Author: N.Z. Bear

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!

Perhaps Mr. Levy might recall that while ” the low road is a well-trodden path to big readership,” so is twisting source’s quotes so they fit your predetermined-and-yet-oh- so-charmingly-contrarian-storyline.
Glenn says “I’ve always thought well of Levy, and I’m sure that he didn’t intend to misrepresent my meaning,” but I think he’s being too charitable by far. How else to explain this sentence from Levy:
“True, there are indeed constructive, thoughtful Web-log commentators online. But they don’t draw crowds like Glenn Reynolds, whose Instapundit site recently peaked at about 445,000 daily page views.”
Is there a way to read that other than that in Mr. Levy’s exhalted opinion, Glenn is not a “constructive, thoughtful” commentator?
Levy’s piece is self-righteous twaddle from a journalist who should know better. Nothing more, nothing less.

Folks:
You may have noticed that we are having some intermittent server problems around these parts: every now and then, the site will become completely inaccessible for a short period of time.
The good news is that the folks at Matters are on the case. While we still aren’t sure exactly what the issue is, they’ve decided to migate TTLB over to a new, beefier server. That will occur sometime later this week, so until then, we may see problems, but going forward, the new server should help keep things running smoothly.
I don’t say it enough, but I definitely appreciate the support and flexibility I’ve received from Hosting Matters. The Ecosystem is a bit of a beast, and they’ve worked with me to try to ensure it stays up and running. So to Annette and the rest of the gang at HM: thanks! And to anyone out there looking for hosting services: check them out!
-NZB

Just caught Kerry campaign manager (one of ’em, anyway) Mary Beth Cahill to NPR’s Steve Inskeep on the way in to the day-job this morning.
Inskeep asked a good question:
Inskeep: “One of the things that Senator Kerry has said repeatedly is that he would speed up the training of Iraqi forces, that’s one of the ways he’s says that he would get some American forces and eventually all American forces out of the country. The White House has also said that it would attempt to speed up the training of Iraqi forces, and the major criticism of the Administration’s plan is that it takes a certain amount of time to build an army from scratch. It’s hard to speed up that process. What makes you think the change in the White House could change what is actually possible for military trainers to do on the ground?”
Cahill: “Well actually I think that some of the people who have done the most with this around the world are the Irish and the French, and that if we could draw them into this, helping us train Iraqi nationals, that would be a huge step in the right direction. But they won’t do it so long as we have the leadership that we have right now.”
Inskeep, wisely, had no response to this.
With all due respect to the Irish and French militaries — and unlike Senator Kerry, I do suggest we treat our allies with respect — I just don’t see the significant problems of, as Inskeep quite rightly put it, “building an army from scratch”, melting away at the first sign of French and Irish boots on the ground. (Not to mention my considerable skepticism that either nation would actually suddenly decide their national interests have changed and alter their policies simply because Mr. Kerry had taken residence at 1600 Pennsylvania.)
Unless, of course, the main problem in training the Iraqi military is a lack of good beer and fine food, in which case, my objection is withdrawn.
But that’s Kerry’s plan. It’s the best he’s got to offer, and it summarizes in a nutshell his approach to Iraq: he doesn’t have a plan. He’s just got a plan to ask other countries to come up with a plan.

I’m a bit of an Internet-radio addict; my usual habit is to turn on a show while doing just about anything around home. Right and Center is a particular favorite, as are Don Imus’ interviews, and Fresh Air, when the guest is of interest.
So it should come as no surprise that, having now discovered how to record the Nothern Alliance’s weekly radio show for later playback (with the help of the handy ReplayRadio), I’m enjoying it quite a bit.
But I do have one request for the NA gang. I understand that the Internet stream is sponsored by the Taxpayer’s League of Minnesota, and that explains their PSA’s filling the breaks in the show. But having only listened to two weeks’ worth of programs, I have now memorized the entire content of every single one of their promos. For the love of God, please get them to cut down on them!
As a libertarian type myself, I’m sympathetic to their message. But I’m starting to lean towards big-government liberalism just out of the sheer negative conditioning I’m getting from having to listen to the damned things over and over again…

Glad they could us. Disappointed that I only had to read Page 1 of 10 before hitting a factual error:
“Then in 1999, Mickey Kaus, a veteran magazine journalist and author of a weighty book on welfare reform, began a political blog on Slate. On kausfiles, as he called it, he wrote differently.”
Wrong. Kausfiles was independent until the spring of 2002, at which time Kaus “took the Boeing” by merging Kausfiles into Slate, and I started bitching about his lack of permalinks. Which he still doesn’t have, now that we mention it.
On to Page 2…
Update: Wow, this thing is really pretty bad. In fact, I think it deserves a full-blown, semiFisking. I won’t include the entire article text, but here’s my page-by-page list of objections. — go to ‘More…’ for the full ugliness.

Continue reading “NYT Magazine Discovers Bloggers”

Magazine, pg. 30 of the September 27th dead tree edition:
Bush staff members rely on technorati.com and truthlaidbear.com, which track political blogs and websites to see what items in local papers, on websites and in blogs are getting the most hits. “If a story moves up through the rankings and linking, we can know,” says one of the Bush staff members assigned to alert the rest of the team about which stories are moving through the blogosphere. “We can get indicators about stories before they break elsewhere. It’s like an early-warning system.”
No worries, George: just consider me your white, furry canary in the deep dark coal mine of the blogosphere!
I had thought that Time had mentioned TTLB in their edition this week, as I saw a few hits in my referer logs from them. But since they’ve got their content behind subscriber-only lines, I wasn’t sure. They made me buy an actual hard copy to find out, darn it…
Update: This is actually a rather interesting experiment in old media power. Take a look at my traffic history for the past month. (That’s my “blog only” counter, by the way, which excludes visits to the Ecosystem and other stuff unrelated to my personal blogging on TTLB). The Time piece above hit newstands yesterday, and the online edition showed up on Monday, I believe. See that huge spike in my traffic this week?
Well, of course you don’t, because it’s not there. So a direct, positive mention in one of the largest-circulation news magazines in the country doesn’t result in any really major increase in my traffic.
There’s no way to identify specifically who is visiting the site because of the Time dead-tree edition, of course, since they will just show up with no referer. But I can track those coming from the online edition. And although I did notice a handful of visits, as I mentioned above, it is a tiny, tiny trickle. Right now, for instance, there are no visitors from Time.com in my last 100 visits.
All of which makes you wonder: ignoring Time’s claimed circulation statistics, how many people actually read that paragraph I quote above, either online or in print? Granted, many of Time’s readers probably have no interest in the Internet, or in blogs, and so wouldn’t bother typing in my URL. But it is still pretty striking just how little juice “big” media seems to have when compared to a link from Instapundit or other major bloggers.

Drudge has the news we’ve been expecting: will sue CBS:
CBS DOC SOURCE SET TO SUE NETWORK FOR LIBEL
Wed Sep 22 2004 00:05:20 ET
Bill Burkett, the man identified yesterday by CBS as the source of the controversial documents used in its September 8