Category: Main

Father Bear, not one to e-mail tips lightly, sent along a collection of great philosophy from the dearly departed Rodney Dangerfield.
For your amusement, and in memorial to dear Rodney, therefore, I present some of his fine wisdom:
A lot of girls turn me down. One girl turned me down, she said she had to go to work in the morning. I told her, “I’ll be finished by then!”
I’m trying a new diet now. The diet is Viagra and prune juice. I tell ya, I don’t know if I’m coming or going.
I told my psychiatrist that everyone hates me. He said I was being ridiculous – everyone hasn’t met me yet.
Once when I was lost I saw a policeman and asked him to help me find my parents. I said to him, “Do you think we’ll ever find them?” He said, “I don’t know kid. There are so many places they can hide.”
Last night my wife met me at the front door. She was wearing a sexy negligee. The only trouble was, she was coming home.
I was making love to this girl and she started crying. I said, “Are you going to hate yourself in the morning?” She said, “No, I hate myself now.”
I knew a girl so ugly, I took her to the top of the Empire State building and planes started to attack her.
I went to see my doctor… Doctor Vidi-boom-ba. Yeah…I told him once, “Doctor, every morning when I get up and look in the mirror I feel like throwing up. What’s wrong with me? He said, “I don’t know, but your eyesight is perfect.”

Rest in peace, Rodney, and thanks.

No liveblogging for me last night, which was actually just as well. Was nice to just sit back and watch the show.
And a good show it was. My take is that this was a win for Cheney; he scored the only wickedly good hits (having never met “Senator Gone”, Kerry’s dismal record on defense issues, and catching Edwards ignoring the contribution of Iraqis in the war) although it wasn’t a complete disaster for Edwards.
The most important contrast between these two men was what the debate showed about their knowledge of the issues that will face the next administration, particularly in the fight against terrorists. Cheney spoke like a man who was immersed in both the strategy and detailed tactics of every aspect of the war; his answers came from personal knowledge and experience.
Edwards spoke like a spokesman who had been handed a set of talking points. They weren’t bad talking points, but to me, it was clear that he was a man with no experience in government; he is a lawyer first, and a politician second. He hasn’t actually gotten around to the ‘governing’ part yet.
I suspect viewers picked up on this. And that feeling of unease with Edward’s rehearsed talking points was beautifully enhanced by Cheney’s slams against Edwards appalling record (or lack thereof) in the Senate.
But Cheney’s biggest victory wasn’t in belittling Edwards — it was reaching past him and scoring points against Kerry as well. This was huge, because it allowed Cheney to help make up some of the losses Bush suffered last week.
Overall, I’d expect that we’ll see a slight bump back in the polls over the next few days. But by the time those results would register, Friday night will be upon us, and then the game may change again…

To:	The World (c/o France)
From:	America
Re:	Our apology

Hello, World! America here. We know that we’ve been a bit on the outs lately, and frankly, that hurts. But we also know what’s been bugging you. Lately, many Americans have been thinking that maybe things would be a lot easier without that cowboy in the White House, leading us off into trouble around every corner. With all his moral clarity and talk of good vs. evil, he’s got pretty much everybody mad at us.
So it’s time to put all that behind us. We want to be pals again, like in the good old days. And so we want to say we’re sorry in the best way we know how: by recognizing our mistakes, voting the cowboy out, and asking if you’ll forgive us.
We’re sorry that three years ago, when attacked by relgious fanatics, we out at Muslims at home and around the world.
We’re sorry that, in our enthusiasm, we thought that the sixteen resolutions passed by the were actually meant to be complied with by Iraq, and enforced by the U.N.
We’re sorry that our illegal invasion violated Iraq’s national sovereignty, which granted to Saddam Hussein and the Baathists the right to rule that nation in perpetuity. (We will begin discussions on correcting our error, and returning Hussein to power, shortly).
We’re sorry that we have caused such economic harm to your fine nations, and that we ever doubted that your opposition to our actions was motivated out of anything but the best of intentions.
We’re sorry that even now, some of our more foolish citizens, in thrall to the cowboy, still refuse to see that Iraq posed no threat and had no interest in supporting terrorists.
We’re sorry that after overthrowing the rightful governments of Afghanistan and Iraq in our imperialist adventure, we’re now imposing our values on their citizens.
And lastly, we’re sorry that the murder of 3,000 of our fellow citizens led us, in moments of weakness, to err on the side of caution, and to not take the the word of a madman that he could do us no harm. That we implemented a policy of replacing tyrannies with democracies, in the foolish hope that spreading freedom around the world would not just make us safer, but make the world safer. That it would bring us thanks, rather than scorn.
For all this, we are sorry.
So, World, we hope you’ll accept this apology, and the one coming on November 2nd. Because all around America, the battle cry is being declared:
Vote John Kerry: Because We’re Sorry

(originally posted 10/5 6:24am; bumped 10/6)

The server swap is done, and hopefully our availability issues are behind us….

Yes, I’m liveblogging tonight. This will be the post I’ll be updating, so link here if you are so inclined.
Update: Cancel that. My server is acting up and is proving unreliable, and it’s actually getting swapped out in a few hours (and there will be much rejoicing). So I think I’ll sit this one out.
Post-debate thoughts will follow eventually, however…
Others in the game:

Captain Ed
And don’t forget to watch NBC to see John Hinderaker’s post-debate commentary!

Allah
Speaking of which, is anyone else out there thinking of quitting after the election? Allah sure is.
Nah. After the election, the real work will start. Regardless of who wins, I see myself shifting into a “loyal opposition” mode, focusing on critiques of the administration’s policies. I see this as being necessary even if Bush wins, as although he has my firm support, he’s far from perfect.
And if Kerry wins; well, let’s just say I and many others will have our work cut out for us…

John Kerry, Model Of Clarity: Not a good sign when one of your defenders has to an entire article explaining a single sentence.
A single word, actually…
Hat Tip: JustOneMinute

I’ve finally found a copy of the debate ” of Understanding” (Thanks, Bill!) that the Kerry and Bush campaigns have agreed to, which makes me very happy, since as we all know, primary source information makes me get all tingly inside.
I’ll be going through it in detail over the next few days, but reading the first few pages, one thought jumped out at me. This is an agreement between “Kerry-Edwards ’04, Inc.” and “Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc.” which includes restrictive provisions such as:
“The parties agree that they will not… appear at any other debate or adversarial forum with any other presidential or vice presidential candidate.” (Pages 1-2)
Now, if Kerry-Edwards ’04, Inc. and Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc. were, say, Coke and Pepsi, and they signed an agreement which was clearly designed to exclude competitors from the marketplace, they’d be hauled up on antitrust violations.
So my question is: does antitrust law apply to political campaigns? They are incorporated entities of some type (hence the “Inc.”), but obviously not traditional commerical entities. How about for the actual parties themselves? Is there an exemption in antitrust law for political organizations?
And if anti-trust law doesn’t apply to the campaigns and parties — why not? I’m not asking for a practical, real-world why-not (that’s obvious), but rather, from a legal perspective, what’s the rationale as to why it shouldn’t apply?

In case you were wondering, the Kerry campaign’s financial disclosure sucks:

George W. Bush
Full Disclosure	$162,015,524	(92.8%)
Incomplete	$2,494,643	(1.4%)
No Disclosure	$10,074,605	(5.8%)

John Kerry
Full Disclosure	$112,220,444	(78.5%)
Incomplete	$2,720,026	(1.9%)
No Disclosure	$28,078,244	(19.6%)

Not much of an improvement since I called attention to this back in August. Given all the criticism Kerry has received in the mainstream media for his clear disdain for campaign finance regulations, it is suprrising that he hasn’t improved. Oh, wait a minute…

Salon.com on Springsteen, Stipe, and the rest of that gang’s concert tour to ” help unseat President Bush”: Have the Power
Non-Republican people, that is. ‘Cause those Republican people — heck, you don’t want to give them the power of the TV remote, let alone the voting booth:
It was that sense of determined optimism — a positive message of empowerment — that drove the opening night of the unprecedented, all-star Vote for Change tour. On Friday night, Springsteen and his E Street Band were joined by REM, John Fogerty and the young band Bright Eyes for a memorable concert of inspiring American rock classics, bound together by a newfound call to activism.
Get jobs, you damned hippies.

I still think the questions were biased, essentially focusing on Bush’s record and ignoring Kerry’s. So here’s my question-by-question rating of bias for performance:
1) Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?
Bias: Neutral
2) Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?
Bias: Neutral
3) Colossal misjudgments. What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?
Bias: Against Bush. “Please elaborate on all the ways your opponent has screwed up, Senator.” That’s not a debate question, that’s an open door.
4) What about Senator Kerry’s point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?
Bias: Neutral
5) As president, what would you do, specifically, in addition to or differently to increase the homeland security of the United States than what President Bush is doing?
Bias: Neutral, and a good question.
6) What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?
Bias: Neutral
7) Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?
Bias: This one might actually have a slight anti-Kerry spin to it, as it put him on the hot spot. I’m in a generous mood, we’ll call it biased against Kerry.
8) You have said there was a, quote, “miscalculation,” of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen?
Bias: Against Bush. “Now that Senator Kerry has had an opportunity to describe your screwups, President Bush, it is your turn: What do you think about your screwups?”
9) You just — you’ve repeatedly accused President Bush — not here tonight, but elsewhere before — of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth.
Bias: Against Bush. “Now that you’ve illuminated us all about how Bush is a screwup, please also tell us how he’s a liar.”
10) Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives, 1,052 as of today?
Bias: Against Bush. A valid question, but phrased in a biased way. If you’re going to get specific about the cost in lives, get specific in terms of the benefits as well — no more Saddam, no more executions, budding democracy, etc.
11) Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario, time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq?
Bias: Neutral
12) Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?
Bias: Against Bush. “Since you screwed up Iraq, Mr. President, have you learned your lesson?”
13) What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?
Bias: Neutral.
14) Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran? Take them in any order you would like.
Bias: Neutral
15) Clearly, as we have heard, major policy differences between the two of you. Are there also underlying character issues that you believe, that you believe are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the job as commander in chief of the United States?
Bias: I’m going to call it neutral, but it certainly was loaded, which is a slightly different thing than bias.
16) If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States?
Bias: Neutral
17) It’s a new subject — new question, and it has to do with President Putin and Russia. Did you misjudge him or are you — do you feel that what he is doing in the name of antiterrorism by changing some democratic processes is OK?
Bias: Against Bush. A valid question, but again, phrased against Bush — “did you misjudge him”.
So: 17 questions in all, 1 one of which I (generously) call as biased against Kerry, 10 neutral ones, and six biased against Bush. That’s not a neutral playing field, folks, that’s what we call in the biz, “statistically significant.”
A few suggestions on how it could have been better:
– Why were there no questions about the benefits of a free Iraq? Suggestion: “Senator Kerry, you’ve focused on disarming Saddam Hussein, and have argued that there were ways to do that other than war. But would simply disarming Iraq yield the same benefits as deposing Saddam entirely?”
– Why no questions on Senator Kerry’s record? There is an argument that it makes sense to focus on the incumbents’ record in a debate like this, but I don’t buy that. This isn’t a referendum on Bush. It is a choice between two men applying for the job, and the questions should have focused equally on each man’s qualifications and record.
– Why no questions on any foreign policy items except Iraq and terrorism? This isn’t really a bias issue, but even as a single-issue voter, I would have liked to have at least had a question or two on everything else going on in the world. (Okay, there was Darfur, but that was about it).
Others weighing in:
Bill at INDC isn’t convinced there was bias
Hewitt, as mentioned below, does
BoycottCBS comes up with 39% pro-Kerry-tilted, 6% pro-Bush-tilted, and 56% neutral/fair.

Overall, a much more interesting discussion than I had expected. I think it is fair to say that this discussion earned the title “debate”, to my surprise. I’ll give Lehrer credit for running a tight (but not too tight) ship — while standing by my (and dismay at the Kerry-slanted nature of the questions.
In the end, though, I don’t think it will be enough to help Kerry. Viewed objectively, this looks like a draw to me. Both candidates did solid jobs, but neither “broke through”; at the same time neither had any serious gaffes. Each side’s pundits will spin the debate as a win, and the overall CW (driven by Kerry-leaning Big Media) will be that Kerry was the winner (just because he didn’t self-destruct). But I’m betting that the polls over the next week will show perhaps a slight tightening in the race: but nothing more.
PS: Great, Jeff Greenfield (on CNN) just quoted “a conservative blog” as a source of concern that Bush wasn’t doing great. Curses, foiled again!
PPS: So which network is going to include a “tour of the blogs” in their post-debate nattering? Anybody who sees such a beast, shout it out in the comments!

Hey! My server appears to be behaving, at least for the moment. So that means debate coverage!
No promise of continual drunk liveblogging (only just started the beer), but I’ll toss a comment here and there if the urge strikes.
1) And there’s the first violation of debate rules by CNN — showing a split screen with Kerry’s reaction while Bush speaks…
2) Overall I think Kerry is coming out strong and Bush has ground to make up thus far….
3) Bush’s strongest response yet: quoting Kerry back at himself and pointing out the uselessness of the U.N. — very good stuff.
4) Not that this is a revelation, but thus far, it looks like this will be a draw. Both candidates are doing ok, no obvious gaffes, no big moments (yet). I don’t see a lot of minds being changed by this…
5) The first hint of Bush getting Kerry twisted around himself, with Bush pointing out Kerry’s vote in support of the war…
6) Ouch. As a vaguely libertarian type, I’m not thrilled that Bush is mistaking spending lots of money for accomplishments as he’s listing his homeland security achievements.
7) “A free Iraq”. A powerful phrase, and one that Bush used well.
8) OK, I’m not hypersensitive about such things. But these questions are turning out to be extraordinarily biased. Every question seems to be “so, let’s talk about the mistakes Bush has made…”
9) Kerry just stepped in it… we’re now debating whether Kerry’s position on Iraq has been consistent. Kerry insisting that he has had “one position” was a pretty obviously silly statement.
10) Yikes. Bush bitching about how it’s “hard work” to console a war widow didn’t come out quite right.
11) But Bush finished strong on that question, answering definitively that the war was worth the cost. Kerry is about to try to dodge the question… by proposing a summit! Again!
12) The grand plan becomes clear. Bush is going to hammer Kerry on that “wrong war wrong time” statement all night. It’s a good plan.
13) Bush is going to nail Kerry on his Alawi statements…. bing! And he references Joe Lockhart’s “puppet” comment… and again back to consistent messages. Bush has a consistent message tonight about sending consistent messages. What more could you want?
14) Bush is really hitting his stride now. The consistent message consistent message is a powerful theme, and I think it has more traction that Kerry’s theme, which is simply, “I can do better.”
15) Bush says “Saddam Hussein would have been stronger” — -Kerry says this is “just factually incorrect. Er, how can a prediction about the future be “factually incorrect”?
16) Excellent answer from Bush on how we’re working multilaterally on North Korea…
17) Oh my god. I can’t believe Kerry just brought up his suggestion to “give nuclear fuel” to Iran, and “see if they would use it for peaceful purposes”, or something like that. I will grant, for a microsecond, that there might be a coherent argument why this is a good policy (although I’m extraordinarily skeptical). But handing nuclear materials to Iran to see what happens ain’t gonna play well in the heartland…
18) Bush does an excellent job gracefully answering the hand-grenade question whether he thinks Senator Kerry has character flaws. A series of gracious complements, and then a transition into the Consistent Message Consistent Message.
19) I can’t believe I’m actually watching an honest-to-goodness policy disagreement and debate (on whether to have bilateral talks with North Korea). Who said democracy was dead?
20) Kerry missed an opportunity to slam Bush for his slightly-too-chummy references to Putin as “Vladimir”. Unforced error…
21) And oh lord, Kerry is coming back to his one message of the night: I’m smarter than Bush, and I can do everything better!
Final thoughts: Overall, a much more interesting discussion than I had expected. I think it is fair to say that this discussion earned the title “debate”, to my surprise. I’ll give Lehrer credit for running a tight (but not too tight) ship — while standing by my (and dismay at the Kerry-slanted nature of the questions.
In the end, though, I don’t think it will be enough to help Kerry. Viewed objectively, this looks like a draw to me. Both candidates did solid jobs, but neither “broke through”; at the same time neither had any serious gaffes. Each side’s pundits will spin the debate as a win, and the overall CW (driven by Kerry-leaning Big Media) will be that Kerry was the winner (just because he didn’t self-destruct). But I’m betting that the polls over the next week will show perhaps a slight tightening in the race: but nothing more.
PS: Great, Jeff Greenfield (on CNN) just quoted “a conservative blog” as a source of concern that Bush wasn’t doing great. Curses, foiled again!
PPS: So which network is going to include a “tour of the blogs” in their post-debate nattering? Anybody who sees such a beast, shout it out in the comments!