A Happy Anniversary?

Some British Muslims apparently will mark the upcoming third anniversary of 9/11 in their own unique way -- by holding a convention celebrating the murder of 3,000 "infidels", according to this MEMRI report:

Al-Muhajiroun leader Omar Bakri, a Syrian residing in London, told the paper by phone that the convention would feature Al-Qa'ida "surprises," with the screening of a never-before-shown video. He said that the convention will focus on "the anniversary of the division of the world into two great camps – the camp of faith and the camp of unbelief," and would take place September 11, 2004 from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Bakri added: "On this day, we will talk about the ramifications of these [9/11] operations for Afghanistan and Iraq… We want the world to remember this operation … that lifted the head of the [Muslim] nation." Bakri called 9/11 "a cry of Jihad against unbelief and oppression," and said that the aim of remembering it is to "revive the commandment of Jihad among the youth of the [Muslim] nation."

Bakri said that the convention will also feature a lecture about the Islamic religious roots of "slaughtering the infidels," that is, beheading foreigners in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and that there will be films by Al-Qa'ida, the Tawhid and Jihad organization, and the Brigades of the Two Holy Places in the Arabian Peninsula, and that there will also be a film on the most recent operations in Chechnya. He added that one of the speeches, by Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, known to be Al-Qa'ida's military commander in Iraq, will be translated.

I don't put a lot of stock in the boasting of the State Dept. in my previous post, but it would be rather sweet to capture Osama during this convention. We could watch the assorted nutcases and mass-murder fans wail and gnash their teeth as a celebration instead. But as long as they're all in one place, it would be a great opportunity to check them all out and ensure that Western intelligence services have investigations running on every attendee, their families, and their friends.

Osama bin Tracked?

Matthew Pennington at the AP reports that a State Department counterterrorism official says that the US is closer than ever to catching Osama bin Laden and his top deputies:

"If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught," Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told private Geo television network.

Asked if concrete progress had been made during the last two months — when Pakistan has arrested dozens of terror suspects including some key al-Qaida operatives — Black said, "Yes, I would say this."

Black, who briefed a group of Pakistani journalists after talks with officials here Friday, said he could not predict exactly when bin Laden and other top al-Qaida fugitives would be nabbed.

"What I tell people, I would be surprised but not necessarily shocked if we wake up tomorrow and he's been caught along with all his lieutenants. That can happen because of the programs and infrastructure in place," he told Geo.

Pardon me if I don't wake up and rush to the computer ... or at least don't speed up the process. I fail to see what is gained by the US in having people talk like this. All it does is emphasize the fact that we don't have him yet, and if they think that making these kinds of statements will rattle Osama into making a mistake, then they have made the mistake of treating him like a rational actor.

Why don't we just dispense with the rhetoric and make comments like, "We are continuing to make steady progress and will take any opportunity presented us with all possible speed," and leave it at that?

Red-Letter Day At The Fair

We had a real treat today at the AM 1280 The Patriot booth today, or I should say, a whole series of treats. The Northern Alliance had a couple of terrific guests and afterwards got together with some great bloggers from the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers, or MOB. (That's a perfect nickname, by the way ...)

Our first guest today was Senator Norm Coleman, who not only kept us well-informed about the election and his duties in Congress, but thoroughly captivated the large crowd that gathered in front of our booth. Senator Coleman talked at length about what's at stake in this election and reminded us that we need to stay active in order to get Minnesota to end its 32-year losing streak. He also revealed that he wants to add a blog to his website in order to facilitate communication with his constituents. Hey, Senator Coleman -- if you're looking for a blogger to run it, give me a call.

As always, Senator Coleman was gracious and kind, as was Congressman Mark Kennedy, who also spent a half-hour with the NARN gang. I was off air during that stretch, but I heard plenty of talk about how Rep. Kennedy supported the Bush administration's agenda, while his opponent, Patty Wetterling, hasn't spoken much about her policy stands. Make no mistake, Ms. Wetterling will present a formidable challenge to Rep. Kennedy this year, so if you're in his district, be sure to get out the vote on his behalf.

Finally, after the show we got a chance to hang out with a number of local bloggers, which was the perfect end to a great show. My notes on the attendees all went down with the laptop, unfortunately (damned Toshiba!), but you can see some pictures of the show over at Rightreadingroom.com.

If you were there, we hope you had a great time! Don't forget that we'll be out at the fair again tomorrow from noon to 3, and we'll be streaming live to the Internet again. Stay tuned ...

Bad News From CQ's Technical Dept.

My (brand-new) laptop seems to have taken a flying dumpola tonight. It stopped in its tracks and now won't power up. Unfortunately, it had all the keys to my e-mail, which I'm now going to have to retrieve via the Web interface.

It may be a while before it gets fixed. I don't expect it to impact my output -- I have a desktop computer that works just fine -- but the laptop certainly was more convenient. My e-mail response in the next few days will be limited, as you might imagine. Be patient and I'll try to get back to everyone.

More To Ben Barnes Than Meets The (CBS) Eye

60 Minutes plans on running an "expose'" on Sunday night regarding George Bush's assignment to the Texas Air National Guard. Ben Barnes, former Lieutenant Governor of Texas, will tell CBS audiences that he arranged for Bush's assignment, expecting that the Bush family would be grateful for the assistance even though no one asked him for his help. CBS also will tie in the fact that Bush had a drinking problem at the time, although Bush himself admitted that years ago.

But McQ at QandO (an invaluable neolibertarian blog) wondered about who Ben Barnes is and whether he has any connections to John Kerry. Certainly the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been tarred with the contributions of Bob Perry, who gave them $200,000 in contributions. That led to all sorts of Rube Goldberg charting at the New York Times, trying to tie Republican policymakers to the Swiftvets. It began to resemble a boring game of Six Degrees of Separation.

Fortunately, we don't have to go six degrees with Ben Barnes. Capital Eye, which tracks political contributions to candidates, finds that Ben Barnes is a lot closer to Kerry than that. Take a look at the top three individual fundraisers for John Kerry between 1999-2003:

Contributor.......Total 1999-2002...........2004 Cycle
Alan Solomont..........$612,327.................$82,500
Orin Kramer............$425,835.................$83,500
Ben Barnes............$389,750.................$74,500

If the Swiftees are less credible because they took a contribution from a common contributor to Republicans, then Ben Barnes' status as the third largest contributor to John Kerry's campaigns should render any testimony from him completely invalid.

Do you think that the Tiffany Network will mention Ben Barnes' finance connections to John Kerry when discussing his testimony regarding George Bush, in that he has half a million reasons to make up bogus charges against the President? Not likely. Had they done any kind of vetting about their character assassination, it wouldn't be going on the air tomorrow night.

UPDATE: Blogspirator has more on Ben Barnes -- much more. And more here, too.

UPDATE II: Changed Rick Perry to Bob Perry. Hat tip to Ron Canter.

Zell Was Right About Democrats

CQ reader Bill Shrumm points out an article in today's Boston Herald which emphasizes the point Zell Miller made regarding his extreme dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party -- their repeated hijacking of national-security and homeland defense issues for partisan political advantage. Ann Donlan reports on the Massachussetts' state troopers union push to endorse George Bush in the upcoming election and the thinly-veiled threats coming from state Democrats as a result:

The state troopers' union is seriously considering an endorsement of President Bush, a vote that would be an embarrassment for Sen. John F. Kerry and a risky move for the union, according to government and law enforcement sources.

"It would be embarrassing for the senator that the state police in his own state aren't supporting him," said one law enforcement source. ...

The SPAM union, which represents about 2,000 troopers and sergeants, endorsed Republican Gov. Mitt Romney when he ran for governor in 2002. Its president, John Coflesky, who has a close relationship with high-level Bush staffers, already has cast a vote to endorse Bush in a national troopers' union for which he serves as an executive board member.

No doubt, having first responders in Kerry's home state would generate some embarrassment for the Senator, who has tried to make the case that he would do more to strengthen local response. However, Kerry can't win every endorsement -- and even if he could, it doesn't appear to have that much effect on the overall numbers. No one has seen a huge endorsement from labor for George Bush, and two polls have him up by eleven points.

Don't tell that to Bay State Democrats, though. Apparently all of their concern about first responders and homeland security only applies when the police and fire unions toe the (Democratic) line. Once they wander off the reservation, though, the Democrats have no problem threatening them with hostile legislation including, one assumes, funding cuts and tossing other obstacles in their path:

If the endorsement materializes, there likely would be a political backlash among Democratic legislators, who have voiced distaste for the prospect of a Bush endorsement in the wake of their support for state police spending priorities, according to legislative and law enforcement sources.

"It is like physics," said one high-ranking State House Democrat. "For every action, there is a reaction."

Really? Why would the union's political endorsement change the legislature's assessment of law-enforcement and homeland security needs? Perhaps the Democrats are making a tacit admission that having George Bush in office inherently makes Massachussetts safer, or at least that electing John Kerry as president requires more money to guard Massachussetts against attack. More likely, the Democrats threaten to engage in the same crass political maneuvering on security issues in which Max Cleland and Tom Daschle engaged -- putting union issues and political paybacks ahead of homeland security.

I understand that the Democrats have reached the desperation stage of the Kerry campaign as he continues to implode, but extorting endorsements from police unions by threatening them with legislative attacks crosses the line. Perhaps the time has come for the people of Massachussetts to understand that the Democrats consider their safety and security as bargaining chips with which to buy off or extort union leadership -- and maybe not just in Massachussetts. The best response is to ensure that they do not control the legislatures so that such threats never materialize.

Newsweek Poll Mirrors Time Poll

In a body blow to the Kerry campaign, the AP reports that Newsweek will shortly announce the results of their polling from the end of the week, and that they have the same results as the Time poll released yesterday -- Bush up by 11 points over Kerry:

Newsweek, Sept. 2-3, 1,008 RV, MoE +/-3 (Results from late July Newsweek poll in parentheses)

Three-way race:

George W. Bush-Dick Cheney 52 percent (42)
John Kerry-John Edwards, 41 percent (49)
Ralph Nader-Peter Camejo, 3 percent (3)
Unsure, 4 percent (6)

Two-way race:

George W. Bush, 54 percent (44)
John Kerry, 43 percent (52)
Unsure, 3 percent (4)

Since their last poll in July, Newsweek finds that a nineteen-point swing has occurred in the presidential race. Kerry had led by eight points in the two-way race and seven in the three-way race. Now Kerry trails by eleven in both models, a tremendous erosion of support in a mere five weeks. If you're looking for the definition of meltdown, this is it.

Kevin McCullough Defends Bloggers Corner

One of the people with whom I had a chance to spend some time was Kevin McCullough, a radio talk-show host in New York as well as a columnist for WorldNetDaily and a blogger to boot. Kevin invited me on his show and I had a great time talking blogs for a quick segment. Kevin wanted me back later, but unfortunately pressing schedules for both of us made that impossible. However, Kevin spent a lot of time at Bloggers Corner and we had some great conversations regarding media and the dawn of the blogosphere's political influence.

In yesterday's WND column, Kevin reviews the media response at the RNC and has especially harsh words for Salon and Mark Follman's superficial and transparently self-serving flagellation of the RNC bloggers:

On Tuesday, Mark Follman of leftist news website Salon.com released an op-ed that raged of "Internet traffic envy." Follman, obviously put off by the fact the RNC had credentialed a new form of media this year, "Blogger's Row," took his frustrations out on the bloggers in his piece and accused them of being self-serving, sexist, shallow and – the biggest insult of all – sorry excuses for journalists.

There is only one problem though -- they don't claim to be journalists. Follman's lack of ability to even understand what blogging is or why it is as popular as it is proves only that this "Internet journalist" himself is envious of the size and scope of the audience the RNC bloggers enjoy. Follman didn't get that these guys are keeping journals, written from their perspective and to an audience that they cultivated completely without the assistance of Salon.com. True, they did get profiled in the Wall Street Journal and promised to deliver big scoops. And they have, for it was the RNC bloggers who in fact broke the story of Gen. Tommy Frank's official endorsement in the 2004 presidential race.

Kevin also notes that it was Bloggers Corner who first released the pictures of an out-of-control Al Franken attempting to assault a Laura Ingraham show producer for stating that Franken had reneged on a promise to appear on Laura's show. In fact, we all have copies of several pictures (and they've been posted at Wizbang), and I will make sure I hang on to them, just in case Franken makes good on his threat to run against Norm Coleman in 2008.

Make sure you read the rest of Kevin's article, and check out his blog, too, while you're at it. He's a great guy, and I'm looking forward to the day his show goes national.

Northern Alliance Back At The State Fair!

The Northern Alliance gang comes back to the Minnesota State Fair again today from noon to 3 pm, and this time we have some heavy-hitting guests! No, I'm not talking about the Los Angeles Dodgers, although that would be pretty darned good, too. I'm talking about Senator Norm Coleman and Congressman Mark Kennedy, two Minnesota politicians who have bright futures with the Republican party. You can catch us on the Internet stream at this link, but make sure you enable pop-up windows or the stream won't work.

If you can make it to the Fair, be sure to hang around after the show. The Northern Alliance will have a blogger's party after the show (starting at 3:30) at the Beer Gardens. Like our Keegan's appearances, this is a non-partisan bloggers' event; we just want to hang with Upper Midwestern bloggers regardless of affiliation. If you come to the booth between 2:30 and 3, we'll even plug your blog on the air!

BBC: Winning Friends And Influencing People

Justin Webb, the BBC's Washington correspondent, files an odd and cranky report from his time in New York at the Republican National Convention. Webb starts off his time wondering why Republicans decided to host their convention among hostile and rude New Yorkers, and his upturned nose catches even more rain as he continues along:

What can the Republicans make of this place? When you talk to them they are polite in a glassy-eyed kind of way. But it is an odd paradox that the Republicans chose to show their solidarity with people who regard them with contempt at best.

Most New Yorkers are Democrats but, more importantly, most New Yorkers are cross and busy. I stood on a Manhattan corner this week as the president passed. The police hemmed us in, batons drawn. The helicopters buzzed overhead and the sirens blared.

Now on most corners of most cities in the US, the passing of the presidential motorcade would occasion some interest. People would clap, would boo, would do something.

But New Yorkers did not even look. They read their papers, they glanced at their watches, they barked into their phones. ... [After the convention,] I pass a parked car where a man is screaming - screaming - into a mobile phone. "I have just had sex with your sister," he bellows. "What are you going to do about it?" (Actually he uses a terser phrase than that but you get the drift.)

The sister, I assume it was she, was looking bored and filing her nails.

So much for the left's love affair with the Big Apple. People asked me the same question -- why do you think that the RNC picked New York over a city in a swing state? I have even questioned the judgment, and Mayor Koch himself said that the Republicans had no hope of turning the city to "red-state" status. I think the best reasons I heard were that (a) New York knows how to do security for large events, and (b) the symbolism and defiance of having President Bush come to the city they attacked, with all of the attendant publicity that a convention brings, sent a loud message to the Islamofascists: This is America, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

As for New Yorkers, Webb could not have gotten it more wrong. They disagree with Republicans, of course, on political matters, but everyone I met scoffed at the notion that the RNC could possibly have been held elsewhere. Andy McGinnis, a member of the security detail inside Madison Square Garden and an occasional visitor to Bloggers Corner, insisted to me that no other city was better prepared and no other police force knew better how to secure an area. From what I saw, he was right. Those New Yorkers with whom I spoke were proud that the RNC came to their town, regardless of political affiliation, and they should be equally proud with the result.

Webb continues his journey of misanthropy by painting Republicans as benighted automatons and demonstrates his cluelessness about religion and evangelicals:

A year or so ago on this programme I said: "Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W Bush". It was intended as a faintly ironic comment on the president's religiosity.

Imagine my surprise when I came across a copy of the DVD, George Bush: Faith in the White House. On the back among the glowing endorsements: "Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W Bush says BBC Washington correspondent, Justin Webb."

I have endorsed the president without even intending to.

Maybe Webb is just unfamiliar with Christianity in general, but among the faithful, spending time on your knees plays rather well. In fact, Christians see that as a sign of humility before God, while cynics and smart-ass BBC reporters see it as an opportunity to be "faintly ironic", and I suspect to toss in a "faintly" sexual double-entendre. If Webb wants to avoid "endorsing" the President in the future, perhaps he'd be better off writing intellectually honest analysis instead of the snarky, aging-hipster, pseudo-Seinfeld crapola that appears in this column.

The only message Webb communicates in his entry today is his hostility towards a wide range of Americans. Perhaps the Beeb would be better off assigning him to London. I know Webb and Americans would be better off.

Winning The Ratings War, And Why

In a sign that the Republican base may be more fired up than the Bush-haters on the left, Nielsen Media Research reported that the RNC garnered 3 million more viewers than the Democratic Party's convention in July -- and that viewership at Fox far outstripped the three traditional broadcast networks:

Nearly 28 million Americans -- more than a quarter of them watching cable's Fox News Channel alone -- tuned in to see Bush accept his nomination for a second term at the climax of the Republican National Convention on Thursday, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Bush's national TV audience topped Kerry's speech at the Democratic convention in July by just over 3 million viewers, among those watching Big Three commercial networks ABC, CBS and NBC and the three leading cable news outlets -- Fox, CNN and MSNBC.

The Republican meeting as a whole also drew bigger audiences than the Democrats, averaging 22.6 million viewers over four nights at New York City's Madison Square Garden, compared with 20.4 million mustered by Kerry and his party in Boston in July.

The enhanced interest of the RNC could be chalked up to the security question, but I rather doubt that the people checking the coverage with the car-wreck mentality would have stuck around all three nights of national coverage (Reuters says four, but that only applies to the cable channels). The additional viewership says that the Republicans have motivated their base to stay more active in the campaign, watching not just for the President's speech but for the keynote speakers every night.

Not only do the raw numbers demonstrate the vitality of the Republican base, but where they turned for coverage underscores their enthusiasm and their intent:

Meanwhile, Fox News continued its unprecedented ratings dominance over this year's Republican convention, edging out not only its cable rivals but each of the major broadcast networks by drawing 7.3 million viewers to its telecast of Bush's address.

That marked the third straight night Fox has surpassed its larger broadcast rivals in the first case of a cable channel attracting more viewers than any of the three major networks during a scheduled event covered by all of them, experts said.

NBC ranked second on Thursday with 5.9 million viewers, followed by ABC with 5.1 million and CBS with 5 million. CNN finished fifth with 2.6 million viewers while NBC's sister cable channel, MSNBC, brought up the rear with 1.7 million.

Fox News Channel - a cable outlet - outdrew all three broadcast networks, a win that shows how dissatisfied mainstream viewers have become with the coverage provided by traditional media in this election cycle. Fox almost tripled CNN's ratings as well. People are growing tired of the left-leaning media filters being applied to campaign events, including the talking-head analysis that occurs during and after the speeches. Let me explain it this way: no one needs to tune in to CBS to understand that Dan Rather will be unhappy with speeches at the RNC. What's the point of watching him?

Media analyst Andrew Tyndall explained the Fox News Channel win by reminding Reuters that Fox is more ideologically aligned with Republicans. However, what Tyndall fails to mention is that the other networks -- and especially their lead anchors -- are much more aligned with the Democrats, and viewers know it. If that results in a cable outlet outdrawing the three main free-signal broadcasters across all three nights of the Republican convention, it sends a powerful message about the state of the electorate in this election cycle.

And if the broadcast networks listen closely, they should hear another powerful message in these numbers. Their audiences have weighed the supposed objectivity of their newsrooms and found it fraudulent. If they plan on recapturing those viewers and rebuilding their credibility, they need to start making significant structural and editorial changes now.

AP Turns Cheers Into Boos, And Now Everybody Knows Their Name

My Northern Alliance colleague and fellow RNC blogger Hindrocket from Power Line notes a horrendous example of media bias that should shock anyone who reads the news. The Associated Press, one of the primary resources of the mainstream news media, deliberately reported false news regarding Republican reaction to Bill Clinton's emergency bypass operation to make GOP supporters and George Bush look petty and mean-spirited:

WEST ALLIS, Wis. - President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday wished Bill Clinton (news - web sites) "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery." "He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said at a campaign rally. Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them. Bush offered his wishes while campaigning one day after accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in New York. Clinton was hospitalized in New York after complaining of mild chest pain and shortness of breath. Bush recently praised Clinton when the former president went to the White House for the unveiling of his official portrait. He lauded Clinton for his knowledge, compassion and "the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president."

I bolded the two sentences because if you read the AP's update, it disappeared without any explanation. Unfortunately, it was too late to keep the original report to show up in the print media, meaning if you read the newspapers, you're going to see the original and false story. Fortunately, Drudge carries the audio from the event proving that the story is completely false.

We've been used to the press reporting selectively on issues in order to make John Kerry look good and George Bush look bad. We've watched while the press ignored the Christmas in Cambodia mythology that Kerry spewed for three decades until the blogosphere finally forced them to report it. We've sat back and fumed while the press has made excuse after excuse for Kerry's collapsing campaign during this past month.

But this is far too outrageous for people to sit quietly by. It's one thing to report selectively; it's something completely different to write fiction and pass it off as news. The Associated Press has apparently decided to trade in its credibility with news readers and media sources in order to libel George Bush and a group of people who reacted in a most human and sympathetic fashion to the news of a political opponent's ill health.

Bias has been an ongoing problem at the AP and American media in general. In their desperation to unseat a popular president, they've finally resorted to outright, bald-faced lies. Are you happy to have your airwaves and your news sources hijacked by the rabid, dishonest, and unscrupulous partisans who run the Associated Press? Because if you're not, I would suggest you contact any news organization in your area and forward them Hindrocket's post at Power Line if they run the original version of the story.

UPDATE: Thanks to LittleBirdie20, we have some contact information:

Mr. T. Lee Hughes
Bureau Chief
Associated Press (NS-310V)
Milwaukee

918 N 4th St
Milwaukee, WI 53203-1506

Media Phone Number: (414) 225-3580
Media Fax Number: (414) 225-3599
Editor Email: tlhughes@ap.org

Mr. Scott Lindlaw
Associated Press (NS-300I)
White House Reporter

2021 K St NW
Ste 600
Washington, DC 20006-1003

Editor Phone Number: (202) 776-9494
Media Fax Number: (202) 776-9570
Editor Email: slindlaw@ap.org

Ms. Sandy Johnson
Associated Press (NS-300I)
Bureau Chief

2021 K St NW
Ste 600
Washington, DC 20006-1003

Editor Phone Number: (202) 776-9435
Media Fax Number: (202) 776-9570
Editor Email: sjohnson@ap.org

Let them know how you feel about this outrageous incident.

Minnesota Delegate: Colonel Joe Repya

One of the most fascinating parts of going to a convention has to be the people you meet. I met some very memorable men and women at the RNC in New York, but perhaps no one more memorable or admirable as a man who lives almost around the corner from me in Eagan. Lt. Colonel Joe Repya has served his country in five decades of military action, starting as an infantry officer in Viet Nam. Joe became politically active last year as war grew near in Iraq, when he distributed "Liberate Iraq" yard signs around the Twin Cities in response to signs opposing the war effort sent out by groups like International ANSWER.

Joe did more than send out signs -- he also requested a return to active duty, and has traveled to Iraq and met with troops there, working with them to ensure the success of America's mission. In his late 50s, Joe has more than earned a retirement with high honors, but he continues to do whatever it takes to make his country more secure. He has called in on our radio show on Saturday afternoons, but the first time I ever saw Joe was at the Bush rally in Saint Paul, where he delivered an impassioned speech that was easily one of the most memorable and inspiring parts of the event.

Luckily, I got a chance to meet Joe and speak with him several times during our stay in New York, and he agreed to meet with me and John Hinderaker for an interview at Bloggers Corner.

Q: Colonel, you've been politically active for years, but the first time I heard about you was when you came out with the lawn signs. What was the first batch of lawn signs you did?

A: Liberate Iraq ... did that in February 2003.

Q: What were you doing before that?

A: I was a military advisor to [Senator] Norm Coleman, because we were friends, and helped him on his campaign against [the late former Senator Paul] Wellstone. But that was the extent of my political activities, those Liberate Iraq signs and making some calls, the March 2003 rally to support our troops. After that came a call from Governor Pawlenty to ask me to be the Vice-Chair of Veterans For Bush. I wound up on the national steering committee for Veterans for Bush, and I became specifically involved in traveling around the country, speaking on behalf of the President, and now I'm about to back on active duty.

Q: You've really gotten involved as a result of those signs.

A: Yes. [Laughs] I volunteered to come back to the military on active duty after September 11th because I had a feeling that we would need retirees to help out.

Q: You're a Lieutenant Colonel, is that right?

A: Yes. I was in Iraq last year, with some of these folks.

Q: What did you see while you were in Iraq? What was your evaluation of how things were going in Iraq?

A: We're not getting the true story from the media. There's a lot of good going on over there, a lot of Iraqis that want us there. There's some bad people around that are trying to upset things, and unfortunately the liberal press, quite frankly, is aiding them in their endeavors in trying to cast these aspersions on the successes we're having.

Q: What do you think is the greatest untold story in Iraq right now?

A: Untold story?

Q: What do you think the press has really missed in Iraq, one particular story?

A: The fact that most Iraqis want the Americans there. They want freedom. They want to bring together their nation ... They're tired of the dictators, they're tired of the wars they've been forced to fight for Saddam Hussein. They want peace and prosperity.

Q: It was suggested by John Kerry that we could pull the vast majority of American troops out of Iraq --

Q: After we add 40,000 more -- [laughter]

Q: Right, after we add 40,000 more, we could pull the vast majority out of Iraq within the first six months of a Kerry presidency. What kind of message do you think that sends?

A: It tells the Iraqi people that we're not serious about backing them up. Remember, they feel very threatened because back in 1991, when we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, they thought we'd come to their aid if they initiated a civil war [against Saddam]. Tens of thousands of Iraqis were murdered as a result. So they're very concerned that we won't stay the course. It's very important that we do. We have the greatest men and women, and I'm convinced that will be regarded as this century's greatest generation. They know what's at stake in Iraq. They know what's at stake in Afghanistan. We have the unique ability to bring peace, prosperity, and freedom to that region. If we can get that well-established in Iraq and Afghanistan, other nations will start demanding it soon.

Q: How many troops do you think understand the long-term strategic purposes that the Administration has in trying to establish freedom in order to ultimately reform the Middle East?

A: I can give you an example. When I was here last September, I found a young woman with the 101st Airborne Division, who was a mother of four -- youngest one 18 months and the oldest one eight. So I figured that I found anybody that would be really upset about being away from her family, it would be her. Then when I found out that she and her husband had separated and divorced, and that he was watching the kids while she was in Iraq, I knew that I'd found someone that had a real desire to, you know, "get me out of here." She cut me off halfway through my question. She said, "Listen. Let me tell you like it is. My family will be stronger for this separation. We'll get over it. But if I don't fight this war and win it here, my kids will be fighting it in Baltimore in 20 years." She said,"I know what it takes." And if you can find a sergeant in the 101st that understands that, and a corporal and a specialist, that tells you that these kids know what's at stake.

Q: You made a great point there about either fighting the war there or fighting it here. During his campaign, John Kerry has received a lot of criticism for his post-Vietnam War activities with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Do you see a parallel between the retreat that those activities caused in the US and the terror war we're fighting now?

A: John Kerry is an individual is a man who wants to have both sides of the coin, whichever's politically advantageous for him at the time. I don't care what he did in Viet Nam; he served his nation honorably. What he did when he came home troubles me deeply. What he has done in 20 years as a United States Senator convinces me that he is not the caliber of a man I want as Commander in Chief. He has voted consistently to cut, reduce,or eliminate the weapons systems that today are winning the war on terror. He voted against all kinds of military pay raises. He's voted to cut billions from intelligence agencies that we need to get information on terrorists throughout the world. He voted to go to war in Iraq, then he voted against supplying the ammunition, the body armor for our soldiers in Iraq. I am convinced that he will turn his back on American soldiers again in 2004 like he did in 1971. And I'm not willing to risk that.

Q: I don't know if you talk politics with these young soldiers in Iraq or not, but do you get a sense of how they view John Kerry? Are they aware of this history? Do they have the same concerns you do?

A: All I can tell you is what a lot of them have told me in e-mails, from Iraq or from when they come home. The vast majority of the active military will vote for the Commander in Chief they really respect, and that's George W. Bush. And I'll tell you from a veteran's point of view that there are 25 million veterans, and when all is said and done, six or seven out of ten will vote for George W. Bush, because we realize how important national security is to the United States.

Q: Joe, when you go back on active duty, will you go back to Iraq?

A: Well, unfortunately, I don't think they'll let me fly helicopter gunships any more. ... More than likely, I'll fly a desk or push a pencil somewhere, and that's fine with me. I'll contribute.

Q: Is that what you did in Viet Nam, fly helicopter gunships?

A: No, in Viet Nam I was a combat infantry lieutenant. I led a rifle platoon of about 30 young men.

Q: You're lucky to be alive. The mortality rate among guys who did what you did ...

A: Yeah, it was about a week. I went to flight school when I came back, and I flew helicopters during Desert Storm.

Q: Now you're a delegate to the Minnesota delegation.

A: First time I've been a delegate to a convention. It's wonderful.

Q: What were you looking to hear from this convention, as a delegate?

A: A clear understanding of the vision that George Bush has for the next four years. I know what a track record he has for the last four years, and I think he's put together a wonderful team of experts. I'm sure on Thursday night we're going to hear his roadmap for the next four years.

Q: Do you think we've heard that so far [this was on Wednesday afternoon] or has he just addressed the accomplishments of the past four years?

A: I think as he's been out on the campaign trail, he's mentioned many things he'd like to do over the next four years. I think he's been waiting until this thing to really lay it out for the American people.

Q: That's your expectation?

A: That's my expectation. ... Supporting our troops is the right thing to do. My wife and I will never sit back and allow anyone to do to these kids what they did to my generation when we came back from Viet Nam. ... If I could put it in simple terms -- [holds up flip-flops with slogan written on them] -- "I'm not Fonda Kerry".

Blog Conference: Ari Fleischer, Part II

Earlier this week, I posted part of a blog conference we conducted with former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. Fleischer gave us quite a bit of his time, and when I posted it, I had not yet transcribed the rest of the interview. Originally I had intended to simply update the post, but after listening to the recording, I found Fleischer's remarks in the rest of the interview so interesting that I figured it would be a shame to bury them in the archives.

Q: What effect do think the 527s have had on this election?

A: I think it's almost made a mockery of campaign finance reform. We were warned this was going to happen. The parties are more accountable to the people. These organizations aren't accountable ... People should have seen this coming.

Q: Were you surprised that the Swiftboat ads were effective given their lack of financing?

A: Frankly, this [controversy] has resulted in more money for the Swiftboat veterans. The more controversy, the better they fill their coffers. That's the reason Senator Kerry never should have picked this fight.

Q: [unintelligible -- about his best moment at the White House]

A: I think the best moment is ironic, in bringing this country together, on September 11th. The irony is that such a tragic event like 9/11 led to America's finest moment. I'm a New Yorker, I was born in the city, and to see people gathered on the highway and cheer the ambulances, cheer the fire trucks, New Yorkers gathered on 42nd Street with signs that said God Bless America, God Bless The USA, Our Prayers Are With You. 42nd Street in my home town, New York, could have been Main Street in any little Midwestern town. This country has an amazing strength of character, which is why we are the greatest country in the world.

Q: You were with the President in Florida that day. I don't know if you've seen Fahrenheit 9/11 or read the transcript, but I just wonder if you had any comment on the kind of stories that people wrote about [his reaction] that day.

Q: Including John Kerry.

Q: Yes, including John Kerry. He's made this a campaign issue.

A: I used to be a Democrat. I was raised a liberal Democrat in Democratic New York, Upper West Side parents ... [laughter and crosstalk] One of the reasons I left the Democratic Party was that strong-on-defense, Scoop Jackson-Zell Miller wing of the Democrat Party shriveled up and went away. We had people apologizing for America around the world. This is what I'm afraid has taken over the Democratic Party, represented in Fahrenheit-9/11 and those who [defend] it. And I'm proud not to be a Democrat any more, because that proud-to-be-pro-democracy, pro-defense wing of the Democratic Party is gone. They've become Republicans. It's too bad. They've left reality, and I think that that movie and the people who watch it represent that narrow wing of America.

So Much For The Non-Bounce Election

Thanks to Power Line and Instapundit for linking to this new Time Magazine poll taken during the final three days of the convention. Among likely voters, George Bush has opened up a double-digit lead against John Kerry with 60 days left to go to the election:

For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2.

What happened to the bounceless conventions this year? Supposedly this year's election featured an electorate so firmly divided that no one could get a bounce from a convention, and the only hope each candidate had was to avoid mistakes during the events. However, Time's polling demonstrates that far from being obstinate in their choices, independents and moderates within the parties are still considering their choices -- and that John Kerry's campaign managed to stage the most inept convention since McGovern in 1972.

So what happened? Where did the margin-of-error contest disappear? Take a look at this laundry list of issues and the confidence that likely voters have in each candidate to address them:

* Economy -- Supposedly Bush's major weak point; leads Kerry, 47-45.
* Iraq -- Bush leads now by 12, 53-41.
* Terrorism -- Bush leads by over 20 points, 57-36, showing a complete meltdown among voters regarding Kerry's ability to handle the most pressing issue this election.
* Tax policy -- Closer than I'd guess, Bush leading 49-40.
* Strong leadership -- 56-37 Bush, almost 20 points.
* Commander In Chief -- 54-39 Bush, demonstrating that his experience trumps the old AWOL charges that have been made and discredited since 2000. It also shows that the holes in Kerry's Viet Nam narrative and especially his post-Viet Nam antiwar activities have begun to erode voter confidence.

If the Kerry campaign looks for a foothold in this poll from which to rebuild, they will find slim pickings. Kerry leads Bush on health care by six points and "understanding people's needs" by three, which is within the margin of error. Unless he can convince voters that health insurance and feeling one's pain are the two most important issues in the 2004 election, then the election has already been lost.

Appearances like the one that happened shortly after midnight this morning in Ohio do not help the impression that Kerry has already lost his edge, either. Calling the current President "unfit for command" begs the question as to why Kerry, if he truly believes that, hasn't taken the Constitutional steps necessary to remove him? He looks rattled, he's using ad hominem attacks, and in all ways reminds me of the final two weeks of the previous Bush re-election campaign in 1992.

And what about the media and the punditry, who told us for four weeks that convention bounces were a thing of the past? It appears that this is yet another example of how their credibility, instead, belongs to a bygone era.

The Big Apple Does It All

Just as when I arrived in New York, I wound up overcoming a couple of obstacles getting back out. When I woke up this morning ,I had overslept by over two hours, and I barely had time to get showered and packed so I could catch a cab to JFK. For those who don't know, taking a cab from midtown Manhattan to JFK (in Queens) isn't a quick journey; there's a good reason it's price-fixed at $45.

I just got home and haven't even yet unpacked anything but the computer, but I wanted to write about my experience in New York before I take a nap. My last visit to New York was in 1974 when I was eleven years old -- in fact, I think I turned 11 while I was there, or just before. I recall almost nothing about that trip, or at least I didn't before I came back on this visit.

New York did an amazing job in hosting this convention. Every native New Yorker with whom I spoke was never anything but gracious and welcoming, even though our presence in their city complicated nearly every phase of their lives. Emergency response agencies were especially professional and courteous, belying the stereotype of hostile and sarcastic police officers and firefighters that has become, thankfully, less prevalent since 9/11. After last night's events were over, I never wanted to take thousands of people home with me so much as I did those brave men and women who ensured our safety and security.

And I learned a new appreciation of why New Yorkers love their town. I've been around several metropolitan cities and their downtown areas, but Manhattan is like no other place I've been. "The city that never sleeps" is no cliche, even if the city grew disappointed with Republicans who do, including me. It's a strange and wonderful mix of high-rise business district, residential area, and shopping mall that stretches across the entire island. I wish I could have spent more time outside of it and experienced more of what makes New York so special, but the convention coverage required 15-18 hours a day, and even then I fell behind.

I'll write more about New York, the convention, and lots more about interviews and my experiences at the convention later today and all this weekend, so if you think it's over at Captain's Quarters, it isn't, not by a long shot. But first I wanted to give the Big Apple a truly heartfelt measure of my appreciation and gratitude for its sacrifice and hospitality. I'll never look at New York in the same way after this experience.

9/2 Convention Finale: Sideshow Bobs

My analysis would not be complete -- and I'm dangerously low on sleep, so I want to get to 'complete' soon -- without mentioning the disturbances during the evening in the Garden. Three different protestors managed to get by the extraordinarily tight security at the Garden. One man wound up getting arrested before George Bush even spoke, and found himself rapidly escorted from the auditorium. He exposed an undershirt, I believe, with an anti-Bush slogan and started shouting, but it didn't take long (a few seconds) before he got taken out the door.

The second and third incidents occurred when Bush spoke to the audience, although if you were watching on TV, you may have missed both. If you recall two times when spontaneous chants of "Four More Years" erupted when it didn't appear that Bush had paused for an applause break, that's when the protests took place.

The first of the two was the most unnerving. My friend from the Hennepin County campaign pointed it out just as I noticed a woman getting up from the California delegation and shouting something. She unfurled a sheet with the words BUSH LIED -- PEOPLE DIED on it and started shouting the slogan. This occurred about 100 feet or so from the President. Another member of the Golden State delegation ripped it out of her hands and while she fought to get it back, others grabbed her. Bush continued talking through the distubance as Secret Service officers raced over to both arrest her and rescue her, as it looked like the Californians were unhappy and embarrassed enough to shut her up using other means.

Security had to drag her from the room, still screaming her slogan over and over again, but by that time the delegates started shouting "Four More Years" to drown her out. The third incident I only noticed after security had a hold on the protestor, and again the shouting drew the same "Four More Years" chant.

No damage, at least none apparent, and the mouthbreathers can take joy in the fact that their shenanigans forced the security to lose focus on other potential threats. However, since they are likely intractable narcissists who crave that kind of attention, they'll spend a night one place where they can be sure to get it.

9/2 Acceptance Speech: George W. Bush

As anyone could tell you, this speech carried tremendous expectations for George Bush, and not just because of its national exposure. For one thing, the external expectations of surviving the convention put the onus on the Bush adminstration to ensure security and to eliminate the possibility of having visited another tragedy on New York City. Also, since Bush has a reputation as both a dunderhead and an atrocious public speaker, he needed a flawless delivery and a tone-perfect speech.

I think he succeeded admirably on all counts.

Not that he's free from all criticism, of course. Most noticeable was the running time of the speech. We had been led to believe that it would be about 45 minutes, about the same run time as his appearance two weeks ago in Saint Paul. Instead, he spoke for almost an hour and a half, and at a couple of points during the speech, the long run time showed. Especially when speaking about the economy, Bush seemed to drop into a laundry-list style that Cheney used on Wednesday in his acceptance speech.

Fortunately, Bush mostly came across as warm, friendly, and determined, and his speech with a couple of exceptions felt as though it was a personal communication. Bush has tremendous personal charm that allows him to rise above his rhetorical problems, especially with prepared speeches, and tonight he displayed those skills admirably. He never got flustered, even when unexpected things happened during the speeches, which I'll address in a later post. He maintained his composure and projected confidence without arrogance, humor without unseriousness, and warmth without the sticky-gooey "I feel your pain" nonsense that we've heard before. Feeling it isn't good enough; you have to do something about it.

In the main, his speech covered the same basic themes as his recent stump speeches, but he punched it up with some more specifics on economics, health care, and other social issues. He also announced his new agenda on georgewbush.com (while signs out in the audience said agendaforamerica.com). And of course Bush continued to hammer on security issues, declaring that he will continue to take whatever action is necessary to defend America.

If it wasn't a home run, and I don't think I'd go that far, it's at least a bases-clearing double off the fence. For those who watched, Bush reminded people again that he is constantly underestimated. Hell, he showed up without horns on his head, which makes liars out of half of his opposition these days.

9/2 Keynote Speakers: Gov. George Pataki

Governor George Pataki opened for President Bush, a spot in the lineup guaranteed him by his position as the highest-ranking Republican in the state of New York. Once again, as on Tuesday night, the Republicans may have been better off by eschewing tradition in this convention and swapping Pataki for Giuliani's Monday-night speech. That arrangement would have allowed one of the weakest speakers in their lineup to play leadoff, where expectations would have been lower, while also putting one of the best speakers in prime time with President Bush, giving a spirited defense of the war on terror.

Not that Pataki was bad -- but I would describe his performance, and his voice especially, as weak. At times, at least in the Garden, he was almost inaudible, even though the crowd gave him all their attention. He did manage to mix it up and even became inspiring on occasion, but during the entire exercise, he looked even more uncomfortable than John McCain during his speech.

Pataki opened by noting how other states responded to 9/11, and he expressed his gratitude directly to the delegations. Oregonians, after hearing about the devastation the attacks had on the state's tourist industry, booked 1,000 rooms and made it a point to visit the state, helping hundreds of workers keep their jobs. Iowa sent 1,500 quilts to warm the volunteers at Ground Zero at night. Pennsylvania had a family of five children give the money that they'd saved to a New York firehouse that had seen eight of its brothers die in the collapse of the WTC buildings. He noted that after 9/11, we were all New Yorkers, which caused the delegates to chant "New York!" over and over.

Pataki also had his funny quips, too. Two of them occurred within moments of each other. "This is a candidate who has to google his own name in order to find out where he stands ... This November, we'll win one for the Gipper, while our opponents will lose one with the Flipper." He also defended the war on terror and the removal of Saddam, noting that in a world where a box cutter enabled a plane to be turned into a guided missile that killed thousands, a monster like Saddam is nothing less than a walking WMD.

Pataki finished stronger than he started, but his performance seemed pretty uneven and Pataki clearly looked uncomfortable in his prime-time role. It wasn't bad at all, but it wasn't great or even terribly remarkable, with the exception of the touching stories he told at the front end of the speech. It did reinforce the national-security theme that has run through every major speech here at the convention, and in that sense it was a rousing success.

9/2: The Opening Acts -- Masters Of Adjustment

As I stated earlier, I was prevented from live blogging by the sudden lack of an unsecured wireless network in the Garden. Instead, I relied on a digital voice recorder and my fresh memories of the speeches that the Republicans presented as a run-up to George Bush's acceptance speech.

After a few preliminaries, we discovered the first, and rather poorly-kept, secret of the evening: former General Tommy Franks had been added to the program. Franks had publicly endorsed Bush for re-election on Tuesday, an unexpected development first reported by the RNC bloggers. That interview seemed like a warm-up to the speech, as many of the same themes that came through in our talk wound up in his speech.

I anticipated that Franks would be popular with the crowd, but he was even more successful than I'd have guessed. Franks speaks excellently and offered little in smooth words; he sounded like Zell Miller, only more irritated than angry. He finished his speech to raucous approval by announcing the time would soon come that America could welcome all its troops home, including those who served America in Viet Nam. He turned and saluted a group of veterans on the stage behind him.

Left unspoken but understood by all was the reference to the reception that Viet Nam vets got when they returned home over 30 years ago, and John Kerry's role in creating the environment which caused them to be reviled.

Another last-minute addition to this evening's agenda was Mel Martinez, who just won the Republican primary for the open Senate seat in Florida. Martinez spoke about his life as an immigrant to this country, mirroring the speech of Arnold Schwarzenegger two nights ago. I suspect that Martinez got added to the schedule not so much to reinforce Arnold's welcoming message to immigrants but to bolster Martinez's credentials in what will probably be a tough race. Martinez himself noted that he had just won that primary 24 hours previous to his speech.

Martinez made his way to America with nothing more than a suitcase, and has made himself a success story. He spoke about hard work and the opportunities that America has for those who reach for them. I liked the speech, although I thought he went on a bit too long. Because people knew when the keynote speeches were scheduled, they seemed to be more interested in maneuvering around the arena at first than in Martinez, but by the time he finished, he had their full attention. I'm not sure how it played on TV, but I suspect it worked even better there than live here.

I'm sure adding Martinez helped Bush, or at least made no difference, but the question is this: how successful was Martinez for his own election? Unfortunately, a good deal of his intended audience probably missed his speech. I don't think it was covered by the networks or the netlets, and even some of those who would have watched on C-SPAN were busily evacuating in the face of the oncoming hurricane.

Just Got Back From The Garden

If you're wondering why you haven't heard from me, it's because I just walked back to the hotel from Madison Square Garden. For some reason -- I suspect for security considerations -- no unsecured wireless networks were available from my seat at the Garden, and I wasn't about to head back to a television in Bloggers Corner for the President's speech.

I'm getting a bite to eat and then I'll review my voice notes and post my thoughts on the main events tonight.

No Enthusiasm? How To Miss A Story

I met Chris Suellentrop as we both came through security checkpoints together on Monday and were both held up by colleagues having difficulty with the metal detectors. That's how I know Chris actually attended the Republican convention; he's a nice guy and chatted us up for a few minutes while we waited. Because if I had to rely on his reporting to confirm his attendance, I'd have to assume him to be a no-show.

In Slate today, Chris writes about a lack of enthusiasm among Republican delegates that has managed to escape my notice:

One of the most striking things about watching the Republican National Convention from inside Madison Square Garden has been the lack of enthusiasm among the delegates on the floor. When they formally, and unanimously, nominated George W. Bush as their party's presidential nominee Wednesday at the conclusion of the roll call of the states, the delegates failed to muster much applause for their action. "We can do better than that," complained Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele from the podium. "Come on now, bring it on for the president." The delegates dutifully applauded some more, but they still weren't very loud, and Steele still seemed disappointed.

From this experience, Suellentrop builds an entire analysis that the GOP has no real enthusiasm for George Bush and that the only thing holding this convention together is a dislike of John Kerry that outweighs this supposed ennui for Bush. Suellentrop's article shows the inherent problems of forming an opinion based on one data point.

First, I can tell you from being down here and sitting among the delegates and their alternates for two evenings that their enthusiasm borders on fanaticism. They stomp, scream, shout, wave signs, dance, and in all possible ways remind me of multi-level marketing motivational meetings. The notion that a poor response for a nomination during a second-tier timeframe of the convention indicates an erosion of support underscores a certain disconnection from reality that Slate often reflects.

Whenever a keynote speaker delivers a speech, the delegates remain focused and enthusiastic. During the lesser events -- and the mechanics of the nomination itself definitely qualifies, since Bush ran unopposed for the spot -- delegates do what they do at almost every other moment. They network, they schmooze, they run into old friends and exchange stories from the political wars. All due respect to Lt. Governor Steele, but saying "Aye" to an unopposed motion does not take a lot of effort or attention.

I took the night off from Madison Square Garden last night, but I'd guess that Suellentrop has taken most of the convention off based on this analysis. Slate readers should know that the Republican delegates have more than enough enthusiasm to make up for Suellentrop's lack of attention.

Blog Conference: J. C. Watts

Former Congressman and Republican activist J. C. Watts visited with a few of us at Bloggers Corner. After his appearance on Hardball along with Zell Miller last night, we anticipated speaking to him about the exchange between Miller and host Chris Matthews, which we eventually discussed. However, Watts spoke at length on a number of issues, especially Republican outreach to black communities. In fact, the interview went into such depth that I think a transcript may run too long. I'll recap and quote where appropriate.

We started off discussing GOPAC, the Republican political-action committee dedicated to promoting grassroots growth for the GOP. Watts currently serves as its chairman, and he talked about how the 1994 Republican victory in capturing the House may have made the GOP too "fat and sassy" about its majority. He talked about the need to get away from the idea that Republicans (or anyone) can just throw a bunch of money around the last three weeks before the election and expect to win anything, let alone maintain a majority.

In fact, for the most part Watts focused on grass-roots growth, both of voters and candidates. Watts recently put together multimedia traning packages for recruitment of both. The former college quarterback and star member of the GOP House contingent seems perfectly at ease working behind the scenes to work at party-building, something that Republicans have long needed. Before we sat down, Watts was on the telephone telling someone that he was perfectly happy out of the limelight and risking capital in the market.

In regards to Republican outreach to the black community, Watts expressed both frustration and optimism. As a part-time preacher himself, he noted that Republicans and African-Americans share a lot of the same values, and yet do not seem to connect on an emotional level. Some of that can be chalked up to a lack of communication, Watts told us. Democrats, he explained, talk a lot about the concerns of the black community but largely only accomplish symbolic acts. Republicans deliver results but either fail completely to communicate them or forget to cover the symbolic gestures.

Watts holds out the most hope for the 18-45 demographic, the people who are less beholden to public figures like Jesse Jackson. He also talked about the myth of a monolithic black opinion set. "Republicans need to understand that when it comes to the black community, most black people don't think alike. Most black people just vote alike."

I asked Watts about drafting Alan Keyes from Maryland to run against Barack Obama in Illinois and whether he thought that would damage Republican credibility in Illinois and elsewhere. Keyes' statements during the convention to the media regarding Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter ("selfish hedonist") and his odd and sudden embrace of slavery reparations in the form of income-tax waivers has many people shaking their heads here in New York, and a number of lower-level campaign officials and media analysts sympathetic to the GOP remarking off the record to me that the GOP should have left the ballot open rather than run Keyes.

Watts would not take the bait, and even insisted that if Keyes asked, Watts would campaign for him. "We both wear the same jersey," he told us. "If Alan and Barack actually have a debate, I'd love to have the popcorn concession." He thinks that there is a difference between Keyes and Hillary Clinton's runs for the Senate but conceded that they were technical and likely would not make much difference to the voters in Illinois. "It's almost like John Kerry trying to explain his Senate voting record," he said. "If he has to explain, he loses."

When we brought up Zell Miller, Watts' face lit up with delight. "That's about as good as it gets," he replied. He's worked with Chris Matthews before, and he felt that Matthews had no hidden agenda. However, he noted that Matthews worked for Tip O'Neill as a speechwriter and that Matthews knows the difference between hyperbole and literal statements, and that it was a bit hypocritical to press Miller on "spitballs". Watts also happened to be around for the Frank Luntz focus group on Miller's effect on independents, and eleven of the eighteen independents in the group answered that they were more likely to vote for Bush as a result of the speech.

Watts gave us a lot more in this interview than we expected, and his personal charm and intellectual flexibility made me wonder why the GOP has allowed this asset to ride the bench for so long. Let's get J.C. back in the game.

Blog Notes

Just to let you know what my schedule looks like today, I may be appearing on Dennis Prager's show in the next few minutes. We tentatively arranged something yesterday but have yet to firm it up. We'll also be meeting with J.C. Watts in the next few minutes, which should be very interesting indeed. I want to ask him his opinion on the Alan Keyes debacle, which has set tongues to wagging around here, although mostly off the record.

Stay tuned ...

UPDATE: Both John Hinderaker and I will be on Dennis Prager's show at 2:15.

CQ Interviews Congressman Steve Pearce, NM

While Bloggers Corner stayed relatively quiet this morning, a few people have come by to take advantage of the open chairs here. One of them was Congressman Steve Pearce of New Mexico's 2nd District, who took a few minutes to speak with me today.

CQ: Good morning, Congressman. Which district do you represent?

SP: New Mexico's 2nd District, the southern district of New Mexico, about 70,000 square miles. It takes about nine hours to drive across it.

CQ: What do you think about the chances of Bush taking New Mexico this time around?

SP: Chances are very good. Last time we lost by 366 votes, but there was an unprecedented snowstorm on Election Day, and the snowstorm occurred only on the eastern side of the state, where the Republicans are. On the western side of the state, where it's 25% Republican, they didn't have any snow. We lost 10,000 votes for the President [from the storm] and we lost the state by 366 votes. New Mexico will be hard but I think we'll win it for the President. My district will come out very strong for the President.

CQ: I was very surprised that Bill Richardson did not get the nod for Senator Kerry's running mate this year. It seems to me that Richardson would have been tailor-made for it. What issues do you think kept Richardson off the ticket?

SP: There are people in the Democrat party that say that Richardson was never in contention, that he was the one who placed his name up. There are things that he would have to explain. He hired Monica Lewinsky. That does not sell well in conservative America. He took her out of the White House ... He was in charge of DoE when we lost 50 years worth of secrets to the Communist Chinese and that's an issue that is still needs deeper explaining. It has not been resolved. The current problems in security are the ones we saw with Los Alamos. I think there are flaws there that would have really penalized the national ticket.

CQ: You're running again for Congress?

SP: I'm in Congress and running for re-election, yes.

CQ: How's your district?

SP: 34% Republican. It's okay. The southern district always has hard races, I'll always have hard races. [Laughs]

CQ: Do you think a heavy turnout in your district will help yourself and Bush?

SP: It will. I get very good support from Democrats across the state. People just like Zell Miller, people who feel like the party is drifting way far left. They're concerned about the life issues, concerned about the marriage issues that the Democratic Party is really pushing right now. They're going to stay Democrats, but they're going to throw that party back to the middle of the spectrum.

CQ: Do you read blogs at all, Congressman?

SP: Occasionally. I don't get much of a chance to do anything except sit in meetings, but when I get on the web, I take a look to see what people are saying.

CQ: If you had one piece of advice for the bloggers coming out of this convention -- obviously talking about Republican-leaning bloggers -- what would that advice be? What do you think we should be focusing on in the next 60 days?

SP: We've got to focus on getting our turnout. The nation is extremely divided, about 46% on either side. Maybe 8%, 6% undecided, and the election will be decided by who shows up. We are conservatives, and we will stay home more quickly than our friends across the aisle. Our friends on the other side will vote for their candidate no matter what the flaws are, and Republicans will say, "I like him on 90% of the [issues] but not on 10%, I'm just going to stay home." It hurts us badly. I'm not an enemy of someone who I agree with 75% of the time. We overlook the differences and we work together, and that would be my advice to the conservatives in America. We need to understand that this election will determine the nation['s direction] for the next 20 years.

The Really New Media

While we at Bloggers Corner have been congratulating ourselves on being the New Media here at the convention, this morning I got an opportunity to meet the really new media. Two young journalists for the New York Daily News took a break at Bloggers Corner this morning: Kibuchi Banfield, 17 years old, and Marie Ponsot, 11 years old. The Daily News credentialed them to do some free-lance reporting from the convention, and their work appeared in today's edition (second item):

We think if the state is offering the services, it should be responsible for getting residents enrolled. She was talking like people are totally independent from the federal government.

Plus, schools are busy enough trying to meet testing standards without doing extra work. Maybe older teens can help younger kids get health insurance through a community service project. But an uninsured child under the age of 5 can't be responsible for himself.

They carried themselves rather professionally, and even knew about blogs, which puts them above most of their colleagues. Last I saw of them, they were buttonholing politicians for interviews on Radio Row and doing a pretty good job of it.

In fact, what the heck am I doing giving this much attention to my competition?

UPDATE: Hey, the kids got an Instalanche!

Meet The Minnesota Delegation: Kimani Jefferson

I had an opportunity to meet with a member of the Minnesota delegation to the Republican convention last night, Kimani Jefferson, who represents the Anoka area. Kimani spoke for a few minutes with me regarding his transformation from a moderate Democrat to a 9/11 convert to the new national-security-based conservatism, and his enthusiasm for George Bush in 2004. Kimani is a former military officer who served aboard USS LaSalle, based in Italy, after graduating from the Air Force Academy in 1998.

CQ: You've gone through this entire [delegate selection] process, which takes quite a bit of effort. What's your motivation for doing that?

KJ: My daughter, more than anything else. My daughter is four, and I have another child on the way, November 12th. And I want the Constitution to mean something when she grows up.

CQ: What are your big issues here at the convention?

KJ: My big issue, number one, is national security. Because without national security, it doesn't matter how the economy goes or anything else. ... We should judges on the bench that take a strict constructionist view of the Constitution.

CQ: Which justice on the Supreme Court do you feel embodies that most?

KJ: Antonin Scalia.

CQ: Since you appear to be very committed to this [political] process, do you plan on running for office in Minnesota at the state or federal level?

KJ: Perhaps. It depends on how things go. I've only been in Minnesota for three years and in Coon Rapids for one year, and I don't quite know the community. There may come a point where I feel comfortable enough in the community to feel that I am worthy of representing it.

CQ: How do you plan to extend your reach in the community in the meantime?

KJ: Right now, I'm the Anoka County Co-Chair for the Bush/Cheney campaign, the Metro chapter Chair of the Young Republicans. I'm trying to stay really active. I'm trying to build the teenage community of the Young Republicans, they've been really active in this campaign, and they're excited. I think if we can get kids that age active in the process, it will a good seeding for the future. Those are the things that are important to me.

Kimani has a great presence and enthusiasm for his work here at the convention as well as an easygoing, friendly personality. His obvious delight at participating in this convention is infectious, and we wound up chatting for a good while afterwards. He spoke about his brother-in-law who turned his life around after being in prison and his desire to build faith-based initiatives to help people like his brother-in-law rejoin society.

Kimani bears watching in the next few years. I think Minnesotans will be hearing from him as soon as he decides he wants to be heard.

USA Today Confirms My Matthews Diagnosis

CQ commenter FredRum points us to a USA Today article on the talking-head coverage of the Republican convention that not only supports my earlier diagnosis of Chris Matthews' self-infatuation but asserts that narcissism has spread across the entire television punditry like an epidemic. Media analyst Robert Bianco has a simple solution:

As President Bush's acceptance speech tonight closes the Republican convention and sends us full speed into the final electoral push, would it be too much to ask one tiny favor of TV's anchors, analysts and pundits?

In the name of all that's holy, shut up.

Sometime over the past few years, interview shows morphed from the intent to draw information from guests that would inform and entertain viewers to a pitched duel between the interviewer and the subject/victim, a duel to the rhetorical death in front of a nationwide arena of rapidly diminishing numbers of fans. Chris Matthews did not originate this disease, but he's hardly faultless in its spread. Bianco lets Matthews have it with both barrels later in the article, which was written and posted before Matthews got slapped down by a fired-up Zell Miller:

Still, when it comes to luxuriating in the sound of your own voice, even O'Reilly must bow to MSNBC's Chris Matthews. In one of the convention's more bizarre exchanges, Matthews interrupted a Joe Scarborough screed about immigration Tuesday to ask, "Who are your favorite immigrants?" Luckily for a seemingly nonplused Scarborough, he didn't have to answer, as the question was merely an excuse for Matthews to tell us, "Mine are the West Africans." No doubt they were thrilled to hear it.

Matthews, without a doubt, will be seen as the one mainstream news media figure to have suffered the most damage to his reputation from this electoral cycle. He has acted in such a transparently partisan manner while hypocritically maintaining a non-partisan facade that Zell Miller easily penetrated that he can't possibly recover his credibility with anyone except the zealous (Zell-less?) left. The rest of his audience, much like MS-NBC's in general, will have left for other commentators less in love with themselves.

The Symptoms Of Unseriousness

The BBC brings us an update on the lack of seriousness shown about worldwide terrorism in Bali, as a convicted conspirator in the bombing that killed hundreds in a nightclub has been allowed out for a latte break:

Convicted Bali bomber Ali Imron has been allowed on an outing to a Starbucks coffee shop in Jakarta. Reporters spotted him laughing and joking with Brigadier-General Gorries Mere, one of the officers investigating the Bali attacks.

A police spokesman said the excursion was part of an ongoing effort to investigate cases of terrorism.

Did al-Qaeda decide to target baristas in Bali? Does he have some insight into what coffee blend Osama finds irresistable, in order to set up a trap for him at the game tables? Stories like this make Michael Dukakis' prison-release policies look like a Georgia chain gang by comparison. The man has been sentenced to life in prison, which may mean something in Bali, although it's not clear exactly what. Some Bali legislators see it the same way:

A police spokesman told the Associated Press news agency that no laws had been broken by the coffee shop trip.

But Yasril Ananta Baharuddin, a legislator from the ruling Golkar party, said he was "shocked" by the "highly inappropriate" outing.

Not only "shocked", but my guess is that the government will soon add "embarrassed" and "apologetic" as adjectives to describe itself soon. At least, I hope they have the capacity to understand that they have already been embarrassed, and that they have the intelligence to apologize to the families of Imron's victims for treating him like a bar buddy instead of the homicidal maniac he was.

Instapundit On C-SPAN

I'm sitting in a restaurant watching a soundless C-SPAN broadcast across the room and noticing that Glenn Reynolds is being interviewed by telephone about the impact blogs have had on the political process this year. Fortunately, the TV had closed-captioning turned on, although I think the guy sitting right by it is under the impression that we are "having a moment".

Glenn addressed media bias and mentioned Newsweek's contention that most of the news media want to see Kerry elected, and that gives him a 15-point boost. That may have been true in past electoral cycles, but I think blogs have erased much of that advantage (which may have been Glenn's point, since I missed a bit of the first part of his call).

I'm sure Glenn will have more, so head over to his site for an update.

Transcript of Zell Miller Vs. Chris Matthews

MS-NBC has posted the transcript of Zell Miller's appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews, during which many of you wrote or commented last night that Zell took the wood to Matthews in a most satisfying way. After reading the transcript, I have to say you were right, and I think that maybe the appearance on Hardball may be even more effective that his appearance at the convention. Miller made it clear that he was not about to allow Matthews to throw strawmen at him as Matthews does with lesser-prepared guests. The turning point occurred early on, as far as I read:

MILLER: But I think his record is atrocious.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you, when Democrats come out, as they often do, liberal Democrats, and attack conservatives, and say they want to starve little kids, they want to get rid of education, they want to kill the old people...

MILLER: I am not saying that. Wait a minute.

MATTHEWS: That kind of rhetoric is not educational, is it?

MILLER: Wait a minute.

Now, this is your program. And I am a guest on your program.

MATTHEWS: Yes, sir.

MILLER: And so I want to try to be as nice as I possibly can to you. I wish I was over there, where I could get a little closer up into your face.

(LAUGHTER)

MILLER: But I don‘t have to stand here and listen to that kind of stuff. I didn‘t say anything about not feeding poor kids. What are you doing?

MATTHEWS: No, I‘m saying that when you said tonight—I just want you to...

MILLER: Well, you are saying a bunch of baloney that didn‘t have anything to do with what I said up there on the [crosstalk].

From this point forward, Matthews reeled backwards on defense, a position from which J. C. Watts rescued him somewhat after Miller went away. At one point, Miller defended Michelle Malkin and regretted that the days of dueling were over:

MILLER: I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.

(LAUGHTER)

MILLER: Now, that would be pretty good.

Don‘t ask me—don‘t pull that...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Can you can come over? I need you, Senator. Please come over.

MILLER: Wait a minute. Don‘t pull that kind of stuff on me, like you did that young lady when you had her there, browbeating her to death. I am not her. I am not her.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Let me tell you, she was suggesting that John Kerry purposely shot himself to win a medal. And I was trying to correct the record.

MILLER: You get in my face, I am going to get back in your face.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: The only reason you are doing it is because you are standing way over there in Herald Square.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Senator, Senator, can I speak softly to you? I would really like you to...

MILLER: What? No, no, no, because you won‘t give me a chance to answer. You ask these questions and then you just talk over what I am trying to answer, just like you did that woman the other day.

MATTHEWS: Well, Senator...

MILLER: I don‘t know why I even came on this program.

Matthews, truth be told, is a terrible interviewer for the exact reason Miller used to bash him on his own show. Matthews has a long-running love affair with his own voice and can't seem to put aside that addiction long enough for any of his guests to answer. He asks long-winded questions and routinely cuts people off after a few words in response. Put bluntly, Matthews is a windbag, and while windbags can entertain, they don't draw much out in the way of truth.

Hardball doesn't interview guests, it subjects them to a gauntlet in which they can only hope to survive rather than inform viewers, especially if Matthews disagrees with them. Miller not only called Matthews on his tactics but he got the response for which he looked. When you hit a bully in the nose, they inevitably back down and claim they meant no harm, which Matthews did several times at the end of his interview with Miller.

In fact, he was even nicer with Zell on his Hardblogger entry, the MS-NBC blog that their stars write. (Captain's Quarters is blogrolled there with the rest of the RNC bloggers, but they've misspelled the title. Apparently, they only looked at my URL rather than actually visit the site.) Here's what he wrote about his interview with Zell:

Senator Miller didn't buy what I was saying. I can't tell you why. And I was pretty surprised with his reaction. Maybe because it was a remote and there was a lot of noise in the convention hall, he just couldn't hear what I was asking.

I'd hate to leave things where they are without giving him the opportunity to discuss these important issues. I was glad he said he wanted to come over and meet with me in person, so I hope he accepts my invite to join me at the MSNBC set Thursday evening.

But prior to that, Matthews argues that Kerry's votes against the weapons systems were the type of legislative maneuvering that accompanies all bills, where votes occur at various stages of a bill's progress. Matthews still either doesn't understand or doesn't want to acknowledge that Kerry's votes on these systems were final votes, nor does he want to acknowledge that Kerry campaigned on his opposition to these systems, which is what Miller tried to tell Matthews while Matthews kept talking over him. Casting Kerry's opposition as procedural amounts to intellectual dishonesty, especially coming from a former Tip O'Neill staffer.

Day 3 Final Thoughts

I don't have a lot to add to what I've already written, but I do have a few thoughts about the tandem of firebrand Zell Miller and the more stoic surgery of Dick Cheney. I've read some who think that the pairing was deliberate -- that the RNC knew how Zell would go after the Democrats and John Kerry, and that the contrast between Miller (who isn't running for anything) and Cheney would emphasize Cheney's reasonableness. It's the kind of counterpoint that could take the edge off of Cheney's unwarranted image as a warmonger.

Well, maybe. As Deacon at Power Line says, it may well be that the Republicans attempted to play good cop/bad cop. Unfortunately, if they did, they may have done too good a job, as both men made excellent points in their speeches that their wildly divergent styles will obscure. Miller was especially effective when talking about Kerry's record on voting against all sorts of military systems that we've used effectively in the field. If he had used the money line as more of a joke than an angry shout -- "With what ... spitballs?" -- it would have been devastating. As it is, it's damaging but the tone may have already turned off the centrists. My prediction is that Miller's speech will read better with swing voters than it played on TV tonight. I liked Miller's speech and agreed with every word, but we shouldn't pretend it will change a lot of minds.

Cheney's problem was that his delivery was so deliberate that he never seemed to connect personally with the camera or with the crowd. I've seen Cheney do better. I don't think it was a bad speech at all, or even a bad delivery; it just felt a little flat, and the best parts failed to get punched up. Compare it with John McCain, for instance. He's known for his mediocre style on the stump, but on Monday he gave one of the best speeches of his career. I wanted to see Cheney give us some passion -- maybe not on a Zell Miller scale, but at least on a McCain scale. I didn't see that.

I think Miller's speech will eventually play well enough, and Cheney didn't do any damage. But Bush will need to tell us why we need him as President for the next four years, using hope instead of anger and showing more passion than Cheney did tonight.

UPDATE: Cassandra at I Love Jet Noise disagrees with me about Cheney, and has a point-by-point analysis of his speech. It's worth reading. I don't disagree with the assertion that the content of the speech wasn't excellent, but I think I wanted to see a little more passion for the subject from the man who wants (we assume) to get a majority of Americans to vote him back into the vice-presidency.

Hindrocket And Captain Ed Make News Back Home

I mentioned a few days ago that both John and I were interviewed by the hometown newspaper, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, for a story about Bloggers Corner from a local perspective. Sharon Schmickle turns in a fair and balanced look at the intersection of blogging and big-league politics:

It was one thing to watch the cool and sassy Bush twins in television's lights, cracking scripted jokes and teasing their parents about their days of being "young and irresponsible."

It was another to see 22-year-old Jenna and Barbara through Captain Ed's analytical filter: "The Bush twins are -- as they said in their speech -- young, irrepressible, and a little immature. Personally, I found their humor a little charming, if overdone. I noticed (former New York Mayor) Rudy Giuliani laughing his butt off at the Sex And The City joke." ...

Here's Hinderaker's summary of his first day: "This has been one of the longer days in recent memory, beginning with a blogger breakfast at 8:00. The day included technical problems with our internet connections; our first video post; interviews with a number of luminaries ... most memorably, recent Miss America Erika Herald [sic]; a National Review party ... finally, an evening spent inside the hall watching the first night of the convention. I just got back to my hotel a few minutes ago, and will wait until morning to post detailed impressions of the speeches."

In reading Schmickle's article, it's apparent that she took quite a bit of time to read through both of our blogs, and excerpted a fairly representative sampling of our work. Take a read through it and see what you think.

9/1 Keynote Speaker: Dick Cheney

10:20 Lynne Cheney gives the introduction for the Vice President, Dick Cheney. She comes across as sharp, blunt, and likeable. She seems tougher than Laura Bush. In an imperfect comparison, she reminds me stylistically of Katherine Hepburn, while Laura reminds me more of Audrey Hepburn.

10:23 Good reception for the VP, who seems a little amused by it ...

10:25 That was Sarah Janisczak [sp] from Minnesota on screen ...

10:26 And that was Col. Joe Repya from Eagan, MN, who I will feature in an interview later on tonight ..

10:30 Dick Cheney has a much more mellow speaking style than Miller, obviously. After a great, self-deprecating riff on John Edwards get s a laugh, he follows that up with a good policy speech, this time targeting Edwards a bit more bitingly with tort reform...

10:31 Another disturbance on the floor? I'll try to get some information tomorrow ...

10:33 Here is where Cheney's calm, rational delivery really works. It cuts through the passions on national security and gives him a Joe Friday kind of credibility. ...

10:36 Cheney delivers good news but rather dispassionately, and it's not holding my interest terribly well. He's not connecting personally; he's giving a laundry list of accomplishments, more of a State of the Union speech than inspirational stump work. I've seen him better than this...

10:38 In regards the last, perhaps this plays better inside the Garden than outside of it. But I don't think so, judging from the respectable but not really adulatory reaction he's getting...

10:43 That's the Dick Cheney we know -- cutting, sarcastic, and funny. He scored big points by reminding John Kerry, who has said that he'd launch strikes after America had been attacked, that we have already been attacked...

10:45 "There is a difference to leading a coalition of many nations than submitting to the objections of a few."

10:46 Well, that's new -- chants of "Flip-Flop" resound through the hall, and earn another amused look from Cheney ...

10:48 "A Senator can be wrong for 20 years without consequence to the nation." I don't know if I agree with that -- I think that Kerry's foolish inconsistencies did do some actual damage, and certainly his lack of legislative accomplishement deprived the country of vital input at the highest level ...

10:50 More flip-flops ...

10:52 "John Kerry sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual. America sees two John Kerrys." His best line of the speech. Do you think the Democrats will be anxious to trot that theme out any time soon?

10:57 Dick Cheney's finished up now, and his family has joined him just off the dais. It was a good speech, but nothing much more than a journeyman effort. I've heard the President live, on the stump, and even if his tongue trips more often than Cheney's and other speakers, he has more passion and much less monotone in his delivery than Cheney has in his own. I think the President will do better by comparison. Wait until people start creating conspiracy theories over that.

9/1 Keynote Speaker: Zell Miller

10:02 Wild applause; I don't think he expected that. He makes his support for Bush personal. "My family is more important than my party." Great moment.

10:05 Great story about Wendell Wilkie, especially the epitaph. "Where are such statesmen today?" He's on fire.

10:07 Wow, he's tossing bombs at Terry McAuliffe and John Kerry tonight, and his rhetoric has the passion of all his anger. This is powerful stuff, and it sounds like it's built up over a long period of time...

10:08 "It is the soldier, and not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of speech." A series of such linkages are very effective.

10:10 "No pair has been wrong more often over a longer period of time than the two Senators from Massachussetts -- Ted Kennedy and John Kerry." Let me tell you this -- right now, the Democrats are wishing that the networks had carried Giuliani on Monday and preempted Wednesday's schedule. Right now he just reviewed the list of weapons systems that Kerry opposed and what they did in combat for the US. He's going to leave a mark on the Kerry campaign ...

10:15 I've been waiting to see if Miller can sustain his anger and disgust towards his party's leadership for an entire half-hour. Only now has he shifted from attacking Democrats to supporting Bush. "I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night as on Sunday morning."

10:18 "Faint-hearted self-indulgence will put at risk all that we hold dear." What a great finish. Without a doubt, Miller just delivered the speech of his life at the finish of a long career.

UPDATE: Seeveral of you have e-mailed or commented about Zell's appearance on Hardball. I'll keep looking for the transcript. It's probably not going to be released until tomorrow.

Convention Blogging (Via Remote)

Being in Bloggers Corner has been one of the most amazing experiences of my life. Not only am I in the center of a historic event at a historic location, but the RNC gave us tremendous opportunities by locating us at the entrance of the radio center -- which has been key to our access to some amazing people, including the famous and the yet-to-be famous as well. Some I haven't mentioned simply because I had no opportunity to do anything in-depth with them. For example, today I asked Tim Russert of NBC to stop by and take a few questions from the bloggers as he waited to get on Sean Hannity's radio program. Russert stopped over to say hello and exchange a few pleasantries with us, but he didn't have time to do much more than encourage us with a "Blog on!" Sam Donaldson did much the same thing yesterday, although Tom Bevan walked Donaldson through posting an article on a blog.

However, after a late start to today and taking a slew of interviews this afternoon, most of which have been left untranscribed, we began to notice a press for time which we hadn't felt before. More people began crowding around and engaging us in conversation, which we appreciated. Unfortunately, it impacted my productivity and with the keynote speeches coming up, I knew I had no opportunity to catch up -- and no time even for dinner.

So I've made the strategic decision to go back to my hotel room to finish out the night with C-SPAN. I can get a different perspective on the speeches and work on a few more posts tonight. In the meantime, I'm cancelling a breakfast meeting tomorrow to spend the entire day at the Garden so I can catch up with a couple of more delegates I want to interview. I'll live-blog the keynote speeches tonight from the hotel room instead of inside the auditorium.

Deep Cover Iraqi Spy Arrested

Federal agents have arrested a Des Plaines, Illinois man as a deep-cover Iraqi spy living undercover in the US for eleven years, awaiting orders from his IIS handler that apparently never came:

After the arrest of Sami Khoshaba Latchin, 57, prosecutors said he became a naturalized citizen after making false statements to immigration officials in 1999 and planned to "lay low" until contacted by his Iraqi handler.

Latchin entered a not guilty plea at a hearing Monday.

According to a federal indictment returned July 21 and unsealed Monday, Latchin worked for the Iraqi Intelligence Service, known as the Mukhabbarat, the foreign intelligence arm of the Iraqi government.

The indictment said that in addition to failing to disclose his ties to Iraqi intelligence, Latchin, a Baath party member, lied about overseas trips he made in 1994, 1996 and 1997.

Latchin, who was born in Dohuk, Iraq, and has lived in the United States for nearly 11 years, told authorities he was traveling on vacation when, in fact, he met with his Iraqi intelligence handler and received payment for his services, the indictment alleges.

Now this seems fairly important regarding the Iraq question. If Iraq had sleeper cells in the US, with their agents waiting for instructions from their handlers, one has to wonder what those instructions eventually would be. Deep-cover agents are not typically used for information-gathering exercises -- they initiate aggressive action, and they're dangerous because they appear out of nowhere.

Obviously this is just an arrest, not a conviction, so we have not tested the evidence in court. But if true, this provides yet another example of the danger Saddam presented to the United States, and another reason why deposing him and getting our hands on the files of the IIS were critical to winning a war on terrorism.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers. Laurie Mylroie sent me this item by e-mail.

Lunch With Senator Norm Coleman

One of the many distractions that all convention attendees must juggle are the continuous invitations to outside events, which sometimes conflict with convention business. Certainly this is true for the delegates, and it's widely known that if a delegate plays his cards right, he need never pay for a meal. This also applies to the candidates, who must coordinate a flood of invitations by being readily accessible to constituents and supporters on one hand without getting tied down to such a full schedule that it interferes with their ability to network at the convention itself with media, delegates, donors, and so on.

I received an invitation to a typical outside event, a lunch given on behalf of Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman. Coleman serves as co-chair of the convention, which means that he has certain nominal duties to which he must attend here at the Garden. On this occasion, Coleman was able to put a couple of hours aside to join a number of people at a nice lunch sponsored by Target, and as a result, I got the best meal I'm likely to get on this visit to New York.

At the pre-lunch reception, I had the opportunity to meet Senator Colemand and his wife as well as a number of his staff and supporters. Colonel Joe Repya attended with his wife, and I secured an interview with him later, which I will post this evening. Coleman, who delivered a powerful but short speech at the Bush campaign rally earlier this month, instead spoke more personally about community-building. He challenged government and business to learn from each other -- government to learn accountability, and businesses to learn to serve their communities.

It felt as though Coleman spoke more contemporaneously, mixing in observations about several of his friends and supporters in the room and especially his feelings about returning to New York after having achieved so many of his dreams. Coleman continued to impress me, this time as a man who easily connects with a smaller audience. More importantly, I got a rare opportunity to watch him interact with his staff and some Minnesota volunteers, and he took care to point out their success and hard work to others. Coleman remarked, unprompted, to one guest that the woman who got me into the lunch was the best supporter of President Bush he knew. Instead of just sitting at his lunch table and ignoring his guests, Coleman worked the tables, making two passes while I was there -- I had to leave to get back to the Garden.

You may say that these qualities should be our baseline expectations for public servants like Norm Coleman, and of course you'd be correct. But the truth is that few actually meet those expectations, instead treating their staff as though they don't exist and regularly blaming others for their own failings -- as we've already seen in the Presidential race this year. Minnesotans can be proud that they've elected a man who works hard at being a decent guy.

The Northern Alliance will interview Norm Coleman at the state fair this weekend. Don't forget to tune in on Saturday to hear our chat with Minnesota's Senator.

Terry McAuliffe: Kerry In Cambodia -- Twice

In a brief visit to Bloggers Corner, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe told the bloggers that John Kerry was in Cambodia -- twice -- and took fire, while taking the opportunity to get in a dig at George Bush:

Q: Does it bother you that the Democrats have nominated a candidate that told a fable about spending Christmas in Cambodia on the floor of the United States Senate?

A: John Kerry went to Cambodia twice. He was over in Viet Nam and at one point, as you know, he took some CIA operatives into Cambodia, and he did a lot more than George Bush ever did for his country. George Bush never got to Viet Nam.

Q: Mr. McAuliffe, do you have any proof --

A: You said only one question. You're chewing up their time [gesturing to camera crew].

Power Line has the video. Go check it out. And note that of all the people who have appeared at Bloggers Corner, McAuliffe is the only one who refused a follow-up question.

For yesterday's official Democratic version of Christmas in Cambodia, check out Hugh Hewitt's post from yesterday's show.

Senator Alan Simpson: Shy Kerry No Leader

Former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson came by Bloggers Corner just a few minutes ago and spoke to the group about liberal Republicanism, the electoral college, the current campaign and its tone, and John Kerry's Senate career. As you might imagine from his press conferences during his tenure in Congress, Senator Simpson spoke directly and even bluntly in responding to our questions. My audio of the interview turned out poorly as Sean Hannity's show insists on blaring out their program over speakers pointed directly at our area, but I can rebuild the important parts.

In response to questions regarding the Electoral College, Simpson strongly defended the current structure and explained that any attempt to eliminate it would never pass muster with enough states. Too many smaller states would lose their impact on presidential contests, and as Simpson said, no one would ever see a campaign outside of New York, Chicago, and California.

Simpson also responded about the current partisan brinksmanship by telling us to expect it to get worse. He advised anyone finding themselves under unfair attack to fire back and not to listen to advisors instructing them to rise above the attacks and ignore them. "An insult ignored is an insult believed," Simpson said, and related that he even contradicted his own family's wishes and responded on the offense.

"You're all keyed up," Simpson said his wife warned him, and he replied, "I know. It's going to be fun."

On John Kerry, Simpson clearly felt that he lacked any sort of legislative record and even gave us some insight into who John Kerry may really be as an explanation:

Q: You spent several years with John Kerry in the Senate. What is your opinion on his legislative accomplishments?

A: A big goose egg would be a pretty good approach, because I never saw anything that he did. But don't forget, he was under the shadow of Ted Kennedy and his issues were much like Ted's. He's not an evil man, but he didn't do anything that I remember. I was involved in significant legislation on immigration and nuclear high-level waste, and Superfund, and I don't remember him doing any of that.

Q: No leadership, then?

A: None. I didn't see any. In fact, I think he was almost shy. I think part of his problem right now is that I think he's basically a shy person. They've got him in a role that's uncomfortable for him.

Q: Thank you, Senator.

Simpson's insight into Kerry should not go unnoticed. He worked with Kerry for at least two terms in the Senate and had the opportunity to see him in action. I found his observation about Kerry's shyness intriguing, and it fits with the lack of personal connection that has caused much discussion and debate during the campaign season. The distance people feel from Kerry may not be something he can control, let alone overcome.

Dropping By The New York Sun

After making my sale to the New York Sun a week or so ago -- my first outright sale as a writer -- the editor with whom I worked encouraged me to drop by their offices while I was in New York for the convention. I had a couple of hours this morning (which is why I had no posts earlier) and stopped by their offices on Chambers.

I suppose I had an image in my mind of a newsroom; an open area with simple desks piled high with papers, people scurrying around in order to stay on top of the news, phones ringing off the hook, and an editor in the office riding herd on it all. I realize that's a movie cliche, but in this case, it also happened to be the truth.

After initially being greeted by Mark Tumin, he introduced me to a few other people in the office and thanked me for visiting. We had a little bit of paperwork left over from the earlier transaction, and I didn't want to impose myself on their busy schedules, since I hadn't called ahead first. To my surprise, Mark insisted on introducing me to Ira Stoll, the managing editor of the Sun and a writer I had long read and admired.

Ira and I (er, I hope I can call him Ira) talked for most of an hour about blogging, reporting, my work and background, and the Sun. If you don't know or recall, Ira first broke out on the Internet by starting the website SmarterTimes.com, a watchdog site that combated the bias in the New York Times. He had written for publications like the Wall Street Journal, and I read his work on Opinionjournal.com. Like Mark, Ira encouraged me to continue my work and to let them know when I had some original reporting that might interest them. They also intend on following Captain's Quarters to keep checking on me.

And if you haven't subscribed to the Sun, you should consider doing so. It's well written and contains reporting you won't get elsewhere -- unless it's on my blog, of course...

Shales: I Like Redneck Parties?

Having read Tom Shales' review of the Republican convention thus far, I'm not sure whether to be encouraged or irritated. Shales obviously thinks that the GOP has managed to out-stage the Democrats in putting on "rubber-stamp" conventions, as if we have had any other kind in the last five decades. Shales even notes success in impressing the media. However, he takes several opportunities to sneer down his cheaters at Republicans as a bunch of hicks:

People don't commonly associate adjectives like "cool" and "hip" with the Republican Party, but the first broadcast television coverage of this year's convention, from Madison Square Garden in New York last night, revealed the GOP to be more media-hip and glitzy than the Democrats were earlier this summer. ...

The message of the Tuesday Night Follies was that Democrats are wimps and Republicans are symbolically still down in Texas fending off the invading army that's trying to take over the Alamo. Remember it, hell! They're still fighting. ...

His performance could be dismissed as absurdly retro and old-hat by intellectuals and the politically correct but in a time ruled largely by fear, it came off as brave, rough and tough, as if John Wayne had come back to life to take one more whack at "bad guys" in an outdated western. Arnold even obliged the crowd by using the term "girlie man" when referring to anyone who is an economic pessimist, sending the audience into bombastic cathartic cheers. ... [Schwarzenegger] even led a rhetorical chorus session keyed to the theme of how to tell you're a Republican that was very similar in concept to hillbilly comic Jeff Foxworthy's routine "You know you're a redneck when ...."

Shales noted that even Dan Rather was impressed by Arnold, who reported that he had "slapped Kerry around like a hockey puck." Shales himself had a great line about Fox's coverage (which I've missed entirely while here in NYC):

At the Fox network, the Republican convention is being covered like a happy birthday party for God, with the channel's right-leaning commentators and anchors hanging on for the joyride of their lives, all but turning cartwheels.

I don't know if Shales is accurate, but it's an entertaining moment in a contradictory review. If the Republicans are such hicks, then why is their convention -- in the very heart of metropolitan America, Manhattan -- so wildly successful? Could it be that the Democrats miscalculated when assuming that such "hicks" could connect with plain folk around the country, and even a chunk of their metropolitan friends as well?

Shales seems to think that "in a time ruled by fear" that fear is all the Repulicans are selling at Madison Square Garden. However, every single speaker has pressed the optimism that America can conquer the fear of terrorism by positive action. If anything, the speakers at the RNC have been selling hope, while Democrats -- wrapped up in their irrational Bush-hatred -- have been selling nothing but the fear of what another term for W would mean. Nuclear war! American isolation! Environmental destruction! Women in burkhas on the streets of New York!

Shales hasn't paid attention. Hope touches the soul, regardless of political affiliation, while hatred and fear only motivates the small-minded. The Republicans have done a masterful job of focusing on the positive motivation that lies behind the tough tasks ahead. That apppeals to a much broader swath of Americans than Shales or the Democrats credit. If you have to be a redneck to have hope, let's hope that Americans drawl their way to the ballot box on November 2.

Ron Fournier: Democrats In Disarray

Ron Fournier, AP's premier political analyst, catches a whiff of desperation at Campaign Kerry as his numbers continue to erode and the Republicans stage a better convention than they had considered possible. Fournier reports that John Kerry has been bombarded with criticism and advice, much of it contradictory and all of it pointing to rising panic within the Democratic Party:

Anxiously watching President Bush's convention, Democratic leaders are urging John Kerry to step up his attack on the Republican incumbent before eroding approval ratings become a serious political problem.

The candidate and his beleaguered staff are being flooded with advice, much of it contradictory. Some party officials want Kerry to criticize the president for sitting out the Vietnam War in the Texas Air National Guard. Others say that would draw unwanted attention to accusations about Kerry's combat experience.

Democrats have seen Bush erase the gains that their nominee made at his convention a month ago in Boston, pulling into a tie in national polls that also show Kerry's personal image deteriorating.

Fournier writes, in CYA fashion, that the polling erosion that most national polls now reflect for Kerry (especially on national security and character) may just be a "nudge of the pendulum," but the Democrats have not reacted as though they believe it. Yesterday, they announced that they're pulling Joe Lockhart out of mothballs in order to head their "Rapid Response Team," an indirect indictment of Stephanie Cutter's poor ad-libbing during the campaign's deer-in-the-headlights initial response to the Swiftvet campaign.

In order to reverse himself, Kerry is being alternately advised to attack George Bush's own Viet Nam record and to skip Viet Nam altogether and focus on current issues instead, especially the economy and Iraq, where Democrats consider Bush especially vulnerable. Fournier provides some examples of the dissonance over strategy:

"Bush and his surrogates have been vicious and unforgiving" with the Swift boat claims, said Frank Schreck, a top party fund-raiser from Nevada, "and they have scored a lot of political points."

Schreck wants Kerry to bluntly compare war records with the president. "Why not stand up there and say, `He chose to have his father get him out of harm's way while I volunteered to risk my life?'" The Bush campaign vigorously denies the president used his family's political influence to avoid Vietnam. ...

Outside the campaign, some Democrats want Kerry to put the intrigue to rest and shift his focus to the economy and Iraq, issues causing problems for Bush.

"My sense is the Swift boat stuff has been a major distraction, to say the least, for the campaign, and they need to get back to hammering him (Bush) every day on the economy and health care and the management of the war," Carrick said.

Of course, Kerry may be the one candidate who can do both at the same time, given his record for consistency. However, it ignores the fact that Kerry has been doing both now, for months, both personally and through official Democratic surrogates such as Terry McAuliffe. McAuliffe did the round of radio interviews yesterday at the RNC as a sort of Johnny TANGleseed, trying his best to use the National Guard story that got such wide publicity back in February. Kerry himself back in April got shots in at Bush's service. Later on he claimed to have not spent "one dime" in attacking Bush at all, but he had a page on his website detailing a number of scurrilous "questions" regarding Bush's service.

Unfortunately, the Democrats have already fired all of their ammunition on this battleground. The memes that McAuliffe pushed and Schreck wants to resurrect have already been dissected ad nauseum by the mainstream media and have been revealed as unfounded. All that McAuliffe and the Democrats do by returning to this strategy is to (a) remind everyone that they made the quality of Viet Nam service an issue first, and (b) look absolutely desperate to change the subject.

The Kerry campaign has been exposed as an empty-suit charade that the Democrats thought would be good enough to dislodge George Bush. Why? Because everyone they know hates Bush. Like Pauline Kael, they assumed that meant everyone, period. And like Pauline Kael, they're discovering that they have a curiously limited experience with the American people.

Salon Takes A Few Cheap Shots

Mark Follman at Salon.com writes a review of the credentialed RNC bloggers for the Wednesday edition, and he doesn't much like what he's reading (registration or ad torture required). Follman points out that we bloggers set our expectations high and argues that we've failed to even try to meet them:

The bloggers, in brief interviews with the Journal, promised some big things themselves. After a good bit of hemming and hawing about their counterparts' failure to turn out any meaningful coverage at the Democratic get-together in Boston, the cutting-edge RNC crew pledged to zero in on the important issues in New York.

"Readers rightly criticized the number of 'hey, look at me' posts from DNC bloggers," remarked Kevin Aylward, a technology consultant who authors the Wizbang! blog. "I'm aware much of the audience isn't interested in what I had for dinner and what my hotel room is like."

"Being there isn't good enough, nor is posting what you ate for lunch or which movie star or politico you bumped into in the elevator," said Tom Bevan, editor of Real Clear Politics.

"Bloggers need to take the opportunity seriously and focus on covering the convention, not on themselves. Bloggers need to remember that it is opportunity and a responsibility," proposed Matt Margolis, who contributes to Blogs for Bush.

After writing this far into an article about blogging for a web magazine and failing to provide his readers with even one working link back to these sites, Follman proceeds to chew us out for not performing to our own expectations:

At 10:14 p.m., during the heart of Sen. John McCain's speech on the convention floor, Aylward unveiled his final headline entry of the evening:

"GOP BABES OF THE DAY

"The hostesses at the Cablevision Suite - smokin' hot." ...

Then there was this post at 9:13 p.m. from Oxford University doctoral candidate David Adesnik, whose OxBlog, he told the Wall Street Journal, is penned by three graduate students "with a passionate interest in foreign affairs, electoral politics, journalism, law and single-malt scotch."

"OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD! Miss America Erika Harold is visiting Bloggers Row!

"UPDATE: The extremely lucky Matt Margolis of Blogs for Bush has put up a picture of himself with Miss Harold."

And so on, although I noticed that Follman managed to figure out hyperlinks just in time to link back to those posts which offended him so much. Congratulations, Mark; I know it's tough to keep up with the details when you are expected to write two articles a week, as opposed to the ten or so we're each producing per day here at the RNC.

I feel enabled to scorch Follman on this since, oddly, he failed to even mention Captain's Quarters, presumably because he either found nothing objectionable or he just didn't know I was there. Nor did Follman remember that we were not invited to be the Junior League Print Media; we were invited because of who we are and what we've done all along at our sites.

Wizbang has a regular, long-running GOP Babe feature. But besides that, Kevin has also posted stories on Al Franken's assault on a Laura Ingraham producer, an opinion piece on Democratic claims that Republicans exploited 9/11 Monday evening, participated in the group scoop on the Tommy Franks endorsement of George Bush (we beat Hannity by 20 minutes), and a number of background items that Kevin thinks will interest his readers. Scott at Slant Point has interviewed a delegate about the platform for the convention, gone behind the scenes in a funny look at the wait staff, and written over 20 posts in the past two-plus days on the convention itself. Matt at Blogs for Bush has posted the audio stream of every nterview we've done, which takes both technical expertise and a great deal of Matt's time.

In short, Follman decided it would be more fun to take cheap shots at fifteen people who work hard to give their readers their personal take on the convention by ridiculing their story choices as unprofessional. Well, Mr. Follman, we aren't journalists in the sense that Salon.com hires -- we're bloggers, with a different if overlapping audience with such outlets as Salon itself. We weren't hired to be journalists, we were invited to blog the convention.

And if there is a difference, it's probably that we research our multiple posts better than the cherry-picking and poor HTML work that Salon seems to think meets professional-level standards. It's no coincidence that Follman only provides links to the selected posts instead of the home page of each blog, where the work could be seen i n context. In our marketplace, such shoddy and transparently biased work would completely discredit a blogger and put them out of business. It's telling that in Follman's marketplace, it passes not only his own standards but Salon's editorial review.

UPDATE: Jeff at Protein Wisdom notes that Follman's superior journalistic intellect didn't discover that one of the bloggers he quotes isn't attending the convention. And check out the comments, where Follman first doesn't figure out what the joke is, and then claims he was just playing along with it.

Final Thoughts From Day 2

HOTEL PENN, 12:16 AM -- It doesn't take much imagination to know on what subject tongues will wag tonight and tomorrow, and it won't be an analysis of Arnold's speech. Instead, talking heads will focus on the performance of the Bush twins, introducing their mother's keynote speech for Day Two at the RNC. Inevitably, the girls will be compared to John Kerry's children and stepson, and just as surely they will suffer in the comparison ... and it's unfair.

True, I would have held them back a bit from treating the introduction as a wedding toast, which was one criticism I heard (sotto voce) in the Garden on the way out. But that would mean having them put on an act, which would have seemed a lot more phony. The one quality that strikes people most about the Bushes is their genuine nature, in that they don't pretend to be people they're not. Clearly, as we have been reminded on several occasions, the Bush twins are -- as they said in their speech -- young, irrepressible, and a little immature. Personally, I found their humor a little charming, if overdone. I noticed Rudy Giuliani laughing his butt off at the Sex In The City joke, doubled over in his seat.

Apart from that, no one had any reason to be disappointed in the featured speakers. While I think that Laura did a fine job, though, after further consideration I think her placement was a mistake. Last night the Republicans made a better choice by having Giuliani go last rather than John McCain, who technically outranks him and should have been given the featured spot. The same principle should have applied tonight, for two reasons. One is that the delegates would have gone out fired up, not just filled with a detached admiration. The second is that it would have been kinder to Laura, who is a fine speaker but could not bring the thunder the way Arnold did. And make no mistake, having Arnold come before the Bush twins will allow the mainstream media analysts to give short shrift to his speech tonight.

I got one comment asking me to compare Arnold's speech tonight with Giuliani's on Monday. Actually, they were quite similar in structure, if not so much in style. Both men spoke from painful personal experience about the goodness of America and the darkness of tyranny, although in Giuliani's case it was a single attack while Schwarzenegger lived for years under the fear of the "Soviet boot," a wonderful phrase. They both spoke about the power of freedom that causes men and women to throw off the yoke of oppression.

However, I think style makes a difference, and in this case, I give the bare edge to Giuliani. Both men used humor, but while in Arnold's case it was biting and satirical -- and devastatingly funny -- Giuliani's was a mix between that and more self-deprecating humor, a choice which Arnold discarded after his opening. It gave the crowd more of Giuliani the man, rather than Hizzoner the public figure. But I have to also say that both men fired up the crowd just about equally, and Arnold's speech seemed shorter and punchier than Giuliani's. I'd call it a draw between two champions.

Lastly, after informally polling the bloggers at Bloggers Corner (which we abandoned for the arena during the speeches), we all agreed that Michael Steele looks like a man on whom the Republicans can count. I'll try to get an interview with him if he remains at the Garden.

8/31 Keynote Speaker: Laura Bush

10:25 An introduction for the First Lady by her twin daughters has started off very well, although they're clearly nervous. They've poked fun at themselves, their grandmother, their father, Dick Cheney, Sex And The City, Karl Rove, Condi Rice, and Karen Hughes. They're having fun doing a tag-team comedy routine ...

10:30 "We had a hamster, too. Let's just say it didn't make it."

10:32 A surprise -- George Bush is live on satellite to complete the introduction. I wonder has this happened before, where a candidate appeared before the nomination? At least during the modern, scripted era of conventions?

10:35 Laura is on now, thanking the Bush family. The former President and First Lady, George and Barbara, held up We Love Laura signs. ...

10:37 "Why do you think we should re-elect your husband as president?" An interesting way to frame her speech. It makes sense, as a First Lady usually doesn't get too involved in the hard politics. And, in fact, she's starting off with education, the cause she's adopted for her time in the White House.

10:39 Women-owned business as a model for the ownership society -- another pitch-perfect topic. Now she's moved on to health care, although that gets less enthusiastic. Stem-cell research that respects the "dignity of human life" gets better response.

10:40 Economics gets a mention, only briefly, and in terms of home ownership. She transitioned to national security -- not your typical First Lady topic. Laura focuses on the extraordinary contribution of a Colorado family that has three sons enlisted in the service, all deployed overseas ...

10:43 Laura Bush speaks in the quiet, dignified manner that befits a First Lady, but I'm wondering whether it wouldn't have been better to lead off with her and finish with Arnold. The crowd is responding to Laura, but there's little doubt that the intensity has dropped off.

10:46 Millions more people live in freedom now than four years ago, and especially the women of Afghanistan. This speech obviously targets the women's vote, especially among the undecided. It's effective here in the chamber ... we'll see ...

10:52 She gets more effective when she talks about her husband, with much more passion. She is technically excellent at speaking when covering other subjects, but she inspires people when talking about George.

10:54 "Because of strong leadership, we don't hide under our desks any more," referencing the Cold War and the determination that led the way to victory. A great, if subtle, reference to Ronald Reagan. ...

10:56 A good speech, perhaps even an excellent speech, and certainly a dignified and classy endorsement of her husband.

Addendum: You may be missing this at home, but the Harlem Boy's Choir is performing one of my favorite Civil War songs, Battle Hymn Of The Republic. They are doing a magnificent job, truly a wonderful end to the evening.

Further notes: Another speaker has come out -- a survivor of the Holocaust is speaking about her experiences in the camps and her liberation. She is speaking now about Bush's commitment to battling terrorism, both here and in Israel. I don't have her name, but she shows the most passion I've heard so far tonight.

8/31 Keynote Speaker: Arnold Schwarzenegger

10:03 Arnold is speaking now, talking about his immigrant experiences. He opened with a two jokes about himself and his acting, and one barb at the Democrats.

10:04 However, he now is speaking about the fear he felt as a young child, living in dread of the "Soviet boot" -- and he has fired up the crowd, reminding them that the Austrians are only free due to American determination and resolve, the first indication that he will emphasize the need for those qualities now...

10:06 He openly talked about Richard Nixon as a "breath of fresh air" for a young boy yearning for freedom. Interesting; the crowd has no qualms about evoking Richard Nixon.

10:09 Arnold continually refers to his immigrant status. It appears to be his theme, and he's tying it to a big-tent theme. Of course, Arnold represents the more liberal wing of the party.

Now he's about to do a series about knowing if you're a Republican -- and it's pretty effective. (I'll clip this later from his text.) It's all about responsibility, personal freedom, and American sovereignty, which has brought the crowd to its feet, whistling and stamping. "If you believe we must be fierce and determined to terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican!"

10:12 "Don't be economic girly-men!" If you invoke Nixon, a girly-man reference won't make you quail, of course...

10:14 Attacking the Two Americas theme -- this is a theme that has run through all of the keynote speakers. It addresses the optimism that was missing from the Democrats in Boston. Rudy Giuliani utterly laid waste to this theme last night, but Arnold wants to make sure it's really dead. ...

10:17 Back to terrorism, and expect to hear more about this throughout the rest of Arnold's speech. It's an ironic moment, having one of the most famous immigrants to the US speaking to Americans about their decency and their goodness. ..

10:21 In the middle of a story about a wounded serviceman Arnold visited, a small disturbance erupted on the floor in front of the VIP box where Cheney and Giuliani are sitting. I didn't see enough of it to find out what happened, but whatever it was, security forces pushed it off the floor quickly ...

10:24 After leading a chant of "Four More Years," Arnold finishes by thanking the crowd, and even takes a curtain call of sorts. A very good speech, and one that was very popular with the crowd. More later.

Blogging From The Convention Floor - Michael Steele

I am in in the auditorium with the delegates (in the stands, not on the floor), and so far, I have a connection with which to blog. With any luck, I'll be able to live-blog the two keynote speakers for tonight's main event: Arnold Schwarzenegger and Laura Bush.

Right now, I'm watching the Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, Michael Steele. This man impresses the heck out of me. He connects to the audience in personal terms, but he easily charged up the crowd with a wonderful crescendo as he discussed his values and the values of the GOP. Completely at ease at the podium, he seems to be a man with a future in the party.

Steele works extensively in the media, both alternate and mainstream. He writes for such varied publications as the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Washington Times, and more. He also appears on the radio in his own lunchtime radio show and has made a number of other radio and television shows. He's got the exposure and the talent to move to the first squad at his next opportunity. Keep an eye out for him.

Lynn Swann Supports Bush!

I grew up a rabid Pittsburgh Steelers fan, ever since I watched the Immaculate Reception in the playoff game against the Oakland Raiders. One of the best players on the team that won four Super Bowls was the incredibly acrobatic wide receiver, Lynn Swann. Despite having gone to USC, Swann had a grace and determination on the field that not only won him a spot in the Hall of Fame, but almost definitely made him one of the best slow-motion reply subjects ever in sports.

We found out yesterday that Swann would be appearing at the convention, one of a number of celebrities that have made their way to New York to support the President's re-election bid. I've been careful about fan-boy posts, but in this case, I hope my readers will forgive me for ensuring that this moment gets archived for posterity.

Hugh Hewitt: Terry McAuliffe On Hugh's Show

You can listen at this link.

UPDATE: Hugh slaughtered McAuliffe. I don't have any of the audio, but I can tell you from being there and listening, that Hugh took him out. First off, he got McAuliffe to admit that his job is to tell everyone that Kerry's winning regardless of whether it's true. He also folded on Christmas in Cambodia. As always with Hugh, everyone parted friends ... but those of us who were nearby the interview knew it went badly for McAuliffe. What can he do? He's been dealt a loser hand.

UPDATE II: More lefty meltdowns, this one from last night (at Wizbang). Apparently Al Franken wants to get elected to the Senate by garnering the bully vote.

General Tommy Franks: I Support Bush For President

General Tommy Franks announced today that he will support George Bush for president at our blog conference at the Republican National Convention.

Q: General, do you support George Bush for President?

A: Yes.

Q: With regards to consistency, did George Bush hurt himself with his remarks on Matt Lauer that maybe we can't win a war on terror?

A: Absolutely not. We won a Cold War, didn't we? And we didn't do that in 15 minutes.

Q: Did Ronald Reagan show that kind of doubt in his effort to win the Cold War?

A: I don't know that there was any doubt shown at all. I think that we're talking about consistency, and persistency, and anybody who looks at this thing over the last three and a half years is going to have a heck of a hard time trying to point out when he was not consistent or persistent. You got a lot of people who look at the other side, see, and they'll say, well, my goodness, he shouldn't have been so persistent. By gosh, he should have changed his mind. Well, absolutely not.

Q: He did clarify himself on Rush Limbaugh.

A: I didn't see that. I didn't hear that.

Q: He did clarify his Matt Lauer comments.

A: What'd he say?

Q: He basically said that he misstated it. Well, he clarified his point that it is a winnable war, it's not going to have an official end. It won't --

A: Well, yeah.

Q: It won't end in a treaty.

A: Yeah, and I think that it's one of those kind of things where you have to look real hard to find a parade after the Cold War. You know when the wall came down? The greatest standoff of our time. A nuclear standoff crisis that went on for decades. I believe if you had asked any president, during that time, and asked, "What do you think? Is it winnable?", he might well have said, "Well, I don't know, it's kind of standoffish." But the fact of the matter is that the war on terrorism is winnable. But it's not winnable in 15 minutes or in 12 months. It's going to go for a while.

Q: Do you think John Kerry can fight an effective war on terror?

A: Well, I support George W. Bush. You know what? I know what John Kerry is against. I'm having a little trouble figuring out what he's for.

Q: Is our successful fight against Moqtada al-Sadr in Najaf diverting us from the more important effort in Ramadi and Fallujah and the rest of Western Iraq?

A: No, I don't think so. I think what you have to do in Iraq is you have to play each day at a time. You know, we can criticize ourselves for not having the perfect plan, at any juncture we want to criticize ouselves. We can break out the sackcloth and the chains and all that sort of stuff, but the fact of the matter is when we were talking about 25, 28 million people, and they have been in the circumstances they've been in for the last three decades, then what you're going to find is that fractious behavior by the al-Sadrs, you're going to find situations like Fallujah, you're going to find situations in Mosul or Tikrit on a given day. We rise to them as they come up.

Q: General Franks, there has been a lot of criticism with some people saying that President Bush did not have a plan to win the peace. Can you address that?

A: Sure. Of course he had a plan to win the peace. Of course he did. Of course the United States had a plan to build the largest coalition the world has ever seen. And did it. Of course the United States had a plan to lead a coalition to remove one of the most despotic regimes we've seen in the last 100 years. Of course the United States of America has a plan to lead the coalition that will permit and assist the Iraqi people in claiming a new Iraq for themselves, a free Iraq. And all of that is going to take longer than a flash in the pan associated with popping a balloon.

You guys OK now?

Q: On the Swiftboat controversy, when you were first asked about it --

A: Yes. I'm still not -- I'm still not a big guy into hyperbole. I mean, I'm not a big guy into hyperbole, on either end of the continuum. I think he had two issues, and I think Senator McCain has pointed them out very well. You have situations that went on where the Swiftboat guys were on down in Vietnam, I was in Vietnam, John McCain was in Vietnam, John Kerry was in Vietnam, and the vets were in Vietnam. And I don't have anything to say about that. On the other hand, my concern is what happened after Vietnam, after Senator Kerry returned from Vietnam, and I may well have something to say about that.

Q: They said that if Kerry would apologize for his 1971 testimony, they would drop all future Swiftboat ads from the campaign. Do you think that's fair?

A: Oh, in my personal view, it's not a matter of dropping something. I've said right from the start --

Q: That's what the Swiftvets said today. They offered it to Kerry if he would apologize.

A: Wouldn't that be great? You know why it would be great? Because the people of the United States of America could focus on what's important, and that's our children and our grandchildren and the next four years of leadership for America, where we are faced every day with one of the most serious threats we've faced in 100 years and that's terrorism. We're going to have to display consistency, character, be persistent in the face of the difficulty. And that's what America's going to have to draw from her President. Where are we going to get that kind of leadership? It's one thing to know what a man is against; it's an entirely different thing to know what a man is for.

Q: Thank you, General Franks. [Applause]

It appears that George Bush has the fresh troops ready for the final push. Having a man with the credibility of General Tommy Franks on the trail pushing George Bush will raise confidence in Bush's leadership on national-security issues at the moment when Kerry already sees his support eroding on this critical quality. And it sounds like the former General has plenty to say, now that his retirement allows him to speak out.

UPDATE: Matt Margolis at Blogs for Bush has the audio.

Rumble In The Blogger Jungle: Hannity Vs. McAuliffe

An interesting confrontation took place just in front of Bloggers Corner a few minutes ago. Sean Hannity has a booth just a few feet from our tables, and we've had front-row seating for his show yesterday, today, and the rest of this week, too. While on the air, Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe passed by the booth -- on his way to the Air America table, no doubt, which is located right around the corner from our booth. The two of them began yelling at each other, with Hannity demanding that Kerry apologize to the vets he smeared since 1971 as war criminals. McAuliffe finally walked off, laughing, but people stood and looked at each other, surprised at having seen real news (of a sort) occur at a political convention.

Georgia Senator Zell Miller is on air with Hannity at the moment, and he looks sharp. I can't wait to hear his speech tonight.

UPDATE: Hannity has McAuliffe on the air in a moment ...

UPDATE II: Hannity and McAuliffe went toe to toe on the air, and we got ringside seats. Hannity started off by talking about Unfit For Command, which McAuliffe admitted he has not read. When Hannity pressed him to say whether the 200+ combat veterans were all liars, McAuliffe instead said that he had personally spoken with three or four of Kerry's shipmates (the band of brothers), and he was convinced they were telling the truth.

Hannity also tried to press McAuliffe for answers on these questions, all of which McAuliffe refused to answer:

* Christmas In Cambodia (several times)
* John Kerry's support for a nuclear freeze during Reagan's term
* John Kerry's vote against the death penalty for terrorists during Bush's term

Interestingly, just before the last two questions, McAuliffe had complained that Hannity wouldn't discuss Kerry's Senate record. As soon as he did, however, McAuliffe kept changing the subject back to George Bush's National Guard service.

Hypocrisy, thy name is McAuliffe...

Being The Story

While we have not had to deal with the overwhelming media interest that bedeviled the Boston convention bloggers, we are getting our share of attention, especially given our proximity to Radio Row. Yesterday I made a last-minute appearance on Hugh Hewitt's show, along with John Hinderaker, and we may appear again there. Right now, both of us are being interviewed by our hometown paper, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, by reporter Sharon Schmickle. Later today, I am also scheduled to appear on Kevin McCullough's show around 2:45 and I'll also call in to Cam Edwards show around 3:20 this afternoon, and supposedly I'm appearing on Right Talk, but that looks like it's falling through.

The only danger in getting too caught up in this attention is that we lose focus on our own stories. I think as the convention heats up, everyone but Hugh and Kevin will lose most of their interest in the bloggers. We'll eventually lose our novelty.

That's when we'll really know we've arrived.

UPDATE: Just finished doing Kevin's show, and what a pleasure that was. I'll be back later on this week to talk more about blog alliances.

UPDATE II: Now I'm being photographed by the Star-Tribune's Stormi Greener. No, James, I am not making the names up, and they have been very nice to me. When you see my bald head, I may change my mind, of course ...

Speaking Of Dry Gardens ...

The ever-invaluable Memeorandum points its readers to a GQ interview with John Kerry conducted, in all places, at a sports bar. In their effort to toady up to the Democratic candidate for President, GQ manages to embarrass both themselves and their subject. For instance, Michael Hainey asks Kerry about the Bush family:

GQ: You've got a great résumé, you're an internationalist, patrician. You're more the son of George Bush Senior than W. is.

JK: I don't want to go anywhere near that. Except to say this: I like Junior, but I like the senior Bush enormously. A very decent, thoughtful guy. And I have great respect for him.

GQ: W. seems like he came out of a laboratory.

JK: I don't comment on him personally at all.

But Kerry manages to make himself look foolish enough all on his own. When asked about Max Cleland, Kerry told GQ that Cleland's treatment in 2002 inspired his bid for the presidency in 2004 -- although Kerry has been known since college to be building his resume for the top spot. Note, too, the softball question and the utter lack of follow-up by Hainey:

GQ: What do you think about what the Republicans did to Max Cleland?

JK: It's one of the reasons I'm running. I was so angry. It's one of the reasons Teresa switched her party. I think politics reached a new low, an unbelievable, irresponsible, I mean just horrendous level when it goes after a guy like Max Cleland. It's the lack of decency, a lack of common decency when you can attack someone like Max Cleland for not being patriotic. You may not like his vote. But then go ahead and argue about his vote. But don't say he's weak on defense and he's not a patriot and won't stand up for America. Which is what they said. I think it's one of the most disgraceful moments in American politics. And it motivated me within two weeks of that election to go on Meet the Press and say, "I'm going to run for President." Because we got tot change what's happening in this country. Absolutely. You better believe it.

Of course, what really happened was that Saxby Chambliss ran an ad talking about the fact that Cleland wouldn't vote for the Homeland Security Department without granting civil-service status for the workers, in the end valuing the union over getting the department established. All Chambliss did was to point that out -- and his ad never questioned Cleland's patriotism, it questioned his voting record and his priorities. Besides, I always laugh when I hear anyone from the Democrats complain about questioning patriotism when their party chairman called Bush AWOL on a number of occasions and two Senators (Harkin and Lautenberg) keep referring to Bush administration officials as "chickenhawks"

If that isn't strange enough, GQ also gives us this tearful and strangely unsettling interlude:

GQ: How does it all end for you?

JK: It's up to the American people.

GQ: I'm talking in a metaphysical sense, big picture.

JK: I mean, that's yet to be defined.

GQ: How would you want it to end, if you could choose?

JK: Boy, that's just really hanging out there, isn't it? [Long pause; wells up.] Gracefully. Yeah, gracefully.

It sounds like Hainey and Kerry may have had a few of those brews before beginning the interview.

An Oasis In A Dry Garden

One of the challenges we faced yesterday was the lack of beverages available at the Garden, an unusual problem that I hadn't anticipated. I assumed that we would have all of the concession stands open, but they seem to be closed, presumably to simplify security for the convention.

Stepping into the breach to soothe dry throats is Political Grounds, which describes itself as "America's Politically-Incorrect Coffee". They've set up a booth giving away free bottled water and very good cups of coffee to anyone who wants to stop by their booth. Julie also gave me a pound of their coffee, which comes in eight varieties. I selected Osama's Mama, which states that it's "dedicated to our fighting men and women searching those caves for the evil one who brought us the events of 9-11. Only a mother with a foot-long beard could love this guy. Osama, where's your mama?"

How can I resist posting about that? Check out their other offerings as well. I'll tell Julie you say hello.

Kerry Losing Ground On Security: WaPo

Today's Washington Post reports that John Kerry has lost ground on security issues, falling behind George Bush on an issue in which he attempted to trump the Republican strongest point. The Post notes that Kerry has lost eighteen points on national-security issues since the end of the Democratic convention, and these numbers were taken before the start of the convention:

President Bush holds clear advantages over John F. Kerry on national security issues and leadership in the war on terrorism, largely erasing the broad gains Kerry made at his party's Boston convention last month, but voters continue to give the president negative marks on the economy and his handling of Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. ...

The new poll found that a slight majority of registered voters -- 53 percent -- say Bush is more qualified than Kerry to be commander in chief, while 43 percent say they prefer the Democratic nominee. At the end of the Democratic convention, Kerry enjoyed an eight-point advantage over Bush on that question. Taken together, the results of the poll suggest that Bush's recent gains have come from eroding perceptions of Kerry and not as a consequence of improved views of Bush's performance as president.

Richard Morin and Christopher Muste attribute the precipitous drop in Kerry's ratings to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attack ads and national bestseller, Unfit For Command -- a remarkable effect, given that the Swiftvets only ran ads in three markets and spent less than $500,000, compared to the multi-million-dollar onslaught of the 527s on John Kerry's side. However, the bad news isn't just limited to the damage done to Kerry by the David-like Swiftvets, as the Post explains:

Bush is viewed as more honest and trustworthy than Kerry by 47 percent to 41 percent -- exactly reversing the results of the Post-ABC News poll taken immediately after the Democratic convention.

Bush also is seen by a growing majority as the stronger leader and has narrowed Kerry's lead from 14 percentage points to six points as the candidate who best understands the problems of people like them. He has tied Kerry as the candidate who best shares their values and drawn nearly even with the Democrat as the candidate who has a vision for the future, two areas where Kerry led immediately after his party's convention.

On key issues as well as character, Bush has improved his position since the Democratic convention. Kerry is no longer viewed as the candidate best able to deal with the economy -- an issue of growing importance to Americans this year, according to the survey. Voters are now evenly divided over which candidate would do the better job with economic issues.

By 52 percent to 44 percent, voters now judge Bush superior to Kerry as the candidate who would be best able to deal with the situation in Iraq. After the Democratic convention, the two were essentially tied.

It's impossible to tie all of this to the Swiftvets and it augurs real trouble for the Democrats. It's not unusual to see some of the underlying numbers erode after an opponent's convention, but to watch them fall like this before George Bush even takes the stage this Thursday indicates that Kerry's campaign has hit the shoals. No one knows this better than the Democrats themselves -- so much so that they've been forced to release an internal polling memo which purports to calm the faithful who are watching Kerry slowly sink as their alarm rises:

President Bush has gained ground on Democrat John Kerry in the month of August because of "relatively small but unmistakable" shifts in the political environment, Democratic strategists said in a memo. The polling memo released Monday by Democracy Corps, a group led by pollster Stan Greenberg and strategist James Carville, said the subtle gains by Bush have knotted the race again after Kerry had a slight advantage after the Democratic National Convention in late July.

"There is no doubt that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads (attacking Kerry's Vietnam service) have had an impact on the race," according to the Democracy Corps memo. Those attacks combined with the Summer Olympics have combined to "shift the focus away from Iraq and worrisome economic trends."

The hand of Carville can be seen all over this memo, and the only thing "internal" is probably the stamp at its top. The content is obviously intended for external spin, as the only "worrisome" economic trends are those which show the economy continuing to expand, despite the pessimism of the Democrats. Acknowledging that Kerry has been damaged by the Swiftvets in the face of a monolithic media blockade underscores both the effectiveness of the alternate media, such as bloggers and talk radio, as well as the power of the Swiftvets message itself. Plus, Carville discounts the damage done to Kerry's campaign by the candidate himself, who was reduced to begging for George Bush's intervention to stop the Swifties from exercising their First Amendment rights -- hardly a becoming position for a man who wants to sell us on his leadership and courage under fire.

And they haven't even encountered the effects of the speeches by John McCain and Rudy Giuliani last night at Madison Square Garden. What will they say after the next polling cycle? Will John Kerry beg George Bush to ban polling next?

Blogging Coverage: Open Thread

I received this e-mail from a reader last night when I returned to my hotel room:

You, and all the rest of the bloggers at the convention, are making the same mistake as the bloggers in Boston. You are all sounding like, "whee, look at me! I'm a hick in the "Big Apple!"

Do some professional reporting. Make us proud!

Agree? Disagree? Let me know your thoughts. Bear in mind, however, that conventions rarely generate "news" stories. The value, I think, is in the background we can provide on candidates, issues, and back-scenes machinery that most people rarely see.

I'm anxious to get a sense of what you think, so fire away.

Day 1: Final Thoughts

Our first day on the job provided challenges in droves to Bloggers Corner. For one, the IT connections had not all been established, and it took several hours before all of us were able to reliably get on line and post to our sites. Our strategic placement meant that we could get some good interviews, but that our access to the convention floor was quite limited. In fact, we have to traverse four flights, one down and three up, to get into the main hall, and then we can't get onto the floor itself. Add in the generally lost feeling of not knowing your surroundings and the overwhelming blitz of traffic coming around our area, add a dash of the tightest security I've ever seen, and you get the idea that we could be forgiven a bit of disorientation.

On the whole, after reviewing our work as a group yesterday, I'd have to say that we did pretty well. We stayed mostly focused on the political stories coming out of the convention, and more importantly, we worked together as a unit. One can certainly make the argument that we compete with each other in the marketplace (although I disagree with that somewhat), but we formed a loose bond amongst ourselves pretty quickly. I think you'll see our product improve as the week wears on.

My lasting impression of the convention itself has to do with the message the Republicans sent last night -- they're not backing away from 9/11 or the war on terror. Speaker after speaker addressed both and made it clear that the GOP will not apologize for liberating 50 million people in Southwest Asia. Nor will they back away from securing America from attack, even when it doesn't suit the cash flow of countries that make millions and billions by undermining international sanctions against dictators and genocidal madmen.

One clear distinction has already been made between the two conventions. Both conventions talked about war. One party could only talk about one that was concluded thirty years ago, while the other talked openly about the war being waged against the United States by foreign terrorists right now, a distinction that I hope was not lost on those Americans who tuned it to see John McCain and Rudy Giuliani speak. It shows the lack of Democratic focus on the issues facing the country now. They'd rather celebrate the war most of them fought to end disgracefully a generation ago.

One last thought was something I noticed during Giuliani's speech last night. He spent more time on John Kerry's Senate record than Kerry himself did in Boston. That should provide another clue to the American electorate about the choices we face in November.

The Keynote Speeches of 8/30: Rudy Giuliani

Perhaps even more than John McCain, Rudy Giuliani's appearance at the convention had been the subject of much conjecture beforehand. His prominence in the schedule indicated to analysts that the Republicans would not run away from 9/11, and Democrats warned the GOP against "exploiting" the terrorist attacks. Given that they went through their entire convention without mentioning it at all, they obviously wanted Americans to forget it ever happened.

But Rudy was there when and where the buildings fell. Giuliani understands better than most what's at stake in this election. He knows what happens when people pretend that terrorism doesn't exist and when dangers are ignored. And he isn't planning on letting anyone forget about it. In one of the most effective and personal wide-audience speeches I've ever seen -- it even got grudging admiration from former Dean advisor and MS-NBC analyst Joe Trippi afterwards -- Giuliani described in stark personal terms what 9/11 meant for him and his city and what it was like to live through the hell of the worst foreign attack on American soil.

Giuliani knows how to play to an audience, of course, and his warm, personal style connects on a deep emotional level that amplifies in person rather than on television. He talked first (and last) about leadership, and hit that quality hard:

Thank you. Welcome to the capital of the World.

New York was the first capital of our great nation. It was here in 1789 in Lower Manhattan that George Washington took the oath of office as the first president of the United States. And it was here in 2001 in the same Lower Manhattan that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center and he said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, “They will hear from us.”

Well, they heard from us. They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban. They heard from us in Iraq and we ended Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror. And we put him where he belongs, in jail. They heard from us in Libya and without firing a shot Qaddafi abandoned his weapons of mass destruction. They’re hearing from us in nations that are now much more reluctant to sponsor terrorists or terrorism.

So long as George Bush is our president, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us?

Leadership continued to be the theme of Giuliani's speech, but he peppered it with personal recollections that brought back memories of that awful late-summer day:

On Sept. 11, this city and our nation faced the worst attack in our history. On that day, we had to confront reality. For me, when I arrived there and I stood below the north tower and I looked up and seeing the flames of hell emanating from those buildings and realizing that what I was actually seeing was a human being on the 101st, 102nd floor that was jumping out of the building. I stood there, it probably took five or six seconds. It seemed to me that it took 20 or 30 minutes. And I was stunned. And I realized in that moment and that instant, I realized we were facing something that we had never, ever faced before. ... I’ll always remember that moment as we escaped the building that we were trapped in at 75 Barclay Street and I realized that things outside might actually be worse than inside the building.

We did the best we could to communicate a message of calm and hope, as we stood on the pavement watching a cloud come through the cavernous streets of lower Manhattan. Our people were so brave in their response. At the time, we believed that we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Without really thinking, based on just emotion, spontaneous, I grabbed the arm of then Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and I said to him, “Bernie, thank God George Bush is our President.”

I say it again tonight, I say it again tonight: thank God that George Bush is our President. And thank God that Dick Cheney, a man with his experience and his knowledge and his strength and his background is our vice president.

The reference to Dick Cheney is no accident in this election. John Kerry selected John Edwards as a running mate largely, it seems, on the basis of polling rather than any serious review of his credentials. Edwards hasn't yet completed his first term in public office, having been a trial lawyer up until his election to the Senate in his maiden campaign of 1998. Half of the term that followed has been spent running for President, and while the Kerry campaign touts Edwards' experience on the Senate Intelligence Committee as his only qualification for president, Edwards missed almost as many meetings of the committee as Kerry did. Edwards doesn't take the assignment seriously, and apparently Kerry doesn't take the role of Vice President any more seriously than his or Edwards' responsibilities for intelligent oversight in the Senate.

It's all about leadership, as Giuliani continued to hammer home, with humor and passion. He reviewed the lack of global leadership on terror and its consequences today:

Terrorism didn’t start on Sept. 11, 2001. It started a long time ago and it had been festering for many years. And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed.

The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. That’s a long time ago, that’s not yesterday. And the pattern began early. The three surviving terrorists were arrested and then within just three months the terrorists who slaughtered the Israeli athletes were released by the German government. Set free. Action like this became the rule, not the exception. Terrorists came to learn time after time that they could attack, that they could slaughter innocent people and not face any consequences.

In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro and they murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer. They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish. Some of those terrorist were released and some of the remaining terrorists, they were allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals from the terrorists.

So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response, particularly in Europe, would be accommodation, appeasement and compromise. And worse, and worse they also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the horror of their attack.

It doesn't take much to discern from these examples what Giuliani thinks about Kerry's deference to the EU, especially the recalcitrant members of the old guard, France and Germany, in regards to fighting terrorism and providing for American national security. This point had been driven home by John McCain earlier, who said that the "containment" of Saddam Hussein had begun to break down years before, and these so-called allies had begun trading with Saddam Hussein even while he shot at our pilots in their missions to enforce the sanctions regime that France, Germany, Syria, and Russia busily undermined.

Giuliani invoked Winston Churchill at least twice, an analogy I've used often at CQ to explain the war effort:

They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan. But like President Bush, they were optimists; leaders need to be optimists. Their vision is beyond the present and it’s set on a future of real peace and security. Some — some — call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership. President Bush — President Bush —has the courage of his convictions. ...

One — one of my heroes, Winston Churchill, saw the dangers of Hitler while his opponents characterized him as a war-mongering gadfly. Another one of my heroes, Ronald Reagan, saw and described the Soviet Union as “the evil empire” while world opinion accepted it as inevitable and even belittled Ronald Reagan’s intelligence. President Bush sees world terrorism for the evil that it is.

It's been asked by myself and others what would have happened to Churchill had his advice on Hitler been heeded, even as late as Munich in October 1938? Europe would have gone to war, certainly precipitively in the minds of many. Churchill would have suffered tremendous political damage for his actions. Absent the camps, the Aushcwitzes, the Polands and the Ukraines that followed, the world would have concluded that Churchill was a war monger who loved nothing but battle and the shedding of blood -- a criticism he suffers to this day among a few anyway.

And he would have saved tens of millions of people from the death and destruction of Nazi Germany that ensued.

On the other hand, Giuliani didn't bother to analogize John Kerry, but spoke directly to his record and his shifting public statements. And at the same time, he tied Kerry's policy shifts to John Edwards's 'Two Americas' slogan in a way that may make the slogan a laugh line for the next two months:

John Kerry has no such clear, precise and consistent vision. This is not a personal criticism of John Kerry. I respect him for his service to our nation. But it’s important and critical to see the contrast in approach between these two men: President Bush, a leader who’s willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion shifts and goes back and forth, and John Kerry, whose record in elected office suggests a man who changes his position even on important issues.

Now, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, John Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War. But he must have heard you booing because, because, because later he said he actually supported the war. Then in 2002, as he was calculating his run for the presidency, he voted for the war in Iraq. And then just nine months later, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental budget to fund the war and support our troops. He even, at one point, declared himself as an antiwar candidate. And now, he says he’s a pro-war candidate. At this rate, with 64 days left, he still has time to change his position four or five more times.

My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words not mine. I quote John Kerry, ‘I actually did vote for the 87 billion before I voted against it.’

Maybe this explains John Edwards’s need for two Americas — one where John Kerry can vote for something and another one where he can vote against exactly the same thing.

I defy you to think of 'Two Americas' again without thinking of it as a code word for Bizarro Kerry, where everything he does is reversed by his alternate-reality alter ego, like the old Superman comic books.

Like John McCain did, Giuliani finished strong, reminding Americans that George Bush is the president who moved us from defense to offense against terrorism, and who remains the only candidate pledged to keep us on the offensive that has America fighting terrorists where they live, instead of where we live. He spoke about the power of freedom, and how liberating the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq has created a force of 50 million people who will fight to keep their newfound freedoms and ally with us against those who would plunge them again into dark nights of terror and totalitarianism. Giuliani assured us that people fighting for freedom have always prevailed over those fighting for enslavement, and that freedom is America's mission in the world.

As another delegate said to me at the end, "If anyone's watching this convention, I don't see how we lose." Indeed.

The Keynote Speeches of 8/30: John McCain

I had the opportunity to make it to the floor to see the last three speeches of the day, as bloggers took turns going into the hall to make sure Bloggers Corner remained staffed. Tom Bevan, John Hinderaker, and I sat with the North Carolina delegation to see John McCain speak on behalf of President Bush, in a speech that has been highly anticipated ever since Kerry's abortive run at McCain for running mate boosted the Arizona Senator's credibility among both parties.

McCain did not disappoint. I supported McCain in 2000, and while he's a bit stiff at the podium, his gentle voice played well in invoking the tragedy of 9/11 -- a subject that the Democrats avoided in their convention, and one which they will protest the Republicans using in New York. However, how can they avoid it? It would be akin to a failure to mention the elephant in the living room. The terrorist attack on 9/11 was the single worst foreign-based attack in our history, and the response to this vicious act of war should be fair game for reviewing the performance of George Bush.

The Democrats want to attack Bush for taking on Iraq -- and McCain had something to say about that as well -- but the Democrats do not want people to understand Iraq in the context of 9/11. Iraq not only was a critical piece of the overall war on Islamofascist terror for geographical and political reasons, but also for clear military reasons. After 9/11, we cannot afford to wait for known threats to develop into imminent danger. Even the 9/11 Commission recognized this, and at one point scolded members of the current national-security team in public hearings for not invading Afghanistan in January 2001, even though the 9/11 plot had moved outside of Afghanistan long before that.

McCain focused on 9/11 during his entire speech, and thanks to John Kerry's earlier courtship, McCain has the credibility to speak to it. In fact, he is only second in that credibility to Rudy Giuliani, who lived through it at Ground Zero, and who spoke later. McCain had a number of ovation-garnering quotes, but what struck me more was the obvious passion and commitment that he communicated to the American people about the necessity of fighting this war:

It's a fight between a just regard for human dignity and a malevolent force that defiles an honorable religion by disputing God's love for every soul on earth. It's a fight between right and wrong, good and evil. ...

Like all wars, this one will have its ups and downs. But we must fight. We must.

McCain tried reaching out across the aisle to Democrats in his speech, talking about the similarities in our philosophies in order to reduce the partisan rancor that threatens our war effort. He gave them the benefit of the doubt and honored their intentions and even agreed with their policy goals, to a point:

My friends in the Democratic Party -- and I'm fortunate to call many of them my friends -- assure us they share the conviction that winning the war against terrorism is our government's most important obligation.

I don't doubt their sincerity.

They emphasize that military action alone won't protect us, that this war has many fronts: in courts, financial institutions, in the shadowy world of intelligence, and in diplomacy. They stress that America needs the help of her friends to combat an evil that threatens us all, that our alliances are as important to victory as are our armies.

We agree.

And, as we've been a good friend to other countries in moments of shared perils, so we have good reason to expect their solidarity with us in this struggle. That is what the President believes.

And, thanks to his efforts we have received valuable assistance from many good friends around the globe, even if we have, at times, been disappointed with the reactions of some.

I don't doubt the sincerity of my Democratic friends. And they should not doubt ours.

But McCain didn't hesistate to go on the offense with the lunatic-fringe quotient of the Democrats, the hard left that started off supporting Howard Dean. McCain specifically took on the very large target of Michael Moore in a moment that threatened to bring the house down with roars of approval from the Republican delegates. In an unscripted moment, he made an allusion to a "disingenuous filmmaker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace" -- you won't find that in his prepared remarks -- referring to the kite-flying children's paradise that Moore portrayed in his film, Fahrenheit 9/11. Fox News reported that Moore (a credentialed media representative here) reveled in the attention, "thrusting his arms upwards" and calling McCain "dumb" afterwards.

This ... is the face of today's Democrats.

McCain finished strongly as he built up to a crescendo at the end of his speech, exhorting the delegates and Americans across the country to keep fighting until victory is assured:

But remember we are not enemies, but comrades in a war against a real enemy, and take courage from the knowledge that our military superiority is matched only by the superiority of our ideals, and our unconquerable love for them.

Our adversaries are weaker than us in arms and men, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity. We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible. Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong.

Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight.

We're Americans.

We're Americans, and we'll never surrender.

They will.

McCain delivered one of the most stirring speeches I've heard in this election cycle, and I'm glad he's on our side. It's just a shame that you missed it if you don't get C-SPAN.

The Kerry Conundrum Squeezes North Carolina Governor

Last night before John McCain took the floor, I had an opportunity to spend a few minutes with Warren Cooksey, Vice Chairman of the Mecklenburg County Republican Party and an alternate to North Carolina's delegation. He noticed that I was a blogger, and after introducing myself, Warren proclaimed himself a new but devoted fan to Captain's Quarters. Naturally, this helped our conversation!

I asked Warren about the selection of John Edwards as Kerry's running mate and whether that would have an impact on the state in the presidential race. Bush won North Carolina by 13 points in 2000, but that had narrowed considerably this year until just recently, due to the economic conditions in the state. Warren feels that Edwards would have no effect on the outcome in his home state, although it had seemed to give Kerry a little momentum earlier, if you read the polls. As analysts outside of the state have predicted, Edwards doesn't have much popularity at home.

Warren also filled me in on a problem that Kerry and the Democrats will have in the Tar Heel State. Democratic Governor Michael Easley has to run for re-election this year in a state that has had its share of economic issues and recovered slower than the nation as a whole. The Republican challenger, Patrick Ballantine, has pressed Easley on economics. In order to win re-election, Easley will have to convince voters that the state economy is sound and improving.

That sets up a serious problem of dissonance with the national Democratic campaign. John Kerry has emphasized his economic policies as a cure for the supposed national economic failure of Bush, all evidence to the contrary. When Kerry and Edwards stump through North Carolina, their speeches will talk about economic injustice, joblessness, and poverty -- all of the things that Easley has been trying to de-emphasize in order to promote his management of the state during his term.

Easley obviously will be spending all of his time in his state, while Kerry and Edwards may get back for a day or two each month, which means that Easley's message of economic success will keep battering the national ticket's contravening message of despair. Warren feels, as do other analysts, that the resulting cognitive dissonance will sinply turn people off of the Democrats altogether (although two weeks ago, Easley enjoyed a substantial lead over Ballantine).

Bottom line, and one emphasized by polling late in August, John Edwards can't win North Carolina for John Kerry. And if that's the case, one has to wonder why Kerry chose Edwards over someone with more experience, like Dick Gephardt, who could have made a big difference in a true battleground state. It's yet another example of John Kerry's poor judgement that voters nationwide should consider before pulling the levers in November.

Technical Problems Resolved, CQ Back 'On Air'

Talk about being a victim of your own success! If you tried accessing Captain's Quarters last night between midnight and 2 AM ET, you probably got a 509 error saying that I had exceeded my bandwidth allotment. Well, I had -- by an order of about six times. In the past month, CQ has far outgrown the particular plan that I have at Hosting Matters, one of the lower-traffic plans at that. Unfortunately, the system notices these kinds of things, and last night it did its job.

Any other time, I'd take this as a sign from God that I've been working too hard and need a day off. However, I'm sure you can understand the raw panic that flowed through my veins when I tried posting from my hotel room last night and got the same error you saw. Frantic e-mails were sent in all directions to Hosting Matters, offering to pay in gold and silver to get my service restored. Annette, one of the many outstanding people behing Hosting Matters, swooped into action -- I swear you could hear the air rush into the vacuum she left behind her -- and not only lifted the block on my account but did an emergency upgrade that is eminently reasonable, especially considering the pounding their servers took from CQ traffic this month.

Some of you have asked me about blogging, its cost, and how to get started. Hosting Matters offers top-notch webhosting services, and more importanly, tailors itself to the needs of bloggers. (We're an odd and cranky bunch.) You can get hosting plans for as little as $6 a month, plus have people like Annette in your corner when you need someone. Many of the largest blogs already host at Hosting Matters, and as far as I'm concerned, so should all the rest.

Anyway, we're back on the air, and I will catch up to the events from yesterday and last night.

Our Visit With Miss America

You almost have to picture this as a moment of high irony, but the current Miss America, Erika Harold, paid a visit to Bloggers Corner. Why a beautiful and intelligent young woman (as we soon discovered Erika to be) would want to hang out with the computer geeks escapes me, but she gave us a delightful and insightful interview that completely negates any preconceptions about beauty-pageant contestants you ever held.

Erika spoke at length about her battle to speak out about abstinence as a major part of her Miss America mission to reduce the spread of HIV and other diseases, especially in lower-income schools. Erika told us that individuals within the Miss America program became uncomfortable with her approach, taking care to avoid any hint of controversy. However, Erika stuck to her guns, showing the mettle she will need when she starts her first term next week at Harvard Law School as she turns over her crown to the next winner.

I think I can speak for everyone when I say that while Erika's beauty and grace impressed us all at first -- you never saw our group move so quickly to an interview -- her ideals and her commitment to her values impressed us even more. When asked who she supported in the upcoming election, she emphasized that she supported the President because he shared her values in terms of faith, respect for life, and providing educational choices for less-fortunate children. She spoke with passion about a policy-wonk issue like No Child Left Behind, explaining the importance of Bush's message to these children. Bush, she said, makes it clear that they mean something to him, and to all of us, a message that they haven't heard before.

Erika will speak to the convention tomorrow at 8:42 PM ET. The networks will likely not carry convention coverage until just after she speaks, which seems like it suits Erika just fine, but do yourself a favor and tune in on C-SPAN to watch this remarkable young woman. You may as well do it now; you'll be hearing big things from Erika Harold in the future.

Blog Conference: Ari Fleischer

The bloggers have been assisted by the RNC to bring newsmakers by Bloggers Corner in order to answer questions, and earlier in the day we spoke with former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer. The bloggers here have defaulted to an understanding that the guests which all of us want to interview participate in a blogger press conference, where we all toss out questions and we transcribe the answers. This is why you're not seeing ID on the questions; at CQ, I'm treating everyone (including myself) as a generic interviewer. You can hear the audio of these interviews on Blogs For Bush, as Matt Margolis posts them.

Q: Is it a relief to be out of the spokesman job?

A: There are times I miss it. Times like this, when you get the big moments like when the president went to Baghdad, I would have really loved to go to that. But by and large, I'm really happy just raising a family and making my choice in the private sector. Working in the White House is the most wonderful job you can imagine, but it also wears you out.

Q: Can you give us what you see in the difference between how the press is handling John Kerry's Viet Nam narrative, as opposed to the Bush AWOL that buried us in the early spring and late winter?

A: Well ... I think that the press likes nothing more than a big controversy, and I think that some things are inherently more controversial when they affect Republicans than when they affect Democrats. Having said that, the press was very tough on Bill Clinton on a different public issue. They can be tough on both parties, no dount about it, but I think there are some differences that have emerged.

Q: Are you back in the saddle again? Are you here to help out the campaign?

A: I'm here because I believe in President Bush. I'm here in no formal capacity, and I'm proud to be here.

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I'm writing a book, which will come out early next year, about the White House, the press, and my time in Washington, called Taking Heat. [Laughter] And, you know, I work with a couple of clients on public-relations issues and making speeches.

Q: What's President Bush like to work for?

A: I thought President Bush was the most uplifting, warm boss that you can ever imagine having. His pat on the back is as hard as his kick in the butt. You don't ever want to let him down, because he treats his staff so well, he is so good to be around. He has the greatest sense of humor, good nature, and when you're the President, you really want to work hard on someone's behalf because there's nothing more important. He's a wonderful man who works well.

I think that's why you see such longetivity among his top staff, which is unusual for the White House staff to work as long as they have. [unintelligible] You don't find that in a modern presidency any more. Karl Rove, Jan Bartlett, Scott McClelland, Judge Gonzalez, Harriet Myers, Josh Bolton. You don't find this much anymore in a presidency. It's a tribute to the person at the top. It doesn't matter what party you are, it's human nature. He's a wonderful boss and a wonderful man.

Q: I see three options for the Swiftboat Vet controversy.

A: Yes.

Q: One, to come out and say something mildly positive about them. Obviously, they don't want to put any [unintelligible]. Two, to stay with the current dodge, you know, we deplore all 527s. Everyone knows what that really means ... Three, agree with McCain.

A: I thing Scott's been saying it exactly right. Scott and the President have been saying the same thing. The President condemns all these kind of ads. You can look "all" up in the book. It's all-inclusive.

Q: Well, people are saying they're untrue, not just that they're 527s. When you condemn all 527 ads, people say "liars" or worse. Is there a difference, or --

A: Well, you know how many ads attacked the President. I don't know about the 2004 election, but in the 2000 election they had a lot of things that crossed the line. And I don't remember a lot of outrage about that.

Q: How do you think the President's been handling himself on this campaign?

A: I think great. The main job is still to lead the country as the President, and part of that obviously is to get a feel for the voters. They want to re-elect him, that's what he's doing. Things start to feel good, now that there's a little momentum coming into the convention.

(more as I transcribe it)

Ken Mehlman on John Kerry: The Rip Van Winkel Campaign

Ken Mehlman of the Bush campaign stopped off at Bloggers Corner for a quick chat with us. I dropped into the middle of the conversation, in time to catch this priceless description of Kerry's run from his Senate record:

Here's the thing. If you spent the last 20 years raising taxes, voting 350 times for higher taxes, and you spent the last 20 years voting against the weapons systems that were the key to winning the cold war, that are key to winning the war on terror, you missed three out of four Intelligence Committee meetings, then voted to pull $5 billion out of intelligence, when you say that a girl in school need parental consent to get [unintellible] but not for an abortion -- if that's your record, you'd also run from it.

From the beginning, their campaign has been the one where the last 20 years didn't happen, [they're] going to talk about 35 years ago, because you can't defend the last 20 years. It's the Rip Van Winkel campaign - they've been asleep for the past 20 years.

So far, that's the Quote Of The Day here at Madison Square Garden.

Typekey Registration Now Required

Unfortunately, the spammers have discovered Captain's Quarters along with a bunch of great new readers looking for convention coverage. I have required Typekey registration for comments entry. This will be in effect for the week of the convention, and possibly longer than that.

Sorry for the inconvenience, but I have to either do this or shut down comments altogether.

Mayor Koch Visits Blogger's Corner

Former New York Mayor and "lifelong Democrat" Ed Koch paid a visit to Blogger's Corner and spoke about his support of George Bush. The mayor started off informally by asking us whether we would consider his weekly e-mail columns to be the equivalent of blogging, which we unanimously rejected. We think he'll be blogging in the next couple of months.

The mayor took a few questions from the collected RNC bloggers, which I will do my best to transcribe in this noisy environment:

Q: You came out for Bush early on in this race, Mayor.

A: 2002.

Q: Why so early?

A: I believe I was the first to use the term "Bush Doctrine" in my commentary ... I don't agree with him on any domestic issues, taxes, Social Security, abortion, you name it ...

Q: Education?

A: Maybe education, although I think he's underfunded it. But I said, all of the issues are trumped by standing up to and dealing with international terrorism. That is the Bush doctrine, which he enunciated when he came before Congress, that he would go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. ... Now, the Democrats don't have the stomach for this. It's regrettable, because I'm a Democrat. I believe I represent more Democrats than Senator Kennedy or a whole host of other people like him. ... He's done good things in his life, but he doesn't represent the heart and soul of the Democratic party ... [Senator Kennedy] is an arch ultra-liberal! ... The party has been taken over by the Deaniacs, which is what the media called them, not me ...

John Kerry got their vote when they realized that Dean couldn't win, and he [Kerry] tells them what they want to hear. First he voted for the authorization for the war against Iraq, he stood up and he supported it. And then when he went to the various conventions to get delegate support, he changed his point of view! And he said that he had been misled! ... Then when he was more recently asked what he would have done if he knew then what we know now, he said he still would have voted for the war. So who do you believe? Which John Kerry? The one who talked to the Deaniacs and said he was sorry that he cast his vote for the war? Or the one who more recently said, "I would have done it anyway"? ...

Q: I'm a New Yorker, and saying that you support President Bush because of his stand on the war on terror makes perfect sense to me. Are you disappointed that more New Yorkers don't share that view?

A: New York is an ultraliberal town. How I ever got elected in New York, I've never been able to figure out. [Laughter.] It was always the primaries where I had my struggle, and then when I went into the general election, I would get 75% of the vote, 78% of the vote. Everybody voted for me, irrespective of party. I would say this -- I love New York. I love every one of the crazies.

Q: John Kerry says he wants to wage a more sensitive war on terror. What kind of message do you think that sends?

A: [crosstalk] What is a sensitive war? I don't know what that means. [Laughter] They -- the fundamentalist fanatics, not all Muslims -- but hundreds of millions of them want to kill us. I don't want to be killed. And I'd rather kill them, over there, than have our people killed over here. The Christians, the Jews, the Hindus -- all the people who don't accept Islam as supreme -- the people who follow Islam have made Osama bin Laden the most popular figure in all of Islam. In all of Islam! I saw a figure, what 99% of Muslims supports Osama. I don't know, I read that.

Q: Do you think there's a need to form a third party today?

A: I'm a Democrat. I was born a Democrat, and I'm going to die a Democrat. I've voted overwhelmingly for Democrats. I've crossed party lines before. Never for a Republican president. I did for mayor -- I voted for Lindsay, I voted for Giuliani ... You know, I'm 80 years old. I don't want anything from anybody. I'm never running for anything again. I dont want to be mayor again. I love being a partner in my law firm. ... I want to do what's right for the people of the United States.

Q: All the Democrats say --

A: Who cares?

Q: You don't care?

A: I will tell you this ... I got four letters. That's all. I got four letters [protesting his endorsement of Bush] and when I answered them, I said I served in public life for 23 years. Councilman, Congressman, and Mayor. I think I know a lot about public affairs. I spent my life doing it. Don't I have the same right as you have to make a decision as to whom I will support? Now we don't agree. I doubt that I will be able to convince you, I know you won't agree with me, but can't you respect my decision? And I got a letter back saying, "Yes." This was from someone who had written me a miserable, rotten letter. ... [Laughter] I've got nothing to lose.

Q: I've been a New Yorker for 10 years, and I'm a Republican. Is this convention "here today, gone tomorrow"? Do you see any lasting effect from the convention?

A: What do you mean?

Q: Do you see this as a Republican party-building exercise?

A: No. New York won't go Republican. Look, I'm a lifelong Democrat. Normally, I want to vote for the Democrat.

(more as I transcribe it)

Inside Blogger's Corner

We're busy setting up our connections here on Blogger's Corner and having the normal IS issues experienced by anyone who uses LANs. The convention is making their best efforts to get the problems straightened out, but in the meantime I've found a wireless portal that works for the moment. Right now I'm sharing a table with some pretty impressive bloggers -- Kevin Aylward from Wizbang, Matt Margolis from Blogs For Bush, and Scott Sala from Slant Point.

I already caught up with Generalissimo Duane and we're sitting directly across from the Salem booth. I've met Tony Snow from Fox, who immediately recognized my name -- which floored me. I'll report later on the breakfast with Matthew Dowd and the interesting speech and Q & A we had this morning.

The Calm Before The Storm

I had an opportunity to get out on the street early this morning when I went downstairs to get a much-needed cup of coffee to bolster my blogging. I took a few pictures that were necessarily a bit fuzzy, as the light was still pretty faint and the flash resulted in poor illumination of the scenery.

You can see the calm on the streets that likely will be absent during the day today, as more traffic and protests will jam the sidewalks around the convention site. The first picture is from the hotel looking down 33rd, and has the Empire State Building in the background. You can see that the street itself is completely barricaded:

This picture is straight across from the Hotel Pennsylvania, where they're allowing vehicle traffic for the moment. I expect this to be barricaded later on today:

In order to get in and out of the protected area, I have to show my photo ID and my room key at all times. They are serious about securing this event, and believe me, it's comforting.

Kerry's Voting Record Reflects The Prevailing Wind More Than Conviction

Today's National Journal daily (no web link) reports on its ratings becoming a talking point in this election cycle, due to the top rating that John Kerry received for his voting record last year. In an experience that NJ reporter Charles Green calls "disconcerting," Journal editors have heard George Bush and Dick Cheney use the rating on the campaign trail, without giving the context of how the ratings are compiled, although the context hardly casts glory on the Massachussetts senator:

When the tabulations came in for 2003, John Kerry had the highest composite liberal score of any senator.

But there was an asterisk. As with other lawmakers who were running for president, Kerry missed a lot of votes in 2003 -- 37 of the 62 that were being used in the vote ratings. He didn't vote often enough to merit scores in the social policy and foreign affairs categories. (Under our system, a member has to participate in at least half the votes in the category to receive a score in that category.) He did cast enough votes (19 of 32) in the economic category to get a rating. On those votes, Kerry took the "liberal" position every time [emph mine - CE].

It's interesting to me, although Green never mentions it, that even though Kerry missed a number of votes, he always returned to vote on those bills on which he voted the liberal position, especially on economics. It demonstrates that Kerry may show flexibility on legislation when as a matter of conducting business, but when he really feels the need to cast a vote on a bill, he only appears to be motivated by those on which he holds the most extreme views.

The Journal argues that one year is not enough to draw on, and they put together a chart of Kerry's annual rating from the journal since 1985, his first year in the Senate. Kerry's annual rating ranges from 96.5 (2003) to 76.7 (2000). In fact, when averaging their scores over the tenure of Kerry's service, Kerry comes in 11th among active senators, behing such luminaries as Ted Kennedy, Paul Sarbanes, and our own Mark Dayton, who tops the list. (No surprise there.) However, the Journal missed an interesting trend in Kerry's record, one that became apparent to me when they showed his individual scores. Here's a chart showing Kerry's liberal voting tendencies, by year, according to the National Journal:

1985.....91.8
1986.....93.5
1987.....81.7
1988.....93.0
1989.....79.5
1990.....92.7
1991.....85.8
1992.....80.7
1993.....83.2
1994.....80.4
1995.....78.2
1996.....84.5
1997.....85.2
1998.....86.8
1999.....82.8
2000.....76.7
2001.....87.7
2002.....87.3
2003.....96.5

Do you see the trend? Kerry voted more liberally when a Republican was in the White House than during the Clinton administration, an interesting insight into Kerry's leadership qualities and the attempt to take the center during the last Democratic administration. Kerry's ratings during the Reagan and both Bush administrations average out to 88.2, which would have placed Kerry seventh all time, just below Barbara Boxer. His ratings during the Clinton administration averaged 82.225, placing him 17th. Either rating, by the way, places him among the most liberal third of the Democratic contingent in the Senate.

Kerry seems to lack the courage of his convictions, preferring to tote the party line rather than remain consistent in practice. This, combined with a stunning lack of legislative accomplishment despite his seniority, really speaks against trusting him with the executive office he seeks.

Takin' It To The Streets

The New York Times reports on what I missed with my late arrival yesterday, the day before the opening of the Republican National Convention, but the unnerving effects of having a half-million people in the street certainly accounts for the tension I felt on my arrival:

A roaring two-mile river of demonstrators surged through the canyons of Manhattan yesterday in the city's largest political protest in decades, a raucous but peaceful spectacle that pilloried George W. Bush and demanded regime change in Washington.

On a sweltering August Sunday, the huge throng of protesters marched past Madison Square Garden, the site of the Republican National Convention opening today, and denounced President Bush as a misfit who had plunged America into war and runaway debt, undermined civil and constitutional rights, lied to the people, despoiled the environment and used the presidency to benefit corporations and millionaires.

The protest organizer, United for Peace and Justice, estimated the crowd at 500,000, rivaling a 1982 antinuclear rally in Central Park, and double the number it had predicted. It was, at best, a rough estimate. The Police Department, as is customary, offered no official estimate, but one officer in touch with the police command center at Madison Square Garden agreed that the crowd appeared to be close to a half-million.

Robert McFadden glosses it up just a bit when he calls it "peaceful", as the police department had to contend with protestors throwing ball bearings and marbles onto the street where their mounted units deployed, and spot incidents of violence occurred along the two-mile protest. Later on, of course, the hard-core protestors that couldn't be satisfied with merely marching had to come back for more:

After the march, hundreds of protesters in a more belligerent mood made their way to Times Square and blocked the entrances of two Midtown hotels, while another group harassed Republican guests at a party at the Boathouse restaurant in Central Park. ... At a news conference last night, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said there had been about 200 arrests, mostly for disorderly conduct, though nine people were charged with felony assaults on officers who were seizing a 10th suspect for setting a small fire outside the Garden, and 15 members of an anarchist group called Black Block were arrested after they knocked down police barriers and hurled bottles at police lines at 34th Street and Avenue of the Americas.

What we have here is the last gasp of the people who have been proven wrong by history over and over again -- and I think they know it. United for Peace and Justice, as McFadden reports, organized nuclear-freeze protests all during Reagan's terms in office, attempting to achieve peace through appeasement. (Hugh Hewitt noted last night that counterprotestors should carry pictures of Neville Chamberlain, but at least Chamberlain finally learned from events.) The anarchists likely participated in the Seattle-WTO protests last decade, and they still insist on protested free trade even though it helped advance the American and world economy for more than a decade now.

Now we have all of the foaming political Luddite masses in one place here in New York, and the nation can see what they represent -- a retreat not just to September 10th, but a return to isolationism and protectionism that died with the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Most of the protestors were born into a world defined by American power, as I was. Unfortunately, most of them have never studied the history of the world before that, where international power vacuums encouraged by the illusions of "internatoinal law" promoted by weak multilateral organizations led to chaos, war, genocide, and the deaths of tens of millions of people.

I'm sure I'll see plenty more of the chaotic and barely peaceful protests while I'm here. I'll bring you pictures of anything that comes up, but I can tell you that nearby the hotel and Madison Square Garden, the NYPD are on the job and not taking anything for granted. In fact, after further reflection, the two most welcoming people in my long odyssey last night were the young officers on the barricades who kept me from getting to the hotel but took the time to chat with me about the city they obviously love.

Several Unfunny Things Happened To Me On The Way To The Forum

NEW YORK CITY, 10:56 PM ET: I have finally eaten dinner on what had to have been one of the longest and most frustrating travel days in my life. The fact that I'm blogging is in itself a minor miracle.

Earlier today, while I was airport blogging about the vacuity of Dan Rather, I received a very kind and generous e-mail from two CQ readers (husband & wife) who wanted to make a large donation for the trip but had been stymied by the Amazon system. They wanted to pay for part of my hotel room instead, so I told them where I was staying. Fortunately I was on line when I got a reply. They had called the hotel and found out that they'd canceled my reservation -- and the airport had just announced preboarding for my flight.

I got on my cell phone and called the Hotel Pennsylvania's reservation desk to find out what the hell happened. They informed me that since I had not shown up for Saturday night, my reservation had been cancelled. I informed them that I had called Saturday morning and confirmed my reservation, starting Sunday night August 29th through Friday morning. After a long and tense conversation, the manager finally stepped in and reinstated my reservation just as I boarded the plane.

The flight was mostly uneventful, and we landed at JFK in Queens at about 6:15 ET. I had dinner plans with several other bloggers at a Brazilian restaurant in Manhattan for 8, and I knew I'd be pushing it no matter what. I made my only mistake at this point and called a SuperShuttle rather than a cab or a limo, which would have taken me right to the hotel. Instead, I got bundled in with several other travelers coming into Manhattan, including a nice Minnesota college graduate who is moving to the East Village to work in the apparel business. It took until 8:30 for the driver to drop me off, and thanks to the street closings around Madison Square Garden and the Hotel Pennsylvania, he dropped me off two blocks from the hotel.

Tonight is warm and just a bit muggy but not bad walking weather, so I cheerfully set out to walk the last bit. Several police officers cheerfully stopped me and asked for my ID and proof of my hotel reservation, and since I didn't print out my e-mail (who knew?), they would not let me pass. I called the hotel on my cell phone and asked them to send someone down to rescue me. The two young NYPD officers were complete gentlemen, keeping me company with small talk and pointing out some of the landmarks from 33rd and 6th. After a half-hour, I started to think that help was not on its way, and called the hotel again. They told me that the PD wouldn't let them come down that way to get me, but the other end of the hotel was open to street traffic and that I could walk down to 34th and come in on 7th.

So off I trudged.

After finally arriving at the hotel, I made a beeline for the desk, thinking I could still make it for drinks if I hurried. When I try to check in, of course, no one could find my reservation. The manager had to come out and get it straight, which took no griping from me, and I went up to my room, exhausted. The first thing I wanted to do was to access my e-mail so I could find out where the group was planning to go for drinks ... and that's when I'd discovered that my room had no Internet access.

Bear in mind that the entire point of my being here is to blog the convention, and you'll get an idea of the desperation I felt at this point.

I call the desk, who connects me to someone else, and the conversation goes like this:

Me: I don't have an RJ-45 connector in my room.
Helpful and Concerned Hotel Employee: Uh-huh.
Me: How do I get Internet access?
HCHE: You can use dial-up.
Me: No I can't, I don't have a dial-up account. I'm staying here because you have high-speed Internet access.
HCHE: We only have DSL on two floors, sir.
Me: Then move me to another floor.
HCHE: We don't have any more rooms available, sir. You can use the WebTV system in your room if you want to access the Internet.
Me: I need to use my laptop.
HCHE: The WebTV is the only high-speed Internet access you can get from your room.
Me: How much is that to use? [The high-speed access is $10/day.]
HCHE: Five dollars.
Me: A day?
HCHE: For thirty minutes.
Me: Let me speak to your manager.

After repeating much the same conversation with the manager, I finally blew up and said, "The Republican National Committee invited me here to report on the convention, which requires me to have Internet access. I suspect that they reserved me a room with it, which I probably had until you guys cancelled my reservation on me."

They moved me to another room, and a nicer one at that, and so I'm blogging now. However, I will be hitting the sack in a few minutes so I can get up early for the bloggers' breakfast tomorrow -- otherwise I won't get my credential, and I'll spend my week being the chew toy for Gunther The Killer Canine Officer instead of bringing you the best of the RNC.

I should have a better day tomorrow, because Lord knows, it'll be hard to top this one.

Dan Rather Reports The Non-News

Even before I get to the Republican convention -- I'm blogging from the Humphrey Terminal at Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport -- I'm discovering how useless the mainstream media will be at this convention. Drudge links back to what could be described as Dan Rather's blog, and he manages to make it even more content-free than his news broadcasts. As an example, here's the first entry for Rather today at his Convention Journal site:

Not much of it, really. Only a few people besides workmen inside the hall. Among the few who were there, the most popular topic of conversation was whether President Bush might surprise and announce during the convention that Vice President Cheney would not be running with him this year.

This rumor has swirled around a bit from time to time throughout the year, the chatter being that Mr. Bush would prefer to run with Sen. John McCain – or maybe Rudy Giuliani – and will sooner or later find a way to do it.

Now that would be stunning news -- President Bush reversing himself on the status of Dick Cheney after insisting for months that he would never dump Cheney from the ticket. If Rather broke that story, he could face his oncoming retirement knowing he went out on top. It might even be enough to knock the Republicans off their winning stride and change the face of the election, a result in which Rather would especially delight.

So what does he have as sources for this new lead?

No one can be found inside the Bush-Cheney campaign who does anything but scoff at this. That, of course, doesn't keep people from musing about it and some were today, but none of them were anywhere near in a position to know anything.

They were just shooting the bull.

Dan Rather and CBS News -- they're on top of all the news that isn't.

His next item manages to be even less exciting than merely repeating an old and discredited rumor from people who don't have any access to decision-makers. He spends five paragraphs of text explaining that CBS News uses six analysts to determine whether the Republicans will get a bounce out of this convention. The analysts come up with the following possibilities:

1. Bush will get a significant bounce.
2. Bush will get no bounce at all.
3. Bush may lose a point or two.

If you want more of this cutting political analysis, be sure to keep your eyes on CBS. Oh, and please remember that the November election will be on November 9th this year.

Happy First Blogiversary To QandO

Before it was a triumvirate, the essential neolibertarian blog QandO started out as a Blogspot site with just a single blogger, Jon Henke. Today he celebrates his first blogiversary, having started just about five weeks before I did. Jon, and his partners Dale Franks and McQ, have spent that year building QandO into a tremendous voice for political and economic thought. It's on my list of daily must-reads (especially after they made it Mozilla-friendly). If you aren't reading QandO regularly, clear some time to do so. You won't be sorry.

Happy blogiversary to three esteemed colleagues, one of whom has been a tremendous blog-friend and a source of support and inspiration for me. The best is yet to come, Jon!

Captain's Caption Contest #25: Watch Your Back Edition

It's Friday, so it must be time for another edition of the Captain's Caption Contest! We're about to come into the home stretch of the presidential campaign, where tempers get short and stress begins to show. And that's just among the talking heads at CNBC! Just imagine what it's like for the actual candidates. In fact, you don't need to imagine at all:

Guest judging the contest this week will be Bear, a CQ reader and commenter who sent me a slew of pics this week and all of them could have worked. As always, put your best caption entries in the comments section -- NO e-mail, please! (E-mailed entries will be typed as journal entries at Sa Dec and run across the Cambodian border in a magic hat.) The contest will remain open until noon Sunday [my travel day to New York!], August 29th, at which point the comments will be closed and Bear will pick the winners.

In the meantime, if you enjoy the contests and the blog, consider dropping in a donation for Captain's Quarters trip to New York as a credentialed blogger at the Republican National Convention. (And huge thanks to all who have already contributed!) Just click on one of the buttons below and donate whatever you can to the cause -- all donations are cheerfully and gratefully accepted!

Let the games begin!

BUMP 8/28: I think we've already broken a record for entries, and we're only halfway through the contest period! Bear, hope you don't mind being buried in work Sunday afternoon ...

COMMENTS CLOSED: About 25 minutes early, but I have to shut down for the trip to New York. Big record this week for the Caption Contest -- 220 entries! Best of luck to Bear in picking the winners ...

Power Line Fights Back

Last week, Scott Johnson and John Hinderaker of Power Line wrote an op-ed piece in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune detailing their frustration with the local and national coverage given to the deconstruction of John Kerry's Viet Nam narrative. They specifically focused on the Christmas In Cambodia fable, which even the Kerry campaign now has retracted, and factually refuted it point by point.

The Strib's editorial board responded in an editorial written by Jim Boyd that called Scott and John "fraudulent" and spewed a lot of vitriol abut the two being part of the "Republican smear machine" -- but actually conceded their central point, calling it a "niggling criticism". If so, then they must be the first fraudulent smear machine that operated by spreading the truth. Scott and John respond in today's Strib after reaching an unusual agreement with the editorial board to be allowed to respond to Boyd's vicious personal attack on the Strib's editorial pages:

First, the basics. We wrote that the Kerry campaign has retracted Kerry's oft-told tale of being in Cambodia on Christmas 1968. Boyd did not dispute this. We wrote that there is no record of John Kerry being in Cambodia in December 1968, or at any other time. Boyd did not dispute this. We wrote that Kerry's commanding officers have denied that he was ever sent into Cambodia. Boyd did not dispute this. We wrote that not a single crewman who ever served with Kerry has supported Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia, and several crewmen have denied that their boat was ever in Cambodia. Boyd did not dispute this. We wrote that there is no record of Swift boats being used for clandestine missions as claimed by Kerry. Boyd did not dispute this. We wrote that Swift boats were unsuited for such secret missions, given their large size and noise. Boyd did not dispute this.

Gosh, for fraudulent smear artists, we seem to be doing pretty well. Given that he didn't deny any of our main points, what did Boyd have to say? Most importantly, he alleged that Kerry was in Cambodia, but it was in January 1969, not December 1968. Thus, Boyd wrote, ours is an "accurate but niggling criticism." Of course, there is no more evidence for Kerry being in Cambodia in January 1969 than in December 1968.

But when Kerry told his famous story to the Senate in 1986 -- the story that he says was "seared -- seared" into his memory, he was very specific about the timing of his life-altering experience. It was Christmas 1968, and he heard President Richard Nixon denying that we had troops in Cambodia while he himself had been sent there. It was this experience, he said, that caused him to lose his faith in the American government.

We pointed out that Kerry's account was obviously false, since Nixon was not president in December 1968. Boyd responded that Nixon was then president-elect, so Kerry's "discrepancy" was "understandable." Obviously, however, a president-elect was in no position to assure the American people that there were no troops in Cambodia.

It's well worth noting that Power Line challenged Jim Boyd to debate them in an open forum at our first State Fair appearance, in front of a live audience, in order to put the entire issue to rest and hopefully to part respectfully, if not in friendship. Scott and John issued a number of requests to Boyd to do this, both by e-mail and on their blog. Boyd did not deign to respond to their requests, and the seat we reserved for him at the booth sat empty the entire three hours.

Some people, it seems, lack the courage to back up their venomous words with action. It's the mark of a bully that they slink away when discovering they're outmatched.

The Vicious Circle Of The 21st Century

Normally on the day before I travel, I do my best to get to bed early, sometimes start to pack the night before, and get plenty of rest for the upcoming day. However, last night I had an opportunity to spend an evening with a group of tremendously intelligent and opinionated gentlemen at James Lileks' Jasperwood estate, with Hugh Hewitt as the honored guest. A dozen bloggers had a smoker and debated politics, blogs, pop culture, and just about every topic imaginable (including the ethics of trivia contests) under the cool skies of south Minneapolis with as much passion and humor as any round-table I've ever experienced.

In fact, it's easy to feel outclassed when you're surrounded by this all-star lineup of bloggers and pundits: Hugh, James, Generalissimo Duane, Scott "Big Trunk" Johnson, Mitch Berg, King Banaian, The Elder and Saint Paul from Fraters Libertas, The One Big Swede, The Crazy Uke, Chumley Wonderbar, David Strom, and Long Suffering Jay Larson. Instead of putting in an appearance for an hour or so and begging off, as was my original plan, we all stayed past midnight, scaring the neighbors of Jasperwood with our conservative debate and the heaping of scorn on the likes of Jm Boyd, John Kerry, Chris Matthews, and so on.

It seems to me that just as the nascent print media in the 20's produced the Algonquin Round Table, made famous primarily by the writings of Dorothy Parker, so has the new media of the new century produced loose associations such as the Northern Alliance and evenings like last night. This evening covered much more than just the mechanics of blogging and intramural gossip; we debated national and international issues, always with a sense of humor, but using arguments that I'm sure will find their way into our blogs over the next few weeks.

And what struck me was the egalitarian nature of the entire discussion. The group split into two or three ever-changing discussions, with people migrating from one to the other with an ease that struck me as very telling about either the breadth of knowledge each member had or their ability to fake it, either one of which (or both) was impressive. Once in a while I thought to myself that the conversation was surely scaling down, and someone would toss in a completely unrelated question, and the energy would flood back into the debate as everyone weighed it with responses and supporting arguments.

It was one hell of a good time, and when I finally dragged myself out of Jasperwood, drunk on the chance of spending an evening with intellectual heavyweights but otherwise stone-cold sober, I could not believe that four hours had passed. Unfortunately, it ate up the rest of my blogging time last night and this morning -- and I have to get ready for my early-afternoon flight. I will try to post a few pictures from our live show at the Minnesota State Fair yesterday, and then I'll be back late tonight to catch up on the news.

Thanks, James and Hugh, for a wonderful evening.