Debate Open Thread: I will most likely be providing running commentary before and after the debate here, but feel free to join in on the fun in the comments section to this post.

Go Dubya!

Running commentary:

If any of President Bush's advisors are reading SA tonight, tell President Bush the first thing he should do is look over at Kerry (cock his head a little, as if he is looking carefully at the senator's hands) and say (in a slightly serious voice), "Nice manicure, John."

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wake me up when it is Bush's turn.

I think Bush is really doing well. I love the line about Kerry having a "pre 9/11" mindset.

President Bush: "A free Iraq is essential to America's national security."

Bush's "I don't think Senator Kerry was misleading when he said . . ." response was beautiful.

Bush: "Every life is precious. That's what distinguishes us from the enemy."

Kerry: "Did I mention that I fought in Vietnam? No really, it's true. Here, take a look at my medals. Hey, where did I put those things? . . . Oh yeah."

"The Pottery Barn rule"? What a girlie-man. Yeah, that's what I want in a president; a guy who gets manicures on daily basis and makes references to the Pottery Barn in a foreign policy debate.

Bush: "Maybe an 18th [U.N.] Resolution would have worked."

Oh, give me a break. Bush "outsourced" the military mission in Afghanistan. Kerry is such a freakin' tool.

Oh great, Kerry is giving us a history lesson. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Ugh. Kerry just mentioned "global warming."

Yeah! Tell 'em Bush!: "I would not have joined the International Criminal Court. My opponent is for it. I am not interested in being popular, but in protecting America."

John Kerry is not capable of saying anything like a normal human being.

Kudos to the Jim L. for asking about the horrific situation in the Darfur region, which neither candidate is adquately addressing in this campaign.

I think Bush and Kerry both did well with the "character" question.

Bush: "I won't change my core convictions or character because of politics or pressure."

Kerry: "I am important too! I went to Russia right after the break up. In fact, I was one of the first senators . . . yada, yada, yada."

O.k., Kerry just went for the cheap shot (e.g., "Mission accomplished" reference).

Bush: "I am a pretty calm guy."

Hey, Kerry says he has a plan for Iraq. I wonder if we'll hear what it is before Election Day?

Bush: "I believe in the transforming power of liberty."

And now, a joke....
My toddler nephew mistakenly swallowed several Scrabble letters. About an hour later he had a vowel movement.

Debate Facts:
I tried to put in the javascript feed that BC04 is making available, but was unsuccessful. Blogger apparently does not accept javascript tags in posts.

So you'll have to go to BushCheney04's debate facts to check which position John Kerry decides to take on Iraq tonight.

Professor Adler on RFK, Jr.'s speech tonight @ Case: You can read his excellent running commentary at this link.

The (Jackson, MS) Clarion-Ledger's website has two stories posted together:

"DHS says it needs more social workers", referring to the MS Dept. of Human Services

"Corrections officials lay off more workers at Parchman", referring to the state penitentiary.

My comment: Retrain the out of work prison guards to be social workers. I'm sure that will work out well.

Kerry got a manicure:
I'm very glad I'm not one of Kerry's many political consultants. What do you do when your candidate keeps shooting himself in the foot?

I know the media favors liberals, but:
MSNBC's Howard Fineman:

Bernie Shaw of CNN, a gritty guy who could come at you from weird angles, asked the rather nerdy Dukakis what he would do if he learned that his wife had been raped and murdered. Rather than saying that he would exact bloody vengeance, Dukakis plunged into a monologue about the need to convene a hemispheric summit on drug abuse. I was a few seats away from Tom Oliphant, the mordantly witty reporter for Dukakis' hometown paper, The Boston Globe. "Say goodnight, Mike," Oliphant declared, and lay his head on the table.

I suppose there are ways to interpret this that don't include Oliphant's disgust at Bush winning. But none of them seem very likely to me.

UPDATE: In the comments, several folks accuse me of silly logic. Well, when Oliphant's daughter works for the KerryEdwards campaign, it seems most likely to me that Oliphant was indeed upset that Dukakis was going to lose.

Just in case you needed another reason NOT to vote for John Kerry: I was just watching Fox News, and was informed that Kerry got a manicure today (gotta have those hands looking good for the debate close ups, you know).

Could this joker be any more politically tone deaf?

Republican 527:
If you go look at the top 527s, it's scary how many of them are Democrats. Out of the top 50, I can identify about 5 Republican 527s. The rest are all Dem 527s, funded by George Soros, labor unions, and trial lawyers.

If you'd like to help change that, try the leading Republican 527s: Progress for America or the Club for Growth (which even has a blog).

What's going on in New Jersey:
Polls show Bush and Kerry tied in NJ. The Washington Times has a story about how NJ is in play. NJ has a recent history (Florio, McGreevey) of promise-breaking, tax-raising Democratic executives, so they may be wary of Kerry. Also, 9/11 clearly had an impact on northern Jersey, where many people work in NYC. Plus, there's the continuing impact of the McGreevey administration's serious ethical issues on top of 2002 Torricelli's ethical lapses that forces him into retirement.

Kerry has to have NJ; he can't win without it. But if Kerry has to fight for NJ in late October then he is likely losing anyway with better opportunities elsewhere.

So Bush hasn't appeared to rush into the state. Here's my speculation why:

1. My guess is that a plurality of undecided NJ swing voters are left-leaning, particularly on social issues.
2. NJ has no media markets of its own, only the Philly and NYC media markets. Bush is already on the air in Philly, so South Jersey is seeing the Bush commercials. Going on the air in NYC isn't an option.
3. NJ flirted with Bush in 2000, even late in the game. With about a week to go, Bush flew into NJ for a rally, because polls were showing him closing on Gore. Gore ended up winning by 16 points. [It was also speculated that Rove wanted to help Bob Franks, who ended up losing the Senate race in a squeaker to big-spending Jon Corzine. In hindsight, some cited Bush going to NJ as due to Rove's overconfidence.]
4. The real story here is about the electoral chess match. Which candidate can force the other into inefficient usage of television dollars and personal appearances?

KerryEdwards was already forced to send Edwards into the state for a hastily arranged rally that apparently didn't go well. It was the first KerryEdwards non-fundraising trip to NJ all year. Bush and Rove want to force KE into more of this, so they may up Philly tv spending and maybe send someone like Guiliani or McCain into the state.

Catholic Lawyers discuss the "Kerry Court Threat" here. Here's a taste:

As faithful Catholic lawyers, we believe that the election of John Kerry as President would be a severe setback for the core tenets of faith held by practicing Catholics. A Kerry presidency would have dire consequences for the future of the Supreme Court and of our country. His proven track record of opposition to legislation designed to protect the unborn, foster traditional marriage, and protect educational choice demonstrates the kind of President John Kerry would be. Equally important, when combined with his staunch opposition to President Bush’s judicial nominees, John Kerry’s Senate record shows that he would fill the Supreme Court and lower federal courts with liberal judicial activists who would run roughshod over core matters of Catholic faith and laws that reflect fundamental Catholic values.

Update: I just noticed that one of my former Manion co-clerks, Elizabeth (Rhea) Kirk, signed this letter. You go girl!

Following up on the "you cannot be a Catholic and a proabort" post (and comments) from yesterday: Mark Shea explains things much better than I ever could.

Kerry team to remove lights?
Fox News' Linda Vester reported that the Kerry team was scheduled to walk through the debate stage tonight and physically remove the warning lights that indicate when time is up. The Kerry team is said to be unhappy with the original agreement because the audience can see the warning lights.

Interesting. If they're changing one of the rules now, perhaps more fireworks will fly later?

Huh?
Hollywood hottie Cameron Diaz told the Oprah show "[I]f you think rape should be legal, don't vote." Let's mine this little nugget of wisdom for what Diaz is really saying here.
- Diaz is on the Oprah show
- Oprah is a well-known magnet for female viewers
- There is a gender gap, though narrowing, in American politics that says most women are likely to vote for Democrats. So, you get more women to vote, that's going to work out to more votes for Kerry.
- It follows that Diaz knows she's speaking to an audience of mostly women who, if they vote, are a little more likely to vote for John Kerry.
- So, to NOT vote is the same as withholding support from Kerry and implicitly allowing Bush back into the White House.

How does it follow that Bush's reelection will result in the legalization of one of humanity's most heinous crimes? Is the anti-Bush crowd really prepared to go this far to scare up votes? (Ever notice very few people call themselves "pro-Kerry"? It's almost always "anti-Bush"... but I digress.)

I know the underpinning here is a Pro-Choice position, but the statement is beyond ridiculous in any context.

And people wonder why I join those who call it Hollyweird...

Dumb

Is the only word to describe a radio ad airing in these parts. It's some sort of card company selling "flip-flop" cards, obviously designed to poke fun at Kerry. It starts innocently enough with the theme from Flipper, and some jokes about Kerry's penchant for flip-flopping. Fair enough. I think that Kerry's inability to clearly define where he stands is fair game. But then there was this (this is just about an exact quote, I'm working off of my memory here):

He flip-flopped on his marriage of 18 years, one which produced two children

That is way over the line. While as a fellow Catholic I cannot approve of Kerry's decision to divorce his wife, it is between the two of them, and it is something that strikes well below the belt. There are enough substantive issues to debate during this campaign, and Kerry bashers need not go there.

RSS/XML feed: SA apparently has not had one for some time now (I just discovered this today). I am not quite sure what to do. I tried to follow Blogger's directions for setting up a site feed, but whatever I did failed miserably. Can any of my co-bloggers or astute readers help me out? I am open to using a XML/RSS feed other than that offered by Blogger.

Plainsman is back!: And P. has some thoughts on the upcoming Supreme Court term, and some constructive criticism for SA's bloggers re: the dearth of immigration policy related posts.

I, for one, plead guilty. Immigration policy, while undoubtedly important, is just not my bag, baby. :)

Striking Down Part of the Patriot Act? Not so fast, at least according to Orin Kerr of the Volokhsters. What say the legal minds around these parts? Is he correct? Has the mainstream media showed its dumb side again?

Unfortunate circumstances, wrong response:
Professor Bainbridge is pissed off because he received a slip saying that the postman had tried to deliver a registered letter. When the good Professor went down to the post office, he spent 45 minutes to receive a fundraising letter from the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Perhaps I will be guilty of taking Bainbridge too seriously, but I fail to comprehend the response:

In light of this stunt, I am going to vote for Democrat Barbara Boxer. This isn't much of a punishment, of course, since you guys have stood by doing nothing while she gets ready to squash poor Bill Jones. So here's the deal: Pull this stunt again and I'll contribute $50 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Is this the proper response?

Sending a registered letter is one of the best fundraising pitches around. Direct mail is all about creating a conversation with a potential donor, and sending a registered letter guarantees that the letter will be read. To get a piece read is the first goal of direct mail.

Clearly Bainbridge supports the aim of the fundraising: electing Republicans who are more likely to confirm solid Supreme Court nominees. So why object to one of the most effective ways to accomplish that aim? Is 45 minutes of his time such a sacrifice for the goal of electing more Senate Republicans?

It sucks to deal with the post office. I hate dealing with the USPS, because it's a huge waste of time. Wasting time at the post office is quite distasteful. Nevertheless, I think this is one of the distasteful parts of politics that is necessary to winning.

Side note: do you seriously want the NRSC to help Bill Jones? If the NRSC were that indiscriminate in spending my political donations, then I would certainly not donate. The NRSC has many races (off the top of my head, at least nine) that should rank in the priority queue before Jones. Unless Jones can pull closer to Boxer, he shouldn't be getting money from the NRSC.

UPDATE: Centinel (who I often disagree with) comments more articulately than I:

As someone who used to be heavily involved with campaign mail (though not for the RNC), let me just say that Bainbridge is impotent. Mass direct mail is a fundraising tool built on science. Direct marketers (if they're any good) can tell you how many more people will open you letter if it has a window instead of a label on the envelope. They know how many more will read a letter typed in courier as opposed to Arial. They know this because they has sent out thousands of pieces of mail -- half done one way and half done another -- and measured the dollar return. For every political mailing you do there is always a group of recipients, for whatever reason, whom it pisses off. Maybe they belong to another party, maybe you misspelled a word and they are OCD, or maybe they had to wait in line 45 mins at the post office. This is what's known in military parlance as an "acceptable loss." I'm sure they GOP knows that their registered letter trick pisses a number of people off -- but the cash return is favorable enough that they're willing to make the sacrifice.

Exactly. It's a good tactic. In fact, I would argue that the Professor should be glad to have wasted his time. He supports the goal, and thus should desire that the NRSC do everything possible to achieve the goal. All this assumes that the Professor supports Senate Republicans more than he values 45 minutes of his time (given his blogging, I think this ought be safe to assume).

Bainbridge is trying to change the incentives so that it is no longer profitable for the NRSC to use this tactic. That's just not going to happen.

Why Christians Should Vote for George W. Bush

My friend, Douglas Groothuis, Professor of Philosophy at Denver Theological Seminary, has written a very nice essay explaining why Christians should vote for President Bush. I reproduce it below:

Five Reasons for Christians to Vote for
George Bush and not for John Kerry
by Douglas Groothuis

While I am not a doctrinaire Republican, and disagree with the party on some of its policies (particularly concerning gun control and on some matters relating to the environment), I have strong convictions about the 2004 presidential election. Here are five of the more salient reasons for Christians to vote for George W. Bush in this election.

1. George Bush is consistently pro-life on abortion and stem cell research. Moreover, he has been consistently pro-life with respect to the downtrodden and forgotten. This is evidenced by his massive assistance plan for fighting AIDS in Africa. He has a strong concern for human rights globally. The next President may appoint one or more Supreme Courts judges and dozens of federal judges. Bush will support pro-life judges for these posts when possible.

John Kerry is consistently pro-abortion on every level. He supports partial-birth abortion as well as stem cell research on human embryos that are created in order to be killed and experimented upon. This is unethical. Yet Kerry admits that life begins at conception. This is double-mindedness of the severest kind. Kerry would only appoint pro-abortion judges.

2. George Bush has a coherent and defensible plan for Iraq. Bush would commit our military to the country for as long as needed in order support a viable democracy. He would not leave the country high and dry. Nor will he take orders from the UN. Instead, he attempts to work with the UN, but will not be cowed when it opposes American ideals—as it often does, partially because many of the nations in the UN are non-democratic and oppressive, such as China, Syria, Sudan, and Iran.

Senator Kerry has consistently opposed a strong US military. He supported a nuclear freeze when Ronald Reagan was winning the Cold War through military buildups and intimidation. Give this background, it is unlikely he would muster the military will to help stabilize Iraq through American help.

John Kerry has vacillated repeatedly on Iraq. (1) He initially supported the war when he was running for the Democratic nomination against the dove, Howard Dean, who opposed it. Kerry voted for the war in Iraq. (2) Then Kerry voted against funding the war after it had started. (3) Then he said that even “knowing what I know now” (that no weapons of mass destruction were found, etc.), he would have still supported the war. (4) Now—at least for the time being—he has embraced a Howard Dean kind of position that the war was a bad idea in the first place.

If elected, Kerry would very likely pull out of Iraq before it was stabilized, because he views Iraq as another Vietnam (which it is not). This would mean that the terrorist insurgents would likely take over the country, thus establishing a beachhead for anti-American terrorism and making Iraq as bad off as it was under Saddam. This also means that over a thousand US soldiers would have died in vain. The situation would become just as bad as and probably much worse than the terrorist-friendly environs presided over by the deposed Saddam Hussein. Terrorists such as Abu Musab Zarqawi (who fled Afghanistan after the US attack and who is responsible for beheading Americans) would assume power… and another Taliban would come into place. But with a difference—this time it would possess huge oil reserves to finance its international terrorist atrocities.

3. George Bush is firmly against same-sex marriage and supported a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as heterosexual only.

John Kerry has vacillated on the issue (as he does on most all issues, except promoting abortion) and would, when push came to shove, likely support same-sex marriages, given his ultra-liberal voting record in the Senate. Remember, he is politically rated to the left of Ted Kennedy.

4. George Bush is a bona fide evangelical who prays over decisions, consults with spiritual leaders, and recognizes God’s sovereign rule. He often refers to “the Almighty” and his speeches communicate a Christian worldview in significant but tactful ways. Bush has admitted to some waywardness before he became a Christian and even confessed some faults in his speech at the 2004 Republican Convention. This shows some humility. These Christian traits are recorded in David Aikman’s recent book, Man of Faith (W Publishing, 2004), which is not a GOP-sponsored effort. This does not grant Bush the divine right to be president, nor does it insure he will always govern wisely. However, it is no small consideration in a day when the very existence of a free America is at stake in the war on terrorism.

John Kerry is a nominal Catholic, who is not committed to the church’s most basic social ethics on abortion, homosexuality, and other core issues. Unlike Bush, Kerry, to my knowledge, seldom if ever admits any faults. Instead of learning from his mistakes, he instead waffles back and forth on a variety of issues. When the very existence of a free America is at stake, this is no small defect.

5. George Bush learned of the power of faith-based ministries, such as Teen Challenge, to combat social ills during his time as Governor of Texas. As President, he has aimed to allow faith-based groups to receive federal assistance in their significant work. Bush is not trying to federally support any church or religion, but provide assistance in their contribution to the common good. This is a wiser and more effective strategy than relying on massive federal bureaucracies and state programs that are devoid of spiritual counsel.

John Kerry has no interest in developing any such faith-based programs and wants to shut down what now exists. In recent years, the Democratic Party in general has been dominated by the mentality of the ACLU, which wants strong restrictions on religious speech and religious activities in the public square. Kerry is clearly in their camp.

Given these five factors (and many more not mentioned), it makes good sense for Christians to vote for George Bush and to pray earnestly for his reelection. So much is at stake. One must not sit on the fence.

VF Fallout?: Volokh has the text of a letter from Sens. Cornyn, Chambliss and Graham to Sens. Hatch and Session about the recent Vanity Fair article, infra. Basically, the Senators aren't too happy with the former law clerks disclosing information for the article.

Rather Helps 60 Minutes Expose Shoddy Practices of 60 Minutes: From TheDailyProbe.com, which beats the stuffin's out of The Onion for my money. They have a "story" about how Dan Rather is gonna blow the lid off the Dan Rather scandal.

Rather, who reported the story for Wednesday, said he knew something was amiss right away. "Even as I was reading the story for 60 Minutes Wednesday, the part of me that works with 60 Minutes Sunday was yelping like a beaver in a bear trap that these documents didn't look right. The minute I went off the air I called my colleagues over at Sunday and had them check this out right away -- long before these internet keyboard monkey pajama-and-slipper wearing bloggers with their right-wing political agenda hair cuts and font elitism decided to, I might add, because I am journalist who believes in fact checking."

Memo to Bush supporters:
Stop being overconfident. Bush is the favorite to win, but his position isn't the result of personal strength but of John Kerry's weakness.

John Kerry is a bad candidate. He's a throwback old-school liberal who has had to change his positions (flip-flop, if you will) in order to be electable.

Bush's campaign strategy has been to attack Kerry, because Kerry is attempting to run as something he's not. The only reason Bush leads the race is because the nation doesn't like John Kerry. Americans still have qualms about re-electing George W. Bush, though they currently prefer him to Kerry.

However, the national media will still have their say. The national media has attempted to boost the Democratic nominee in every recent election. It will only take one or two polls where Kerry improves in order to launch an avalanche of favorable Kerry coverage.

The Bush administration continued the Clinton administration's unilateralism:
I'll quote from James Mann's "The Rise of the Vulcans," which is a balanced view of the Bush administration's foreign policy team:

The Clinton administration too had been subject to accusations of unilateralism, although this fact seemed to have been quickly forgotten after Bush took office. During the late 1990s the Clinton administration refused to sign the international treaty banning the use of land mines (1997), declined to join the International Criminal Court (1998), and declined to submit the Kyoto treaty to Congress. In 1999 the Senate rejected ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. During this period State Department officials spoke regularly of America's "hegemony problem" overseas. Counties such as China, Russia and France began to consult with one another about how they could counterbalance American power. When the Clinton administration mounted military action against Iraq in 1998, only Britain was willing to join with it. (emphasis mine)

One might also recall that Clinton intervened in Kosovo (Wes Clark was the NATO commander in charge) unilaterally without UN approval.

Patriot Act Provision Declared Unconstitutional

According to Reuters, U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo has ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the power the FBI has to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorism investigations. Apparently, the ACLU filed suit against the Department of Justice, arguing that part of the Patriot legislation violated the constitution because it authorizes the FBI to force disclosure of sensitive information without adequate safeguards.

Once I get more information and see the opinion, additional posts will follow.

Take Me Out to the Ballgame

Finally, Major League Baseball is doing the right thing and the Expos will be moving to Washington, DC next season. The official announcement will come later this afternoon.

Let me say that I will be there on opening day at RFK, and thanks to Congress' impending repeal of the gun ban in the city, I can be protected in Southeast DC. This is also good news for me personally as an intradivisional rival of my Mets will be in town. (Speaking of which, the Expos' GM Omar Minaya will be going to the Mets, so the Mets will have a competent man at the helm for once. Double yeehaw!)

In all seriousness, this is the only move that makes any sense. DC is by far the largest Metro market without a team. The only drawback is the absurd payout to Peter Angelos. According to Jayson Stark at ESPN, here is what MLB is offering Angelos:

Baseball is willing to guarantee that the Orioles will earn a still-to-be-negotiated minimum in annual revenues. If their revenues fall below that figure, MLB would make up the difference.
Baseball also is willing to guarantee a minimum franchise value for the Orioles. So if Angelos attempts to sell the team and can't find a buyer willing to pay that amount, MLB also would make up that difference.
Beyond those measures, baseball will help establish a new regional sports network in the Baltimore-Washington area that would enable the Orioles to continue to televise games in Washington and its Virginia suburbs.

Considering that Angelos has no legal legs to stand on, this is quite a coup. Gotta love those trial lawyers. :)

So, what will this team be called? I'd prefer them not to be called the Senators once again. It is time for something fresh. In the spirit of Washington politics - and alliteration - how about the Washington Wafflers?

Any ideas?

On the Catholic tip:

Mark Shea goes "against the grain."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you cannot be a Catholic and a proabort.

PJPII's new book is out (in the English version).

Look who's polling well with Catholics.

Finally, if you're Catholic and supporting President George W. Bush (and you should be if you're really Catholic), make sure that you check out these two websites.

Most of these links via Mark Shea @ C&EI!

Supremes take another takings case: Yesterday, the Court granted cert in Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108, to review the decision of the Connecticut high court that approved the city's condemnation of private land to facilitate a "redevelopment" project. The Institute for Justice's press release and related info is here.

Hoorah!

I wrote a much longer, link-filled post about this, but Blogger ate it and I have to go to class. I'll try to return to this later.

Color me floored!: I just found out via email that Southern Appeal is listed as the "law" blog in National Review's most recent issue (October 11, 2004), which includes a "Special Blog Guide."

A mention in Buckley's mag? I can die and go to heaven now. :)

I will try to upload the pdf so y'all can see it.

Beer money: On the way into work, I was listening to the local talk radio station (940 WMAC) at the top of the hour, and the ABC News broadcast was discussing the possibility of cell phone numbers being listed in the phone book and telemarketers having access to those numbers. As part of the segment, a "man on the street" was asked what he thought about the possibility of having to pay for incoming calls by telemarketers, and he responded "That ain't right! That's my beer money! And no one has a right to take my beer money away from me!"

Too funny.

A Model for New U.S. Naturalization Laws??

Last week Mark Trapp and I posted on birth-right citizenship (links here and here). To follow up on this, I urge SA readers to take a look at Srdja Trifkovic's essay (appearing in Chronicles) on Swiss naturalization laws. Here is a taste:

If you want to become Swiss you must live in the country legally for at least 12 years--and pay taxes, and have no criminal record--before you can apply for citizenship. It still does not mean that your wish will be granted, however, and the fact that you were born in Zurich or Lugano does not make any difference. There are no "amnesties" and illegals are deported if caught. Even if an applicant satisfies all other conditions, the local community in which he resides has the final say: it can interview the applicant and hold a public vote before naturalization is approved. If rejected he can apply again, but only after ten years.

This is something to consider. Too bad neither American political party is willing to seriously discuss our immigration crisis.

Draft Dan! Gosh, can you believe it? CBS is flacking the discredited story of an impending draft and trotting out political activists as just some more worried moms.

Res Ipsa:

Here's a taste of Markos Moulitsas explaining to Guardian Unlimited readers "how US liberals have fought back against rightwing domination of the media since their 'goring' in 2000":

It was the year 2000, and Democrats were running on a record of peace and prosperity stewarded by the capable, if morally imperfect, Bill Clinton. It was a race that should have been won by their candidate, Al Gore. In fact, it was won by Al Gore, but the Rightwing Noise Machine kept it close enough to be stolen by the Republicans and their allies at the supreme court.

And here's a commenter from Kevin Drum's blog, Political Animal, giving his take on Kos's piece (of crap):

[T]he US has become either Hitler's Germany or in another take by Zbigniew Bryzynski - the old USSR. Take your pick - either is horrible and there is evidence for both. My question is, so what do we DO about it? I have to say that to date, I am not impressed with Kerry, though I will vote for him. Somehow he took the strong opposition against the war among Democrats and record donations and sucked all the oxygen and energy out of it with his equivocations and caution. Though I havent given up hope yet, I am getting more and more frustrated and angry. Right now, Kerry is squandering fairly organized and enthusiastic opposition to the war. I am at a loss to think what will happen if Bush wins another term. Those of us who still value opposing this horrible wrong will have to continue somehow.

Unbelievable.

Ukrainian elections:
Mrs. Director has a very interesting post at the Window Manager about Ukrainian elections:

The Presidential elections coming up on October 31st are extremely important not only for Ukraine and its freedom seeking people but for all of those concerned with the continued progress of democracy in Eastern Europe. The last six months has seen the elimination of RFE (Radio Free Europe) and the closure of numerous television stations which have not supported the current administration's agenda. A host of mafia like tactics have been used to control the media. Unfortunately, the coverage by the American press about the importance of these elections has been scant. Does it make a difference to the EU or the US if Ukraine's elections are fair? Does it really matter if Ukraine is further pulled into Putin's sphere of influence? I would think so. With a population of 50 million, a nuclear arsenal and a strategic geopolicitcal position I would think that the US would be all over this. Senator Campbell (R) Colorado has had a resolution in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for sometime now demanding that Ukraine's elections be open and free. Unforunately it seems to be going nowhere.

This is indeed troubling, but I know virtually nothing about the Ukraine. Except that the women are supposed to be quite good looking.

Perhaps we ought write the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?

Unbiased media is a business winner:
There's clearly a market for media that is less biased than the Washington Post, Old York Times, and CNN.

FoxNews beats CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and Headline News combined:

For the first time in its history, Fox News Channel beat the combined competition in primetime during the third quarter of 2004, with major headlines of the summer including the national political conventions and a brutal string of hurricanes.

According to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News averaged 1.8 million viewers, while CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Headline News averaged a combined total of 1.7 million. The quarter ended Sunday.

CNN came in a distant second, averaging 882,000 viewers, while MSNBC drew 421,000. Headline News averaged 226,000 in primetime, and CNBC attracted a paltry 133,000.

FoxNews has shown that there is a market for less biased media. The question is who will make money by printing a major national newspaper and televising network news? The Democrats' stranglehold on the national media is weakening.

John Kerry: Oompa Loompa
so says Drudge.

Area GOP Leader Attacked by Community College Behavioral Sciences Professor.



For the record, Alachua County GOP Chairman Travis Horn is a friend and classmate of mine. This story is so old it's sending it's grandkids to college, but with Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne, I beg your forgiveness for the delay.

The long and short: Travis is a law student following a run in the Army. He's also the chair for the Alachua County GOP, home county of the University of Florida and Santa Fe Community College. While manning GOP headquarters a few weeks ago, the Prof, David McCally, enters and carries on a bit, ultimately punching a life-size GWB standee in the grill. Horn and others request the good professor hit the road, and instead of standing down, our friendly neighborhood academic elitist resorts to *gasp* violence and sucker-punches Horn.

Horn calls on his military training to make sure McCally has first hand knowledge of the consequences of acting unilaterally (use your imagination).

Great stuff, if only because it's illustrative of the hypocrisy of Democrats like McCally who profess to hold the high ground in the battle of ideas but quickly retreat to the baseline of acting out and ultimately doing physical violence to the opposition.

Now, I'm not saying we don't have our share of McCallys...

Moments that changed the face of the GOP: the John Tower nomination
In retrospect, the nomination of John Tower to be Secretary of Defense was a defining moment for the GOP. In March 1989, when Tower was rejected 47-53 on a near party line vote (Republican Kassebaum voted against, while Democrats Bentsen, Dodd and Heflin voted for), it proved to be a moment that shaped today's GOP.

Faced with a void at the Pentagon, President Bush nominated then-House Minority Whip Dick Cheney. Cheney was confirmed by the Senate and developed close ties to President Bush. Ultimately, those ties would lead W to pick him to be Vice President.

Dick Cheney's resignation in the House sparked a tough battle for the #2 spot in the House GOP behind then-Minority Leader Bob Michel. Gingrich was the underdog -- considered too brash and reckless for a leadership position -- and the Bush administration quietly backed Gingrich's opponent.

Gingrich ended up winning by two votes. Now he had a platform for the electoral revolution he'd been plotting since he was first elected to Congress in 1978.

Grover on the 2004 election:
One of the things I like about Grover Norquist is that he attempts to think strategically, instead of just tactically. So often in politics the focus is on the news cycle and the immediate tactics. Grover looks long-term, and while he isn't always right, he's always interesting. Grover's latest column:

The modern Democratic Party cannot survive the reelection of President George W. Bush and another four years of Republican control of both Congress and the White House.

No brag. Just fact.

The modern Democratic Party is the party of government. Its growth is the health of the state--and vice versa. Over time, all the party's building blocks are dependent on continuous support and reinforcement by the power of the central government. Trial lawyer money is now a major part of the Democratic Party, but it is wholly dependent on legislators and courts maintaining the present tort laws that allow lawyers to interject themselves into any and all contracts and relationships.

France Seeks Surrender: Sheesh, France isn't even in Iraq and they're trying to get us to surrender. My favorite bit?

Paris also wants representatives of Iraq's insurgent groups to be invited to a conference in October or November, a call that would seem difficult for the Bush administration to accept.

And these are the folks that a President Kerry wants us closer to?

No thanks.

The Benefits Of Speaking Up In Lexis Training....I got the t-shirt and the coffee mug (not that I'm that guy who always has to answer a question, quite opposite...I just got tired of the awkward silence and stated the obvious).

RE: Apparently?: Good point, Joel. Check out the headline over at the Washington Post, which reads "Poll Shows Bush With Solid Lead." However, Slate contends that things aren't as rosy for the Bush campaign as they, and the polls, would have you believe.

"Apparently"? CNN doesn't see it as clearly as I do, but Bush is dominating Kerry according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. The only thing "apparent" here is that Kerry can't get his campaign on track enough to hold on to his old supporters, much less sway new ones.

Color me unconvinced:
Powerline reports:

In the 1990s, Kerry supported the Northeast Dairy Compact, a regional pricing program that propped up prices for Northeastern dairy farmers over objections from their Midwestern counterparts.

"We've had a difference between the Midwest and the Northeast," Kerry said. "I'm going to be very upfront with you about it. As a senator representing Massachusetts, I fought for the dairy compact and fought to have our dairy farmers get help," the four-term lawmaker said. "I'm running for president of the United States now and I intend to represent all the farmers of America."

I suppose I should admire Kerry that he's admitting that he cast a vote solely for political reasons. But he's admitting that he favored parochial interests even at a cost of inflating the price of milk.

Milk is one of the staples of the American diet. Undoubtedly the poor spend a much greater percentage of their income on milk than the rich do.

If Kerry is going to start being honest about his votes, then why not be really honest? He has also made two votes solely for political reason: voting for the war in Iraq, and then voting against the $87 billion to fund the troops.

He voted for the war in Iraq so that he could neutralize an issue for the general election (at the time, he was considered the clear frontrunner), and then voted against the $87 billion because of Howard Dean (at the time, a Kerry adviser said "Off The Record, He Did It Because Of Howard Dean. On The Record, He Has An Elaborate Explanation).

Is it a horrible thing? No, just political expedience.

Mainline Churches and Human Rights: If you're like me and you spend lots of time in the Evangelical American subculture, you're bound to hear (and maybe even say yourself) that one of the things that evangelicals don't do particularly well is think about justice. I think we're getting better, but there's lots of work to be done.

Mainline churches (Episcopal church, Presbyterian USA, United Methodist, etc.) often pride themselves on their attention to justice. But according to this report from the Institute on Religion and Democracy (a sort of mainline watchdog group of those within those churches who are opposed to the churches' theological and political liberalism), these churches' human rights criticisms are principally aimed at (surprise) the US and Israel. Here's the executive conclusion:

The mainline churches are not adequately addressing the wide range of human rights abuses taking place in the world. Denominations are focusing on the United States and Israel as the primary perpetrators of human rights violations. Great attention to the United States may be expected from churches that find their homes there. But the dramatic focus on Israel as opposed to many more repressive regimes, including other U.S. allies known for human rights abuses (such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt), must be challenged.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the churches made the mistake of supporting oppressive Soviet-sponsored liberation movements around the world. They largely ignored human rights abuses in the Soviet Union and its satellite states, instead focusing on U.S. policy as the primary source of abuse. It appears that mainline denominations may be making the same mistake today with the Arab and Muslim worlds, ignoring many of the most serious abuses while apparently laying heavy blame upon the United States and Israel not only for their own lesser abuses, but also for the abuses of others.

It is evident from the tone and language used by mainline church leaders in their statements and legislation that, as a group, they believe that the United States is often a malignant influence in the world. This pervasive anti-Americanism is demonstrated time and again in their public policy advocacy, and one need not investigate far to find it.Given the dramatic unwillingness of the mainline churches to criticize states around Israel for their human rights abuses—not only the connections to worldwide terrorism, but also the oppression and brutality toward their own people—it is not unreasonable to ask whether anti-Jewish animus may play some role in the churches’ skewed human rights advocacy.

Strong stuff.

What's Congress?

Watching the presidential campaign progress I am reminded of one the fundamental problems with the American polity. Well, I am reminded of several, but there is one thing which has particularly bothered me lately: the complete ignorance that there is such an institution as Congress that is, according the the United States Constitution, on par with the Executive Branch. Better put, it is the failure of our elites to acknowledge that this branch of government is not a subordinate institution that holds no power. A couple of examples from the Kerry campaign will better illustrate my point.

The new rationale for Kerry's vote in favor of the war is that he did not per se vote for the war, but rather he voted to authorize the use of force. Let's pretend for a moment that Kerry is actually speaking the truth here. Okay, so what Kerry is basically copping to is a complete abdication of his Congressional responsibilities, a failure to uphold his oath, and a seeming lack of knowledge regarding our Constitution.

You see, Mr. Kerry, there is this little clause in the US Constitution that stipulates that the power to declare war resides solely with Congress. The decision to declare war is always a momentous and grave one, and the Framers gave to Congress - and Congress only - the authority to make this decision. So by granting the President a blank check if you will, you are essentially circumventing our Constitution. 'Tis a pity that you were not more diligent in your criticism of going to war in Iraq before giving to the President such a broad grant of authority.

Mr. Kerry also continues in the fine American tradition of outlining an ambitious domestic agenda, promising, among other things, that he we will add 10 million jobs by the end of his term. I was not aware that the US President was now a hiring agency. Will Mr. Kerry be interviewing all of the applicants himself, or will he let some of his underlings hire these ten million Americans?

Kerry has also promised greater health care coverage, the protection of social security, a free pet for all Americans (complementary spaying and neutered included), three French hens, two turtle doves, and a brand spanking new DVD player in every house. Aside from the ridiculousness of promising quite literally the moon and all the stars, I was wondering if a would-be President Kerry has any intention of informing Congress of the legislation he is promising to pass. You see, once again Mr. Kerry, there is this irksome matter that only Congressmen can actually introduce legislation, and then they have this little procedure called a vote. Now, not having attended the Senate for quite some time you might have forgetten these pesky little details, so we are all willing to cut you some slack.

Speaking of introducing legislation - something that judging by his legislative record he is not much familiar with - I wonder why it is that he has failed to propose any of this agenda while a member of the US Senate. Did nationalization of healthcare suddenly appear to him in a dream sometime during the summer of 2003? I also wonder if Mr. Kerry returns to the Senate after his defeat this November, will he then introduce any of these bills in the Senate? After all, he does have that right. It's in the Constitution, right after the part about privacy rights. Oh wait, that's not in there, but the introducing bills bit is, I promise.

And of course President Bush is not immune to the same criticism. As another SA reader pointed out, it is somewhat absurd to say that John Kerry will raise your taxes, or John Kerry will ban the pledge of allegiance, or any some such accusation. John Kerry will not raise your taxes because the US Congress will not vote to raise taxes. This puts a slight damper on Kerry's whole domestic policy agenda.

In all this we fail to consider that Congress has certain rights and responsibilities. The President cannot simply make war without Congressional authorization, and Congress should not give the President a blank check to make war unless they are certain that they are prepared to go to war. Likewise, the campaign rhetoric is doubly harmful. For one it makes it a campaign to be Santa Cluase rather than President of the United States. Would it be so awful for presidential candidates to admit that they will not establish utopia? Oh, wait, don't answer that.

More importantly, the overblown rhetoric makes the President seem omnipotent. Presidents do not act alone. There is this little known idea behind our Constitution. It is called separation of powers, and it's backed up by another idea known as check and balances. Unforunately the public is being taught that the only power and authority that matters is that of the United States President (and I guess the Supreme Court, but that's for another rant). Well, the Framers did not choose to establish a monarchy, and with good reason. But more and more we are being led down the path to a de facto monarchy, at least in the eyes of the American public. They now expect that the President can deilver happiness on a silver platter. What they are unaware of is that the President cannot deliver this happiness because no legislative program can fix all of our problems, and even if there was a magic bill, Congress would still have to vote for it.

Remember Congress? It's time that the American public was made to.

Kerry and Democratic Foreign Policy: Lots of people have been speculating how a Bush loss in November would affect the foreign policy outlook in the GOP. The conventional wisdom is that the evil neocons will be shown the door and the GOP will become much more realist in its orientation. Not sure that this is true (Americans seem pretty idealistic in their views), but that's not my topic here.

My question is, what happens if Kerry loses in November? What lessons on foreign policy will the Democrats learn? Given that the election now seems squarely focused on Iraq, I think it's an important question (and one that seems to have gotten little attention). Let me suggest two possibilities: (others are welcome to suggest more)

1. The Democrats figure out that in times of war and mortal threat, biography is no substitute for real hawkishness. The party seems to have decided that Kerry's four months of service in Vietnam could cover for his quite pacific attitude (anti-Vietnam war, anti-Cold War, anti-Gulf War, etc.). Perhaps the party will decide that Americans really do see terorrism as a mortal threat and adjust their views accordingly. From my perch, it seems to me that this is precisely what Sen. Hillary Clinton has decided - while she has, of course, been quite partisan, she has also been quite tough vis-a-vis the war on terror. Indeed, at times, she's come at the Bush administration from the right.

2. They take the plunge. They decide that the problem with Kerry's candidacy wasn't that he wasn't tough enough or that people didn't trust him with the nation's security, but that he wasn't enough of a McGovernite. If only, this thinking will go, he had embraced Howard Dean's positions earlier and come out full-throatedly against the war in Iraq.

Now, I think the Presidential race is still up for grabs, so this sort of speculation is very much premature. But if Kerry loses, we can ill afford to have a political party that represents about half of the electorate sulking off into an isolationist pacifism.

Sacrificed on the Altar of Due Process.
That was the fate of those who fell victim to Maulavi Ghaffar; a senior Taliban leader who returned to Afghanistan to continue his murderous ways after being released from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Read about it here. This is just another example of the unintended (although not surprising) consequences of the Supreme Court’s contribution to the war against Islamofascism. Hat tip to Kate O’Beirne over at The Corner.

Somebody explain this to me: When Dick Cheney made his comment about Kerry and another terror attack, which, depending on how you read it, might or might not have suggested that a vote for Kerry was a vote for another attack, he was roundly pilloried. And we know how painful that can be for a man his age. Now, ol