I blame YOU Jim Geraghty! :)

Here's my take on expectations and downfalls.

Politically, a Bush win would be far more devastating to the democrats and the left. But this is truly an expectation game. If Bush loses, it would be a serious moral blow to conservatives but not a knock-out politically.

In part, I'll blame jim geraghty for my failed optimism if Bush loses :).

Best Halloween Fun Ever (for conservatives at least)

Korla Pundit: Infamous Monsters of Filmland: Face it: the so-called 'Famous Monsters of Filmland' may have scared us as children, but they were mostly misunderstood creatures who weren't malicious or intentionally monstrous. Now, however, we are forced to confront real-life monsters who will truly make it difficult to get to sleep this Halloween (what with it being so close to Election Day and all).

I can't say enough about these "famous monster" spots. This is priceless... Here's a sample:

 

 

 

 

Is this the best predictive model the left can muster?

Here are 2 examples on how the left just can't come up with the hard and fast supporting facts to show a Kerry victory.

First, the infamous Madame Clift writes in Newsweek that "the signs are pointing to a big turnout and a Kerry win." Most of the article is spent on dissing Matt Dowd and ranting on about the left's favorite topic: war. Or at least, their unrelenting Monday morning quarterbacking. In the end all Clift can point to is the undecideds traditionally breaking for the challenger. That's not very strong in my book, especially with the youth vote looking like a break even vote.

Second, there's this priceless piece on TNR, where Ryan Lizza basically gives the election to Kerry because Mike McCurry is nicer and less political than the Bush PR team. Says Lizza:

By erecting an iron wall around the White House, Bush is now paying a price. Conservatives think it's liberal bias that drives some of the tougher coverage Bush has seen this year, but I think it's schadenfreude.

So basically, Bush will lose the election because of press bias and the press likes Kerry more because the press basically has : "a malicious satisfaction in the misfortunes of others."

The Honest Left gets it

Buzz Machine can at least see the comparison:

The eerie thing about the bin Laden tape is how he remixes Michael Moore -- remixes as if in a Cuisinart. I swear the guy saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and picked up the themes for his latest wacky show -- even the fixation with that goat book. It's so nutty that if he weren't such an evil murdering slime, it would almost be funny. Or it would sound like another 527 ad.

Do we need to sick the FEC on Osama?! The rhetorical question is: "If Osama was a 527, which campaign would he tout?" Do we even need to ask that question?

After quoting the latest "they missed Osama" rants Buzz Machine concludes:

Bad timing, Johnny, bad timing. We must be united against bin Laden as we were united against Hitler. Listen to your own statement, man. Keep on this track and it will backfire on you.

Global Test: "Clear Results in Minutes!"

Busted a gut over this one:



hat tip to FreeRepublic

GOP GOTV A OK

Look at this sign-up sheet for the GOP GOTV group Stomp4Victory.com
http://63.168.43.5/volunteer/DC.asp

This is the caravan leaving from DC for the next several days!
Notice the buses on Sunday and Monday are full!

I really think the GOTV machine is working! See these posts at the Kerry Spot: here and here.

Conservatives take hope!

Another great insider post from the Kerry Spot:

The Kerry Spot on National Review Online: I heard, once again, from an individual “familiar with internal discussions within the Bush campaign.” A lot of folks want to know who this source is and are suspicious of campaign leaks. Let’s say this information is what big cheeses in GOP circles are saying to middle cheeses in GOP circles.

Why is info given to me (and Kathryn)? I suspect that in some GOP circles, Kerry Spot and NRO are seen as a good way to reach the Bush base voters who are plugged into the Internet, keeping up with the news, etc. I think the info gets thrown my way to make sure the base isn't being panicked by the Kerry spin from some corners the mainstream media...

So here’s the news for today.

Among early and absentee votes cast already, Bush has huge lead in FL, bigger than his advantage in Florida in 2000.

There’s a great contrast in the respective get-out-the-vote operations for Bush and Kerry. Around 25 percent of registered voters report being contacted by a Bush-Cheney volunteer, most often members of their church or community organization or neighbor. About 19 percent of registered voters have been contacted on behalf of the Kerry-Edwards campaign, but the vast majority of these contacts are by paid temps of the campaign, the DNC, or a related 527. Will the personal touch have an effect?

In Hawaii, the Bush campaign has quietly had its eye on this state for a while, and been building a surprisingly strong statewide organization with more than 2,000 volunteers. Kerry put up ad about how bad the economy was, while Hawaii has one of the lowest unemployment rates in country.

In New Mexico, Bush is only few thousand behind in early/absentee ballots in Bernalillo county, a heavy Democrat county.

In Florida, the campaign expects Bush to end up with an estimated 100,000 vote advantage among early and absentee voters.

In Nevada, there is little expectation that this state will be all that competitive. Bush is competitive in Clark County (which includes Las Vegas). Right now Kerry leads 44 percent Bush 41 percent. Kerry needed over 50 percent out of Clark county to win NV. But Bush within a few thousands votes of heavy Dem county.

Finally, a big point of enthusiasm for the GOP is their deep bench of Bush surrogates who can garner big crowds and lots of media attention. The President is in New Hampshire and Ohio today, vith Ah-nuld. Cheney is going to Hawaii. Tommy Franks is in Florida, as is John McCain and former President Bush. Rudy Giuliani is in Iowa, Mitt Romney is in Michigan, and former President Bush will also be in Pennsylvania later.

Great summary of the whole Al-QaQaa thing...

Mr. Kerry Spot has the best summary of all things Al-QaQaa:

The Kerry Spot on National Review Online: "I was only able to catch part of the Pentagon briefing, but the earliest story on it is here. Short version: Major Austin Pearson said a team from the 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munititions and military material from the Al-Qaqaa munitions base soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell last year.

As we learn more about this story, one suspects that it is not impossible - in fact, likely - that some looters or some future members of the insurgency managed to take some explosive material out of al-QaQaa. It is also very likely that this amount was what you could take out by hand or by pickup truck or other small vehicle, not the 40 truckloads or so that the initial New York Times article was pointing to. On the other hand, as it has been remarked a great deal in the past few days, the entire country was one big ammo dump. Finding explosives is probably the least of the insurgency's problems. Had we invaded with double the number of troops, there still would have been no guarantee that no explosives could have been taken by any looter.

Should the U.S. troops have done more to secure this site? One can make that argument. Does the President, as commander-in-chief, bear some responsibility for this? Well, even though he wasn't the guy assigning the troops to each location, he is the president, and the buck does stop there. So if someone wants to vote against George W. Bush because some looters may have gotten some explosives, that's their right.

Of course, this is war. Anyone who has studied history knows that even the best armies have problems and make mistakes.
Did the New York Times run this story to go after Bush? Well, duh. Did John Kerry grab this incomplete New York Times article because he was looking for a way to attack Bush on national security? Sure. Was his strategy here, first, figure out the whole story later’? Yes.

Was this issue brought to the attention of the Times by Mohammed El-Baradei in order to get Bush out of office, so that he could serve a third term in charge of the IAEA and keep the pressure off the Iranians?

And throughout this week, has John Kerry demonstrated that he puts more faith in the words of Egyptian bureaucrats named Mohammed El-Baradei than the members of the U.S. Armed Forces on the ground?

78% chance of a Bush Victory

One admitted left-leaning independed has a mathematical formula that is predicting a 78% chance of victory for the President.

Another calculation gives the edge to Kerry

Of course there's Tradesports and the Iowa site

Yale has their own election genius which sees Bus winning 57% of the vote. Try it yourself

WashingtonPost.com has a great article on this whole thing.

The Rumor Mill

I hear from a reliable source that a bombshell accusation against President Bush may be in the works. We all know that the candidates have been holding their 11th hour trump cards... but this could seriously backfire against the Kerry campaign. The accusation is pretty scandalous... which could be cover for the Kerry campaign, if they come out and lambast it...

I'm not sure at all on the timing of this... and I won't state the accusation here, but brace yourself. I believe that this has come up before. The source is reliable and in the know, but even he was unsure of the veracity of this coming out.

Abortion rights group accuses archdiocese with violating tax-exempt status

This is outrageous. I can think of a few other churches that need to lose their status because they actually have campaign rallies during services! But as Republicans, we're just too nice to do anything about it.

AP Wire | 10/26/2004 | Abortion rights group accuses archdiocese with violating tax-exempt status: "A Catholic abortion rights group is asking the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Archdiocese of St. Louis and halt any further attempts by the archdiocese to influence the Nov. 2 election."

Abortion rights group accuses archdiocese with violating tax-exempt status

This is outrageous. I can think of a few other churches that need to lose their status because they actually have campaign rallies during services! But as Republicans, we're just too nice to do anything about it.

AP Wire | 10/26/2004 | Abortion rights group accuses archdiocese with violating tax-exempt status: "A Catholic abortion rights group is asking the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Archdiocese of St. Louis and halt any further attempts by the archdiocese to influence the Nov. 2 election."

Adam Gadahn!?

Remember this guy!?

See some original reporting I did on this earlier in the year:

UPDATE: I dropped a line into Jon Konrath if there was any news. He responds:

Hey Justin,

No news here. I'm just waiting to hear if ABC puts out that video mentioned on Drudge. I'm leaving town on Friday to see my family - looking forward to answering a lot of dumb questions while I'm there.

-Jon

Take it easy Jon, enjoy the weekend.

Grass Roots Effort

Just to give you an idea of the Republican grassroots organization. I just got this email directed toward Mormon Volunteers. If you want to volunteer go to:
http://stomp4victory.org/index.shtml

Oh, how I wish I had one of these!

Oh, how I wish I had one of these!

Latest Polls: Trending Bush

The latest polls show some interesting movement. See this graphic below:



The blue squares indicate a state trending toward Kerry, the red toward Bush. What does all this mean? (all numbers taken from RCP)

So, the wisdom was that Bush needed to win 2 of the big three (PA, OH, and FL). But if things continue on this trend then there could be an interesting finish. See below:



Bush could (theoretically) lose Florida and PA and still come out on top. The magic pair still holds though. If Bush does get 2 of the three this game is over.

So now they have nukes!

The reports out this morning about the missing tons of explosives are all headlined with "Enough material to set off a nuclear bomb!"

Wait, I thought there were no nukes in Iraq? I must be missing something.

David Sanger had an excellent piece about the vision of George W. Bush.

I really do feel like the CIA, the State Department and the leftist partisans (I group those together purposely) have missed the point completely. One of my CIA friends commented that the Iraqi people cannot govern themselves. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of freedom. Bush truly believes that freedom can overwhelm and overcome even the most divisive and entrenched ideologies.

Surprise endorsement for Kerry? No, not that one.

So Jesse Ventura has come out for Kerry. No big surprise. But I'm hearing rumors of a bigger endorsement. I can only speculate. But the one endorsement that would have any real meaning would be Nancy Reagan. Given the recent death of President Reagan and the rekindled love emoted by Ron Reagan, I wouldn't be surprised if her left-leaning son has convinced her of some political ploy here.

NOTE: THIS IS ONLY SPECULATION

UPDATE: I'm getting slammed on this one. Again. This is only speculation. I know she has endorsed Bush. But I can't think of another endorsement that would mean anything.

Mormon Church speaks out on Same-Gender Marriage

Meridian Magazine : : Church Update: First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage: "SALT LAKE CITY
The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued the following statement:
We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.
As a doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture, we affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator�s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The powers of procreation are to be exercised only between a man and a woman lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship.�"

This is the most embarrassing video ever...

I have to admit that I'd look like a fool getting ready in the morning. But I doubt I look this awkward. "I'm ready for my hairspray..."

Hey November, Get here already!

This election is going to be fun! Unless I die of a heart attack first! Really, can November come any sooner!

Think of all of the variables involved here:

Record new voter registrations

Possible elements of voter fraud

Post-election legal issues

Underestimated republican votes in the polls

Wild swings in the polls

Record number of youth voters (or not)

Record turnout (or not)

Kerry or Bush gaffe

I wish I had a variable machine that could throw these options into a level and see what would happen. There are just too many balls in the air to really understand where they are going to fall. My own prediction is this: It will be a close election with legal action or a Bush landslide.

A Special Flash Tribute to George Tenet

UPDATE: Seeing as the whole Iraq "mess" that people see rests almost solely on the fact that we didn't find weapons of mass destruction, I thought it proper to pull up this special tribute to George Tenet, aka "Mr. It's a slam dunk Mr. President".

Click to play (turn up your volume):

Eliot Spitzer is at it again

The noted (some would say infamous) Attorney General of New York is at it again:

See Bloomberg:

When Greenville County in South Carolina borrowed $800 million two years ago to expand its public schools, Marsh & McLennan Cos. provided three bidders to insure the bond sale.

Unbeknownst to the school system, two of the offers were genuine and the third was "wholly fictitious," according to a suit filed yesterday by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. The winner, Zurich Financial Services AG, landed the job because Marsh expected the insurer to pay a lucrative fee.

The suit says Marsh, the world's No. 1 insurance broker, was so intent on winning fees it devised a phony bidding system to make customers believe insurers were competing for business. Spitzer's suit includes dozens of Marsh e-mails he calls "overwhelming evidence" that the winner was predetermined by Marsh.

"This is classic cartel behavior," Spitzer said after filing the suit and announcing the arrest of two American International Group Inc. executives who allegedly participated in Marsh's bid rigging. The executives pleaded guilty yesterday. He said the taint of corruption extends to "virtually every line of insurance."

As Ramesh Ponnuru detailed in his June 14th expose':

The list of targets Spitzer has gone after seems endless: gun makers, tobacco companies, Internet spammers, drug companies, Microsoft, brokerages, predatory lenders, mutual funds, power plants, the Bush administration, former New York Stock Exchange chairman Richard Grasso.

As his article sow is detail, almost every venture Spitzer attacks backfires or never comes to fruition. I guess its the means that count.

My financial advisor lauds Spitzer. And there are certainly some effective legitimate crimes he's brought to light. But the net effect of his efforts are seriously damaging.

So is the insurance industry next? What will be the effect that this will have?

2002 is the model, not 2000

The Kerry spot has it about right:

The Kerry Spot on National Review Online: "In 2002, pollsters used that same turnout model, expecting high turnout among Democrats and disappointing turnout among Republicans. And they got burned by that model."

You have to ask! Bush wins.

If there is one thing I learned from my missionary days it was this: You need to ask! Senator Kerry missed an incredible opportunity by not asking for anyone's vote. Bush asked and asked forcefully. He will win because of it.

MSNBC's Paige Newman shows her colors...

MSNBC - Fall offers treats and a couple tricks:

First, this about "Alexander":

With "Troy" not exactly being embraced by American audiences, this film is a bit of a question mark. Do we want to watch war epics while we're actually at war? My feeling is: no, we don't

Next about the movie "Kinsey":

It will be interesting to see how a post-Nipplegate world responds to the racy content here — although it is treated rather clinically.

"Kinsey" is about Alfred Kinsey, the Indiana professor who wrote "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male." Having read parts of the book I would say the "clinical" is probably the wrong term here.

Then she mentions the absurd Nicole Kidman movie without mentioning the scene where she seduces a 10 year old boy.

Paige, I appreciate your different values. :)

Eat our own.

This just across the wires (pdf file) and should prove interesting. A Gay Republican Political Organization (the log cabins) Files Suit On Behalf Of Gay And Lesbian Members Of The U.S. Armed Forces To Have The Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy Concerning Homosexuality declared Invalid Under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, The First Amendment's Free Speech Clause, And The Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Don't you love it when we eat our own?!

Newsweek, March 2004: Kerry calls himself a nuisance!

So, reaching back in time, has there ever been a case where John Kerry has used the word nuisance before? Yes, to descibe himself:

In fact, the only hint of ambivalence comes from the candidate himself. "I'm so happy to sit," Kerry begins an interview, clearly exhausted at the end of his umpteenth day on the road. Kerry, whose prep-school friends say he has always loved all things Kennedy, was a full-time volunteer in Ted Kennedy's first Senate race the summer before he entered Yale, in 1962. "I was one of the headquarter brats hanging around making a nuisance of myself," he says.

BOYS FROM BOSTON
Melinda Henneberger. Newsweek. New York: Mar 15, 2004.Vol.143, Iss. 11; pg. 38

I'm stretching a bit here... but it shows you just how casual the word "nuisance" really is. If I were to be more flippant I would say that John Kerry sees terrorists as dangerous as a campaign groupee. If I were Ann Coulter I might imply that democratic campaigns would be the first to employ a terrorist. But I would only say such if I were in a tired and punchy from being up early with my toddler.

That Vision Thing?

I sat down to write a critique of Rich Lowry's cover story for the latest National Review. Those clever marketers at NR know just what buttons to push! The only criticism I can level is at the title: "What went wrong?"

I'll admit I had to jump into the article when I saw the title... but its not at all what it seems to intimate. The title implies finality and assumed disaster. Lowry's piece was extremely insightful, sobering but detailed and in many ways comforting. Instead of trying to bang my head against the wall I'll share a recent experience:

I was speaking to a friend Sunday night about the war. He works as an analyst for the CIA and deals intimately with the Middle East. I asked if he had read or heard about the Bob Novak article. He said no. I explained the premise to him briefly and commented: "I think Novak was alluding to the certain animus that the State Department holds towards the Bush administration and stating that the same feeling exists at the CIA."

He said it was not animus, but that people hold a certain anxiety towards the current administration. I asked him if he had read my recent article about "The Dominance Motif" that I sent him. He had not. I explained the premise behind my article (leftists unrepentant reading world domination into the Bush doctrine while accusing necons of trying to wreck the economy and halt the social state.) He did not think that accurately represented the feeling there. I pressed him further.

The main complaint he had against the Iraqi war was the assumptions made about the Iraqi people. "These people can't govern themselves. Somebody has to tell them what to do" As Lowry's piece points out: 1) The CIA apparently never made an attempt to correct this misconception and 2) the Iraq infrastructure was so bass-akward as to confuse even the most ambitious human rights expert. Lowry's conclusion was that no amount of planning could have the solved the problems that we find in post-war Iraq today.

My CIA friend continues: "There was no connection between Al Quaeda and Iraq. We've squandered precious resources on a war that is a distraction from the war on terror." I asked: "Doesn't the 9/11 report point to at least some tentative connection to Al Qaeda?" He replied: "None. I know it. I know it." I didn't want to press further, but if I had I would have asked: "Was Saddam a terrorist?" or "When you say 'I know' is that the say as 'It's a slam dunk Mr. President', or 'I know there are weapons of mass destruction?'"

I'm not sure where to take this except to express some questions: what is the nexus between vision vs. policy vs. execution? Are we at another "dust heap of history" moment? When the President touts a vision that is not supported by intelligence how do we deal with it? This vision is something I subscribe to. How do I best express it? As J. Lileks put it today:

I want the definition of success to be "free democratic states in the Middle East and the cessation of support of those governments and fascist states we haven't gotten around to kicking in the ass yet."

I agree. Years (perhaps months) from now, when the Iraqi people get a chance at democracy, will Bush's mantra that freedom can change people be vindicated or defeated... ?

Am I a branded neocon? Probably. Is this vision our only hope? That's how I'm leaning. Is there any chance that the CIA and the State Department will ever see this. Sadly, no.

To sum up: the State Department, the CIA, many elected officials (on the left and right), and many smart people (on the left and right) are questioning what we are doing in Iraq. Their questions stand from the assumption that democracy in Iraq is almost impossible. For all this they call Bush crazy.

Reagan remarked frequently that Communism would soon be on the ash heap of history. Many people thought he was crazy too. But he stuck by his vision and was vindicated. Are we in the same boat?

The Wonderful Zogby of Oz?

So I'm part of this crazy Zogby Internet poll which actually allows you to pick the state you are in (just to try it... I've been in Ohio, VA and others - I'm not sure if they count it). But this morning's poll throws in another twist... a very interesting questions see below:



So, riddle me this: which character is which? Here's my (obvious) take:



Not my best Photoshop (I gotta get to work here). Anyway, one thing we should note here. While the Tin Man required a transplant to get his heart... the scarecrow always had a brain.

I suppose the next question is: who are the other characters. The simple decision is the VPs... now, let's see, which is which? Perhaps that's for tomorrow's Photoshop special.

So who are you voting for Chris?

In a rare moment of candor, Chris Matthews reveals his true preference for President (like we didn't know already).

click here for the Christ Matthews video

Was Teresa mugged!?

I mean seriously, was she mugged backstage? See this video.

Hey John, I've got your wood right here!

Debate so far...

Going very well for Bush. He's holding his own and making some good points.

Latest Polls: Tighter than 2000! Could Iowa decide things, NH or NM?!

OK. So things are tightening and moving in Kerry's favor right now. Could Iowa (with 7 votes) be the key!? Look at the chart below (with numbers taken from various polls:



With the chart as is the count is Bush 264 and Kerry 220 with 54 in the toss up column. Kerry is leading or tied with Bush in almost all of these states (but its still very close. It looks like Bush may hold onto Florida. If that is the case here's one scenario. We know that Kerry must win Ohio if he doesn't get Florida. If Kerry wins NH, NM, IA, OR, MN, and OH then he wins 273 to 264. But if Bush wins IA he wins 271 to 266.

But even NH or NM would swing things! This could be even tighter than 2000!

UPDATE: Looks like my analysis is on par with what RCP is calling
here.

Jib Jab is at it again.

This one is fantastic:


click here

Edwards and Trial Lawyer Money

Speaking of trial lawyers and John Edwards, I thought I would lookup some of John Edward’s contributors on the FEC’s website. Like many campaigns (on both the right and the left) corporations and law firms will typically “pool” their contributions when the campaign solicitor comes knocking. Take, for instance, the multi-city Law Firm of Lopez, Hodes, Restaino, Milman & Skikos. Here is just a sampling of the contributions that their lawyers have made.

Janet Abaray

$500 – Gephardt

$2000 – Edwards

$1000 – Kerry

Ramon Lopez

$2000 – John Edwards

$1000 – Kerry

$2000 – Edwards (6/5/2002)

Daniel Hodes

$1000 – Gephardt

$2000 – John Edwards (6/5/2002)

$1000 – John Edwards (3/5/2002)

$2000 – Edwards (3/7/2003)

$500 – Kerry (5/8/2004)

John Retaino

$2000 – Edwards (9/30/2003)

Jeffrey Milman

$2000 – Edwards (3/7/2003)

$2000 – Edwards (6/5/2002)

Steven Kikos

$2000 – Edwards (3/7/2003)

Cristina Lopez Fountain

$2000 – Edwards (6/5/2002)

$2000 – Edwards (3/7/2003)

Thomas Schultz

$500 – Kerry (3/5/2002)

$2000 – Edwards (3/7/2003)

$2000 – Edwards (6/5/2002)

Mark Crawford

$2000 – Edwards (3/7/2003)

Melinda Nokes

$2000 – Edwards (3/7/2003)

Jennifer Johnson

$2000 – Edwards (3/7/2003)

I stopped after nearly $35,000 but I could have kept going. Again, there’s nothing inherently wrong with this. All of the contributors were lawyers of the firm. But there are some questions about certain related contributions. See for example: Jaime Lopez, a homemaker who lives in Newport Beach, CA (as does Roman Lopez – see above). She gave $2000 on the same day that Ramon did. Also Kathleen and Marie Lopez have $2000 each. Spouse and family giving are common, but decidedly untoward.

More importantly, the reputation of the firm brings into question the type of contributions being made by trial lawyers. Lopez et al. claim to litigate everything from “Ephedra” to “Firestone”, from “Toxic Mold” to “Medical Malpractice.” Especially medical malpractice.

How about the $4 Billion global settlement with American Home Products? Or the $10 million jury award for a failure to diagnose cervical cancer? Or the millions of dollars won against prescription drugs? These guys strike me as the quintessential ambulance chasers. More to come…

Debate results...

A big welcome to Right Side Redux for those of you who are new to the site.

My style is about half intense original research and half humorous musings. Here's a best of list if you're interested. Feel free to email me.

Here's the original musing that led to the article

Rebuttal to David Ignatius (complete with picture :) )

Outing the "economic girlie men"

A "more sensitive war"

Special notice at the Library of Congress

Dissection of Edwards' donors

Watch Michael Moore getting crushed, literally

Special flash tribute to Bill Clinton's biography

NY Times fictional headline

Audio blogging from the Reagan funeral line, and screen grabs from the Internet the day of his death

The well trafficked "Tribute to George Tenet"

Original reporting about the American Taliban

Exclusive: Air America Pay Check

Latest Electoral Breakdown

(click on graphic to see larger version)



red indicates trending Bush, Blue indicates trending Kerry
Here's my analysis. The next days will be telling as more polls come in. Look for the polls in Iowa and Ohio to be the most significant. Here's why.

Notice that Bush is ahead in every state that he won in 2000 with the exception of NH. Bush is also ahead in WI (way ahead!) and Iowa. Meanwhile Kerry has to defend: NM, OR, MN, PA. These states are all in the toss up pile. Without these states (and the NH tossup) the score is: Bush: 291, Kerry 200 (as noted on RealClearPolitics.com)

Even if Kerry wins all of the toss ups, the score would then be 291 to 247. In such a scenario Ohio does nothing for Kerry. He needs to win either Ohio and Iowa or just Florida to have a chance. But again, this assumes that he wins ALL of the toss up states. The bottom line (still) is that if Kerry does not win Ohio or Florida, he has a fat chance of winning.

NRO Ads

I know that NRO needs to pay some bills... but really.
K-LO, two words: text version!

Friedman's Return (sigh)

Yeah, Friedman is back. We can now leave Chomsky and company to their pointless rants and at least concentrate on someone who has a sometimes reasonable mind. Not this time though. Friedman starts out:

I don't know what is salvageable there anymore. I hope it is something decent and I am certain we have to try our best to bring about elections and rebuild the Iraqi Army to give every chance for decency to emerge there.

So we're unsure what is salvageable? The implied disaster is just that, implied. The left has this uncanny ability to assume the fact of failure in Iraq. If they can't actually call it Bush's Vietnam (because that would be too easy) they can at least imply that it's like Vietnam. VDH dismisses this failed analogy concisely: "Notwithstanding 49,000 fewer American dead, no nuclear Soviet Union or China in the neighborhood, and no army of three million insurrectionists under the banner of worldwide socialist revolution."

Friedman continues:

But here is the cold, hard truth: This war has been hugely mismanaged by this administration, in the face of clear advice to the contrary at every stage, and as a result the range of decent outcomes in Iraq has been narrowed and the tools we have to bring even those about are more limited than ever.

So what were the mismanaged failures is Iraq?

... while the Bush people applied the Powell Doctrine in the Midwest, they applied the Rumsfeld Doctrine in the Middle East. And the Rumsfeld Doctrine is: "Just enough troops to lose." Donald Rumsfeld tried to prove that a small, mobile army was all that was needed to topple Saddam, without realizing that such a limited force could never stabilize Iraq.

First of all, since when did overwhelming force become the "Powell doctrine"? Secondly, as Mac Owens points out about force sizes: "a number of very smart people agree with [the] claim that the force employed in the war was too small to stabilize the situation after the capture of Baghdad. I concede that the decision to launch the attack with the smaller force was risky, but so was a decision to wait for a larger force. There is no such thing as a risk-less alternative. If there were, war would be easy. The fact is that the president weighed the risks associated with both courses of action and decided to accept the risk of the earlier attack. In fact, by choosing this alternative, the Coalition force prevented a number of things from happening that were predicted, e.g. torching of the oil fields." [source]

Owens goes on to point out that the State department's failure to win the support of Turkey may be the convincing failure in this whole thing. With Northern Iraq getting the word of Saddam's collapse by word of mouth (not by brute force) a northern front on the war was the one missing piece.

Anything else Tom? Apparently not.

...each time the Bush team had to choose between doing the right thing in the war on terrorism or siding with its political base and ideology, it chose its base and ideology.

The criticisms from the right are hardly absent here. The base of necons has had one major complaint against the war, not enough force. But Friedman's complaints are different: "you lowered taxes", "you didn't fire Rumsfeld over Abu Gharib", "you didn't apologize", "you didn't raise gas taxes." These are hardly military criticisms? How do any of these issues actually help win the war? Friedman continues his rant:

What I resent so much is that some of us actually put our personal politics aside in thinking about this war and about why it is so important to produce a different Iraq. This administration never did.

So because we didn't accept your political afterthoughts (and your one Monday morning military criticism) we're being political?! Go figure.

Too funny

Licking

Priceless

Global Test

Hat Tip to the American Thinker

Today, my debut article on The American Thinker came out. A big welcome to Right Side Redux for those of you who are coming on the scene.

My style is about half intense original research and half humorous musings. Here's a best of list if you're interested. Feel free to email me.

Here's the original musing that led to the article

Rebuttal to David Ignatius (complete with picture :) )

Outing the "economic girlie men"

A "more sensitive war"

Special notice at the Library of Congress

Dissection of Edwards' donors

Watch Michael Moore getting crushed, literally

Special flash tribute to Bill Clinton's biography

NY Times fictional headline

Audio blogging from the Reagan funeral line, and screen grabs from the Internet the day of his death

The well trafficked "Tribute to George Tenet"

Original reporting about the American Taliban

Exclusive: Air America Pay Check

Post Debate Analysis

OK, I called it (albeit tentatively!). But, in the end this may be a good thing that Kerry won. It looks like the polls will not change dramatically... and the Republican base will be nervous which will keep the fire underneath us.

Also, see my piece on American Thinker today.