Sunday, October 31, 2004
Looted Nuclear Material: Scarier than I Realized
Until I read this article in USATODAY.com, I was annoyed, and slightly flabergasted at the administration's lack of pre-war planning. After reading this article, I am OUTRAGED and scared. The military TOLD them they didn't have enough troops to secure the sites; the administration downplayed it, even "mocked it" according to this piece.
SEVEN major nuclear sites have been extensively looted. SEVEN. In one case, the International Atomic Energy Agency called D.C. and told us we needed to get our butts over to the Tuwaitha facility and we took two weeks to get there, by which time, 22 tons of uranium were missing -- more than enough to arm a dirty bomb.
And what can a nuclear-enabled dirty bomb do? Kill thousands. Render large areas uninhabitable for years.
But certainly nobody could get one of those things over here, could they? Well, apparently they can:
SEVEN major nuclear sites have been extensively looted. SEVEN. In one case, the International Atomic Energy Agency called D.C. and told us we needed to get our butts over to the Tuwaitha facility and we took two weeks to get there, by which time, 22 tons of uranium were missing -- more than enough to arm a dirty bomb.
And what can a nuclear-enabled dirty bomb do? Kill thousands. Render large areas uninhabitable for years.
But certainly nobody could get one of those things over here, could they? Well, apparently they can:
"Should an organization such as al-Qaeda acquire a dirty bomb, it is unlikelyHow is it that NO ONE has been fired over this stuff? This goes beyond incompetent. To me, this is criminal negligence.
authorities could keep it out of the U.S. or prevent it from being detonated.
Under such circumstances, a terrorist group would not even actually need to
possess a second device; it would merely just have to say one was planted in a
U.S. city. Imagine what the outbound highways would look like or the overall
effect on our economy, our security, our civil rights, our way of life."
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Swing State Endorsements
I thought it'd be interesting to see who the major papers in the battleground states are endorsing. A sampling:
Cincinnati: Bush
Cleveland: Decided Not to Endorse Either
Columbus: Bush
Dayton: Kerry
Toledo: Kerry
Palm Beach: Kerry
Miami: Kerry
Orlando Sentinel: Kerry
Daytona: Kerry
Minneapolis: Kerry
Detroit: Kerry
Grand Rapids: Bush
Tucson: Kerry
Phoenix: Bush
Little Rock: Bush
Denver Post: Bush
Rocky Mountain News (Denver): Bush
Des Moines: Kerry
Philadelphia: Kerry
Pittsburgh: Kerry
Chicago: Bush
Overall, Kerry leads with endorsements. According to the trade journal "Editor & Publisher," Kerry has won the endorsements of 128 papers across the country compared with 105 for Bush. And 35 newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000 switched to supporting Kerry this year.
And I know Georgia isn't a battleground state, but the AJC endorses Kerry.
Cincinnati: Bush
Cleveland: Decided Not to Endorse Either
Columbus: Bush
Dayton: Kerry
Toledo: Kerry
Palm Beach: Kerry
Miami: Kerry
Orlando Sentinel: Kerry
Daytona: Kerry
Minneapolis: Kerry
Detroit: Kerry
Grand Rapids: Bush
Tucson: Kerry
Phoenix: Bush
Little Rock: Bush
Denver Post: Bush
Rocky Mountain News (Denver): Bush
Des Moines: Kerry
Philadelphia: Kerry
Pittsburgh: Kerry
Chicago: Bush
Overall, Kerry leads with endorsements. According to the trade journal "Editor & Publisher," Kerry has won the endorsements of 128 papers across the country compared with 105 for Bush. And 35 newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000 switched to supporting Kerry this year.
And I know Georgia isn't a battleground state, but the AJC endorses Kerry.
Economist.com | America's next president
The Economist is a very conservative paper that still thinks the war in Iraq was a good idea.
"Invading Iraq was not a mistake. Although the intelligence about Saddam'sBut they're endorsing Kerry. Read why.
weapons of mass destruction has been shown to have been flimsy and, with
hindsight, wrong, Saddam's record of deception in the 12 years since the first
Gulf war meant that it was right not to give him the benefit of the doubt. "
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
MyPollingPlace.com
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Another Conservative Endorses Kerry
Allawi Blames Ambush on U.S. Negligence
The situation in Iraq continues to be terrible. Even the prime minister of that country takes issue with our management of things. Quote:
"Iraq's interim prime minister blamed the U.S.-led coalition Tuesday for 'great negligence' in the ambush that killed about 50 soldiers heading home after graduation from a U.S.-run training course, and warned of an escalation of terrorist attacks.
Prime Minister Ayad Allawi told the Iraqi National Council, a government oversight body, that coalition forces' negligent handling of security was responsible for Saturday's deadly ambush along a remote highway near the Iranian border."
We need to face the facts. Nation-building is a long, torturous goal. If we're going to do it (and it seems we have no choice), then let's commit the troops, involve our allies more, and get it over with. The more we keep one foot in and one foot out, the more the situation unravels. The insurgents know they have a foothold now and we're in just deep enough to sink.
"Iraq's interim prime minister blamed the U.S.-led coalition Tuesday for 'great negligence' in the ambush that killed about 50 soldiers heading home after graduation from a U.S.-run training course, and warned of an escalation of terrorist attacks.
Prime Minister Ayad Allawi told the Iraqi National Council, a government oversight body, that coalition forces' negligent handling of security was responsible for Saturday's deadly ambush along a remote highway near the Iranian border."
We need to face the facts. Nation-building is a long, torturous goal. If we're going to do it (and it seems we have no choice), then let's commit the troops, involve our allies more, and get it over with. The more we keep one foot in and one foot out, the more the situation unravels. The insurgents know they have a foothold now and we're in just deep enough to sink.
Monday, October 25, 2004
TIME Magazine: Why the Old Labels Don't Stick
If you're a conservative, don't vote for Bush cuz he's acting like a liberal and this article details how. If you're a liberal, don't vote for Kerry, cuz he's acting more like a conservative. Or, he's acting like Clinton fiscally but a moderate in the tradition of Bush Sr. and Colin Powell in foreign affairs.
I have been saying for sometime now that I don't understand how any true conservatives can vote for Bush. He hasn't met a spending bill he didn't like; he's run up record deficits; "nation-building" is generally anathema to conservatives, etc. The only way Bush is conservative is on social issues. If you define conservative as one who believes they should be legislated. True conservatives, of course, don't.
I have been saying for sometime now that I don't understand how any true conservatives can vote for Bush. He hasn't met a spending bill he didn't like; he's run up record deficits; "nation-building" is generally anathema to conservatives, etc. The only way Bush is conservative is on social issues. If you define conservative as one who believes they should be legislated. True conservatives, of course, don't.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Kerry for President (washingtonpost.com)
Today, the Washington Post endorses Kerry for President. It's not a "rah rah" endorsement and it's definitely not a liberal dressing down of the President. Rather, the editors thoughtfully outline Bush's presidency, laying out many of the good things he has done (and there were more than I thought and some I wouldn't give him credit for). This is a paper that was for the Iraq War, but is concerned that President Bush ignored the advice of advisors and seems unwilling to acknowledge the continued problems. On domestic issues, they are also very critical. While acknowleding that the deficit is not entirely his fault -- we would surely have had a deficit with the recession that was growing as he took office and the post 9/11 economic tremors -- they criticize him for the tax cuts that do make up a significant portion of the deficit.
They have some concerns about Kerry, but feel he has a better grasp on what needs to be done in the terror war, and prefer most of his domestic policies. They conclude:
They have some concerns about Kerry, but feel he has a better grasp on what needs to be done in the terror war, and prefer most of his domestic policies. They conclude:
"We do not view a vote for Mr. Kerry as a vote without risks. But the risks on the other side are well known, and the strengths Mr. Kerry brings are considerable."
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
The Gay Thing
I winced when Kerry made the comment during the debate. Not because I thought it was wrong, but because I sensed that it would be perceived as in poor taste. Never did I think it'd be the hot topic on cable news with less than two weeks to go. What's incredible to me is how the Republicans are so quickly defending the Cheneys when they so often vigorously oppose equal protection for gays and send out vile flyers warning voters that Democrats will ban Bibles and allow gays to marry.
But what do I know? Once again, I send you to my favorite conservative, Andrew Sullivan. He writes:
" . . . if Kerry congratulated the president on the conduct and charm of his straight daughters--as he did in the first debate--no one would accuse him of being out of line, of invading someone's 'privacy.' And yet by congratulating the vice president on the conduct and dignity of his gay daughter, he is somehow beyond the pale of decency. It only makes sense if you believe that lesbianism is something to hide, be ashamed of, or cover up."
It's a thoughtful article. Not that my endorsement means anything, but I recommend it. But then again, I have a crush on him. He's gay and I have a crush on him. (Uh oh, should I not have mentioned that?) :-)
But what do I know? Once again, I send you to my favorite conservative, Andrew Sullivan. He writes:
" . . . if Kerry congratulated the president on the conduct and charm of his straight daughters--as he did in the first debate--no one would accuse him of being out of line, of invading someone's 'privacy.' And yet by congratulating the vice president on the conduct and dignity of his gay daughter, he is somehow beyond the pale of decency. It only makes sense if you believe that lesbianism is something to hide, be ashamed of, or cover up."
It's a thoughtful article. Not that my endorsement means anything, but I recommend it. But then again, I have a crush on him. He's gay and I have a crush on him. (Uh oh, should I not have mentioned that?) :-)
Thursday, October 14, 2004
How Kerry Wins
According to The New Republic Online: Campaign Journal, Kerry needs to win Ohio, and pick up seven more votes to win. They do a nice job outlining where things stand and how things are leaning. Watching the polls makes me crazy. It's essentially a dead heat. But for those who'd like to see Kerry win, there is some encouraging news:
I still maintain the conventional wisdom that 2nd term presidential elections are a referendum on the incumbent. I think enough people are concerned with this president's mismanagement of the war in Iraq (whether or not they agreed with the decision to go) and his sky-rocketing deficits to say, "let's give the other guy a shot." A month ago, many people were too scared of Kerry to give him a shot. After the debates, their comfort level has risen. He didn't make an ass of himself. He seemed presidential and thoughtful.
Add it all up and I think he'll win. But I'm just one girl trying to take a 10,000 foot view and not get bogged down in the polls and the pundits and the predictions. This race is a referendum on the incumbent. Simple. Imcumbent's job approval rating is below 50. Kerry isn't well-liked either, but he's made himself a more viable candidate recently. That impression will settle and solidify in the next two weeks. Kerry will win.
- In something like 86% of the time in recent presidential elections for which we have polling data, undecideds break for the challenger.
- More of the new registrations are Democratic than Republican. New polls show that Bush's job approval rating is 44% -- far below the 50% usually needed to win.
- The positive view of the Democrats has gone up.
- Heavy voter turnout usually favors Democrats, so if they can mobilize their base (and the Democrats are more pissed and motivated than the Republicans, so that's a definite possibility), they'll do well.
I still maintain the conventional wisdom that 2nd term presidential elections are a referendum on the incumbent. I think enough people are concerned with this president's mismanagement of the war in Iraq (whether or not they agreed with the decision to go) and his sky-rocketing deficits to say, "let's give the other guy a shot." A month ago, many people were too scared of Kerry to give him a shot. After the debates, their comfort level has risen. He didn't make an ass of himself. He seemed presidential and thoughtful.
Add it all up and I think he'll win. But I'm just one girl trying to take a 10,000 foot view and not get bogged down in the polls and the pundits and the predictions. This race is a referendum on the incumbent. Simple. Imcumbent's job approval rating is below 50. Kerry isn't well-liked either, but he's made himself a more viable candidate recently. That impression will settle and solidify in the next two weeks. Kerry will win.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Final Debate -- Bush is Back
9:28 p.m. -- Ouch. I wish Kerry hadn't used Cheney's daughter to open his answer to the gay question. On whole, so far, Bush is back. He's got substantive answers, he's laying out a vision, and he's keeping his cool. And Kerry remains unruffled. What that means for us at home is that we're actually getting to hear what the differences are between the candidates. I'm excited about it.
Slip-ups so far: Bush's answer on outsourcing jobs. Awful. You don't tell someone who just lost his job to a company overseas that he needs to go to community college. (Even if that is the reality of free trade and capitalism, that's just a terrible way to answer that question.)
9:38 p.m. -- Bush really is doing a much better job tonight. His flu shot answer was great and connected with people. Kerry's litany of how many people have lost healthcare in certain states was an obvious attempt to connect with voters in swing states (did you notice which states he listed?).
Bush is doing great. Said when he came into office he didn't want seniors to have to choose between food or drugs. Again, he's outlining a vision, and supporting it with specifics, something he wasn't able to do in the first debates.
But one thing that will be interesting to watch is if the president is still playing to his base and not the undecideds. His demeanor works better for undecideds who didn't like the angry man they saw the last time at bat. I'm concerned that Kerry's almost too-detailed in his responses and is losing points on style.
9:44 p.m. -- Bush's answer on social security is strong. Promised seniors they'll get their check. Said that it is going to be a problem for "youngsters." Says it's a vital issue and he'll take it on, but that we have to do something. Really strong answer.
Kerry's answer that if young people take money out of social security and put it in their own accounts it would be a "disaster." Huh? Factually, he's quoting the Congressional Budget Office, etc., but he keeps losing points on vision. Bush is winning this question and the debate.
Kerry's second time around on this question was much stronger.
9:52 p.m. -- Bush is kicking ass. Loved his open to the immigration question. "It's a security issue, it's a human rights issue, etc."
This is interesting to me. Given the President's woeful domestic record (gross expansion of government, record deficits, fiscal irresponsibility), you'd think Kerry could dunk him. But because he's too heavy into the stats, he's not focusing on key messages. Classic marketing mistake.
10:04 p.m. -- What Kerry may be doing right: he's speaking directly to specific voter groups. He's carefully caged answers with something for women, something for Hispanics, something for seniors. Whereas Bush is speaking more generally or to his base. That may mean that Bush will win the debate, but that the electoral college polls won't shift much (the national polls will but they don't matter).
10:11 p.m. -- Kerry's answer on the assault weapons ban was outstanding. Best answer of the night. Cited his record in law-enforcement, gave a specific example of a recent arrest where the guy had an AK-47 sitting next to him, personalized it with his own position as a hunter. Said that if Delay had come to him and said we don't have enough votes on this, he would have said, we have to go back, we have to get them. Really strong. Wish he'd shown up sooner.
Slip-ups so far: Bush's answer on outsourcing jobs. Awful. You don't tell someone who just lost his job to a company overseas that he needs to go to community college. (Even if that is the reality of free trade and capitalism, that's just a terrible way to answer that question.)
9:38 p.m. -- Bush really is doing a much better job tonight. His flu shot answer was great and connected with people. Kerry's litany of how many people have lost healthcare in certain states was an obvious attempt to connect with voters in swing states (did you notice which states he listed?).
Bush is doing great. Said when he came into office he didn't want seniors to have to choose between food or drugs. Again, he's outlining a vision, and supporting it with specifics, something he wasn't able to do in the first debates.
But one thing that will be interesting to watch is if the president is still playing to his base and not the undecideds. His demeanor works better for undecideds who didn't like the angry man they saw the last time at bat. I'm concerned that Kerry's almost too-detailed in his responses and is losing points on style.
9:44 p.m. -- Bush's answer on social security is strong. Promised seniors they'll get their check. Said that it is going to be a problem for "youngsters." Says it's a vital issue and he'll take it on, but that we have to do something. Really strong answer.
Kerry's answer that if young people take money out of social security and put it in their own accounts it would be a "disaster." Huh? Factually, he's quoting the Congressional Budget Office, etc., but he keeps losing points on vision. Bush is winning this question and the debate.
Kerry's second time around on this question was much stronger.
9:52 p.m. -- Bush is kicking ass. Loved his open to the immigration question. "It's a security issue, it's a human rights issue, etc."
This is interesting to me. Given the President's woeful domestic record (gross expansion of government, record deficits, fiscal irresponsibility), you'd think Kerry could dunk him. But because he's too heavy into the stats, he's not focusing on key messages. Classic marketing mistake.
10:04 p.m. -- What Kerry may be doing right: he's speaking directly to specific voter groups. He's carefully caged answers with something for women, something for Hispanics, something for seniors. Whereas Bush is speaking more generally or to his base. That may mean that Bush will win the debate, but that the electoral college polls won't shift much (the national polls will but they don't matter).
10:11 p.m. -- Kerry's answer on the assault weapons ban was outstanding. Best answer of the night. Cited his record in law-enforcement, gave a specific example of a recent arrest where the guy had an AK-47 sitting next to him, personalized it with his own position as a hunter. Said that if Delay had come to him and said we don't have enough votes on this, he would have said, we have to go back, we have to get them. Really strong. Wish he'd shown up sooner.
Final Analysis -- Bush turned in his strongest performance in the debates; Kerry was strong, too. But Kerry spoke more specifically to swing voter groups. No telling what this will all mean. ABC's instant poll: Kerry 42%, Bush 41% -- well within the margin of error. So it's a tie.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
UN: Iraqi Nuclear-Related Materials Have Vanished
The point has been made that we did not guard weapons stockpiles after our invasion/liberation of Iraq. It's even more serious than that. What the President and others have said is that the most dangerous thing facing us is if nuclear weapons were to get in the hands of terrorists. So imagine how dismayed they must be to learn that "Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq but neither Baghdad nor Washington appears to have noticed, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported on Monday." Read the article here.
Checking the Facts, in Advance of the Final Debate
Paul Krugman's piece in the New York Times outlines many of the President's domestic issue talking points, anticipates what he will say in the debate, and then provides facts that refute his rhetoric. Whether Kerry will fire back remains to be seen.
Sample quote from the article:
Sample quote from the article:
"Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts caused about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit."
Friday, October 08, 2004
What Got Into Kerry? Debate # 2
Bush's handlers made a major mistake by stacking all his campaign trail town hall meetings with supporters. He has not had much practice at answering tough questions because all he gets on the road are softballs and compliments. I've heard over and over how relaxed, friendly and "folksy" Bush is and how stiff and formal Kerry is.
Bush's "folksy" is coming off tonight as defensive and yippy. Kerry is remarkably self-assured, calming yet forceful. He's doing a much better job than he did last week of punching back and not letting opportunities slip. I'm starting to like him.
Did Bush just say he's a "good steward" of the land? Good Lord, I hope Kerry nails him on that. He did.
I think Bush's problem is that he can't do the "Listen, Folks" thing against an opponent like the Kerry that showed up tonight. Bush sounds like he's giving a civics lesson or scolding when I think he's trying to sound candid. When he does that, he is essentially calling the questioner wrong.
Now, how is this different from Kerry? He's showing more deference to the questioner (addressing the person by name) and his attacks on the president are focused and filled with facts (again, I'm not immediately checking the veracity of his facts). Bush's attacks are broader, more general, less focused, as he walks around the room. That comes across to people as condescending and disrespectful.
I think Bush lost this debate (and I've long believed he'll lose the election, but that's for another post). Not that anyone is watching. Isn't there a baseball playoff on or something?
p.s. The abortion question was heartfelt. But those who are passionately anti-abortion were already for Bush. That was not a question that would sway an undecided or anyone on the fence even. Is there anyone who doesn't know that Bush is against it? Does Kerry's somewhat-walking-the-fence answer persuade anyone who is staunchly anti-abortion? Of course not.
Bush's "folksy" is coming off tonight as defensive and yippy. Kerry is remarkably self-assured, calming yet forceful. He's doing a much better job than he did last week of punching back and not letting opportunities slip. I'm starting to like him.
Did Bush just say he's a "good steward" of the land? Good Lord, I hope Kerry nails him on that. He did.
I think Bush's problem is that he can't do the "Listen, Folks" thing against an opponent like the Kerry that showed up tonight. Bush sounds like he's giving a civics lesson or scolding when I think he's trying to sound candid. When he does that, he is essentially calling the questioner wrong.
Now, how is this different from Kerry? He's showing more deference to the questioner (addressing the person by name) and his attacks on the president are focused and filled with facts (again, I'm not immediately checking the veracity of his facts). Bush's attacks are broader, more general, less focused, as he walks around the room. That comes across to people as condescending and disrespectful.
I think Bush lost this debate (and I've long believed he'll lose the election, but that's for another post). Not that anyone is watching. Isn't there a baseball playoff on or something?
p.s. The abortion question was heartfelt. But those who are passionately anti-abortion were already for Bush. That was not a question that would sway an undecided or anyone on the fence even. Is there anyone who doesn't know that Bush is against it? Does Kerry's somewhat-walking-the-fence answer persuade anyone who is staunchly anti-abortion? Of course not.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
So Who Won the VP Debate?
As usual, Andrew Sullivan has the best analysis for my money. He's fair and on record as predicting that Cheney would clobber Edwards. After watching the debate, though, he feels strongly that Edwards clobbered Cheney -- at least with those who matter most -- the undecideds. The polls are split on this one. ABC, which oversampled Republicans, shows Cheney won. CBS polled only undecided voters and clocked the win for Edwards.
Most say it doesn't matter unless someone really knocks the other out. I'm inclined to agree. This story has a short shelf-life in the media because the presidential candidates are back at it this Friday with Debate # 2.
Most say it doesn't matter unless someone really knocks the other out. I'm inclined to agree. This story has a short shelf-life in the media because the presidential candidates are back at it this Friday with Debate # 2.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
A Picture's Worth a Thousand Words
In the debate tonight, Cheney attacked Edwards' Senate attendance record and ended with the zinger that tonight was the first time he'd ever met the Senator. After the debate, Elizabeth Edwards whispered in Cheney's ear that he had met her husband before. See?
.
.
Cheney's Big Whopper On Iraq and 9/11
It takes major cajones to stick with this big stinker:
"I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." – Dick Cheney [VP Debate, 10/5/04]
Oh really? What'd you mean when you said this, Dick?
“His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists.” [Cheney Remarks, 12/2/02]
or this
“I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government.” [National Public Radio, “Morning Edition,” 1/22/04]
And how do you refute what your own Defense Secretary said?
“…To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.” [Donald Rumsfeld at Council on Foreign Relations, 10/4/04]
or the 9/11 Commission Report findings:
“We have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.” [9-11 Commission Final Report, 7/22/04]
or the CIA report issued earlier today:
A CIA report has found no conclusive evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which the Bush administration asserted before the invasion of Iraq. [Reuters, 10/05/04]
"I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." – Dick Cheney [VP Debate, 10/5/04]
Oh really? What'd you mean when you said this, Dick?
“His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists.” [Cheney Remarks, 12/2/02]
or this
“I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government.” [National Public Radio, “Morning Edition,” 1/22/04]
And how do you refute what your own Defense Secretary said?
“…To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.” [Donald Rumsfeld at Council on Foreign Relations, 10/4/04]
or the 9/11 Commission Report findings:
“We have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.” [9-11 Commission Final Report, 7/22/04]
or the CIA report issued earlier today:
A CIA report has found no conclusive evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which the Bush administration asserted before the invasion of Iraq. [Reuters, 10/05/04]
VP Debate -- Partway Through
Why does this moderator keep giving Cheney a :30 rebuttal, but then not let Edwards have his :30? She's done that twice so far. (Or are the rules different? Aren't they both supposed to get :30 for a total of one minute?)
OK, my take so far:
Cheney is doing what Bush should have done. He's supporting his assertions with specific data (never mind for a moment the veracity of his claims); he's calm and unruffled; he "sells" the "I've been there, done that" position that Bush didn't sell with his "I get the reports every morning. I know Osama Bin Laden attacked us" nonsense.
Similarly, Edwards is doing what Kerry should have done. Edwards is taking on every questionable fact or assertion that Cheney makes. He's showing what I think is a proper amount of annoyance and walking that fine line between calling Cheney out vs. sounding shrill.
These two men are at the top of their game. I wish their running mates would take notes.
10:08 p.m. It's close, but I think this one will be called for Cheney. Edwards needs to do more than counter-punch. He needs to score some knock-outs and he just hasn't so far.
10:15 p.m. Uh oh, Edwards screwed up on the question about his qualifications. What he should have said is that he has more foreign policy experience than Bush had when he was elected. He totally fumbled that question, which he had to know was coming. Cheney's response is a good one.
Parting Thoughts:
Cheney's line that he'd never met Edwards before tonight was a good zinger. Turns out it's not true. They've met at least twice before, and that's what Elizabeth Edwards whispered in Cheney's ear when she greeted him onstage. Don't wanna take her word for it? A picture's worth a thousand words.
OK, my take so far:
Cheney is doing what Bush should have done. He's supporting his assertions with specific data (never mind for a moment the veracity of his claims); he's calm and unruffled; he "sells" the "I've been there, done that" position that Bush didn't sell with his "I get the reports every morning. I know Osama Bin Laden attacked us" nonsense.
Similarly, Edwards is doing what Kerry should have done. Edwards is taking on every questionable fact or assertion that Cheney makes. He's showing what I think is a proper amount of annoyance and walking that fine line between calling Cheney out vs. sounding shrill.
These two men are at the top of their game. I wish their running mates would take notes.
10:08 p.m. It's close, but I think this one will be called for Cheney. Edwards needs to do more than counter-punch. He needs to score some knock-outs and he just hasn't so far.
10:15 p.m. Uh oh, Edwards screwed up on the question about his qualifications. What he should have said is that he has more foreign policy experience than Bush had when he was elected. He totally fumbled that question, which he had to know was coming. Cheney's response is a good one.
Parting Thoughts:
Cheney's line that he'd never met Edwards before tonight was a good zinger. Turns out it's not true. They've met at least twice before, and that's what Elizabeth Edwards whispered in Cheney's ear when she greeted him onstage.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Something Rotten in DeLay's Denmark
I've already blogged about one of Tom DeLay's political/ethical troubles. Turns out there are plenty more to be found, as reported in this overview from Salon. Here's just one of the tangled webs detailed in this piece:
Two weeks after DeLay's associates were indicted in Texas, theAnd the mighty shall fall. I hope. (For a more detailed look at the Indian gaming piece of this scandal, check out this report from NPR.)
Senate Indian Affairs Committee began an investigation of two DeLay associates
who billed six Indian tribes a staggering $66 million in lobbying fees, after
promising tribal leaders that their proximity to DeLay equaled unparalleled
influence in Washington . . .
Jack Abramoff, a member of DeLay's "kitchen cabinet," and
DeLay's former press secretary Mike Scanlon billed their Indian clients twice as
much as companies such as General Electric paid for outside lobbyists in the
same time period. The tribes were paying the two Washington operatives -- who in
private e-mails referred to the Indians as "troglodytes," "monkeys" and
"moronic" -- to defend their casinos. Two U.S. attorneys in Washington and a
federal grand jury are also looking into Abramoff and Scanlon, who are not only
frequent fliers to gaming reservations around the country but also frequent
contributors to Republican candidates and think tanks.
