A warning for Kerry

From TNR's ETC blog:

MY BIGGEST CONCERN ABOUT THE DEBATE OUTCOME: ...That Kerry concludes he won because he made his case about allies, inspections, the U.N., blah, blah, blah. He didn't. He won mostly on style and tone--and because he occasionally held Bush accountable for Osama bin Laden, North Korea, and the mistakes in Iraq. (And because Bush screwed the pooch.) Please, please tell him this, John Sasso

Some debate opinion

Electablog

Conservative Andrew Sullivan:

Watching Bush last night, I saw a president who sometimes didn't seem in control of his job, a man who couldn't and didn't defend the conduct of the war except to say that it was "hard work," who seemed defensive, tired, and occasionally rattled.

White House spokeman Dan Barlet defended Bush's debate performance thusly:

White House communications director Dan Bartlett, beads of sweat glistening on his forehead, resorts to a very odd line of spin. He lowers expectations for Bush after the debate is already over. "President Bush spoke the only way he knows how," he says. "He's never been labeled the most eloquent and articulate speaker."

From TNR:

Bush demanded that those little warning lights be prominently displayed on the podium to embarrass Kerry when he delivered long-winded answers. The opposite happened. The tight time limits helped Kerry--always at his best when on deadline--control his message. Instead the lights served to emphasize that Bush didn't always have enough to say to fill out his time. In previous debates Bush would sometimes answer a question with a short declarative sentence and a sharp nod of the head. The lights would have made this embarrassing, and at times Bush started repeating stock lines and seemed as though he were filibustering. The Kerry campaign used the lights brilliantly. Before the debate they even mischievously demanded that the lights be removed when in fact they knew they would help Kerry. "We protested too much on the lights and you all fell for it," Joe Lockhart told me.

McCain quote

From the AP:

Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who informally advised Bush on how to debate his friend and Senate colleague, told reporters in Miami on Friday that the debate was probably Kerry's "brightest moment" in the last six weeks. "He presented himself well, John did," McCain said. "Kerry came out slugging."

Notes and quote: Kerry

I liked when Kerry told the Tora Bora story and claimed that Bush was “outsourcing to Afghan warlords”. That jab hit two birds with one stone.

Kerry’s appeals were often xenophobic in nature. He said things like (and I paraphrase), “We need to spend money on fire houses in America, not in Iraq”. But hey, whatever works. Let’s face it – the American people don’t give a damn about. Most people figure (especially conservatives), “What’s a few more dead Arabs? Less people to blow themselves up.”
Then again, I have to admit that it’s morally wrong for Kerry to use these types of xenophobic appeals. It’s like saying: “We’re better than them. We’re Americans.”

I liked when Kerry repeatedly used the phrase “The President invaded it” (referring to Iraq). Clearly, Kerry’s job tonight was to frame Iraq as Bush’s war, and he did a good job through semantics.

When Kerry pandered to swing voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania with the armor comment, it was a bit sickening, I’ll admit.

I liked Kerry’s line: Do we need a tax cut or do we need to invest in homeland security?

I liked this line: [Blank] General made [blank] recommendations about the Iraq war. “Instead of listening to him, we retired him.” This line is great because it enforces the notion that Bush brushes aside reality.

Kerry used the phrase “No plan” or “no planning” about 100 times. It was very effective, because the president himself has admitted that he “miscalculated” the post war situation. It also draws a distinction that is helpful for Kerry. Kerry wanted Saddam disarmed, just like Bush did. But Bush failed to plan for the post-war situation.

I liked the Bob Shrum language that Kerry used tonight. For example, he constantly said (paraphrased) that he would “fight for our soldiers” in Iraq. And he drew a coherent parallel between Vietnam and Iraq. After Kerry came home from Vietnam, he fought for his fellow soldiers, and he will fight for our soldiers in Iraq, despite the wrongness of the war. The best line was this one:
“I do not confuse the war with the warriors”. In other words, he supports/loves his fellow soldiers, but he still opposes the war. A brilliant line.

Several times, Kerry insinuated that Bush fought the war for oil. This was a clear play at his base, but I think the lines were good because they were based on reality:
We really did protect the oil facilities and we didn’t protect the schools, historic sites, or power plants.

Kerry agreed with Bush often enough to not lose credibility. If he disagreed with everything Bush said, he wouldn’t be as believable.

Kerry accused Bush of letting the enemy “walk into the mountains”. He was referring to Tora Bora. This was a really effective attack on Bush’s leadership in the war on terror.

Bush continued to claim that we had real alliances in Iraq. I was waiting all night for Kerry to call his BS, and finally he did. When Bush said, “You forgot Poland.” Kerry responded by saying that it was really just the US and a few thousand troops from Britain. Once again, reality favors Kerry.

Kerry constantly harped on North Korea and Iran. The president needs to be held responsible for these countries’ imminent nuclear armament.

Finally, Kerry’s weak spot was when he referred to a former French PM and went on his rant about how much the world disrespected America. Maybe these lines were focus group tested or something. I don’t know. They seemed like loser lines to me.

Quotes and notes: Bush

Here are some quotes from Bush and my reaction. I’ll try to do these chronologically as they appeared in the debate.

Bush made 2 references to the “AQ-Con network”
At first, I was like, “what is that?” Then I realized he was talking about some sort of nuclear scandal in Pakistan. Great…

Whenever Bush used the phrase, “tough decisions” (always referring to Iraq), it was a code phrase for “wrong decisions”. Whenever Bush makes an incorrect choice, he refers to it as “tough”.

Bush responded randomly to one of Kerry’s critiques by referring to a “tax gap”. Maybe in 100 years, after several dozens of scholars study this debate, we’ll understand what he meant by a “tax gap”.

Bush constantly referred to “10 million registered voters in Afghanistan”. But what about the war lords that rule 75% of the country? What about the Taliban, who now control a small chunk of the country? Democracy in Afghanistan? Please.

One of Bush’s most ineffective lines was “We’re spending reconstruction money in Iraq”. Huh? Clearly this was a reference to the latest criticism of the Bush administration – that they’re not even spending reconstruction money in Iraq because it’s too unstable. But…throwing that randomly into conversation seemed a bit…random. Especially since it’s not true. We really haven’t spent the reconstruction money, because we can’t find anyone stupid enough to try to build things in this godforsaken country.

Bush kept quoting Kerry. For example, Bush cited Kerry’s declaration that Iraq had been the “wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time”. Now I understand what Bush was trying to do.
First, he was trying to use the “stab in the back” technique. He was trying to insinuate that Kerry was stabbing our combat troops in the back – undermining their efforts.
Second, he was trying to paint Kerry as a flip flopper.
All of this is fine and well. But when you poll the American public right now, more than 50% believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake. How does it help Bush to repeatedly gave air to his opponent’s criticism of the war. Not so smart…

When Bush says, “every life is precious,” I want to vomit. Bush has used our soldiers like rag dolls.

After muttering that disgusting line, Bush managed to amuse the hell out of me. Here’s a gem from the one and only, George W. Bush:
“Missy Johnson…I tried to love her”.
The Missy Johnson anecdote was one of the most hilarious things I’ve ever witnessed in politics. Bush simply can’t express sympathy for the common man. Why not? Because he’s an elitist. He can fake it with a bullhorn on 9-11 or fake it with his folksy sayings. But at the end of the day, we all have to acknowledge that Bush has avoided every funeral of American soldiers killed in Iraq because he can’t handle the reality of what he has done. He doesn’t have the moral strength.

Bush’s best lines came when John Kerry started rambling about “other nations”. Bush took advantage and pointed out that John Kerry would defer decisions regarding the defense of America to other nations (whether it’s true or not, it’s a good line). He said that he would defend America, and that it didn’t matter whether his decision “passed the global test”. A good line.

“Peninshula”. “Nukular”. “Transhipment”. Enough said.

Bush condemned Putin’s actions in Russia. Then he claimed that he “told him that what he as doing was wrong”. That’s complete BS. Can anyone really see George W. Bush telephoning “Puti”, the man whose “eyes he looked into”, and telling him that his experiment in dictatorship was wrong? Unlikely.

Bush also made a scary statement regarding Russia. When pressed on the issue of Russia’s latest turn towards dictatorship, Bush excused Putin by saying that Russia had experienced a terrorist tragedy. So…if we’re attacked again in America, can we expect a similar consolidation of government power? Bush seems to think that national emergencies should be met with illiberal policies…

Finally, Bush made an amusing statement about Russia. He said that Russia was “a country in transition”.
Yes – in transition from democracy to dictatorship.

The Battle of Personality

Forgive me America, for I have sinned. I predicted that Kerry would lose the battle of personality, but he won it decisively.

The personality battle is pointless. It shouldn’t mean anything in the grand scheme of things, but swing voters value it. In 2000, a sigh shifted the polls by 10%. So I’m going to write about personality now – because dammit, I have to.

Analysis:

While Kerry was talking, George Bush looked exasperated, confused, and annoyed. He looked unprofessional.

While Bush was talking, Kerry was quietly and academically taking notes. When Bush made a joke at Kerry’s expense, Kerry laughed a good hearted laugh, then went back to his notes. He didn’t sigh and he didn’t give a condescending look. He accepted the joke, and then quickly shifted back to the business at hand – destroying George W. Bush.

Kerry’s one and only strength is his seriousness. It’s his tree-like persona. He’s like a giant oak tree. When it comes to defending America, voters like seriousness. He demonstrated that tonight.

I wrote down a number of adjectives to describe Bush’s manner (especially in the first hour of the debate, before he calmed down):

Nervous, incoherent, rambling, annoyed, stuttering, exasperated, defensive

Bush was clearly rattled at the beginning. When you emerge from a world of your own spin - where Iraq is on the grand march to democracy - into a world where that might not be true, it can be confusing. And Bush was confused and dismayed. He was off of his game. He’s normally a calm and collected guy, but tonight he seemed annoyed and perplexed.

As I mentioned in my first post, Bush’s talking points were a bit contrived. And not only were they contrived, he repeated them much too often. It was as if he couldn’t think of anything else so he referred back to his talking points. Not so good.

In order for Kerry to not turn off voters, he had to avoid sounding aloof and rambling on. He managed to do this for most of the debate, until the final segments when both he and Bush rambled on about Korea, Iran, and Sudan, and the average American voter fell asleep.

Anyway – I’m amazed to say that, despite Bush’s inherent advantage on the personality issue, Kerry clearly won on this front tonight.

First impressions, plan for tonight

I'm going to write a few posts tonight on this debate. I took 8 pages of detailed notes on the debates.

Here's my first impression:

I've never in my life seen a candidate dominate another in a debate like John Kerry dominated George W. Bush. If I had to score it, I'd score it:

Bush 1
Kerry 5

Bush's 1 point was for the exchange where Kerry seemed to imply that he'd look to other countries for authority to protect America. Bush capitalized nicely on that exchange.

Other than that, Kerry won on personality and policy. He was on the offensive nearly 3 times as much as Bush. And his talking points were more catchy than Bush's:

Kerry's talking points:
"No planning"

Bush's talking points:
"John Kerry said, 'Wrong war, wrong time'"
and
"He's sending mixed signals to our troops"

Kerry's job tonight was to defend his November 2003 vote to authorize force in Iraq. I thought it would be impossible, but he did it effectively.

Anyway, I'm off to write up my pieces on the debate - check back at about midnight tonight.

The politics of calling Bush stupid

A self-described "swing voter" once chided me for calling Bush stupid. She felt that this turned people like her off and pushed them away from the Democrats.

There's an easy explanation for this phenomenon: swing voters are also stupid! Sure, every once in a while you'll find one like Andrew Sullivan who has principled positions on each side of the political spectrum. But most of them are complete idiots!

We must appeal to them as such. That means nasty negative attacks with half-true smears. It also means being nice to George W. Bush. We can't treat him harshly just because he appears to have Downs Syndrome.

Watch for that tonight. If Kerry condescends Bush, he loses. Remember the sigh?

If Kerry chides Bush, he loses.

God bless America.

Would Dean have been better?

Slate argues the pros and cons of having Dean at this point.

To them, I say: "YEAHHHH!!!!!!!!"

I still maintain that Edwards and Clark would have been the best candidates. But it's now up in the air whether Dean or Kerry would have been better.

Kerry needs to DESTROY Bush tonight. Somehow.

Somehow...

Does America deserve George W. Bush?

I think we do. We're a country full of politically inactive morons. Maybe we deserve this dolt.

DailyKos in fantasyland

Play the "How can Gallup..." game
by kos
Wed Sep 29th, 2004 at 07:42:42 GMT

Ruy is kicking Gallup ass over at Donkey Rising.
How can Gallup......have Bush up by 13 nationwide, when he's only up by 2 points among Florida RVs?--and according to their own poll!
How can Gallup.....have Bush up by 13 nationwide, when he's only up by 2 points among Nevada RVs?--again, according to their own poll [...]

How can Gallup.....have Bush up by 13 nationwide, when he's only leading in Montana by 18 points? (in 2000, Bush won Montana by 25 points)

How can Gallup.....have Bush up by 13 nationwide, when he's behind Kerry by 15 points in California and 20 points in New York?

How can Gallup.....have Bush tied in the solid blue states (that is, the non-battleground blue states, so WI, MN, IO etc aren't included), when he is trailing Kerry by 15 points in California and 20 points in New York?

How can Gallup.....have Bush up by 13, when he's only leading among independents by 2 (and that was exactly Bush's margin among independents in 2000 when, as you recall, he did not win the popular vote by 13 points)?

Ruy has lots more questions.
[Update] USA Today whitewashes the issue.

Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, said the critics don't understand the science behind the polls. "This issue has been the subject of intense scholarly discussion and years of research. We're confident in what we're doing," he said.
Actually, it's what Gallup doesn't do that is at the heart of the debate. The polling firm does not adjust its "pool" of voters to add or subtract Republicans or Democrats in an effort to mirror those parties' estimated make-ups.

Silly liberals. We cannot possibly hope to understand their advanced science.

Textera makes a few good points, but I'm forced to wonder - is Kos deluding himself? I read through the comments on the post and I notice the same liberal disregard for reality that I saw during the primaries when they all thought Dean would be invincible during the general election.

Liberals hate George W. Bush with a passion. They also assume that most of the country hates him. And sadly, it's just not true.

Keep this fact in mind when you watch the debate on Thursday and you hear George W. Bush say something SO STUPID that it makes you cringe: People love his folksy speaking style.. People are stupid.

Stab in the back

Are John Kerry, the liberals, and the media trying stab our troops in the back, just like the Jews stabbed the German soldiers in the back in 1917? George Bush certainly thinks so. In his latest ad, "Peace and Security", Bush lies twice* before getting to the main point: John Kerry's actions and statements are the reason why our troops are dying in Iraq right now. They're the reason why the post-war reconstruction is failing miserably.

The GOP wants you to blame John Kerry and not George W. Bush, the architect of both the war and the reconstruction.

*John Kerry didn't ever vote against 6 billion in intelligence spending and he didn't vote against any defense programs that Dick Cheney didn't recommend scrapping as Secretary of Defense.

So let's see - I hate to make the Nazi comparison again (no I don't), but when I see lies mixed with jingoistic propaganda and this "stab in the back" theory, I'm forced to make it.

That's why I'm scared that these people will be reelected. If the Republicans are in power and we have a catastrophic attack on the US (like a dirty bomb or something), then they'll take power. They'll end Democracy in America forever. These people are dangerous. Our freedoms are at stake.

I'm being completely serious. Terrorists will get their hands on nuclear materials. We WILL be attacked, and that attack will kill tens of thousands of people. Once that happens, if these evangelical apocalyptic Republicans are in power, you can kiss your freedom goodbye.

And don't say I didn't warn you.

Heavens to Betsy

Worst article I've ever read. Here it is in it's entirety.

Kerry using humor as political tool
'You bet your boots I know what I'm talking about'

SPRING GREEN, Wisconsin (AP) -- "Heavens to Betsy," it's hard to believe that the John Kerry of U.S. Senate stiff-speak is out there on the campaign trail tossing off homespun phrases, and even a joke or two.

Not only is the sometimes aloof senator from Massachusetts dropping an occasional laugh-line into his stump speech, his audiences are chuckling. This heartens campaign aides who think his message is extraordinary but worry that the delivery is often ordinary.

Even while speaking on the very serious topic of Iraq last week at New York University, Kerry made the audience laugh six times at President Bush's expense. Most of the guffaws came when Kerry stated Bush administration positions in a tone that suggested they were the height of ridiculousness.

Kerry said the occupation of Iraq is riddled with problems, "yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way." Kerry paused for affect before asking sarcastically, "How can he possibly be serious?" (Special Report: America Votes 2004, the Issues)

Sarcasm is a change for a man whose political career has been dominated by nearly 20 years in the Senate -- the country's oldest deliberative body -- with stern rules and mores for speaking that can make the people who work there unintelligible in heartland America.

He has acknowledged that he has struggled not to fall into inside-the-Beltway language, and often his Capitol Hill training has won out.

But there are signs that Kerry is improving in the crucial closing weeks of the campaign. Like on Monday, when he predicted the president would continue to paint a rosy picture of the ailing economy, Kerry used an idiom likely to be heard among teenagers in a shopping mall, but not on the Senate floor.

"You're going to hear all this talk, 'Oh, we've turned the corner, we're doing better, blah, blah,"' he said, running on the phrase as his Wisconsin audience erupted in laughter. "You know, blah and blah and blah."

Kerry isn't just using the lingo of the younger generation. He's thrown in a couple of old-fashioned folksy phrases, too. "Heavens to Betsy," he said earlier this month when remarking on Republicans' failure to reinstate the assault weapons ban. "You bet your boots I know what I'm talking about," Kerry said Monday when promising to be more fiscally responsible than Bush.

Bush has been effectively using humor to mock Kerry throughout the campaign. He often delights Republican audiences by poking fun at his challenger by calling him a flip-flopper. "He probably could spend 90 minutes debating himself," Bush said with a chuckle Monday in Ohio.

Kerry was cracking up his partisan crowd by telling Wisconsin voters they shouldn't be wary of changing horses midstream when the horse is drowning. He tied the metaphor to reports that the Bush campaign insisted that podiums in Thursday's debate be set relatively far apart to obscure Kerry's five-inch height advantage.

"May I also suggest that we need a taller horse?" he said. "You can get through deeper waters that way."

But Kerry still slips into his comfortable old Senate-speak sometimes. On Monday, he boasted of his role in the Conservation Security Act that Sen. Tom Harkin helped pass, without pausing to think that Wisconsin voters might not recognize that Harkin is the junior senator from Iowa.

But he drew guffaws at Temple University last Friday when he criticized Bush for dragging his feet before appearing before the September 11 commission "but only with Vice President Cheney at his side." And he told late-night host David Letterman last week that Bush only agreed to debate if he could sit on Cheney's lap.

American Indian Museum

With much fanfare, the Museum of the American Indian opened this weekend in Washington. I decided to go check it out. At the museum, I found a variety of intricate sculptures and artifacts from Native American culture, but nary a mention of the genicide committed by Europeans that reduced the indigenous population by nearly 90%.

Once again, the Smithsonian has ducked tough questions in order to present a version of history that allows John Q. Idiot to continue to beat his chest and declare, "God bless America - We've never been wrong!" Well, actually the questions aren't that tough. Is the rape and murder of millions of indigenous people in the Americas worth mentioning? YES.

Let's say a young child was visiting this museum and didn't know much about American history. After leaving this museum, he or she would no doubt wonder, "What happened to all of these people? Where are they, mommy?"

The museum doesn't discuss these important and obvious questions. And I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the Republicans in Congress who monitor the Smithsonian rejected academic attempts to provide an accurate picture of what happened to the American Indians. They did it to the proposed Enola Gay exhibit...

2 out of the 4 floors were totally consumed by gift shops. Perhaps they could have been used more wisely?

I also didn't see anything about casinos in the museum, but that's a whole other subject...

The grand march to democracy

Iraq is going really well!

Key Bush assertions about Iraq in dispute

By Adam Entous

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - Many of President George W. Bush's assertions about progress in Iraq -- from police training and reconstruction to preparations for January elections -- are in dispute, according to internal Pentagon documents, lawmakers and key congressional aides on Sunday.

Bush used the visit last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to make the case that "steady progress" is being made in Iraq to counter warnings by his Democratic presidential rival, Senator John Kerry, that the situation in reality is deteriorating.

Bush touted preparations for national elections in January, saying Iraq's electoral commission is up and running and told Americans on Saturday that "United Nations electoral advisers are on the ground in Iraq."

He said nearly 100,000 "fully trained and equipped" Iraqi soldiers, police officers and other security personnel are already at work, and that would rise to 125,000 by the end of this year.

And he promised more than $9 billion (five billion pounds) will be spent on reconstruction contracts in Iraq over the next several months.

But many of these assertions have met with scepticism from key lawmakers, congressional aides and experts, and Pentagon documents, given to lawmakers and obtained by Reuters, paint a more complicated picture.

TROOP, POLICE TRAINING

The documents show that of the nearly 90,000 currently in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. Another 46,176 are listed as "untrained," and it will be July 2006 before the administration reaches its
new goal of a 135,000-strong, fully trained police force.

Six Army battalions have had "initial training," while 57 National Guard battalions, 896 soldiers in each, are still being recruited or "awaiting equipment." Just eight Guard battalions have reached "initial (operating) capability," and the Pentagon acknowledged the Guard's performance has been "uneven."

Training has yet to begin for the 4,800-man civil intervention force, which will help counter a deadly insurgency. And none of the 18,000 border enforcement guards have received any centralised training to date, despite earlier claims they had, according to Democrats on the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.

They estimated that 22,700 Iraqi personnel have received enough basic training to make them "minimally effective at their tasks," in contrast to the 100,000 figure cited by Bush.

"Let me tell you exactly what the story is. They're saying they're trying to train them, yet they have not trained," Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CNN.

The White House defended its figures, and a senior administration official defined "fully trained" as having gone through "initial basic operations training." Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command that covers Iraq, told
NBC's "Meet the Press" that the number of trained Iraqi forces "will continue to grow."

On CBS "Face the Nation," Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Bush needed to deploy more troops to secure areas of Iraq before the elections.

"We are making progress, but we need to adjust," Graham said.

ELECTIONS, RECONSTRUCTION DISPUTED

The status of election planning in Iraq is also in question. Of the $232 million in Iraqi funds set aside for the Iraqi electoral commission, it has received a mere $7 million, according to House Appropriations Committee staff.

While Bush said the commission has already hired personnel and begun setting election procedures, congressional aides said preparations in other areas were behind schedule.

According to a one-page election planning "time line," registration materials are supposed to be distributed in early October and initial voter lists to go out by the end of October, which is during the holy month of Ramadan.

So far, the United Nations has been reluctant to send staff back into the battle zone. It only has 30 to 35 people now in Baghdad, no more than eight working on the elections.

"The framework for it (free and fair elections) hasn't even been set up. The voter registration lists aren't set. There have to be hundreds of polling places, hundreds of trained monitors and poll watchers. None of that has happened," Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State for President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, told ABC's "This Week."

With the violence expected to intensify in the run-up to the elections, congressional experts were also sceptical $9 billion could be spent on reconstruction projects within several months, as Bush asserted.