October 2004 Archives

Two days until the election. World leaders prepare accordingly:

Tony Blair has sent one of his closest advisers on a secret peace mission to mend relations with John Kerry, the United States presidential challenger, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

News of the confidential meeting comes as the campaign enters its final 48 hours, with the candidates running neck and neck. Mr Blair is concerned that he will appear isolated if George Bush loses in Tuesday's poll, because of his support for the Iraq war.

I know that Bush and Blair have that Iraq war bond going, but do you think Blair really gets along with Bush the way the two present themselves in public? It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall behind closed doors when some of these foreign leaders candidly discuss what they really think about the U.S. government today.

The "silence" is deafening, isn't it?

Early voting has been at record levels both in Tennessee (up 45%) and across the nation. Reportedly, some voters have waited "hours" to cast their ballots. (I thought one of the reasons for voting early was to avoid the lines).

I guess I lucked out; I didn't have to wait for anyone when I voted. Well, no one other than the two 70-year-old women at the table checking registration. It took them about two minutes to figure out that they didn't know who had left a $20 bill at the station.

Honestly, seeing some of the people I've seen working the polls, I'm surprised we don't have election problems.

Here's one of the lines Bush keeps repeating on the campaign trail in arguing there should be caps on malpractice awards:

Too many people are driving too far to get good health care because these lawsuits are ruining medicine, as far as I'm concerned. You can't be pro-doctor and pro-patient and pro-personal injury trial lawyer at the same time. (Applause.) You have to make a choice. My opponent made his choice and he put a personal injury trial lawyer on the ticket.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

Okay, Bush frames the issue to get a gratuitous shot it. Boo those bad trial lawyers. But then Bush adds this:

I have made my choice. I'm standing with the doctors of Ohio, I'm standing with the patients of Ohio. We are for medical liability reform.

That's a pretty picture, isn't it? On one side you have Kerry/Edwards and the bad trial lawyers, and on the other you have the doctors, patients, and Bush all working for better health care.

But what if the doctors mess up in treating the patients? Do the two still share the same interests? In the real world (as opposed to Bush world) they don't; that's why the trial lawyers enter the picture--to represent the patient's interests in the dispute with the doctor/insurance company's interests.

But somehow Bush stands with both sides at the same time.

Some things haven't changed much over the past 50 years.

Nope. No explosives here. Saddam cleared them out.

UPDATE: Besides, in the fog of war there's no way we could have monitored one of the largest munitions dumps in Iraq.

According to a recent national survey by Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, Bush has a slight lead over Kerry in an unweighted poll. But if you weigh the minority vote to the turnout shown in the 2000 exit polls, Kerry has over a 3% lead. This, among other factors, has lead a number of people in the left blogoshere to level charges that the Republicans are engaged in a campaign to suppress minority voting.

"Come on," you may be thinking. "This is 2004. America abandoned those kind of practices decades ago."

Have we?

A secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals.

Two e-mails, prepared for the executive director of the Bush campaign in Florida and the campaign's national research director in Washington DC, contain a 15-page so-called "caging list".

It lists 1,886 names and addresses of voters in predominantly black and traditionally Democrat areas of Jacksonville, Florida.

An elections supervisor in Tallahassee, when shown the list, told Newsnight: "The only possible reason why they would keep such a thing is to challenge voters on election day."

So what are national Bush/Cheney campaign people doing with Jacksonville voter lists?

The one good thing about this election--in contrast to 2000--is that there's going to be a boatload of people monitoring the polls during the election, not just after the fact. It's going to be more difficult for the vote suppressors to get away with doing their dirty work.

President Bush offers an interesting criticism of Senator Kerry: Kerry is guilty of promising to spend more than he can pay for:

During this campaign he's proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending. Now, that is a trillion with a "T." That's a lot even for a senator from Massachusetts. (Laughter.)

So they said, how are you going to pay for it? And he said, oh, we're just going to tax the rich. Now, you've heard that before. Be wary when you hear, oh, we're just going to tax the rich. My opponent has promised $2.2 trillion, but when you run up the top two brackets, you only raise between $600 billion and $800 billion. There is a gap between that which he promised and that which he can deliver. And guess who usually fills that gap.

AUDIENCE: We do!

Honestly, isn't President Bush the last person who should be calling someone else out on a gap between what they promise and what they can pay for?

Kash at Angry Bear has a chart showing a fairly strong inverse correlation between oil prices and long-term interest rates over the past three months. The theory being that the market is concerned that high oil prices will undermine economic growth. That's not a surprising conclusion. But the degree to which the two series have mirrored each other over the past month is notable.

Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay offered the following:

"LaRouche is a con felon and all I can tell you is that Mr. Morrison has supported and campaigned with LaRouche followers and Mr. Morrison also has taken money and is working with the Daily Kos, which is an organization that raises money for fighters against the U.S. in Iraq," said DeLay.

What are the odds that Mr. DeLay has actually visited Daily Kos? Pretty low I'd say. Perhaps I missed something, but the only fund raising I've seen on the web site is for Democratic candidates and Democratic-leaning organizations. Are these the "fighters against the U.S. in Iraq" that DeLay speaks of?

I haven't donated any money at the site, but I do have a user account. Am I thereby supporting America's enemies?

Vice President Dick Cheney, once again demonstrating that image management is more important than reality to the administration, had this to say regarding Iraq on Monday:

I think it has been a remarkable success story to date, when you look at what has been accomplished overall. I think the President deserves great credit for it.

This kind of stuff would be laughable except that there are so many Americans willing to lap up whatever this bunch dishes out.

Unfortunately for Bush, apparently not everyone in the government is buying the success story, as Josh Marshall points out. Because people keep revealing dirty laundry to the press:

Who over there [at the Pentagon] is trying to stick it to the president?

Look at two big news stories on Tuesday, the Washington Post report that the White House plans to ask for some $70 billion more in Iraq spending just a week or two after the election and this USA Today piece reporting that the Pentagon is planning to add roughly 20,000 more troops to the force in Iraq in anticipation of the elections in January.

Just on the basis of logical inference, I'm gonna bet those leaks didn't come from Scott McClellan.

And don't forget the leak about the CIA's 9/11 report, which allegedly names names in the administration.

Clearly there are inside people who haven't been happy with things that have happened the past four years. And I wouldn't be surprised if we see unnamed government sources offer a few additional news scoops in the next six days.

President Bush has been out about the country stumping for "medical liability reform." The rationale behind this being that juries can't be trusted to award reasonable verdicts for damages and thus the federal government must step in with arbitrary caps.

Yesterday on C-SPAN I saw Elizabeth Edwards make an excellent point regarding this. She pointed out that as governor of Texas, Bush never questioned the judgment of juries when they sentenced people to be executed. Although a number of governors have recently grappled with the known imperfections in our criminal justice system, Bush had no qualms whatsoever with Texas' assembly-line style execution process.

So when it comes to a trivial matter like life or death, George W. Bush has no problem with the wisdom of our jury system. But when corporate or insurance company profits are on the line, juries clearly can't be trusted to get things right.

Priorities, priorities.

Let me get this straight: We invade Iraq allegedly to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists. U.N weapons inspectors, which had been monitoring an instillation filled with explosives, warn the U.S. about the danger of said explosives. The U.S.-controlled coalition assumes responsibility for monitoring the military installation. Now it comes out that 360,00 pounds of powerful explosives disappeared from the facility months ago. This "mishap" wasn't publicly disclosed until the Iraqi government notified international inspectors. And it's "unclear" whether or not Bush knew about 380 tons of missing weapons?

What kind of circus do we have performing in Washington, anyway?

Honestly, how much more needs to happen for things to reach the tipping point so that even duped America will see through the smoke and realize what a sham this whole war-time leader myth is? It's become almost mind-numbing.

Get him to Arkansas.

I doubt a 2000 scenario will repeat itself next week. History teaches us that incumbents don't win close re-elections. But you never know. No one predicted that Florida would come down to a few hundred votes four years ago.

In any event, Election Law Blog is following the news on the legal front. It could come in handy if Election Day litigation erupts.

Lovely:

FALWELL: But you've got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops. And I'm for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

Funny, I remember the good old days when pastors offered a world view based on
Biblical teachings:

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

Of course 9/11 changed everything, didn't it?

The Knoxville News-Sentinel comes out with a qualified endorsement of Bush:

With the endorsement comes a qualification: Bush should make every attempt to return the Republican Party to the core values that best reflect the majority feeling in this area and that have served the nation well. . . Those values include balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility and a foreign policy that, while not isolationist, depends on a strong military and is not adventurous or interventionist.

In other words, Bush needs another four-year term to undo what he did in his first one.

As if that wasn't comical enough, the piece also emphasizes the need for the next president to "compromise" in order to bring a polarized nation together. Of course we've all seen what a great unifier Bush has turned out to be.

In short, vote for Bush: he can be a great president, provided his second term is the exact opposite of his first.

UPDATE: The Tennessean, which backed Gore in 2000, today has an editorial for Senator Kerry. I like how it mentions an issue which has largely been ignored this election cycle:

Of all the vast differences between the two candidates, the biggest chasm is on the environment. Kerry has a record of strong environmental protection. The Bush White House has allowed industry officials to rewrite regulations. It has rejected solid science. It has begun turning back environmental laws that have worked well for a generation.

Contrast that with the funny the News Sentinel tries to pull in casting Bush as an environmental advocate:

And, while there is much concern about the president's environmental policies, it is Bush's Environmental Protection Agency that is holding Knox and other counties' feet to the fire on nonattainment. That EPA action requires local participation in helping stem the tide of air pollution in one of the haziest regions in the nation.

Whatever EPA "bureaucrats" (to use a Bush term) have been doing to address air pollution is in spite of this White House, not because of it. To imply that Bush wants to crack down on polluters is laughable.

I'm off to the mountains today on a fall foliage pilgrimage. Hopefully I get a few decent pictures.

UPDATE: Funny story and tip from an outdoors guru: If you're planning an outing to see fall colors, the last place you want to be is on the top of a mountain on a cloudy day. A couple reasons:

(1) There's not much color at high elevations to begin with--it's basically all evergreens at the top. Right now the good colors are down in the 2,000 to 4,000 foot range; which

(2) You obviously can't see--even from afar--if there's clouds blocking the view.

Oh, well, it was neat to sit on the summit and watch the clouds pass over the ridge. At one point I was completely enveloped by clouds except for a break directly overhead where the sun beamed through. Kind of had the feeling my soul was headed off into the great blue yonder. Or maybe that was just my mind trying distancing itself from my weary legs. Not sure which.

I did take a few pictures on Friday; I'll post them once I get them processed.

Compare and contrast:

Reuters article: "Reuters Poll: Bush Grabs One-Point Lead on Kerry"

Poll findings:

Bush 46
Kerry 45

AP article at Yahoo: "AP Poll: Bush, Kerry in Dead Heat"

Poll findings (buried in third paragraph):

Kerry 49
Bush 46

That liberal media.

Word is that President Clinton will rise up from the sick bed next week and campaign for Kerry. If I was planning his tour (and he could handle the travel), I'd direct him to the following cities:

Philadelphia/Pittsburgh, PA

Cleveland/Toledo/Columbus/Cincinnati, OH

Milwaukee/Madison, Wisconsin

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

De Moines, IA

Denver, CO

Albuquerque, NM

Memphis, TN

Little Rock/Fayetteville AR

Basically, as many of the big cities in the swing states as possible. It's crucial for Kerry to get out the Democratic base to win. Rumor has been that the African-American community isn't as exciting about his candidacy as they've been in the past few elections. Hopefully, having American's first "black president" out there firing up the troops will change that.

It's not enough for candidates to give speeches, kiss babies, and buy TV ads to campaign these days. New requisites include appearances on Oprah, The Daily Show, Dr. Phil, and late night comedy shows.

Now, with less than two weeks to go until the election, Senator Kerry has the urge to go hunting.

The things people do to day to get votes. Are there any voters that would really be swayed by a candidate taking a hunting trip?

Funny quote from today's local paper:

McGhee Tyson Airport representatives Wednesday expressed concern over a report that Independence Air may be facing bankruptcy, while noting that all airlines are facing financial difficulties because of hefty oil prices.
. . .
"We have no way we can do anything about the price of oil," said Danni Varlan, coordinator of East Tennesseans for Airfare Competition, a nonprofit group formed to recruit a low-fare carrier to the area.

I'd been wondering why people kept taking about weird things like OPEC and supply/demand when discussing the price of oil. Here I had thought that ETAC controlled the price of oil. I'm glad this mystery has finally been cleared up.

Zogby continues to buck the polling trend in Tennessee:

On the heels of other statewide polls showing President Bush with double-digit leads in Tennessee, a new Internet-based poll shows the president and Sen. John Kerry in a virtual dead heat in the state.

The poll was conducted Oct. 13-18 by New York-based Zogby International and included Internet survey results of 922 ''likely voters'' in Tennessee. Of those polled, about 50% said they would vote for Bush, and about 48% said they would vote for Kerry. The margin for error in the poll was 3.1 percentage points, making the results a virtual tie.

We'll soon find out how well Zogby's new Internet-based polling fares compared to traditional telephone polling. There's quite a gap between the two.

Heh.

Memo to flyers:

In the event that you haven't been paying attention the past three years, an airport really isn't the place to crack bomb jokes these days.

Quiddity notes Bush's efforts to undue the "American century" and take America back to the good ol' 1800s.

I've wondered why, from time to time, I'm tempted to sleep in or skip church. Fortunately, we have the all-knowing one available to peer into my subconscious and reveal the reason why:

LIMBAUGH: The left is scared to death of God. They think Bush is a believer, and they got quotes from people that say Bush doesn't think, he just follows his instincts based on how he feels after he prays. He's just -- "this is horrible." They're out there and they're scared to death because they don't understand God. They don't understand a personal relationship with God. They can only think it's trouble.

This is yet another effort by those on the right to attempt to portray this election as a referendum on God. Whether it be through subtle hints ("George Bush is a good, Christian man"), or ridiculous claims ("liberals want to ban the Bible"), many have been trying to cast this as a race between the good and the heathen. And it's really a low-grade tactic.

Q: Where are T-shirts which read "Protect Our Civil Liberties" considered to be "obscene"?

A: At Bush/Cheney campaign rallies.

Freedom is on the march around the world.

Four years ago today:

Bush 50%
Gore 40%
Nader 4%

Kerry's numbers aren't as bad as Gore was polling en route to winning the popular vote.

Consider the source, but if this is true it's a disturbing insight into Bush's mind:

The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, "We're not going to have any casualties."
. . .
"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "

Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

How divorced from reality does a person have to be to make Pat Robertson sound like the reasonable side in a discussion? This would be an example.

Who says President Bush doesn't have international support? He just received a crucial endorsement . . . from Iran:

The head of Iran's security council said on Tuesday the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.

Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.

"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

"We should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during the time of Clinton," Rowhani said of the former Democratic president. "And we should not forget that during Bush's era -- despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric against Iran -- he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran."

Ha ha. No word yet who North Korean leader Kim Jong Il favors. I wonder how well that last line goes over with the warblogger crowd. What's happened to the neocon domino theory? I thought if we took out one country's weapons of mass distruction, they'd all be rushing to turn their WMD's in. Ooops. And ooops.

Bush yesterday:

President Bush on Monday accused Democratic rival Sen. John Kerry of "shameless scare tactics'' by suggesting that the president would jeopardize Social Security for older Americans and bring back the military draft for young people.

Bush, in an Associated Press interview, said of Kerry, "He's trying to scare our seniors. It is wrong to try to scare people going into the polls.''

Cheney today:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday evoked the possibility of terrorists bombing U.S. cities with nuclear weapons and questioned whether Sen. John Kerry could combat such a threat, which the vice president called a concept "you've got to get your mind around.''

"The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us - biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans,'' Cheney said.

I'm glad Bush/Cheney are strong moral leaders who don't use scare tactics to get voters to the polls.

You've got to consider the source on this one, but Robert Scheer writes that the CIA has an undisclosed 9/11 report:

The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."

Given the number of CIA leaks we've seen the past year, I dare say that if there is such a report we'll soon be hearing more about it. It's clear that some people in the CIA aren't happy with Bush, and this is an opportune time for them to "get even."

I don't purport to be an advertising guru, but this new Kerry ad with 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser seems like a very effective message to the so-called "security moms." In it, Ms. Breithweiser reminds voters of Bush's resistance to the 9/11 commission and claims America is not safe from terrorism today.

I'm not sure why Kerry hasn't been hitting this issue harder. If Bush can make hay out of Kerry's Iraq appropriation vote, Kerry should certainly be able to nail Bush on his flip flopping regarding the establishment of the 9/11 commission and Department of Homeland Security.

Despite record government and foreign trade deficits, America has not suffered severe consequences because foreign investors continue to pump money in. What if this market softens?

But a rash of new data, including Treasury Department figures released yesterday showing a net sell-off by foreigners of U.S. bonds in August, has stoked debate over whether overseas investors -- private individuals, institutions and government central banks -- are growing dangerously bearish on the U.S. economy.
. . .
In August, foreign private investors actually sold $4.4 billion more in Treasury bonds and notes than they bought that month, the Treasury Department said yesterday -- the first time in a year that net foreign purchases were negative. That followed a 20 percent decline in July that shrunk net foreign purchases to $18.3 billion.

Bond purchases by foreign central banks also dropped sharply in July, falling 76 percent, to $4.1 billion. A rebound in August brought them back to $19.1 billion. The recovery was timely: Without it, the dollar may have taken a serious hit, said Ashraf Laidi, chief currency analyst at MG Financial Group in New York, who headlined yesterday's client newsletter, "Foreign Central Banks Save Dollar From Disaster."

Foreign purchases of stocks are off as well, going from net purchases of $9.7 billion in July to a net sell-off of $2.1 billion in August. Over the past 12 months, private foreign investors have purchased a net of $17 billion in U.S. stocks, compared with $30 billion in the 12 months before that.

Higher interest rates, a falling dollar--these economic pitfalls loom on the horizon if short-term bump becomes a long-term trend.

So which Karl Rove move is sillier?

• Spending time campaigning in New Jersey, where Kerry may have as much as a 13 point lead? (Compare with Bush's California victory tour in October, 2000).
• Rove playing Air Force One wheel inspector on the campaign trail.

Perhaps Rove is worried the wheels are falling off Bush/Cheney 2004?

AP: "Bush Faults Kerry for Scare Tactics":

President Bush on Monday accused Democratic rival Sen. John Kerry of "shameless scare tactics'' by suggesting that the president would jeopardize Social Security for older Americans and bring back the military draft for young people.

This by the same folks who grimly offered the "mushroom cloud" justification for invading Iraq.

What a weird world this is.

Russian President Vladimir Putin: Terrorists are increasing their attacks to prevent Bush's re-election so they can increase their attacks.

South Knox Bubba lays out a 57 count indictment against the Bush administration's record of accomplishment.

After examining this list, I concur with the analysis of our esteemed media on one of the most pressing issues confronting our nation: what a bad man John Kerry is for saying that Mary Cheney is a lesbian!

Recently I've noticed the following composition on a number of news program discussion round tables (not just on Fox News):

• Host


• A couple of mainstream national print writers


• A right-wing partisan blow hard

What's wrong with this picture?

Even if you buy the argument that the journalists are foot soldiers for the "liberal media," at least they attempt to offer objective analysis in the discussion. And this is supposed to be the counterbalance to the unapologetic right-wing spin offered by the fourth guest?

America's media: fair and balanced.

Joshua Green has an article detailing some of Karl Rove's past campaign shenanigans.

In one particularly clever episode, Rove is said to have secretly distributed campaign fliers which unfairly targeted his own candidate. The ensuing public backlash naturally went against his Democratic opponent, who unsuccessfully tried to deny his involvement in the incident.

Steve Clemons (via Talking Points Memo) wonders if a similar affair may be playing out in Tennessee. When a flier recently surfaced portraying Bush as a Special Olympian, several rightist groups immediately pointed fingers at State Representative Craig Fitzhugh (D). But Fitzhugh denies that anyone in his campaign had anything to do with the fliers, and claims that someone planted a few in his office trash can.

If Fitzhugh didn't have anything to do with these fliers, who did?

UPDATE: Speaking of Rove, he spent two hours in the grand jury hot seat today regarding the Plame leak investigation.

This is disturbing:

FBI Agents arrested 20 year old Ivan Duane Braden of Knoxville Thursday after they say he planned to blow up the National Guard Armory in Lenoir City, and kill a Sergeant Major. He planned to do this Friday.

Agents say he also threatened to blow up a synagogue, wanting to get close to a rabbi and children.

A search of his house and car turned up pipe bombs, knives, Neo-Nazi literature and plans for a suicide vest to put bombs in.

How did I find this story? By watching a live Ashcroft press conference? Nope. I read it at SayUncle. But had Mr. Braden come from Iraq and had a picture of Osama bin Laden at his place, this story would undoubtedly be all over MSNBCNNFOX.

Is the threat that Mr. Braden posed any less dangerous because he is white?

Wouldn't it make things a lot simpler?

Winning hearts and minds:

Seventeen months into a shadowy terror campaign that has killed more than 100 people, numerous Saudis express less anger at the insurgents than at the United States for its invasion of Iraq, the signal event that they say touched off the attacks inside the kingdom.

In interviews over the last week, the Saudis condemned the terror attacks, aimed primarily at foreigners, but called them a small inconvenience that has not forced them to make significant changes in their daily lives. By contrast, they expressed unremitting disdain for the United States.

The article portrays a prevalent anti-Americanism in Saudi Arabia, which to a large degree stems from the war in Iraq and our policy toward Israel. I'm led to two conclusions from articles like this: (1) Sooner or later the growing anti-Americanism is going to bite us; and (2) Saudi Arabia is in danger of melting down to radicals someday. In such an instance, it should be handy to have the U.S. military nearby, wouldn't it?

Unlike John Kerry, Bush has never even talked about having US forces leave altogether when security returns. The US under Bush will likely be a permanent Persian Gulf Power, succeeding the Portuguese, Safavid, Ottoman, and British Empires in that role. At the moment, the US lacks a big permanent land base in the region, though it has a de facto naval base in Bahrain and an air base in Qatar. These are small countries that can host only small facilities. With 12 enduring bases in Iraq, the US posture in the Gulf becomes dominant for perhaps the entire twenty-first century. Being an Iraq power would bring the US into permanent and active diplomatic and military contact with Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran. In all likelihood, the Bush path of Iraq bases leads inexorably toward further US military conflict in the region.

I'd add Saudi Arabia to that list.

Dr. Glen Harold Stassen offeres an interesting finding:

Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

Stassen believes an economic deline may have led to the increase in abortions. That seems like a logical cause, if he is correct regarding this purported trend.

Tim Grieve notes words we didn't hear during last night's debate:

Chads. Butterfly ballots. Disenfranchisement. Ralph Nader. Dick Cheney's energy task force. The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Duck hunting with Antonin Scalia. Fuel efficiency. SUVs. Mars.

Bushs bulge. Jim Jeffords. Paul O'Neill. Richard Clarke. Valerie Plame. Venezuela. Peru. Haiti. Hunger. MoveOn. Lawrence v. Texas. Jim McGreevey. Martha Stewart. The lockbox.

Jose Padilla. Yaser Hamdi. Guantanamo Bay. The death penalty. Miguel Estrada. Judge Roy Moore. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Texas Air National Guard. Alabama. AWOL. The order to shoot down civilian aircraft. "The Pet Goat."

Ahmed Chalabi. Jessica Lynch. Danny Pearl.

Terror alerts. The Presidential Daily Brief. Condoleezza Rice. Fishing. "Greeted as liberators." Abu Ghraib.

A number of those are surprising, given some of the headlines over the past four years.

A few random observations on last night's debate:

Kerry: I thought Kerry got off to a slow start. Initially he seemed more concerned with getting in his buzzwords and pre-scripted talking points than he did in answering the questions. Consequently, I thought he missed several opportunities to gets some good shots in on Bush (e.g., why we are dependent on importing flu vaccine from Canada, yet are not supposed to import prescription drugs from there?)

Kerry clearly had a better command of the issues, as some of the exit polling showed. At times, it seemed like he knew too much on the issues; he should have presented fewer statistics and more vision.

Kerry did a pretty effective job at targeting his message at women, undecideds, and voters in the swing states--the people he needs to win over to seal the deal. Many men were allegedly watching baseball, so this was a great opportunity to re-establish the gender gap.

Some Republicans and several MSNBC talking heads were really worked up over the fact that Kerry mentioned that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. I agree that the reference was unnecessary, but is this really the great sin that some folks are trying to make it out to be?

Bush: His presentation was better than in prior debates. He wasn't scowling or overly defensive/angry. If this Bush had shown up the first time, many in the chattering class may have awarded him the first debate. Funny how the media didn't take up the "which George Bush will show up?" narrative that they attached to Al Gore in 2000 when he switched his debating style.

I was a little confused on who Bush was directing his message toward. People who like education, that's for sure. But over the last few weeks he's clearly adopted the "get out the base" strategy. But last night he had at least four missteps in shoring up the base: he (1) didn't explicitly attack Roe v. Wade; (2) his answer on the Mexican border question was lame (the border is more secure than it was four years ago?); (3) didn't label homosexuality as a "choice", and (4) on the unemployment question he went through quite a list of government handouts programs. Were those answers the red meat the right wing wanted?

Moderator: Bob Schieffer did a decent job of managing the debate. The event flowed fairly smoothly and he didn't make himself a focal point in the event. He threw a few softballs out there, but the discussion didn't suffer too much. We got a few glimpses of the candidates unscripted.

The one major omission I saw in the debate was that there weren't any questions on the environment. In fact, I haven't even heard the Kerry campaign devote that much attention to environmental issues. Do voters not care about the environment this year?

Overall: Kerry got a lot of mileage from the three debates. Not only did he "win" them on the general substance/style scoreboard, but more importantly it gave him the opportunity to appear on the same stage as Bush and appear more "presidential." There's many Americans who are ready for a change in leadership but who haven't yet embraced the challenger. Kerry hasn't closed the deal on those folks yet, but I think he made some major inroads during these debates. If he finishes this campaign strong, I think victory awaits him on November 2.

Over the past 24 hours the blogosphere has been uncovering a story regarding organized efforts to suppress Democratic voting in several states. Kos provides a good summary on what's been flushed out thus far.

Still haven't seen any coverage of this on MSNBCNNFOX. They're too busy giving airtime to campaign spinners.

UPDATE: Just saw a segment addressing this on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. The Keith is usually on top of such things. I wonder when we'll hear about it on Fox. Or hear about this on Fox.

Ron Brownstein offers this capsule preview of tonight's debate:

Bush's goal, in short, is to aggregate the choice voters face into a single referendum on government's size and scope, while Kerry wants to separate the debate into sparring over his ideas -- and Bush's record -- on key domestic issues.

"The debate will see a contrast between discrete issues versus a larger governing philosophy," said the senior GOP strategist. "Our strongest ground is talking about the golden thread that runs through John Kerry's record, which we would say shows that he's a liberal. His is saying, 'I reject labels, and I deal with these issues discretely.' I think that's what you can expect."

Kerry aides see the debate -- the last of three between the candidates -- in similar terms. One senior Kerry aide said the campaign thought its best chance of blunting Bush's drive to portray the Democrat as a "big government" liberal is to flesh out his specific plans. That would contrast with Kerry's responses in Friday's debate, when he spent more time telling voters he had a plan than explaining it to them.

I doubt Kerry will do this, but he could turn Bush's attack right back at him. Since Bush's campaign is clearly trying to shore up the conservative base, it would be interesting for Kerry to remind them of this:

Total federal outlays will rise 29 percent between fiscal years 2001 and 2005 according to the president's fiscal year 2005 budget released in February. Real discretionary spending increases in fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 are three of the five biggest annual increases in the last 40 years. Large spending increases have been the principal cause of the government's return to massive budget deficits.

Although defense spending has increased in response to the war on terrorism, President Bush has made little attempt to restrain nondefense spending to offset the higher Pentagon budget. Nondefense discretionary outlays will increase about 36 percent during President Bush's first term in office.

In short, if Bush tries to paint Kerry as a big government liberal, just remind everyone of the incumbent's own record.

Oh, and if Bush tries that "you can run, but you can't hide" line, Kerry should simply point out that Bush himself has headed one of the most secretive administration's in U.S. history (see e.g., the Cheney energy task force).

An amusing lead:

The number of overweight Americans is holding steady as U.S. consumers are becoming more aware of what they eat, an annual report by market research firm The NPD Group said.

The percent of overweight Americans reached 62 percent for the second year in a row, the report said. The rate had increased every year between 1995 and 2002.

So in prior years Americans didn't know what they were eating?

At any rate, it aways puzzles me how little issues like this--which affect most Americans--are addressed by the national news media. Meanwhile, celebrity justice and the shadowy "war on terror" continue to dominate the headlines.

Tennessee early voting begins today. According to election officials, the Volunteer State has 300,000 more registered voters than it did in 2000.

Vote early, and vote for competence.

This is kind of odd:

A Democratic senator said Tuesday he is closing his Washington office because of a top-secret intelligence report that made him fear for his staff's safety.

Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., said his office in the Russell Senate Office Building across the street from the Capitol will be closed while Congress is in recess through Election Day, with his staff working out of his Minnesota office and in Senate space off Capitol Hill.

"I take this step out of extreme, but necessary, precaution to protect the lives and safety of my Senate staff and my Minnesota constituents, who might otherwise be visiting my Senate office in the next three weeks," he said.

Other officials are saying there is no known threat to Capitol Hill. But you wouldn't expect them to offer anything which might hurt tourism, would you?

Juan Cole, on the "war on terror":

Bush and Cheney are cynically using the trauma of September 11 as a pretext to fight a series of elective wars against weak governments that are inconvenient for hawkish goals and some US corporate interests. Iraq was a poster child of this policy. It had no weapons of mass destruction, was ramshackle, and had no significant ties to terrorism. It was invented as a dire threat to Peoria by Karl Rove and Rupert Murdoch, the latter-day Wizards of Oz.
. . .
The "war on terror" of Bush-Cheney is a smokescreen for naked American imperial aggression. The sad story of how Iraq posed no threat either to the US or to any of its neighbors, despite high-decibel claims to the contrary for two years by Bush, Cheney and their acolytes, will be repeated in the case of Syria and Iran if Bush and Cheney are reelected. They hope that their project of overthrowing governments in the region will go smoothly, but they do not really care, since even an Iran and a Syria in chaos is a net gain from their point of view. Chaos creates "terror" and justifies further US involvement, aggression and control. It is inconvenient for the rest of us, but then they insist, unlike John Kerry, that we live with the nuisances they are creating.

In actual fact, al-Qaeda is just a somewhat more successful version of Baader Meinhoff. It is a small terrorist group that has been created by a particular juncture in history. It is not a reason to abolish the US Bill of Rights, as Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft are doing. It is not a reason to invade three or four countries (precisely the few countries where it does not operate!) It is a nuisance to a free society, and should be curbed.

Bush and Cheney keep shouting that Kerry doesn't understand the war on terror. They mean he doesn't want to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran. As for themselves, if the war on terror is so important to them, why are Bin Laden and Zawahiri at large? Why can al-Qaeda still strike at will? We now have the worst of both worlds, with a quagmire in Iraq and Palestine, and more quagmires planned, while al-Qaeda morphs and grows and continues to form a threat.

I don't think this is quite as clear-cut as Dr. Cole is framing it; I think the administration's motives are somewhat mixed. But I believe there is a lot of truth in his post. I agree American security was only a secondary motive for our invasion of Iraq. And there's no question the administration is milking this ongoing terror threat for maximum political gain, both domestically and abroad. And although I wouldn't be surprised if many in the administration want to invade Iran and Syria, I'm not sure its a given since our military is already stretched rather thin.

The Russian fallout from terrorism:

Moscow schoolchildren will soon have to wear military-style dog tags and carry special "passports" as part of a security drive in the wake of Beslan.
. . .
Mr Popov, head of the Moscow city assembly's security and legislation committee, said children would wear the dog tags round their necks and carry the passports in their pockets, which would bear their fingerprints and other personal data.

The passport will give the child's name, address, telephone number, blood group and details of any allergies to medicines, he said.

Actually, these measures don't seem to have much to do with security; I think they are intended to help officials clean up the mess if security fails. I wouldn't exactly view this as reassuring move if I was a Moscow parent.

But they're used to weird government stuff in Russia. We would adopt any faux security measures here, right?

The Senate version of the intelligence bill includes an amendment, passed by unanimous consent on Oct. 1, that would let the secretary of homeland security decide what documents a state would have to require before issuing a driver's license, and would also specify the data that the license would have to include for it to meet federal standards. The secretary could require the license to include fingerprints or eye prints. The provision would allow the Homeland Security Department to require use of the license, or an equivalent card issued by motor vehicle bureaus to nondrivers for identification purposes, for access to planes, trains and other modes of transportation.

There you have it. The government wants to take care of this terrorism problem. Be prepared to take carry your papers with you as you travel about.

I saw a Democratic advisor on TV make an excellent point: For a couple months we've been listening to Bush/Cheney '04 and all its supporters portray John Kerry as a weak-spined "flip flopper" who bends in whichever direction the wind blows. In the last few days the GOP talking points have abruptly been revised and Kerry is now the most zealous liberal in the U.S. Senate.

How are these two characterizations consistent?

Guy Molyneux points out why Bush's percentage of support in presidential polls may be more important than his lead (if any) over Kerry:

Almost all poll reporting focuses on the "spread," that is, the difference in the percentage supporting Bush and John Kerry. If we take an average of the most recent ABC/Washington Post, CBS/New York Times, and NBC/Wall Street Journal surveys, it shows Bush with 49 percent and Kerry with 44 percent among registered voters. Such survey results are invariably reduced to the shorthand "Bush up 5," which sounds like a comfortable lead.

However, in incumbent elections, the incumbent's percentage of the vote is a far better indicator of the state of the race than the spread. In fact, the percentage of the vote an incumbent president receives in surveys is an extraordinarily accurate predictor of the percentage he will receive on election day -- even though the survey results also include a pool of undecided voters. Hence the 50-percent rule: An incumbent who fails to poll above 50 percent is in grave jeopardy of losing his job.

Why 50%? Because an incumbent tends to get what he polled, while the challenger generally picks up a few points:

There have been four incumbent presidential elections in the past quarter-century. If we take an average of the final surveys conducted by the three major networks and their partners, we find that in three of these the incumbent fell short of or merely matched his final poll number, while exceeding it only once, and then by just a single point (Ronald Reagan). On average, the incumbent comes in half a point below his final poll result.

The numbers for challengers look quite different. In every case, the challenger(s) -- I include Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 -- exceed their final poll result by at least 2 points, and the average gain is 4 points. In 1980, Ronald Reagan received 51 percent, fully 6 percentage points above his final poll results.

The latest Gallup poll has Bush at 48%; Zogby has Bush at 44%. Unless the race shifts, things aren't looking good for the incumbent.

David Broder raises a good point in his column today: in the current one-party Washington, who is there to hold the government accountable? The answer is no one:

If Bush and Cheney are reelected, the Republicans are likely to maintain control of the House and Senate, with all the investigative and oversight powers that reside in the legislative branch. That is an inherently risky situation, particularly when the president and vice president are disinclined to question their own or their associates' judgment.

That is why the voters I met are right to think this election is so important. They themselves are the ultimate -- and only -- enforcers of accountability.

I'm generally not split-ticket kind of guy, but at least in theory, a divided government led by responsible people provides a check on some excesses. Obviously, such an arrangement sometimes has its drawbacks, as we saw with the attempted Republican takeover in the late 1990s (thus the responsible people qualification). But looking back even those days don't seem so bad in comparison to the unchecked abuses we have going on now.

UPDATE: William Niskanen offers three reasons why divided government is "probably a better protection of our liberties."

That's the closing line in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's editorial yesterday.

See if you can guess who it has endorsed for president.

Afghanistan conducts elections, with a hitch:

But chaos enveloped the fragile election after all 15 candidates challenging the incumbent ruler, Hamid Karzai, declared they were boycotting the poll over alleged voter fraud. UN and Afghan officials rejected the call, insisting that difficulties involving indelible ink did not warrant abandoning the historic vote. The controversy surfaced within hours of the polls opening yesterday morning, when voters in several areas complained that ink used by election officials to stain people's fingers - to prevent multiple voting - easily rubbed off.

Sounds like Afghans, with their invisible ink, experienced the 18th century equivalent of America's Diebold electronic voting system. Something which you think should be permanent mysteriously vanishes. Our elections have something in common after all.

I've read a number of pieces which talk of high voter registration this year. Who are these new voters? I have no idea. But it's safe to say that a lot of the people registering now are doing so because they were too young to vote in prior elections. And if Zogby's polling is correct, that's good news for Kerry:

Kerry leads big among 18-29 year olds (56%-31%) and Bush holds an impressive lead among 30-49 year olds (54%-38%) -- but the two are tied among voters over 50.

Another interesting nugget from Zogby, the "marriage gap":

The marriage gap is wide: Bush leads by 13 points among married voters (52%-39%) while Kerry has single voters by 27 points (57%-30%).

And in case you missed it Zogby offers a brightening picture for Kerry in the battleground states:

The latest Zogby Interactive poll puts Mr. Kerry ahead of President Bush in 13 of the 16 closely contested states -- two more states than the Massachusetts senator led before the debate and the most since August.
. . .
Mr. Kerry moved ahead in two states (Ohio and Nevada) and increased his lead in seven others -- though Mr. Kerry's margin over Mr. Bush in Ohio, Arkansas and Florida was negligible -- less than one percentage point. Mr. Bush's lead narrowed in the three states (Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia) that he remains ahead of Mr. Kerry. Overall, seven of Mr. Kerry�s leads are within the margins of error, while all of Mr. Bush�s leads are.

The race is tight, but momentum appears to be going in the right direction. Another strong debate showing tonight will help.

Just My 2 offers this 2000 flashback in the George W. Bush time machine:

BUSH: If there's pattern of just exaggeration and stretches to try to win votes, it says something about leadership as far as I'm concerned, because once you're the president, you can't stretch. In foreign diplomacy there needs to be a plain-spoken, you know, attitude.

What kind of "exaggeration" was Bush referring to? Al Gore's mistake during the presidential debate in saying he had toured a particular disaster with FEMA Director James Witt.

So what does Bush's "stretch" test say about the leadership of Dick "the first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight" Cheney?

"Cheney: Weapons Report Justifies Iraq War"

Vice President Dick Cheney asserted on Thursday that a report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, who found no evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991, justifies rather than undermines President Bush's decision to go to war.

This from one of the "serious" leaders whom we supposedly need to protect us.

The noose of truth tightens:

The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "decayed" continuously since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Still, some folks remain in denial:

White House spokesman James R. Wilkinson said the report does not weaken the case for going to war.

"There's no doubt Saddam Hussein was a threat to our nation and there's no doubt he had a WMD capability," Wilkinson said, pointing to Iraq's covert labs and the fact that Hussein refused to let nuclear scientists leave the country.

What was Saddam going to use to threaten our country? Spitballs?

Over the next week Kerry/Edwards need to hammer home the point that almost everything the Bush administration said about Iraq has turned out to be false.

Last night Vice President Cheney offered what might be described as the Big Bang justification for pre-emptive war:

The effort that we've mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

That is, if we have enough bad people in the same area as some bad weapons, we are justified in attacking it, for inevitably this mixture will result in an al Qaeda attack upon America*.

Unfortunately a minor obstacle has arisen in applying this formula to Iraq, namely that there were no bad weapons in Iraq:

Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.

Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, according to the report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.

So after the smoke has cleared--well, I guess Iraq is still smoking--we see that the UN sanction scheme and inspections were effectively weakening Saddam Hussein's weapons capability. Yet Bush cut this short so he could invade Iraq to discover . . . that there were no weapons.

I don't know why Kerry has had such a hard time addressing this, but in Friday's debate he really needs to hammer home how Bush blundered by arbitrarily cutting short the inspections process so he could rush to war. We've spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in an effort which hasn't made America any safer.

*Rule not valid in North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Pakistan.

I agree with the general sentiment that last night's debate was a "tie." At least in the sense that I don't think it swayed very many voters in one direction in the other. And speaking of the "swayable" voters, can the news networks quit showing these panels of "undecided"--i.e., clueless--voters? Does anyone learn anything from these people? I think it would nearly as informative to show me standing in the store muttering, "Now which pair of socks should I buy?"

At any rate, a number of bloggers have already noted some of the difficulties Cheney had with the truth. And even right-leaning TV talking heads had a hard time repeating this with a straight face:

CHENEY: The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror.

What was Cheney's point in trying to move the goal posts and include Iraqis in the coalition to liberate themselves? Does he think Americans are going to be fooled on how many U.S. casualties there have been? The media has at least gotten that much correct.

Our economy is strong and growing stronger:

Layoff announcements by U.S. companies surged 45 percent in September to nearly 108,000, the highest number of planned job cuts since January, outplacement firm Challenger Grey & Christmas said Tuesday.

Job reduction announcements are up 41 percent from September 2003, while year-to-date job cuts are down 17 percent from 2003's pace, Challenger said. The total of 107,863 announced layoffs for the month was not seasonally adjusted, the firm said.

"The return to six-figure job-cut levels paints a grim picture for ongoing economic growth, as such activity is generally considered a measure of how companies view future business conditions," John Challenger, chairman of the firm, said in a written statement.
. . .
Challenger also said corporations announced 16,166 job openings in September, the lowest since Challenger began tracking hiring announcements in May.

I can think of a few more employees who should be terminated next month.

Unless, of course, it moves itself into irrelevancy:

Poland may reduce its commitment of forces to the war in Iraq by 40 percent by January 2005 and have all its troops out by the end of that year, Polish officials said Monday.

Polish President Aleksander Kwasnieswski said a withdrawal is in the discussion stage but could not be finalized until after Iraqi elections scheduled for January.

Can Poland be kicked out of "New Europe" and rejoin "Old Europe"?

Yeah, we already knew this:

"CIA review finds no evidence Saddam had ties to Islamic terrorists"

A new CIA assessment undercuts the White House's claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al-Qaida, saying there's no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The CIA review, which U.S. officials said Monday was requested some months ago by Vice President Dick Cheney, is the latest assessment that calls into question one of President Bush's key justifications for last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"Ex-U.S. Governor of Iraq Criticizes Troop Levels"

The U.S. intervention in Iraq was hampered early on by a lack of adequate forces and efforts to contain looting after the ouster of Saddam Hussein, according to the former U.S. administrator in Iraq.

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Paul Bremer said in a speech reported by The Washington Post on Tuesday. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Bremer's comments echoed charges by administration critics who argue that the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in post-war Iraq, the newspaper said.

Do you think Vice President Dick Cheney will be incorporating any of this "new" information into his debate preparation? I vote no.

I'll be rolling out bright and early Sunday morning to participate in the 2004 Sunbelt/Cohutta Springs Triathlon. I've never competed in a triathlon and only have one small issue in doing so: I can't swim, at least no farther than a pool length or so. But that's the beauty of a relay team.

The event is a mini triathlon, so I'll only be bicycling for 18 miles. I don't imagine we'll be in the running for a top placement, so my main goal is to complete my leg in no more than 55 minutes. That and to avoid being hit by any rural North Georgia drivers. We'll see how it goes.

POST-RACE UPDATE: The bicycle riding went fairly well. The only issue I had was some rare cramping in my calf muscles along the way. I guess I had too much heat and not enough water. I completed the leg in 56 minutes--only one minute off my goal. Overall, however, our relay team didn't fare well. The team--consisting of three 30ish year old males--lost to several females and barely edged out a 61 year-old solo male competitor. It was pretty brutal.

Thomas Friedman is back from hiatus and has a pretty good assessment of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq:

What happened? The Bush team got its doctrines mixed up: it applied the Powell Doctrine to the campaign against John Kerry - "overwhelming force" without mercy, based on a strategy of shock and awe at the Republican convention, followed by a propaganda blitz that got its message across in every possible way, including through distortion. If only the Bush team had gone after the remnants of Saddam's army in the Sunni Triangle with the brutal efficiency it has gone after Senator Kerry in the Iowa-Ohio-Michigan triangle. If only the Bush team had spoken to Iraqis and Arabs with as clear a message as it did to the Republican base. No, alas, while the Bush people applied the Powell Doctrine in the Midwest, they applied the Rumsfeld Doctrine in the Middle East. And the Rumsfeld Doctrine is: "Just enough troops to lose."

Priorities are priorities.

Last week I climbed Mount LeConte and took some pictures along the way. They don't do the scenery justice, but I've posted a few of them here.

I'm not the biggest of hikers. So for me an 11 mile trip on a moderately-difficult trail is a pretty big deal--especially when I'm lugging my 50 pound tripod. But wow, the view from the top was worth it. I'm already thinking about going again sometime.

Watch Mount St. Helens erupt.

For all Bush's talk about how he doesn't worry what other nations think when he acts to "defend America," the president sure seems to be worried about the sensibilities of the so-called "Coalition of the Willing." Whenever Kerry criticizes the pre-war coalition, Bush's standard response has been, "Why are you denigrating the contributions of our allies"?

I'm not sure why Kerry has had such a difficult time countering this; the response should be short and sweet:

"Yes, I appreciate the contribution that foreign soldiers have made; the problem is there's simply not enough of them."

Kerry's responses have been getting better lately, but he's still got room for improvement.

Ezra Klein:

Fact is, 9/11 didn't change Bush, it just changed his rhetoric. And while the smirk now floated above terra-fightin' and tyrant-smashin', it was still the same smirk that had accompanied social security privatization and medicare reform. But while we all knew and understood that he had been a lightweight in the days of domestic policy -- at least, we tittered, he hadn't been an atrocious dullard like that Gore -- we began pretending that something had snapped in George W. Bush and he was now a somber leader prepared to face down a time of grave danger.

But tonight the curtain lifted and Bush was back onstage with a competitor, without a teleprompter, and facing a barrage of unfamiliar and even unfriendly topics. But the way George debates -- rigid adherence to message, down-home charisma, a quick grin and general geniality -- was sadly unsuitable for the occasion. Past confrontations have been reasonably light, occurring in times of relative prosperity and in opposition to barely-liked incumbents whom the public liked seeing taken down a few pegs. But tonight, George was supposed to be serious, to be somber, to show himself the sort of timeless leader appropriate for such a crucial stage in history. Instead, he was like a glitchy boombox machine-gunning the phrase "mixed messages". Where Kerry had calm presentation and logical progressions, George jumped from story to quote, personal attack to platitude ("I know how the world works"). Where he was supposed to run on a record, he instead ran on an ethic ("It's hard work"). Where he was supposed to act dignified, he was draped over his podium. Where he was supposed to be the country's commander, he was instead a mediocre candidate.

Tonight, for the first time in a number of years, George Bush the individual -- a wholly different creature from the stage-managed president -- was forced to face his times. And the truth is that George isn't cut out for these times. He's not a capable war leader. His moral clarity is a kind term for simplicity, not a synonym for vision. His straight talk is all there is, he's not obscuring a capacity for complexity that he chooses to obscure for the sake of uninformed audiences. Tonight, George Bush was by turns petulant and belligerent, and by all accounts lacking. But the truth is that this is how George always was, the lie will be the conservatives who attempt to spin this into a single bad night. That Bush has turned in better performances before is all part of the problem. The Emperor, after all, has a coterie of very fine tailors. It's just that they insist on making clothes that are far, far, too big for him.

The sad thing is that Bush/Cheney '04 carefully constructed the rules of this engagement to put Bush in the best possible light, and he still looked bad. Imagine how he would have fared in a true debate.

These days cranking out the media spin is an important post-debate campaign operation.

Jack Pine Savage phoned into a GOP spin "conference call" last night and noted that one of the distributed talking points was that Kerry "started with a credibility gap and ended with a credibility canyon." I'll buy that; I heard one GOP spinner use this exact phrase and a couple others talk of Kerry's "credibility gap."

I understand that spin is spin, but come on--credibility gap? Isn't appearing as if you know what you are talking about an important element of credibility. One of the candidates clearly did better than on this score than the other. And it wasn't Bush.