Kos has a post which juxtaposes screen shots of the Bush and Kerry campaign website front pages. The contrast is striking. Virtually the entire Kerry front page highlights Kerry’s plan for America. In contrast, nearly the entire Bush page is devoted to . . . Senator Kerry.
It’s remarkable that after nearly four years and office, apparently the best strategy the Bush campaign has come up with for re-election is to drive up the negatives of the opponent. What of Bush’s accomplishments while in office? What of his vision for the future?
I know it’s still early, and there’s been rumors of Bush introducing a “reform agenda” during the Republican convention. But thus far a vast majority of his advertising has been attack commercials on Kerry. It smells to me like a campaign in trouble. An incumbent president needs to answer the questions, “Why should I be given another four years in office? What do I offer for America’s future?”
So far Bush has done a pretty lousy job answering those questions.

I saw Ambassador Keyes on TV last night. He was asked about a comment he made in 2000 which appears to condemn his bid to become an Illinois senator:

I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton’s willingness to go into a state she doesn’t even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn’t imitate it.

As you might expect, Keyes offered some rhetorical nonsense. Unlike Hillary, who ran for the senate to pursue her own agenda, Keyes is simply following the call of the people:

Hillary Clinton pursued an agenda of clear personal ambition. She fished around among the different states in the union, decided which state would be the best object of her personal ambitions, fermented interest in the state, for the sake of her personal agenda. She was a sitting first lady at the time, so there was even overtones of intimidation involved in all of that. And she simply used and abused the state as a platform of her personal ambition.
Quite the contrary, I had no thought whatsoever of running for the U.S. Senate in the state of Illinois. I have been called in by a decision of the people in Illinois, who say that they need my help. That is their choice, and that respects the sovereignty of the people, because they have made the determination that they need outside help. It also respects my own principles, because I am a strong believer in federalism, but as the Illinois motto indicates, there are two components, of federalism. State sovereignty and national union.

So what kind of ideas have we heard from this man of the people so far? Here’s a few:
Repeal of the 16th Amendment (providing for an income tax) and the institution of a national sales tax.
Repeal of the 17th Amendment which specifies that voters select a state’s senators rather than it’s legislature. An ironic position for a senatorial candidate to take, isn’t it?
Maintaining that September 11 was a warning from God to America regarding the abortion, since the procedure is a form of terrorism.
Offering reparations (an income tax rebate) for descendants of slaves. Presumably, this would only apply if Keyes failed to have said income tax abolished.
Based on the proposals we’ve seen so far, it’s pretty apparent that this race is all about Keyes’ “agenda of clear personal ambition” and not about the people of Illinois.

Somehow I missed this earlier in the summer. The powers that be in New York proposed a ban on general photography on subways and buses. Meta-Roj blog has more details and examples of potential terrorism.
I can kind of buy bans on aerial photography of nuclear installations and that type of thing. But banning pictures of the subway? And buses? A would-be terrorist can research those public places any time he or she wants. No need to take photos. Is the government trying to pull a joke on us?
I’m not sure what the current status of this proposal is. It hasn’t been enacted . . . at least not yet. Don’t know if it was dropped or just tabled for now.
This is another government restriction not intended to actually make the public safer, but rather to make people think the government is making them safer. Hopefully people will continue to see through this kind of thing.

We’re not talking drugs, money, or those other petty issues. Here’s the type of controversy that really gets at the integrity of sport (sorry, no pictures):

A team of bikini-clad dancers from the Canary Islands is entertaining fans but offending some female players at Olympic beach volleyball.
Wearing bright orange outfits during the day and shiny silver ones at night, the sun-bronzed babes race onto the sand between points and matches, gyrating to blaring techno-pop. Fans join in, wiggling hips and clicking cameras.
At least one women’s team isn’t amused.
“It’s kind of disrespectful to the female players,” said Nicole Sanderson, an Australian. “I’m sure the male spectators love it, but I find it a little bit offensive.”

I’m don’t know what Ms. Sanderson finds offensive. Couldn’t be the dancer’s appearance, because their dress is fairly similar to that of the players.
But as much as I’m sure that many fans appreciate the added entertainment, I’m not sure the Olympics will retain their character if we start adding dance teams, half time shows, corporate promotions, and the other trappings of contemporary professional sporting events. I’d rather the games maintain their traditional focus on competition and leave out the hoopla.

This past weekend the Bush campaign attempted to tap into the Olympic spirit by launching “morning in Athens” ad. The ad shows an athlete and boasts of “two more free nations” and “two fewer terrorists regimes”–those being Afghanistan and Iraq. Kind of odd, since Iraq competed in the Olympics before Bush appeared on the scene, but maybe they are performing better now. Or something. Gotta find a silver lining somewhere.
But the larger problem with the ad is its entire premise: Thanks to President Bush, “freedom is spreading throughout the world like a sunrise.” The ad opens by noting that there were 40 democracies in the world in 1972; today there are 120.
Notice anything strange about those dates? Why yes. Bush actually didn’t become president in 1972, he was elected in 2000. It’s unclear to me what Bush did to spread democracy between 1972 and 2000. If you compare the figures from 2000 and today, it’s more along the lines of 118 to 120. I guess that’s why they used 1972.
Moreover, just how did the sunrise of freedom dawn in those two nations?
By an American invasion and occupation, that’s how.
Is this our game plan for spreading freedom? How many countries might we enlighten with freedom in a second Bush term? How many more can we afford to cast the bright light of freedom upon?
Not many, I’m afraid.