Vote faith's virtues, not for division
eople of religious faith would do well to bring with them to the polls on Tuesday the traits of character, integrity, humility, charity and humanity their beliefs instill. At the same time, they would do best for themselves and the nation to leave their religion per se at home.
   The reasons are clear and compelling, documented through millennia of hatred, bloodshed and pain: religion and government intertwined bring out the worst in both, perverting both, and inevitably, the people suffer.
   Faith can focus the mind, strengthen the spirit and nurture the soul. Where religion enlightens and inculcates faith in that way, it serves God's will and mankind's needs well. But too often religion has been co-opted to further less noble ends, ones having to do with the unholy commodities of wealth and power. A sure sign of that mischief being afoot can be found in "it's-us against-them" rhetoric, setting friend against friend, family member against family member, neighbor against neighbor, citizen against fellow citizen.
   David D. Kirkpatrick's article in today's New York Times, "Battle Cry of Faithful Pits Believers Against the Rest," which is very good, includes this:
   Kirkpatrick's story goes on to tell how the Christian Broadcasting Network notes "those who pray a lot" tend to vote Republican," and so conservative pastors are as busy as they can be flogging their flocks to support President George W. Bush and other Republicans, from the pulpit, in voter guides and in get-out-the-vote drives.

   Stepping back from this heated pre-election moment, thinking, looking toward the long-term good of our country, we ask you to consider carefully whether that's a good thing. For faithful and secular alike, we are strongest and best when we are one American people, all of us equally confident that nearly all our fellow citizens love this country and want what's best for it as much as we do — maintaining that confidence, even when we disagree about policy and approach. That's not a Christian motive, a Jewish sentiment, a Baptist ideal or a Catholic tenet. It's Americanism at Americanism's best.
   We particularly like this thought, expressed by Reubin Askew:
   What aligns Askew's point with the best of Americanism and reflects the best of internalized faith is that he makes "neighbors," people of whatever philosophy or kind, the object for pursuing "just social policies." They don't have to belong to the same church, profess the same faith or any faith at all, or identify with a particular political party, just be fellow Americans, our neighbors.

   (Askew, a lifelong Democrat, was governor of Florida from 1971-1979, served as U.S. Trade Representative under President Jimmy Carter and ran for president in 1984. He currently teaches government at several Florida universities.)

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:59 PM

 
Shinseki was right; More troops needed
   "President Bush has repeatedly said his generals have not told him they need more than the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. But it's now clear that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his Pentagon colleagues should have listened to Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, when he warned that 'several hundred thousand' troops would be required to win the peace as well as the war. Instead, Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, disparaged Shinseki and shoved him aside."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:35 PM

 
On terror war, Iraq, Kerry's the best
   "On the signal issues of this campaign — the Iraq war and terrorism — Kerry is up to the challenge. Persuading our allies to share more of the military and economic burden in Iraq is a daunting task, but only Kerry has the credibility to bring them to the table. Iraq, simply put, is out of control. Kerry is best qualified bring it under control, not least by reassuring the Iraqis themselves that the United States does not have permanent designs on their strategic bases or oil. On terrorism, Kerry understands that intelligence, police work, diplomacy, and economic development are the the principal weapons against a diffuse but knowable enemy."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:41 PM

 
Report: Bush has kept America vulnerable
s CNN's Wolf Blitzer points out at every opportunity (he did this again not a half hour ago), polls indicate most likely voters see President Bush as a better bet than Sen. John Kerry to keep them safe from terrorists.
   However, a substantial and growing body of evidence demonstrates Bush has done a shockingly slipshod and dangerously deficient job of making the U.S. more secure. Here's one eye-opening element of that evidence, from the nonpartisan consumer advocacy group, Public Citizen.
   Here, from the report, are a couple examples of what Public Citizen is talking about.
   Why would Bush, Cheney and Republicans in Congress allow these gross and obvious vulnerabilities to continue? Public Citizen says it's all about the money.
   Clearly, a majority of likely voters would be wise to reassess their misplaced confidence in Bush, Cheney and corporate America's Republican errand boys and girls in Congress.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:51 PM

 
TV station has video of explosives cache
   We came across what could be the definitive link in a chain of evidence proving Bush administration incompetence allowed tons of high explosives from al Qa Qaa to go missing, undoubtedly winding up in the hands of our enemies in Iraq.
   Credit Tristero, "Missing Explosives: Case Closed," with pointing the way.
   There's also a link to the station's original news video.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:16 AM

 
Gen. Clark debunks GOP demagoguery
   “For President Bush to send Rudolph Giuliani out on television to say that the 'actual responsibility' for the failure to secure explosives lies with the troops is insulting and cowardly.
   “The President approved the mission and the priorities. Civilian leaders tell military leaders what to do. The military follows those orders and gets the job done. This was a failure of civilian leadership, first in not telling the troops to secure explosives and other dangerous materials, and second for not providing sufficient troops and sufficient equipment for troops to do the job.
   “President Bush sent our troops to war without sufficient body armor, without a sound plan and without sufficient forces to accomplish the mission. Our troops are performing a difficult mission with skill, bravery and determination. They deserve a commander in chief who supports them and understands that the buck stops in the Oval Office, not one who gets weak knees and shifts blame for his mistakes.”

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:47 PM

 
Hersh book a shock-and-awe exposé
   From The Economist, an interesting and highly informative review of New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh's book, "Chain of Command."
   Herein, a timely excerpt:
   This reminds us of an old joke's punchline: "You have to marvel at the completeness of it." But then, thinking of lives lost and money squandered, comic relief has no place in this.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:01 PM

 
Late response won't defuse this bombshell
   Finally responding to Sen. John Kerry's damning questions and embarrassing charges about the 380 tons of high explosives the Bush administration high command let slip away, President George W. Bush hit a new low today.
   The official Bush-Cheney, Republican/right-wing noise machine response is: 1, We don't know all the facts, so Kerry is questioning Bush's divine guidance, making "wild charges"; and 2, Kerry is denigrating our valiant troops.
   Concerning the first point, add the Iraq explosives debacle to the lengthy list of Bush administration screwups, bad practices and lowdown, dirty deeds about which all the facts aren't known and most likely won't be known for a very long time, if ever. The reason these facts won't be known, of course, is because Bush and his people have no intention of telling the whole truth about them.
   Bush wants the cheering sock puppets at his campaign events, and anyone else who is gullible enough, to believe that Kerry's raising questions about the missing explosives is clear evidence the senator isn't fit to be president.
   There's something in this tack that brings to mind Leslie Neilsen's "Naked Gun" detective character blandly saying something utterly stupid and off point, naively certain others will just accept it. In those comedies, others often do just accept the stupid statement. Real life doesn't work that way, although Bush has had a remarkable run of mostly getting away with the schtick. But now, just before an election, his string may be running out.
   Bush's second point surpasses the usual and expected Bush-Cheney distortion. It's a baldfaced lie. Kerry has been scrupulous in making clear his beef is with our troops' bosses, not the troops themselves. They've done what they were directed to do, overall performing extremely well. The fault lies with Bush and his Gang That Couldn't Think Straight at the Pentagon.

   Postscript: This evening on Larry King's show, columnist and right-wing stalwart William Safire made an obvious attempt to divert attention from Bush's monumental screwup. Safire charged right-wing media villain du jour, CBS News, had plotted to spring this story on the public 36 hours before the election, perpetrating an unanswerable smear. However, the New York Times, with which CBS had collaborated, insisted on breaking the story right away.
   To which Sen. Joe Biden rightly responded that what Safire was talking about was irrelevant. Biden then forcefully snapped attention back to the matter that is in all likelihood adding to our troop fatalities, now about 1,112, because of Bush's mess-making extravaganza in Iraq.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:11 PM

 
Most major Florida papers endorse Kerry
n critical Florida, a major central-state newspaper, the Orlando Sentinel, is endorsing Sen. John Kerry for president. It's part of an impressive string of endorsements Kerry has picked up in Florida.
   The Orlando newspaper's backing is particularly notable because it hasn't endorsed a Democrat since 1964 (story).
   The Sentinel had backed George W. Bush in 2000, but said of him in its Oct. 24, 2004, announcement:
   The Sentinel was not just motivated by its dissatisfaction with Bush's performance over the last four years. It also expressed support for what Sen. John Kerry wants to do as president.
   The Sentinel joined a weekend parade of Florida newspapers endorsing Kerry. Among them were the Miami Herald, St. Petersburg Times, Palm Beach Post, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Daytona Beach News-Journal, Florida Today and the Bradenton Herald, which had endorsed Bush in 2000.
   Meanwhile, no major Florida newspaper has endorsed Bush for re-election. The Tampa Tribune, which has not endorsed a Democrat for President since 1952, last week declined to endorse Bush.
   Republicans will no doubt dismiss the endorsements as just more evidence the liberal media favor Democrats. That argument rings hollow in light of, for example, the Sentinel's four decades of not endorsing a Democratic presidential candidate.
   Others who simply disdain the media may discount the Kerry endorsements as meaningless. That would also be a mistake. Like them or not, news professionals are typically much better informed about candidates and issues than most Americans. What's more, most news professionals realize that in some sense their reputation can gain luster or tarnish, depending on how someone they've endorsed behaves. Thus mindful, they tend to take care with their selections.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:53 PM

 
Bush kinfolks' Web site backs Kerry
   Seven relatives of President Bush have created a Web site where they urge support for Sen. John Kerry, "Because blood is thinner than oil!"
   The idea of a site developed after Kerry saw one of the Bushes at a rally waving a sign that said, "Bush Relative for Kerry." A news story says they shook hands and joked about it. Kerry said it would make for a good Web site.
   Indeed, it does. The site includes several commentaries like that of Bush second cousin Sheila House of Harwich, Mass.:
   How gratifying, to see so many Bushes have their heads screwed on right, as opposed to having a screwy, right-wing head. Drop by and sample the viewpoints — highly recommended.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:46 PM

 
Bush credibility buried under 380 tons
deadly, costly war undertaken for bogus reasons, too few troops to do the job right, no coherent plan for what to do with Iraq post invasion, borders never secured so the insurgency has grown and intensified — and now we learn that through sheer incompetence, 380 tons of high explosives are gone from a complex 30 miles from Baghdad (story).
   Just imagine how many suicide-bomber cars, how many roadside bombs and booby traps can be made with 380 tons of explosives. Just imagine how many buildings, bridges, humvees, trucks and tanks can be destroyed out of that 380 tons.
   And what does President George W. Bush, who is responsible for the horrendous mess in Iraq to begin with, have to say? Not a thing — not even whoops, not even "Sorry, my bad," nothing.
   Oh, but Bush is going around the country scolding like a magpie, uttering more inane drivel about how Sen. John Kerry is ill-suited to be commander in chief and unwilling to win the wars against terrorism and the insurgency in Iraq. All this with a straight face. Incredible!
   This sets a new benchmark for unbridled hypocrisy, one to match Bush's world-beater "achievements" in the realm of getting things wrong and then, having screwed things up royally, sticking stubbornly to his erroneous course.

   Here's what Kerry campaign aide Joe Lockhart had to say about this latest debacle, as quoted in the news story:
   Despite all the damning evidence to the contrary, polls continue to show a majority of likely voters believe Bush would do a better job as commander in chief. This is more an indicator of what $200 million will buy than reflective of facts and sound thinking. But after this latest revelation, even many of the deceived, deluded and those with fingers in their ears may have to come to grips with the reality.
   Questions for these voters: How many of the nearly 10,000 U.S. casualties suffered in Iraq, nearly 1,100 of them fatalities, were caused by explosives from the 380-ton cache? How many more of our people and innocent Iraqis will be maimed and killed because these explosives wound up in the wrong hands?
   The reality, likely voters, is that Bush is the sorriest excuse for a national leader this country has had, period, ever, bar none. As commander in chief, Bush is a danger, first and foremost, to our country and our troops.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:30 PM

 
CNN, there you go again
   CNN continued its policy of playing up President George W. Bush and giving Sen. John Kerry short shrift today. It's earning its stripes as a valued member of the Bush-Cheney campaign team, one day at a time.
   At midmorning we switched on the tube and there, as usual, was Bush. He was, as usual, delivering his take on how completely unsuitable Sen. John Kerry is to lead the country in a time of war. The best we could tell, CNN carried most, maybe all, of Bush's talk, patiently holding on through the applause lines, of course. We didn't time it, but the network kept Bush on for quite some time.
   When they finally cut away, the CNN anchor mentioned Kerry and President Bill Clinton would be at a major campaign speaking event in downtown Philadelphia later, and that this would be covered also.
   We waited and watched. Sure enough, we got to see the cheering crowd of thousands, the introduction of Clinton and the former president's spirited but brief talk. Then, Kerry was introduced. He thanked Clinton, made some small talk and then began his speech.
   And then CNN cut away. For a couple of minutes we got mindless chatter from the anchor and a reporter while Kerry was shown, but not heard. We also got panning shots of the crowd. Then, CNN moved on to other matters and the inevitable commercials.
   Obviously, CNN wants as many viewers as possible to see and hear Bush slamming Kerry. Just as obviously, CNN wants viewers to see and hear as little from Kerry as it can possibly get by with showing.
   This isn't the first time we've seen this done by CNN. We also switched over, in disgust, to MSNBC, which did the same thing. Some genius at that network thought we'd rather hear Andrea Mitchell and another reporter yakking than hear what the man who — we hope and pray — will be the next president and leader of the free world had to say.
   More than serious news organizations, CNN and MSNBC are earning a reputation for being B-team infotainment operations, ones trying to outdo Fox News when it comes to being faithful servants of the Republican National Committee and shameless pimps for the Bush-Cheney campaign.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:45 PM

 
Lack of signing ceremony says something
nteresting, how President Bush signed that $136-billion corporate-tax giveaway bill (story). This is a classic Bush/Republican piece of work that will shift even more of the tax burden off of America's cash-laden corporations — many of them enjoying record-breaking profits — and onto the backs of middle class and other taxpayers, now and for the next generation or two.
   Bush signed the bill Friday aboard Air Force One. There was no signing ceremony with smiling corporate kingpins and members of Congress gathered around. There was a White House statement saying the measure will help create jobs.
   How many times have we heard that before, when Bush was seeking or signing yet another of his dimbulb-economics tax cuts? But gone now are the expansive predictions of 6 millions jobs by such-and-such a date.
   Maybe it has penetrated this densest of administrations that a big to-do about another Bush tax cut, another Republican multi-billion-dollar gift basket for the wealthy and powerful few, might not be well received by a public largely already dissatisfied with the economy and the way the country is headed.
   For the truth about what Bushwhacking has done for America's working people and out-of-work people — the worst record of any president since Herbert Hoover 74 years ago — check out this graph.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:09 PM

 
Early voter's experience troubling
   Suppose you were to go to your polling place Nov. 2, there to confront a leading-edge e-voting machine. You touch the screen to cast your vote for candidate X and the machine credits your vote to candidate Y? So, you cancel your vote and start all over, only to have the same thing happen. And then, it happens again.
   Visit Lean Left to read about how this very thing reportedly happened to a woman named Kim Griffith. The post is titled "Machines Voting for Bush."
   What makes this scenario especially troubling is the fact that Diebold Inc., a leading maker of e-voting machines, is headed by an avowed supporter of, and substantial campaign contributor to, President George W. Bush.
   Oh!pinion is seriously concerned, realizing how easy it would be to snap into these machines a programmed module set up to favor, say, Bush, just long enough to give Bush a clear advantage. Late in the day, or the next day, the modules could be swapped for unbiased ones. Or, a programmer could easily set up a programmed module to behave in a desired way based within a specified time period on Nov. 2, then revert to the way it was supposed to be programmed, eliminating any trace of the previous irregularity.
   At crowded, busy polling places with people in a hurry, many voters could be expected to tap their way through the choices, not noticing when a selection or two did not register as they intended.
   The possibilities for election day fraud are especially ripe in states such as Florida, which has a decidedly proactive Republican administration headed by no less a Bush partisan than the president's brother, Jeb.
   We're extremely skeptical of conspiracy scares and theories. Mostly, we ignore them. But in this matter, with the presidential race so close, with the stakes so high and with so many added causes for suspicion such as the clearly stated intentions at Diebold, it's different.
   Anything-to-win types had better think carefully. One more instance of George W. Bush being hustled past the finish line by gangs of paid, flown-in "activists," a platoon of high-powered lawyers and a handful of oh-so-accommodating Supreme Court justices, and American democracy is likely to start coming apart.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:37 PM

 
Kerry: We will win terror war
   "You make me president of the United States, we're going to win the war on terror. It's not going to be up in the air whether or not we make America safe."


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:06 PM

 
Thousands of Iraq's bad cops fired
he headline, "Iraqis purge thousands of police," is followed by this subhead, "Security forces full of illiterates, convicts, insurgents' supporters."
   The Knight Ridder story goes on to tell about how the Coalition Provisional Authority, after hastily dismantling Iraq's existing military and law enforcement setup in the early post-invasion weeks, realized that was a mistake, then went about signing on anyone who was willing. Not surprisingly, some pretty incompetent and bad people were willing.
   To make this tale of mindless incompetence more complete, the story tells how thousands of no-show, Iraqi cops-on-paper-only, went for months and months collecting pay and doing no duty, no work, nothing. From the story:
   Let's be clear that all that money being doled out for many months to all those thousands of Iraqi deadbeat cops came out of U.S. taxpayers' pockets. It's one of many things to keep in mind when our Mideast nation builder-in-chief tells you how he believes you should get to keep more of your money.
   Question: Between the tens of thousands of no-good and no-show Iraqi cops being dumped at last, and the many being killed by insurgents each week (16 were killed and 40 wounded in just one of many Saturday attacks), how is Iraq ever going to establish order and defend borders that our 140,000 troops haven't been able to secure?

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:31 PM

 
CNN poll reporting Bush-friendly
   It's become more and more noticeable as the presidential campaign has progressed that CNN is kindly disposed toward President George W. Bush, and we're not just talking about its pundit segments. Supposedly straight-news reports also exhibit the network's pro-administration tilt.
   A Media Matters for America item details CNN's slanted presentation of political polling, noting a pattern of making big of results that show Bush ahead while downplaying or excluding altogether results showing Kerry ahead or gaining.
   Worse, as MMFA's David Brock charges, CNN repeatedly has reported poll result roundups that failed to include more-recent tallies that showed a Kerry advantage. This item is actually a letter from Brock to CNN's executive director of political coverage, Tom Hannon.
   CNN's bias isn't always and every time; we've seen exceptions. But we think Brock has nailed down enough instances to substantiate his charge that the network clearly exhibits a pattern of biased reporting.
   CNN's slant has shown through in other ways, as we've noted in previous posts. Things like its coverage of the major parties' national conventions. At the Democratic convention, CNN's coverage included a steady stream of heavy-hitting Republican spinmeisters and Bush surrogates, especially in its group discussions.
   But at the GOP convention, Democratic spokespersons were comparatively few and decidedly less strident. This disparity was especially noticeable in group discussions, where the supposedly pro-Democratic spokesperson was a very soft-spoken, thoughtful and polite young woman from the Black Entertainment Network. Although intelligent, articulate and pleasant, let's just say she was no balance for the likes of a Mary Matalin or Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
   If you venture a click to the Media Matters item, please note that at the bottom of the page there's a handy link you can use to express yourself about CNN's lack of balance. Don't be bashful.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:30 PM

 
Former governors endorse Kerry
en. John Kerry is picking up some interesting endorsements from former governors — including independents and a highly respected Republican.
   A New York Times campaign note tells about today's announcement by former Maine Gov. Angus King, an independent, that he's backing Kerry. This happened in St. Paul, Minn. King was accompanied by Minnesota's usually outspoken Jesse Ventura, who said not a word but did gesture that he's endorsing Kerry also.
   Ventura silent, the whole time? Laryngitis, maybe? Go figure.
   A week ago, a moderate Republican — yes, Virginia, there once were such beings on the planet — former governor of Michigan, William Milliken, came out for Kerry. The 82-year-old was moved to back a Democrat for president for the first time by his complete dissatisfaction with President George W. Bush and what Bush has done. Milliken's three-page statement was filled with blistering scorn for Bush's conduct of the presidency, of foreign policy and of the economy.
   A news story on Milliken's announcement includes this:
   Republicans, especially Bush loyalists, describe those who favor Kerry as hard core liberals, usually referring to them disdainfully as "Bush haters." The endorsement of Kerry by King, Milliken and Ventura blows an irreparable hole through that argument.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:00 PM

 
Can this pro-Bush site be for real?
   We spent a few moments today at a site called W4Prez. It's a flag-studded extravaganza dedicated entirely to — we finally decided — the notion that President George W. Bush is the greatest thing since the invention of the honeymoon.
   Our uncertainty, which you may experience if you click and go, was caused by — well, we couldn't decide if the site was what it was presented to be or some kind of sarcastic satire of what it was presented to be.
   For example, consider this from a page titled, "Good things about George W. Bush":
   W4Prez's creator describes himself this way:
   Thus, we end our brief, bemused look into a red-state bastion in the American heartland, having perhaps gained some additional insight about Bush's "base." That is, if it isn't an incredible (literally) put on.
   Credit the very nice blog, Lollipops and Roses, with pointing the way to W4Prez — with suitable warnings, of course.
   Whew!

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:36 PM

 
Republicans' 11th-hour conversion figures
   If Granny Cratchit fills a few expensive-for-her prescriptions through a Canadian source, she's in violation of federal law. And if a U.S. state government goes to bat for its cash-strapped citizens, seniors especially, watch out.
   Just a year ago, Democrats in Congress were waging a futile battle with the Republican powers that be to add language to the Republican Medicare "reform" bill to allow reimportation of medicines from Canada, to give U.S. consumers a break. Republicans in Congress would have none of that and President Bush made clear he would veto any such measure. Ditto for allowing the federal government to bargain with pharmaceutical companies to get better prices for U.S. consumers.
   The basis for all this Republican persnickitiness about medications has nothing to do with safety — they know Canadian pharmacists are as ethical and competent as their U.S. counterparts. The sticking point has to do with money and influence: big drug companies and their executives and board members are major contributors to Republican politicians.
   One hand washes the other, the old saying goes.
   But here's the kicker that makes an already ludicrous situation maddeningly perverse: Now, in the final weeks before election day, President Bush and his Republican foot soldiers in Congress are only too happy to import millions of doses of flu vaccine from Canada.
   Suddenly, with a whole lot of people — seniors who tend to be avid about voting especially — up in arms about the flu vaccine shortage, Republicans are A-OK with forgoing lengthy testing, a snail's-pace approval process and international negotiations. Canadian vaccine? No problem; bring it on!
   These people are so transparently self-serving, so unabashedly unfair, that it sometimes just takes our breath away.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:20 AM

 
Bungling does not a safer country make
   "Mr. President, you can chose to ignore the facts, but in the end you can't hide the truth from the American people.
   "The bottom line, Mr. President: your mismanagement of the war has made Iraq and America less safe and secure than they could have been and should have been today."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:41 PM

 
Bush talks good economy as jobs go away
resident George W. Bush campaigned in the Midwest today. According to a news story, he said:
   That didn't sound like the economy we've been seeing, hearing and reading about. So for a reality check we took a quick look around at the layoffs situation during just the first 20 days of this month. Below, a small sampling of what we found.

   General Motors will eliminate about 900 jobs at its Pontiac, Mich., pickup truck plant in early 2005. The corporation cites sagging demand and increased competition from foreign makes.
   AT&T told unions Tuesday it’s doing away with more than 1,600 rank-and-file jobs, 120 of them in New Jersey, as part of the mass layoffs the company disclosed earlier this month. From the news story:
   Sprint Corp. the cutting of 700 jobs from its business solutions division and said it will record an impairment charge in its third quarter to reflect a decline in value of its long-distance assets. A spokesman said most of the jobs will be cut from sales and support. The business solutions division shed 1,100 jobs during the summer. The company has cut 22,000 jobs since 2002.
   Johnson Controls, after recent layoffs of 80 jobs in Battle Creek, Mich., and almost 900 in Holland, Mich., will continue
its downsizing but cutting another 350 jobs in Holland, Plymouth and Warren, all in Michigan. A story about job losses at the auto industry supplier's plants included the following:
   Freescale Semiconductor of Ohio on Tuesday announced cuts of 1,000 jobs, even though the company had a profitable third quarter that saw revenue increase sequentially. And from the same news item: “Cymer Inc., a maker of light sources for litho tools, said it was laying off 14 percent of its employees, or about 100, even as its quarterly revenues hit record highs.”
   Convergys, a Cincinnati company, today announced a restructuring that will include elimination of 250 management positions, most of them in its information management group. The company said its profits had dropped 34 percent in the third quarter.
   Vignette Corp., a software company, reported a $10 million or 3-cents-per-share loss for its third quarter despite increased revenues. Without giving specific numbers, the company said it will have "headcount reductions, consolidation of offices, and a realignment of the sales structure."
   Among other firms announcing or planning layoffs this month: Maytag, in Iowa; and Goodyear Tire And Rubber, 250 jobs at its Union City, Tenn., plant., where 1,000 jobs have been eliminated since 2002.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:52 PM

 
Heinz Kerry apologizes; Hughes gets ugly
   Uh-oh, the fat's in the fire now. Teresa Heinz Kerry put her foot in her mouth in USA Today, saying she wasn't sure first lady Laura Bush had ever held a "real job."
   That was wrong, of course. Laura Bush was in fact a teacher, a librarian and is a parent. What's more, being first lady involves certain responsibilities that qualify as work.
   So, fair enough, Sen. John Kerry's wife quickly acknowledged her mistake and issued an apology (below). But that didn't keep CNN from flogging this minor gaffe all day long as though it was somehow important news.
   There's another aspect of this minor mishap that ought to qualify as all-day buzz on CNN, but won't.
   Contrast the graciousness of Heinz Kerry's apology . . .
   . . . With this response to the apology from former aide to President George W. Bush and current Bush-Cheney campaign operative Karen Hughes:
   What a catty, low-class attack. It was so obviously a case of jumping at the chance to attack — attack Kerry's wife, yet. And mindless; did Hughes even read or listen to Heinz Kerry's apology? No wonder Bush considered Hughes indispensable before she opted out a couple of years ago.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:50 PM

 
Gore charts whole sordid Bush mess
"The essential cruelty of Bush's game is that he takes an astonishingly selfish and greedy collection of economic and political proposals, and then cloaks them with a phony moral authority, thus misleading many Americans who have a deep and genuine desire to do good in the world. And in the process he convinces them to lend unquestioning support for proposals that actually hurt their families and their communities.
   "Truly, President Bush has stolen the symbolism and body language of religion and used it to disguise the most radical effort in American history to take what rightfully belongs to the American people, and give as much of it as possible to the already wealthy and privileged. And these wealthy and privileged look at his agenda and they say, as Dick Cheney said to former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, 'this is our due.'"

   This speech just may be the most comprehensive and well-stated indictment of President Bush's leadership and administration to date. It was carried Monday on C-SPAN and might be repeated on that network this weekend. Let's hope so. In a better America, everyone who plans to vote would hear or read this blockbuster, then sleep on it before going to the polls.
   Factual, straightforward throughout, Gore's speech is well worth its extensive length. If you have a few minutes, click the link above to the transcript.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:49 PM

 
Bush 41 adviser disparages Bush 43 policy
dmiral Brent Scowcroft, President George H.W. Bush's national security adviser and a mentor of the current national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, had some damning things to say about President George W. Bush's conduct of foreign policy.
   A news story says Scowcroft, Speaking in London recently, characterized the current President Bush as "mesmerized" by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Scowcroft also called Iraq a "failing venture" and said the administration's unilateralist approach has hurt U.S.-European relations.
   Also from the story:
   The story quotes Secretary of State Colin Powell, who basically denies all of Scowcroft's assertions. And remarkably, it notes Scowcroft supports Bush's re-election.

   Scowcroft is a seasoned, extremely knowledgeable diplomatic and foreign policy veteran. With his comments essentially deploring and denouncing Bush administration foreign policy, he joins most of the brightest, most experienced Americans in that field.
   While Bush's mistaken, pre-emptive invasion of Iraq and the unmitigated disaster that has followed that blunder are the linchpins of a new era of ill will toward the U.S. government around the world, many more problems exist. Most of them are being addressed lamely if at all. This isn't just campaign bashing. The problems are real and they're going to cost Americans in many ways, obvious and subtle, for years to come.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:27 PM

 
Debate lie no help to uninsured millions
   "Bush showed that he cared far more about caricaturing Kerry's plan than solving the problems of the uninsured. Inventing out of whole cloth a scheme that has nothing to do with what Kerry is proposing, Bush noted that the federal employee plan 'costs the government $7,700 per family.' Then he took a leap into the mathematics of political distortion. 'If every family in America signed up, like the senator suggested," Bush said, "it would cost us $5 trillion over 10 years.'"
   "Pardon the word, but that's a lie, because Kerry has 'suggested' no such thing. As Kerry quickly noted, families that could afford to buy into the federal plan under his proposal would have to pay for it. 'We're not giving this away for nothing,' Kerry said in one of his most effective counterpunches."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:26 PM

 
Union disputes Bush debate statements
   The Bush administration has come under fire for its handling of border security and veterans' needs from the 600,000-member American Federation of Government Employees.
   Citing results from an August survey of Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection inspectors, John Gage, AFGE president said almost two-thirds indicated they lack the tools, training and support necessary to fulfill their mission, which includes keeping terrorists from entering the country. Nearly half those surveyed said the nation is no safer today than it was on Sept. 11th, 2001.
   Gage noted Anthony J. Principi, head of the Department of Veterans Affairs, has admitted that President Bush shortchanged the VA system by $1.2 billion in 2004. Gage added that the administration plans to increase out-of-pocket fees and co-pays next year — a move it admits will deter 200,000 veterans from utilizing the VA care system.
   Gage said that despite his rhetoric about supporting our troops, Bush proposed cutting VA staff that enrolls veterans and processes health care claims. So far, about 20,000 soldiers back from Iraq and Afghanistan have requested VA services or benefits. "America made a promise to our soldiers, to care for them when they returned home as veterans. Under President Bush, America is breaking that promise to our veterans."
   AFGE made its charges in response to statements made by Bush during the second presidential debate.
   Texans have an expression for someone who operates the way Bush does: "Big hat, no cattle."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:25 PM

 
Nov. 2 had better be a time to face facts
e're witnessing a perverse competition in Washington, with the executive and legislative branches vying for top "honors" where exceptional feats of incompetence are concerned.
   It's hard to beat the invasion-by-mistake of a sovereign country on bogus grounds, resulting in the deaths of 1,060-plus U.S. soldiers, the serious wounding of roughly 8,000 more, leaving 140,000 in a deadly quagmire with no end in sight, and causing the alienation of most other countries, all at a cost that will ultimately exceed $200 billion. That kind of thing really captures the world's attention, albeit negatively.
   But Congress is in there pitching: helping turn a $5.6 trillion budget surplus into a $3 trillion deficit, the biggest in history; rubber stamping six huge, obscenely regressive, fiscally ruinous tax cuts; rewarding corporations that export jobs and import goods; otherwise standing by idly while the trade deficit escalates out of control toward three quarters of a trillion dollars; and blithely ignoring the 45 million Americans who lack health care coverage and the eroding size and situation of the middle class.
   For added punch, the honorables of House and Senate frittered away their abbreviated fall term on such vitally important matters as squabbling over a "protection of marriage" amendment they knew was going nowhere, allowing a ban on the sale of assault-type military weapons to lapse and seeing to it that District of Columbia residents will be free to arm themselves with guns.
   But the real genius in Congress' recent gambit lies in what it did not do about critical, immediate responsibilities: come up with a budget for 2005, rectify the coming alternative minimum tax debacle and raise the debt ceiling, so the government can sell bonds to finance our fast-growing mountain range of debt.
   Adding to the "Twilight Zone" quality of all this is the fact that we're witnessing something very close to pure, supposedly conservative, Republican governance — the GOP holds the White House and controls both houses of Congress. All over this country, millions will soon go to the polls to vote for members of the party that presents itself as the sole source of fiscal responsibility and of strength against international threats. Yet, against all the evidence, millions continue to believe this nonsense.

We interrupt this bad dream for a few choice words from Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the House Democratic leader:
   Early in our history, Americans kidded themselves into believing the country could continue a course of being half slave and half free, half modern industrial and half neo-feudal. It didn't work and a horrendous Civil War ensued. Later on, millions who wanted to believe Wall Street was like a giant casino where nearly everyone who played would win built a speculative bubble that burst into the Great Depression.
   Question: What and whom do you want to believe now? Please, think very carefully, before answering and especially before voting.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:03 PM

 
'Civil liberties' T-shirts won't be tolerated
   The Bush-Cheney campaign has become legendary for excluding and expelling from its speaking events anyone not strongly devoted to re-electing President Bush.
   But what about a middle-aged woman, Janet Voorhies, who showed up in a T-shirt simply urging protection of civil liberties? Well, the story is that she was escorted out by state troopers and told that if she tried to get back in, she'd be arrested.
   This story made Ann F.M. so mad that she created the logo you see above. You can read more what she has to say at her blog, Ann F.M.'s Journal, but here's an excerpt:
   Ann, Oh!pinion salutes you. We're glad to display your art work.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:56 PM

 
Inflexibility unacceptable in a president
   "The president's refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances. Mr. Bush did not just starve the government of the money it needed for his own education initiative or the Medicare drug bill. He also made tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was needed for America's security; 90 percent of the cargo unloaded every day in the nation's ports still goes uninspected."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:09 AM

 
In the fullness of time, Rove testifies
   President George W. Bush's political adviser in chief, Karl Rove, spent more than two hours Friday with a federal grand jury that's looking into the outing last year of CIA operative Valerie Plame. (Story)
   Specifically, the investigation is seeking the identity of the person who leaked Plame's status to syndicated columnist and Republican PR man Bob Novak. Novak disclosed that Plame was with the CIA in his July 14, 2003, column.
   President George W. Bush reportedly pledged full cooperation with the investigation around the time it began — in September, 2003.
   We take as a gauge of how Bush and his people have delivered on his promise the fact that it's taken a year and then some to land Rove in the same room with a grand jury. Not that we seriously expect Rove to divulge anything helpful in solving the case.

   And now for a bit of idle speculation.
   Gee, I don't know. No. Can't say. I know nothing about that. Uh, no. I have no idea. Beats me. No. That's a good question. Dunno. Say what? No way. Never heard that before. Do tell? No. How should I know? Dunno. There's no telling. It's a mystery to me. No. You don't say? I just don't know. Wow, that's news to me. No. Dunno . . .

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:21 AM

 
Barr knows his overblown brouhahas
   "I think this whole episode is bizarre. Here we are in the middle of an election, close to election day. And you have an incumbent president and a Democrat challenger, and we're fighting a war. We're talking about the economy. We're talking about all sorts of important issues, or would like to be, and they're arguing over what it means to be a homosexual.
   "This is really bizarre and I think that the sooner and the quicker we can get this whole episode behind us, and get these two men, and apparently their wives also, talking about the real issues, the better.
   "I think that people are getting indignant about the indignation about the indignation. And it all is getting kind of silly, to be honest with you."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:01 AM

 
Here's fresh evidence airheads rule at TSA
   We don't begrudge government agencies spending a few bucks to reward and heap praise on their outstanding employees. Doing so can help build morale and provide incentives for the rest of the crew.
   However, the two-year-old Transportation Security Administration can add employee recognition to its record of bungling. Exhibit A: the half million it spent on a blowout gathering at a luxury hotel, including $81,000 for plaques and $500 for cheese displays. The news story on this says TSA spent nearly $200,000 on travel and lodging for the event.
   A review of 88 recognized employees' records reportedly showed many had not been singled out for having done anything especially notable. To make matters even worse, there are allegations that while upper-level employees were being regaled lavishly, lower-level TSA people were mostly overlooked.
   TSA's recognition bash was an exercise in wasteful excess. It was especially out of line for an agency whose brief record is riddled with poor planning, mismanagement and, to be charitable, very uneven performance.
   Bottom line: serious housecleaning is called for at TSA, starting at the top. But then, that's true of the whole federal executive branch.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:04 PM

 
Hundreds of millions disappear into Iraq
   Lives being far more precious than money, we've commented many times on what President Bush's war in Iraq is costing in terms of fatalities. However, it's fair to ask where the billions appropriated for running the war and restoring the country are going.
   It's fair to ask; just don't expect a straight, complete answer. Bush administration incompetence knows no bounds, geographic or financial. An AP story on the money-trail component of the Iraq debacle begins:
   The story goes on to cite cases such as the $2.6 million given by the Coalition Provisional Authority to the Iraq oil ministry. There was no contract for any services and no evidence any services were provided in return for this money, it's just gone.
   KPMG, which is trying to account for where money has gone, reported 37 contracts with costs totaling $185 million that can't be located. For another 52 contracts worth $87.9 million, there's no record of having received any goods.
   Then there's the $1.4 billion deposited in a Kurdish bank. The bank won't let the auditors see its accounting records, so there's no telling when, where or even if the money has been spent.
   Meanwhile, Iraq's finance ministry has been keeping two sets of books — a notoriously bad practice on its face — on paper and in computers. From the story: "'A reconciliation between these two sets of accounting records was not prepared and the difference was significant,' the report said."
   Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee is demanding an investigation. He's right; taxpayers deserve a clear accounting and some of the accountability and consequences that Bush & Co. talk about when it suits their purpose. But unless Republicans lose control of Congress, no one had better hold their breath waiting.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:59 PM

 
Mad mama really just a p.o.'d pol
   Lynn Cheney, the vice president's wife, has her knickers in a highly publicized knot over a thoughtful, in no way disparaging or disrespectful, reference to her lesbian daughter in the last presidential debate.
   Sen. John Kerry made the point that people of Mary Cheney's sexual orientation are born that way; it's not a choice. What's more, Kerry said, they're part of the human family, the American family, and like everyone else deserve to be treated fairly and with respect.
   To hear Lynn Cheney expressing her disgust today, repeating for the slow learners that Kerry "is not a good man" and calling his remarks a “cheap and tawdry political trick,” you'd think he had said something terrible. Let's get a few things straight.
   First, Mary Cheney is not an innocent child. She's a grown woman and hardly a shy, retiring one wrested from the comfort of a private life far from the madding political crowd. She was active in her father's 2000 campaign and is active in the current one. Indeed, she's an active member of one of the most politically activist families in the country. Her father has been a Washington insider since God was a kid and her mother has been a rabidly partisan Republican/conservative speaker, writer and fund raiser for decades.
   Secondly, Vice President Dick Cheney has spoken very publicly of his daughter's sexual orientation and their relationship.
   Thus, it's fair to say that Mary Cheney is a person in the public eye and an active political operative. There was nothing underhanded, no exploitation and certainly nothing negative in Kerry's mentioning her and her relationship with her family during the debate.

   What's really going on here is that Lynn Cheney saw a chance to get out in front of the cameras and bash the opposition under cover of "speaking as a mom."
   What's also really going on here is that CNN, ever happy to accommodate the Bush-Cheney campaign, happily spent the day replaying an eight-second sound bite of Lynn Cheney's made-for-TV umbrage routine and discussing it, mindlessly, with various guests.
   Thanks in no small part to such exercises in stupidity do we repeatedly get people like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for national leaders.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:35 PM

 
Saudis hold terror ills against U.S.
   Most Americans are well aware 15 of the 19 highjackers carrying out the Sept. 11, 2001, attack were Saudis. But most Americans are dimly aware, if aware at all, that there is a terrorist campaign under way in Saudi Arabia itself.
   Saudi Arabia's internal terror campaign began in May 2003, when suicide attackers went on a killing spree in three residential compounds, leaving 25 dead. There has been a steady string of terrorist incidents going on ever since.
   You might think this would encourage the Saudis to join more wholeheartedly with the U.S. in the war against terrorism. You might, but you'd be wrong.
   A revealing New York Times story delves Saudis' attitudes about the terror campaign and finds that most blame the U.S., specifically seeing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and U.S. intentions of injecting democracy into the Middle East, as root causes.
   The story also quotes Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman Gen. Mansour al-Turki:
   We recall that at tremendous expense some years back, the U.S. built one of the biggest and most elaborate air bases in the world, Prince Sultan Air Base, in the middle of the Saudi desert. It was created in part to help train Saudi pilots and other air force personnel, and to extend U.S. air power into the heart of the Middle East.
   The base was sited in the middle of nowhere to avoid friction between Saudi citizens and U.S. military people. Unlike all other countries hosting U.S. air bases throughout the world, only the Saudis made our people unwelcome in their neighboring communities. U.S. military personnel who did venture outside the base were under strict orders to abide by a long list of do's and don'ts, including no alcoholic beverages, women covering themselves in the Muslim way, and no fraternizing with Saudi females by male personnel.
   We saw a newsmagazine segment on Prince Sultan Air Base a few years ago. One of the the few base personnel interviewed, a young enlisted man not identified by name or shown clearly on camera, said that despite many recreational opportunities like movies and videogame parlors on the base, it was like being stationed on the far side of the moon.
   After investing billions in this prison-like facility, the U.S. got its reward during the invasion of Iraq. The Saudis forbade using the base for air operations in Iraq. A few months later, the Bush administration quietly announced the U.S. was pulling out of the base, presumably donating U.S. taxpayers' massive infrastructure investment to one of the wealthiest nations on the planet.
   And so it goes.
   
Oh!pinion's view: The more we get to know and interact with the Saudis, the less advisable knowing and interacting with them seems to be. It strikes us the best U.S.-Saudi relationship is the least U.S.-Saudi relationship possible.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:10 PM

 
Kerry makes it three for three
resident George W. Bush's groomers and handlers worked wonders with Bush's form for the third presidential debate. Unfortunately for his re-election prospects, the substance of Bush's policies, attitude and abysmal record are what they are.
   Sen. John Kerry clearly outshined Bush on matters of substance and in presidential presence. So far this evening, post-debate snap polls show Kerry as having won handily. Gallup's showed 56 to 38 percent and Time-CNN's was similar.
   We were spared Bush's almost whiny declarations of "it's hard work . . ." and "I'm working hard," as in the first debate, and his strident, almost combative, excesses of the second debate.
   What Bush did bring to the third debate was a combination of his campaign's latest Kerry-bashing master stroke — he's a tax-and-spend liberal (neener, neener, neener) — and regurgitations from his stump speech. The problem with too many of those is that they're distortions that reflect what Bush needs Kerry to be about, if Bush is to have a hope in hell of winning.
   Nowhere was Bush's avoid-my-record, demagogue-his-plans strategy more apparent than when Bush tried again to depict as classic socialized medicine Kerry's plan to make health care coverage available to most of the 45 million Americans who now can't afford it. The specter is one of nameless, faceless bureaucrats in distant offices making life-and-death decisions about who gets what care, of long waiting lines to see too few doctors in dilapidated hospitals and clinics, and so on.
   The reality is nothing like that. Kerry's plan calls for extending the same health insurance mechanism U.S. senators and representatives have to everyone else who wants to sign up. No patients, doctors or states are forced into it. If any bureaucrats make decisions about treatment or coverage, they'll be corporate bureaucrats.

   When Bush wasn't distorting Kerry's plans, he was being disingenuous about his own. When judicial appointments came up, Bush had a chance to state his intentions clearly: he will appoint only those known to be "pro life" and "strict constructionists." Instead, he couched his intentions in talk of not applying a litmus test. That's just not credible.
   Bush was just as disingenuous about renewing the ban on so-called assault weapons, saying he had made his feelings known but was told the votes weren't going to be forthcoming in Congress. In fact, his party controls both houses of Congress. A phone call to Sen. Bill Frist and Rep. Dennis Hastert would've ensured the necessary votes. Bush simply didn't make the call. (Not purely coincidentally, the National Rifle Association just this week, ahem, endorsed Bush, pledging to spend millions to help him win re-election.)
    Then there was Bush's hailing of "No child left behind," even mentioning Sen. Ted Kennedy, with whom he'd struck a deal on that legislation at the beginning of his administration. The only problem is that Bush stiffed Kennedy at budget-writing time, shorting the program of tens of millions of dollars. Kennedy was and remains furious at Bush for having conned him into supporting what turned out to be a flawed, hollowed-out program.

   We saw in this debate what we've seen since Kerry became the Democratic nominee. Bush created a fictional Kerry caricature to fit the mold of the neoconservatives' liberal bogeyman. In the same way, Bush created fictional Kerry plans and a fictional Kerry agenda.
   The reason Bush conducts his campaign this way is simple: he can't run very well against the real Kerry or the senator's well-laid-out plans and proposals. And heaven knows, Bush can't very well run on his own record of ballooning deficits, a deadly war-making blunder, disaffected leaders and populations in most of the world's other countries and massive job losses.
   Out on the campaign trail, Bush has been free to bash Kerry, shade the truth, distort Kerry's words and plans. His crowds of loyalists always cheer wildly and chant four more years. Come the first debate, suddenly, there were no cheering loyalists, just a well-prepared, articulate and determined opponent to counter the spin, point out the distortions, set the record straight and make telling points about Bush's record. No wonder Bush was flummoxed. It probably felt like being dumped from a warm bed into a tub of cold water.

   It will be interesting to see if the on-air pundits go after Bush for his "altered personas" from debate to debate, as they went after Al Gore in 2000. We're betting they won't.
   We'll also be watching for Bush's people to try to spin him to a win. They tried but stopped short after the second debate. They no doubt realized it wouldn't work well because they'd have to convince most of 60 million viewers they hadn't seen what they had seen.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:58 PM

 
Grin-and-bare-it generosity turned away
n Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif., several concerned citizens heard the local fire department was deep in debt and decided to help bail it out. Their fund-raising method of choice: create a calendar featuring pictures of group members — some less than fully clad.
   The all-female group got permission from authorities to use the firehouse as a backdrop and firefighting equipment for props. Photos were taken and $30,000 was raised.
   You might think Carmel's powers-that-be would consider this manna from heaven. After all, $30,000 here and $30,000 there, pretty soon you're talking serious money.
   To the contrary, city officials decided this scheme holds too much potential for public outrage, even lawsuits, so they said nothing doing to the civic-minded matrons. That's right, matrons. According to a news story on this, the women whose images grace the calendar are 51 to 84 years old.

   Oh!pinion thinks the spurned Carmel Fire Belles are to be admired for their spunk and congratulated for going out of their way to do a good deed.
   As for Carmel's city officials, large daily doses of prune juice could fix one thing that ails them. For what to do about their utter fecklessness, we're at a loss.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:18 PM

 
Crawford publisher gets red-state reaction
   W. Leon Smith, editor and publisher of the Crawford, Texas, Lone Star Iconoclast and another newspaper in nearby Clifton, is taking heat for a recent editorial in which he endorsed Sen. John Kerry.
   President Bush's ranch, lately known as the Western White House, is located just outside Crawford.
   Many of the community's 705 dear hearts and gentle people are letting Smith know they don't appreciate his show of journalistic independence, and local businesses are pulling their ads. In a micro marketplace, that hurts.
   A good story on the editorial's fallout notes the Iconoclast backed Bush during the post-balloting debacle in 2000 but has since undergone a change in outlook.
   Smith has received more than 2,000 "mostly supportive" e-mails from across the country and around the world. He says some Crawford residents tell him they agree with his criticisms of Bush, but realize doing so publicly would invite repercussions. The story quotes Smith:
   The Crawford locals' negative reaction to a dissenting opinion from their small-town newspaper comes as no surprise, but that makes it no less deplorable. It's not as though Smith had written in support of someone who espouses radical political beliefs or an un-American agenda.
   No less than people in Worcester, Barnstable and Boston, Crawford residents have a stake in a free and independent press that transcends this presidential election. And they will have a need for that long after Bush leaves the White House, whether that happens this year or in 2008.
   "Red state" ought not to signify mean-spiritedness. "Small town" needn't be synonymous with a narrow mind. And spite comes across as ugly wherever it's practiced.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:05 PM

 
Reeve was a super man in word and deed
hristopher Reeve's nine-year fight to regain every bit of function he could muster from his terribly crippled body ended Sunday. Reeve, 52, succumbed to complications of a skin infection, according to news reports.
   A popular and successful actor, star of the "Superman" film series, Reeve took a spill while horseback riding in 1995, severely injuring his spinal cord. Where others might've sunk into despair or sought escape in drugs or drink, Reeve drew strength from his loved ones and exhibited courage befitting a real-life man of steel. He never regained the ability to walk, but through a long, arduous struggle he made considerable strides to regain some feeling and movement in his paralyzed limbs.
   Not merely concerned with his own recovery, Reeve counseled and consoled other spinal cord injury victims one on one. But he was best known as an outspoken advocate for intensive research, application of new therapies and technology, and increased funding to benefit all who shared his predicament. He was especially forceful and poignant speaking up for embryonic stem cell research, as he once did before the U.S. Senate.
   CNN on Monday rebroadcast a portion of a 2003 interview Reeve had done with Larry King. It rings with the indomitable spirit of this excellent man:
   Paula Zahn also interviewed Reeve last year. He told her how crucial the love and support of his wife and family had been. They talked of his advocacy and how he enjoyed shaking people up.
   May God bless and keep Reeve's soul, and bring strength and comfort to the loved ones who shared in this super man's valiant fight.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:14 AM

 
The corner we're turning is all wrong
he Labor Department's new-jobs report shows just 96,000 created in September — 54,000 short of keeping up with growth in the number of people entering the workplace. Meanwhile, more than 16,000 Americans lost their jobs just last week and BankAmerica announced upcoming layoffs of more than half that number.
   To add to this dismal picture, the department revised downward the new-jobs number for August, from 144,000 reported earlier to 128,000. It's hardly surprising that September's consumer-confidence number dived back to the low level of midsummer.
   An AP story on these developments notes, "The economy is growing, yet businesses remain reluctant to hire new workers because of global pricing pressures and skyrocketing costs for health care and pensions." We will note these are all things the Bush administration has done and is doing almost nothing about.
   The same story quotes Sen. John Kerry:
   And no doubt for the sake of political balance, the story included this tired and tiresome refrain from White House spokesman Scott McClellan:
   We see some of the best sense being made of this by Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant:
   One of the most significant features of our economic situation is that, for the first time in history, working people are not benefiting from gains in productivity. Ominously, large numbers are actually losing in various ways, from stagnant wages to repeated loss of a job, to inability to replace a lost job with another at anywhere near the same level of pay and benefits.
   Key reasons for this turn of events: intensive computerization, mechanization and application of robotics; large-scale, ongoing outsourcing of jobs and industries to other countries; wide-open importation of foreign goods and services, with ineffectual requirements for a "level playing field;" inability and unwillingness of U.S. producers to compete in foreign markets; an open-door policy for U.S. and multinational businesses to import foreign workers; and the influx of 3 million or more illegal aliens a year, year after year, thanks to grossly inadequate control of our own borders and a president who welcomes the influx of extremely cheap laborers who won't be able to join unions.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:16 PM

 
Uncle Sam pimping for HDTV marketers
ongress has determined U.S. consumers will switch to digital television by 2006, and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell is out beating the drums to get things moving. Actually, 2006 is a target date that isn't working out, so the FCC will vote on a new one in the coming weeks, probably making 2009 the "end date."
   A news story on this includes the Consumer Electronics Association's estimate that by the end of the year 11 million households will have digital TV, a.k.a. high-definition TV, or HDTV for short.

   We'd like to know exactly what business Congress and the FCC have in pushing this pricey new technology on consumers. But then, we're of the old-fashioned notion that they are supposed to be pursuing the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens. Nowadays, our federal establishment sees its mission as fattening the bottom lines of the corporate establishment, with openhanded campaign donors first in line for special assistance.
   Right now, most Americans are suffering the effects of a half-assed, schizoid economy in which the rich get richer and enjoy more and bigger tax breaks, while the rapidly growing ranks of the working poor look for second or third jobs to keep food on the table and some increasingly expensive gasoline in their tanks. Oh, and let's not forget the higher state and local taxes most are paying, thanks considerably to President Bush's serial federal tax cuts.
   It isn't even as though making this expensive technological leap is likely to benefit U.S. workers and out-of-workers. You can be sure the equipment will be manufactured by 80-cent-a-day workers on the far side of the world. And much of it will be marketed by multinational corporations with tax-shelter headquarters on some Caribbean island.
   Here, from the news story, is what Powell and the visionaries of our Republican-controlled Congress have in mind for our personal and family budgets over the next couple of years:
   We take this to mean that if you have cable or satellite TV, you'll have to fork over at least several hundred dollars to keep watching your current selection of channels. Otherwise, it's back to rabbit ears, a $200 converter and fewer channels.
   Industry marketers with dollar signs in their eyes trumpet HDTV's greater sharpness and freedom from "snow." We don't dispute the aesthetics. However, the prospect of a sharper image of Pat Buchanan, who seems to be all over the upper channels, 24/7, lately, doesn't rock our world. Neither does the chance to ignore the more-vivd colors of another dim-bulb reality show, mindless sitcom or grating Oxyclean commercial.

   An especially galling irony in our Republican government's HDTV offensive is that it's being perpetrated by people who express an almost religious belief in the sanctity and superiority of the free market. The free market is making it clear that very few people see sufficient added benefit in HDTV to justify its high cost. But suddenly, federal interference is A-OK.
   This brings us to our follow-up question: Exactly how does mandating that the peons will have to shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars for HDTV they may not want, by some date in 2009 or whenever, square with free-market principles?


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:11 PM

 
Ethics, science and a strange sorting out
   From Tristero, an interesting take on the second presidential debate, including this on the memorable moment when Bush weighed in on embryonic stem cell research:
   We're still waiting for a rational explanation of how frozen embryos from a fertility clinic's inventory, many of which are destined to be discarded , represent life. While they may hold the potential of life, there's obviously a lot more to producing a human being than having an embryo.
   When you have someone severely impaired, like Christopher Reeve, you most certainly have a life — a tragically compromised life. If an embryo is used to make Reeve whole and healthy again, isn't that a pro-life outcome? Bush didn't venture into this territory, which is probably just as well.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:07 AM

 
Presidential race exposing Iraq agenda
   Syndicated columnist Richard Reeves zeroes in on a point we've considered questionable in one of President George W. Bush's often-used come-backs at Sen. John Kerry (Oct. 9 column). It concerns prewar intelligence and a charge Bush made during the first presidential debate.
   Indeed, this brings to mind a statement by Bush's White House chief of staff, Andrew Card, in the summer of 2002. Reporters were asking if Bush was planning to go to war with Iraq. Card answered to the effect that everyone knows it's better to roll out "a new product" in September.
   As we've learned through revelations during the past year, the new product had actually been on Bush administration minds, including the president's, from its earliest days in the White House, in 2001. Which makes all the more remarkable Bush's debate comment this year that when he was debating in 2000, he never imagined he'd be sending young Americans to die in, presumably, Iraq.
   Now we'll tell one.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:07 PM

 
Kerry bests an improved opponent
n the second presidential debate of 2004, President George W. Bush emerged with honors for Most Improved Performance, clearing the very low hurdle he established in the first debate.
   Bush replaced the whining-and-complaining demeanor he lapsed into the first debate with a more forceful, less halting presentation, sparing us serial assertions about what hard work being president is, and about how he's working hard. On the downside, Bush came across as snappish and at times assertive in the sense of being ornery.
   Bush also revealed himself, again, as stubbornly incapable of owning up to a mistake — to even acknowledging any of his many BIG, BAD, mistakes. What's more, he added to his record of errors by merrily mischaracterizing matters of war, peace, life, death and his opponent's plans and positions.
   Sen. John Kerry spoke clearly and concisely, distancing himself nicely from criticisms about long-winded, complicated responses. He was critical without being insulting and honed to the positive as much as he could. However, as David Brooks pointed out on Public Television, Kerry could've come down harder and with more telling effect on Bush's dismal record on the environment and the economy. We'll put it this way: where there were perfect setups for a roundhouse punch, Kerry only slapped.
   For his part, Bush resorted to the neoconservatives' old standby of hurling the liberal label — as in neener, neener, neener. It's a tired tactic, having been worn out by his idol, Ronald Reagan, and his father, unsuccessfully, years ago. Kerry did a decent job of deflecting and turning these thrusts back, at one point saying "labels don't mean anything." We would've preferred a frontal counterattack, to the effect that Bush was pandering to his base, employing a bogeyman stereotype that doesn't apply.
   The absolute low point of Bush's performance on domestic matters came when he completely mischaracterized Kerry's plan to drastically reduce the number of Americans without medical coverage, including ensuring that all children are covered. Bush depicts this as classic socialized medicine. That's a well-defined, long-established thing in some places, so we can't politely say Bush was uttering an opinion or just shading the truth. He just flat out lied.
   On foreign affairs, Bush insisted Kerry's first-debate reference to a global test had something to do with believing sanctions were working against Saddam Hussein and so was somehow all wrong. And so, Bush would have us believe, Kerry is weak, ineffective, plus all wrong, and thus unsuitable to defend the country against terrorists. (Previously, Bush tried to mischaracterize the "global test" as a selling out of U.S. autonomy and authority to foreign leaders.)
   In fact, sanctions were working, as reports coming in almost daily verify. Bush evidently finds the implications of this bit of truth so unthinkable that he's in denial. And even a quick reading of Kerry's statement that included "global test" makes clear he was referring to making Americans broadly informed and gaining broad support among them for a course of action.
   Bush's mish-mash argument this time hit dead bottom when he said — actually said — Congress, Kerry included, had voted to give him authority to remove the regime in Iraq. In fact, as Kerry hastened to point out, that was not what Congress authorized. (Previously and on many occasions, Bush has insisted Congress voted to give him the authority to go to war with Iraq, which is also not true. Congress voted to give him that option, with the understanding several alternatives would be exhausted first.)
   Kerry was sure-footed in setting out the straight facts. He was comfortably decisive without being overbearing. He was especially clear and effective in explaining his public-policy position and personal belief about abortion.

   This debate's town hall format had Bush and Kerry responding to questions read by people who identified themselves as undecided. Charles Gibson of ABC, selected the questions. It proved to be an orderly arrangement that covered a wide range of topics. What it didn't do was allow for the extended back-and-forth exchanges that can provide more depth about the issues and give candidates a better chance to correct misstatements about their words and positions.
   Who won? On points made clearly and effectively, on being factual and for style, we believe Kerry did. He looked, sounded and acted thoroughly presidential the whole time.
   However, Bush did well enough that we're sure his supporters will be emboldened to furiously spin his performance as an absolute triumph, hoping to vault him ahead of Kerry on the basis of ex post facto hype.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:44 PM

 
Bremer adds to evidence of incompetence
   “We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness. We never had enough troops on the ground.”

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:42 PM

 
Know Bush by those he associates with
   Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political strategist, has been called "Bush's brain." An upcoming Atlantic Monthly article indicates what that brain is like, and it's not a pretty picture.
   A New York Daily News column, "Karl Rove, ambush strategist?," takes a look at the Atlantic piece by Joshua Green. (Credit goes to Joshua Micah Marshall at Talking Points Memo for pointing the way to the Daily News column.)
   Here's a sample:
   It's disturbingly clear that "Bush's brain" is abcessed.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:25 PM

 
CNN interview blatant pro-Bush PR
t's become increasingly obvious in recent weeks that CNN's Wolf Blitzer and senior political analyst Bill Schneider are hauling water for President George W. Bush and his administration. It's more subtle than calling day night or black white, but if you watch and listen, it's there and it's unmistakable.
   Behind-the-scenes CNN decision makers seem to be in on this, too. The network routinely carries most or all of Bush's stump speeches, giving relatively generous coverage as well to Vice President Dick Cheney's appearances, while Sen. John Kerry and running mate Sen. John Edwards are typically lucky to get a five-second silent visual while the anchor speed-reads a paraphrase of one point one of them made.
   "Live From" anchorwoman Kyra Phillips, wittingly or not, appeared to have been drafted for some exceedingly Bush-supportive spin Wednesday, when she interviewed Major Gen. John Batiste, commander of the 1st Infantry Division, about a just-completed operation to wrest Samarra from insurgents. After declaring the city in hand so that efforts to return it to "normalcy" and rebuild it could begin, Batiste began talking up the contribution of Iraqi forces, "The Iraqi security forces that were with us in that operation did a fantastic job."
   Phillips then asked a question that sounded as though it had been scripted by a Good-News-From-Iraq specialist at the Pentagon, at least, maybe even at the White House:
   Excuse us, but what's with that declarative sentence? That's not a question, it's a Bush White House/Pentagon talking point. We suspect the pause after "it was" happened so Phillips could catch up with whoever was talking to her through her earpiece, feeding her the question, although it might just have been that she was trying to tell if Batiste was saying something, which can be tricky because of the time delay. The general continued:
   Yessiree, we want to be sure everyone knows these Iraqi forces are valuable, contributing members of the coalition team.

   Then Phillips gets to the meat of this little exchange: the chance for a general on the ground in Iraq to refute Bremer's much-publicized, politically radioactive and highly damning — to Bush and his inept administration — charge that the peace in Iraq was bungled from day 1 after the invasion was complete.
   Batiste had the good sense to avoid a blatantly political answer, but his response was only one small step removed:
   Parting pleasantries between Phillips and Batiste ended the interview.

   So, there you have it, folks. We've got plenty of troops in Iraq to do anything we want to do — no problem. Freedom is on the march! We're routing the evil ones from their hideouts, taking cities away from them so we can restore normalcy, rebuild and get them back to their jobs, etc. And, we're doing it with brave Iraqi soldiers we've trained and equipped at our side.

   Sound familiar? Sound like something Bush himself would say in a stump speech or interview?
   Does this whole interview and everything in it sound scripted and calculated to cast Bush, his Iraq war, the alleged increasing burden Iraqi troops are taking on, etc., in the best possible light? It certainly strikes us that way.
   We expect that from Batiste. We don't expect it from Phillips and from CNN. Both are supposed to be independent and neutral about the politics involved.
   Any ethical journalist knows you cannot ask an active-duty military officer, not even a commanding general like Batiste, a politically loaded question and get a complete, honest, reliable answer. Military officers are links in a chain of command that extends up to the Oval Office, where the commander in chief sits. It's simply not fair to ask or expect them to give an answer at odds with official policy. Especially to a politically sensitive question. Especially at the height of an election season.
   Batiste knew very well that if he had agreed even subtly, even ever so slightly, that Bremer is right about our having too few troops in Iraq, he would've been committing career suicide.

   This insidious PR work CNN is doing for the Bush administration is every bit as out of line as the lapse in due diligence at CBS regarding the infamous "Killian memos." The difference in what comes of the wrongdoing is that the right-wing Republican propaganda industry has no problem with CNN passing off Bush-Cheney talking points as hard news, whereas unhelpful investigative pieces from CBS are to be scrutizined down to the molecules and condemned to the heavens, especially if any part of them can be found lacking.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:41 PM

 
Cheney put-downs reflect badly — on him
en. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., interviewed on C-SPAN following last night's vice presidential debate, offered some interesting insight into Vice President Dick Cheney's attendance habits as president of the Senate.
   Leahy said that unlike former vice presidents, several of whom he named, Cheney comes to Capitol Hill on Tuesdays only, with a big motorcade, sirens wailing, and then closets himself, with Republicans only, for a meeting. And that's it — no wasting his valuable time meeting with any Democrats.
   Asked about the June incident, when Cheney accosted Leahy on the Senate floor, reportedly telling the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee to "Go f--- yourself," Leahy declined comment other than to note Cheney did show up on the floor that time, anyway.
   This provides a somewhat different picture of Cheney's attitude and modus operandi than the wistful, longing-for-the-good-old-days routine he did during the debate, noting how in previous years there was more bipartisanship.
   We also learned today, thanks to Paul Begala on CNN's "Crossfire," that Cheney has met or been with Sen. John Edwards at least four times, including at an annual prayer breakfast in Washington, where the vice president sat next to Edwards.
   That directly contradicts a Cheney put-down during the debate:
   What does Edwards have to do, sit in Cheney's lap and kiss him on the forehead?
   Cheney's less-than-honest put-down was in the context of chiding Edwards for his attendance record. We'll point out that what a member of the Senate does when in attendance, including behaving civilly and respectfully — as Cheney failed to do in spewing an obscenity at Leahy — is more important than the number of times a senator shows up.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:37 PM

 
Shock, awe and awful results explained
   An Op-ed piece at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Web site sounds a theme familiar to Oh!pinion readers: Terrorists have to a great extent neutralized U.S. conventional military might and thinking, at times making them actual liabilities.
   Headlined "Shedding the illusions of shock and awe," the piece by Boston University international relations instructor Andrew J. Bacevich begins with an eye-opening insight:
   Bacevich has a book, "The New American Militarism," coming out on our evolving defense situation. It should be a good read.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:52 PM

 
V.P. debate a wash that did not inspire
either combatant in Tuesday's vice presidential debate triumphed or fouled up decisively. Sen. John Edwards and Vice President Dick Cheney each made a respectable, if not inspiring, showing.
   Cheney brought a lot more experience to the exchange, but had to defend an administration with a horrible record in both foreign and domestic policy matters. His conversational, understated, monotone style conveys the impression of gravitas, of wisdom, especially to administration loyalists. Others take it as confirmation he's a cynical, hardboiled old pol.
   Edwards made some excellent points and landed some solid blows, although he also missed a few opportunities to put and keep Cheney on the defensive.
   Edwards is splendidly articulate and uses emphasis, in the trained, practiced public speaker sense, very effectively. We would've welcomed some heat — passion, vehemence, outrage, some vibrant and infectious enthusiasm, as well.
   We missed from Edwards the kind of fiery rhetoric so often generated by Sens. Ted Kennedy and Ernest Hollings, when sounding off on some issue they feel strongly about. Certainly, a war-by-unacknowledged-mistake that has cost more than 1,050 lives and billions of dollars is grounds for some fiery rhetoric, but Edwards passed on the opportunity.
   The day's news brought fresh ammunition on the economy Edwards could've used but didn't. For example, the country is within $18 billion of exceeding the national debt limit of $7.4 trillion, and our supposedly fiscally conservative administration is pressing Congress to raise the ceiling. Meanwhile, the economic recovery President Bush expended so much hot air on in June and July is sputtering to a halt, with August factory orders and retail sales both down, and new applications for unemployment up.
   Cheney's attempts to cast Edwards as lacking in experience and seriousness came off as lame, and the senator was adept in turning each back. We were surprised Cheney didn't hit harder on Edwards' professional past or repeat his scurrilous notion that electing a Kerry-Edwards administration would ensure terrorist attacks in this country.
   At one point, Cheney flatly denied ever having said Saddam Hussein was implicated in the 9-11 attack. Shortly after the debate ended, during "Hardball," MSNBC played a video clip from a little over a year and a half ago that showed Cheney saying, flat out, Saddam Hussein was implicated in the 9-11 attack.
   All in all, it was a workman-like performance by both sides, with many well-established and often-mentioned campaign themes reiterated. We doubt, however, that in future years we'll see many flashbacks.
   A well-done story on the debate cites snap polls from ABC, showing Cheney on top, 43-35 percent; and CBS, showing Edwards way ahead, 41-28 percent. We'll take both with a big grain of salt.
   Speaking of MSNBC, stop by its Web site Hardblogger page for a fun blow-by-blow account of the debate in Keith Olbermann's inimitable style. We don't agree with some of his scoring, but it's an excellent read.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:14 AM

 
Edwards scores with counterspin on Iraq
   “Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American people. I mean, the reality you and George Bush continue to tell people, first, that things are going well in Iraq. The American people don’t need us to explain this to them; they see it on their television every single day.”
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:30 PM

 
Edwards has never debated? Say what?
   Credit for today's Amazing Statement™ goes to Roger Simon, political editor of U.S. News & World Report, who did a guest shot on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," appearing with Time magazine's Karen Tumulty and Marcus Mabry of Newsweek.
   During the political-current events discussion, a Dobbs question led to a ridiculous response from Simon that zoomed right over the host's head:
   The Amazing Statement™, of course, is that Edwards "has never done any kind of debate in any of his campaigns before."
   Uh, what in blue blazes does Simon think Edwards was doing week after week in the Democratic presidential primary race? Edwards debated the whole rest of the field of Democratic contenders: Sens. Bob Graham, John Kerry; Joe Lieberman, Carol Moseley-Braun; Reps. Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich; Gov. Howard Dean, Gen. Wesley Clark, and the Rev. Al Sharpton.
   It's hard to imagine Edwards' people actually made such a statement to Simon. But even if they did, it's harder yet to imagine Simon just accepted such nonsense and repeated it on the air. And then there's Dobbs, who's usually quick to beat back uttered idiocy, letting it go by unchallenged.
   Unlike lightning, apparently, brain cramps can strike twice in the same place.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:52 PM

 
Bush even pulls bait and switch on vets
ctive-duty soldiers and veterans consistently tell pollsters they favor President George W. Bush in the upcoming election. For example, Aug. 27, The Washington Post reported results of a University of Pennsylvania-National Annenberg Election Survey showing Bush leading Sen. John Kerry 56 percent to 38 percent among veterans.
   However, as part of the large and growing number of Americans victimized by Bush's bait-and-switch scams, those present and past military members might want to rethink their preference. A significant Washington Post story today, "Influx of wounded soldiers strains VA," tells why:
   The situation may become even worse for veterans who served in Afghanistan and Iraq who are suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder. The same story reports:
   On Nov. 27, 2003, Bush flew to Baghdad, where he had a photo-op simulation of Thanksgiving dinner with troops at the airport, even carrying a plastic turkey on a platter for the cameras. While there, Bush was characteristically generous in praising our military people:
   That's a nice sentiment, but then what does Bush actually do for the injured and disabled veterans many of our troops are or will become as his Iraq war grinds on? Again, from the Washington Post story:
   Being a good commander in chief, a good president, a genuine friend of active-duty and retired military people requires more than words of gratitude in speeches and "we're with you all the way" photo ops. It requires policies and spending decisions that meet the real needs of these people who serve in demanding jobs around the world, many putting their lives at risk, to defend the rest of us.
   Bush fails that test, showing himself to be a friend in words but not in deeds.
   Bush's real allegiance, obviously, lies with the wealthy few benefiting so greatly from his three gigantic tax cuts. Millionaires will get a $127,000 refund on this year's income tax. They are well taken care of, all right. But then there's not enough money in the federal budget to pay enough claims personnel to meet the needs of veterans.
   Bait and switch, favor the rich — the Bush approach to governing in action.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:09 PM

 
Lack of homeland security plans laid bare
   "'We're doing everything we can at home,' said Bush, taking the odd position of satisfaction in an area where dissatisfaction is the wise policy, but also revealing the complete absence of any plans to improve domestic preparedness.
   "Kerry offered a completely opposite approach — dissatisfaction plus a plan. . . . Bush literally had nothing to say about the homeland security future, save a grumpy line about how much all of Kerry's ideas were going to cost, which only gave the senator a chance to note that the president had preferred a tax cut for wealthy individuals over funds for fighting terrorism."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:02 PM

 
Label-pinning strategy coming undone
   A story by the Washington Post's Dan Balz offers some interesting insight into the somewhat changed landscape following the first of this years Bush-Kerry debates.
   We were especially taken with two paragraphs, beginning with Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, speaking about the post-Democratic convention period and Sen. John Kerry:
   Republicans have spent more than $100 million attempting to define John Kerry in ways they believe will best help George W. Bush get re-elected. Not surprisingly, usefulness toward that end, not honesty, got first priority as Bush's Kerry-defining ads were being written. In other words, the ads are essentially works of fiction loosely based on a real-life, recognizable person.
   The trouble with that strategy is that the truth will come out. First, although Kerry, like all other human beings, has changed his mind and his position at times, he is not the inveterate flip-flopper Rove's operation has made him out to be.
   Furthermore, although he does at times present the picture of a man whose feet are anchored in cement, Bush has an extensive record of position changes of his own (story). They qualify Bush perfectly, under Rove's criteria for branding Kerry, for the flip-flopper label.
   If the Bush-Cheney campaign continues its dishonest "he's a flip-flopper" campaign at the same time people see a different reality from Kerry on the campaign trail and in the debates, serious credibility consequences will ensue — hurting Bush and Cheney. Among those consequences is likely to be a growing realization among voters that Bush is wide open to being hoist on his own petard.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:41 PM

 
Come on, people — you snooze, you lose
   Many Americans take perverse pride in ignoring politics and the intricacies of public policy-making as much as possible, dismissing the people involved with these things as "all a bunch of crooks," or "idiots," or some such put-down.
   We've heard people say those things many times. We'll bet you've heard the same sentiments expressed, and maybe said them yourself.
   We believe this bad habit is a key reason we now have a Republican-controlled Congress and an ill-prepared Republican president who only landed in the White House after some fast-talking, high-powered lawyers made a bank shot off the Supreme Court.
   A Friday Los Angeles Times story about a recent survey bolstered our discouraging assessment of the U.S. electorate:
   The survey also found a third of those queried were out to lunch about which candidate favors more restrictions on abortions, while two-thirds were at a loss about which one favors getting rid of the estate tax.
   We believe this deliberate inattention, this shunning Americans indulge in, is why half the voting-age population seems willing to give President Bush and his people four more years. That, even though Bush & Co. are the reason we have 140,000 troops bogged down in a deadly shooting gallery in Iraq, where 1,050 or more have died; and they're also why we have ballooning federal budget and foreign trade deficits, a chronic jobs deficit, and more and more people sliding into poverty.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:35 PM

 
From the right, a joyless noise
   We had a strange dream the other night. We visited a broadcast studio set up as an amphitheater, much like a college lecture hall. All the seats were filled with people wearing wireless microphone/earpiece units.
   Scanning the seated participants, we recognized in the first section Fred Barnes, William Bennett, Neal Boortz, William F. Buckley, Jr., Tony Blankley, Bay Buchanan, Pat Buchanan, David Brooks, Tucker Carlson, Mona Charen, Ann Coulter, Blanquita Cullum, Jerry Fallwell, Malcolm Forbes, Jr. and John Fund.
   In the center section there was Mike Gallagher, Paul Gigot, , Ken Hamblin, Sean Hannity, Paul Harvey, Hugh Hewitt, David Horowitz, Brit Hume, Laura Ingram, Jeff Jacoby, John Kasich, Alan Keyes, Morton Kondracke, Bill Kristol, Lawrence Kudlow, John Leo, G. Gordon Liddy and Rush Limbaugh.
   And in the third section we saw Michelle Malkin, Michael Medved, Oliver Norh, Bob Novak, Kate O'Beirne, Bill OReilly, Jim Pinkerton, John Podhoretz, Michael Reagan, Pat Robertson, William Safire, Michael Savage, Joe Scarborough, Laura Schlessinger, Curtis Sliwa, Tony Snow, Thomas Sowell, John Stossel, Cal Thomas, George Will, Armstrong Williams, Mort Zuckerman.
   At the front of the studio, Bernard Goldberg was leading these people in a lively discussion.
   The topic: liberal bias in the media!

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:20 AM

 
Unlike Bush's caricature, Kerry fights back
   Last night's dignified and mostly meaningful debate between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry confirmed something we had suspected. Going one-on-one with the real, live Kerry, Bush didn't come off impressively well.
   "Snap" polls uniformly show Kerry as having bested Bush by sizable margins. The key reason isn't hard to divine: Bush got a reality check.
   Ever since Kerry won the Democratic nomination, Bush has campaigned against a two-dimensional caricature of the man, not his flesh-and-blood opponent. The Kerry caricature, as more than $100 million in paid advertising and thousands of hours of free broadcast and other lateral support have crafted him, is a naive, vacillating, unprincipled and poorly informed individual who constantly changes position in hopes of snaring a few more votes.
   Aside from being inconsistent, the caricature's positions are often illogical, unrealistic, even silly. For starters, he doesn't like America much. Even though he's a decorated veteran with combat experience; has a family he loves and intends to keep safe; and despite many years in the Senate, where he's been privy to intelligence about threats, the caricature doesn't care about national security, military preparedness or effective intelligence. So, he always votes against funding measures for those things.
   For reasons Bush never provides, the caricature much prefers the thinking of certain foreign leaders to even the caricature's own thoughts. So, the caricature would turn U.S. foreign policy and defense decisions over to those foreign leaders - at least when he's not taking orders from the corrupt, inept United Nations, which he foolishly loves.
   The caricature is equally foolish elsewhere. He wants to raise taxes for no good purpose, just to make government bigger and more burdensome. He wants to spoil everything for business, making America less competitive in the world and goods and services more costly at home. To top it off, the caricature likes nothing better than to see greedy opportunists bilk innocent businesses out of vast undeserved sums through bogus lawsuits.

   The trouble with the caricature Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the whole right-wing Republican propaganda and marketing industry have created is that he isn't real. He's a convenient straw man who can always be knocked down along the campaign trail. He's a handy punching bag for Bush-Cheney commercials and the swiftboat vets' cheap-shot ads.
   Kerry, on the other hand, does really exist. He served well enough in the military to be decorated for bravery. He's served Massachussetts voters well enough in the Senate that they've seen fit to elect him four times. He's compiled a good enough record, campaigned well enough and hard enough, that Democrats entrusted their presidential nomination to him. Kerry and his message have resonated well enough among Americans generally that he's mostly been neck-and-neck with Bush in the polls, at times pulling ahead.
   As the Democratic nominee, Kerry has won the endorsement of a wide range of Americans, some quite impressive. They include enough generals and admirals to conduct a world war, a herd of former Cabinet secretaries, sizable numbers of academics, scientists and other professionals, and some notables from the business world. Names you might recognize among Kerry's supporters: Buffett, Crowl, McPeak, Shinseki, Albright, Holbrooke, Rubin, Reich and Eisenhower.
   The real, live Kerry is a man of ideas, ideals and principles. He has plans and proposals of genuine merit. People who've actually given Kerry's plans a serious look have come away impressed with their breadth, depth and the quality of thought that went into them.
   Kerry is a real husband and father who loves his family. He isn't about to turn their safety - or the safety of any Americans - over to other countries or other leaders. Nor will he knowingly do anything to weaken the country's defenses or invite attack. Likewise, Kerry wants his family to prosper in a prosperous country. He knows that failing at the things a president can do to grow and strengthen the economy means ending up with the reputation of a failed president.

   Last night, Bush needed to have the caricature across the stage from him. Had Bush only been able to debate the caricature, winning would've been easy.
   In reality, Bush debated the real, live, thinking, speaking Kerry. He had to tangle not with his own version of what Kerry says and his own version of what Kerry wants to do, but the real man. Kerry was there to express his own ideas and counter the lies and distortions the caricature is made of.
   That, as they say in Texas, was a whole 'nother thing.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:05 PM