I may not be Arab, Muslim, or 6 feet 5 inches tall, but there is one thing I apparently have in common with Osama bin Laden: both of us want John Kerry to win:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Saturday that he believes Al Qaeda operatives will use terrorism to try to influence the Nov. 2 election to sway opinion toward Democrat John Kerry over President Bush.
“I don’t have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they would be more apt to go [for] somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops,” said Hastert, a Republican from Plano.
Asked directly by reporters whether he believed Al Qaeda could operate better with Kerry in the White House, Hastert replied, “That’s my opinion, yes.”

Lovely. Of course Hastert doesn’t have any evidence to support his fear mongering, it’s just something in his gut he feels compelled to share. Vote for my party or you risk being killed.
These people disgust me.
UPDATE: In the comments, Len Cleavelin points to Juan Cole’s post on this. Bottom line: Al Qaeda really doesn’t care who is president:

Al-Qaeda does not care who wins the elections. If the US withdraws from Iraq (which could happen willy-nilly under Bush as easily as under Kerry), that would be seen as a victory by al-Qaeda. If the US remains in Iraq for years, bleeding at the hands of an ongoing guerrilla insurgency, then that is also a victory for al-Qaeda from their point of view. They therefore just don’t care which candidate wins. They hate general US policy in the Middle East, which would not change drastically under Kerry. To any extent that al-Qaeda is giving serious thought to the US elections, it would see no significant difference between the candidates. But given its goal of creating more polarization between the US and the Muslim World, it is entirely possible that the al-Qaeda leadership would prefer Bush, since they want to “sharpen the contradictions.”

I haven’t read any surveys of al Qaeda, but I think this is right. It’s not about our president, it’s not about our “freedoms”–it’s about our policy. But that’s a topic for a separate post.

Kos introduces George Lakoff’s new book entitled Don’t think of an elephant!, which discusses how “conservatives” and “liberals” view and discuss issues.
Looks like an interesting book.

Interesting speculation by Robert Novak on Bush administration plan for Iraq. Consider the source:

Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.
. . .
Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.
Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush’s decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.
. . .
Abandonment of building democracy in Iraq would be a terrible blow to the neoconservative dream. The Bush administration’s drift from that idea is shown in restrained reaction to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s seizure of power. While Bush officials would prefer a democratic Russia, they appreciate that Putin is determined to prevent his country from disintegrating as the Soviet Union did before it. A fragmented Russia, prey to terrorists, is not in the U.S. interest.

I’m not exactly what “get out” means here. Removal of a majority of the troops? Removal of all the troops? I have my doubts on the latter. Not because it would contradict what the administration has been saying–we’ve become accustomed to it saying one thing and doing another–but rather because it would be an abandonment of our military, financial, and corporate interests in the region. Given what we’ve spent to establish this Middle East beachhead, I’m skeptical that we will completely abandon our investments there.

On a hallowed hill in Tennessee
Like beacon shining bright
The stately walls of old UT
Rise glorious to the sight.
So here’s to you old Tennessee
Our alma mater true
We pledge in love and harmony
Our loyalty to you.
What torches kindled at that flame
Have passed from hand to hand
What hearts cemented in that name
Bind land to stranger land.
So here’s to you old Tennessee
Our alma mater true
We pledge in love and harmony
Our loyalty to you.
O, ever as we strive to rise
On life’s unresting stream
Dear Alma Mater, may our eyes
Be lifted to that gleam.
So here’s to you old Tennessee
Our alma mater true
We pledge in love and harmony
Our loyalty to you.

Oh no. The secret liberal plot has been exposed:

Campaign mail with a return address of the Republican National Committee warns West Virginia voters that the Bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if liberals win in November.
The literature shows a Bible with the word “BANNED” across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word “ALLOWED.” The mailing tells West Virginians to “vote Republican to protect our families” and defeat the “liberal agenda.”
Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said Friday that he wasn’t aware of the mailing, but said it could be the work of the RNC. “It wouldn’t surprise me if we were mailing voters on the issue of same-sex marriage,” Gillespie said.

Prohibiting Bibles? What kind of delusional people come up with this kind of thing? Do these so-called “Christians” think they have the moral standing to spread lies?