We've turned a corner, alright.

A few weeks ago, the B-C'04 line was that the economy was strong and getting stronger, and that we were "turning the corner."

Stocks Tumble As Oil Tops $55 Per Barrel Oct 22, 3:19 PM (ET) By MICHAEL J. MARTINEZ NEW YORK (AP) - Worried investors sent stocks sharply lower as crude oil futures topped $55 per barrel and tepid earnings from Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) and the Coca-Cola Co. offset Google Inc. (GOOG)'s strong third-quarter report. The Dow fell more than 101 points in late trading. Oil prices continued to pressure the market, casting doubt not only on fourth-quarter earnings, but also on the health of the economy as a whole. A barrel of light crude was quoted at $55.17, up 70 cents, on the New York Mercantile Exchange. "These oil prices are really going to bite the consumer at some point. Heating oil is up, it's supposed to be a very cold winter in the Northeast, and lower and middle income people are going to pay," said Russ Koesterich, U.S. equity strategist at State Street Corp. (STT) "Combine that with a total lack of fundamentals in the big name stocks, and there are very few places left to hide for investors." Shares of Google surged in early trading as the online search giant doubled both revenues and profits from a year ago. Like its initial public offering two months ago, Google was one of the few bright spots in an otherwise nervous market.

In late afternoon trading, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 101.92, or 1 percent, to 9,763.84. The Dow was poised to set a new low for the year to date.

Broader stock indicators also were substantially lower. The Standard & Poor's 500 index was down 10.48, or 1 percent, at 1,096.01, and the Nasdaq composite index lost 36.72, or 1.9 percent, to 1,916.90.

All three major indexes were set to end lower for the third straight week, as the continued rise in oil prices and middling earnings reports sapped confidence from investors. A wait-and-see attitude also pervaded the market, with major economic reports, including the first reading of the third quarter's gross domestic product, and the presidential election looming.

Look out, stagflation. Here we come.

Make your own prediction

The LA Times has a very cool interactive electoral map. Not only can you click around to make your own predictions, but when you wave the cursor over a state, it'll give you the most recent polling figures courtesy of Polling Report.com.

Orwell

I came across this blog via DailyKos. The writer has documented several instances where the White House has literally scrubbed information and files from its own website. This is, quite frankly, no different from the old totalitarian habit of "erasing", say, Trotsky from a picture also featuring Lenin and Stalin, once Trotsky fell into disfavor. Specifically, by clicking the link above, you'll be reminded of the VP debate, where Cheney said Edwards was "dead wrong" when he said that the US was taking 90% of coalition casualties and paying 90% of the cost of the Iraq occupation. Cheney chided Edwards, saying that Edwards was ignoring the deaths of Iraqi guardsmen. Brad checked the White House website, and clicked a link to find out the names of the coalition members. The linked-to file was gone. He found it via Google's cache. "Iraq" was not named as a member of the coalition (obviously). Brad then notified the White House webmaster of the broken link and waited a couple of weeks for them to fix it. They did. By getting rid of the link altogether. When the policy doesn't fit the facts, the Bush administration (which acknowledges that it operates outside the reality-based community), changes the facts. It's appalling.

Red Sox Nation, Rejoice

The BuffaloPundit lived in Boston, Mass. from about 1986 - 2001 (with the exception of 1991-1994). Although I grew up a Yankee fan, I grew to appreciate the Sox around the time of my return in 1994. (I rooted for the Mets in 1986). Each year, my appreciation and devotion to the Team that Never Could has grown exponentially. Last year's heartbreak was not unexpected - I go into every series, every game, assuming that they would lose. The best defense against a broken heart. Well, last night I turned the game off at around 10:00. The Sox were up 8-1, but I wasn't secure in the knowledge that they would win. I was a bit hopeful, but by no means certain. Sox fans just don't have that Yankee swagger. I knew that I would wake up this morning and either be unexpectedly elated, or predictably disappointed. I expected the latter. Well, well, well, was I ever surprised. I definitely think either some sort of mythical curse was lifted for the Sox, or else one was imposed on the Yankees. How fitting to come back from a 3-game deficit, to win 4 in a row (unprecedented), and win the 7th game of the series on the birthday of ... number 7. Rejoice, Red Sox Nation, rejoice. Hopefully, politically, on November 3rd, we'll all feel the way I feel right now. Thank you Johnny Damon, David Ortiz, Curt Schilling & Derek Lowe. (Thanks to Fark for the pix.)

Co-founder of Amway to address Republicans

Co-founder of Amway to address Amherst Republicans 10/20/2004

Richard M. DeVos Sr., co-founder of Amway Corp. and board chairman of the Orlando Magic basketball team, will be the keynote speaker at the 25th annual Amherst Republican Dinner at 7 p.m. Saturday in the Palms Restaurant, 7740 Sheridan Drive, Amherst.

Mr. DeVos will explain multi-level marketing to the assembled crowd, convincing them that they, too, can be self-employed Amway distributors, and that the "sky's the limit" as to what they can earn. Congressman Reynolds (R-Clarence) showed his appreciation by promising Mr. DeVos that he will introduce a resolution in Congress to ensure that Amway distributors are, hitherto, not counted among the unemployed.

Why Fox29? I'll tell you why.

It's about the constituency. Looking at TV Guide, the regularly scheduled broadcasts from 8-9 on WB49 are "What I Like About You", a new WB teenybopper show featuring Amanda Bynes, and "Grounded for Life", a cutesy family sitcom. Meanwhile, Fox29 was scheduled to run "Totally Outrageous Behavior" and "World's Craziest Videos", which appear to be two different shows ripping off "America's Funniest Home Videos". Obviously, even though Friday night is the crypt of television and ratings, WB has more of a need to satisfy its teenybopper constituency than Fox has to satisfy whatever dateless wonders would be watching "World's Totally Outrageous and Craziest Behavior Videos" from 8 to 9.

Sinclair update: Fox29?

It seems that Sinclair is making what it probably considers to be a compromise. It won't show the propaganda film that bashes John Kerry in its entirety. Instead, it appears that Sinclair will "balance" a good portion of the material in that film with some additional information about the pressure from the government and average citizenry that has been brought to bear against Sinclair in recent weeks. For us Buffalonians, what's most striking about yesterday's Sinclair press release, is this:

While the news special will discuss the allegations surrounding Senator John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities in the early 1970s raised by a number of former POWs in "Stolen Honor," it will do so in the context of the broader discussion outlined above. The program will be hosted by Jeff Barnd, the Emmy award winning co-anchor of Fox 45's 10:00 News which airs on WBFF-TV, Sinclair's flagship station in Baltimore, Maryland. Joe DeFeo, Sinclair's Vice President of News commented that, "As with all news programming produced by Sinclair's News Central, A POW Story is being produced with the highest journalistic standards and integrity. We have not ceded, and will not in the future cede, control of our news reporting to any outside organization or political group. We are endeavoring, as we do with all of our news coverage, to present both sides of the issues covered in an equal and impartial manner."

Setting aside for a moment the fact that there is nothing about Sinclair's News Central that's impartial, let's then scroll down to find that this "news" program will air on Friday in Buffalo on WUTV FOX 29. Fox 29 doesn't have a news program. Fox 29 doesn't broadcast News Central. Fox 29 doesn't have a news division. To my knowledge, with the exception of airing Fox News Network programming such as the State of the Union or other public-interest items, Fox 29 has never had a news program on its air. Ever. Instead, it's Sinclair's other Buffalo property, WNYO WB49 that airs a nightly 10pm news broadcast, featuring Sinclair's absymal News Central. So, wouldn't WB49 be a natural choice to air this "news" special? Why Fox29? Actually, WB49's local news coverage is quite excellent, from what I've seen. It's important to separate the local production from "News Central." WB49 covers local stories almost exclusively for the first 1/2 hour of the broadcast before moving on to Sinclair's national feed. The choice of local stories is head & shoulders above the other local stations for local content. How many times have you turned on the local news on 2, 4 or 7 only to find Iraq or some other national or international story as "local" story #1? WB49's local production delved last night into some important local issues: surveillance cameras on the East Side, for instance. I'm very doubtful that the special will be either fair or impartial, and I think Sinclair will really have to live up to that claim in a substantial way lest it forever be known as an out-and-out GOP propaganda outlet.

Has Bush lost Pat Robertson, too?

Right-wing ideologue fundamentalists? Concerned about casualties in Iraq.

Pat Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, said he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion. He described Bush in the meeting as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life." (In Texas they call that a cocky sumb***h - Ed.)

"You remember Mark Twain said, 'He looks like a contented Christian with four aces.' I mean he was just sitting there like, 'I'm on top of the world,' " Robertson said on the CNN show, "Paula Zahn Now."

"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "

Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

Robertson, the televangelist who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, said he wishes Bush would admit to mistakes made.

So there you have it. “We’re not going to have any casualties”. And we all know what a left-wing Bush-hater Pat Robertson is.

Peace Bridge

Christian Menn, the Swiss designer of Boston's majestic new landmark Zakim Bridge, basically says that the imbeciles running the Peace Bridge show can't get it right. It's been years. Build: 1. A pretty bridge. 2. That's wide and can accommodate lots of traffic 3. When it's done, tear down the current bridge. Get it? End of discussion.

Someone ask Giambra

If Nassau County has (at least) the same problem as Erie County vis-a-vis Medicaid, why is Nassau County's bond rating going up? Because Suozzi (founder of FixAlbany.com) has a plan. Giambra doesn't. Buffalo is an old-school political dinosaur where patronage trumps responsibility.

Go, Sox!

We interrupt our opinionated opinionating to bring you a special bulletin: Go Sox!

More on Tom Friedman

I'm actually intrigued by this, because I distinctly remember reading the original op-ed piece. If Tom frickin' Friedman of the New York Times can get it right, can some explain to my why the entire executive branch of the federal government of the United States of America couldn't plan for this contingency? ...one needs to have a great deal of humility when it comes to predicting what sorts of bats and demons may fly out if the U.S. and its allies remove the lid. Think of it this way: If and when we take the lid off Iraq, we will find an envelope inside. It will tell us what we have won and it will say one of two things. It could say, "Congratulations! You've just won the Arab Germany - a country with enormous human talent, enormous natural resources, but with an evil dictator, whom you've just removed. Now, just add a little water, a spoonful of democracy and stir, and this will be a normal nation very soon." Or the envelope could say, "You've just won the Arab Yugoslavia - an artificial country congenitally divided among Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Nasserites, leftists and a host of tribes and clans that can only be held together with a Saddam-like iron fist. Congratulations, you're the new Saddam. Does that mean we should rule out war? No. But it does mean that we must do it right. To begin with, the president must level with the American people that we may indeed be buying the Arab Yugoslavia, which will take a great deal of time and effort to heal into a self-sustaining, progressive, accountable Arab government. And, therefore, any nation-building in Iraq will be a multiyear marathon, not a multiweek sprint. ....In short, we can oust Saddam Hussein all by ourselves. But we cannot successfully rebuild Iraq all by ourselves. And the real prize here is a new Iraq that would be a progressive model for the whole region. That, for me, is the only morally and strategically justifiable reason to support this war. The Bush team dare not invade Iraq simply to install a more friendly dictator to pump us oil. And it dare not simply disarm Iraq and then walk away from the nation-building task. But they neither planned for the Arab Yugoslavia they got, nor did they warn the American people of it. Instead, you had Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle march across the American political landscape, predicting easy, cheap and quick victory. Richard Perle, July 2002: We know [Saddam has] got about a third of what he had in 1991. But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. Ken Adelman, February 2002: I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps. Dick Cheney, March 2003: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that. Richard Perle, September 2003: And a year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they've been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation.

Here, you can get a good overview of the administration's September 2001 (coincidence?, I think not) to go to war with Iraq, and the tortuous route they had to follow to obtain the teeny, weeny amount of legitimacy they needed to, basically, invade a sovereign nation that hadn't threatened another nation-state.

Debunking the Myth that Bush is a strong leader

Will you get it through your flag-waving skulls: Bush, his advisors and his administration, while on a neoconservative mission to make the world "safer" totally and completely failed to plan for a contingency that even Tom Friedman (an Iraq war supporter) warned about: Iraq is not a centralized, unified country: it is like a Yugoslavia - a group of not particularly friendly-to-each other ethnic groups, tribes, and sects that were stopped from killing each other by a ruthless totalitarian dictator. Also: since we're fighting what's been called a global war on islamist/islamofascist terrorism, why did we put over 100,000 American troops smack dab in the middle of Iraq and fail to seal the borders? That grave error, that costly, unnecessary, and deadly error is a key reason why our men and women in Iraq, and the Iraqi national guard are sitting ducks. It's a chief reason why Westerners are getting kidnapped and beheaded. Anyway, a couple of weeks ago Jerry Bremer said that the chief post-war problem in Iraq was that he didn't have enough troops. After that statement was publicized, the Bushies forced him to retract it on the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times, which he did. Remember Jay Garner? Bremer's predecessor? Surprise, surprise. Guess what he's got to say in today's New York Times: 'I think that there were Baathist Sunnis who planned to resist no matter what happened and at all cost, but we missed opportunities, and that drove more of them into the resistance,' Jay Garner, the first civilian administrator of Iraq and a retired Army lieutenant general, said in an interview, referring to the Baath Party of Mr. Hussein and to his Sunni Muslim supporters. 'Things were stirred up far more than they should have been. We did not seal the borders because we did not have enough troops to do that, and that brought in terrorists.'" and: Looking back at that crucial time, those officers, administration officials and others provided an intimate and detailed account of how the postwar situation went awry. Civilian administrators of the Iraqi occupation raised concerns about plans to reduce American forces; intelligence agencies left American forces unprepared for the furious battles they encountered in Iraq's southern cities and did not emphasize the risks of a postwar insurgency. And senior American generals and civilians were at odds over plans to build a new Iraqi army, which was needed to impose order. It's quite a long article. It's quite a factual, undisputed indictment on the Bush administration's abysmal handling of Iraq, and just how inept, incompetent and wrong-headed they are. What's even scarier is that Bush never, ever changes his mind once he's made it up. They'll change the facts to back up that decision, instead. He never "flip flops" by changing strategies once the situation changes. Why? Because he is doing God's will, and what Jesus would do is apparently paramount, exceeding American lives in importance to this "Commander-in-Chief."

Paging the Middle Ages

Hey, let's go back in time to Auto da Fe, inquisition, excommunication, indulgences, and all the other great stuff that the Catholic Church has in its history and arsenal. First, a disclaimer: I do not belong to any organized religion and I do not attend a church. This neither means that I am athiest nor agnostic. It just means I don't join churches, and I don't attend them either. How, when, where, why, and whether I praise and pray to God is my own business, and I don't feel compelled to share it with a bunch of like-minded strangers or with some sort of mystical heirarchy. Obviously, I respect the choice and right of people to praise God (or not) however, whenever, and wherever they want, provided it does not infringe on anyone else's right to do just about anything. I used to call myself a Catholic, although technically I never made it into the club. Let's just say I didn't get the right merit badges. My choice not to become an active and proper member of that Church has only been validated, in my opinion, by that sect's vicious positions on homosexuality, clerical celibacy, contraception, and abortion, which tends to fly in the face of its apparent decades-long tolerance of pedophiliac priests. To underscore my disgust with that church and its laws and heirarchy: some lawyer out in California has sued in ecclesiastical court to excommunicate John Kerry from the Catholic church. (You read that correctly). Why? Because of his private opposition to abortion and his public support of a woman's right to choose. This guy has also targeted Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, Susan Collins, and Mario Cuomo. (What about McGreevey?) Honestly, if this happens, it would be right to call Kerry a martyr. It really is time for the Catholic Church to make the great leap out of its mystical, Rennaissance Faire-type show. Just my two cents. UPDATE: Thou shalt not lie. "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has had no contact with Mr. (Marc) Balestrieri," said Dominican Father Augustine DiNoia, undersecretary of the congregation."His claim that the private letter he received from (Dominican) Father Basil Cole is a Vatican response is completely without merit," Father DiNoia told Catholic News Service Oct. 19, declining to discuss the matter further.

Job Cuts in U.S. Tech Sector Soar, Report Finds Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:42 AM ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. technology sector suffered another round of widespread layoffs during the third quarter, with computer firms slashing jobs most aggressively, a report said on Monday...

...Job cuts in technology jumped 60 percent between July and September to 54,701, compared with 34,213 layoffs in the second quarter. Computer companies alone saw job cuts jump 127 percent, to 30,624.

And George W. Bush thinks all of these highly educated technogeeks need... ...a Community College degree. Leave no Computer Programmer Behind!

Is Drudge on the Kerry team now?

Is it just me, or does this "news flash" from Drudge make the case for a more equitable tax system, as espoused by Kerry? In other words, if Teresa Heinz-Kerry can earn about $5 million and pay an "overall average tax rate of only 12.4%" on that, while a schmuck making 30k pays about 25%, doesn't that underscore the need for reforming the tax code to ensure that the wealthiest Americans pay a higher rate than middle-class earners.

The reality-based community

Those of us who deal with reality are not in sync with George W. Bush's White House. And they like it that way. Check out Suskind's piece in the New York Times, before it's archived.

Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . . ''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''

and later...

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency. The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' Who besides guys like me are part of the reality-based community? Many of the other elected officials in Washington, it would seem. A group of Democratic and Republican members of Congress were called in to discuss Iraq sometime before the October 2002 vote authorizing Bush to move forward. A Republican senator recently told Time Magazine that the president walked in and said: ''Look, I want your vote. I'm not going to debate it with you.'' When one of the senators began to ask a question, Bush snapped, ''Look, I'm not going to debate it with you.''

Growing Putinization of America

A double-helping of Putin. Matt Yglesias coins a new term: Putinization.

Suskind's article along with other pieces of evidence of what one might call the creeping Putinization of American life (the Sinclair incident, the threatening letter to Rock The Vote, the specter of the top official in the House of Representatives making totally baseless charges of criminal conduct against a major financier of the political opposition [shades of Mikhail Khodorovsky], the increasing evidence that the 'terror alert' system is nothing more than a political prop, the 'torture memo' asserting that the president is above the law, the imposition of rigid discipline on the congress, the abuse of the conference committee procedure, the ability of the administration to lie to congress without penalty, the exclusion of non-supporters from Bush's public appearances, etc.) are beginning to make me think this assessment may have been misguided.

Regrettably, I think he's right, but I think we can reverse it pretty easily. In two weeks.

One authoritarian supports another

Pootie-poot endorses Bush.

Swift Boat Liars for Bush

ABC's Nightline traveled to Vietnam to find out which is more accurate: Kerry's Silver Star commendation, or the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush. Vietnamese villagers - who have no axe to grind for or against Kerry - confirm Kerry's version of events leading to the awarding of his Silver Star, and directly contradict that of the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush. What's striking is this passage.

He also said the Swift boats were coming under attack from the Viet Cong fighters on shore. "We tried to shoot at the boat," he said, "but we didn't hit anything." Kerry's citation says he "uncovered an enemy rest and supply area, which was destroyed," but according to the villagers, the Americans missed the military supplies. In fact, Vo Ti Vi said, just a few weeks after the attack, the Viet Cong raided a U.S. base stealing weapons and ammunition. The weapons remain in Nha Vi all these years later, she says, buried under her garden. Back in Tran Thoi, villager Nguyen Van Khoai said that about six months ago he was visited by an American who described himself as a Swift boat veteran and told him another American from the Swift boats was running for president of the United States. Nguyen said the man was accompanied by a cameraman. "They say he didn't do anything to deserve the medal," Nguyen said. "The other day, they came and asked me the questions and I said that the recognition for the medal is up to the U.S.A." He said that, after they met, the Swift Boat veteran and the cameraman turned around and went back down the river. Nightline has not been able to identify the men.

More on Mary Cheney

Why is it inappropriate to mention that Dick Cheney’s daughter is gay?

• She’s out.
• She works for her dad’s campaign
• The Cheneys themselves have used her as an example to explain their own differences with George Bush on the issue of gay marriage/civil unions
• When John Edwards mentioned her 2 weeks ago, there was no outcry (thus rendering the current outcry quite disingenuous)
• I think that what Republican senate candidate Alan Keyes said on September 1st, calling Mary Cheney a “selfish hedonist” is far more opportunistic and offensive, yet I didn’t hear Lynne or Dick Cheney condemn Keyes or his statement

What’s quite evident here is that the right’s argument is patently and fundamentally homophobic. Mary Cheney isn’t ashamed of being an out lesbian in a committed relationship. Therefore, there is nothing about which to get indignant. Only a homophobe would think that publicly acknowledging that Mary Cheney is a lesbian, (while explaining that homosexuality is not a choice), is wrong or inappropriate. In other words, if Kerry and Edwards were trying to set a trap for right-wing homophobes, you all walked right into it, and you’re all trapped.

Sinclair Update

I received a nice note from a representative of Dunn Tire, who informs me that they do no advertising on Sinclair stations in Buffalo.

Keyes & Cheney remix

Let's rewind for a moment. Here's what Alan Keyes (R), candidate for the U.S. Senate from Maryl... I mean Illinois said on September 1st:

In an interview with SIRUS satellite radio, the Internet's Drudge Report said Wednesday, Keyes called Mary Cheney "a 'selfish hedonist' because she is a lesbian." Keyes said: "The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principal excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism." Asked whether that meant Mary Cheney "is a selfish hedonist," Keyes said: "That goes by definition. Of course she is." Keyes took to the airwaves again Wednesday to try and put the remark in context. WBBM-AM, Chicago, reported he denied the comment was meant to slam Mary Cheney and blamed the media for taking a generalization and making it personal. Keyes said if he had a lesbian daughter he would love her but tell her she was sinning.

Where was Lynne Cheney's outrage at that statement? Where was Richard don't-call-me-Dick Cheney's fury at Keyes? Where was the right-wing punditry to attack this "victimization". So, let's sum up GOPerville:

• It is wrong for Kerry & Edwards to acknowledge Mary Cheney's existence.
• It is ok for Alan Keyes to call Mary Cheney a selfish hedonist.

Oh, yeah. By the way? Around September 26th, we learned that, yes, Alan Keyes' daughter is a lesbian, too. You can't make this stuff up, people.

Sound & Fury Signifying Nothing

Check it out. This is one of the sites Sullivan cites. It's nothing more than rank homophobia & blatant bigotry. Sexual preference / inclination? The fact that homosexuality is neither one of those things was the point of Schieffer's question. This quote, however, takes the dumbass cake:

Would they be so willing to allow their daughters to become the public sexual speculation of news media fodder. Would that be something Mrs. Edwards would support? Or if one of Kerry's daughter's had an abortion and somehow it became public - just because he's running for office does that make it ok to bring up in public, in debates, or on ABC Radio?What is mind-numbingly stupid about this - is that evidently the Kerrys and the Edwards are blind to the potential pain this causes...

Well, if Kerry's daughter had an abortion, and came out publicly about it; and Kerry was against all abortions, then yes, it would be ok to bring up in public and/or in debates because it reveals a fundamental hypocrisy about the politician's stand. Where does this blogger get off saying Mary Cheney has in any way been victimized? She is a public figure. You know who victimized Mary Cheney? It wasn't Kerry or either Edwards. It was hypocritical, lesbian-daughter-having Saint Alan of Keyes. The right victimizes poor Ms. Cheney much worse than any Democrat could or has: Check it out here. In 2002, Ms. Cheney publicly joined a Republican gay activist group. Finally, I love the pitying language:

"VICTIMIZING a woman who obviously struggles with her sexual identity. Will this help them win?"

Well, who said she struggles with anything? Let Ms. Cheney speak for herself. Seems to me that she must be over her struggles if she's a Republican advocate for gay and lesbian issues.

"VICTIMIZING an innocent woman who has chosen not to enter the debate on this?"

Well, she's running her father's campaign, and she's a (broken record time) Republican advocate/activist for gay and lesbian acceptance. (The GOP can tolerate, but not accept).

More Sullivan

The Mary Cheney thing really is a fascinating Rorschach test. Many conservatives are appalled and cast their anti-Kerry opinion as a defense of Mary. Here's one:

Last night he allowed his obsession with his own selfish desire to win a point overshadow the appropriate boundaries of taste, compassion, and kindess. Lynne Cheney has the right to call him a bad man. And woman across the nation have the right to see for themselves that he is willing to victimize THEM if it comes to padding his advantage, reputation, position, or standing.

Victimize? All Kerry did was invoke the veep's daughter to point out that obviously homosexuality isn't a choice, in any meaningful sense. The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to "victimization" is if you believe someone's sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn't. What's revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many - even in the mildest "we'll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don't-complain" form. Mickey Kaus, for his part, cannot see any reason for Kerry to mention Mary except as some Machiavellian scheme to pander to bigots. Again: huh? Couldn't it just be that Kerry thinks of gay people as human beings like straight people - and mentioning their lives is not something we should shrink from? Isn't that the simplest interpretation? In many speeches on marriage rights, I cite Mary Cheney. Why? Because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of people like president Bush and Dick and Lynne Cheney who don't believe gays are anti-family demons but want to win the votes of people who do. I'm not outing any gay person. I'm outing the double standards of straight ones. They've had it every which way for decades, when gay people were invisible. Now they have to choose.

What he said.

Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan:

I keep getting emails asserting that Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney is somehow offensive or gratuitous or a "low blow". Huh? Mary Cheney is out of the closet and a member, with her partner, of the vice-president's family. That's a public fact. No one's privacy is being invaded by mentioning this. When Kerry cites Bush's wife or daughters, no one says it's a "low blow." The double standards are entirely a function of people's lingering prejudice against gay people. And by mentioning it, Kerry showed something important. This issue is not an abstract one. It's a concrete, human and real one. It affects many families, and Bush has decided to use this cynically as a divisive weapon in an election campaign. He deserves to be held to account for this - and how much more effective than showing a real person whose relationship and dignity he has attacked and minimized? Does this makes Bush's base uncomfortable? Well, good.

It's about time they were made uncomfortable in their acquiescence to discrimination. Does it make Bush uncomfortable? Even better. His decision to bar gay couples from having any protections for their relationships in the constitution is not just a direct attack on the family member of the vice-president. It's an attack on all families with gay members - and on the family as an institution. That's a central issue in this campaign, a key indictment of Bush's record and more than relevant to any debate. For four years, this president has tried to make gay people invisible, to avoid any mention of us, to pretend we don't exist. Well, we do. Right in front of him.

Sinclair update

Click this link to see an updated list of Sinclair Broadcast Group Advertisers in Buffalo. I sent a polite email to each of them today, and informed them that I would post their replies to this blog. Update: City Mattress' email isn't working.

Lynne Cheney: homophobe & panderer

Did you know that Lynne Cheney wrote a tawdry romance novel involving lesbianism, back in the day? It's called "Sisters." Ahem. Anyway, last night Schieffer asked the candidates whether they thought homosexuality was a choice. Kerry replied that he didn't think it was, and he mentioned the Cheney's lesbian daughter. As I mentioned last night, the FNC punditocracy was shocked, SHOCKED at that remark, and (obviously parroting some RNC talking points that probably went out immediately after the Cheney-Edwards debate), wondered whether Kerry had crossed some sort of line by doing that. Hellooooo? Edwards mentioned it two weeks ago, and Dick Cheney thanked him for his kind words. If outrage was to be had, that was the time. Not now. Not two weeks later. What a bunch of hypocrites. Talk about your cheap, tawdry political tricks.

Hannity Unhinged

Last night, after the debate, I was switching between CNN, FNC, and MSNBC. I stayed on Hannity & Colmes for a while, because it was quite fascinating. The first guest was Terry McAuliffe. He had a nice chat with Alan Colmes, and they pointed out Bush's gaffe re: not being too concerned about Osama bin Laden. Then Hannity got into it with McAuliffe, and to say Hannity was all in McAuliffe's face would be an understatement. Hannity never let McAuliffe get a word in, and an one point started jabbing at him with his pen. At that point, McAuliffe looked right at Hannity and said, "don't touch me," and he said it with conviction. Later on Wes Clark came on, and he had a nice chat with Alan Colmes. (Honestly, Alan Colmes is only good for a nice chat - he doesn't go anywhere near the jugular, like Hannity does). Then Hannity - the uneducated pretty-boy who avoided Vietnam, - got all in the retired General's face. I especially liked it when Clark, having been asked whether Kerry had the strength and conviction to be President, replied, "George W. Bush was cheerleeding while John Kerry played hockey." It was a cute throwaway line, but it was quite astonishing to watch Hannity get all unhinged at that point, screaming in Clark's face: "what do you mean by that? What are you saying about cheerleaders?" over and over and over again. Clark was unfazed, and gave a mischievous smile to Hannity.

Kerry 3:0

It's official. It's a trifecta. Kerry won all three debates. According to CNN, 52% of (scientific - not online) poll respondents thought that Kerry won. Only 39% though Bush won. I was struck last night just how hollow Bush's cry of "liberal from Massachusetts" sounded. I mean, that is such old news, and that sort of attack is so bloody tired. Between that and Bush basically explaining that people who have had it rough - with outsourcing, job losses, etc., are stupid and need to educate themselves, I thought it was a clear victory for Kerry - who had actual responses to domestic policy questions. I had fun during the debate predicting Bush's talking points - for instance, when the question about affirmative action came up, I predicted that the word "quota" would come up within the first 2 sentences. I think he got it out in the 1st. When a question came up about outsourcing (I think), we predicted that "No Child Left Behind" would come up within the first 3 sentences. He got it out in the 2nd. Kerry looked Presidential while Bush looked like a challenger. I think someone on Kos or Pandagon referred to it as the Zen Master vs. the Frat Boy. That pretty much sums it up.

New name

This blog started back in September 2003 as "Western New York for (Wes) Clark". When Clark dropped out of the race in March 2004, it became the "Clark Democrat", in the hopes that Clarkies would remain as a somewhat cohesive group of Democrats who were particularly concerned about National Security issues. I don't really think that's happened. The fact that Clark meetups halted in March underscores that. When Kerry chose Edwards as his running mate, I changed the name again to "Western New York for Kerry/Edwards." Well, the election is only about 3 weeks away. I think I'm going to continue this blog when it's done. Therefore, I've changed the name to "BuffaloPundit" because this blog contains my opinions about things political, and I'm doing it from Buffalo. Unfortunately, I can't switch the domain from "wny4clark.blogspot.com" as far as I can tell. If anyone knows that I'm wrong, please let me know.

Fox News

Fox News is really quite stunning. 1. Carl Cameron covers the Kerry campaign...yet his wife was a Bush-Cheney advisor. Also, don't forget that Cameron posted some unfunny, idiotic and biased nonsense on Fox's website after the first debate; 2. Brit Hume all but read verbatim from a Bush-Cheney press release responding to something Kerry said; 3. Mary Beth Cahill gets treated like a harlot in a cathedral; Giuliani gets treated like the second coming. 4. The major talking point right after the debate concluded was how galling; GALLING; it is that Kerry and Edwards so GRATUITOUSLY bring up the fact that Dick Cheney's daughter is gay whilst discussing gay issues.

Bush lied about OBL

Bush gets caught - quite Cheneyesque.

"Q: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? [...] BUSH: ... I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you [...] Q: Do you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead of alive? BUSH: As I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is. I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him."

Horrific

1082

Sinclair Broadcast Group Advertisers

The only way to hurt Sinclair is to hit their already pathetic bottom-line. Here is a list of local Buffalo advertisers on the 2 Sinclair-owned stations. So far, only three have been listed. I'll try to watch some WB & Fox29 and find out who else is on there. Fox doesn't have a local newscast, but WB49 does. Since Sinclair is billing their smear piece as "news", it would be most significant to hit those advertisers first. Cellino & Barnes. City Mattress. Dunn Tire. Give 'em a call. Tell them (politely) what their advertising dollars are being used for. Check out this Wiki from Daily Kos, which reports some success in getting advertisers to withdraw.

A Concert for Change

A Concert For Change where: Rock 'n' Roll Heaven- Cheektowaga NY when: October 16, 2004 7:00 pm - 2:00 am Saturday October 16th Rock 'n' Roll Heaven (101 French Road @ Union, Garden Village Plaza - Cheektowaga) will hold "A Concert for Change". This will start at 7pm and go until 2am. John and Mary (10,000 Maniacs), the 7th Sons, Kim Sloan & the Surrenders, The Uncalled For and Mini Motor Punch plus a few special guest speakers and muscians will be making appearances. Brian Higgins will emcee this event! Tickets are priced at $8 pre-sale and $10 day of. Tickets are available on the Concerts for Change Website. ALL proceeds from the ticket sales go directly to the Democratic National Committee, and everyone involved is donating their time for this cause, including Rock 'n' Roll Heaven. For more information on how you can help out, or more information on the DNC or Concerts for Change, please check out: www.concertsforchange.org Concerts for Change is a grassroots group organizing benefit performances nationwide to raise money to elect John Kerry and Democrats across the country: 100% of the ticket price is a donation to the PAC Running for Change. Concerts for Change is the successor to Concerts for Kerry, an independent grassroots group that raised $207,000 for the Kerry campaign, through 40 concerts in 12 cities, attended by more than 9,000 people. Enjoy the show and help support John Kerry and Democrats in federal, state, and local elections! http://www.middlemania.com Thanks to Carina for the heads-up.

Is Bush Wired?

I'm not talking about crystal meth. The question of whether Bush is getting lines fed to him via transmitters has made the leap from blogosphere tin-foil-hats to mainstream media. Well - can YOU tell me what that rectangular bulge under Bush's suit-coat is? Could it be this kit right here? Why is the White House lying to the New York Times, saying it's just the jacket bunching up? We report. You decide. Fair & Balanced. Check out this website for more of this wonderful story. http://www.isbushwired.com/

Character Assassination

Read this. When you’re done shuddering, know that Sinclair owns Fox 29 and WB49 in Buffalo. http://www.sbgi.net/business/markets/buffalo.shtml Sinclair is owned by a group of radical right-wingers; this is the same corporation that banned its ABC affiliates from airing a recent edition of Nightline, during which the names of the servicemen and women killed in Iraq were read. Sinclair is ordering all of its affiliates to air a vicious smear / hit piece against John Kerry called "Stolen Honor". I won't link to it here. (You’ll note that one of the POWs "featured" is Kenneth W. Cordier, who was forced to resign from the Bush-Cheney campaign due to his involvement with the Swift Boat liars. You may also note at the stolen honor website that this group has actually merged with the Swift Boat liars. ) When Karl Rove said he had some "surprises" up his sleeve, he wasn’t kidding. It's already common knowledge that the Swiftees were coordinating with B-C '04, and that their M.O. is pretty standard Rove fare. What this amounts to is: 1. Free advertising for the Swift Boat liars, (and, by extension, Bush-Cheney ’04); i.e., this is a 40-minute-long, commercial-free Bush ad. 2. Possibly (probably) an illegal donation to a federal campaign by a corporation I think it’s shocking that a corporation that owns two of Buffalo’s six network affiliates would broadcast this advertisement as is. Demonstrating at their offices may be counterproductive, because it would give more publicity to the "documentary" itself. Sinclair’s homepage contains the following:

We welcome your comments regarding the upcoming special news event featuring the topic of Americans held as prisoners of war in Vietnam. The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill-informed sources. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at (202) 712-3000. (I wouldn't bother. He won't honor them with his presence. -ed.) if you would like to make further comments on this matter, you may do so at:comments@sbgi.net

Fill their email box.

Weekend

Lite-to-no posting this weekend. Enjoy the debate.

Site note

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Another shot

Here's another shot of the Cheney/Edwards debate. Courtesy of MyDD

The Bush resume.

I'm George W. Bush, and I approve this message. http://monkeydyne.com/bushresume/resume.html to see the whole thing.

EDUCATION: I entered Yale in 1964 with a SAT of 1206 (Verbal 566, Math 640), 200 points below Yale's average freshman in 1970.

I graduated Yale in 1968 with a 2.35 GPA

In the fall of 1970 I was rejected from admission at University of Texas Law School.

In 1973 I applied to Harvard Business School with a 2.35 GPA. 1973 admission statistics are unavailable, but for an incomplete comparison today's Harvard students average a GPA of 3.5 - no students were accepted with a GPA lower than 2.6.

I graduated Harvard Business School with an MBA and below-average grades.

CRIMINAL RECORD: Two negligent collisions in July and August 1962 in Houston, TX (p20)

Arrested and charged with disorderly conduct in New Haven, CT in December 1966 (p20) for stealing a christmas tree while drunk

Convicted of drunk driving on September 4, 1976 in Kennebunkport, Maine.

Remember Ahmed Chalabi?

Go read Kevin Drum, who muses about the source of the Bush-Cheney / neoconservative talking points about Iraq. Here's why:

Charming. "De-Baathification comes before the immediate needs of the Iraqi people." Of course, that begs the question: why did de-Baathification come before the immediate needs of the Iraqi people? Sure, George Bush bears ultimate responsibility, but who was it that felt that strongly about de-Baathification and had the influence to get it adopted as official policy? There's really only one candidate: our old friend Ahmed Chalabi and his neocon friends in the Pentagon. As it stands now, it appears that Chalabi (a) deliberately fed us bad prewar intelligence about Iraqi WMD, (b) convinced us to disband the Iraqi army as part of a personal power play, (c) may have betrayed highly sensitive U.S. secrets to the Iranian government, and (d) is playing footsie with insurgent leader Muqtada al-Sadr. And that's just the highlights.

Don't forget.

Iraq had destroyed its illicit weapons stockpiles within months after the Persian Gulf war of 1991, and its ability to produce such weapons had significantly eroded by the time of the American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector for Iraq said in a report made public Wednesday.”

Remember.

Courtesy of Altercation "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."-Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002. [i] "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."-George W. Bush Speech to U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002. [ii] "We know they have weapons of mass destruction … There isn't any debate about it." "[It is] beyond anyone's imagination" that U.N. inspectors would fail to find such weapons if they were given the opportunity. -Donald Rumsfeld, September 2002. [iii] "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." -Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, Dec. 2, 2002. [iv] "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." -Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, Jan. 9, 2003. [v] "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." -Colin Powell Remarks to U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003. [vi] "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." -George W. Bush Radio Address, Feb. 8, 2003. [vii] “Does Saddam now have weapons of mass destruction? Sure he does. We know he has chemical weapons. We know he has biological weapons. ... How far he’s gone on the nuclear-weapons side I don’t think we really know. My guess is it’s further than we think. It’s always further than we think, because we limit ourselves, as we think about this, to what we’re able to prove and demonstrate. ... And, unless you believe that we have uncovered everything, you have to assume there is more than we’re able to report.” -Defense Policy Board Chair, Richard Perle, speaking to a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing, March, 2003. [viii] "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -George W. Bush Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003. [ix] "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." -Ari Fleisher Press Briefing, March 21, 2003. [x] "There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And... as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." -Gen. Tommy Franks Press Conference, March 22, 2003. [xi] "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." -Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview, March 30, 2003. [xii] "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now." -Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters, May 4, 2003. [xiii]

Dragons

Last night on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart likened Bush-Cheney's reaction to the final report of the Iraq weapons inspectors, (which found no WMDs, no WMD program, no WMD program since 1991, and a withering, rather than gathering threat) thusly: Some people look at a glass of water and say it's half-full. Some people look at the glass and say it's a dragon. That's it in a nutshell. Here's Cheney yesterday:

Vice President Dick Cheney asserted on Thursday that a finding by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government produced no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 justifies rather than undermines President Bush's decision to go to war.

Huh? Here's Kerry's response:

Ridiculing the Bush administration's evolving rationale for war, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) shot back: "You don't make up or find reasons to go to war after the fact." [...] Kerry, in a campaign appearance in Colorado, said: "The president of the United States and the vice president of the United States may well be the last two people on the planet who won't face the truth about Iraq."

So, everyone should be asking Bush & Cheney: WHAT'S TODAY'S RATIONALE FOR GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ? It's gone from: 1. Gathering threat of attack 2. Ties to al Qaeda 3. Weapons of Mass Destruction 4. Hussein refuses to disarm himself of WMDs 5. Hussein has violated myriad Security Council Resolutions re: disarming of WMDs 6. We had to liberate Iraq from an evil dictator 7. The oil-for-food program was corrupt. Over 1,000 US servicemen and women have died. Been taken from their loved ones. Forever. And many more injured - maimed, in many cases. Because the oil for food program was corrupt? You've got to be frickin' kidding me.

Coulterwatch

Scoobie Davis has been in the forefront of taking the fight directly to the right wing echo chamber. He's gone after Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and especially everyone's favorite McCarthyite, Ann Coulter. She's got a new book out, and Scoobie will fact-check it. Should be worth checking out.

Unacceptable. See Me.

Courtesy of Atrios

Some good news from Utica's own Mr. Zogby

The latest results of Zogby's battleground states polling. Kerry has the momentum right now, even polling ahead of Bush in Ohio, albeit by a razor-thin-teeny-tiny margin.

eBlocks return!

A great howdy-do, props & big ups to all my former Clark 2004 comrades. Remember doing eBlocks back in the day? (i.e., February). Well, they're back. Click this link right here to sign up to make phone calls from your own home on behalf of John Kerry & John Edwards. You can do it in your free time. It's easy and it really does help the campaign.

Iraq in a nutshell

Andrew Sullivan is an unabashed conservative. But he's a principled conservative who won't just blindly follow George W. Bush because Bush is a Republican and claims to be conservative. (I don't think Bush is conservative in any way, shape, or form. I think he's a radical right-wing fanatic who wants the country to mirror his warped sense of what's "right"). Here's what Sullivan says about the Iraq war. Although I could pick some nits, I think it makes the right point.

I have to say I have been enjoying and learning from this campaign in many ways - not least from you, the readers, and from the twists and turns we have seen and will keep seeing. But now and again, it's worth looking at the big picture. The fundamental question in this campaign is the war in Iraq. Was it worth starting? Has it been conducted well? Will it make us safer? My answers to those three questions are, briefly, yes, no, and, it depends. But from a broader perspective, the following facts are simply indisputable. The fundamental rationale for the war - the threat from Saddam's existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - was wrong. Period. In the conduct of the war, it is equally indisputable that the administration simply didn't anticipate the insurgency we now face, and because of that, is struggling to rescue the effort from becoming a dangerous mess. Period. So the question becomes: how can an administration be re-elected after so patently misjudging the two most important aspects of the central issue in front of us? It may end up as simple as that. Maybe, in fact, it should end up as simple as that.

Tuesdays in the Senate with Dick

We already know Cheney lied about never having met Edwards before. He also said this last night: ""Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session." Oh, realllllly? Some intrepid folks at DailyKos looked it up. Cheney presided over the Senate two times in the last four years. Two. Dos. 2. Two times. In fact, Edwards presided over the Senate twice, too. Go figure. Just click the link.

Something Dumb this way Comes

Hold on to your hats, people. In yesterday's Buffalo News, Mary Kunz delivered a love letter to President Bush.

It's one of the most stupid and trite things I've read in the News ... since yesterday's "My View," which probably took a hard-hitting, controversial opinion regarding kittens being nice, or mean people being mean, or that a sunny day is happier than a cloudy one.

So, let's begin. My comments are in red.:

A statement of belief in Bush 10/5/2004 By MARY KUNZ How sweet it is, to be able to mouth off to your boss.

Or your ex-boss, anyway.

I'm talking about Murray Light, the former editor of The Buffalo News. He hired me 11 years ago, and I always liked that about him (along with his knowledge of what makes a good martini).

But for months now, I've had to weather his attacks on President Bush. One column bore the headline "Bush popularity hard to understand."

And guess what? Now, I can speak up.

If Bush's popularity is hard to understand - well, I'll explain it. The best way to do this might be by explaining what makes many Republicans like myself tick. This Buffalo gal believes that:

• Fundamental to the human spirit is a yearning for freedom. Given the choice, people in Iraq, though they've never known freedom, will embrace it. Democracy is the greatest gift America can offer the world. I flatly reject the argument that cultural relativism gives tyranny a pass.

That's a very nice sentiment, Mary, but where does it end? There are a great many countries around the world that are saddled with brutal dictatorships. From North Korea with its megalomaniacal, Stalinist monarch to the Arab fascism of Syria - to whom shall America next offer the gift of democracy? Which dictatorship is next on the list for overthrowin'?

• Bush has a real war plan. It's easy for his opponent, John Kerry, to say, had he been president on Sept. 11, 2001, that he would have done everything differently. As Patti LuPone puts it, "Coulda, woulda, shoulda."

What plan are you talking about? Letting Afghan warlords go after bin Laden in Tora Bora? Agreeing to a cease-fire so bin Laden and his crew could escape? Or are you talking about Iraq? Quite honestly, I don't even get what point you're making here: are you talking about what Bush actually did on 9/11 - do you mean Kerry wouldn't have spent seven minutes reading "The Pet Goat" to five-year-olds after being informed that the country is under attack?

• I say, right war, right place, right time. In the short term, Bush's plan takes the war to the enemy so we don't have to fight them here at home. In the long term, a free Iraq will weaken its totalitarian neighbors. It will be much harder for Arab nations harboring terrorists to operate with a U.S. ally on their borders. Bush believes the democratization of these tyrannical states will be the stabilizing force that brings a peaceful future for our children.

Typical Republican ignorant-speak. Right war? Right place? Afghanistan was the right war in the right place at the right time. And then we diverted a great deal of our military capability for the build-up to invade Iraq.

Mary subscribes to the utopian vision of the AEI neoconservatives - that a democratic Iraq will spark a domino effect, bringing about a democratic enlightenment throughout the Middle East. Has Israel become safer because Saddam is gone, or because of the security fence? The latter.

Countries next door to US-friendly democracies find it harder to harbor terrorists? Realllllyy? Afghanistan (although not Arab) seemed to have absolutely no problem harboring terrorists, despite having US allies Pakistan and India right next door. Our NATO ally Turkey - a democracy being considered for EU membership - sits next door to Iran and Syria, and they seem to have a bit of a reputation for ...um...harboring terrorists, IIRC.

Saddam Hussein was a regional threat that had been contained by the US and its allies for over ten years. What was it about Saddam Hussein that made him any more a threat than, say, Kim il-Sung? We misused our military to test out a neocon theory - that the US could run over Hussein, install a democracy, and that we'd be greeted as liberators, and the whole thing could be done with a minimum of troops in a matter of months. Oh, how devastatingly wrong we were.

Meanwhile, Kim il-Sung's got nukes.

• Bush is realistic. In Thursday's debate, Kerry relished proclaiming that Osama bin Laden, and not Saddam Hussein, attacked us. True, but that doesn't mean bin Laden is our only enemy. In action movies, civilization is saved by offing one mega-villain. Reality, though, is different. Al-Qaida is designed to be fail-safe, like the Internet - decentralized, redundant, tough to eradicate. Islamic fundamentalists have declared a take-no-prisoners holy war against the United States. They won't be stopped by diplomacy, sensitivity or a six-month war. The Democrats' politicization of the Iraq war shows some of them missed the 9/11 wake-up call and others have a callous disregard for our security. We need real resolve.

Resolve? Bush makes a snap decision, which turns out to be dramatically wrong, and then refuses to change his mind, given the changing situation on the ground - that's resolve? I'll take flip-flopping, please.

Bush supporters love to lump Saddam in with al Qaeda. Arguing back at them that one had nothing to do with the other is futile. 9/11 changed stuff, yes. It awakened us to the reality that terrorists can and will attack us on our soil in a devastating way. And the Bush administration chose to invade...Iraq. Iraq? Why not Syria? Why not Iran? I mean, both of those countries pose and equal, if not greater, threat to the US than Iraq did. Iraq was a crippled, third world fascist dictatorship that had undergone international sanctions for years.

In 2003, Bush said Hussein was a growing threat due to his WMDs.

The UN sent in weapons inspectors. These 200-or-so people were given about 6 months, and found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq. The Bush administration and the right-wing echo chamber called Blix and his team Saddam lackeys.

100,000 + US troops have occupied (more or less) all of Iraq for 1 1/2 years. They have found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq.

So, over 1,000 Americans have died to confirm what we already knew? Is that it?

In fact, just today, our own weapons inspectors have confirmed not only that Iraq had no WMDs, but that Iraq was a DIMINISHING THREAT. Not gathering, not growing, and certainly not imminent.

When Bush was asking Congress for the resolution to use force to disarm Hussein of his WMDs, he said it was a vote for peace. Now he accuses Kerry, who voted for the resolution, of voting for war. (Flip-flop!)

Ultimately, the war was wholly unnecessary because Iraq had already disarmed - it had no WMDs. None. Zero. Zip.

Even Bush & Cheney knew that you had to pass a "global test" before you go invading a sovereign nation, no matter how much you hate it. It has to be legitimate. Otherwise, you just look like expansionists. For them, the global test consisted of Saddam Hussein's supposed violation of Security Council resolutions regarding WMDs.

Look, Mary, all of us - even Kerry and Edwards - agree that terrorists and terrorism (by no means a new phenomenon) are bad. And we should go after them. But there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. George Bush had chosen the most wrong of the wrongest wrong ways.

• Kerry lacks that resolve. He has said we have to win in Iraq but has often contradicted himself for political expediency and said the war has been a mistake.

The war was a mistake, but, nevertheless, we must win it. How is that contradictory? Should Kerry be rooting for us to LOSE our mistaken war?

• Bush believes 35 percent is the highest income tax rate anyone should pay. Me too. Income taxes weren't originally intended to redistribute wealth or punish achievement but to fund necessary government services.

And more and more, the middle class is being told to shoulder the burden of those necessary government services, while the richest 1% keep getting tax breaks. Call that class warfare if you want, but it's patently unfair. You can still pay your bills if you're taxed at 35% of $1,000,000. It's a bit harder if you're taxed at 25% of $50,000. Especially with runaway medical costs, exorbitant gas & heating bills, etc.

• Most feel-good social programs championed by Democrats have harmed many people. While arguably a worthy experiment, they've condemned generations to a cycle of poverty, dependence and shame while depriving society's weakest members.

Mary, are you friggin kidding me? We passed welfare reform almost 10 years ago. Do you propose that we do away with food stamps so people go hungry, or opt to begging or stealing? Or is it housing subsidies that we need to get rid of, so the people who can't get a job because of rampant outsourcing are homeless, too! Homeless, jobless & food-less. A GOP trifecta. At least they won't have to pay income taxes, lucky ducks.

If you have specific programs that you think are extravagant, say so. Instead, you indict the entirety of our social welfare system.

• I can't stand the way Democrats patronize people with incentives not to succeed in order to perpetuate an underclass voting constituency. John Edwards' "Two Americas" is a tired trick to divide America and rally the poor against the rich, encouraging the poor to stay poor and voting Democratic.

No. If you don't get the point of Edwards' "two Americas" you don't deserve a column. The wealthiest Americans are very fortunate to have good health care; the poorest have either Medicaid (one of those feel-good liberal programs that make harm people, according to Mary). Seniors have Medicare. What about the working poor? The McDonald's worker and the retail worker? They have nothing but the Emergency room & collection calls.

The point Edwards is making isn't that we need to tear down the upper echelon, but that we need to improve the fortunes of the less-fortunate by making their busy, complicated lives somewhat easier to manage.

Or we can just kill head-start. It's up to you, America.

• I like Bush, personally. You know where he stands. I respect his convictions, even the few I don't share. I get a kick out of that schoolboy giggle: "My opponent could spend 90 minutes debating with himself." And I like how he doesn't hide what he's feeling. Yes, he looked tired at Thursday's debate. Kerry had spent the day getting a manicure and a tan. Bush had to work.

Kerry spent the day preparing to take on the leader of the free world in a debate. Bush visited a site of hurricane damage. Ha ha. Bush can crack a joke.

Bush IS a joke. That schoolboy giggle? Too bad he didn't pay more attention in school.

He can't defend his four-year record. He can only attack his opponent. Bush says Kerry's a flip-flopper? So's Bush. So's Cheney.

Bush was against the 9/11 commission before he was for it.

Bush was against creating a Dept of Homeland Security before he was for it.

Bush was against campaign finance reform before he signed it. And now he doesn't like it so much...again.

Cheney was for lifting sanctions on Iran before he was against it.

Cheney was for higher gas prices before he was against them (or is he?)

Cheney was for abolition of the Apache helicopter system before he was against it.

• The debate's first question was: "Who can best prevent another 9/11?" Bush can. He already has.

When? How? What's the evidence for that statement?

Mary...just tell me one thing.

Who, exactly, was President on 9/10/01?

That's what I thought.

Isn't this just PRECIOUS?!

This story is just too precious. Too brilliant. Too ...well, perfect. Michael Moore is scheduled to speak at Washington University in St. Louis on Friday - the same day and the same place as the next Presidential debate. The student body decided it would be nice to present a counterpoint to Moore's point. After all, isn't that what college is all about? Getting different viewpoints out in the open to let people ... reflect and decide? Hannity won't be attending after all. Why? The reason is just TOO perfect. Mr. anti-elitist. Mr. working guy. The reason is funny enough. But even better than that. Even more perfect and brilliant: he didn't want people to find out his reason why he was pulling out.

After promising to counter Michael Moore's speech this Friday, the conservative commentator pulled out of the deal less than a week before his scheduled appearance-but reportedly asked that the media not be informed of his motivations for the decision. Hannity cited personal reasons for his cancellation, said law student Ruth Hollander after speaking with the right-wing pundit over the phone yesterday. Hannity, Hollander said, requested a private jet to fly him to St. Louis for the speech, but then rejected 'several' different jets offered by a private donor. He told Hollander about a 'bad experience' with the prominent company that had manufactured all the jets offered for his trip. '[Hannity's agent] said he thought we should say that because of the short time frame involved, it didn't work out,' said Hollander. 'I said I didn't think that was the truth, and...I really felt we had met all of our commitments and we were going to be honest when asked.'" When Hollander and fellow law student Melinda Gorman failed to locate a jet manufactured by another company, they offered Hannity a first-class ticket on a commercial flight. He refused. "He was very forceful on the phone," said Hollander. "It was hard to get a word in edgewise with him. He was interrupting me a lot. But that's sort of the nature of his personality-at least, his radio personality and T.V. personality."

Bullying? Interrupting? Refused to compromise? Refused a commercial first-class ticket? The private jets weren't good enough? What a prancing primadonna. What a piece of unmitigated dreck. What a phony. What an imbecile. What a liar. What a piece of garbage.

Stern signs with Sirius

I know Howard Stern is controversial and many people think he is..well, evil. But Stern has been more forceful, more effective, and reached more people in his strident support of John Kerry and thoughtful attacks on Bush-Cheney since about February of this year than Air America and liberal blogs combined. Why? Because Stern reaches literally millions of not-particularly-polically-active males between the ages of 18 and 49. On January 1, 2006, I will be listening to the Stern show (of which I've been a fan since about March 2005) on Sirius Satellite Radio. The show will be unfettered by FCC rules. I can't wait. I was literally waiting to decide which satellite service to buy until Stern made a decision, one way or another, between terrestrial, XM or Sirius. Not only is this exactly what die-hard Stern fans always wished for - uninterrupted reception throughout the entirety of North America - but also what Stern has dreamed of: uncensored broadcasting. Until now, XM has been seen as winning the satellite wars. Well, Sirius just stormed the beaches at Normandy.

Hard Work?

VP Debate Postscript: Oh, Yeah."

The biggest hit from Cheney was when he said Edwards' record wasn't very "distinguished." Stifling laughter, I thought to myself that Edwards probably has more real-world and political experience today than Bush had in 2000. Then, Cheney called Edwards "Senator Gone" and said that, even as President of the Senate, he had never met Edwards before they came on the stage that evening. After the debate, Mrs. Edwards greeted Mr. Cheney, and according to reports, reminded him that they, in fact, HAD met before. Here's a picture of Cheney not meeting Senator Edwards And the AP Story:

On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast and sat beside him during the event. On April 8, 2001, Cheney and Edwards shook hands when they met off-camera during a taping of NBC's "Meet the Press," moderator Tim Russert said Wednesday on "Today." On Jan. 8, 2003, the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in by Cheney as a North Carolina senator, Edwards aides also said. Edwards didn't forget their prayer-breakfast meeting. The Democratic vice presidential candidate noted the discrepancy at a post-debate rally in a Cleveland park, calling it an example of Cheney "still not being straight with the American people." "The vice president said that the first time I met Senator Edwards was tonight when we walked on the stage. I guess he forgot the time we sat next to each other for a couple hours about three years ago. I guess he forgot the time we met at the swearing in of another senator. So, my wife Elizabeth reminded him on the stage," Edwards said as the crowd roared. According to Edwards' staff, Cheney replied, "Oh, yeah." "She reminded him about the truth," Edwards told the crowd, "and come November, we're going to remind him that the American people do not want four more years of George W. Bush."

Veep Debate

I shouldn't have stayed up for it. I should have gotten a full 8 hours' sleep. Silly me. I think it was, more or less, a draw. I think Cheney got in some good hits, but so did Edwards. I liked Cheney inviting people to visit "factcheck.com". Factcheck.com is a George Soros site. I think he meant factcheck.org. That site is farked, but according to Kos, the top story there last night was:

Bush Mischaracterizes Kerry's Health Plan Bush claims Kerry's plan puts "bureaucrats in control" of medical decisons, "not you, not your doctor." But experts don't agree with that.

Good one, Dick. I don't score it an Edwards win because he did a little too much talking-points-repetition for my taste. The guy's a professional litigator. He could have done better, in my opinion. I loved that he threw the flip-flopping charge back in Cheney's face. I loved: they were against the 9/11 commission before they were for it; they were against creating a Dept of Homeland security before they were for it, etc. All in all, a good outing for Senator Edwards, whose youthful optimism was striking as compared with VP Cheney, who looked pale and old.

Rove as Jedi

I don't subscribe to the whole Karl-Rove-as-genius-behind-Bush nonsense. Chiefly because I think the guy is pretty patently evil, and I don't want to give him any credit for anything. Except being evil. But I found this post, comparing Rove-spin to Kenobi's Jedi mind trick pretty darn funny. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Bush won the debate. You get the point.

The Iraq situation is a catastrophe

Just read this e-mail, which was written by Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassahi. Is the road to hell paved with good intentions, or with makeshift landmines planted by youngsters? Is the United States finally ready to throw off the shackles of its neoconservative overlords and return our foreign policy to what it used to be - a mixture of strength, diplomacy, and a healthy dose of realpolitik? We all know that Bush doesn't read the papers, and I'd be willing to bet that he doesn't even watch the news on "the TV screens." So is it too much to ask that the leader of the free world get some information from a source that is not within his chain of command? Is it too much to ask that the President pick up a newspaper. Heck, even the NY Post or Washington Times will do. Wall Street Journal isn't too pinko, last I checked. In any event, in the face of this disaster -a disaster that was caused by bad planning by the President, all Bush can say is that it's "hard work." No shit, sherlock. No one ever said it'd be non-alcoholic wine & roses. The neoconservatives - the imbecile utopians who thought that Iraq would be a cakewalk in which we'd be greeted as liberators, the ones who thought that a free Iraq would somehow spark a domino effect of liberal democracy throughout the middle east, the ones who, more than anything, thought that violent imposition of democracy on Israel's neighbors would somehow be good for Israel... ...are well on their way to turning Americans into Israelis. Obviously, this comment has nothing to do with religion, but with the reality of security. The neocons won't be satisfied until the plague of suicide bombings makes its way to our shores. They have already turned our servicemen and women in Iraq, and any and all foreign aid workers, reporters, and contractors into suicide bombing victims and victims of kidnappings and beheadings. For this country to get back on the right track - a rational, realistic, and reasonable foreign policy - the neoconservatives who got us into this mess must be held to account. They must, quite frankly, be run out of office, power and influence. They should never darken the halls of government again. The neoconservative movement is the most insidious danger to American values and democracy today. It must be defeated. It must be discredited.

Nader voters: Get over it.

Nader voters need to get over it. If they're such selfless hippies, they need to start being selfless. Do you like Nader and what he stands for? That's nice. Now tell me what he stands for. Tell me what he stands for that is so important that you'd rather have George W. Bush re-elected than vote for Kerry. The whole charade from 2000 about the two candidates and the two parties being clones of one another has been proven to be factually, intellectually and morally bankrupt. Over toAMERICAblog:

Message to Nader voters, if you don't give a damn about the Supreme Court, about women's rights, about gay Americans, about abortion staying legal, about the environment, about an upcoming draft and more, then you just keep on deluding yourselves that by voting for Nader you're not helping re-elect George Bush. The truth hurts folks, but you're absolute idiots if you think you're not helping re-elect Bush - per se if you voted for Kerry you'd be upping his odds to get rid of Bush. But again, if you think most of what the left in this country holds dear is absolutely irrelevant and expendable - hell, that everything Ralph Nader holds dear is expendable - then vote away for Nader. You know he going to lose - the only question is whether he again takes the rest of us down with him. Honestly, I have no more use for you people. If it takes an intervention to slap you out of your deluded sense that every vote DOESN'T count (which is exactly what you're arguing, that somehow by not voting for Kerry you're not influencing the election against him), then slap in the face it will be.

Google Adsense

I have no idea why, but I am getting conservative ads through adsense at the top of the page. I think it's kind of funny. If you feel like hitting a tip jar, click the link for me.

So funny

So Drudge goes online on Sunday and accuses Kerry of bringing *gasp* a piece of paper (and possibly a pen, according to unconfirmed reports) into the debate with him last week. Apparently, as part of the memorandum of understanding hashed out between the two campaigms, certain notes and other documents were prohibited. So, the wingers slo-moed the video of Kerry walking out to his podium. Zapruder-like, no? What's quite stunning is that to wingers, this really is the equivalent of Zapruder. Get. a. Life. I will wager that the vast right wing blogspiracy is all over this story. I don't even have to go check. I just know it. They are up in arms about it. How dare Kerry? In any event, do you know what? Guess what it took for the story to evaporate into the ether? Of course. Murdoch's New York Post explaining that Murdoch's Fox News Channel's feed revealed that Kerry took a black pen out of his jacket. Get that? For the wingers to drop this idiotic non-issue, they needed two separate levels of Murdoch sourcing. But it does have me wondering what, exactly, is on Bush's podium here.

Absolute Genius

Shorter GOP. Go check it out. You'll need Apple QuickTime.

Drudge's headline is in huge, red "alert" type

NEWSWEEK POLL: BUSH LEAD GONE Sat Oct 02 2004 16:42:32 ET    New York-Sixty-one percent of Americans who watched the first presidential debate on September 30 say Sen. John Kerry won; 19 percent say President George W. Bush won and 16 percent say they tied, according to the latest Newsweek Poll which was conducted after the debate ended. Fifty-six percent say Kerry did better than they expected; 11 percent say so for Bush. Thirty-eight percent say Bush did worse than expected;  3 percent say so for Kerry, the poll shows.         The debate erased the lead the Bush/Cheney ticket has held over Kerry/Edwards in the Newsweek Poll since the Republican convention. In a three-way trial heat including Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo, among registered voters Kerry/Edwards leads Bush/Cheney 47 percent v. 45 percent with 2 percent for Nader/Camejo. In a two-way heat, Kerry/Edwards leads 49 percent v. 46 percent for Bush/Cheney, the poll shows.         A 62-percent majority of viewers says Kerry seemed more confident and self-assured (26% say so for Bush) and 51 percent say Kerry had better command of issues and facts (37% for Bush). Forty-seven percent say Kerry seemed more personally likeable (41 % for Bush) and 49 percent say Kerry came closer to reflecting their own views on most foreign policy issues (43% for Bush). The two were nearly even on several other points, including who came across as a strong leader (47% Kerry, 44% Bush) and who had a better plan for dealing with the situation in Iraq (45% for both). Forty percent of viewers thought Kerry was too wordy and 57 percent thought Bush was too repetitive.         Fifty-seven percent of all poll respondents say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time. Bush's job approval rating dropped two points from the Sept. 9-10 Newsweek Poll to 46 percent-a 6-point drop since the poll taken during and after the Republican convention. Forty-eight percent of registered voters polled say they would not like to see Bush re-elected but almost as many (46%) say they would.         Among registered voters, 60 percent say they know "a lot" about what Bush stands for, compared to 38 percent who say so about Kerry, the poll shows.         During the debate, President Bush said the military would remain "an all-volunteer army," but if Bush is re-elected, 38 percent of registered voters say the draft is likely to be reinstated; 51 percent say it's not, according to the poll.  If Kerry is elected president, 18 percent say the draft is likely to be reinstated; 67 percent say it is not. And 62 percent of registered voters say reinstating the draft should not be considered at this time; 28 percent say it should be considered.         A 60-percent majority of registered voters say Bush administration policies and diplomatic efforts have led to more anti-Americanism around the world and 51 percent say the administration has not done enough to involve major allies and international organizations in trying to achieve its foreign policy goals, the poll shows.           As for who will handle issues better overall, among registered voters Bush leads Kerry 52 to 40 percent on terrorism and homeland security; the situation in Iraq (49% vs. 44%); the situation involving Israel and the Palestinians (46% vs. 39%) and controlling the spread of nuclear weapons (47% v. 43%). Kerry scores better on the economy (52% vs. 39%);  health care, including Medicare (56% to 34%) and American jobs and foreign competition (54% vs. 36%), the poll shows.         Overall, 62 percent say Bush has strong leadership qualities (compared to 56% who say so for Kerry).  Sixty-six percent say Bush says what he believes, not just what people want to hear, compared to 48 percent for Kerry. Sixty-five percent say Bush is personally likeable (63% say so for Kerry). But more registered voters (57%) say Kerry is honest and ethical (vs. 55% for Bush); the same amount (51%) says they would trust Kerry to make the right decisions during an international crisis as would trust Bush (51%); and more (57%) say Kerry cares about people like them (vs. 49% for Bush). And 80 percent of registered voters say Kerry is intelligent and well informed, compared to 59 percent for Bush.         On Iraq, 50 percent of registered voters polled say the war in Iraq was not necessary; 46 percent say it was. And 55 percent of registered voters say going to war in Iraq has not made Americans safer from terrorism; 41 percent say it has. Fifty-one percent of registered voters say the Bush administration misinterpreted or misanalyzed the intelligence reports it said indicated Iraq had banned weapons; 41 percent say it didn't. And 45 percent say the administration purposely misled the public about evidence that Iraq had banned weapons in order to build support for the war; 50 percent say it did not.          During is 19-year career in the U.S. Senate, Kerry  has changed his position on a number of issues. From what they know about Kerry, 47 percent of registered voters say this is because Kerry is thoughtful and changes position as circumstances change or he learns more about an issue; the same number (47%) say it's because Kerry is politically-motivated and changes his position when he thinks it will improve his image or help him win an election.         For this Newsweek Poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates International interviewed 1,013 registered voters on Sept. 30-Oct. 2, 2004.

Commanding & Presidential

The debate took place on Thursday. Unless you've been under a rock somewhere, you know that. I haven't updated in a few days due to a mixture of not feeling great and being incredibly busy. Let's cut to the chase. Kerry mopped the floor with Bush. Kerry was poised, Presidential, had a firm grasp of the issues, was ready for Bush's attack-talking points, and did a job even better than I had hoped. Watching it, I was almost palpably nervous for him. For us. Bush looked like a petulant asshole. He quite obviously didn't want to be there, and this is (probably) quite literally the first time he has been criticized to his face in 4 years. He couldn't take it. His facial expressions, and exasperated demeanor said it all. He is out of touch. His answer to the fiasco that Iraq has become under his watch? It's hard work. His answer to the fact that 95% of incoming ship containers aren't inspected? How y'all gonna pay for that? His answer to the fact that he not only failed to get our NATO allies involved in a 1991-style Iraq coalition, but actually INSULTED the countries that refused to join? You forgot about Poland. Just look at him. According to Drudge, Bush's lead is gone. According to Daily Kos, DNC & Kerry website hits the night of & day after the debate broke records. As is often the case lately, check out Andrew Sullivan for a conservative Kerry-voter's opinion. I think he's spot-on.