he went on the Supreme Court he had been part of voter challenges to (black) minority voters in Arizona.

"When he was a clerk on the Supreme Court he argued to his justice that the Supreme Court did not need to overturn the doctrine of 'separate but equal' and could keep basically supporting legalised racial segregation in America.

"That is just his philosophy, it is what he believes."

According to Sue Bloch, a law professor at Georgetown University and an expert on US judicial history, you would have to go back 200 years to Thomas Jefferson to find a president or former president making such a bitter attack on a chief justice.

Do You Think Critics Of President Bush Are "Shrill"?

They are uniting in The Ancient and Hermetic Order of the Shrill on the delicious new blog The Shrill Blog.

America Loses A Treasure

Many of you don't know his name. But I'm sure you know some of his words. And when he died, America lost a treasure. Did you guess who he is?

The Two Campaigns' Advertising Strategies

If you want to read an excellent overview of the two campaigns' advertising strategies -- and increasing role of 527s -- your MUST READING is Reid Wilson's post on his new blog Politics Nation. It's a real serious, stand-back-and-analyze piece.

Racial Profiling In Selecting Journalists For The Debates?

Apparently so. I am sure that there are two sides to this: a)that there shouldn't be racial profiling, b) that for the sake of "diversity" in the questions asked, the organizers must know the race, etc of the journalists.

So does this mean they must make sure to get journalists who run full scale: whites, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Cuban-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Native-Americans, Indian (from India) Americans, hetero Americans, gay Americans? Male-Americans? Female-Americans?

If they choose one group over another, isn't that bias? Doesn't that mean the questions are skewered towards one group's perspective and others groups' perspectives are left out? Is that fair? Is that just? Is that relevant? Shouldn't there be a debate over the makeup of the journalists at the debate (but if they have nice complexions, they don't need makeup)?

A Site That's ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING To 60 Minutes

This site has the most DEVASTATING presentation on controversial documents Dan Rather presented on 60 minutes. Some bloggers and news organizations believe they are fake; 60 Minutes and soon-to-retire (perhaps sooner than he thinks) Dan Rather insist otherwise.

But go to THIS SITE HERE and sit back and it'll show you some interesting things via a slide show. Truly convincing.

UPDATE:
--Glenn Reynolds, aka InstaPundit, writes:

I spoke to a big-paper reporter who interviewed me about this story over the weekend. He was amazed that CBS went with the story given the obvious flaws with the documents. And that's right. I suppose it's still barely possible that they might be genuine -- but it was gravely and recklessly irresponsible for CBS to insist on the documents' genuineness when there were so many reasons for doubt, and when CBS, by all appearances, had made no real effort to resolve those questions. I mean, why didn't they get somebody like this to look at the documents?

--Cat Out Loud blog adds this important cautionary note:

However, when commenting on a forged document...and giving "written" evidence that the document is forged...how can we be sure the evidence itself isn't forged? And does such sad skepticism have a place in a so-called grand democracy? Oh, the world is changing when we feel we begin to consider everything a lie until proven otherwise.

Nonetheless, this is fascinating to watch and grants more credence to what we've been reading and hearing in the mainstream media.

--Slate's Josh Levin has an excellent wrap up of this controversy -- and now matter how you slice it, it doesnt look good for CBS. If the documents are false, they were virtually negligent in presenting them and defending them. If the documents are authentic, they have failed to make a case that stands up to the most rigorous scrutiny.

Trouble In Jurather Park

What Does Bob Shrum HAVE On John Kerry?

We honestly want your advice. We would LOVE to see your comments on the questions posed by this writer (whose stuff we really think is solid, thoughtful, balanced -- and everyday I get down on my knees and give thanks that he is alive).

So READ THIS writer's post first. And read the links on his post.

Next to go THIS LINK for Joe Klein's May 2002 piece titled: "The Trouble With Shrum:
Why the Democrats' top strategist can't elect a president. This link was sent to us by one of our readers, Andrew Quinn (and we thank you).

We mouth off all the time via our keyboard. In the comments box, what do YOU think? Are you as amazed as The Moderate Voice is that someone with this (failed national) track record is still in charge of a sagging campaign.

FOOTNOTE: I'm not writing this as someone who will vote for Kerry or for Bush. As a gourmet of politics and news junkie this whole thing is very puzzling. Given his track record and the state of the campaign right now, is friendship, poor judgement or a political deathwish in play here? Our prediction: if Shrum stays till election day the election's outcome is assured. And what we said about John Kerry after watching a primary debate will be truer than ever: "He has a great future as a U.S. Senator."

Iraq Is Looking Less Like A Success Story

Yesterday's mega-violence in Iraq that left 25 dead underscored the new government's difficulty in clamping down on the "insurgents" (read that "terrorists) -- and that U.S. officials are premature in pointing to Iraq as a success story just yet.

Even so, can any of this be surprising? It has been a given since the end of the war that with the U.S. elections coming anti-U.S. forces (Sadaam loyalists, Al Qaeda and other extremist groups) would have the perfect timeframe to up the body count -- and it didn't matter too much if body-bag contents were Iraqi or American (preferably, in their eyes, American). And it's clear, too, that more of this is in the offing.

Here are some facts about what happened yesterday from the New York Times:

In a series of tightly sequenced attacks, at least 25 Iraqis were killed by suicide car bombings and a barrage of missile and mortar fire in several neighborhoods across Baghdad on Sunday.

The attacks were the most widespread in months, seeming to demonstrate the growing power of the insurgency and heightening the sense of uncertainty and chaos in the capital at a time when American forces have already ceded control to insurgents in a number of cities outside of Baghdad.

The Associated Press reported that the total death toll throughout the country for the day reached 59, citing the Health Ministry and local authorities. Nearly 200 people were wounded, more than half of those in Baghdad.

Writes Andrew Sullivan:

His (President Bush's) brilliance as a war-leader, so heralded at the New York convention, bears new fruit. The Iraqi government is beginning to lose control of Baghdad now. I think the Rove political strategy must now be simply to hope that no one notices anything that is happening in Iraq before they vote in November. Just say after me: 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. If anyone brings up Iraq today, just put your fingers in your ears and start singing loudly.

Indeed, there will likely be more -- not less -- of this the closer we get to election day. But the Democrats (notably chief Kerry strategist Bob "Mr. 0-7 In National Elections" Shrum) have so bungled the Kerry campaign (see our other post) they probably won't benefit from it, even if Iraq split into 27 pieces. To deliver a message you need an articulate, conceptually-nimble messenger (a candidate) and a smoothly operating vehicle (a campaign organization) to deliver it.

Increasingly, it appears the Demcrats have neither.

We Can Never Forget. Never.

TV Does Have An Impact On Teens

Daniel Drezner discusses a Rand Corporation study that shows teenagers who watch TV with high sexual content are twice as likely to engage in sexual intercourse as their peers who don't.

Indeed, people tend to blame declining traditional values on changing times but its the choices of people who program television shows, produce movies, and release CDs that mold tastes. Then it becomes the new norm and younger programmers come up with something different...which so far tends to mean something even more outrageous. And that becomes the norm. Etc. It's basically all mental imprinting...and choices by those who control our culture's messages, music and images.

If You Hate Dan Rather Here's A Site For You

The folks at RatherBiased.Com make no bones about how they feel about Dan Rather. They follow this and other controversies, plus Rather's record quite closely. They are openly rather biased about Rather, who they believe is a poorly disguised liberal journalist with thinly-papered-over biases.

As a former fulltime newspaper journalist, I have to say this: I consider Rather part of a bygone era. He's today's media's Mr. Cellophane. He hasn't done well overall in the ratings recently, he's overshadowed by Tom Brokaw, CBS News is not what it used to be, and with the growth of cable news networks CBS' role and status have greatly declined. Young people in journalism schools who went into broadcasting during the 60s and 70s (I know because I got my MSJ from Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism in 1972-1973) used to aspire to be the next Walter Cronkite. I truly doubt many young people now want to be the next Dan Rather -- not because he is terrible, but his competition is much greater, flashier, or frankly less quirky.

Whether these controversial documents are proven real or not, I doubt that when Rather retires there many will feel the sense of loss that the bulk of the nation felt when Walter Cronkite retired prematurely to make room for him. When Cronkite signed off for the last time saying, "And that's the way it is.." some people cried. True, some hated (and hate) Walter Cronkite -- but most Americans liked him and trusted him -- and his ratings showed it. When Rather leaves, it'll be one more newsman leaving their job.

As with David Letterman and Jay Leno in the case of the Johnny Carson show slot, there was another CBS News anchor wannabie eagerly waiting in the wings when Cronkite retired: Roger Mudd, the Al Gore of broadcasting: zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. He later left to do highly serious work for PBS after the CBS bigwigs passed on him for the top job.

But if you want to follow Rather blow by blow in impressive detail, with a hearty dash of a conservative perspective (they make no bones about it and write from the perspective of conservatives analyzing a liberal) then you should visit RatherBiased.com.

(PS. We totally agree with Dan Rather's characterization of the Drudge Report -- which we love to read -- on a Rather Biased.Com post as a "rumor mill." Wasn't Hillary supposed to "rock the political world" and be John Kerry's Vice Presidential pick? I guess I missed the retraction on that one......)

FOOTNOTE: One of the folks at RatherBiased.Com was nice enough to send us an email about the above post. They appreciate the mention, but do see their mission a bit differently than I described it above (those are my impressions but do visit their site and don't listen to me or anyone: click on the link, then decide for yourself).

In the email, the RB.C spokesperson said they don't hate Rather and have promised to stop if he'll admit he's a Democrat and a liberal and "that sometimes since he's human, his personal views can get in the way of his profession. That's all we've really wanted from the beginning, and to prove beyond doubt that he is liberally biased. " Also, he said, they're not conservatives. But they do think he's unfair and pompous (HEY, waydaminnit: They're talking about ME!!!).

The New Beer Taste Sensation

This news from Japan:

Sapporo Breweries Ltd.'s Draft One, a third-beer made from peas, went on sale nationwide in February. More than 10 million cases of Draft One have already been sold. One case contains the equivalent of 20 663-ml bottles.

So beer drinkers truly now have reason to sip a beer and say: "This beer tastes like pea.."

A New Saying

"Throwing the baby out with the Slurpee.."

Another Forgery:

This time the U.S. Constitution?

Dan Rather At Odds With A President Again

CNN's Wolf Blitzer has a good piece on Dan Rather being hurled back into confrontation with a President once again. It recounts has famous confronation with Richard Nixon at a press conference.

On the Bush National Guard documents controversy Rather says this:
""want to emphasize: I stand by my president. We are in a time of war, and I stand behind my president. There is not joy in reporting such a story, but my job as a journalist is not to be afraid, and when we come with facts, and legitimate questions supported by witnesses and documents that we believe to be authentic, to raise those questions no matter how unpleasant they are," Rather said Friday.

At issue is his report on "60 Minutes" that aired Wednesday -- a report that included documents purporting to show that the current President Bush, while serving in the Texas Air National Guard, did not meet all his military obligations.

"They [the White House] have not answered the question of did or did the president not obey or obey an order? Was he or was he not suspended for failure to meet performance standards of the Air Force? If he didn't take the physical, why didn't he take the physical?" Rather said.

But now, there are questions about the authenticity of the documents released by "60 Minutes."

The Washington Post says the "60 Minutes" documents are not consistent with other documents released by Bush's Air National Guard unit in the early '70's.

"If you compare the documents that CBS produced with the documents that we know to be authentic, that did come from Bush's National Guard unit, none of those documents use proportionate spacing. And that's only one of the anomalies," says the Post's Michael Dobbs.

Experts contacted by CNN say there are some inconsistencies in the type style and formatting -- noting those styles then existed on typewriters but were not common. They also say only a review of the original documents -- not copies -- can completely resolve the matter.

Beyond that, surviving relatives of Bush's then commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the author of the purported documents, insist they are fake. They say Killian always believed Bush was an excellent pilot and that he never wrote these documents. Killian died in 1984.

"The story is true. The story is true," Rather said. "The questions raised in the story are serious and legitimate questions."

There is a good chance this this issue could never be totally resolved, with each partisan side believing what they want to believe -- which would likely still neutralize any actual political damage to George Bush.

Staying Healthy Keeps Getting More Expensive

Health costs continue to zoom:

The cost of providing health care to employees has risen 11.2 percent this year, according to the results of an authoritative national survey reported yesterday.

It was the fourth consecutive year of double-digit increases in health insurance premiums, which has resulted in a steady decline in the number of the nation's workers and their families receiving employer health care coverage.

The annual survey of 3,000 companies, conducted between January and May by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust, is considered a reliable indicator of health care costs paid by companies and their workers.

There is one tiny shred of good news, though:

Perhaps the only good news in the report was its indication that the rate of increase slowed from the record 13.9 percent in 2003, turning down for the first time since 1996. But this year's jump was still more than five times the national 2.2 percent increase in wages from the spring of 2003 to spring 2004, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Small businesses are being especially hard hit as the average family coverage in preferred provider networks, the most common type of health plan, has risen to $10,217, with employees paying $2,691 of the total. In response to the soaring costs, many small companies are simply no longer offering coverage of a worker's spouse and children.

A BETTER Slogan 4 U

Newspaper commentaries, blogs and magazines are now running with a new satirical slogan for the GOP campaign in light of Vice President Dick Cheney's comments about terrorism and the Democrats. The suggested slogan everyone cites is:

Vote For Bush Or Die

Listen: let's talking MARKETING here. Forget what your party is. That's too long a slogan. It doesn't "sing." It won't have "legs." It's not memorable. It doesn't slip off the tongue.

I'll offer you one that SHOWS YOU a better way to market the same idea (for people who are against Cheney or for people who think its a great slogan and want to use it against the Democrats; we are pleased as punch to help out both parties in this election).

Deep six that one -- and use this:

Vote GOP or D-I-E

Now THAT reflects marketing genius...if I must say so myself (and I do).

PS: The Moderate Voice is available for political campaigns, weddings, bar mitzvahs, etc..

Were The CBS Documents On George Bush's Military Service Forged?

Has 60 Minutes possibly decided the election in favor of George Bush by being involved in a dirty trick using fake documents to discredit George Bush?

Serious questions are being raised about the highly-touted documents 60 Minutes unveiled that were said to contain new revelations about President George Bush's National Guard service during the Vietnam era. Unlike the Boston Globe and AP stories, the Dan Rather hosted broadcast produced what it said were newly discovered documents suggesting Bush was given preferential treatment and was even a slacker.

Boil it all down and you get this:

(1) 60 Minutes and CBS stand by their story although an internal investigation is underway. But if the documents are proven fake, TV news' credibility will never be the same. Look for Dan Rather to retire rather quickly, if true. Power Line now reports that Dan Rather says the documents are authentic and there won't be any retraction.

(2) If it turns out that the Kerry campaign was at all involved in getting these documents (especially if they are fake) to CBS, the election -could be over. Contentions against the Swift Boat Vets' controversial and disputed allegations about John Kerry's record being false would be washed away in a repudiation that would end at the polls.

(3) If the documents turn out to be fake it'll prove to be the biggest achievement yet for the mostly amateur and generally partisan journalists on the blogosophere, since detailed questions about the authenticity of the documents first emerged on the blog Power Line, which became the motor in the case.

In DC Journal's Bill Ardolino then took it a step further by finding typeface experts and posting the expert's conclusions on his site. So INDC became the nuts and bolts.

And the hub for providing information on Powerline and other blogs' postings on this story became InstaPundit aka Glenn Reynolds, who has written about the new media versus the old media.

John Podhoretz in the New York Post:

THE populist revolution against the so-called mainstream media continues. Yesterday, the citizen journalists who produce blogs on the Internet — and their engaged readers — engaged in the wholesale exposure of what appears to be a presidential-year dirty trick against George W. Bush.

What the bloggers and their audiences did was call into profound question the authenticity of four documents proudly trumpeted by CBS News in a much-heralded investigative report on Wednesday night's edition of "60 Minutes" about the president's National Guard service in the early 1970s.

The Chicago Sun Times goes into detail on the bloggers in its story:

The morning after the "60 Minutes II" airing, the Internet was buzzing with claims that the documents were forged.

Powerlineblog first aired speculation that there was persuasive evidence from the typefaces and spacing that the documents supposedly prepared in the age of typewriters in the early 1970s showed the unmistakable characteristics of computer printing.

Another blogger, Bill Ardolino at INDC Journal, who had read Powerline, said, "I decided to find a top typeface expert and ran his analysis on my Web site."

(4) If the documents prove to be authentic it will further fuel the journalistic hunt for more info on Bush's military history -- and increase mainstream media disdain for blogosphere journalism. But news outlets' examinations of the documents are turning up the same questions (see below) -- so this is no longer just a blog story.

Meanwhile, the main shift is now in the mainstream media's perception of the documents themselves.. The Washington Posts' lead:

Documents unearthed by CBS News that raise doubts about whether President Bush fulfilled his obligations to the Texas Air National Guard include several features suggesting that they were generated by a computer or word processor rather than a Vietnam War-era typewriter, experts said yesterday.

Experts consulted by a range of news organizations pointed out typographical and formatting questions about four documents as they considered the possibility that they were forged. The widow of the National Guard officer whose signature is on the bottom of the documents also disputed their authenticity.

The documents, which were shown Wednesday night on "60 Minutes II," bear dates from 1972 and 1973 and include an order for Bush to report for his annual physical exam and a discussion of how he could get out of "coming to drill."

The dispute over the documents' authenticity came as Democrats stepped up their criticism of Bush's service with the National Guard between 1968 and 1973. The Democratic National Committee sought to fuel the controversy yesterday by holding a news conference at which Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa) pointed to the documents as a fresh indictment of Bush's credibility.

The conservative Weekly Standard also has a piece where it has an expert saying he's "99 percent sure" the documents weren't produced during the 70s.

In yet another development, the son of Mr. Bush's squadron commander expressed doubts over the authenticity of memos said to be written by his dad -- another sign:

In an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, the officer's son, Gary Killian, said he doubted that his father had written some of the memos. "I am upset because I think it is a mixture of truth and fiction here,'' Mr. Killian said.

There are an incredible range of theories over who could have created the documents if they are fake -- ranging from the Kerry camp, to someone who hates Bush, to even Karl Rove to discredit the National Guard issue in general (by having planted fake documents blared on 60 Minutes, then revealed to be fakes).

But the absolute bottom line is this: whether these documents were authentic or not, they MUST be able to stand up to the toughest scrutiny -- and CBS should have known that at the outset.

UPDATE:

-- CBS insists the documents are authentic:

CBS News mounted an aggressive defense Friday of its report about President Bush's service in the Air National Guard, saying broadcast memos questioned by forensic experts came from "unimpeachable sources."

The network planned a detailed explanation on its CBS Evening News.

CBS can state "with absolute certainty" that the disputed memos could have been produced on typewriters available in the early 1970s when the memos are purported to have been written, the network said.

Some forensic experts were quoted by news organizations, including The Associated Press, that the memos appeared to have been computer-generated with characteristics that weren't available three decades ago.

(UPDATE (see below for more details) The New York Times has since then reported that some experts say they could be from typewriters of that era.)

"The documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but sources familiar with their content," CBS News said.

--Democratic officials say they were not involved in it:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe today said neither his organization nor John Kerry´s campaign leaked to CBS documents questioning President Bush´s service record, which may have been forged.

He suggested White House adviser Karl Rove could be behind the documents.

"I can unequivocally say that no one involved here at the Democratic National Committee had anything at all to do with any of those documents. If I were an aspiring young journalist, I think I would ask Karl Rove that question," Mr. McAuliffe said.

--Some interesting specific points fom Matt Yglesias here (dreaded words: Read the whole thing..)

UPDATE 2:
CBS eventually replied with a double-whammy expression of faith in its reporting's solidity.
First, here's a longer version of what the network said, according to MSNBC:

"This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking," the network said in a statement reported on its Web site.

And then Rather was more blunt:

Anchor Dan Rather used similar words on the "Evening News With Dan Rather." Rather concluded by saying, “If any definitive evidence to the contrary is found, we will report it.” But for the time being, he said, “There is none.”

Rather had also said Friday: "CBS News stands by, and I stand by, the thoroughness and accuracy of this report, period. Our story is true."

-By late Friday, a New York Times story noted that some experts were saying the memos could have come from typewriters from that era:

It was the typefaces that consumed much of the news media. For every expert who said the documents looked like the work of computers and could not have come from old-fashioned typewriters because of proportional spacing and some type features, there seemed to be another who said they could indeed have been authentic.

Australian Embassy Blast Reminds Us That Terrorism Still Lives...And Prowls

Terrorism is alive and well, even though the U.S. Presidential race sucks up most of the oxygen in the American news media. In Indonesia:

Three people are believed to have been killed in an explosion outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, which caused extensive damage.

Witnesses have reported the blast has punched a hole in the embassy's gate, shattered windows in the compound and damaged cars.

A Foreign Ministry spokeswoman says Australia is still trying to ascertain if any Australians have been wounded in the blast.

The cause of the blast is not immediately known.

It is believed to have originated from an office building near the Australian embassy.

Eyewitnesses have spoken of significant numbers of people, some badly injured, outside the front of the embassy and there are early reports of at least two dead.

A report from Reuters says three dead bodies have been seen on the street outside the embassy.

The Australian embassy had increased security in the past few months due to increasing intelligence chatter of terrorist threats.

UPDATE: Simon World has a GREAT round up with links, photos and analysis. MUST READING>

Life's A Bitch

A man tried to shoot seven puppies -- but got shot by one of the dogs instead.

The police came and the man didn't try to flea.

It's A Question Of Taste

Be careful what you put in your mouth (and don't you DARE make a joke about you-know-who)...

Forget Political Stuff And Spend Your Time On More Meaningful Endeavors....

....like this.

There was Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon...

...and now James Wolcott says there's George Bush and Dick Cheney. He thinks Carson/McMahon were a better act.

The Media's Defining Phrases Say A Lot

....and it says a lot when they don't use a defining phrase (like who a given reporter or copy editor may like or agree with more). Here's an example.

Another Poll Shows Bush Gaining

The ABC News/Washington Post poll shows 52 percent Bush, 43 percent Kerry.

Writes Stephen Green:

With eight weeks to go, Kerry has to get Bush's support below 50% to even have a shot at this. If, after the debates, Kerry is still struggling to get himself over 47% and Bush under 50, then we could see something really interesting: A surge for Nader.

A Kerry flame-out would let those who regretted their 2000 Nader support forget their promises to "never again" vote for a third-party candidate -- and vote their consciences again in 2004. That would put Oregon, New Hampshire, and Minnesota in play for Bush. Not that he'd need them in this scenario.

No matter what happens, the Kerry campaign will not be studied by political science students for generations to come as the epitome of a well-run, well-executed and well-thought out campaign.

UPDATE: The Washington Post also notes that this ABC News/Washington Post indicates success for the Republicans recently...but also that history shows the ballgame ain't over yet:

The survey highlights the damage to Kerry in August and during the Republican National Convention. Bush got a four-point "bounce" in support among likely voters from his convention, about what Kerry received from his convention in July. But in other important ways, the poll suggests that Republicans achieved virtually all their objectives last week in New York, particularly their goal of making Kerry less acceptable to voters.

What will not be known for another few weeks is whether Bush's gains are transitory, as Kerry's were in the immediate aftermath of his convention. The setback to Kerry has generated concern among Democrats about his candidacy, but four years ago, Bush trailed Al Gore by eight points and later 10 points in tracking polls taken by the Gallup Organization in mid-September, and he came back to win the presidency.

Powell: Genocide In The Sudan

The Sudan crisis now heats up .... on the international front:

The Bush administration for the first time on Thursday called attacks in Sudan's Darfur region by government-backed Arab militia against black Africans ``genocide.''

The designation by Secretary of State Colin Powell came as a U.S. proposal in the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions against Sudan encountered opposition. Powell told Congress that Sudan's government is to blame for the killing of tens of thousands and uprooting of 1.2 million people.

In recent interviews with 1,136 refugees in neighboring Chad, the State Department found a ``consistent and widespread pattern of atrocities committed against non-Arab villagers,'' according to a department report. It added that about a third of the refugees who were interviewed heard racial epithets while under attack.

Powell said that as a member of the 1948 international genocide convention, Sudan is obliged to prevent and punish acts of genocide.

``To us, at this time, it appears that Sudan has failed to do so,'' he said.

Powell's announcement came as the United States was pressuring the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on Sudan's oil industry, among other measures, if the government does not take steps to improve security in Darfur.

Such sanctions are opposed by China and Pakistan, Security Council members that import Sudanese oil.

(That's just a coincidence, though, we're sure...)

The Bush administration has not seriously considered sending troops to Sudan. The African Union, a continent-wide security group, has dispatched 125 monitors to Darfur who are protected by 300 African Union troops.

U.N. envoy Jan Pronk urged Sudan last week to allow more than 3,000 troops into the region to stop violence and to prevent the conflict from escalating. In Abuja, Nigeria, where Darfur peace talks are under way, Sudanese Deputy Foreign Minister Najeeb El-Khair Abdel Wahab criticized Powell's action.

``We don't think this kind of attitude can help the situation in Darfur. We expect the international community to assist the process that is taking place in Abuja, and not put oil on the fire,'' he said.

The European Union also was critical. ``We have not discussed specifically the use of the word genocide,'' said spokesman Jean-Charles Ellermann-Kingombe. ``For us, we have noted that there is an extremely serious situation that still requires a huge humanitarian aid effort.''

State Department officials acknowledged the possibility that the genocide designation could interfere with U.S. efforts to encourage more robust Sudanese government efforts to protect Darfur's citizens. And Powell has acknowledged that the designation will not lead directly to any material benefit for Darfur's victims.
The 1948 genocide convention defines that act as a calculated effort to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group in whole or in part.

The New York Times notes a possible political dimension to the U.S. stance:

There was also a political dimension to the secretary's testimony, however, in that some critics of the Bush administration, including Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, have called on the United States to take a more aggressive role in ending the conflict in Sudan.

The Congress has passed a resolution declaring the Sudan situation genocide, and last week Mr. Kerry called on the administration to follow suit. But until now, Mr. Powell has said that he did not want to use the word without examining the facts, and further that using the word would by itself not accomplish very much.

Mr. Powell repeated the point today that using the word "genocide" would not lead automatically to any action. He said the United States and others would continue to put pressure on Sudan by threatening sanctions at the United Nations and encouraging a settlement of the rebellion in Darfur that prompted the Janjaweed to retaliate.

Clash of Civilizations

Seth Farber, aka The Talking Dog, has some thoughts here on the clash of civilizations and how it relates to the Bush-Kerry matchup. You need to read the whole thing but here's a key quote:

HOWEVER... what matters to most people right now is who will do a better job at combatting our new world wide enemy-- which, as noted above, most of us-- including the Bush Administration-- simply do not understand well enough to combat...

Bush has, at least, thought of an answer. And Kerry continues to evade...The American people need to have a better choice than a bad answer and no answer. Because if that's the choice, I think they'll pick the bad answer. And I'm not fully convinced they wouldn't be justified in doing just that.

Three Views On Whether Bush's Military History Should Be An Issue

It's hard to write and see when your head was bitten off by Democrats and Republicans due to a post suggesting enough with the military records already.

One private email suggested another spot where The Moderate Voice should put his computer, but it simply did not fit (and now The Moderate Voice can't sit down).

It would have been difficult, anyway, since putting the computer there would have required skills in gymnastics or hatha yoga. On the other hand, the keyboard would have been much easier to see in that dark place.

In any event, the campaign furor over George Bush's military history goes on, with new allegations here and here and here -- and even an allegation contending that the documents CBS News used were fake here and here. The question we raised, though, continues over whether to debate these military issues at all. VISIT:

JEFF JARVIS:

Bush National Guard flap and the Kerry Swiftie flap are both nonstories, just negative campaigning, just mudslinging, just distractions from what really matters. But the Bush side should not be surprised at all the renewed attention to his military history now (see 60 Minutes and the Boston Globe).

What a friggin' newsflash: Politicians stretch the truth!

Stop the friggin' presses.

Can we move on now?

Which triggered this response.

And this response.

We totally agree with Jeff Jarvis..

Putting Our Iraq Losses In Perspective

The milestone -- 1,000 dead -- has been reached. John Hawkins puts the deaths in perspective from his perspective.

White House Alters Transcript Of Controversial Cheney Comment

It sounds as if the White House is Dowdifying the transcript of Cheney's comments.

More Good Polling News For George Bush

A new CBS News poll shows President George Bush ahead of John Kerry by 7 points and -- bad news for Kerry -- voters increasingly don't like what they see about the Democratic nominee:

One week after their Convention, the Republican ticket of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney hold a seven-point lead over Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards among registered voters.

The Republicans’ gain in voter support comes about through two changes that appear to have happened at that Convention -- a major improvement in the President’s approval ratings on handling terrorism (already the area where he scored best), and significant negative changes in perceptions of the Democratic nominee.

Polls are often like see-saws -- but if these numbers hold it would indicate that Bush not only got a bounce out of his convention but the bounce stuck...

You Can Help Save A Desperately Sick Little Girl In Iraq

You CAN make a difference. A little girl in Iraq is DESPERATELY ILL and a blogger is trying to raise some moeny to save her life. Remember that anything you give can go a long way. Anything.

We found out about this via this post on Dean's World. Note that Dean, who helped The Moderate Voice set up this blog (don't hold it against him, though), helped Citizen Smash, and countless other bloggers exit from Blogspot to brighter, happier worlds elsewhere...has his own personal crisis. And even though he asked not to be linked to his post on it, I will. (And hope some readers can lend a hand to the little girl...and Dean, who has helped so many -- and he doesn't ask if they're a Democrat or a Republican..or an independent Moderate who upsets Democrats and Republicans).

You've Heard Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy...

...but is there also a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy? John Cole looks at George Bush's sudden spurt of problems surrounding questions about his National Guard Service and the new 527 Texans For Truth. He also wonders if the media will look into Texans For Truth just as they probed the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Does Chart Analysis Show A John Kerry Breakout?

A technical analyst and trade made a chart -- and the results are interesting...

Stay Tuned...

We're out but will be putting on new posts throughout the day...

Bush and Kerry Can Belong To YEW!

Yes, George Bush and Dick Cheney can now belong to you. No, you don't have to be a lobbyist, labor union leader, or oil company executive. They are available as puppets. YOU can now be Karl Rove or Bob Shrum.

Note that Bush and Kerry are puppets -- not dummies (COMEDY SET UP LINE...DO YOUR JOKE HERE).

But it's no joke. These puppets are available from Pavlov Puppets by CLICKING HERE.

You can buy Bush and Kerry for $295 each -- considerably less than the cost to campaign contributors.

Former Clinton Aide: Now It's Bush's Turn To Squirm

Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, and now Washington bureau chief of salon.com, has a piece in England's Guardian that recounts the Kerry campaign's decline, the triumphant Republican convention with GWB's zoom in the polls -- and the current controversy over George Bush's mliitary history.

Key passages at the end:

Bush campaigns before the faithful; distressing facts are dismissed with sarcasm and ideology is implacable. Yet at this moment of disdain a discovery that cast light on Bush's character suddenly emerged, having the potential to alter the momentum of the campaign....

Abruptly, the Republican marchers stumble as Kerry is galvanised. "His miscalculation was going to war without planning carefully and without the allies we should have had," he said yesterday. Meanwhile in the White House, aides anxiously wonder how to explain the president's haunted past and his long years of hiding it and who will have the task of facing the cameras.

In other words: between John Kerry's problem with Swift Boat Vets and George Bush's National Guard stint it looks like we're going to have another campaign on character. (You'll all hate me for saying this but: I'd much rather see a campaign on "country.")

An Intern In Washington

Greg Piper, who has the thoughtful blog The Smoking Room, recently moved from Oregon to accept an internship in Washington, D.C., where he hopes to eventually work for a think tank.

Read this fun post where he faces his first "cynical Washington moment" -- when he learns the quaint culture of Washington, D.C. telephone receptionists, a world unto itself...

Another Sign That Dick Cheney's Comments Were Probably Not Happenstance

There has been all kinds of talk about how Vice President Dick Cheney didn't mean to imply (or have it misunderstood) that a vote for John Kerry is a vote to have terrorists attack the United States. But two developments today don't exactly fit in with that argument:

(1) President George Bush had a chance today to disavow Cheney's comments and he would not. He could have said "That was a misunderstanding," then used what one reporter called the "backpedalled" explanation by the Veep's spokeswoman to soften the issue and lay it to rest. But he didn't answer, which means it lingers out there.

(2) Then Dave Pell has this:

When the shame of the Cheney comments dawned on the GOP, did they retract them and pull back from a message of fear mongering and nonsense (a bad, but common combo)?

Nope.

This afternoon on CNN, Senator Brownback repeatedly explained to Wolf Blitzer that a Kerry win in November could invite "probes" from terrorists. He repeated the word probe about nine times during the interview.

I'm not sure if he was predicting an attack or a really miserable visit to an overly enthusiastic proctologist.

DAVE: I'll turn the other cheek on that one...

BUT....THERE IS THIS UPDATE:
A good number of folks believe Cheney's quote was what they call "Dowdified' -- sort of...ahem...reprocessed in the style some people say is epitomized by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. Dean Esmay discusses that here and gives this link.

OUR POSITION: The original report we did our first post on contained both the shorter Cheney quote and the part about the pre-911 mindset. We quoted both and and discussed both parts of this quotein our original post. (And The Moderate Voice agrees totally about the pre-911 mindset which was the perspective of a host of administrations of both parties). But others see it differently and think the second part of the quote changes the first.

The only problem here, is that when you then have a GOP Senator suggesting that a Kerry win would invite more terrorist "probes." It certainly sounds like there is a point they are trying here one way or another: terrorist probes=country not prepared=possible terrorist attack=attack=thousands of deaths=maybe your family=have to keep the Democrats out or planes will fly into buildings again. Same basic message.

PS: Time to move onto other topics on this blog.

The Ultimate Beef Stroganoff Recipe

You'll want to save this, print it out, and email it. The ULTIMATE Beef Stroganoff recipe (from our friends at Random Fate).

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

A Presidential Plant (For Your Garden)

Want something perfect for your garden? The George Bush Bush. It does exist and you can buy it here.

Bushes (the plant kind, that is) named after politicians make a lot of sense. If you talk to them nicely, they grow better -- just like politicians. To survive they must firmly rooted, just like politicians. And we REFUSE to make the wisecrack about fertilizer.

PS: There's also the Colin Powell....well, you know (and we politely decline to look at it).

(The Real Dummy thanks Wizbang for the tip)

Blogs Are Now Competitive With Cable News Networks

Those who talk about the "old media" and "new media" are right: just look at this.

He Can't Wait Until This Election Is Over (HEY! Join The Club!)

Dean Esmay is becoming Dean dismayed as he surveys the scene in front of him in this election year with important issues shoved by the wayside...and he tells you in detail why he can't wait until this election is over.

Bush's Military Record Comes Back Into Play

Questions and allegations about President George Bush's military record have come back into play on several fronts today -- and it looks like the subject won't go away (for a while at least).

The Moderate Voice's reaction is to close his eyes and say :"Oh, please Mommy, make it go away.." -- and wish that the debate of mlitary records of candidates would end so that nuts-and-bolts policy issues could be discussed.

But in 21st Century America -- where we experience the political version of Road Rage -- that's not going to happen. Just as we did in the case of the Swift Boat Vets case, we are not going to dwell on this issue on this blog but we will give you some resources on the present controversy:

MAIN STORY MAKING THE NEWS: The Boston Globe article which says it has proof that White House was wrong in saying records showed George Bush fufilled his military commitment while in the National Guard.

ANOTHER KEY STORY: New York Times Op-Ed piece by Nicholas Kristof contending some who were there when Bush says he served don't remember him there, even though they went looking for him.

Meanwhile, CBS' 60 Minutes will interview former Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, a Democrat, about the role Barnes says he played in getting President George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard and why he regrets it. The broadcast will also report about allegations that Bush "blew off" his duties while there.

BEST SUMMARIES WITH LINKS:
--Kevin Drum, who writes:"As I mentioned before, I doubt that this debate is good for the country, but apparently a lot of people figure that if the Swift Boat group can make up smear stories about John Kerry's military service with impunity, then it's fair to retaliate with true stories about Bush's. I can't say that I blame them."

--Glenn Reynolds, AKA InstaPundit, has lots of links and sees a contrast in how the national media's coverage of the controveries over the two candidates' military history. He adds:"I note that the Bush folks seem to want to press this issue, in order to demand that Kerry release his military records in full. Is this another rope-a-dope? Hmm. It just might be: "Kerry Navy probe to expand scope?...I continue to think that Kerry's emphasis on Vietnam is a mistake."

OUR VIEW: This debate will NOT be good for the country. It will further polarize and distract from serious issues. The frenzy over John Kerry and the Swift Boat Vets and the renewed frenzy over Bush's mliitary records would be OK in normal times -- but this isn't normal times (or a normal election) and this country has too many huge issues already on our plate. Just as in the case of the Swift Boat Vets, we won't be doing tons of coverage on it on this blog.

UPDATE:
The Blogging of the President's Matt Stoler (who did posts from both political conventions this year) strongly disagrees and did a post on my comments above on his lively blog. So, although we don't usually do this, we're running his post here in full. I still don't agree about these issues (but then no one in either party agrees with me these days...). He writes in a post titled "Is the Military Record Debate 'Good' For the Country?

Joe Gandelman says 'no', and his "reaction is to close his eyes and say :"Oh, please Mommy, make it go away.." -- and wish that the debate of mlitary records of candidates would end so that nuts-and-bolts policy issues could be discussed." I disagree with this. It's exactly what Bush wants, to make the smears seem universalized so that both sides are playing a nasty game. But they aren't. One side is a corrupt former coke head President with a criminal past of avoiding service and committing financial crimes. The other is a guy who fought for his country and has a record of mixed accomplishment in the Senate. American moderates tend to say they want to discuss 'the issues', but when push comes to shove, if you want to discuss issues you don't let your opinions be influenced by incredibly dishonest negative attacks. Otherwise you don't really want to talk about 'the issues', or at least, you're not making your mind up based on them.

A reader, Ellen Dana Nagler, echoes Matt's view:

The Moderate Voice's reaction is to close his eyes and say :"Oh, please Mommy, make it go away.."

Yes, but the other kid thing to say is, "Well, he started it."

"He" did, and we've been bullied into oblivion long enough. Time to fight dirty. It's the only thing "he" understands. Ditto the public, or at least the pipeline to the public, the nattering nabobs. Can't talk policy if the popular news outlets won't play along. Nothing makes me sadder than to say this, but dammit, we cannot afford to lose this one!

Bush Likely To Agree To Only Two Debates, Not Three

There are two ways of looking at leaks from the GOP camp indicating President George Bush may only agree to only two of the three debates with Democratic challenger John Kerry.

(1) George Bush has already held fewer press conferences than most people, his campaign rallies this year have been marked by many attendees being required to sign loyalty oaths, and now his aides reportedly don't want him to do the town meeting hall debate with independent voters out of fear that partisans may inflitrate in. This all fits a pattern of a President who doesn't like to answer hard questions and minimizes chances to get them.

and

(2) Why should he from the standpoint of political science? He's ahead, he is assured of his base' support. The challenger always has the most to gain, and the least to lose, in a debate with an incumbent. It's not a matter of fearing to get questions but being smart enough to minimize any problem that can lose supporters.

Or is it a combination of both (you pick the precentage in the mix)? What do you think?

James Joyner's analysis is one the most interesting.

New Political Toast-O-Meter

Political Scientist Steven Taylor, aka Poliblogger, has another political Toast-O-Meter out. The Moderate Voice, though, is a bad voice and failed to get it on this site as soon as he got it -- and you can already see that some of it may be changing (new polls indicating Bush lead not may be as great).

But most of it still holds up and Taylor is a great, solid political analysis. Read his whole post but here are a few excerpts:

The Republicans have succeeded in making security, and specifically terrorism, the focal point of the campaign. Kerry must respond, and citing the number of people who need health insurance isn’t going to be sufficient. Unless some especially bad economics numbers come out (for example, if September job creation numbers are especially bad, or, if we lose jobs in September—which seems unlikely) then I am not sure that security will be eclipsed.

Kerry's problems?

First, trying to compare Bush to Hoover is a dead end, in my opinion. For one thing, it is demonstrably the case that the current economy, net job losses or not, simply does not look like Hoover’s. For another, do most voters know who Hoover was? The guy who invented the vacuum cleaner or that FBI dude who allegedly wore dresses? Seriously: aside from a vague notion that something economically bad happened when Hoover was president is about all people know, if that. It is hardly a blazing memory seared, seared I say, in the minds of voters. If you want a President who is emblematic of a bad economy who people would remember cite Carter. Never mind, he was Democrat.

He's right. Many young voters have studied Hoover....but did not LIVE UNDER Hoover.

Second, while generically speaking the health care issue does resonate with the public, but it does not appear to be the case that public sentiment has shifted all that much since the early 1990s when the Clinton attempt at major health care reform resulted in a political disaster for the Clinton administration and contributed to the 1994 debacle at the ballot box for the Democrats.

Third, Kerry’s lack of clarity on Iraq blunt his attacks on the President. Also, Kerry’s promise to withdraw troops from Iraq may please his base, but it sends a signal of weakness, calling into question as to whether he is really willing to fight the war on terror.

In addition to reading the whole post, read the many links he has on the toast-o-meter. A MUST for political junkies (or anyone else).

Well, Back To The Drawing Board

The three year old Genesis spacecraft's return to earth ended badly, Reports CNN:

The Genesis return capsule crashed in the desert on Wednesday after its parachutes failed to deploy. The craft missed a mid-air retrieval meant to save the spacecraft from impacting the Earth.

"The capsule has suffered extensive damage. It has broken apart on the desert floor," said an official on NASA TV. "Hopefully, there will be enough evidence to see what went wrong. Whether there will be enough science left inside remains to be seen."

Teams are attempting to recover the craft. NASA has warned them that a "live mortar" or explosive charge designed to deploy the chutes may still be armed.

NASA officials at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California said that long-range cameras did not detect the parachutes that should have slowed the craft.

"There was no drogue chute or parafoil," said a JPL spokesman. "Under those condition, the Genesis capsule hit the ground at about 100 mph."

NASA officials located the spacecraft around noon on Wednesday after it dug into the desert soil. NASA footage shows the craft tumbling rapidly through the air before hitting the ground with enormous force.

He's Easy To Judge

Lest you think that the United States is the only country where we occasionally hear shocking stories about super-soft judges who might benefit the public more by working in a job where they have to ask "Do you want fries with that?" here's this lovely case from England:

A JUDGE yesterday freed a man who had sex with a girl of 12 - and said it was her fault they ended up in bed.

Child protection groups were furious after Michael Barrett, 20, was handed a two-year conditional discharge for the attack.

MP Dan Norris accused the judge of "playing into the hands of paedophiles". Barrett met the girl in an internet chatroom and later twice had sex with her at her parents' home when he was 18.

But judge Michael Roach said she was a "willing participant" who instigated sex at the house in Greater Manchester last year when she went to his bedroom.

He said trainee croupier Barrett was not "predatory to children" and told him: "There was no sexual coercion. Her family allowed you to stay in their home. I trust you to behave yourself now."

Former child protection officer Mr Norris said: "This is inexcusable and sends out the wrong message.

"There is no way anybody under 16 is able to make a genuine and informed decision about sex."

Michael Barrett must be the guy they wrote this joke about:
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of .3?
A: "Your honor."

(Reminder to visit the Outside The Beltway Traffic Jam)

We Got "Snookered, Too!"

Egads, Godfrey Daniels (if you're a W.C. Fields fan you get it)...what is this world COMING TO?

On Sept. 7 we ran this post about an alleged study saying having kids lowers a parent's I.Q., which someone sent to us with a link. It turns out we were "snookered" (not our word -- see below) TWICE!

Of course, it's election year, when voters of both parties are routinely snookered, but The Moderate Voice's face is now as red as Liza Minelli's former husband after one of their fights. Well, maybe not that red..

We usually do a post and then move totally on to other things...except this morning we learned that no only were we "snookered" but so was MSNBC.

Here's the item from TV Newser:

MSNBC's Countdown "Snookered" By Satirical Site
Only on TVNewser: A series of "journalistic malfunctions" led to a bogus story topping the Countdown on MSNBC Tuesday.

"We got snookered tonight," Keith Olbermann e-mails. "Our number one story, about a study by the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University indicating that parents' IQ drops by at least 12 points upon the birth of a child (and an average of 20 points) was taken gullibly from a publication called "The Hoosier Gazette," which unbeknownst to any of us is a satirical website. We even had Carl Reiner comment on it."

"There was a whole chain of journalistic malfunctions that had to happen to make this possible, but since I'm the Managing Editor, the buck stops with me. Mr. Reiner thought it was nonsense, so fortunately at least his journalistic integrity is intact."

"We're always happy to see the parapets of mainstream media vaulted by the outsiders, even if it's at our expense. We'll be making the story of tonight's fatally flawed number one story, into tomorrow's number one story."

Kudos to the show for recognizing the error immediately and making plans to correct it prominently...

The worst thing is: we wasted all those nice wisecracks we did on this item on that post!

Since it's a policy for our dumb mistakes to live on for eternity with a correction on the original post and not just have the post mysteriously disappear without any explanation (unlike on one prominent highly prominent political site that has had several bit political "scoops" turn out to be totally false), we're now going to put an advisory on that item...and it'll live on.

Perhaps doing a blog can lower your IQ...

PS: We think future research will prove that the item is true.

The Eternal Debate: Jay Leno Or David Letterman?

There's boxers and briefs. There's the Marx Brothers or Three Stooges. There's Mars and Venus.

And then there's NBC's late night host Jay Leno and the man who thought he'd get the coveted Tonight Show once Johnny Carson retired, David Letterman. Who's funnier? Who's a harder worker? Who deserves the crown of late night King? Vanity Fair columnist James Wolcott puts all this under his perceptive critical microscope in a post on his great new blog.

We won't give it away, but here's a small part of his post:

It seems unfair that a slugger like Letterman should run a perennial second behind this shovel-chinned square.

It's not unfair. The Tonight Show is a superior broadcast to The Late Show. It's better-written, more imaginatively produced, faster paced, more energetic in every aspect. Leno packs a wealth of topical material into each monologue while Letterman lets drop three or four jokes dragged out with a battery of annoying mannerisms. Where Leno's delivery is clean, quick, and efficient, Letterman is forever buttoning and unbuttoning his jacket, taking that underhand golf stroke after the punchline or making a "pow" fist.

And now the dreaded words: Debe leer la cosa entera (Read the whole thing).

REQUIIRED READING: Jeff Jarvis On The Anniversary Of 911

The anniversary of 911 will soon be upon us. And there will be all kinds of pro forma articles, posts, and broadcasts with a recap of events and heartfelt but cliched statements.

Skip them all and read this thoughtful essay by Jeff Jarvis. We were going to quote from it, but felt it would not do it justice. It's NOT a post: It's probably one of the best and most thoughtful pieces you'll ever read on 911, what it did to our nation, where we've evolved since then and the dangers (not the ones you may think) that lie ahead.

Read it. Then read it again. Then do something about it.

Another Accuracy Problem With The Drudge Report

This time on gun control -- and spotted and discussed by bloggers who know something about firearms.

(Note: The Moderate Voice reads and is addicted to The Drudge Report but exercises restraint now in linking to any stories actually written BY that site, due to some accuracy issues in the past. We wait until we see the "scoop" -- you know, like the big one about how Hillary Clinton was going to rock the political world by running as John Kerry's Vice President? -- carried and confirmed by the mainstream media).

UPDATE: Here's even more on the issue of firearms and the accuracy of the Drudge Report report, via Juan Non-Volokh.

The Face Of Fear

How terrified were those poor kids who were seized by (and many of them murdered by) terrorists in Russia? Take a look at Allah Pundit's collection here.

You won't sleep tonight.

A Former President Wrote Zell Miller A Letter

We won't tell you who this former president is who wrote to the Democratic Georgia Senator who blasted the Demcrats and John Kerry at the GOP Convention.

But we will give you a few hints.

J-i-m-m-y C-a-r-t-e-r and you can read it here.

Gremlins Are Sabatoging The Speeches Of Both Candidates

They really are. Their mission: to destroy sentences and make the otherwise (supposedly) dignified to Presidential candidates look silly. And they are winning the war!

Alan Keyes Strikes Again

Now the GOP candidate for Senate in Illinois says Jesus would never vote for his Democratic opponent Barack Obama.

NBC5 reports:

According to a list of quotes put out by the Democratic candidate, Keyes said in a radio interview at the Republican National Convention that Jesus would not vote for Obama. The quote was part of a list Obama sent reporters of Keyes' accusations and epithets about him since Keyes became a candidate, NBC5 political editor Dick Kay said.

Keyes, who has focused his campaign on abortion, said that his statement about whom Jesus would vote for was based on Obama's pro-choice votes in the Illinois Senate.

"Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died," Keyes said. "And I'm not the only person, obviously, who thinks if you are a representative of me, I cannot vote for you if you would ignore the dignity and claims of that child's life. So, yes, I did respond quite logically -- you'll see it's quite logical, right -- with the conclusion that Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."

Note to Mr. Keyes: Jesus was reportedly a serious man, so it's also doubtful he'd vote for you.

In Other Words, If We Have A Democratic Vote And You Lose The Terrrorists Win?

This campaign is getting REAL UGLY REAL fast now:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign immediately rejected those comments as "scare tactics" that crossed t he line.

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

So, in other words, we have free elections which is a function of a democracy. But if voters don't vote for this administration -- even if they support it on terrorism and Iraq but have other serious disgreements that cause them to vote for someone else -- they're risking the destruction of the U.S? Is there a tacit suggestion here that not voting for one party is somehow a less patriotic act than voting for another? (I never learned that in elementary school).

How about this for a campaign slogan, then: "G-0-P or D-I-E"

If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.

And he is correct. The administration's turn-on-a-dime-from-pre-911-days offensive has been vital and the bulk of it can't be publicized. And he is about right about the administration being in tune with how to crack down on terrorism: this administration scrambled to change the existing structure and ways of looking at terrorism. No one can deny that.

But all the documents AND the 911 study show that adminstrations from BOTH PARTIES were in the pre-911 mindset. Unlike in Spain, with the Socialist Party and the then-ruling Popular Party, the two U.S. political parties' elites are not continents apart on terrorism policy. Also, the 911 Commission report was bipartisan.

In this -- or any other election -- it's highly unlikely that a change in administration is going to mean the end of all of the institutions, safeguards, military infrastructure, intelligence enhancements, and lessons learned about failures by administration of both parties over the years to connect the dots.

Mr. Cheney is bound to influence votes, particularly in his party's base, with statements like this. He's also likely going to influence some votes in ways he does not intend.

UPDATE: The Vice President's spokeswoman later tried to explain it this way:

"What the vice president was saying was whoever is elected will face the possibility of a terrible attack,” the spokeswoman, Anne Womack, told reporters on Cheney’s plane. “The question is whether or not we have the right policies in place to protect the country.”

Asked whether Cheney stood by his statement, Womack replied, “The vice president stands by my explanation of the statement.”

It certainly does NOT sound like that is what he was saying. He was suggesting a vote against the GOP or for John Kerry means exposing the U.S. to a terrorist attack and massive bloodshed.

This sounds like the kind of tactic politicos in both parties use -- where they throw a charge out, and if it generates heat that could hurt politically, then issue a lawyer-like explanation to soften it a bit...which is actually too late since they made their original point anyway. The original allegation just hangs out there. Cheney sounded quite specific -- and intentional.

UPDATE II: Others may disagree (and we CAN disagree without hating each other in this country). Here's a sample of opinion (we encourage you to read their whole post and explore their blogs):
--Wes Roth:"I agree with Vice President Cheney. America needs a strong leader and a strong administration in this war on terror. We are living in a new age. It is either war, or something a lot worse. Why do we need a permission slip to protect ourselves?"
--Ezra Klein:"God, if only I could remember who was president during 9/11, I'd be able to evaluate this statement..."
--Lee at Right Thinking From the Left Coast says Democrats and other critics are missing Cheney's point -- and some of them on purpose:

Cheney did not, as (Democratic Vice Presidential candidate John) Edwards claims, phrase the defense of America in partisan terms. What he did state, and he’s absolutely right about this, is that the method that will be employed by a Kerry administration will be the wrong one. Bush is in favor of preemptive military action to destroy terrorism and the regimes which support it, and Kerry is in favor of a passive, reactive response to terrorism, treating it as a law enforcement function, like Bill Clinton did.

Cheney was right, and the Democrats are the ones engaging in partisan fearmongering.

--Dave Pell:"Dick Cheney took the art of political fear mongering to an all-time low during a campaign stop in Iowa on Tuesday....Hey, we all play politics. But this really is disgusting even by Washington standards."
--In a post titled "Dumb Comment By Cheney," Lean Write, a blog written by a longtime Democrat who is now a Republican, has this:"I really think the Republicans are playing with fire with comments that insinuate that a Kerry win poses a danger for another terrorist attack. To me, the greatest strength of the right these days is that they seem to grasp the desperate, dangerous nature of the Islamic terrorist threat. Turning it all into a veiled suggestion that a vote for Kerry is a vote for another attack is just wrong. Can't we just face it - I can no longer put it down to dumb luck that we haven't been hit again, but we all know the other shoe could drop tomorrow, regardless of who's President."
--Steve Gillard:"Could they be more desperate? Vote for us or die is reminiscent of the darkest kind of fascist campaigning. Disgust isn't even the term I would use."
--Dan Gillmore:"Is there anything these folks won't say or do to get elected?"
--Ken Layne:"I know, I know .... I shouldn't even link this stuff because it's Jay Leno territory...Cheney threatening voters with another 9/11 if they vote for Kerry. I thought we were going to have another 9/11 before Nov. 2, so terrorists could "disrupt our democratic process" ... which is it?"
--Tom Corriente:"It's official. After four years of dismal failure in office, W and the boys have nothing left in their arsenal apparently but fear-mongering. It's time to ride these guys out of town on a rail."
--Sideshow:"Are we sure he was warning against Kerry? After all, it's not as if the Bush administration has done a thing to prevent further attacks."
--Michael Totten:

I don't need to tell Dick Cheney that terrorists want to hit us again no matter who sits in the White House. But I would tell Dick Cheney, if I were his advisor, that this line of argument is crude, obnoxious, and has serious backfire potential built into it. He is explicitly saying no terrorist attacks can get through if he and George W. hold the White House.

We all know this is b.s. and I shouldn't even have to point it out. It is not possible to deflect every potential attack. We could turn the United States into a totalitarian fortress and attacks would still get through.

If Dick Cheney is prepared to lay the blame of a future terrorist attack on both a Kerry Administration and even the voters (!) then his administration needs to accept the blame for terrorist attacks that occur on its watch. And that includes the attack on September 11.

I do not blame the Bush Administration for the attack on September 11. Nor do I blame the Clinton Administration. Nor will I blame a possible future Kerry Administration if it comes into being. Nor should anybody.

--Steve Soto:"How comfortable is an administration with its hold on power this November when the Vice President threatens voters with another terrorist attack if he and Bush are not elected?"
--Kos:"You expect the wingers to make these arguments. But the vice president? Candidates that expect to win don't resort to such fear mongering. They're still running scared. "
--Sam Rosenfeld:"Our vice president today rendered explicit what had heretofore served only as subtext to the Bush campaign’s argument: vote for John Kerry and terrorists will blow you up along with your friends and family...This is the campaign that they are running. It isn’t subtle, and it isn’t pretty, but it is plenty powerful....John Kerry is not going to be able to withstand the vice president of the United States of America’s open claim that a vote for him is a vote for terrorist atrocities simply by changing the subject to healthcare premiums and job losses."
--Atrios: "Dick says put us back into office or the terrorists will win...I can't be the only one who remembers what happened the last time those two were put into office."
--Oliver Willis:"You are a disgrace to our nation."
--Rooftop Report:"Not for nothing Mr. VP, but the biggest terrorist attack in our country happened on your watch. Enough of the scare tactics already. Everybody, including John Kerry, knows about the dangers of terrorism. Acting like the Bush administration has the patent on how to rightly handle terrorism is so incredibly asinine that it doesn't even pass the laugh test. "
--Libertarian Jackass:"And, this is evil politics. The politics of fear. A subtle threat aimed at the American people....One wonders what Bush-Cheney will say if elected and faced with another criminal act on American soil? Uh, we told you so?"
--Dean Esmay:"The Bushies say you'll be less safe under Kerry. The Kerryites say you'll be less safe under Bush. Me? I think Kerry's plans will make us less safe. Others disagree. But I think the country survives either way...I can't get worked up over this, guys. I just can't. The Kerry people say they'll make you safer. The Bush people say they'll make you safer. People are mad at this?" And Dean then shows you something he's REALLY mad at Kerry about (click on his link).
--Liquid List says it feels "glee" rather than "outrage":

These people are on a roll now. They can't stop their hateful rhetoric. It flies from their mouths unbidden, but it's also written into their speeches because it flies from their speechwriters' pens unbidden. Why can't they stop the hate? Because a) they got a bounce in the polls from the hateful convention, so they think the hate is working, and b) sometimes momentum takes on a life of its own and blinds people to the direction that the momentum is taking them.

Unfortunately for this runaway train, I believe it's going to crash...right into the undecided voters of this country. How much can you impugn an honorable man before it starts to make non-true believers feel slimy for having even listed to you? Even Michael Dukakis never faced a message that Americans would die by the thousands if he became President..So I say, you go, Dick Cheney! You spread that hate around like it's rotten tuna salad. Why not go even more extreme? I bet you could make the front page if you told an audience that Kohn Kerry likes little boys. "

--Oh That Liberal Media says the AP took the Cheney quote out of context and asks "Is it a coincidence that the AP spin on this story plays right into the hands of the Kerry/Edwards campaign??"

UPDATE 9/8: Washington Post White House briefing column (obnoxious registration required) has this paragraph:

Then there are all the stories about Vice President Cheney's jaw-dropping statement yesterday that a Kerry victory would result in more terrorist attacks. Even his own staff is qualifying it.

Note to those who insist the news media twisted Cheney's comments around. Do a Google search and read news reports about what Cheney's spokeswoman is telling reporters now. They are not pointing to the context of the sentence or saying it was mis-edited by the news media. They are backpedalling on the original assertion. We shouldn't need a team of lawyers to fisk what a candidate says for loopholes.

In The Interest Of Accuracy: This On Muslims

How many times have you read that there are no denunciations by Muslims of the 21st horrors of terrorism as we've seen here, in Iraq, Afghanistan and, more recently, in Russia?

It's one of those things that makes sense, sounds nice....but it in fact is not true.

As The Anniversary Of 911 Comes...

...one of the Internet's leading web log writers begins to feel the familiar pain -- and reflects on how 911 changed her life...how things were so different before, and after. Her fondest wish: to never forget...but to move on.

The Milestone No One Wanted To See

1000 Americans dead in Iraq as of today.

Putin Rejects Public Inquiry On Belslan

Russian President Vladimir Putin has rejected a public probe into how the Beslan school terrorist massacre took place -- and has blasted people who call for talks with Chechen leaders.

And he didn't mince words:

"Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace? Why don't you do that?" Putin said in a chat with foreign journalists and academics late last night.

"You find it possible to set some limitations in your dealings with these (terrorists), so why should we talk to people who are child killers?" the Guardian newspaper quoted Putin as saying.

"No one has a moral right to tell us to talk to child killers," he said, adding those who call for talks with terrorists have no conscience.

He said he would hold an internal inquiry into the Beslan tragedy, but not a public one.

"I want to establish the chronicle of events and find out who is responsible and might be punished," he said.

If the Russian parliament wanted to set up its own inquiry, he would not object, but he warned that it could become "a political show".

Political sideshow? Inquiries into these kinds of tragedies never become political sideshows in democracies...

Have American's Liberals Become "Political Hypocondriachs?"

James Wolcott thinks they have -- and he ponders the reasons why.

Did You Know About The Cheney Curse?

It apparently does exist.

(NOT A REAL NEWS STORY) Some Say They Already Knew It: Having Kids Lowers Your IQ

(The Moderate Voice ran this originally thinking it was a real news story. We were "snookered" -- but then so was MSNBC. See our later post here for details)

Now it's official, folks: not only does having kids lower your IQ but you lose your objectivity and think your ugly-as-an-anteater kid is the most stunning child alive.
A five-year study run by Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction proves what many in the scientific community have always suspected: having children significantly lowers the IQ of both male and female parents.

Researchers at the Kinsey Institute began their study in 1999 by giving 200 married couples who were planning on starting families within the next four years Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests. By 2003, all but 27 of these couples had conceived.

Another IQ test was given to each set of parents successful in conceiving and birthing a baby six months after their child was born. These results were compared to the previous intelligence tests.

In every single one of the 173 cases, both parents scored at least twelve points lower on the second IQ test, with the majority of parents losing twenty or more IQ points.
And it gets more interesting...
Dr. Hosung Lee, director of the study, was not surprised with the findings. “The research proved that our hypothesis was correct. Having children does retard one’s brain activity, and since both parents lost intelligence, we must assume that this loss has a psychological rather than biological cause.”
Wait: is he calling parents "retards?"The IQ tests show that when a child is born, the part of the brain that makes one think objectively takes the biggest hit when it comes to losing brainpower. “This explains why every parent thinks their child is the smartest kid in class or the best athlete, even if that child is as dumb as a box of rocks or needs a calendar to time their forty-yard dash. People who before were intelligent and open-minded turn into raving lunatics who want to blame a teacher or coach every time their mediocre child fails,” said Lee.
But some people have known this for years. My babysitter once screamed that my parents had to have had an low IQ for having a kid (me).

All of those wasted wisecracks -- and it turns out this story was A SATIRE passed on by some people as a real story. The faces of The Moderate Voice and MSNBC are red...

Michael Moore Says He Won't Seek An Oscar For Fahrenheit 911...

...if he can get it on TV. The reason: if he puts it on TV it disqualifies him from seeking an Oscar for the Best Documentary category (and the buzz is that he'd have a good chance of getting it, partly as a political statement by Hollywood elites), and he feels it'll have more impact on TV, especially before election day. Moore writes:

Therefore, I have decided not to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for consideration for the Best Documentary Oscar. If there is even the remotest of chances that I can get this film seen by a few million more Americans before election day, then that is more important to me than winning another documentary Oscar. I have already won a Best Documentary statue. Having a second one would be nice, but not as nice as getting this country back in the hands of the majority.

But he could face some problems. There is bound to be some kind of a legal challenge by conservatives groups to his film being shown on TV so close to election time. You can just see the demands for equal time. And since he already says on his website (link above) that the goal is to galvanize anti-Bush voters, there is certain to be a challenge...which will get a lot of publicity...which will distract voters from a campaign that has already been sorely lacking in discussion of serious issues.

UPDATE: Wait! It turns out Michale Moore won't be suffering, sacrificing an Academy Award (which he again would have a good chance of winning given sentiment in Hollywood) for Best Documentary.
No, according to E! Online News, Moore can turn down that award and go for -- brace yourself -- Best Picture. And still show it on TV. E! reports:

Moore's move might not have as much to do with magnanimity as with Oscar guidelines. He told Rolling Stone recently that he would like to screen Fahrenheit on the tube before the Nov. 2 election.

Academy rules state that any nonfiction film that plays on television within nine months of its theatrical release will preclude said film from Best Documentary consideration. (In fact, the Academy released a statement saying Fahrenheit 9/11 did not violate the rule when Cuban authorities showed a pirated version on state-run television in July.) However, the rule does not apply to Best Picture wannabes.

Oscar nominations will be announced Jan. 25. The ceremony will take place Feb. 27.

No documentary has ever wangled a nomination for Best Picture, but Fahrenheit's backers believe the film has a shot.

"Fahrenheit 9/11 has consistently achieved the impossible in film. Documentaries were not supposed to win the Palme d'Or or surpass the $100 million mark domestically ($200 million worldwide). Fahrenheit keeps breaking the rules and we hope to continue that trend at the Oscars," says a statement from Fellowship Adventure Group, the company formed by the Weinsteins to release Moore's doc when Disney pulled out.

Should Fahrenheit score a Best Picture nod, it could go up against the year's other big grass-roots-driven powerhouse, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.

If THAT happens the Oscars will be as polarized as the country. Consider:
--If Moore's film wins, The Passion's supporters will be furious and feel it was an outrage.
--If The Passion gets the Oscard nod, Fahrenheit's fans will be furious.

Our Thought Of The Day

It's this...from Jeff Jarvis:

Just as apparently al-Qaeda-backed terrorists in Russia crossed a new line in attacking innocent civilians, I wonder whether Vladimir Putin will cross new lines in hunting them down and attacking and exterminated the the swine. He'll have many around the world rooting him on. We'll still be fretting the niceties of a war on terrorism. He'll be going batshit.

Amen...

Sordid

A report on allegations made about George Bush in the upcoming Kitty Kelly book. Can we all say a prayer now that this campaign gets back to nuts-and-bolts issues???

UPDATE: Read James Wolcott's thoughts on the book -- and his caution to those who hope a given book will result in changed election results.

Bad But Not Bad Polling News For Kerry

(We rewrote and updated an earlier post due to the new Gallup Poll)

A new Gallup Poll shows President George Bush with a 7 point lead over Democrat John Kerry -- while a Rasmussen tracking poll shows Bush with a 1 percent lead, down from its other polls for the past few days.

The bottom line, though, seems to be: these polls show a bounce less than the double-digit Bush lead shown by the Time and Newsweek polls. But Kerry shouldn't feel relived that the numbers are seemingly not quite as catastrophic: USA Today says the "Republican National Convention deepened questions about the Democratic candidate's leadership, especially on terrorism."

First the Gallup poll:

As the campaign enters its last eight weeks, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday shows Bush at 52%, Kerry at 45% and independent candidate Ralph Nader at 1% among likely voters. Before the convention, Bush led Kerry by 2 percentage points.

Among registered voters, Bush was at 48%, Kerry at 46% and Nader at 4%. Bush's lead remains within the survey's error margin. By historical standards, the race remains too close to call.

Power Line's Hindrocket writes of the Rasmussen poll:

Scott Rasmussen says that later today, he will post an analysis of why his poll differs sharply from the Time and Newsweek polls that give Bush an 11-point lead. I'd encourage you to read it if you are interested in learning more about polling. I'm glad that the news is full of talk about Bush's bounce and the Kerry campaign's shakeup, but I think Rasmussen's polling is more reliable.

Indeed, Rasmussen later explained the gap -- but the bottom line was that the President is apparently ahead by about 4 percentage points.

If so, that also fits in with Josh Marshall's report that "reliable sources that the internal polls of both campaigns had President Bush up roughly four points on John Kerry." That would mean the race is far closer than many thought earlier this weekend....if THIS is true.

The bottom line on polling is this:

--Different polling companies may use different techniques.
--Comparing different polls by different companies is like comparing apples and oranges. You can do it, but it may not be totally accurate.
--Most sites by partisans on both sides (Power Line is an exception which is one reason why we named it a Blog of the Day some months ago) only point to or believe the one showing their guy ahead, or the poll that shows him most ahead.
--There have been countless examples over the past 20 years of polling that has been hideously out of whack.
--Did you ever sit by a swimming pool and try to rest and hear some kids start to scream "Marco! Polo!" You just know after the first "Marco" that they're going to bob up and scream "Polo!" and do it again. It's the same way with the news media. Most of the informed prognostication you read in papers, hear on TV, and read on blogs (including this) is informed guesswork....with the latter word dominant. Polls may or may not reflect total reality -- but they are a reliable snapshot of what that given poll produced at a specific time.

The reality is this:
(1) The Republicans had a good convention; it appears as if the Democrats bungled theirs.
(2) John Kerry is on the defensive and vulnerable.
(3) George Bush is highly vulnerable on some issues.
(4) The candidate ahead in the polls by Labor Day almost always wins the election -- but the dominant word here is "almost."
(5) It may be a new race soon as the Kerry camp retools, merging with the Clintonistas who understood one two things above all else: how to attain and cling to power.
(6) Polls are often like see-saws during a presidential campaign (and people always forget that fact as soon as a new poll comes out).

UPDATE:
--- Kevin Drum has a FASCINATING table here showing Gallup polls through the years taken on Labor Day weekend. He writes:"This year's race is the closest in history, matched only by the 1960 contest between Kennedy and Nixon."
--A link here to the Gallup site announces "Bush Gets Small Convention Bounce, Leads Kerry by Seven."

British Muslim Clerk Supports Targeting Children

Brace yourself.

Targeting children could well become a new terrorist tactic.

We now see the first signs of this happening, via England's Telegraph:

An extremist Islamic cleric based in Britain said yesterday that he would support hostage-taking at British schools if carried out by terrorists with a just cause.

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."

The last part of that is what we used to call a "hedge" in journalism school: once the kids are seized if they try to escape or resist, they can be dead meat. And the whole point of terrorists seizing hostages is that if a deal isn't made and kept, or if they're stormed by police, the hostages are murdered to show the terrorist means business. Whether the terrorist lives or dies is irrelevant to the terrorist; the murder -- even if made with the last breath of the terrorist's life -- is a kind of shocking political statement that advances the terrorist's overall political cause.

And there's more:

Mr Mohammed, 44, who lives in Edmonton, north London, but is originally from Syria, also claimed that the Chechen rebels were not responsible for the deaths of more than 350 people - at least half of them children - who are so far known to have died in Beslan.

"The Mujahideen [Chechen rebels] would not have wanted to kill those people, because it is strictly forbidden as a Muslim to deliberately kill women and children. It is the fault of the Russians," he said.

Meanwhile, some in England are not too happy with the slightly hedged comments saying it's OK to seize kids and hold them as hostages if you think it's a good cause:

Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP for Hendon, was infuriated by Mr Mohammed's comments. "That sounds to me like incitement and I will report him to Scotland Yard," he said. "It is an insult to most moderate Muslims, who are sick of people like this claiming to represent them."

(The Real Dummy thanks Dangerus for the tip)

Bill Clinton Gets Out Of Surgery

And they're calling it a success.

An Ailing Bill Clinton Advises John Kerry To Shut Up On Vietnam

From his hospital bed, former Bill Clinton has given John Kerry advice on how to get his campaign back on track as several key Clintonistas moved into several official positions amid intense Democratic criticism and polls showing Kerry's campaign seriously sagging.

According to the New York Times, you could really boil it down into two phrases: "Shut Up On Vietnam" and "Contrast Your Domestic Policies With Bush's."

It also suggests that the more-to-the-center Clintonistas are exerting greater control over a campaign at a time when there are also pressures from the Democrat party's left to take more ideologically definitive stands. Why should Kerry listen to Clinton? Because Clinton and his strategists ran the only winning Democratic presidential drives since 1976.

What were the hallmarks of the Clinton campaign team style? They focused on their key issues, presented an alternative program (which wasn't always realistic, as they later found out when they got into power) -- and responded immediately to any and all attacks via the now (in)famous War Room. James Carville and Paul Begala ran the War Room and both are now advising the Kerry campaign (Begala less extensively and less officially). More tidbits from the Times article:

--Clinton urges Kerry to draw distinctions with GWB on health care and job creation.

--Kerry's staff is insisting insisting this is merely an expansion of the campaign team and not a shake up. And the Easter Bunny hides eggs in your house.

--There are two Kerry camps:

The first is the existing Kerry high command, which includes Mary Beth Cahill, the campaign manager; Bob Shrum, a senior adviser; Tad Devine, a senior adviser; and Stephanie Cutter, the communications director. The second is the Clinton camp, which includes Joe Lockhart, a former White House press secretary; Joel Johnson, a former senior White House aide; and Doug Sosnik, a former Clinton political director. And Howard Wolfson, a former chief of staff to Hillary Rodham Clinton, joined the campaign yesterday.

Members of both camps played down any suggestion of a Clinton takeover of a troubled campaign and insisted there was no tension between the two groups. Still, these days, Mr. Lockhart is stationed in an office on one side of the campaign war room; Mr. Shrum's office is on the opposite side.

--Clinton has been concerned over what has happened to the Kerry campaign in general.

--The eagerness of Clinton's former aides such as Paula Begala:

Mr. Begala, who said he would remain a CNN commentator, said he was delighted with the changes. He added that Mr. Bush had succeeded over the past month in transforming the race from a referendum on an incumbent president to a referendum on Mr. Kerry.

"It was an enormous shift," Mr. Begala said last night. Then, referring to Karl Rove, a top Bush strategist, he added: "And it required the cooperation of the candidate. And you know what? The Kerry campaign is no longer cooperating. Sorry, Karl."

--A Kerry aide confirmed that the campaign KNEW severe attacks on his Vietnam history were coming:

"We talked about this last year, the fact that Republicans would come after his service and the idea that they would come after what he did when he got home," said one midlevel Kerry adviser who is not part of the Clinton camp. "The idea that we got caught flat-footed is just crazy."

--Kerry's senior adivisor Bob Shrum defends his campaigns response to the Swift Boat Vets ads and general performance. Most damning Shrum quote:

"We talked about this last year, the fact that Republicans would come after his service and the idea that they would come after what he did when he got home," said one midlevel Kerry adviser who is not part of the Clinton camp. "The idea that we got caught flat-footed is just crazy."

Mr. Shrum, in an interview yesterday, called such second-guessing "ridiculous," saying, "We responded within six or seven days.

Shrum has an awful record on national campaigns. Did he make Kerry an offer he couldn't refuse to run the campaign?
--Signs that the split CONTINUES within the camp and party over how to combat Bush. While Clinton and his aides are urging Kerry talk policies, Kerry's aides don't necessarily agree. The Times quotes an aide:

"That's really groundbreaking," one senior aide said sarcastically when told about the focus on Mr. Bush's policies..... "I think our negative frame should be that George Bush is a liar. He misled the country on Iraq. And then everything else that he lies about, bring it back to that."

Too little too late? Probably.

(1) To a certain extent, Kerry has been defined by the GOP and was running a non-incumbent incumbent type campaign similiar to the one that doomed "certain winner" Republican Thomas E. Dewey in his race against Harry Truman -- a relatively safe campaign that aroused few passions and was seemingly marking time until election day.

(2) Kerry has perception and personality problems.

Two months is a short timeframe to solve them and whip two campaign staff factions into a finely tuned campaign team with rapid idea delivery and rapid attack response.

The New York Times' columnist William Safire writes of upbeat and relieved Republicans:"(The)Republicans coming out of their New York success - with a personally popular candidate, a much deeper surrogate bench, the momentum of an upbeat message and a clearly centrist appeal - have good reasons to have faith in the November decision of today's legion of swing voters."

UPDATE:
-- One of the best analyses on what this shift means and how the Bush campaign will likely respond is by Robert Tagoda.

--EXCELLENT piece by Linda Feldmann of The Christian Science Monitor (The Moderate Voice's alma mater) is worth reading in its entirety. Our favorite quote is from one of our favorites, University of Virginia Political Scientist Larry Sabato:"How can you focus on Iraq when you've had four or five different positions?" says Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia. "He's got to focus on the economy. It's a powerful issue, though it has become a little less powerful. Things are clearly improving."

--Steve Soto's analysis also "rocks" (read in full):"So strap it up kids. We've finally got a real war on our hands with the A-Team on our side now."

Is Zell Miller An E-Mail Plagiarist?

Tim Blair raises the question quite effectively here. It MUST be coincidence (and it turns out the email is said to be misleading but there is even controversy about THAT.)

Will Rudy Have To Change A Position To Seek the 2008 GOP Nod?

Rudy Giuliani's speaking gig at the GOP Convention in New York has led to some (make that LOTS OF) speculation that he wants the 2008 Republican nomination, bigtime. But, as James Wolcott notes here, some contend if he wants to be on a GOP ticket he's going to have to change positions on a certain issue -- and Wolcott thinks he will...

Incident At The Young Republican Convention

There's a minifirestorm in New York City, where the local ABC station captured anti-Bush AIDS protesters being arrested by police as they began shouting inside Madison Square Garden at a Young Republican Convention during the general convention. But that isn't what's at issue. It's what's on the video: It shows a young Republican, later interviewed on camera, kicking a protester as three Secret Service agents hold her down. Talk Left (a blog that specializes in the politics of crime) has his picture and a link to the ABC News video here. So see it for yourself -- and draw your own conclusions.

When you see it it shouldn't matter what party you belong to.

And when you watch the video, you'll note that the young man kicking the held-down demonstrator is not the only one at fault: a Young Republican had also been punched in the face by a protestor. It's unclear if these anti-Bush demonstrators, who infiltrated the meeting, were anarchists but that again is not what is at issue here.

It's disturbing when our election campaigns -- designed by our founding fathers to channel potentially-violent competitive juices and near-religious political beliefs into nonviolent combat with a clear winner and loser -- veer into uncontrollable emotion and violence.

The issue here is NOT the protesters shouting, or the protesters being arrested, or the protesters being roughly handled, or the whether the protesters were instigating anarchists -- it's someone kicking a person who is being held down (and getting away with it even though he was on camera doing it and interviewed later). And also that a Young Republican member at a convention was punched in the puss by a demonstrator. And that political passions (in this case involving young people) have crossed the line.

All sides need to cool it.

Yes, There IS A Dilemma For Moderates This Year

About once a week I get a comment on this site or a private email saying I just MUST be a closet Republican because I criticized John Kerry or his inept campaign (the latter is not hard to criticize -- whoops! I did it AGAIN!). Or, I get a comment on this site or a private email suggesting I just MUST be a closet Democrat because I dared criticize President George Bush or groups allied to him. It's hard to get people to understand that a)there are people who don't belong to either party, b)there are people who might not like either candidate c) there is a center -- small but there -- in our political spectrum.

Moderates do have a dilemma in this year of acute polarization. Bush strategist Karl Rove has called this election a "mobilization election" where the goal is to mobilize every possible member of your base to get out and vote, rather than try to win by garnering the small number of swing voters in the middle. This creates something of a dilemma for moderate swing voters (like me).

And if you don't believe it, read this post by Jeff Jarvis. Here's part of it, as he watches Andrew Sullivan on Bill Maher representing what Jarvis calls "the militant middle."

Andrew and I disagree about lots but we meet in the middle. We're both likely not voting for Bush but we're not nuts about Kerry, either. We each saw the necessity of the war in Iraq and regret the quality of peace that has followed. We lump the Swifties and the Moories into the same bucket. We defend the voters in the middle and the undecideds who don't live on the edges and breath fire at the other side but who are, indeed, trying to figure out who the hell to vote for this fall, because it sure ain't easy. Glad to see Andrew there.

Indeed, anyone who dares dismiss or lump together the Swifties and Moories risks damnation from true believers from both sides. But there IS indeed a militant middle: just read this post by Jason Steck about being a militant moderate (we've linked to this before, we link to it now, and will link to it again).

And we'll have more to say here on this issue at a future date.

The New York Times Bungles It

Michelle Malkin makes an excellent point in her post reflecting the feeling among conservatives titled: "YET ANOTHER REASON NOT TO TRUST THE NEW YORK TIMES." Except in this case, not only conservative should be outraged -- but anyone who believes in ACCURACY should be outraged.

The main part of her post reads:

Take a look at how this front-page New York Times article describes the perpetrators of the siege in Beslan. Notice anything? The killers are called "guerrillas" and "fighters" and "armed captors" but not "terrorists." At one point the article grudgingly refers to these savage murderers as "people that Mr. Putin calls terrorists." In more than 1,750 words, the article includes not one reference to the religion of the Muslim perpetrators. Not one.

Some will argue that there is some controversy over the PRECISE identity of these "brave" people who murdered children. And, in fact, there are some Russians who doubt the info the government is giving out. They believe that officials want to emphasize an international connection but suspect the real culprits could have had nationalistic motives.

The government believes the Beslan killers were terrorists who are linked to Al Qaeda and that they have evidence they were Arabs from various countries. And what if that's wrong or the government is fibbing about that?

They would STILL BE TERRORISTS who killed kids -- in some cases, shooting them in their backs while they fled screaming and crying. One blog says a kid was bayonetted in the back for asking for water.

So what's the Times' excuse??

Someone on the Times desk (and I used to work on newspapers so I know these overworked folks do exist) was asleep, watching The Simpsons, checking the Internet (reading The Moderate Voice for enlightement, to be sure) or negligent...but this is a clearcut case where children were murdered also casually by T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S.

She also has some updates if you go to the link above. To the Times: There is no excuse here.

A Creative Way To Make A Point

Stephen Green, aka Vodka Pundit, is clearly looking for innovative ways to make his point. And whether you're a writer, a journalist, or a no-life blogger like me (but I am the only blogger who is an ADMITTED dummy) you can't help but admire what he does here.

Read it from the beginning. Note the date. Read it all the way through, then follow his instructions at the end. Its a unique and effective way to make a serious political point versus a lecture (like this post is). And a classy way, at that.

FOONOTE: Maybe his creativity will inspire others. It wants you to give him a big "touche" (well, not that kind...). And although there are only a few things that are totally perfect, it makes his point without seeming weird or horribly painful.

The Blogworld Gets A New Stylish Blogger

Vanity Fair columnist and novelist James Wolcott has unveiled a highly readable (what did you expect?) and stylish new blog. DEFINITELY worth a daily (or more than that) visit!!!