Continue reading "Was Kerry In Iraq In 1991 For Cease-Fire Accord?" »
Ed Morrissey has blogged at Captain's Quarters since 2003, and has a daily radio show at BlogTalkRadio, where he serves as Political Director. Called "Captain Ed" by his readers, Ed is a father and grandfather living in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, a native Californian who moved to the North Star State because of the weather.
The Chinese Rebuttal To John Kerry
John Kerry tried to put George Bush on the defensive in tonight's debate by faulting Bush's refusal to use bilateral talks to disarm North Korea. Bush insisted that the US needed global leverage, and shortly afterwards, the BBC provided Bush with some support for his position:
The US and China have said they were confident North Korea will return to six-party talks to end the stand-off over Pyongyang's nuclear programmes. US State Secretary Colin Powell said after talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing the format was "what we should be concentrating on".Mr Li described the talks as the "only feasible and correct option".
After excoriating Bush for not working hard enough to build a larger coalition to handle Iraq, Kerry reversed course and accused Bush of too much multilateralism on North Korea. Kerry said he'd hold concurrent multilateral and bilateral talks -- which Bush rightly pointed out would cause the multilateral talks to become redundant and the four other nations to walk away. If anyone paid attention to that exchange, China just confirmed Bush's contentions and his plans for dealing with the NoKos.
When we say Kerry is incoherent and vacillating, this is a great example of what we mean. (via Instapundit)
Liveblog: Debate #1
7:30 - I started watching C-SPAN, but the inane questions being asked on all sides drove me to AMC to watch a bit of Escape From New York. It seemed like the intelligent choice ...
7:39 - Michelle Malkin -- thanks for your link and your kind comments!
7:47 - Back to C-SPAN, just in time to see Donna Shalala introduce Lauren Williams (according to Shalala), but C-SPAN says it's Janet Brown. Teresa Heinz Kerry gets introduced ahead of Laura Bush, and she's chewing something as she walks up ...
7:51 - Jim Lehrer tells the audience to sit on their hands and shut up for 90 minutes, and now he says, "Don't make me pull this car over, kids!!" Oh, great, now the wives are the Hall Monitors. Yes, I can see this is "serious business", as Lehrer puts it ...
7:54 - If they don't want audience reaction, why have an audience? Why bother with the town-hall format at all?
7:57 - Northern Alliance links: Mitch, King, Rocket Man, blogging from here.
8:03 - Nice warm handshake and a laugh to start things off ...
8:05 - I have a better plan, I have a better plan -- well, you're on stage, let's hear it! ...
8:07 - Free nations. Not a bad start for either one ...
8:10 - One reason only for taking out Saddam? Outsourced the job? Where do you want me to begin? I guess Kerry's decided to take the snotty route ...
8:14 - John Kerry, so far, is doing pretty well. George Bush had a great response to Kerry's question ... but nothing we haven't heard before from both ...
8:18 - No body armor? Did he not vote against the funding for that?
8:19 - Bring the allies back to the table -- what if they're not hungry?
8:23 - So far, both men seem to be doing fairly well. This seems to be the Battle Of The Alpha Males, though. A lot of finger-jabbing and fist-pumping. Maybe it's just the adrenaline of the moment, but I think both men were coached to project strength. Kerry does seem to be more comfortable with the format, a product of his 20-year Senate career ...
8:29 - Bush dropped the $87 billion bomb, and Kerry's response was pretty damned weak, and obviously they were working on it this week. It needed more work ..
8:30 - "Last man to die for a mistake" -- Kerry now says that it's not a mistake. It's a mistake, it's not a mistake -- which is it? I mean, HE JUST GOT DONE SAYING THAT INVADING IRAQ IS A MISTAKE! Sheesh! ...
8:31 - No, it's like invading North Africa in response to Pearl Harbor, Senator. It's the difference between tactical and strategic thinking. Oh, Halliburton just made its first appearance. Now Bush gets to run the list of allies in Iraq, and he's making minced meat out of Kerry's arguments ...
8:34 - Kerry forgot Poland??? And Bush just chewed him out over the "coerced and bribed" comments earlier. Scoring big points here.
8:40 - He cut it off , sort of arbitrarily -- well, after France stated publicly that they would never support the use of force in Iraq. That's when we stopped trying to get the UN to get off its butt. Kerry's meeting with foreign leaders again. Osama needed Iraq to attract followers??
8:42 - He's had one consistent position (at a time) ...
8:45 - A good, thoughtful answer at the halfway mark from Bush on "was it worth it" - and yet another Viet Nam combat reference. Not confuse the war with the warriors?? Yes, it happened before -- and you were a large part of the reason for it, Senator!
8:48 - Not "you break it, you fix it", "you break it, you own it". Kind of a silly muff to pull at that point ...
8:49 - How does Kerry think that there is a difference between "pull troops out in six months" and "pull the troops out in six months if we're successful"? Ah, he says that Bush has imperial designs on Iraq because we're building bases in the outer parts of the Iraq. Well, we're fighting a war on Islamofascist terror -- does Kerry propose fighting it from Germany? Or maybe Fort Dix?
8:53 - George Bush needs to stand up straight. He's hunching over. Looks bad. Other than that, he's doing great, plainly speaking. I have to say that Kerry sounds better than I thought he would, but he's delivering more contradictions as he goes along ...
8:57 - Outsourced the attack on Osama -- and now Kerry's showing why he's clueless on the war on terror. He says that the sanctions were weakening Saddam. What about all those billions he got from UNSCAM? Did the weight tire him out?
8:59 - Darfur is Bush's fault?
9:00 - Oh, Lord, Kerry voted AGAINST the Kyoto Protocol, and now he blames Bush for not signing it. Instead of attacking that, Bush brings up the ICC, but he finished on a strong point -- he's looking out for American interests, not looking to win a beauty contest.
9:03 - Iran: Kerry would give the mullahs nuclear fuel. Up to now, only Edwards had offered that, and it's a stupid, stupid idea. Now he thinks that North Korea only started cheating after 2001. Yeah, sure.
9:08 - Why don't we have troops in Darfur? Because we're at war now against terrorists, which has to come first. Terrorists are in Iraq. "We could never allow another Rwanda" ... but who allowed the first one?
9:10 - Bush seems more in command of the details than Kerry does. He's made several factual corrections of Kerry that stick ...
9:11 - Character. Actually, both men took the soft approach on this answer, which is smart ... "I've never wavered" -- well, he's trilled quite a bit ...
9:17 - He's going to shut down another weapons program -- good flashback to 1984, Senator.
9:22 - Good question on Russia, and Bush takes us back to Beslan and ties Russian policy to the war on terror. Kerry talks about visiting the KGB and seeing reams of files. Was Sandy Berger there then? ...
9:25 - I think we're coming to the closing statements soon, and thank God. 90 minutes is too long...
9:26 - Kerry: Different set of convictions, respected again in the world, get your kids home and win the peace (in that order). "I'm not talking about leaving ..." Well, that's all he's been talking about for the past month. He got a chance to throw in a Viet Nam reference again...
9:28 - Bush: Weakness will push world towards tragedy, no draft, fight terrorists around the world instead of here, will put America first. Vision of democracy as a cure for terrorism and the oppression. "We've climbed a mighty mountain, and I've seen the valley below, and it's a valley of peace." Nice close.
9:31 - Both candidates greet their wives, Kerry taking the time to give an extra-long liplock on Teresa.
My assessment: Personally, I don't think either man did badly, although I think that Bush mauled Kerry about the "coerced and bribed" remark and Lockhart's "Allawi is a puppet". Also, his in-debate reversal on whether invading Iraq is a mistake will get some play. I'd give the edge to Bush, but you know I'm biased. Now C-SPAN has the lame phone callers, so I'll switch to Fox instead.
Good panel discussion on Fox. I don't agree with everything being said, but Brit Hume is leading the discussion and doing a good job of moderating it ...
Another thought -- one of Kerry's problems is that Bush has a number of home runs he can hit, thanks to Kerry's vacillations over the past nine months, and Bush hammered on Kerry for his policy flip-flops all debate long. Kerry's counter is that Bush is too resolute, which hardly damages a leader during wartime. ...
I missed the Republican spinmeister, but Joe Lockhart claims that the debate will be all about the "annoyed smirk". Eh? Actually, I think that sells this debate short. It actually produced substantive policy statements and differences between the candidates, and they both behaved in respectful and professional manner. Is Lockhart really that desperate? ...
Last thought from the Fox panel - Bush may have edged Kerry, but the polls will narrow slightly, and Kerry lives to fight another day. About what I'd say, too. But I think Poland will continue to dog Kerry, and now that I think about it, he forgot Australia, too. Kerry still has the same problems that he had going in, and expect Bush to hammer on those more in the next couple of weeks.
What Good Are Debates?
As I prepare to live blog tonight's debate from my den (instead of at Our House, where the rest of the Northern Alliance are free from my germs), it's worth revisiting my previously-expressed opinion on the usefulness of these gladitorial spectacles that we stage three or four times every election cycle. Unfortunately, I got caught agreeing with Teresa Heinz Kerry -- always a dangerous position:
I completely agree with Teresa Heinz Kerry:
Heinz Kerry said debates have become about scoring a punch with quick soundbites. "It's just silly," she said. "I think those debates are really unproductive and they made it hard for all of them to (get their message across)."
In fact, I would call them exceedingly silly, made so by live audiences who ooh, aah, gasp, titter, and applaud the most banal and trite comebacks. These debates embody the vacuity of modern hight-tech media sound bite-ism. The formats do not allow for thoughtful policy discourse, and in fact are designed to eliminate any hope of that. They are entertainment, at least in theory, a type of gladiator arena where the fight is not so much between the gladiators themselves as it is between the audience members to stay awake long enough to punctuate their champions' verbal jabs with the appropriate sound effect.
To be sure, they've produced memorable, even classic moments:
* Richard Nixon's facial meltdown under the hot lights against Kennedy
* Ronald Reagan's "There you go again" against Carter, and
* Reagan's "I won't hold his youth and inexperience against him" comeback against Mondale
* Lloyd Bentsen's "You're no Jack Kennedy" against an outclassed Dan Quayle (VP debate)
* Al Gore acting like he had better things to do against George W. Bush
If pressed, 99% will only remember these moments from those classic debates, not anything about policy or philosophy, and especially not anything specific. So if these events are the only things memorable about televised debates, what exactly about the debates informs your choice as a voter? Or, if you make decisions based on these superficial and irrelevant incidents, maybe the debates are enabling you to avoid the serious work of evaluating candidates based on their record, their policy positions, and so on, which is a lot more work than having this pablum force-fed to you via the boob tube. I've stopped watching them; they're embarassing and they're pointless. One cheer for Mrs. Heinz Kerry for pointing it out.
Power Line has a great post demonstrating just about everything I said above. The big memorable question for the evening?
"I'd be curious to find out, if you could pick one of your fellow candidates to party with, which you would choose."
Great Moments in Democracy, Part 9. Will someone please drive a stake through the heart of the debate idea now?
I wrote that last November, and my opinion hasn't changed much since then. I still think presidential debates are so artificial and uninspiring that viewers only tune in to either reinforce their already-made choice or to look for "gotcha!" moments. Neither one are particularly edifying for political discourse.
Who knows? Maybe tonight will change my mind ...
Kerry Campaign Throws A Tantrum
Ron Fournier reports that aides to John Kerry had an "angry exchange" with the Debate Commission about the placement of timer lights on the lecterns for tonight's presidential debate:
Democratic candidate John Kerry's campaign demanded Thursday that the lights signaling when a speaker's time has expired during debates with President Bush be removed from the lecterns because they are distracting, but the commission hosting the debates refused.An angry exchange between representatives of the Kerry campaign and the Commission on Presidential Debates took place just hours before the candidates were to meet at the University of Miami for the first of three debates, The Associated Press learned. Kerry's team threatened to remove the lights when they visit the debate site with Kerry later in the day.
"We'll bring a screwdriver," said a Kerry aide familiar with what several people called an angry exchange. The commission did not return a call seeking comment.
Gee ... will they stamp their feet and hold their breath until they turn blue as well? The Kerry campaign agreed to the timer lights and the provisos that the lights be visible to both the live audience and television viewers. Where else but the lecterns provide that viewpoint? Did the Kerry campaign expect that the cameras would be pointing downwards at the candidates' feet?
Just when you think it's impossible for the Kerry show to get more juvenile, their aides threaten to unilaterally dismantle a podium because they didn't read the agreement they signed, or didn't think the prerequisites through very well. It doesn't build a great deal of confidence in the team that Kerry would bring to the White House, if elected.
Back To Targeting Children
Islamic terrorists in Iraq set off coordinated attacks today, killing dozens and wounding over 130 people. Children comprised the vast majority of the deaths, mostly from a three-bomb attack on a neighborhood celebration of a rebuilt sewage system:
Three bombs exploded at a neighborhood celebration Thursday in western Baghdad, killing 35 children and seven adults, officials said. Hours earlier, a suicide car bomb killed a U.S. soldier and two Iraqis on the capital's outskirts.The bombs in Baghdad's al-Amel neighborhood caused the largest death toll of children in any insurgent attack since the conflict in Iraq began 17 months ago. The children, who were still on school vacation, said they had been drawn to the scene by American soldiers handing out candy.
The blasts — at least two of which an Iraqi official said were suicide car bombs — went off in swift succession about 1 p.m., killing 42 people and wounding 141 others, including 10 U.S. soldiers. The bombs targeted a ceremony in which residents were celebrating the opening of a new sewage system, and a U.S. convoy was passing by at the same time, said Interior Ministry spokesman Col. Adnan Abdul-Rahman.
So the fanatics one again decided to celebrate the Religion of Peace by slaughtering dozens of children, less than a month after another group of Islamists murdered hundreds of them in Beslan. So what sins did the civilians in al-Amel commit? Apparently, their happiness at having a working sewage system offends Islam. You'd have to talk to the Islamofascists to work out the theology behind that problem.
This is certain to fuel the naysayers here in America and around the world, who see every terrorist attack in Iraq as another reason to bug out. Explaining to them that we knew all along that the terrorists would step up their attacks in advance of our election and the upcoming January elections in Iraq makes no difference to them, nor does pointing out the historical parallels between Beirut in 1983, Mogadishu in 1993, and pullout talk now. Retreating in the face of terrorism never solves anything; it only emboldens the lunatics to escalate their attacks. Worse, it undermines our credibility, which has already caused them to believe this strategy will work.
When we passed the unfortunate milestone of 1,000 killed in Iraq (not all in combat conditions), many people claimed that such a number represented too high of a cost. Putting aside the "each life is precious" prefix that everyone uses (and which, if you read this blog regularly, you know you can take for granted), the question is not the casualties but the mission. Is the mission to stabilize Iraq and introduce some form of representative government worth our efforts? That's the pertinent question.
If you believe in the power of self-determination to bring freedom and peace to a region sorely lacking in all three elements, then our mission is highly worthy and must be seen through. If, on the other hand, you believe that all forms of government are equal and that democracy is not important to our national security, then our post-Saddam mission in Iraq is folly. It really is that simple. Otherwise, you wind up arguing that 995 deaths are A-OK but six more means failure, a cynical exercise that contradictorily devalues the lives it purports to save.
Just to give some perspective on numbers games:
Guadalcanal - 1600 dead
Iwo Jima - 6800 dead
Okinawa - 12,000 dead or missing
And yet we managed to conquer Japan and create a bastion of democracy and freedom that has been a lynchpin in the worldwide economy and security for decades. Imagine what kind of world we would have if our grandparents had quailed at necessary effort to accomplish that.
UPDATE: To answer the several e-mails I received detailing all the ways Iraq differs from the Pacific Theater of WWII, yes, I'm aware. That wasn't really my point, either, if you read my post again. My point is that counting casualties like watching an odometer turn over a new dial is no way to conduct a war or to set security policy. Had we operated our security policy under the presumption that 1,000 casualties represented a catastrophe, we would have settled with Hitler after the Kasserine Pass fiasco and with Hirohito after Guadalcanal.
Quick Links
Just trying to fit in a few last items that caught my eye today ...
Bill at INDC Journal interviews Richard Schlesinger of CBS News about the draft story. It's interesting and timely, and a great example of why Bill is one of the leading bloggers today ...
Hugh Hewitt has his new column up at the Weekly Standard. Make sure you read it before the debate, and check to see if the Great Pumpkin makes an appearance. (I'd say not: According to Linus in Peanuts, the Great Pumpkin only appears in the most sincere pumpkin patches, a description that hardly applies to John Flipflopflip Kerry.) ...
Saint Paul at Fraters Libertas continues to fact-check Nick Coleman's ass, as the phrase goes, and hits pay dirt ...
Patterico tries dry humor, and some people find it a bit too dry to realize he's joking -- but it sounds like a great idea anyway ...
Don't forget that I'll be live-blogging tonight's debate!
Crawford Newspaper Doesn't Like Criticism Of Its Editorial Policy
Yesterday's "big" news was that the local weekly in Crawford, TX -- Bush's home town -- endorsed John Kerry in a half-page editorial. This made national headlines around the country in places like the Boston Globe and Chicago Sun-Times; not bad for a paper with a circulation of 425! The implication was clear: even Bush's neighbors aren't supporting his re-election. Too bad most of them will miss this follow-up of local Crawford reaction to the Lone Star Iconoclast's endorsement:
But the rack that once held the Lone Star Iconoclast — Crawford's weekly newspaper — now is empty, thanks to a blistering indictment in Tuesday's paper of Bush's presidential record and a call to elect Democrat John Kerry in November.For a town drenched in Bush, the editorial is practically political heresy.
"Not only is he the president of the United States, he's my neighbor, he's my customer," Coffee Station owner Nick Spanos said. "We're not carrying that paper after today." ...
Iconoclast publisher W. Leon Smith, who co-wrote the editorial with two other writers, is unapologetic. "We're just trying to point out the direction the country's going in, and it's not good," he said.
Smith is majority owner of the Iconoclast, the Record of nearby Clifton and the Bosque Globe. He's also the mayor of Clifton and a Democrat who was defeated twice in campaigns for the Texas House of Representatives.
I'm sure the locals know about Smith's political track record, but neither the Boston Globe nor the Chicago Sun-Times mentions it. It changes the story somewhat to know that the editor that wrote Kerry's endorsement has his own political career to consider with the Texas Democrats, and explains why he's willing to risk the ire of his readers and the financial standing of the paper. Six advertisers have already dropped the Iconoclast as well as a handful of subscribers, but at a circulation of 425, it won't take much to put it into the ground.
Smith has a problem with people expressing their opinions about his opinions, too, likening their criticism to living in a police state:
He pulled up his computer e-mail inbox, filled with messages of varying intensity.Smith said about 75 percent of them applaud the editorial, but the remaining fourth border on vitriol.
"It really appears to be me that we no longer live in an open society," he said. "When you get to the point where you can't express an opinion, then you're in trouble."
It sounds like Smith is the one who has problems with people expressing opinions. "Border on vitriol" sounds like a pretty tepid response for him to whine about reader reaction. Liberals love to express themselves and criticize others but get awfully thin-skinned when other people practice their First Amendment rights. No wonder Smith lost two elections. (hat tip: DagneyT)
Did CBS Commit A Crime?
Attorney and Pace University law instructor Matt Hayes writes an opinion piece today for Fox asserting that Bill Burkett and CBS broke Texas and federal laws in their publication of the Killian fakes:
In Texas, the state in which Burkett concedes the false National Guard memos originated, it is a felony to make or present two or more documents with knowledge of their falsity and with intent that they be taken as a genuine governmental record. Under the U.S. Code, use of an interstate telephone wire, such as the one used to transmit an image of the forged documents from Texas to CBS headquarters, triggers federal jurisdiction. ...CBS has cause for concern, too. The documents were not just forged; they were obviously forged to the generation over age 40, which has used both a typewriter and a computer to write; CBS did not have to be misled about the source of the documents to be tipped that the documents were not real. While Burkett might have been willfully blind to things that would indicate that the memos were fake, there is mounting evidence that even CBS' experts told producers of 60 Minutes II that they could not verify that the documents were real. The story was aired – or in the terms of the Texas forgery statute, "presented" — in spite of this.
Well, maybe, but I wouldn't be fitting Mary Mapes for a set of steel bracelets just yet. If Burkett can be proven as the forger -- his Kinko's account would be a good place to start -- then Hayes could be correct about the unstable Bush-hater. I think it's a big stretch to say that CBS has criminal culpability in this, unless Mapes knew for certain that the documents were fraudulent when she put them on the air. We can say that she should have known, and that her disregard for the input of her own experts constitutes at least reckless disregard and possibly malice aforethought, but those are issues for civil cases of libel and not the criminal charges Hayes mentions.
Whoever forged the documents should be prosecuted and put in prison as an example to anyone else who tries to pervert an election. CBS' penalty should be determined by the marketplace, and by all accounts, it already is. Keep letting your affiliates know what you think of Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, and Andrew Heyward. They'll know how to pass that message along. Don't let the conversation get distracted by injecting potential criminal charges into the mix.
Tina Brown Gets Impatient For "The Closer" To Show Up
Former magazine publisher Tina Brown writes in her Washington Post column today that Democrats have tired of hearing what a great closer John Kerry is, and wants the closing to start now rather than later:
With all the mythology about Kerry's gift of coming from behind, New Yorkers are watching and hoping like fundamentalists awaiting the rapture. "What will it be like?" they ask one another. A mysterious subtle transformation of will that suffuses Kerry with winner's luck? A defining moment when he soothes his wounded honor with a shaft of killing wit that at last unmasks Bush? If so, could it please happen in prime time tonight? (Maybe, just in case, Kerry should wear cowboy boots to reduce the president still further to the size of Dr. Ruth.)Among the big-donor crowd, the good-closer cliche has worn out its welcome. They have had it with reading in the New York Times that the past two months of flubs were part of some weird subliminal strategy. Who does Kerry think he is? Bob Dylan? Enough already with the near-death experiences. Mr. Closer, give us closure.
I've thought about this reputation Kerry has garnered as some fourth-quarter genius who outlasts his opponents and scores a last-minute victory, but I'm not buying it, and it looks like Brown isn't either. He's won four terms in the Senate and a term as lieutenant governor in highly liberal Massachusetts as Ted Kennedy's protege. Really, how difficult is that to do? The wonder is that he had to come from behind at all, even against William Weld. He survived the primary not so much because he won it but because Howard Dean pulled a Dan Quayle against Al Sharpton in a debate, imploded shortly thereafter, and the Democrats wanted someone with proven electability. The only options left at that point were Dick Gephardt and John Edwards, neither of which could have guaranteed to cary their home states.
So far, I see no evidence that Kerry will be anything more as a candidate in the final month than he has been up to now -- an incompetent, outclassed vacillator who has squandered advantages in the polls and among the mainstream media to fall behind a vulnerable George Bush. Brown, however, see it differently. She claims that Kerry's come-from-behind act is doomed because of a conservative media bias:
Part of the weird mood of frustration and self-directed anger is that it's already clear that whatever brilliance Kerry pulls out of the hat, the post-debate spin from the Bush campaign and the cable news hunger for the political version of the Janet Jackson moment fuse perfectly with the likelihood of some emblematic sound bite or visual moment that purportedly buries Kerry.
Oh, sure, we all remember the dogpile at the White House earlier this year (and ever since) when the hounds were baying at Scott McClelland about George Bush's National Guard service as a demonstration of the media's conservative bias. Or how about that CBS story based on forgeries? That sure had a healthy dose of "White House spin". Meanwhile, Brown's associates still haven't asked Kerry about his false assertions with David Alston that stole Tedd Peck's service record, nor have they asked him about meeting with the Communists in Paris while still having a commission in the Navy.
Brown then gives a further demonstration of her cluelessness, in her hope for a Bush stumble:
On Bill O'Reilly's show Tuesday the president showed encouraging signs. At one point he suddenly addressed the host as "Factor." ("Did he call me Factor?" O'Reilly marveled to the camera with a quizzical smile.)
Perhaps if Brown had been awake the past four years, she would have known that Bush likes to pick out nicknames for people, a habit he's had since Yale. (Really, Tina -- it's been in all the papers, even yours.)
It's on slender reeds like this that Brown's hope grasps, desperately looking for a debate debacle from George Bush -- because she already knows that John Kerry can't deliver a home run. For that to happen, Kerry would have to be decisive and take a clear position on Iraq, something he's been unable to do over nine months now. If he could, his campaign wouldn't have to be promoting his purported abilities as a "closer".
Missouri Conceded?
How bad is it for John Kerry in those states that had been identified as "battleground"? So bad that even R. W. Apple notices that Kerry has made himself scarce in Missouri, a state previously considered ripe for plucking from Bush's 2000 victory list:
Is Missouri a swing state that has already swung? So it seems to many people here on the eve of the first presidential debate. John Kerry has not visited the state in nearly three weeks and may not be back, local Democrats say, until the second debate, scheduled for Oct. 8 at Washington University in St. Louis. This is no accident of scheduling. ...Early on, the Kerry campaign poured advertising dollars into the state. From March 4 to June 20, St. Louis and Kansas City ranked among the nation's top 10 cities in terms of television spending by the two sides, according to the Wisconsin Advertising Project, which tracks such matters. During that period, the average Kansas City household saw presidential political commercials roughly 280 times.
But ever since the Kerry strategists decided to omit Missouri from their major advertising purchase after the Republican convention, the intensity of combat has diminished. Though the reasons for the change in strategy are not clear, politicians of both parties in Missouri took it to mean that Mr. Kerry's advisers thought it unlikely he could prevail here.
Right now, Kerry has his hands full trying to hang onto the states that Al Gore won last time out. States like Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota show either a dead heat or a lead for Bush. Even though the DNC has poured money into Missouri to fill the gap, voters and politicians have noticed Kerry's absence.
John Kerry needs to show up in the Show Me State if he expects to compete.
UPDATE: Now that the storms have settled down, polling in Florida has started. Power Line notes that Gallup shows Bush up by nine in a non-corrected sample and Rassmussen shows Bush up by four in a corrected sample. Perhaps Kerry may start campaigning by proxy there as well ...
If They Can't Figure Out A Butterfly Ballot ...
San Franciso will try a new form of voting that reformers have touted for years as a replacement for traditional, majority-based elections that America has used almost exclusively up to now. The New York Times reports that Frisco residents will use instant-runoff voting for its County Board of Supervisors, allowing voters to rank their choices in order to eliminate the need for a second run-off election:
The cooperation is in response to a new election system, instant-runoff voting. The system, which voters approved in 2002 and is having its first run, is viewed by critics of winner-take-all elections as the start of a long-overdue overhaul of the way Americans choose elected officials.Under this system, voters can choose three candidates for each office, ranking them in order of preference. If no candidate wins more than 50 percent of the first-choice votes, the lowest-placing finishers are eliminated, and the second and, if necessary, third choices on those ballots are counted until someone garners a majority.
The system removes the need for a separate runoff election, saving money and, if the recent past is a guide, increasing the number of voters who have a say in choosing the winner. Under the old system, turnout usually dropped significantly in runoffs.
How does this work? Let's take a hypothetical look at how this could work in this year's presidential election in a generic state. The ballot could contain four names: George Bush, John Kerry, Ralph Nader, and Michael Bednarik (Libertarian). If none of these candidates get one vote over 50%, then only the top two survive and the eliminated ballots are retallied for their second choices -- the so-called "instant runoff", although the recount isn't likely to be instant.
Let's say the initial results look like this:
Bush - 48%
Kerry - 46%
Nader - 5%
Bednarik - 1%
After congratulating Bednarik for even showing up on this list, we have to eliminate both Bednarik and Nader and tally their voters' second choices. If 80% of Nader's voters select Kerry as their second choice and half of Bednarik's voters choose Bush as the runner-up, then the vote totals end up thus:
Kerry - 50.5%
Bush - 49.5%
So despite George Bush having a two-point advantage among first-choice voters, he winds up losing the state based on second-choice polling. Can you imagine the different stages at which recounts and lawsuits appear in this system? It would only be used when vote results are so close that no clear majority arises. Then you have a recount of only those voters whose candidates are eliminated. In some systems, everyone above a certain percentage level survives the first round, and so the voters may have to go through three rounds instead of two.
In 2000, people got their panties in a twist over butterfly ballots and the supposedly insurmountable obstacle they represented to Florida voters, even though almost every election in which I voted in California used the same kind of ballot. If the great unwashed can't figure out that a punch-card ballot has to be punched through to count, how are they supposed to understand that they have to vote for three candidates in a ranked order for each office? It's only a matter of time before we hear about confused voters claiming that they were "disenfranchised" because they forgot to mark in a third choice, or marked four people instead of three, or more new complaints about their own incompetence.
And that is what people call reform?
He Died Of Exhaustion
MIT has determined that all six billion people descended from a single ancestor who lived just 3500 years ago, according to the London Telegraph:
Everyone in the world is descended from a single person who lived around 3,500 years ago, according to a new study. Scientists have worked out the most recent common ancestor of all six billion people alive today probably dwelt in eastern Asia around 1,415BC. ...Using a computer model, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology attempted to trace back the most recent common ancestor using estimated patterns of migration throughout history.
They calculated that the ancestor's location in eastern Asia allowed his or her descendants to spread to Europe, Asia, remote Pacific Islands and the Americas. Going back a few thousand years more, the researchers found a time when a large fraction of people in the world were the common ancestors of everybody alive today - while the rest were ancestors of no one alive. That date was 5,353BC, the team reports in Nature.
I find this very intriguing. If MIT's research holds up, it could explain much of the Genesis books in the Old Testament, which come down to two men at different times: Adam and Abraham. In both cases, the Scriptures tell us that we all descend from both. I'm not a Biblical scholar, and I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but the two dates could have some Biblical connotations as well. Could the memory of our earliest common ancestor have been passed down for 7,000 years as Adam, and could our latest common ancestor be the Abraham of the Bible? The location and the timeframe are both within reason.
Scientifically, our genetic diversity seems pretty remarkable for a single ancestor less than 4000 years in the past -- about 200 generations, give or take. We've branched out in almost an unlimited way in a short time frame, evolutionarily speaking, so much so that it shakes belief. If MIT can back this up, it may change the way we look at the history of human development.
Typekey Update, Among Other Things
A number of you have written to me to let me know about a problem with the Typekey registration. I sent a message to Six Apart describing the problem - I had it too - and they sent me a reply within a couple of hours:
Hi Edward,Several other sites have reported similar problems and our echnicians are taking a look at what's going on. I've forwarded your information to the technicians and asked them to look at your site too.
Thanks for getting in contact.
Laura
Six Apart, Ltd
It looks like the problem is on their end, and hopefully they'll get it resolved soon. Keep trying!
Both Whiskey and I seem to have the same bug, even though we're thousands of miles apart. Clever timing, eh? She tells me she'll be back to blogging when she feels better. I managed to go into the office for half a day today. We'll see how tomorrow goes ...
Speaking of tomorrow, I'm planning on live-blogging the debate with my Northern Alliance friends at the Our House ... er ... house. If I've shaken it off, we'll be group live-blogging from David and Margaret's home using their wireless connection to the Internet. If I'm still sick, I'll be blogging it from bed ...
Read Fraters Libertas and Shot In The Dark for Nick Coleman updates. In fact, Mitch has issued a challenge to Coleman. Think he'll accept? Or will he take the Boyd option?
Italy Sold Out -- UPDATE: Maybe?
I have tremendous respect for the Italy's solidarity with the US on the war on terror and the Iraqi front; they have bled and died with us, despite whatever John Kerry says about their character. That's why the news that they paid a million-dollar ransom to Islamofascists for the release of two hostages disappoints so bitterly:
A senior Italian politician says he believes a ransom of $1m or more was paid for the release of two female Italian aid workers kidnapped in Iraq. Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said no money had been paid but MP Gustavo Selva described the denial as purely "official". ...Gustavo Selva is head of the Italian parliament's foreign affairs committee and a member of the National Alliance, one of the parties in the governing coalition.
"The young women's life was the most important thing," he told French radio on Wednesday.
"In principle, one should not give in to blackmail, but this time I think we had to give in..."
No doubt the Italians faced a difficult choice, especially since the terrorists in their, ahem, bravery had kidnapped two young Italian women and were threatening to behead them. Unfortunately, all they did was reward the kidnapers and encourage them to do the same again -- and they will likely target the Italians more frequently now that they have shown an inclination to bargain. One million dollars buys a lot of ammunition and guns. It buys even more street credibility.
These people hack the heads off of civilian workers whose only crime is that they wanted to help the Iraqi people back onto their feet. They are animals, and the only way to save lives in the long run is to quit treating them like legitimate negotiating partners. Giving them millions of dollars only encourages more lunatics to take up kidnaping and beheading as a get-rich-quick scheme.
UPDATE: Agence France-Presse reports that Italy paid no ransom:
Italy insisted it did not pay a million-dollar ransom to win the release of two aid workers, as the country rejoiced in the homecoming of the women who said they were ready to return to Iraq to continue their work there.Foreign Minister Franco Frattini insisted "absolutely no ransom" had been paid for the release of Simona Pari and Simona Torretta, both 29, known affectionately by Italians as "the two Simonas".
A proud Frattini said Italy had simply used its "wide system of contacts" in the Arab world, adding that this "made the kidnappers understand concretely what they were dealing with: a country, Italy, loved and esteemed by the Arab world".
"That was our only ransom," he said in an interview with RAI state radio.
Well, that's their story, and I predict they'll be sticking with it. If Italy had that kind of love and esteem from the Arab world, why did the terrorists kidnap and hold Italian hostages for this long?
The Kerry/Edwards Draft, or Dodging History
The Democrats have had a fine time this month spreading urban legends about the prospect of a reintroduction of the military draft during a second Bush term. Not only have they and their associates started a shadowy e-mail campaign, but several of their party leaders accused Republicans of hiding a "secret plan" to restart the draft, despite the numerous denials from the GOP -- and the fact that the only people to actually propose a new draft are two Democrats, Charles Rangel and Fritz Hollings. CBS helped out, again, by again treating rumors as fact and basing an entire news segment on the hoax.
But lost in the shuffle until now is John Kerry's proposal to require service for high-school graduation, found by Swimming Through The Spin. Brian found the original web page archived, as somehow this proposal has been mysteriously deleted from the John Kerry website. Since the Democrats brought this up, what exactly are the plans for American youth under a Kerry/Edwards administration?
As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service.
The more expansive PDF of Kerry's plan doesn't detail how the mandatory high-school service is supposed to work, nor does it clearly explain how they plan to pay for four years of college tuition for the 500,000 students per year they expect to put through this program, other than closing a loophole that allows lenders on student loans to keep extra interest paid. If a "typical public university" charges $5,000 per year for tuition -- a rather moderate amount these days -- then just the cost for the first year alone will be $10 billion, not the $12 billion over 10 years that Kerry claims. ($20,000 times 500,000 students = $10 billion.)
It seems that Kerry has once again been caught in a severe case of projection, and once again has deleted pages from his web site to cover his tracks. His party squeals about a draft which only they have proposed restarting while trying to back-door a plan for indentured servitude for the teenagers of America.
Captain's Quarters features an authoritative blogroll, listing many websites that feature the top political thinking on the Internet. In order to make the list easier to navigate, it has been divided into a number of sections.
Click on the section title to expand the list.