The Art of Politics

Red Dawn

If you think you're becoming surrounding with Republicans, it's not just you...

A new Gallup survey indicates that in the aftermath of the Bush victory in 2004, more respondents than ever identify themselves as Republican versus Democrat.

Hey, everyone likes a winner... but there is more to this than merely the afterglow of votus non-interruptus. The realignment of political party identification has been going on for years, all the while the parties themselves were undergoing internal constituent changes. As the Republican party became more Southern, more rural, more suburban, the Democrat party became more urban, less white, and more coalitionist. The results - Democrats ceded the white male vote to Republicans, and as a result, the largest, most potent voting bloc.

And yet, Democrat Bill Clinton showed it was possible for the Democrats to recapture much of that same slowly-ceded demographic. Mainly, because he was what they had lost - rural, southern, white, and male. Unforunately, Bill's mistakes and trevails hurt his post-term ability to act as a recruiting beacon for the party.

To understand identification, you have to understand what people think they are identifying with - a perception, both of men (in the gender neutral tense) and ideas. Right now, Republicans have the far more appealing, identifiable figures - from George W. Bush, a man often remisunderestimated but never beaten and, outside of the fringe, viewed as a genuinely likable fellow, to figures like McCain, Schwarzenegger, Giuliani, Powell - these are men that people like and look up to.

Who is the Democrat standard-bearer? Surely not Kerry - while he led the good fight in this election, he has never been, nor will ever be, someone who commands fealty through his persona alone. Not Gore, nor any other also-ran former candidates. No, the stardard bearers are Bill and Hillary Clinton. Bill, affable in public (though a real firebrand in private) but with a history that he'll never be rid of, and Hillary, who despite attempts to moderate herself on positions (and if she were to continue to pursue this, she'd be a very important Senator) is not going to gain the adoration of the masses.

This is a problem for the Democrat party - there is nobody anyone wants to really identify with. In fact, they have too many people you don't want to identify with - Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? We'll admit to a grudging respect for Sharpton - he's intelligent and brings something to the debate. But he has a history in New York that he'll never escape. As for Jackson, his continued victimhood tour is anathema to average voter recruitment.

Democrats have, for the second election cycle, trumpeted a new hope within their ranks. This year, Barack Obama is the new great black hope of the Democrat party. Four years ago, it was Henry Ford Jr. of Tennessee who held that crown (and the one most likely to have a real national future of broad appeal). But overturning rocks looking for buried treasure is not a recipe for success - the party cannot depend on finding another Bill Clinton. It needs to work on manufacturing appeal to middle-of-the-road voters on issues and with leaders who share the same goals and values - and, it must be said, have that undefinable quality that creates confidence among voters.

As the red tide continues to roll in (who picked these bleeping colors anyways?), expect the mere momentum of the realignment to continue the trend, at least for one more election cycle...

You Break It, You Buy It

And so MoveOn.org has a receipt for the Democrat party...

Not content with merely marginalizing the once dominant Democrat party in 2004, the nice people at MoveOn.org insist on keeping the party ran aground for years to come.

Now, mind you, MoveOn.org does have a point when it says "...we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers." Terry McAuliffe has been singularly incompetent, and the Democrat Party reminds one of the gang that couldn't vote straight.

But MoveOn.org is precisely the kind of group that needs to be purged from the Democrat party - crazy activists who are more worried about promoting Al Franken than in fighting Al Qaeda. But MoveOn.org has spent alot of money on the Democrats in 2004, and for all of their bluster about "elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists", they sure are acting like a lobbyist looking for a return on their investment.

If MoveOn.org was exposed as a Republican front group designed to make Democrats look foolish, I wouldn't be surprised...

One Last Thing...

'Nuff said.

The Rundown

The election, in a nutshell...

This election was between a fairly liberal Senator from Massachussetts and a fairly conservative incumbent President from Texas against the backdrop of two hard but successful wars and an economy that is trending well and, when analyzed dispassionately, is pretty well off.

That's a hard hill to climb if you're the challenger.

Kerry did about as well as anyone should expect - he made maximum hay by going Dean on the war, energizing an already energized base that had been nursing a grudge and bilious spite for four long years. But Kerry was not able to achieve victory for two basic reasons - he could not appeal personally to the public at large due to his aloof persona, nor could he appeal to their core values, because he did not demonstrate that he shared them.

Not Being Bush didn't work any better than most pundits said it would. Mind you, we don't buy that people only energize by voting for, rather than against, which is what current pablum offers as the Not Being Bush vote. But the gay marriage referendums demonstrate you CAN get voters to the polls to vote against something - and let's be honest, these referendums were against gay marriage, not in favor of heterosexual marriage, as divorce rates and out of wedlock childbirths clearly demonstrate...

In this case, you could get people to vote against Bush - alot of them. But as strongly as anti-Bush voters felt, Bush voters felt even stronger. The Broken Glass Republicans were determined to get to the polls, and they did in record numbers. To that end, they continued some trends...

The nation is mainstreaming conservatism. It began in 1980, when the transition from pragmatic conservatism to the modern incarnation of conservatism took place. Nixon and price controls gave way to Reagan and firing the air traffic controllers. Accomodation was out, principle and acting on it was in. This high profile conservative President helped pave the way for a new alignment among the electorate, as old party machinery in heavily Democrat areas began to break down, and as the population became increasingly Southern and suburban.

Culminating in the elections of 1994, conservatism began dominating statehouses, governor's mansions, and indeed the federal legislature. The washing ashore of this wave continues unabated even today - and will for a few more years to come. Like a wave breaking, it's momentum still pushes itself ashore to extend it's reach. As the upper midwest further suburbanizes, and as liberal states continue to have their population leech away toward the red states, the electoral map at the federal level will continue to shift weight toward Republicans.

Which begs the question - what are Democrats to do? This is indeed the rub, and what they need to do is unfortunately what they are unlikely to do. What the Democrat party needs to do is move away from being an amalgamation of interests and re-engage support among white males, suburban and rural values voters, and traditional blue collar voters that they've steadily lost. The Democrat party must unsacramentalize abortion politics and embrace their own pro-life candidates and differences, including understanding how extremism in the defense of abortion is an electoral vice. This likely means taking a step back and shedding the more fringe left constituencies that they've been hedging their hopes on. But, they will never compete for the lion's share groups - whites, religious voters - until they have this unsightly growth of fringe support removed.

Unfortunately, what the Democrats have been doing on the surface is externalizing their losses and blaming the electorate for a lack of enlightenment. The Democrat party is out of power at every level of government - they do not control the White House, the Congress, the Governorships, the State Houses. Look, no party has a monopoly on good ideas. But too much of the mainstream Democrat party has been absorbed with examining everything about this election and prior losses EXCEPT their positions. It's trickery, malfeasance, cheating, ignorance, illiteracy, nearly every externalized rationalization possible, OTHER than the mere possibility that the other side has ideas that sound a little bit better to voters. Not on everything, but on enough things that they prefer GOP packaged goods to theirs.

This election wasn't a startling rejection of Democrat politics - there is nothing startling about it. This is merely an extension of the 2002 race, and 1994, and 1980... and unless the Democrat party revitalizes itself, it will be a result replayed in other elections to come. The nation needs a vibrant, relevant Democrat party - even Republicans can smell the rot of a single party with no electoral check.

Taking a step back - and a breath - is the prelude to taking a step forward for the Democrat party.

Get A Shovel

There's so much dirt out there about the election...

Like this piece from Newsweek, the mudslide of behind the scenes hijinx is burying the political classes.

Nothing new, of course, but most of this information is really old - well dated. And the real question is - why wasn't it publicized when it first occurred? If the information on Kerry's pursuit of McCain is accurate, that's huge news. As is the news that Bill Clinton advised Kerry to endorse local initiatives to ban gay marriage. To his credit, Kerry refused to take a cheap political tactical turn, but to his detriment, he campaigned as opposed to gay marriage, which frankly is not an honest disclosure of his own thinking on the topic.

The exchange of access for silence needs to ensure that information the public probably would want isn't kept under the election rug...

Deadwards

Why do people keep propping up this guy?

Early post-election balloonfilling by the pundits consistently includes the mention of John Edwards as a strong candidate for the 2008 Democrat nomination.

Huh?

We've never seen the appeal. We remarked repeatedly at how totally overrated this guy is. What precisely has John Edwards ever done to warrant such high regard, other than get trounced in the Democrat primary and not deliver a damn thing to Kerry's campaign? John Edwards is a single term Democrat Senator who's seat was lost to a Republican and who spent half of his term running unsuccessfully for higher office.

Just what has this guy done, aside from win the Mr. Congeniality competition against what can be universally agreed was a lackluster Democrat field?

Get Going

Allan get's it right...

Allan at Just On The Other Side has a nice piece on the election that hits the right notes.

While our election analysis will follow, Allan hits an important note - that Democrats need to internalize the results of the election, rather than externalize the blame for their lack of success. Unfortunately for Democrats, there is already a miasma of denial - blame of the electorate, conspiracy, and sanguine disconnectedness from reality - that will not result in the changes needed to improve the Democrat party's chances in the next election.

It's a poor artist who blames his tools...

Winners And Losers

Let's do the tally, shall we?

LOSERS

The youth vote
John Zogby (can we put this to rest? He get's more mileage on phony results than Rasputin)
Terry McAuliffe (when does this guy's head roll?)
Gay marriage
Bill Clinton's coattails of death (has anyone he touched not turned to stone?)
Liberal 527's
Celebrity fundraisers
Tom Daschle
Recounts
Rock The Vote (to sleep...)
Old Europe
Teresa Heinz
The Washington Redskins predictor
Exit polls
Clinton campaign handlers (see Clinton, turn to stone)
Campaign finance reform
Osama and his worthless ilk
Election lawyers
Refighting the Viet Nam war
Revenge for 2000
Old Media
Alan Keyes (the wheel is spinning but the hamsters dead...)

WINNERS

George W. Bush
The Blogosphere
Republican South
Hillary '08 (unelectable...but YOU tell her that)
Karl Rove
Texas redistricting
The Swift Boat Vets
The Coalition of the Willing
FOX News (thanks to the wonderful Michael Barone)
A Conservative Supreme Court
Jeb Bush's White House Aspirations (no way two single term Bushes spawn a third)
The Halloween mask predictor
Election Dignity
Barack Obama (but spare us Obama '08 - Obama is the latest great Democrat hope - see Ford Jr., Henry for details)
Early voting
Republican coattails

More will be added as they occur to a mind with only three hours of sleep...

Shiftless Youth

Is this a real surprise?

Repeatedly, references in the evening coverage was made to the "youth turnout", the anticipated tidal wave of young, motivated voters looking to prevent their draft into the military by voting in droves for John Kerry. As the evening wore on, more discussion about this dog that didn't bark left many commentators struggling for an explanation as to why this young voter turnout didn't occur.

What? Ask any parent how unsurprising it is that those kids didn't follow through... vote? After decades of failing to come home on time, finish homework, clean their room, eat their vegetables - there is some morbid shock they didn't turn out to vote?

Half of college kids probably didn't wake up before the polls closed...

Take It Like A Man

Do what Al Gore couldn't do...

Like many junkies, we stayed up... and up... and up... even when it became obvious. Even when Bush carried Ohio by more than Kerry carried Pennsylvania. Even when New Mexico vote counting wiped out a 5% Bush lead in minutes in a very curious tabulation. Even when the President obtained a very impressive 3+ million popular vote victory.

Waiting.

Waiting for the networks, those of which called Ohio for Bush not calling Nevada, those who called Nevada not calling Ohio.

And then we collapsed into a heap of exhaustion...

But these things are clear - Bush won the popular vote, big. He won Ohio, by the same margin as last time, and by more votes than he lost Pennsylvania by. The election is right where we thought it would be - except for Wisconsin, which Bush narrowly lost. A notable victory for Bush.

It's time for Kerry to recognize this.

Kerry has a current career in the Senate at stake. Gore destroyed his political viability and forever tarnished his image (which honestly he cemented with some wacko outbursts lately) by disputing Florida over a couple thousand votes in an election in which he won the popular vote total by some half-million. Kerry is losing every undeclared state by far, far more - New Mexico by some almost 12,000 votes, which Bush lost by mere hundreds and never challenged, Iowa by some 16,000, four times more than Gore won it by last time which Bush never challenged, and a whopping 140,000+ in Ohio, which is getting media spun despite being a bigger win for Bush than PA and other states were for Kerry.

This is important - whoever wins on election night, is the legitimate winner in the voters eyes. Bush won the remaining three states on election night, by margins that aren't particularly close as we've shown. They simply won't find that many votes buried in Ohio, and if they fight this past today, they are asking for a world of trouble - why shouldn't Bush crawl up the Wisconsin results with a microscope? He won't, because that's not his M.O., but it's food for thought.

Kerry needs to do what Gore couldn't - read the writing, see the lost cause, and maintain his relevancy. Spare us the avalanches of lawyers and spins, and realize you fought a hard, tough run, difficult campaign against an incumbent in wartime, and ultimately a losing campaign.

The election is already a Republican blowout - there is no need for the Kerry to make the party's situation worse by looking like they can't take no for an answer...

Roly Poly

Sick of polls? That's what we thought...just one... more... day...

If there is anything that won't be missed about the election, besides the spinning, misleading ads, backbiting, that sort of thing, it's the constant avalanche of polls that seem to be at times all over the place.

Take the Fox News poll. Some might expect this poll to be slanted toward the President. Au contraire, in fact they have to go out of their way not to slant their polls. So they end up with... John Kerry leading among men in their latest poll. Huh? This is taking the "fair and balanced" bit a little too far - there is no way on God's green earth that John Kerry wins among men. No other poll is showing any such thing. And Fox themselves have to know they've got a stinker. But what choice do they have but to run it? Can you imagine the press headlines if Fox News spiked a poll that showed John Kerry in the lead?

Part of the problem with these polls and how they weight samples we've noted before - too few samples in various states that don't account for the difference between an Arkansas Democrat and a New York Democrat. When you weight heavy out of New York, and assume Democrats in the midwest will vote same, you are undercutting any semblence of reality in your poll.

The best polls are amalgamations of state polls. Good state polls - which newspaper polls almost invariably aren't. Especially in Minnesota...

For a good assessment of polls using a macroscopic amalgamation of polls, visit the Horserace Blog. He's done the math... so you don't have to...

On The Money

You'd expect that from someone named Fund...

Why reinvent the wheel? John Fund has an excellent, well reasoned prediction for this evening that precisely mirrors our own - though we think the vote totals will be spread a bit wider. State by state, he's called it the same way we have - 296 EV for Bush.

Hat tip to Polipundit...

Back In Black

The monopoly on the black vote may be cracking, which helps everybody...

New polling indicates notably higher support for President Bush among black voters, perhaps signalling an end to the thralldom of the black voting public to the Democrat party and inviting a new stage of competitiveness between the parties for same.

It is simply axiomatic that bloc voting with no deviance is in effect submitting yourself for a one-bidder auction. With no competitiveness in the black vote, Republicans aren't inclined to waste time courting a vote they cannot get, and the Democrats aren't inclined to waste resources on a vote they cannot lose.

But this may all finally be changing. As the black middle class expands painfully slowly, and as social issues dominate among traditionally socially-conservative black religious voters, there are cracks forming around the normally stalwart turnout for Democrats. And this can only be a good thing for everyone in the long run. Being written off on the one hand, and taken for granted on the other, leaves the black American voter powerless to influence the political process in many cases.

The internal debate in the American black community on politics, society, and their future role in America is one long overdue, but neccessary to advance both black clout in the political process and help foster transition to new modes of economic development and integration with the American economic power structure.

You have to play to win, and by putting their vote in play, black voters stand to gain...

UPDATE: Ann Coulter has a decidedly more acerbic and partisan but at times salient take on the same topic, just released here...

Hoof-In-Mouth Disease

Teresa Heinz can't help it... she was born with a cloven hoof in her mouth...

In an outburst as reliable as Old Faithful, Teresa Heinz has once again made some ill-considered remarks that suck the oxygen from the Kerry campaign news balloon.

While we enjoy Teresa's smarmy devil-may-care attitude, it's constantly erupting in very poor taste - we gave a rundown not long ago. And you surely don't go after the first lady - especially one who is generally well liked and respected in all quarters. While this wasn't a scathing attack by any means, it reeks of arrogant classism - if this is what Teresa thinks of the first lady, what do you think she thinks of your atypical American housewife?

Nobody votes for first-lady. But if John Kerry loses a squeaker, his wife will have played a big part in it. For most dispassionate voters, their decision on who to support involves momentum of thought - how they can begin to think of supporting a candidate, and each thought either moves that process forward, or back. Teresa Heinz's remarks are consistent momentum-stoppers: maybe Kerry can be a good President, he seems to have a good grasp of the issues, he says he wants to do a better job on issue I care about, he - but golly his wife is just so sour and abrasive.

Teresa's constant outbursts are momentum killers that Kerry doesn't need...

Boo!

Halloween comes early to the Kerry/Edwards campaign...

With polling data perhaps not looking the way they would like, the Kerry campaign has returned to a tried and true campaign tool of Democrat races past - scare the hell out of the electorate.

Now the usual Democrat October Surprise is to jump out at seniors and yell "Privatize!" This normally helps bring older Democrats back in the fold, voters who may not like some of the Democrat party's more progressive social stands, but who will return to the fold if they think their social security check will be pilfered by Republicans.

Sure enough, Kerry has announced that Bush has a "secret plan" - we are not making this up - to privatize social security.

This is fairly unimaginative as far as secret plans go. I mean if you are going to accuse someone of a secret plan, go for the gusto - Bush has a secret plan to outlaw puppies and kittens. Or Bush has a secret plan to allow a Martian invasion of the planet. Maybe Bush has a secret plan to replace your regular coffee with Folger's Crystals. How about Bush has a secret plan to bring back the draft?

Oh wait, that's another entry in the Kerry campaign's Little Shop of Horrors. Despite the fact that it was Democrats like Charles Rangel who proposed a draft, despite the fact that a Republican Congress defeated a propsed draft 402-2, despite the fact that Bush has repeatedly stated he would not institute a draft - Kerry has conflated the situation in Iraq to conclude that there is a "great potential of a draft".

Some have defended this reasoning, for instance using the Bush campaigns statement that to pay for all of his programs, Kerry will have to raise taxes on everyone. And the reasoning is sound behind this comparison. But everyone pays taxes - tax policy is something that is accepted as fair game. Drafting your children to send off to war is not. The draft should be discussed, but only in the realm of the real - and the Kerry accusation is utter innuendo with no supporting facts.

Someone close the window... John Kerry is feeling a draft...

A Picture Is Worth...

Just two words in this instance...

Allan goes Stalkerazzi at Just On The Other Side - and finds one of those pictures that candidates just hate...

Vlad The Endorser

Vladimir Putin praises Bush re-election - cross him off the list of global leaders that support Kerry...

Russian leader Vladimir Putin waded into the foray of the US election with a very salient endorsement of President Bush.

Foreign leaders are usually fairly restrained in discussing US Presidential elections - considering that they don't want to offend someone they may end up having to deal with. But Putin came out with a very strong, and strongly reasoned, endorsement of President Bush, including a precise assessment of the current situation in Iraq:

"Any unbiased observer understands that attacks of international terrorist organizations in Iraq, especially nowadays, are targeted not only and not so much against the international coalition as against President Bush..."

Putin continues even further:

"If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition...In that case, this would give an additional impulse to international terrorists and to their activities, and could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world..."

Blunt and eloquently precise at the same time. This doesn't mean terrorists should determine the US election by forcing a reaction against their impulses - but Putin clearly understands the nature of the enemy, though belatedly somewhat in Iraq.

Putin doesn't put all of his eggs in Bush's basket though:

"Because of this we must take a realistic approach and be prepared for any development of events...We respect any choice the American people will make."

A very smooth endorsement of the American representative democracy - even if some his Putin's own actions domestically seem to run against that same democratic grain.

It's Spreading

Whatever malady Teresa Heinz has - she gave it to Elizabeth Edwards...

WARNING: This post contains very funny Dungeons & Dragons references that will likely render catatonic those unable to parse the slyly written gaming humor. If you are pregnant or may become pregnant, you should skip this article.

In some extremely ill-considered remarks, the wife of Senator John Edwards has borrowed from Teresa Heinz her Wand of Unseemly Outbursts (+3 against Democrats) and is wielding it like a child who found their dad's gun.

In response to the discussion over Senator John Kerry's invocation of Mary Cheney during the final Presidential Debate, Liz Edwards used her wand to create a Miasma Of Innuendo (range 20'):

"She's (Lynn Cheney) overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs...I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences."

This was not good. There is an old saying - it's worse than a crime, it's a mistake. The Democrats do not want to be talking about this - when the Democrats keep the news and agenda focused on Kerry's talking points on Iraq and the economy, he hangs in with the President. But as soon as the President is off the defensive, Kerry's poll numbers suffer. Case in point is the latest Reuters Poll Of Helping (+4 to Republicans).

Elizabeth Edwards should know better - even outside of politics, it is not a good idea to talk about someone else's kids in public. Edwards makes a bad but manageable situation worse.

Who knows what other self-destructing magic items Edwards has in her Bag of Holding (+6 to Hostess products/+4 to Little Debbie's snack cakes)...

UPDATE: If you've read this far, you deserve to know what a Bag of Holding is - it's something akin to Mary Poppins' carpet bag - it's small but holds a near infinte quantity of items...

Something About Mary

Did you know Mary Cheney is a lesbian, wink wink?

There was notable debate fallout from Senator Kerry's remarks that included Mary Cheney, the Vice-President's openly lesbian daughter, including new remarks from the wife of Senator Edwards, and a kinda-apology from Senator Kerry.

There are those who would argue that there is no reason for outrage or concern over Senator Kerry's remarks. We tend to think that in all honesty, this is not an overt or even subverted purposeful attack by Kerry designed to undermine the President with the values-conscious part of his base - though it is extremely unwise to even mention Mary Cheney and use her as a policy wedge. But Mort Kondracke, editor of Roll Call and Fox News analyst, has been very consistent in seeing the invoking of her name as an underhanded attempt to code word the electorate. Some argue that there is nothing to be concerned with at all - Mary Beth Cahill of the Kerry campaign called Mary Cheney "fair game" - but this ignores two fundamental facts - first, there is a hard and fast political rule that you leave the families out of the discussion - especially children. Second - that there is a clear double-standard being applied that would not be tolerated, were the situation were reversed.

Indeed, if the situation was reversed - if Senator Kerry had a homosexual child, and Bush in the debate said "My opponent has a gay daughter, I'm sure he loves her very much", activists and partisans would peel the paint from the wall with shrill protest that Bush had only brought it up in order to use "code words" to inflame the electorate and play to bigotry and homophobia - and they'd have a point. My opponent has a gay daughter - wink wink Mr. Anti-Gay voter.

If in a southern Republican debate, Bush and McCain had been talking about race relations and Bush had remarked "My opponent has adopted a black baby, I'm sure he lovers her very much", the same band of activists and partisans would be howling about Bush's bigoted and racially insensitive remarks and attempt to play on Southern racism - and they'd have a point. My opponent has a black baby - wink wink Mr. Intolerant voter. (By the way, something akin to this actually happened).

Imagine if discussing marriage and values in the debate, Bush had said "I think marriage is important, divorce is hard on kids. My opponent annulled his marriage, I'm sure he knows how hard it is on kids." Again, outrage about a cheap shot and dragging the candidates kids into the mix - and they'd have a point. My opponent ditched his wife and broke up his family - wink wink Ms. Suburban Family Values voter.

Or imagine if discussing health care issues, Bush had said "I think we face serious health care issues in this country - such as obesity. Senator Edwards wife clearly struggles with this issue."

You simply do not bring into the discussion the family of the other candidate, unless it is a glowing, gushing, perfect pitch compliment. For all of her hoof-in-mouth outbursts, Bush nor Cheney has remarked about Teresa Heinz's public statements - because it violates the inviolable rule.

Today, John Kerry issued something of a heartfelt "gee, ya know, I guess, I, well" clarification - but not really an apology:

"I love my daughters. They love their daughter...I was trying to say something positive about the way strong families deal with the issue."

Bad advice - Kerry needs to just put this behind him. Here is how it should have sounded:

"I'm sorry."

Of course, if Kerry said it it'd take 75 words and three subordinate clauses - but nevertheless, this story is taking the air out of Kerry after a good series of debates for him. Kerry needs to come out, say he has only respect for the VP and his family, and that while he did not intend to, it is apparent that the VP and his family were hurt by his comments, and he offers his sincerest apology and warm regards.

Guess what? Issue over. But no...

Survivor

Both candidates get something from the debates...survival...

In the third and final Presidential debate, both President Bush and Senator Kerry had hits and misses, and survive to play in the final episode to see who gets voted off the island.

There is much mixed punditry on the debate - the Fox News analysts all called it a win for Bush, including Bill Kristol, who has been very hard on the President's performance. The MSNBC crew was decidedly less equivocal - Joe Scarborough called it a tie, but noted that the President came across better to middle American voters on the personal side. Howard Fineman didn't seem to want to pick a side, having seen post-debate wisdom spun out by post-debate polls that are heavily West-coast biased due to time.

While Kerry consistently singled in the game, the President swung hard several times. Seeing as many were likely watching the Boston/New York game, allow this analogy - Bush scored more runs on fewer hits, Kerry scored fewer runs on more hits. Bush seemed to improve the longer the debate went on - Kerry's countenance was very butleriffic.

Bush's best moments were on - abortion, where Bush finally laid out a cogent statement that people on both sides can come to reasonable agreements on abortion, which Kerry opposed - taxes, where he offered that he cut taxes including lower rates, higher child care credits, and reducing the marriage penalty, which Kerry opposed - and on personal questions, where Bush is at his sentimental, personable best.

Kerry was at his best talking about jobs, which spanned several questions, including accusing the President of just walking "on by" the problems of the unemployed. Kerry was also effective talking about markets and overseas competition - and was honest about outsourcing.

On the flip side, Kerry's constant stream of numbers and statistics made our eyes roll back into our heads at several points - Kerry has to be sparing with statistics, instead of barfing numbers forward like a malfunctioning stock ticker tape. His remark about the Cheney's daughter was also very ill-considered. This was Kerry's least effective debate, especially since on domestic issues he as a Senator has a record that can be attacked, whereas on foreign policy he has no burden to produce results as a member of a legislative body. Bush seemed somewhat awkward early on, looking for his footing - if we didn't know better we'd have said he'd taken a snortful before coming out. He didn't strongly address some jobs questions - even a throway line about making America the best place to do business with lower taxes and regulation would have sufficed. But the debate closed far stronger for the President - who surely connected with women talking with genuine and almost teary affection for his wife. Kerry uncorked an uncomfortable funny line - and to his credit, he was willing to be a little self-depricating - but then didn't seem to acknowledge his wife much more at all, almost leaving her as just the lady he goes on ski trips with.

The debates overall helped each candidate survive - Kerry, who had almost bottomed out from a horrible September, came in with his strongest performance against the President's weakest to revitalize his campaign and look his best when the President looked his worst. The President by closing strong was able to regain both the post-debate initiative, as well as remind voters of the likable man behind the sometimes inflexible resolve.

And for the record - this is the third debate where Kerry has had to defend the term, "global test". The President in fact did a double whammy on this, combining for the first time Kerry's opposition to the Gulf War in 1991 to his "global test" remark from the first debate. His repeated statements that he would never cede authority for action to a third party is assuredly true, but in doubt practically, and his lines are starting to sound more like protestations than compelling statements. Just remember when we said when we scored the first debate...

Tune in to the final episode on November 2nd for Survivor: White House Edition...

Economy Of Words

Don't bother with the debate transcript... just read this.

Nuisance Insouciance

Sometimes, Kerry acts too smart for his own good...

Once again proving the axiom that often less is more, Senator Kerry remarked in an interview about US terror policy that the US goal needed to be a return to the times when terror was merely a "nuisance".

Some may be tempted to engage this statement seriously, parsing that you could never eliminate terror, but reduce it to where it is an infrequent occurrance. But we are not that generous. Rather than stick to a simple line about fighting terror wherever we find it, Kerry feels the need to demonstrate his understanding of nuance, and dilutes a winning message into one that invites criticism.

The problem is that inherently, Kerry's instincts are to play defense on terror. You can hear it in his policy goals - inspect every container coming into this country, monitor bridges and roads, railways and airports. In other words - play prevent defense.

Kerry often rejoins that we aren't fully funding our first responders - which sounds like a political winner, except that the goal is avoiding the need to respond in the first place. Kerry argues for a "Law & Order" world - the television show where a body appears, the detectives arrive, shrewdly determine the identity of the murderer, and crack attorneys with the DA send the criminals away. Which sounds pretty good - unless you are the dead body at the beginning of each episode.

President Bush maintains his lead on the terror issue because of his unequivocal statements that his terror policy is to be on the offense against terrorists and their sponsors. The Kerry/Edwards response is that "we will find you, and we will kill you", which sounds somewhat bleating coming from this ticket - it is a statement that doesn't quite fit their personas or policies. It sounds more like a protestation than a conviction.

Kerry needs to understand the economy of words. It's not like he can talk the terrorists to death, despite what sometimes seem like repeated attempts to do so...

Round Two

Ahead in the fight, but after a bad round, President Bush takes a hard fought round...

In a debate worthy of the American people, President Bush and Senator Kerry faced off in a surprisingly good discussion that saw both candidates land scoring blows.

It should first be noted that this isn't Bush's father's Town Hall Debate - the questions were notably superior to the pablum of the previous debates of this format, where the questioners appeared more akin to Oliver asking "Please sir, I'd like some more". The questions did not ask for largesse from Washington, but were pointed and challenging to both candidates.

Bush was clearly energized both by the format, and by the lackluster results of his first debate. Kerry was good, but physically didn't make as positive an impression as he'd have like - which is a nice way of saying he appeared like a butler. Or Lurch. Or the person in Munch's "The Scream".

On substance, the President surprisingly found his perfect pitch on of all things domestic topics. Stem cell research, considered by the punditry to be a home run porch for the Kerry campaign, the President came across as engaged and thoughtful - and it helped that the question itself wasn't a Kerry softball, but rather engaged the other side of the discussion for a change - that embryonic stem-cell research hasn't proven anything, so why support something that destroys life? Bush also took Kerry to task on partial birth abortion, parental notification, and the "Laci Peterson" bill, which frankly is an enormous winner for the President if he'd press his case.

Kerry once again continued his steady criticism and dismissal of the President and his policies, in fact - too much so. At some points, it seemed as if he wanted to lecture the President - and most people do not respond to that. Kerry once again was well armed with numerical information, and has more plans than the County Department of Building Records. This was a good performance from Kerry, but with expectations high, and with no real evolution of his message, it left his position a bit non-plussed.

Kerry landed numerous blows against an awkward President in the first debate, but came out with a "global test" cut that the President has exploited, but to mixed effect. In the second debate, the President came out controlled and confident, not ceding the seriousness mantle to Kerry, and on several occassions got the better of Kerry.

This round to Bush on points, a well fought round neither candidate need be ashamed of, and it's off to round three at Tempe on Wednesday, home of the 5-0 Sun Devils of Arizona State (our favorite college team). If nothing changes, expect the debates to have helped Kerry close the stature gap, appear as a credible alternative, and keep in the race - though the big ammunition is still dry, and don't be surprised if the debates seem like an afterthought when talking about the track of political success or defeat this November...

Overcompensation

Why Bush must throw controlled punches in Round Two, having performed poorly in Round One...

When a batter misses on a pitch, sometimes he swings wildly on the next one to compensate for the one that got by him. When a fighter thinks he's behind, he often comes out swinging wildly, knowing he needs to land big blows to catch up. The President must avoid this in tonights debate.

First, the President still leads this race by some three solid points. Kerry's debate performance helped both with his base and with momentum voters, voters who will go with whoever has had the most recent positive news. But there is still a slight advantage the President retains, and it's an advantage that is going to be hard for Kerry to break through, because these voters cling harder to their choice.

Second, the first debate will fade from memory once the second debate occurs - especially if it's a strong, even debate, or if one of the candidates makes a major gaffe. The President would do well to not turn a first debate problem into a second debate problem.

The worst thing the Bush campaign can do is to overprep the President, or insist on aggression. Bush isn't a very good actor, but he is an effective motivator of his own emotions and basic positions. If he comes out trying to swing for a home run on every question, he'll end up all over the place. Rather, if he let's the pitches come to him, he'll find his groove and hit his own home runs.

For Kerry's part, more of the same - but pull back from some of the criticism and offer a positive conclusion to his positions. Kerry need not reiterate that Iraq is a problem to voters who agree with him, he must provide a vision of victory that is more than "How can I possibly do worse". He must offer "I know what it takes, and as your President, will confidently lead us there".

That is what Kerry needs to shake loose low-hanging fruit from Bush's support...

The Woodshed

A snappy, spunky Edwards still can't avoid a trip out back...

The spin cycle begins anew after the VP debate, this time spinning in the opposite direction.

Vice President Cheney and Senator John Edwards both lived up to expectations of their personas - the dry, sharp paternalism of Cheney, the puckish pluck of Edwards. But substantively, Cheney drew the sharpest distinctions and delivered the sharpest blows.

Cheney was very effective where President Bush wasn't - exploiting John Kerry's policy incoherence on Iraq. Taking Kerry and Edwards both to task repeatedly for contrasting statements on Iraq, Cheney and his bad ticker did the heavy lifting in drawing the constrast between the candidates in sharp relief - that Kerry has not demonstrated the consistency needed to fight the war on terror. Edwards repeated protestations to the contrary almost feed into this - the louder they spoke of honor, the faster we counted our spoons.

Unfortunately for Edwards, he has little coherent ammunition to work with - while he can decry what has happened in Iraq, he can't point to anything other than platitudes and rhetorical niceties as an alternative to the Bush administrations handling.

Weaker still is the reliance of Kerry/Edwards on the wrong war line of thinking - Edwards retorted to Cheney that we were attacked, but not by Saddam Hussein. Cheney draws no distinction between terrorists in the war on terror, but Edwards and Kerry increasingly disconnect any terrorist activity in Iraq from the US fight against Al Qaeda. It's as if Saddam used the old jedi mind trick on Kerry/Edwards - these aren't the terrorists you're looking for...

Edwards is far more effective talking about health care premiums and domestic issues, where Cheney is far more disinterested and it shows in his language and style. Edwards regains lost ground, but this is against Cheney's prevent defense after the score is well out of reach.

One of the more effective lines in the debate was Cheney's chiding of Edwards' attendance in the Senate - stating that despite his being at the Senate weekly, the first time they'd met was on the stage this evening. After the debate, Edwards' wife mentioned to Cheney that they had indeed met before, at a breakfast some three years earlier, and Edwards sheepishly brought this out in post-debate remarks to supporters. The problem is, Edwards didn't counter Cheney during the debate because even he couldn't recall such a meeting to counter with...

The sharpest exchanges of the evening came over Iraq, and Cheney really hung Edwards out to dry for not including the sacrifices of Iraqi security personnel when considering the costs of the war. While this position may be a little nuanced for the general electorate - and face it, Americans are more concerned about American casualties than Iraqi - it was one of those points that Edwards really cannot counter. Cheney also scored by noting twice that talking tough during a campaign doesn't provide cover for Kerry's Senate record - finally bringing this issue into play.

The initiative shifts back to the GOP ticket, at least until the outcome of Friday's debate is known...

Veepstakes

It matters...

Just minutes from the VP debate, the day has seen many pundits say the VP debate really doesn't matter.

It does.

For no other reason, for an hour and a half on network television two men have the chance to make their case directly to the American people, and directly confront their adversary. What would a 45 minute national television spot cost? They are getting it for free.

Don't let anyone fool you - the VP debate matters.

Stuff A Poll In It

PoliPundit saves me some time...

An article at PoliPundit by the good folks there does a good job discussing the strange mix of polling we're seeing.

The first problem with Gallup and Newsweek - too much movement. There is simply politically no real reason to expect such a drastic swing in numbers - unless there is a bigger problem with polling methodology. Are we seeing numbers that were too large for Bush then, or too low now, or both?

Compare now the Pew poll, a poll usually considered a hair biased toward the Democrat ticket, shows Bush up by five. As does ABC/WaPost.

PoliPundit points out a problem that we discussed about regional polling and party identification - polling the West Coast is unlikely to give you a sample applicable to the rest of the country.

Distrust rapid movement in polls, it's likely jello sloshing in the mold...

Fallout Shelter

We'd like to find one to hide from all the debate fallout...

As the post-debate debate continues, some early measurements are showing what the public and campaigns are thinking.

Early polls show the public thinks Kerry outperformed Bush in the debate - and on style points, we concur. Polls are showing a solid 10-15 point advatage for Kerry on this question - expect this to rise as the herd mentality takes over. Nobody like to think Bush won if everyone else thinks Kerry won...

Yet the campaigns are already showing what will be remembered from this debate. And as we noted yesterday, the most enduring epithet from the debate will be "global test". Talk radio is already abuzz, and Bush has already seized upon it in his campaign stump speech (again, as we noted).

DNC videos are already showing the President's perturbed looks during the debate, but they are expecting too much from this - Al Gore got in trouble for his expressions because it fed an image Americans already had of him as an uptight and wonkish know-it-all.

Expect "global test" to appear in commercials, and in the VP and next Presidential debate. The Kerry "victory" in the debate will end up being a Pyrrhic one...

Why Bush Won

It's not what you might think...

The post debate spinmills are running full tilt, but what was otherwise a decent though at times blase' debate gave Bush more than Kerry. While Kerry will be energized at having perhaps avoided a knockout, and from an uneven and uninspired performance from the President, it's Bush that has some stones for his sling.

What happens in the days following a debate are as important as the debate itself. Kerry can continue on message, decrying the Iraq war and questioning the President's handling of it. But nothing Bush said in the debate gives Kerry a new handle, nothing new to swing back at the President.

On the other hand, a few of Kerry's statements are sure to appear in the Bush stump speech and in a Bush/Cheney commercial coming to a screen near you. First and foremost will be Kerry's words about a "global test" - this is a typical Kerry statement, full of nuance and senatorial aplomb that is an outright political stinker. Bush nailed him on it during the debate, and you'll see this replayed over and over.

To a lesser degree, Kerry's statement on giving nuclear fuel to Iran is both preposterous and dangerously naive, considering it sounds eerily reminscent of the policy tack used with North Korea. This doesn't have the sexy quick savvy of the "global test" line though, it's more grist for the deeper mills of talk radio or political junkie discourse. More of the same is Kerry's pledge to unilaterally stop researching low-yield deep-penetration nuclear weapons - this smacks of the nuclear freeze, and argues for a political moral equivalence between US nuclear goals and Iranian ones. Again, not the quick, easy to swallow bitesized morsel of "global test", but on a deeper level it reinforces a negative stereotype Kerry has had to overcome, that of a Cold War accomodationist and unilateral disarmer.

In the debate itself, Kerry demonstrated an even keel and good command of issues, and a decent temperment, but never really swung for the fences. Bush had a far more uneven performance, hitting big shots but then seeming adrift and repetitive at times. But there likely won't be Bush quotes on upcoming Kerry commercials, whereas there will definitely be a "global test" ad coming to a small screen near you.

Kerry gave President Bush more rope that he didn't tie off, but that will be noosed for Kerry in the next few days...

Massachussetts Liberal

Polling, party identification, turnout models, and getting it right...

Much has been made of polling lately, with the trailing candidate often questioning methodology, and going so far in fact that the reactionaries at MoveOn.org have assailed the Gallup organization and their methodology.

The biggest reason polling numbers, turnout models, and party identification are so contentious is that the sample sizes in most polls are far too small, and far too scattered, to get an accurate poll that reflects regional differences with national assumptions.

For instance, take a 1000 voter sample size, with an assumption of say 33% Democrat turnout, and 32% Republican. Now, that's only 330 Democrats. Now, how are you going to disperse that across the nation? That's an average of only 6 Democrats per state. And while surely you will get far more Democrats asked in New York than in Iowa - is it not obvious to everyone that Iowa Democrats are a very different breed from New York Democrats? The larger sample in the larger state will flavor the poll toward the larger state's political predilections - simply stated, you'd get far different numbers polling 330 New York Democrats than you would 330 Texas Democrats, and that shows up in the poll results.

Does anyone think a 18 voter cull in Wisconsin gives an accurate representation of that state's political breakdown?

Add in the uncertainty of turnout models, which are very much in question considering the high interest level in this election, the aftermath of the 2000 election, and new voter registration drives, and you get varying expectations that may turn out to be very wrong on election day.

Burning Man

Is my eyesight going, or is John Kerry looking darker?

Is this another Botox moment? A little pre-debate spit and shoe polish?

For a moment I thought the Democrats nominated George Hamilton...

UPDATE: Drudge has picked it up and has a much better picture, showing how off-color Kerry is. His head is so orange that someone's going to carve a Jack-O'-Lantern out of it...

Here She Comes Again

When she's dancing 'neath the starry sky...ooh, she'll make you flip...

On the HMS John Kerry, it's clear Teresa is the boat anchor.

In the last few months, she's told a reporter to shove it, called people who don't want her husband's health care plan idiots, called her critics scumbags, said that people who want Bush re-elected want four more years of hell...

Now, she has dropped the suggestion that the Bush administration is sitting on Osama In-A-Box, waiting to crank the handle and have him spring up in October.

Teresa is killing the Kerry campaign. Oh mind you, she's not doing nearly as much damage as the candidate's own incoherence on Iraq, or inability to connect with middle America, or poorly thought out campaign strategy. She's simply added ballast water on a sinking ship. These outbreaks suck the oxygen from the room, eat into newscast time that now won't be doing something positive on Kerry, and generally feeds into the notion of the couple as aloof and disconnected from the masses.

Since the advent of widespread television viewing, the most "likable" candidate has won. Teresa is making John Kerry more unlikable.

Might we recommend the Kerry campaign look into one of these? Or this?

Poll Position

Weren't polls one of the plagues of Pharoah?

Just when the Kerry campaign felt they could pull the covers back down from over their head, Gallup comes out with a whopper sure to put a scare into them.

Following some questionable Pew and Harris results - showing a dead heat when not even the Kerry people believe it - this poll seems far too high for the President. This is a true post-convention bounce poll - no Democrat is going to poll just 40% at the polls, even Walter Mondale got that in 1984. With turnout models and likely voter screening being scattershot, these polls are going to be all over the place.

Let's cut to the chase. The President is at a six point lead - where we predicted the final result would be. Barring any remarkable turn of events, this will be where the election ends up, around 52-46 or 51-45. State polling shows the available pool of battleground states is shrinking on Kerry, and the new battlegrounds are ones he didn't want to worry about - such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Now that states like Iowa, Minnesota, and New Jersey are close, Kerry's team has to watch these states closely, and may need to make stops and spend money in states they wanted to carry on Democrat tendencey coattails.

For any candidate, the polls are rarely as good as they look, or as bad as they look...

Mouth Runneth Over

Cheney draws too fine a point, puts out an eye...

The Vice President today made some off-the-cuff remarks that probably didn't end up the way he would have liked.

Cheney's remarks, which appeared to be totally extemporaneous, discussed the history of foreign policy decisions that helped win the Cold War, and managed to chew shoe leather by coming to a conclusion and then leaping from it. Several choice points to conclude his comments passed, making an avalanche out of a rolling stone:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, [Stop here Dick, point made] because if we make the wrong choice [Uh oh, Danger Will Robinson!] then the danger is that we'll get hit again [STOP! Code Red!] and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States [AIGGH! Run for it!]"

This is a classic case of a politician with diarrhea of the mouth. The Kerry campaign unboxed little Johnny Edwards (there's just something so Quayle-like about him) who rightly nailed Cheney on this.

Cheney can make his case that his ticket will be better in the war on terror than his opponents than by making a vote for Kerry the breaking of the seventh seal...

Say What?

Kerry continues his incoherence on Iraq...

With polling emerging that shows Bush with a solid lead over Kerry as the candidates race the back stretch and approach the clubhouse turn, Kerry has moved toward a more provocative difference with the White House on Iraq, creating a real mess of his position on the war in Iraq, and is likely to gain little.

Kerry's position has evolved recently from a guarded similarity with Bush, stating at the August 5th UNITY conference remarking that knowing what we know now "You bet we might have" gone into Iraq, itself incoherent but at least plausibly indicating a forceful confrontation with Iraq, to a spirited defense that he "voted to hold [Saddam] accountable and continues to believe that it was the right thing to do", to his statement to the American Legion that when it came to Iraq, he "would have done almost everything differently", to today's iteration, which is now full circle on Iraq, saying "It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time".

This latest statement of course begs the question - why on Earth did you vote for it then? It also echoes of a war past, and anyone with spare time and a LexisNexis account may find this isn't the first time he's mentioned such words...

We noted that the Kerry campaign was veering left, likely on advice from his staff, and this appears to be part and parcel of the attempt to draw a distinction between the candidates, which is what a challenger, and a losing one especially, must do. The problem is that Kerry has made his bed on Iraq, with tough talk in the 90's and leading to the final measure to remove Saddam, his vote to authorize force to depose him, and his subsequent half-hearted and equivocated but nonetheless passable support.

The other component that doesn't get as much attention but is just as if not more offensive is the continued disdain of the other nations supporting the US in Iraq, and today Kerry offered his most derisive and insulting statement yet, calling the coalition helping the US "the phoniest thing I ever heard." Phony as Christmas in Cambodia? Easter in Tehran? Arbor Day in Damascus?

While consistently underplayed in the media, this is a seriously offensive line to take with countries who have people dying in Iraq. And as Kerry offers timetables of six months to four years on withdrawals, he would do well to remember that said withdrawals are based on the assumption of additional troops from other nations, who are sure to appreciate Kerry's kind words for our current allies.

This is all new Iraq language showing Kerry thinks he is behind, long term, so he must reshuffle the deck and play a new hand. The problem is, these cards are not going to draw a hand high enough to beat an incumbent President. His strongest suit is domestic issues, but seeing Bush's pile of foreign policy chips Kerry can't resist playing his hand for them.

Americans are willing to elect a President who supported the Iraq war. Americans are willing to elect a President who opposed the Iraq war. Americans will not, however, elect a President who cannot decide between them.

The good news is, if Kerry's talking about Iraq, at least he's not talking about Viet Nam...

UPDATE: The President returns fire here...

Now You Tell Me

Sometimes advice is too little, too late...

The Drudge Report is reporting that President Clinton spoke with John Kerry from his hospital room for some 90 minutes, and among the other advice offered was to "stop talking about Viet Nam".

So NOW he tells him...

The cat is out of the bag on this one. As we predicted, McCain has folded up his defense of Kerry like a lawn chair. Kerry going after Cheney's record directly and Bush's by inference has put Kerry's own record on the table. While Bush himself has said Kerry's service supercedes his own, Bush isn't the one scoring direct hits on Kerr'y record, it's the Swift Vets.

Had Kerry heeded this advice earlier, he could have avoided his midnight serenade after the Bush speech that has drawn mostly negative reviews, ours included.

But another question arises - should anyone take campaign advice from Bill Clinton? Clinton's been something of a touch-of-death for candidates other than himself. Clinton campaign tactics work well... for Clinton. The problem with Kerry's candidacy is Kerry, and that he's relied on one thing - not being George Bush - to carry him to this point. At no point has he really had to be anything but.

When the White House was struggling with poor communication and bad news through the summer, that's enough, but when the White House shoots itself in the foot, you can't depend on them to reload and do it again...

Exit - Stage Left

Back on the road, Kerry takes his campaign bus, veers left across the political median and into oncoming traffic...

With his campaign twisting in the wind, John Kerry scheduled a midnight kickoff to his campaign's resumption, and got it off to a start by swerving his campaign across the political center median and trying to make some mileage driving on the left side of the road.

"I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could've and who misled America into Iraq."

Uh oh. Kerry surely has the right to some righteous indignation, even if only politically, having been touched up pretty well at the Republican convention. But going after the Viet Nam record of Bush or Cheney is going to cost you the cover McCain is providing, who currently protects Kerry's right flank against direct attack even from the Swift Vets, at least on his Viet Nam service proper. This rhetoric, especially the movenon.org/Deaniac line about "misled America" is going to perhaps endear you to the base, and perhaps silence internal criticism, but it's not going to get the speedometer past 45...

"Well, I'm going to leave it up to the voters to decide whether five deferments make someone more qualified than two tours of duty."

The rubicon has been passed now, and we've popped the bus up on the median to boot. Kerry can no longer take the high road - perhaps he felt either an irresistable urge or irresistable pressure to get down to the who/how/where of Viet Nam service. But it's game now, and the days of "we respect John Kerry's service", even if lip service, are likely over. And while Dick Cheney may have received five deferments, he simply received what Kerry himself had sought, and you'll not convince voters that Cheney isn't a tough SOB regardless.

"Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead our country. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this country. Letting 45 million Americans go without health care for four years makes you unfit to lead this country."

We're still driving on the median, but at least after the Iraq line Kerry is at least drifting back onto a drivable lane. Nothing unusual about tagging Bush on the economy or health care.

"Letting the Saudi royal family control the price of oil for Americans makes you unfit to lead this country. Handing out billions of dollars in government contracts without a bid to Halliburton while you're still on the payroll makes you unfit lead this country."

Kerry has channelled the spirit of both Al Gore and Howard Dean, yanked the wheel away hard left like Gilligan from the Skipper on the SS Minnow, and is now racing into oncoming traffic. The Saudi bogeyman and Halliburton in a quick one-two punch would make a typical DemocraticUnderground signature line, but playing in Peoria it ain't. Internal polling must be trending long term very badly to embrace lines of attack that are more the product of sleep-deprivation or a bad reaction to medicine than effective political strategy.

Kerry, frankly, has been given some good advice, but executed it badly. Going on an issue offensive is a good idea. Making the issue the Saudi's and Halliburton and Dick Cheney's Viet Nam deferments is not, and sounds more Michael Moorean than Machiavellian.

If these issues were winners, it'd be Dean that was running against Bush...

The Real Bush

In a speech that had everything, Bush starts slow, but finds a winner...

Securing a TKO in the battle of the conventions, the Republican convention wrapped in New York with the latest-most-important speech of the President's career, his acceptance of his nomination for President.

Governor George Pataki gave an effective but not too remarkable introduction to the President. Fred Thompson, retired Senator from Tennessee and current actor on NBC's Law & Order, narrated a very effective film short setting the stage for the President's arrival. The evocation of the memories of the President during 9/11 were done well, and when done by Pataki and Giuliani, done with an air of invincibility against the charge of exploitation.

The President came out clearly in his element in front of a very friendly crowd, and while much was made of the change in the podium, to a 'theatre in the round' format, the effect was not at all what many expected - a standard podium arose at which the President spoke throughout his speech. No impromptu motion, no at-ease sit down with the crowd.

Bush clearly didn't endear himself to fiscal conservatives with his laundry list presentation during the first third of his speech - support, enact, fund, empower - a laundry list that not only won't please his base, but also isn't Bush at his best. Bush doesn't read the grocery list well. While many consider the list perfunctory, Bush is far, far better speaking in the abstract, rather than the steady cadence of public need, public program, public need, public program...

Bush's speechwriters have to know their candidate by now. The listener can tell when Bush feels like he's doing a homework assignment by giving a speech. This part of his speech needed to be shorter, and frankly, dedicated to setting out a brief history of accomplishment and then a set of two or three solid goals to dedicate himself to. The President's campaign has poorly stated it's domestic success. In 2000, the Bush campaign made three major domestic promises: cut taxes, reform education, and prescrption drug benefits for seniors. The President delivered all three, and agree with the goals or not, and many on both sides of the political spectrum have reason to dislike them all, they are a record of remarkable accomplishment for a President who lost the popular vote and squeaked in with a razor thin electoral college margin. By stating these successes, he can state three other goals, and have the success in this term self-argue his case for his second term. By softselling, Bush will force a fight on domestic issues piecemeal.

Bush doesn't begin to stretch his legs until after his shameless web site plug (everyone has a web site nowadays, and even the President has fallen prey to the crack-like addicting power of the hit counter).

All it takes to get Bush on a roll is the subject of 9/11 and the war on terror. Few men in this world will ever know their true calling, but George Bush found his. The normally inelegant speaker finds an eloquence and perfect pitch on this topic, and tonight, Bush ran this one all the way back:

This moment in the life of our country will be remembered. Generations will know if we kept our faith and kept our word. Generations will know if we seized this moment, and used it to build a future of safety and peace. The freedom of many, and the future security of our Nation, now depend on us. And tonight, my fellow Americans, I ask you to stand with me.

This is brilliant political rhetoric. In order for a personal appeal to work, the person making the appeal must establish a cache of goodwill and a personal connection. While a more polished speaker can follow this up with extemporaneous appeals, Bush's no-nonsense personal appeal works because - many voters find him personally appealing, even if differing on issues.

Bush is rolling now - you can hear it in his voice, his words come easier as he is thinking them, not reading them. The teleprompter is just that - a prompt, not a script. He pokes fun at himself, with the brilliant line "Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called 'walking'." Bush successfully washes away some of the smug certitude that some find in his persona, and keeps his personal connection to the audience, for the coming emotional gut punch.

The Bush speech hits it's emotional crescendo with these remarks from Bush:

I've held the children of the fallen, who are told their dad or mom is a hero, but would rather just have their dad or mom. And I have met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers -- to offer encouragement to me. Where does strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride?

The President is visibly moved during these words - his eyes are teared, his face is clearly pained, not from theatre, but in a raw, unvarnished emotional response. It is in this moment he gains from his greatest advantage over John Kerry in this campaign - his ability to connect emotionally, gut level, with voters. Policy agreements fade in the face of a drawn, tearful President recounting raw emotion in the context of the loved and lost.

Bush concludes his remarks with quality, even lyrical/biblical remarks - in fact, almost breaking into Turn, Turn, Turn, which itself was lifted from Ecclesiastes - and closes what will likely be seen as a very successful convention.

Airborne Assault

Swift Boat Vets get air support...

Russ, veteran of the 101st Airborne in Viet Nam (soft spot for the airborne here), modernizes Kipling and joins the fray. Some nice topical work - anyone who can work filling out form 180 into a Kipling redux gets respect...

Johnny
(With apologies to Mr. Kipling and the British Army)

Johnny went public with ?is boasts, an? ?ero without fear,
?Til sudden like the Swifties say, ?We got a turncoat ?ere.?
The Libs they just ignored ?em, sayin? ?Ah, it?s all a lie!?
Then Johnny?s outted by their ads an? to myself says I:

Oh it?s Johnny this an? Johnny that, ?e?s the ?ero of the day.
But it?s wait now, Mr. Kerry, what?s that record really say?
The horns are loudly blowin? boys as our band begins to play,
An? it?s goodbye, Mr. Kerry, as they blow your arse away.

Johnny goes to Cincinnati sober as a man can be,
An? they give ol? George a ?Bravo Lad!? but John no sympathy.
They give ?im plain their message, sittin? silent in the ?alls,
That when it comes to fightin? men, they know oo?s got the balls.

For it?s Johnny this an? Johnny that, but wait, he might ?a lied
From the platform of his campaign train an? on the Boston tide.
His ship is on the tide, my boys, his ship is on the tide,
An? it?s plain as day she?s sinkin? boys, because the turncoat lied.

Yes Johnny mocked our uniforms that guard you while you sleep.
He cheapened all our medals throwing his upon that heap;
An? rustlin? up his phony troops, he led them for a bit,
Until his aspirations and theirs no longer fit.

Now it?s Johnny this an? Johnny that, an? Johnny how?s yer soul,
In that brave front rank of ?eroes as our drums begin their roll?
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
An? they?ll keep right on a rollin? boys, ?til we chuck ?im in the hole.

We make no claim as ?eroes, nor we aren?t no blackguards too,
But ?onorable men an? warriors fightin? once agin for you.
An? if your ?ero?s record, our charges soundly taint,
That?s what we?re tryin? to tell you blokes, your ?ero ain?t no saint.

For it?s Johnny this an? Johnny that, an? ?Check him out, the Loot!?
Was ?e the ?Savior of ?is country? when the guns begin to shoot?
Now it?s Johnny?s turn to prove us wrong, an? make us all out liars,
By signin? that one eighty form an? puttin out the fires.

Oh it?s Johnny this an? Johnny that, ?e?s the ?ero of the day,
But it?s hold on, Mr. Kerry, what?s that record really say?
The horns are loudly blowin? boys, as our band begins to play,
?Cheerio, Old Man,? to Johnny and blows his arse away.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

Round Two

Arnold keeps the momentum from Monday rolling...and wins another round for the GOP...

On the second night of Republican convention speeches, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger kept the strong momentum from the Giuliani and McCain speeches going.

Arnold both gained and received something at the convention. He lent his considerable star power and personal gravitas with voters usually outside the system or usually independent to both President Bush and the Republican party, and in return received his bona fides from the Republican party national apparatus.

His campaign in California was oddly not closely embraced by the Bush team - this seemed somewhat awkward, considering Arnie campaigned for Bush's father in 1988. While perhaps not wanting to play favorites, Bush was very restrained in his praise. This perhaps explained some reluctance from Schwarzenegger to vigorously endorse the President - that, and his likely disillusionment that somehow Bush would extend to California federal grist for the Sacramento budget mill.

Arnold's speech was very personal, like Rudy Giuliani's speech. It definitely picked up as it went along, and was effective in inviting non-traditional Republicans into the Republican party.

The Bush twins were a mixed bag. While cutting their public teeth, their teething pains showed, but how many of us are on national television for the first time at 22? Still, they do have some party-hardy appeal to young voters, and can help soften the edge of being a hip Bush supporter.

Laura's speech was solid, but clearly aimed at selling the President to women. To women concerned about Bush's more rugged, renegade image, Laura can assure them that if she can trust him - they can trust him too.

After two rounds, the Republican convention is leading on points. You get the feeling that the GOP bench is just overpoweringly deep. A furiously strong first round of Giuliani and McCain easily bested an uneven Democrat effort of a strong rhetorical round from President Clinton mated with a mealy, weak-kneed President Carter. The second round again solidly favors the Republican convention, with a fence-swinging Arnold beating a very good but celebrity starved speech from Barack Obama, and with Laura Bush putting the wood to feisty but utterly weird at times Teresa Heinz.

Oh, make that Heinz-Kerry, just not on tax day...

Shalom

On the first night, Giuliani makes a major play for the Jewish vote...

More in depth analysis of tonights speeches will be forthcoming, but what I have not yet heard from analysts is the very, very strong play that former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani made for the American Jewish vote.

He brought up the Munich Olympics attack, an event few people under 35 even know about, and then put PLO ne'er-do-well (by the way, this word IS a site favorite) Yasser Arafat in his sights. Next, he took Kerry to task for his flip-flop on the Israeli security wall.

This was red meat for American Jews...and prepared kosher...

Frip Frop

How do you say flip-flop in Korean?

Allan at Just On The Other Side examines Kerry's 'flexibility' on Korean troop levels, and elsewhere...

In an August 1st television interview on ABC's "This Week", John Kerry advocated troop redeployment with potential reductions in South Korea and Europe. But when President Bush announced a large scale redeployment plan that contained the same withdrawals and redeployments, Kerry criticized it, as an AP wire story reports:

"Let's be clear: The president's vaguely stated plan does not strengthen our hand in the war against terror, and in no way relieves the strain on our overextended military personnel."

It is hard to imagine Bob Dole - like Kerry, a war veteran and long-serving Senator - heckling President Clinton in a similar fashion.

In the 1998 standoff with Iraq, Kerry was quite the hawk- repeatedly calling for tough action if Saddam Hussein failed to comply with international inspectors. In the run up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Kerry again stood firm on the need to remove Saddam.

But after he began serious designs on the Oval Office, Kerry stuck his finger in the wind and decided what will bring him the most Democratic support - opposing the war. Thus, we have the 'I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it' flip-flop.

We have no way of knowing which Kerry to believe. Democratic party strategists undoubtedly suggest attacking President Bush whenever possible. If Bush says the sky is blue, Kerry is advised to disagree.

Leaders must advance a vision, a set of ideals that they hope to see reflected in the world around them. Kerry flip-flops because he must - he is not a leader or great visionary, around whom party loyalists will flock.

Kerry's political compass at times resembles nothing more than a thermometer - which is useless in preparing the nation for the long haul - be it a year or a decade ahead.

- Wrttien by Allan at JOTOS

The Quarter Billion Dollar Man

Whoever loses, it isn't for lack of money...

Both President Bush and John Kerry each took in nearly a quarter-billion dollars prior to their respective conventions, in an election that seems is being fought with everything but the kitchen sink, unless it's not bolted down.

With a half-billion on the table, the stakes are clearly high. This doesn't include national committee money, nor money given to 527 issues groups like moveon.org and Club For Growth. Another 527, the Swift Vets, have gotten the most bang for their buck, and with just a couple million dollars raised have dominated political headlines for weeks now.

McCain-Feingold was another well intentioned brick in the path to Hell. Many decried it as infringing on free speech, while others defended it as neccessary to clean up advertising and get the soft money out of politics. Well, it certainly hasn't infringed on free speech, at least so far, and surely hasn't cleaned up advertising and gotten the soft money out of politics. This should have been clearly visible to everyone working on the bill - the money they were attempting to shut out of the process wasn't going to simply disappear. As the blackout window for 527 ads approaches, we'll see how limiting that window is, or more likely, how it is evaded...

Whoever is elected will be the best President money can buy...

Il Postino

Democrats send a man with no legs to deliver a message to President Bush...

In one of the more craven stunts in recent political memory, Senate Democrats sent triple-amputee and former Senator Max Cleland to Crawford, Texas to deliver a letter to the President regarding the ongoing Swift Boat vets accusations and political activities.

Good Lord.

The envelope could have contained a pirate's treasure map for all it was worth, the real message was the postman, not the postage. Using Cleland as a prop is pretty low. The White House, well aware of the coming stunt - and that word is used in total context - had a letter of their own prepared, and a local representative and veteran was on site to receive the Democrats letter and give Cleland a letter for Kerry.

Of course, much of this is devolved from the specious claim that Max Cleland lost because his "patriotism was questioned" by his opponent, a meme that has gotten so bad it now appears as a factual aside in print:

"Cleland lost his own 2002 bid in Georgia for re-election to the U.S. Senate after a bitter campaign in which Republicans questioned his patriotism. Cleland lost both his legs and one arm while serving in Vietnam."

This is at the end of the story, and is presented as if it were objectively factual background information. Max Cleland lost because he was a Democrat in an increasingly conservative state. But Reuters acts as if he lost his re-election bid when Republican jingoists knocked him from his wheelchair and beat him unconscious with an artificial limb...

As for how the Cleland Express story turns out, Cleland kept his letter undelivered, and no letters were exchanged:

"I tried to accept that letter and he would not give it to me," said (Bush representative) Patterson. "He would not face me. He kept rolling away from me. He's quite mobile."

Again, Good Lord.

Poll Vaulting

The finals are in November, these preliminary heats aren't telling us much...

While a new LA Times poll shows President Bush vaulting ahead in the polling horse race, the jelloshaking numbers don't yet really tell us anything too predictive about the future.

Polling has become a national obsession. We admit to being addicted to Dale's Electoral College Breakdown, the best state polling compendium on the web, though we are always disturbed by his against-the-grain color choice. But at this stage, we are just shaking jello in the mold - nothing is really moving to a position it's going to hold just yet.

While the Times, often not a credible independent news source, does paint a harsh picture for Kerry, it also fails to account for the realities of voter behavior. For instance, their latest poll shows Bush capturing 15% of Democrats. Which is substantial, but party faithful tend to return to the flock as election day closes and as local races and candidates move their votes toward a straighter ticket.

The Times then reports Kerry has good news, as they report that the five percent of voters who are undecided are overwhelmingly negative on the direction of the country, Iraq, and Bush's policies. So, the good news is that people who think the country is heading to hell in a handbasket, who don't like Bush's policies and think Iraq is a big mess, that these people are undecided is good news? What's the issue to tip them over the edge, pictures of Bush at an annual puppy-drowning? That Kerry can't close these voters should be a concern, not a confidence.

The important number is job approval - and Bush is in the shallow end of the safe pool. With the Republican convention coming, the polls will start to shake out about two weeks afterward. Polls prior to the convention are extraordinarily volatile. Expect to get a good feel for the race at the end of September.

Until then, you're betting on qualifying heats where nobody shows their true stripes...

Dole Goes Bananas

Had to use that title now, we aren't ever likely to have a Senator Chiquita...

As the Swift Vets story continues to swirl around the Presidential campaign, former Republican Senator and Presidential candidate Bob Dole weighed in, and took a few shots at Kerry and the Vietnamization of his campaign.

Dole clearly has had this controversy in his mental forefront for a while. Kerry invited this level of scrutiny by integrating his Viet Nam story so closely with his campaign - attempts by the Kerry to deflect this utter truth are fallacious. Stating that Kerry took it "too far", Dole clearly feels bitterness toward Kerry's postwar activities, recommending that Kerry may owe veterans of that war, and in general, something of an apology.

But Dole, always acerbic in his political life, turned that nibble into a bite by bringing up Kerry's Purple Heart-shortened tour of duty.

While Dole's statement about Kerry's war injuries, "...three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of", is of course intrinsically false - surely there was blood, after all - it's not a literal statement, but really a rhetorical one. Kerry had a very brief tour of active duty in Viet Nam, which was enabled due to Navy regulations allowing those with three Purple Hearts to ask for non-active assignment. Dole's point clearly is that anyone who get's three Purple Hearts but never misses any duty is capitalizing on a very liberal definition of "war injury". And Dole, who has had a relatively useless arm due to Nazi machine gun fire, has the Valhalla street cred to pull off the statement.

The Kerry campaign gently deflected Dole's remarks, and wisely so. They continued however to try and hang the Swift Vets ads around the President. Even though the President has repeatedly praised John Kerry's service, there has been no reciprocation whatsoever.

Even if Kerry thinks it's just lip service from Bush, it would look better for him to give a little lip service back.

Vets Gone Wild

Banned in 36 countries! Or if the Kerry campaign has it's way, at least one...

Deciding the best way to fight the fire developing around his campaign and criticism from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was to throw kerosene on it, the Kerry campaign has filed a complaint with the FEC.

Ignoring good advice to let the media fight on his behalf, the complaint alleges the Swift Vets have coordinated their efforts with the Bush campaign, which the Bush campaign vehemently denies, and which frankly the Kerry campaign has no proof of. This provides another headline, looks defensive, and keeps the story on the front burner. So why do it? The Kerry campaign has decided the best way to deal with this is to tie the Swift Vets ads to Bush, and then rail against the President about their fairness.

As we noted earlier, the media was disinclined to air the Swift Vets grievances, and we advised Kerry to let the media ignore the story. They did so, in fact much of the media ignored Christmas in Cambodia, and it wasn't until the Washington Post had enough material to create a skeptical article about the Swift Vets that they actually mentioned their existence.

The Swift Vets have released a new ad, and frankly, this television spot is far, far more damaging politically for Kerry. With the prior ad questioning the veracity of some of Kerry's wartime claims, the Kerry campaign was able to depend on corroborating testimony from other veterans to bolster Kerry's credibility and cast doubt on the Swift Vets accusations. The new advertisement, however, affords no such luxury, as it consists solely of veterans talking about Kerry's own statements that are audibly played throughout the commercial.

This ad, not the previous one, is the type most likely to unfloat Kerry's boat...

First, Know Thyself

Kerry Campaign would like to buy a vowel...is there an 'E' ?

As issues churn in the campaign for President, shots between Bush and Kerry regarding intelligence overhauls, the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and Kerry's Senate record have resulted in a self-inflicted wound for the Kerry campaign.

The Bush campaign has made issue of Kerry's attendance in intelligence hearings and his record in the Senate, in response to which the Kerry campaign publicized material emphasizing Kerry's strong points on intelligence, including his service as vice-chairman on the Senate Select committee for intelligence.

Indeed, Senator Kerrey, decorated Viet Nam veteran, was vice-Chairman. Senator Bob Kerrey, that is, he of 9/11 Commission fame and interrogative infamy. The Kerry campaign should have a pretty strong blush on such a foolish mistake - this isn't simply mistyping the name, this is actually claiming actions of another.

While this certainly is the result of laziness of lower staff, and Kerry has never himself claimed the position by his own voice, it's the kind of foolishness that hurts and can build negative momentum. You'd have thought that surely someone with the campaign knows the Senator's record, and that he wasn't the vice-chair of the committee.

Instead of a strong rebuttal to the Bush campaign, it in fact reinforces the accussation of a lazy disconnectedness between Kerry and his past activity in intelligence matters.

Christmas In Cambodia

The warmest summer of my life was the winter I spent in Cambodia...

Some of John Kerry's more colorful statements about his time in Viet Nam are getting some increased scrutiny, and his claim of Christmas In Cambodia is not sampanning out.

This is an excellent example of "rhetorical creep", where what a person knows or did is conflated with other elements that are plausible but not in context in order to make a more flourished, impactful statement. It is almost never necessary, and when exposed, actually diminishes the true elements. Christmas in Viet Nam in 1968 is plenty compelling - but adding an air of covertness and danger, and integrating a policy critique, Kerry states that he was actually in Cambodia, a pawn in a geopolitical game of intrigue and hijinx, and a statement that appears to be outright false.

The potential negative impact for Kerry is high. His Viet Nam service is an absolute plus, but not if we begin to find embellishments and overstatements. People rarely compartmentalize when making judgements about trustworthiness, and when it comes to politicians, even less so. If you give someone cause to dismiss part of your story, you give them cause to dismiss all of it.

Second, you never mess with a winning hand. Playing in the big game is impressive - but saying you were the game-winning MVP only to discover you were just a member of the team takes a winning hand and overplays it. When you have a strong hand, you underplay it, and let others paint the larger than life picture for you. Let someone else overstate your case for you.

If someone else makes you out to be be bigger than you are, it's just adulation and hero-worship. If you make yourself out to be bigger than you are, it's hubris and narcissism.

Get Thee The Amish Vote

Amish swept up by "Bush Fever" - Quaker, Mennonite vote still in play...

In the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, Republicans have targeted the Amish community for voter outreach and registration, and the Amish have apparently responded, with one Amish farmer reporting that the Amish are "sort of swept up with Bush fever."

That's all. I mean, is it surprising a rural, white, conservative religious group finds George Bush appealing as their candidate? Or that the Republican party is out to get their vote? This hard-hitting article concludes that "Democrats have all but ceded the Amish vote to Republicans" - now that's cutting-edge political news!

Hey, I guess at least they aren't trying to keep felons on the voter rolls...

We just know this will be our only chance to use 'Amish' and 'Mennonite' in our commentary this year...

Tender Mercies

The metrosexual commander-in-chief...

In a speech to the Unity Conference, a gathering of minority reporters (surely a double-whammy to Republicans), John Kerry made some curious remarks regarding the war on terror.

Well reported was the ill-advised shot Kerry took regarding the moments Bush was informed of the attack on the WTC - his own wife disagreed with his assessment in a Hardball interview. But not as widely reported - and in fact almost impossible to find doing a search - was the following quote from Kerry on the war on terror:

"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."

One of these clauses is not like the other ones, one of these clauses is not the same...

Take out "war on terror" and substitute AIDS policy, racial policy, economic policy, almost any policy, and you have fairly typical stump-speak, flourished applause lines that are designed to sell the notion that the speaker can improve upon the current situation.

But "war on terror" doesn't fit. The notion of a "sensitive" war is quite an eyebrow raiser. Kerry can ill-afford to make statements which will contrast with Bush's strength - the war on terror. Kerry has a case to make, but not by attempting to create the impression of a kindler, gentler wartime leader.

Swift Kick In The Ass

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth sneak attack...

In an new chapter of the campaign sure to draw intense rhetoric, a group of veterans has come out against John Kerry's candidacy, and call into question Kerry's actions and service in Viet Nam.

The ad, in which various veterans who served with - but not directly under - Kerry criticize his leadership and his version of events, will be run in battleground states, and is coupled with a new book, Unfit For Command.

This is dangerous territory, for both candidates. George Bush does not want to be in the position of attacking what John Kerry did in Viet Nam - because at least he was actually in Viet Nam, which puts Bush at a disadvantage. Additionally, these types of accusations are hard to prove, or disprove on either side, and while Bush is not running this ad, nor the GOP, he will be connected to it's message, regardless.

For Kerry, it's a danger because he has predicated his appeal to voters with his Viet Nam experience. To argue the age of the information is preposterous - their claims are no fresher than Kerry's. To argue it's relevancy is equally so, as Kerry has made no secret of his service, nor of bringing it up on the stump, nor bringing Viet Nam vets who support him on the campaign trail. The best retort is the support of those he served with, and the Green Beret who's life he saved. Directly attacking those running the ad will simply add fuel to the fire. Attacking who is running the ad is equally preposterous - who could run the ad that the Kerry campaign would not object to?

The media will be disinclined to give these Swift Boat Vets much air time - unless Kerry gives them reason to.

The Replacements

Senate candidate required, must include own carpetbag...

With Jack Ryan's departure from the Illinois Senate race, Republicans have been scrambling to find someone to run to try and salvage the Republican held seat being vacated due to the retirement of incumbent Peter Fitzgerald.

For a while, Mike Ditka was flirting with running - a strong, if strange candidate for Illinois. Deciding the time wasn't right, Ditka passed (football pun unintended), and the Party of Lincoln cannot seem to field a candidate in the Land of Lincoln.

It appears, however, that conservative Alan Keyes will parachute into Illinois to give Barack Obama someone to campaign against. Keyes has a history of running Senate campaigns, and losing ones at that, having twice failed in his home state of Maryland to capture a seat. Which of course lends to the charge of carpetbagging, which Keyes himself leveled against Hillary Clinton during her Senate campaign.

This is likely an effort that will garner Keyes some paid work (he paid himself a salary out of his previous campaign funds, in a very questionable move), force Obama to spend his money, and not simply hoard it, and just might make for an interesting debate. Barack Obama is a fine speaker, but he is vulnerable on issues - the death penalty, NAFTA, Iraq - which a very, very good debater in Keyes might exploit to make the race interesting.

Swinging A Dead Cat

You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a dead-cat-bounce poll...

Mimicking the same dead-cat-bounce that came from picking John Edwards as his VP choice, John Kerry is getting another such bounce from his nominating covention. This poll reflects the jello shake in the numbers that other polls such as Newsweek and Rasmussen are showing.

Bounces come from movements in the perception of the electorate - and in this cycle especially, minds are like concrete - often all mixed up, and permanently set. It is difficult to imagine a change in perception among voters, at least from a few nights of television coverage and analysis.

Additionally, the days of the huge bounce are likely over, save for drastic debate performances or revealing photos of a candidate with a bedpost goat. As information saturation occurs from 24-hour cable news commentary, Internet news outlets, talk radio, and the great number of Internet opinion sites (where are you reading this?), the days of a great many people coming into new information that changes perspectives on a candidate are waning.

In 2000, Bush got a bit of a bump from his convention, and Al Gore a fairly sizable one - but Gore's bump simply brought him back to even, as Bush was never going to win by double digits against Gore. With the poll results already approximating party and registration parity, the poll results slosh around in a shallow pool of independents, who right now simply aren't married to either candidate, and hence, the poll results simply ride waves of outliers and margins of error...

Expect that to change in a month or two - the race will break, one way or the other, and that break will create it's own momentum among those who aren't the party faithful. Whoever get's that wave, will ride it to victory...

The Perfect Storm

A storm knocks out the satellite and John Kerry for a half hour - but did we really miss anything?

Mother Nature herself intervened last night to knock out satellite reception in the area, and hence, we missed the middle of John Kerry's speech. Suprisingly, the weather did what an editor couldn't - shorten his remarks for the sake of brevity.

Having read the transcript of what was missed, some things are clear...

First, that Kerry should have ended with a salute, not began with it. He could even have carried that over to the campaign, because ending with it is far less immodest than beginning with it. When I saw it, I immediately thought Gomer Pyle...

Second, that Kerry gave little import to his Senate career, and is far more likely to play defense on this topic than offense.

Finally, that the centerpiece of the Kerry campaign will be the argument that the President is untrustworthy - that he misled the nation. This is not a particularly meritorious argument, but it works for Kerry in two ways: it connects with his party base's "Bush Lied!" meme, and it is an easy to understand argument to make to independent voters. Bush warned of WMD, there are none, ergo he lied and cannot be trusted.

The debate questioner who asks John Kerry if, now that he is in the same room with him, he wants to call George Bush a liar to his face, will gain historical notoriety...

Danger Will Robinson

The longest month of my life was the hour I spent watching Kerry...

Early reports have the John Kerry acceptance speech coming in at almost an hour in length.

Yikes!

Kerry is the kind of sonorous speaker that speaks in dog years - an hour of listening to him seems like seven. Doesn't make him a bad person, nor a bad potential president. But it does mean that brevity needs to always be preserved in order to maintain a freshness during his appearances. There is grave danger in letting him speak too long - a short, effective speech will help with reviewers who will be inclined to heap insult on injury for his perceived droll speaking mannerisms...

Vision Test

How many Americas am I holding up?

Keeping with the campaign theme of his Democrat primary run, John Edwards again exclaimed during his acceptance speech that there are two Americas - a night after Barack Obama declared at the same convention that we are all members of just one.

The charm of this approach works better in a Democrat primary than the general election. Hearing Edwards describe the "other America" like a scene from The Little Match Girl just doesn't ring altogether true.

It clashes with his own story, of coming from meager beginings to make something of himself, by his own hand and the hard work of his parents - as if such success for him precludes it from others. Did he make it from one America to the other? Or did he simply achieve in one America what others have done, are doing, and some fail to do? The externalizing of cause and consequence to the outside, to the environment, to being in the "wrong" America as the cause of one's plight, will play better with primary voters keen to the notion that there but for the grace of government go I...

It clashes with the story of Barack Obama, who remarked to general acclaim that this is one America, just the night before. Decrying the politics of division, Obama decried those who would try and segregate America into different camps - the very next night it appears.

And it certainly clashes with the notion that it's Republicans that are seeking to divide America... if arguing the notion that there are separate and unequal Americas is not divisive, what is?

This Ron Is Your Ron

The new GOP Convention song...

This Ron is your Ron...

This Ron is our Ron...

Which party got the better Ron Reagan? Methinks the answer clear...

Chutzpah

That's what it takes to have Carter lecture you on foreign policy...

The first night