She don't lie, she don't lie, she don't lie....

From TPM:

Another point: Dan Bartlett, as you can see in the transcript published below, is sticking to the claim that there was no reason for President Bush to show up for the flight physical in question because it was no longer relevant to the duties he was performing (or not performing). But the records published by CBS -- and summarized here in the Post -- show Bush received a direct order to submit to that physical by a given date and refused or failed to do so.

Bartlett seems to be saying that it doesn't matter that Bush didn't follow the order because the order didn't make any sense.

Now, I'm no military man. But aside from orders that contravene the laws of war, the Geneva Conventions or the US constitution, I don't think an officer or an enlisted man is allowed to disobey an order just because he comes up with some logic by which he decides the order doesn't really make sense. An order is an order, right?

Wartime situations can also provide extenuating circumstances for disobeying an order, as in cases where the exigencies of combat render an order moot or create a situation where the recipient of the order can say that circumstances had changed so radically that the issuer of the order wouldn't have issued it had they known, etc. etc. But I assume we can stipulate that this wasn't a live combat situation.

And here we get down to a specific and perhaps touchy point. Why wouldn't Bush show up for that physical? An Air Force pilot's physical is a bigger deal than the one civilians get on a routine basis. But still, it's not that big a deal. Even if he didn't think it was necessary, why disobey a direct order to get around it?

And on this point let me make a more general suggestion. The White House's story has changed many, many times on the Guard matter. And they've been careful -- and wisely so -- to avoid make definitive statements that would limit their room for maneuver after future revelations.

There are now two news organizations actively at work (and at least one of them is pretty far along) on a story about just why Bush was having those problems in the Guard in 1973. With that in mind, now my might be a good time to press a few more specific questions. At least one major news organization -- and I suspect others -- is working on a story that touches directly on why Bush might not have been willing to take that physical.[emphasis added]

Dick Cheney: If Kerry is elected, you will die

Paul Anderson: If Bush's policies in the Middle East continue, you will die.

What an idiot (part 6)

Thanks to Shawn for this:

Introduction of Senator John Kerry
Democratic Party of Georgia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner
March 1,2001

It is good to be back in Georgia and to be with you. I have been coming to these dinners since the 1950s, and have missed very few.

I'm proud to be Georgia's junior senator and I'm honored to serve with Max Cleland, who is as loved and respected as anyone in that body. One of our very highest priorities must be to make sure this man is re-elected in 2002 so he can continue to serve this state and nation.

I continue to be impressed with all that Governor Barnes and Lieutenant Governor Taylor and the Speaker and the General Assembly are getting done over at the Gold Dome. Georgia is fortunate to have this kind of leadership.

My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend.

He was once a lieutenant governor – but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.

In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.

Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.

John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its "Digital Dozen."John was re-elected in 1990 and again in 1996 – when he defeated popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most closely watched Senate race in the country.

John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in Vietnam. He later co-founded the Vietnam Veterans of America.

He is married to Teresa Heinz and they have two daughters.

As many of you know, I have great affection – some might say an obsession – for my two Labrador retrievers, Gus and Woodrow. It turns out John is a fellow dog lover, too, and he better be. His German Shepherd, Kim, is about to have puppies. And I just want him to know … Gus and Woodrow had nothing to do with that.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome Senator John Kerry.

The speaker? None other than Zell Miller.

Strong closer?

Kerry is a strong closer. Isn't it better that he was tested in August? Isn't all of this negative energy swirling around his candidacy a good thing?

Every poll I've seen in the last 2 days has shown Kerry tied with Bush or slightly behind.

At the same time, Kerry has hit the stump with new vigor. His supporters are now energized. They know we can lose this election. It's not in the bag anymore.

We needed this "correction". We're back on track now. Let's get this guy...

And just when I get down on Kerry...

...I read this article from Slate:

Bush describes the world in terms of black and white, good vs. evil. Kerry now describes the world in terms of right vs. wrong. "As the president likes to say, there's nothing complicated about this," Kerry says every time he begins his new "W. stands for wrong" speech. Kerry no longer brags about being complicated, as he did in his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention. He's now as simple as Bush. As Kerry said in Greensboro, "John Edwards and I believe, deep to the core of our being, that there's an easy distinction between what's right and what's wrong."

You won't be shocked to learn which side of the line Kerry thinks Bush falls on. Bush on the war: wrong. Bush on government spending: wrong. Bush on Medicare: wrong. Bush on Social Security: wrong. Bush on outsourcing: wrong. Bush on the environment: wrong. (Kerry also referred to mankind's "spiritual, God-given responsibilities" to be stewards of the Earth.)

And in Greensboro, Kerry added a new element to his "That's W., wrong choice, wrong direction," refrain. Each time, he concluded with, "And we want to make it right." Kerry did get a little overzealous about his new theme when he referred to the treasury secretary as "John W. Snow—John Snow, excuse me." After some laughter from the audience, Kerry added, "Well, he's wrong, too."

Kerry has also begun to criticize Bush for breaking promises, for not being as unwavering as he pretends to be. In West Virginia on Monday, Kerry said Bush promised in 2000 to spend more money on clean coal technology, but the money never came. In North Carolina on Tuesday, Kerry mentioned the administration's overconfident estimates of war on the cheap: "He promised that this war would cost $1 billion, and that oil from Iraq would pay for it."

The audience liked the new black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us Kerry. He was doing so well that during the question-and-answer session he felt liberated to engage in some more improvisation. A woman stood up and announced, "I'm so excited to see you. I think you're hot." Referring to his 27-year-old daughter, Vanessa, who was in
the audience, Kerry said, "My daughter just buried her head. That is not the way she thinks about her father. But at my age, that sounds good." While he was talking, Vanessa Kerry looked down and stuck her fingers in her ears.

That's actually quite refreshing. Because let's face it - in politics, you're either with us or against us, black or white, Democrat or Republican, right or wrong. Leave subtlety to governing. Campaigns are about giving voters stark choices.

Yet another reason why we need Howard Dean? Maybe. Maybe I was wrong.

Of course, "YEAHHHHHH!!!!" bails out my credibility.

Howard Dean vs John Kerry

Both are miserable general election candidates, but I'm now willing to admit that Howard Dean, minus "YEAHHHHHHHH!!", would be a better candidate than John Kerry.

Of course, "YEAHHHHHH!!" happened, and we can't take that back.

The country simply isn't ready right now for someone who they think consider wobbly. Perhaps Dean's straight-shooting would have helped him.

I'd argued that Dean would be seen as very liberal. Well, the Republicans have successfully painted Kerry as the most liberal Senator. So that issue is moot.

I argued that Dean said stupid things on the campaign trail. Has Kerry said anything stupid on the campaign trail? Certainly.

Finally, I felt like the gay marriage issue would bury Dean. I've recently changed my mind and have argued that gay marriage is a net plus for Democrats.

Of course, John Edwards would have been the best candidate...

Hope is on the way

And it's in the form of the new WSJ/Zogby battleground state poll.

It has Kerry up 303-223. If this is Bush's high mark, then he's in trouble.

Interesting trends in the poll:

Bush ahead in Ohio by 10
Kerry ahead in Missouri by 0.4
Kerry ahead in Pennsylvania by 3
Kerry ahead in Florida by 0.3
Kerry ahead in New Mexico by 10
Kerry ahead in Nevada by 1
Bush ahead in Arkansas by 1.7

It looks like this election will come down to the states that I put in bold letters. Every one of those except for Pennsylvania would be pickup states for Kerry.

This election continues to be fought on George Bush's turf, and that's a good thing.

John Kerry: Go away!

Time for a return to the stealth campaign. If this election is a referendum on the detestable John Kerry, then we'll lose. If it's a referendum on the detestable George W. Bush, then we'll win. Right now, the focus is on Kerry.

Let's get back to Bush!

A new campaign plan:
1. Tie Kerry up and throw him in a closet
2. Send out 1000 surrogates to bash Bush

a. Forget AWOL/Vietnam
b. Talk about Abu Ghraib (I'm still waiting for that ad)
c. Talk about the recent Medicare premium hike
d. Talk about Bush being a liar and an idiot
e. Let bad news from Iraq work on it's own. Don't attach partisan politics
to disasters in Iraq or they won't hurt the President as badly.
f. Start referring to "The Iraq War" as "Bush's war". Right now people are
confused as to whether Kerry supported or was against the war. To get by this
problem, change it's name to "Bush's war".

3. Check and make sure Kerry is still locked in the closet

Why don't I read the Weekly Standard?

Here's why:

One hears many similar accusations nowadays. The Bush administration is spending blood for oil, hopes to expand its imperialist reach, intends to dominate and oppress the Iraqi people, is the world's leading threat to peace. Hates Muslims, despises our allies, plans to suppress the Bill of Rights. There is a name for this kind of hatred--the kind that shrugs off reality, loves to mock its targets and treat them as barely human, capable of any outrage, unspeakably stupid and evil. There is a name for the kind of hatred that applies automatically to any member of a designated group--in this case to American conservatives and especially white, religious American conservatives. The name of this hatred is racism.

We can't understand hatred like the German survivor's or Michael Moore's or a million self-righteous left-wingers' unless we understand that their Bush-hatred is racist hatred.
"Race" has traditionally meant any group that seems like a group, with a recognizable group identity--Americans, British, Jews, Japanese were all called "races." The Oxford
English Dictionary says that a "race" is (among other things) "a group or class of persons . . . having some common feature or features." Thus "the race of good men" (1580), "a race of idle people" (1611), "a new race of poets" (1875). The newspaper humorist Don Marquis once wrote about "the royal race of hicks."
Racist hatred has clearly recognizable characteristics:

* The hater knows all about his target automatically; no research required. Recall how many leftists were shocked when Bob Woodward informed them, in his Bush book, that the president was an alert, hands-on manager. They had known this to be false a
priori.* The hater harbors a stupendous conceit. Not long ago an Ivy League
philosophy professor explained the political homogeneity of so many philosophy
departments. Pure merit, he said; you have to be smart to be a philosophy professor, and conservatives are dumb, so what can you expect?
* The hater is moved by a terrible, frantic eagerness to set himself apart from "them." In the spring of 2003, an American pop-singer announced to her London audience,
"Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."
* The hater just knows that his opponent acts not on principle but out of greed or stupidity. At an anti-Iraq war demonstration in March 2004, the actor Woody Harrelson read a poem. "I recognize your face, I recognize your name. / Your daddy killed for oil, and you did the same." We often hear this "blood for oil" accusation. After the first Gulf War we had Iraqi and Kuwaiti oilfields in our grasp. If our goal was to steal oil, why did we give them back? Are we that stupid?
* The hater has no shame--because he knows (not by reason but automatically) that he is right. Thus a decent and likable retired businessman, rich and with every reason to be grateful to America--the survivor of Nazi Germany I've mentioned--accuses the president of closet fascism.
That's racist hatred.

Bush landslide?

Check out Kerry's latest antics.