When the television talking heads are constantly repeating Republican talking points and you are feeling down, there is no one better than the nation's foremost political analyst to set things straight. Tonight--on this evening of Schwarzenegger and the Bush ladies, when the media was so overcome by the all of the Republican "moderates" who dominate the party--tonight is the best time to read a little bit of Charlie Cook to get some real prospective on things.

In today's column for The National Journal, Cook explains that although there has been some movement in the polls away from Kerry (perhaps 2 or 3 points) towards the President (a point or two), the race has not shifted as dramatically as some would have you think. (You might remember that a few weeks ago Cook was equally skeptical that the brief post-convention shift to Kerry would hold--and he was right then).

As Cook explains it, the major cause of this small movement in the campaign is the focus on the Swiftboat controversy. Though this is certainly not something that is good for Kerry, the real reason why this hurts him is that every week the nation is focused on something other than "economy and jobs, or on Iraq and casualties, the management of the war, and weapons of mass destruction" is a bad week for the him. To me, this bodes well because the focus of the electorate will inevitably shift back to Iraq and the economy (because there's no way the American people are going to still be paying attention to Vietnam in October).

Summing up the entire race, Cook writes thusly:

The point is that in the absence of some major external event or a monumental screw up by Bush or Kerry in this fall's presidential debates, neither candidate is likely to build a significant, sustainable lead. One can look at all the relevant factors in the race and shade it in one direction or the other.

For example, I put great weight in the enormous levels of pessimism among undecided voters and their apparently low opinion of Bush. I think the president's climb is still a bit uphill. My experience tells me that undecided voters invariably break against well-known, well-defined incumbents.

Bush strategists acknowledge that the undecided voters are a tough nut to crack. But they argue that the campaign can offset the undecided voters who will break for Kerry by turning out a pool of conservative and Republican-leaning infrequent voters. Given the experience of 2002, when Republicans were able to elevate voter turnout far above normal in their strong areas, this is a plausible tactic, although it's obviously harder to do in a presidential election when turnout is going to be higher anyway.

The bottom line is that this election wasn't over three weeks ago when
Kerry was ahead, albeit narrowly, and it isn't over now that President Bush is ahead by a comparable margin.

I think that says it all.

One of the developing storylines that some in the mainstream media have been following over the past few days has been the wane of the moderate wing of the Republican Party. A couple of days ago, an organization made up of former GOP officials called "Mainstream 2004" has run newspaper ads imploring the Republican Party to "come back to the mainstream." On Monday, former Republican Senator Edward Brooke penned an editorial for The New York Times comparing this convention with the disastrously extremist 1964 convention at which Barry Goldwater was nominated by the party. Now USA Today has now picked up the story.

In today's paper, Andrea Stone examines the plight of GOP moderates by focusing specifically on those in Maine, a state long known for its independently-minded Republican Party. Stone finds that although the vast majority of Maine's Republicans will vote for George W. Bush in November, many are apprehensive if not reluctant to support the President's reelection effort.

[A recent Pew Research Center study] found that 83% of conservative Republicans nationwide were satisfied by their options for president. But only 57% of moderate and liberal Republicans were, down from 70% in 2000, when Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative."

Democrats have long labored to keep moderates and conservatives in their party. But this year, Republicans are nervously watching their left flank as GOP centrists express doubts about the war in Iraq, record deficits and the clout of social conservatives in the party leadership. Such disaffected moderates could determine which way Maine and other swing states go in November.

Although the GOP has gone to great lengths to appear as a moderate party at their convention, featuring such pro-choice politicians as Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger (my adoptive Governor), if the party continues its drift rightward much longer, it might be in danger of fracturing its coalition.

Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, a leader among centrist Republicans, said Monday that the convention's emphasis on moderates - and particularly Bush's speech Thursday night - will be a "watershed moment in the life of the Republican Party." But she warns: "It is going to have to be underscored in policies."

[...]

Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, McCain and a few other moderates often cast the key votes on controversial issues in the Senate, where Republicans hold a 51-48 majority.

Centrists such as Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., occasionally play a similar role in the House. "Moderates are absolutely indispensable" to maintaining a GOP majority in Congress, Shays says. But Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware, president of the Republican Main Street Partnership, referred Monday to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as "almost hostile" to moderates.

Some conservatives get the math. Newt Gingrich, who led the conservative "Republican Revolution" that won control of the House in 1994, sat on a panel Monday called, "Moderates + Conservatives = Republican Majority."

"We can create a center-right majority in America, but it is impossible to create a right-only majority," Gingrich said.

But others have no use for moderates, whom they call "RINOs" - Republicans in Name Only. "RINOs are a dying breed," says Stephen Moore of the conservative anti-tax group Club for Growth. "Rockefeller was the epitome of what we're against. He was the ultimate big-government Republican."

The fact of the matter is that the Republican Party cannot have it both ways. It cannot at one time promote "moderate" speakers at its convention but endorse a staunchly conservative platform; it cannot embrace moderates and then label them "RINOs" and try to defeat them in primaries (like they did of Spector).

Regardless of the outcome of this election, I cannot imagine the GOP maintaining its current coalition if it continues to cater to such non-mainstream elements. Perhaps this means the party moving back towards the center, ever so slightly, with the nomination of Chuck Hagel, Mitt Romney, or the likes; maybe it means the party fracturing and losing its moderate wing. Maybe this schism will even occur before this current election, denying Bush another four years and his party of the Congress. Whatever happens, the GOP of today will not be the same in four years, and that's a good thing for the American people.

I don't usually cover financial issues over here at Basie!, frankly because despite my past enrollment in an introductory Macroeconomics class and my surprising win in the 2001 Oregon Economics Challege I don't know enough about the subject to fairly analyze it. For that matter, most financial pundits don't really know what they're talking about either, so I guess I'm among good company with this post.

There is a common misconception among pundits and the public alike that the markets prefer Republicans to Democrats. The theory would hold that Republicans, more pro-business, will implement policies that will help the economy while Democrats' social policies merely drain from the economy. People even speculated that the market would rally this week because the Republican National Convention is in New York City. Well, it looks like these people were dead wrong.

After the market dipped yesterday, it's not doing so well today. It turns out that Consumer Confidence dramatically fell this month setting off a chain of events that led to the markets shedding points today. I guess the short term market doesn't actually favor the Republicans. How about the long-term market? It must love the GOP, right?

Wrong.

The stock market has performed much better under Democratic Administrations than Republican ones, and every major stock crash this century has occurred under Republican watch. I guess the market doesn't like unbridled capatalism which leads to monopolies, but rather prefers a social net to catch those laid off. By all accounts, then, it must be said that the markets actually favor the Democrats.

While the Consumer Confidence numbers may have been bad for the President, the real interesting numbers will come out on Friday: the Employment statistics. I am not going to try to predict them because most economists are generally off by 100,000-200,000 jobs. Regardless, suffice to say that if the numbers are as poor as the Consumer Confidence numbers today, any bounce the President gets coming out of his convention will be negated (at least on all domestic issues). Accordingly, if you're feeling a little blue about the coverage of the campaign (i.e. you think John Kerry's about to lose 50 states plus DC because that's what the media wants you to think), remember that it can all change in one moment.

When the national media is saying you're finished because you're now tied in the polls with the incumbent President rather than leading by 3-5 points, what do you do? Take a road trip.

Today, all of the major media outlets are buying into the strange notion that Kerry is losing this campaign because President Bush is getting a boost from his convention (what a shocker). Most have not hammered the President for his dubious claim that the country cannot win the War on Terror (imagine the reaction had Kerry said the same thing), but mysteriously they were easily duped by the Swiftvets obvious lies. In the aggregate, the media's conventional wisdom holds that Kerry has had the worst month of August since Mike Dukakis (though to me the fact that Kerry's still tied or ahead in the polls actually bodes well for the Democrat).

When all else has failed and the national outlets refuse to play fair, the best way for a candidate to get his message out to the American people is to have a whistle stop campaign visiting key battleground states, and this is just what John Kerry will do. The AP's Nedra Pickle writes that "hours after George Bush is to accept the Republican Party's nomination for re-election in New York on Thursday night, Democrat John Kerry plans to respond at Ground Zero of the presidential campaign - Ohio." While he tours the Buckeye state for the two days following the Republican National Convention,

Kerry [will also dispatch] his three partners to Midwest battlegrounds that Democrat Al Gore won narrowly in 2000 - Teresa Heinz Kerry to Iowa, John Edwards to Wisconsin and Elizabeth Edwards to Michigan.

The tours come after Kerry kept a low profile at his family's Nantucket home during most of the Republican National Convention, with one notable exception. Kerry plans interrupt his getaway Wednesday to speak to the American Legion in Nashville, Tenn.

The Kerrys and Edwardses also had bus tours coming out of the Democratic National Convention five weeks ago, and the trip resulted in positive coverage in the local newspapers and television that reach swing voters (italics added).

Although it would certainly be preferable for the mainstream national media to give John Kerry fair coverage, the fact is that the Kerry campaign has mastered the art of local appearances to drive up support in key battleground states.

Take my native state of Oregon, for example. Over the course of three days in the middle of this month, Kerry held three rallies throughout the state that drew 8,000 in Medford, 50,000 in Portland, and a few hundred in the small town of Hood River, each of which garnered significant positive coverage in the local news. As a result of this, Kerry is up 11.3% in the state in the latest Zogby battleground poll, and top political analyst Tim Hibbitts has all but predicted a Kerry win in the state.

If you're feeling discouraged right now about the state of the race, remember that there are still two months left in the election and Kerry has a lot more travelling to do around the country. When the dust settles in a couple of weeks, Bush may be up a few points in some national polls, but that's a natural bounce that will in time subside. Even more important, however, is how the candidates fare in the key battleground states. If Kerry is able to work the same magic this week in Ohio he did in Oregon two weeks ago, we'll have one less thing to worry about, and that's a good thing.

William Saletan has a very interesting post over at Slate.com this evening (check the 7:15 entry) on one of Monday night's speakers at the Republican National Convention. Ron Silver, an actor known for his role on The West Wing, was once a typical Hollywood liberal, but now thinks of himself as reformed. Specifically, he believes that it was completely right for the United States to attack Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. Saletan writes this:

Silver doesn't present himself as a Hollywood guy. He calls himself a New York guy. He talks about his parents and grandparents who lived here. He says his neighbors were murdered here on 9/11. "We will never forget. We will never forgive. We will never excuse," he thunders. The crowd applauds wildly.

I recognize this character: the Angry Jew. (Relax, I'm Jewish.) No Christian could get away with saying, "We will never forgive" in prime time at a major party convention. Forgiveness is a fundamental Christian value. You can condemn Osama Bin Laden's evil all you want, but you're not allowed to make the point in terms of denying forgiveness.

Jews don't have this problem. We're Old Testament people. We don't read that stuff about turning the other cheek or the meek inheriting the earth. We tried the meek approach and got slaughtered. We read the part of the Bible that talks about Yahweh and slaying the Philistines and your blood shall be on your own head. That means you, Osama.

[...]

"This is a war in which we have to respond," Silver declares. The crowd eats it up. But respond how? This is where all that talk of strength and courage breaks down. What good are strength and courage, if they're applied without judgment? If you go bravely into war in the wrong place, based on the wrong intelligence, where's the virtue in that? Where's the virtue in spending the blood and treasure of your country—and squandering its anger and resolve—against the wrong target?

Jews like to argue about such philosophical matters, so I'll challenge Silver. Courage without judgment is no virtue in the Jewish tradition, Ron. It's no virtue in the American tradition, either.

Like many of the other speakers on Monday night (such as John McCain and his militaristic speech), Silver was preaching to the choir. Although this style of jingoistic militancy might play well with the right wing base, I cannot imagine this type of rhetoric is appealing for the majority of Americans who aren't so happy about the President's policy in Iraq.

So which party is really out of the mainstream then? (and equally important, will the media ask this question?)

John McCain has just finished one of the most effective speeches of his political career from the floor of the Republican National Convention. It was rife with patriotic imagery and rhetorical flourishes commending President Bush's leadership in defending America. What is more, as a politician who is widely viewed as bipartisan and a war hero, he was a wise choice to be the first Republican speaker to bring up the memory of the September 11 attacks. Overall, it must be regarded as a top-notch speech.

What, exactly, did he have to say in this admirable piece of oratory?

Aside from his somewhat lackluster endorsement of the President, McCain devoted much of his speech to a defense of the War in Iraq. He did not break new ground with any of his main points--that America could not wait for Saddam to rearm, that we are safer today as a result of the war, that we have brought freedom to a region that has so long been ruled by tyranny--though he was much more effective in his case than others in the past.

Inherent in this logic, however, is the belief that a significant percentage of the majority of Americans opposed to the War in Iraq can be pursuaded to vote for the President regardless of their true feelings. The theory goes that even those who did not support the war can vote for the President on account of his strength and decisiveness. More clearly, Republican operatives and some pundits will claim that people in opposition to the war will easily drop their misgivings and vote for the man who instigated the military action. This is highly flawed logic.

Although I was never one to consider myself to be a part of the anti-war movement (I was, and still am, highly ambivalent on the issue; that is to say, I have very strong feelings both in favor and against the war even today), I think I can grasp the general sentiment of its people. For the large amount of Americans who were initially against the war and continue to be against the war, there is no way they will vote for the President, so McCain's speech was clearly not aimed at them.

A second group of Americans, who perhaps make up between 20% and 30% of the country, may have been in favor of the war at one time, but now are not on account of a number of reasons (American deaths, cost, lack of WMD, to name a few), and it is these people whom McCain was addressing. Perhaps a handful of these moderate voters will be instantly wooed and change their mind on account of this speech, but I can't imagine that most will.

McCain's speech will not lower the great cost of the war, nor will his sections attacking America's former allies bring in new international support. McCain's rhetoric may have been highly meaningful and interesting, but it will not make rebuilding Iraq any easier, nor will it find the WMD that Bush once claimed were in the country. Lastly, and most importantly, McCain's speech may have been highly effective in rallying conservative voters to his cause, but it will not stem the immense loss of life this country is suffering in Iraq.

Perhaps some movement will be seen in the polls following tonight's speech, and maybe it will appear as though a majority of American's once again support the President's vision for Iraq. When America loses its thousandth troop in the coming weeks, however, and there is no end in sight to the continual bloodshed in Iraq (nor a real hope for democracy their or in Afghanistan), I can assure you that most Americans will be more weary of this conflict than Senator McCain.

John McCain may have advanced his 2008 candidacy for the Republican nomination tonight, but his speech will not dramatically shift the electorate. He could have drastically affected the race by being more honest with the American people about his many disagreements with the current Administration, but his desire to cowtow to the conservative primary electorate meant more to him than his standing will all American people. As a result, even if his speech was popular with wingnuts and some pundits, it cannot be deemed the great success it could have been.

I shuddered at the thought of quoting another column from Bob Novak, but I thought, "what the heck, this is the week of the Republican National Convention... what could be worse?" Here goes.

I don't think I ever agree with that old hyper-partisan curmudgeon, but when he has a good quote in his reporting, I must give him his due respect. This from today's piece in The Chicago Sun-Times:

On the eve of the Republican National Convention, one of the party's foremost leaders from the South was asked about George W. Bush's chances in November. He replied, in a moment of rare candor: ''If this campaign is about Kerry, Bush will win the election. If this campaign is about Bush, he will win my state.'' That is, the GOP must make sure the focus is on Sen. John Kerry to avoid being reduced to the solid Republican South -- and a lost election.

The rest of the article isn't worth much, but I thought you'd enjoy at least this graf.

I won't get into the nitty gritty of this opionion piece in today's edition of The Los Angeles Times, but suffice to say if you are a history buff like me, this is a must read. Brownstein looks at past Presidents' failed second terms and asks why anyone would ever want to run for four more years.

Here's a tidbit from the beginning to whet your apetite:

Like second marriages, second presidential terms represent the triumph of hope over experience. Every incumbent since Herbert Hoover has sought four more years. And yet, after the experience of their predecessors, it is easy to wonder why they bother.

Bill Clinton was impeached in his second term. Richard Nixon would have been if he hadn't quit first. Ronald Reagan was wounded by the Iran-Contra scandal. Lyndon B. Johnson sank into the swamp of Vietnam.

Dwight D. Eisenhower had health problems and Sputnik. The high point of Harry Truman's second term was the day he won it in a stunning upset. After that, it was war, scandal and legislative gridlock. Woodrow Wilson suffered through World War I, the rejection of the League of Nations and a stroke. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt reached his lowest point during his second term, when Congress blocked his plan to stack the Supreme Court.

This is the fraternity George W. Bush is desperately fighting to join as the Republicans gather for their national convention this week in New York. It's human nature to seek validation for your work. But (re)election day is often the best day for a two-term president.

Again, here's the link.

I'm just watching ABC News Now on Real Player and Ben Stein is having a conversation with a number of people including Sam Donaldson.

Ben Stein is saying that Bush is wrong on taxes and that we should in fact raise taxes significantly on those earning more than $1 million per year. His point is that the nation should not lower taxes during a time of war but rather increase revenue, and the ultra rich are the ones who can afford it. Interesting stuff.

Stein's certainly not a liberal, but I would say he's the quintessential main street conservative of days of yore. He says he supports Bush, but if enough of his types (like these former high ranking Republicans) begin defecting the party, it's going to be tough for the President to get another four years.

I can't find a link, but I just got this via email:

Democratic Sen. Miller Makes Pitch for Bush-Cheney

There are those who might take issue with the opening line of a new Bush-Cheney fund-raising appeal that went out today: “I’m a Democrat.”

So sayeth Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who frequently breaks ranks with his party to support Republican proposals. Miller will deliver the keynote address to the GOP convention on Wednesday.

Noting he had delivered the keynote at the 1992 Democratic National Convention in the Big Apple, Miller says in his pitch for dollars: “In just two days, I will speak again in New York, but this time the party is the Republicans, and this time the candidate is George W. Bush. While much has changed in the last 12 years, my party has not. I’m still a Democrat, and I support the president.”

Miller, who is retiring after this Congress, certainly does support President Bush. Last year, according to Congressional Quarterly’s annual vote studies, he voted with the president on 96.8 percent of all Senate roll call votes on which Bush had taken a position. Only only 21 of the Senate’s 51 Republicans supported Bush more often.

As for being a Democrat, that might draw some argument from his Senate colleagues. Miller opposed his own party last year on 91.5 percent of all roll call votes that pitted a majority of Democrats against a majority of Republicans. That was more than twice the opposition score of runner-up Ben Nelson, D-Neb. — David Nather

------

Click here to sign up for CQ updates.

Check out these new ads from MoveOn.org featuring lifelong Republicans who voted for George W. Bush last time around, but aren't going to be fooled twice. They're effective and entertaining, so pass them on.

No doubt by now you have heard the Republican talking point that John Kerry is the most liberal member of the Senate and John Edwards is the 4th most liberal senator. President Bush and his cohorts have certainly enjoyed using this National Journal rating to lambast Senator Kerry. You might have even seen Jon Stewart tear into Congressman Henry Bonilla for this claim. Well, it turns out Stewart had it all right at the time, and not the mainstream media that continued to repeat the Republican talking point.

An interesting article today from The National Journal, Charles Green
debunks this myth that John Kerry is an uber-liberal. Here's what they write:

In short, our magazine -- or, more precisely, our annual congressional vote ratings edition -- has become a Republican talking point in the 2004 presidential campaign. And that's been a fascinating, and disconcerting, experience. Fascinating because we're more used to being cited in congressional hearings than on the Today show. Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings of Kerry and Edwards is sometimes misleading -- or just plain wrong [italics added].

Last November and December, as we have for the past 23 years, National Journal editors and reporters began preparing for the magazine's annual vote ratings of members of Congress. Each year, we pick several dozen votes in three broad issue areas -- economic, social, and foreign -- and identify yea and nay positions as representing a "conservative" or "liberal" stance. Members are then ranked from the most liberal to the most conservative in each issue area. Members also receive a composite liberal score and a composite conservative score -- basically an average of their issue-based scores.

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 a 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.

That was the basis for Kerry's receiving a composite liberal score for 2003 that was higher than any other senator's score.

It doesn't just end here, though. Green, not bowing to the ferocious spin machine that is the GOP, continues to set the record straight.

Occasionally, Republicans would assert that Kerry had been ranked the most liberal senator on the basis of his entire Senate career.

Vice President Cheney made such a claim at a campaign appearance in Minnesota this month. "John Kerry is, by National Journal ratings, the most liberal member of the United States Senate," Cheney said. "Ted Kennedy is the more conservative of the two senators from Massachusetts. It's true. All you've got to do is go look at the ratings system. And that captures a lot, I think, in terms of somebody's philosophy. And it's not based on one vote, or one year; it's based on 20 years of service in the United States Senate."

But if the standard is votes over a lifetime, Kerry isn't the most liberal senator. By that measure, Kerry is the 11th-most-liberal senator, coming in below such Democrats as Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, Barbara Boxer of California, and, yes, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, according to a National Journal analysis published in March.

John Edwards, who was ranked the fourth-most-liberal senator in 2003 (and who also missed many votes that year), is the 27th-most-liberal senator based on votes over his career.

Using this method, John Kerry is certainly not the most liberal Senator, and John Edwards is in fact on the conservative side of the party!

I would suggest you pass this article on to people who you know who are easily affected by the spin. It's one thing to see Jon Stewart talk about this (even though I think of him as television's top political analyst, many still think of him as a mere comedian), but for the actual publication that came up with these rankings to contradict the right wing spin is far more meaningful.

In another interesting op-ed in today's edition of The New York Times (the other coming from former GOP Senator Edward Brooke), FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps slams the television networks for barely covering the two major-party nominating conventions this year. As he mentions, it is interesting that he, a Democrat, is complaining about the lack of coverage of the Republican National Convention. I think it shows his true dedication to the merits of the issue rather than mere partisanship. He writes,

Let's remember that American citizens own the public airwaves, not TV executives. We give broadcasters the right to use these airwaves for free in exchange for their agreement to broadcast in the public interest. They earn huge profits using this public resource. During this campaign season broadcasters will receive nearly $1.5 billion from political advertising.

What do we get in return for granting TV stations free use of our airwaves? Unfortunately, when it comes to coverage of issues important to our nation, the answer is less and less. Coverage of the 2000 presidential election on the network evening news dropped by a third compared to reporting on the 1996 election. During the last election cycle we heard directly from presidential candidates for an average of 9 seconds a night on the news. Local races? Forget it. In 2002 - the most recent midterm elections - more than half of local newscasts contained no campaign coverage at all. Local coverage has diminished to the point that campaign ads outnumber campaign stories by four to one. What coverage there is focuses inordinately on polls and handicapping the horse race.

It is of course interesting when a media critic such as Ken Auletta of The New Yorker or Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post to take such a hard stand on this issue, but its even more meaningful when a person in a position of power such as Copps writes such a piece.

Not only attacking the media for it's poor coverage, both in terms of quality and quantity, Copps singles out the Federal Communications Commission itself for negligence. He writes that not only has the FCC done nothing to alleviate the situation, they have in fact exacerbated it by attempting to loosen restrictions on media ownership. Perhaps if John Kerry were elected in the fall, Copps will be named head of the FCC and real change can occur.

Copps ends with a call to the American people to take a stand on this issue.

Whether we are Democrats, Republicans or independents, we all can agree that democracy depends on well-informed citizens. So as you flip through the channels tonight while the convention is largely ignored, consider whether TV broadcasters, sustained by free access to the public airwaves in exchange for programming in the public interest, are holding up their end of the deal.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Yesterday I informed you of a group of liberal and moderate Republicans called Come Back To The Mainstream who have placed an ad in a number of national newspapers calling on the GOP to move back to the middle on a number of issues. This was a highly significant moment as this group included former Senators and Governors who still hold clout in their states.

The chorus of "Rockefeller" Republicans who find the current direction of their party abhorrent is evidently growing at an alarming rate. Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, who will be remembered by history as the only African-American man to serve in the United States Senate in the 20th century and the first African-American elected to the Senate by popular vote, has penned an op-ed in today's edition of The New York Times, which is a definite must-read. He begins with this:

As the Republicans gather this week in New York, I find myself thinking back to the first Republican National Convention I attended, 40 years ago, at which Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona received the presidential nomination. At the time I was the attorney general of Massachusetts and opposed the rise of Goldwater conservatism, aligning myself with many national party leaders. I supported Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York for the nomination and, after he withdrew from the race, Gov. William Scranton of Pennsylvania.

Despite our efforts, Senator Goldwater won the nomination, and in the general election proceeded to carry only his home state and five states in the South. It was a resounding defeat for his brand of "conservatism," and it was devastating to the Republican Party at every level of government.

I see alarming parallels between that disastrous convention of 1964 and this week's convention, at which President Bush will be nominated again. Now as then, many of the candidate's advisers and supporters show signs of arrogance, self-righteousness and intolerance, and of losing touch with the basic values of the vast majority of Americans. This extremism shows itself in any number of ways: excesses committed by the Justice Department under the Patriot Act, unilateralism in international affairs, crude political tactics in the Senate that have produced legislative gridlock and made a mockery of that chamber's great tradition of bipartisanship.

The parallel Brooke draws here is damning on two levels. First, it implies that this Bush Administration is as extreme and non-mainstream as Barry Goldwater some 40 years ago. Also inherent in this message is that the continued embrace of such radical positions and pompous campaign tactics will inevitably lead to disaster on the scale of the 1964 catastrophe.

Barry Goldwater's fate was sealed when, in his address to the 1964 convention, he defiantly endorsed "extremism." Later, when I served in the Senate, I came to know Barry Goldwater and to count him a friend, but at the 1964 convention he was intoxicated by ideology - and it led to disaster. Now as then, instead of alienating mainstream voters with radical views, our party must find common ground with them.

I believe in the party of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan, and I want it to succeed. I devoutly hope our party will show America a more open mind and a more generous heart this week, and that President Bush will reflect this message in his acceptance speech to the nation.

Like Senator Brooke (whose seat is currently held by none other than John Kerry), I am skeptical that President Bush will truly embrace moderation, even if he has surrounded himself with moderates at this convention. The American people are not too dumb to realize that this President is among the most radically conservative in our nation's history, but the real question is if our media are smart enough to figure this out, too. God help us if they fall for this charade by the President.

In an interview with Time magazine, President Bush declared the war in Iraq a "catastrophic success."

Sen. John Edwards responds in the Washington Post: "I, like most Americans, have no idea what that means."

When some of us in the blogosphere had been bummed out by the latest LA Times poll last week, I tried to cheer everyone up with news of this Economist/YouGov poll that still had Kerry up by 3 points in a three way matchup (4 points among "definite" voters). If that didn't make you happy, I have some more good news.

A new poll from NPR is now available that shows a Kerry lead of 50-45 in a two-way contest and 47-43 when Ralph Nader is factored in. Even more promising is the fact that Kerry's up 52-43 in "battleground states" in this poll, a significant lead. Additionally, Bush's approval rating (at 49%) is still under the magical number of 50%.

Methodology

• The reported results on public attitudes come from a national survey conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (GQR) and Public Opinion Strategies (POS) for National Public Radio (NPR). The firms, together with NPR, developed questions to inform a news segment for Morning Edition.
  
• With a view to the upcoming elections, the survey was conducted with likely voters. All participants were registered voters, voted in the 2000 presidential election or the 2002 congressional elections (or were not eligible) and indicated they were almost certain or certain to vote in 2004. The sample of potential respondents was generated by random digit dial methodology. GQR interviewed 800 voters, with a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percent.

Let the naysayers naysay and let the pundits claim that John Kerry's finished, but just don't listen to them.

The polls are essentially even right now (if you use all of them as a massive sample), and the fact is that if the incumbent is tied at this point, chances are he's going to lose. I'm not saying that Kerry has this election locked up, because there is a lot that can still influence this election (the Republican National Convention, the Debates, an October suprise, etc.). Nonetheless, Kerry is in an enviable situation right now for a challenger, and that's a fact.

In the past few days leading up to the Republican National Convention, a number of articles have been written lamenting the direction of the GOP. The New York Times' usually apologetic "conservative" David Brooks makes the case in this weekend's magazine that the party must create a new vision for America (which he lays out). Garrison Keillor, the host of public radio's A Prairie Home Companion, writes another interesting column on current Republican extremism. Additionally, I wrote a post yesterday lamenting the demise of the liberal/moderate wing of the Republican Party, a eulogy of sorts.

While I think all of these pieces are worth reading, they do not come from "real" Republicans; Brooks is the Alan Colmes of the right, Keillor is a self-proclaimed liberal, and I like to think of myself as a left of center moderate. As a result, it would be foolish to believe that anything written by us, or others like us for that matter, would have any tangible effect on the Republican Party.

A new group of voices that actually matter have joined us in beckoning the GOP to "come back to the mainstream." The AP is reporting that a group of former high ranking Republicans is calling on their party to move back to the center.

"Instead of partisan ideology — which increasingly has led moderates to leave the party — what's needed is a speedy return to the pragmatic, problem-solving mainstream," the group called Mainstream 2004 said in newspaper advertisements to be published Monday.

The "Come Back To The Mainstream" ads say what many moderate Republicans are thinking, said A. Linwood Holton, who was Virginia governor from 1970-74.

The problem lies with the "extremist element that controls the Republican party," Holton said, "which has polarized this country."

These are certainly strong words coming from a politician of such stature.

Among other things, the group is calling on the Republican Party to stop weakening environmental law, to start imposing stringent budget discipline to curtail deficits, to allow and promote embryonic stem cell research, and to appoint mainstream judges.

The way the party is now, Holton said he wouldn't vote for President Bush. "Not unless they change substantially between now and November," he said.

The list of Republicans signing the ad [includes] former GOP Govs. David Cargo of New Mexico, Dan Evans of Washington, A. Linwood Holton of Virginia, William Milliken of Michigan, Walter Peterson of New Hampshire; former U.S. Sens. Charles Mathias of Maryland and Robert Stafford of Vermont; and Nathaniel Reed, former assistant Interior Secretary under Presidents Nixon and Ford, and Russell Train, EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford.

Another interesting story on this group appears in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune that adds a local touch to the issue (which is even more interesting as Minnesota is a "swing state"). Addressing the response of several Minnesota Republicans to Mainstream 2004's ad, Lori Sturdevant writes:

Former Gov. Elmer L. Andersen also declined [to sign the ad] -- even though he was a personal friend of the late Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, an uncle of the ad's instigator, Larry Rockefeller.

It's naive, Andersen explained, to think that a plea from a roster of former party luminaries would change the thinking of the people in charge at the New York convention.

Further, Andersen said, the ad's critique and prescription for change do not go far enough. It does not explicitly mention the war in Iraq, which he calls a "mistake, entered into under false information." It does not oppose the "enormous tax break for the wealthiest people" that Bush engineered. It does not fault Bush's No Child Left Behind act for "failure to produce the promised results."

"The Republican Party is not the progressive engine that I was associated with," said Andersen, who was governor from 1961 to 1963. "I'm going to vote for John Kerry."

Those are brave words -- even for a 95-year-old whose ties to his party have been conspicuously attenuated for a few decades. It isn't easy for a politician who once drank deeply from one party's trough to publicly say he prefers the other.

[...]

"Undecided" is also the stated status of two other Minnesota GOP elder statesmen with well-known moderate bent, former U.S. Sen. Dave Durenberger and former state Sen. George Pillsbury. (George's wife, Sally -- a Republican stalwart since 1946 and a college friend of the president's aunt -- is not as tentative. She says flatly, "I'm not voting for Bush." The president's support for a same-sex marriage ban was for her the last straw.)

Durenberger said choosing between Bush and Kerry is the "most challenging" ballot decision he has ever faced.

"It's a hell of a time to be a moderate Republican," said [Rod] Searle, a former House speaker.

The big story that the mainstream media has yet to pick up is the fact that a large number of moderate Republicans and Rockefeller Republicans are so fed up with their party that they won't support George W. Bush's reelection bid, a movement that if much more significant than the upcoming speech of turncoat Zell Miller. Hopefully when this ad comes out it will make as big of a splash as the Swiftvets' ad, because it is much more meaningful, but I'm sure the talking heads and pundits will ignore the story as they do most that are critical of this President.

Would that it were... would that it were.

One more article that I wanted to pass on to all of you also appears in this morning's edition of The Oregonian. The article is on the trials and tribulations of Al French, the Oregonian man who is featured in one of the Swiftvets' ads.

It's a very sad story as the media have begun to analyze his career as a prosecutor for various Oregon District Attorneys with the same rigor they have looked at John Kerry's war record. This is not to say that French does not deserve this because of the plain lies he told in the ad and its corresponding affidavit; nevertheless, the whole investigation is based on an affair he had some time ago, so it's sad to see this man's life ruined so many years later (even if he deserves it, which is up your reading of the article).

As you may remember, I wrote a couple of weeks ago about John Kerry's windsurfing and how it might help him win the state in November. The crux of my position was this:

While non-Oregonians and even some Eastern Oregonians (who are redder than Mississippi) might balk at the significance of this promised event, I don't think most residents of the state will take it lightly. True, it takes more than a nice photo-op to win over swing voters (though bicycling in one of the nation's most bike-friendly cities does look good); nevertheless, the if Kerry is able to ride the coattails of yesterday's hugely successful event (especially in the eyes of the local media) with a windsurfing event that also draws a good deal of media coverage, his image in the area will doubtless be improved.

Although Kerry did not end up windsurfing at the Columbia River Gorge after all because of a dearth of wind, it looks like he nonetheless garnered the positive media coverage he had hoped for when he first planned the event. Today's edition of The Oregonian features a below the fold, front page article on publisher/windsurfer/Oregonian John Chao and his relationship with Senator Kerry over the past six years.

Chao, the editor of American Windsurfer magazine since 1993, found himself in an interesting situation when "a staff member showed him a subscription request from a 'T. Heinz,' noting it was a gift for her husband, Sen. John Kerry."

In 1997, Chao wrote to Heinz, saying he'd like to do a story on them and their interest in windsurfing. Within a week, Kerry's press secretary called to say the senator was interested.

"Then I thought, 'Oh, my God, this is over my head,' " Chao says, and he offered up a Washington Post reporter who had written a freelance piece for the magazine. But Kerry didn't want a Washington Post reporter. He wanted Chao, and penciled in a half-hour interview in his Nantucket office.

"As soon as I met him, it was a whole different story," Chao says. "There was just this connection. We just decided to blow off the interview and go windsurfing."

That led to a yearlong, on-again, off-again windsurfing odyssey in which Chao and Kerry tried out the winds and waves at Hood River, Aruba, Maui and other sailing Meccas.

[...]

Chao wrote a long piece for his magazine on the year he spent with Kerry, putting the senator on the cover.

The article, with its intimate and dynamic photos of Kerry, not just windsurfing but relaxing with his family and working the halls of Congress, offered a rarely seen side of the senator.

"It showed the opposite of what the press was saying -- that he was stiff, aloof," Chao says. Its publication was followed by a number of articles and TV news stories on Kerry's windsurfing and other athletic endeavors.

Articles like this one, though not containing glowing praise of John Kerry's policies or political skills, nonetheless enhance the Senator's campaign in swing states immeasurably. In fact, one could argue that human interest stories like this one affect the election more profoundly than any political ad. One need only hearken back to then-Governor Bill Clinton's near-soulful sax performance on the Arsenio Hall program some 12 years ago to see the importance of image.

Also important to John Kerry's campaign strategy is his decision to campaign in rural areas and small towns not seen by previous Democratic nominees. In Oregon, for example, Kerry became the first Democrat to visit Medford since John F. Kennedy, and his 8,000 screaming fans made quite a splash in the local news.

Kerry also used this tactic in visiting the gorge city of Hood River, as mentioned in the article. Although Hood River is a liberal town (albeit in a conservative county), the fact that Kerry even bothered to show up in the city with a population of less than 6,000 shows a dedication to the state that meant a lot to Oregonians of all political persuasions.

But [Chao's] influence was undeniable when about 300 residents of the traditionally Republican county waited along the river two weeks ago for a chance to see Kerry windsurf and shake his hand.

U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, a Hood River Republican, hadn't heard of Chao but was impressed that he brought Kerry to town.

"It's tremendous for the gorge," Walden says. "It helps us economically and certainly draws attention to our state." Sometimes you have to separate your politics from your civic boosterism, he says.

"I hope Kerry continues to come back -- as a U.S. senator," he hastens to add.

If even staunch conservative Greg Walden (author of the "Healthy Forests Initiative") was impressed by this politically shrewd move, I think it goes without saying that Kerry scored big with his trip to Oregon. As Tim Hibbitts, one of Oregon's top non-partisan political analysts, said in another article, "If we had a vote today in Oregon, Kerry would win comfortably."

What ever happened to the Republican Party that I could vote for? This might sound like a silly question coming from a self proclaimed "left of center moderate" (shouldn't I be voting only Democrat, you might ask), but please hear me out.

Once upon a time, I would have been able to choose from two parties rather than just one, especially in my state of Oregon that was home to so-called "liberal Republicans" Mark Hatfield, Bob Packwood, Tom McCall and others. This year, in which I will vote in my first Presidential election, I will not have the ability to choose possessed by my parents and grandparents, however.

This choice I speak of was not limited to my native state of Oregon, though we have a grand history. From the time of its roots in Ripon, Wisconsin 150 years ago, the Republican Party tended to be the moderate balance to the generally conservative Democratic Party. Abraham Lincoln could be labeled nothing if not a liberal. Theodore Roosevelt is of course considered one of the great leaders of the progressive movement, as were Hiram Johnson of California and Robert "Fighting Bob" LaFollette.

Even after the Democratic Party cemented its place as the "liberal" faction within American politics following the elections of 1912 and 1932, the presidential wing of the GOP tended to favor liberals or moderates. From 1940 to 1960, each of the party's candidates ran near his opponent ideologically, and Dwight Eisenhower's acceptence of FDR's New Deal policies helped to make said social advances accepted by all Americans, left and right.

Through the 1980s and early '90s, the Republican Party's congressional ranks still swelled with liberals and moderates. Moderate Republican Senator Arlen Specter--who faced stiff competition in a primary challenge from the right this year, spoke of this in an interview with The New Yorker in April.

"When I came to the Senate, we had a lot of members of the Wednesday Club"-a weekly gathering of Republican moderates. "You had Lowell Weicker, you had Bob Stafford, you had Bob Packwood, you had Mark Hatfield, you had [John] Chafee, you had John Danforth, you had Jim Jeffords, you had John Heinz. Now there are only a few of us. And it's important. When Joe Biden needs a co-sponsor, he comes to Arlen Specter. That kind of balance is really important for the country. It's more than the soul of the Republican Party; it's to have some balance within the Party and within the two-party system."

When I was just about old enough to begin following politics in the mid-'90s, my two Senators, Hatfield and Packwood, were chairmen of the Appropriations and Finance Committees, respectively, so moderates were still the leading voices in the party even as Newt Gingrich tried to usurp its reigns.

So, what happened?

Many pundits and talking heads constantly shout at each other that the problem with politics today is partisanship, bitter partisanship. They'll say that there are blue states and red states that share no common values and that people's party affiliation means more than everything. Let me tell you something: they're wrong.

Our country has always had partisanship, even when Federalist 10 was published decrying factions within American politics (remember it took but a few years for James Madison, the paper's author, to become the bitter partisan opponent of his former chief ally in writing the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton). The terms of debate haven't even deteriorated, like some commentators might lead you to believe (Hamilton, Burr and Jefferson were constantly attacked for their extramarital affairs, and Democrats were called the party of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" 63 years after the end of the Civil War). As a result, I find it highly dubious to claim that the main problem afflicting American politics today is partisanship.

Let's look a little bit deeper.

During the 1980s, when Representative Bob Michel (R-IL) was the House Minority Leader, a few young Republican Congressmen hated the fact that Michel worked well with the Democratic leadership to pass good laws. They wanted the Republicans to lead strong opposition to the Democrats merely to inhibit the majority from passing any moderate legislation. Who were these men? Newt Gingrich, Vin Weber, and a man who would later become Vice President, Dick Cheney (read about this in Jack Pitney's "Congress' Permanent Minority?").

These three men, and their minions, worked to build a new conservative Republican coalition by knocking off conservatives from the Democratic ranks. Once they had defeated most Democratic moderates and their party gained majority status in the Congress in 1994, they and their followers then turned their attention to defeating Republican liberals and moderates. That doesn't really make sense if they only cared about partisanship.

The truth of the matter is that such men care significantly more about ideology than partisanship. I'm not speaking about debatable theory; these men only believed in one orthodoxy that should not be challenged by anyone. Through superior political skills, they were able to hijack the national agenda and take center stage in American politics.

Today, this ideological faction's leaders are not Newt Gingrich and Vin Weber; they're George Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum (among others). What is more, they are much more dangerous to American politics today than they were then because their power is nearly unchecked. It is these men who have destroyed American politics and the Republican Party.

---

Perhaps I'm merely a sentimentalist. I surely do pine for the days of yore.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist. I see the glass as half full, whereas I could be thankful for the ability to vote for one party even if I might have been able to choose among two.

I think I'm prescient and optimistic, however. I believe in an America where I can choose between two equally appealing parties that care more about what's right for America than what's right for their ideology. I believe that we can steer both parties back to the bargaining table where they can work together rather than connive to undercut one another. I believe that in a few short years we will look back at this period and say this was the beginning of change. I believe in the Jewish axiom, "Gam Zeh Ya’avor," this too shall pass.

This too shall pass!

So perhaps this is not a eulogy. Perhaps it is a vision of a future in which I and everyone else around the country have a real choice between to parties equally palatable, each wedded to progress rather than orthodoxy. It may be a dream today, but I'm sure it can become a reality. We just have to want it as much as them, and moreover work as hard as them to reach our goal of a better America.

This can be done. This must be done. This will be done.

There has been quite a bit of talk among the pundits that this is shaping up to be one of the closest elections ever. Clearly, both sides are tightly contesting the campaign, and polls have consistently shown a statistical tie (or near to one) between President Bush and Senator Kerry. What is more, partisanship in the nation is at levels not seen for decades. Nevertheless, history shows that plenty of elections have possessed all of these things yet have turned out to be landslides rather than nail biters.

In the past century 25 Presidential elections were held, five of which had margins tight enough in either the electoral vote or the popular vote to be deemed "close" (at least by this author): 1916, 1960, 1968, 1976 and of course 2000. Each of these featured either a sitting President or Vice President, so all were in effect a referendum on the previous term or terms. Moreover, each contained the aforementioned facets of this current election (highly contested, close polls [when available], and partisanship). Nonetheless, all five had one key attribute not found in this election.

1916, 1960, 1968, 1976 and 2000 all came on the heels of landslide elections.

• In 1912, New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson defeated a split Republican Party by a comfortable margin in the popular vote that led to 435 of 531 electoral votes
  
• 1956 saw President Dwight Eisenhower reelected by almost 10 million votes and 457 of 531 electoral votes.
  
• President Lyndon Johnson was reelected by an even larger margin in 1964, nearly 15 million votes more than Goldwater and 486 of 538 electoral votes.
  
• In 1972, President Nixon won another term with almost 18 million votes than his competitor and 520 of 538 electoral votes.
  
• Bill Clinton was never seriously concerned with his challenger Bob Dole and won 379 of 538 electoral votes.

In each of these elections--1912, '56, etc.--the losing party was forced to retool, rededicate, create a new vision and embrace a new standard bearer. As a result, each of these five close elections had formerly demoralized minority parties that had risen from the ashes of defeat to mount a more effective campaign that resounded with the American people.

Though the Democratic Party has definitely undergone a significant retooling and rebuilding over the past four years (and the past two, in particular), they began in a much better situation the losers in the five elections mentioned above (they did win the plurality in 2000). Accordingly, it would be foolish to think that they would merely end up exactly where they were four years ago with a new candidate and a new message.

Even more important than these historical comparisons to 2004 that are in part based on opinion are the solid historical facts about close elections in the past century. At no point during the 20th century did the country see two consecutive close elections (you would have to go back to the period of extreme partisan parity and third parties during the late 19th century to see this occur). 1916 was followed by a Warren Harding landslide in 1920; 1960 was followed by a Johnson landslide four years later; 1968 was close, but Nixon demolished McGovern in '72; and, Carter may have won by a small margin in 1976, but he was trounced in 1980.

There are a number of reasons why we haven't seen two close consecutive elections in 112 years (I'm sure we all have our opinions on the matter, like how the country will not stomach two such contests or how the cyclical nature of American politics inhibits it), but the fact is that they just don't happen any more, period. So when you hear some pundit (who knows about as much about politics as you or me) proclaim that this election will be as close as four years ago, let him know that he's plain wrong... it's not gonna happen.

I made it down safely, for those of you concerned by my (possibly) erratic driving style (I'm actually quite a good driver, if I do say so myself). Anyhoo, just writing down some thoughts for a couple of posts, so stay tuned!

I'll be driving down to college down in Claremont, California (just east of LA) for the next two days, so you might not get another post until Friday night or Saturday (so please don't think I'm a lazy bum!). Anyhoo, hope you're enjoying reading Basie! and I can promise you that I'll be writing as much as possible once I'm down at school.

Also, if you have any questions, suggestions or scoops, feel free to email me any time.

Tonight's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was another great episode, which is quite remarkable given that it's the night after John Kerry was on the program. Stewart is definitely one of the most able and shrewd political analysts in our country today, even if he claims that he is merely a comedian.

Tonight's guest was Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, who like most other politicos has been on the program in the past because young impressionable voters are watching. Jon was notably tougher on Gillespie than he was on Kerry last night (though not as hard as he was on Stephen "my book is a clusterf#ck" Hayes), but he promised to go easy on the President if he would show up on the show (though not as easy as bass fishing TV host Roland Martin).

Now to the meat of the interview.

Stewart asked Gillespie why the GOP chose New York City (the "gayest and Jew-iest" city in the country) for the convention... "what, was San Francisco booked?"

Gillespie replied that New Jersey, just across the river from New York, should be competitive in this election. What is more, he said that the Republican Party is doing better in the Northeast than it has in a long time.

I'm not certain to which "Northeast" Gillespie was referring (perhaps Northeast Texas), because the GOP is in fact doing the worst it has ever done north of the Mason-Dixon line. In fact, if George W. Bush wins reelection in the fall, he will likely become the first person in US history to win the White House without winning a state in the Northeast (the only shot he has is New Hampshire, and that's not looking so good for him). So much for telling the truth, Mr. Gillespie!

I'm just watching Waterworld right now, which is in my opinion a highly underrated movie. Perhaps I like it for the moral undertones or maybe I like it just because it's set in Oregon. Either way, it's a good way to spend my last afternoon in Portland.

I'll try to get another substanitive post up tonight before I leave in the morning for Southern California. If you don't see a post until Friday night or Saturday, please forgive me as I am driving. Have a good couple of days!

From Yahoo! News

CRAWFORD, Texas - Former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland tried to deliver a letter protesting ads challenging John Kerry (news - web sites)'s Vietnam service to President Bush (news - web sites) at his Texas ranch Wednesday, but neither a Secret Service official nor a state trooper would take it.

The former Georgia senator, a triple amputee who fought in Vietnam, was carrying a letter from nine Senate Democrats who wrote Bush that "you owe a special duty" to condemn attacks on Kerry's military service.

"The question is where is George Bush (news - web sites)'s honor, the question is where is his shame to attack a fellow veteran who has distinguished himself in combat?" Cleland asked. "Regardless of the political combat involved, it's disgraceful."

Encountering a permanent roadblock to Bush's ranch, Cleland left without turning over the letter to anyone.

"I have a letter signed by nine members of the U.S. Senate, all of whom have served honorably and I'd like to hand it to a responsible officer here on the gate," Cleland said as he tried to deliver it to security personnel at the roadblock. He accused a member of the president's security detail of trying to evade him.

Get it here. It's low quality, but it's the best I could find on the web thusfar.

JOHN KERRY: Wanna compare profiles?
JON STEWART: No, believe me, I know. I’m all Jew. You may be 1/4. I got everything.

This week's Economist/You Gov poll has just come out and it contains a lot of good news for John Kerry. The poll was conducted August 23-25, with 2129 respondents ("Registered to vote": 1807, "Will definitely vote": 1646), and the MoE is +/- 2%.

Suppose the election for President were being held TODAY. Who would you vote for? George W. Bush, the Republican; John F Kerry, the Democrat; Ralph Nader, an independent candidate, or someone else?

Total; Def to vote (Last week, Two Weeks ago)
George Bush 44% (41, 43); 45% (42, 45)
John Kerry 47% (48, 48); 49% (51, 49)
Ralph Nader 2% (2, 1); 1% (1, 1)
Someone else 2% 2%
Would not vote 1% 0%
Don't know 5% 3%

As of now, what do you think you are most likely to end up doing on November 2?

(Total, Def to vote)
George W Bush 45% 46%
John F Kerry 49% 51%
Ralph Nader 2% 2%
Someone else 3% 2%
Not vote at all 1% 0%

In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?

(Total, Def to vote)
Satisfied 37% 40%
Dissatisfied
59% 58%
Don't know 4% 2%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way President George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

(Total, Def to vote)
Approve 41% 43%
Disapprove 54% 54%
Don't know 5% 3%

Who would you prefer to be in control of the CONGRESS after the next election?

(Total, Def to vote)
Democrats 44% 47%
Republicans 36% 41%
Don't know 19% 12%

Overall, it looks like the small post-convention bounce for John Kerry has held as his numbers this week are almost exactly the same as they were two weeks ago. Additionally, with the Congress question, it looks like Americans favor the Democrats as a whole.

One of the most interesting things that comes out of this poll is that while Kerry's numbers have remained the same (near 50%, which is great for a challenger) or slightly moved down (within the margin of error), Bush's are the same as two weeks ago, meaning that he has yet to receive a pre-Convention bounce like Kerry did. Additionally, notice his overall approval rating at an enemic 41%!!!!!

Although there is slight movement from the horrible ads from Bush supporters attacking John Kerry's war record, it's minimal, at most. Additionally, in the coming weeks, we'll see that Americans will tolerate negative ads, but they abhore what they see as mean-spirited ads. As a result, looks for this vicious attack to backfire horribly for the Bush campaign.

Lastly, I think another great part of this poll is that Kerry is actually doing better with "Likely" voters than "Registered" voters, which is rarely the case for a Democrat. I guess the only thing I can say is that "things are turning a corner" in this campaign!

A nice little tidbit this morning:

Tim Hibbitts, an independent pollster from Portland, said that he has doubts about online surveys but that Zogby's finding was largely accurate.

"If we had a vote today in Oregon, Kerry would win comfortably," said Hibbitts, who made his assessment on other polling he has seen. He said he didn't think it mattered much whether Nader was on the ballot because his support is limited mostly to voters who would not back either Kerry or Bush under any circumstances.

Nader backers submit signatures to gain ballot spot by Jeff Mapes, The Oregonian, Wenesday, August 25.

The AP is reporting right now that they have found an official Navy document from 1969 that confirms the fact that John Kerry deserved both a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for saving Jim Rassmann's life.

WASHINGTON - The Navy task force overseeing John Kerry (news - web sites)'s swift boat squadron in Vietnam reported that his group of boats came under enemy fire during a March 13, 1969, incident that three decades later is being challenged by the Democratic presidential nominee's critics.

The March 18, 1969, weekly report from Task Force 115, which was located by The Associated Press during a search of Navy archives, is the latest document to surface that supports Kerry's description of an event for which he won a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart.

The Task Force report twice mentions the incident five days earlier and both times calls it "an enemy initiated firefight" that included automatic weapons fire and underwater mines used against a group of five boats that included Kerry's.

What makes this story even better is the fact that Task Force 115 has a connection to the Swiftvets 527 that's running ads against Senator Kerry.

Task Force 115 was commanded at the time by retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the founder of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has been running ads challenging Kerry's account of the episode.

WOW!

Though I think this story is highly meritorious, it is not the least bit surprising to those of us who have actually been following this story on media other than Fox News and CNN (the handful of Americans watching MSNBC know that only that network is doing a halfway decent job with this story).

I think all of us in the blogosphere are developing carpal tunnel syndrome from typing out all of the repudiations of these highly dubious and slanderous charges against Kerry (which is sadly ironic because the Bush Administration has doubtless nixed any attempts to create workplace safety regulations that could prevent the syndrome).

I only hope that the media starts doing a better job is exposing the lies of these anti-Kerry veterans rather than pretending to be objective by merely repeating their claims half of the time (thank you Rob Corddry).

If you missed it already, check out the John Kerry interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart when the show reruns later tonight or at 7:00 PM tomorrow. The whole thing was spectacular, and it will surely make a splash!

If you can't wait until tomorrow, check out the transcript here. My favorite part:

[Kerry and Stewart looking at eachother at close range creating a profile of both for the camera]
JOHN KERRY: (UNINTEL) look at that profile.
JON STEWART: No, believe me, I know. I’m all Jew. You may be 1/4. I got everything.

Larry Sabato over at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics has an interesting article over at his website paralleling the central role the Civil War played in US politics with the role Vietnam has played and will play in our current politics. He hypothesizes that "for only the second time in our nation's history, the bitterness of a bloody, lost war will shadow national politics until generational replacement has removed all the brave soldiers who experienced the event first-hand." In other words, just as the Civil War shaped a number of elections following the conflict, so too has Vietnam affected presidential elections.

The first President elected following the Civil War, of course, was Union General Ulysses S. Grant, and veterans of the war would continue to play a central role in presidential politics through the turn of the 20th century (William McKinley, a veteran, was reelected in 1900). Some elections even focused on the candidates' service or lack thereof (Grover Cleveland's "draft dodging" was a huge issue), just like today.

The Civil War did not only play a central role in Presidential contests every four years; rather, it played an enormous role in defining the parties for decades to come. For years following the war, the Democrats were constantly blamed for being unpatriotic, mainly because their base included the "Solid South" which had seceded from the Union. They were deridingly referred to as the party of "rum, Romanism, and rebellion," a term coined almost 20 years after the end of the conflict that was still used as late as 1928 (talk about a lack of civil discourse in campaigns!). It was not until America was mired in the Great Depression 77 years after the end of the Civil War that the Democrats were once again able to be the majority party in the nation.

Although I'm sure that Sabato does not believe that Vietnam will shape the party coalitions for another handful of decades like the Civil War, he nonetheless finds an interesting comparison between the two wars. He writes,

Much like the Civil War, the Vietnam War continues to roil our elections almost thirty years after the inglorious collapse of U.S.-supported South Vietnam. Arguably, Vietnam has already played a significant role in as many presidential elections as the Civil War ever did--at least in a headline sense. It was THE ISSUE in 1968 and 1972, but still mattered greatly in 1976 (the amnesty matter for those young men who had fled the country over the draft); 1980, 1984, and 1988 (the "weak on defense" issue for the Democrats as a result of the party's post-Vietnam dovish tilt), 1992 and 1996 (Clinton's draft evasion while running against war heroes Bush Sr. and Bob Dole), 2000 (Bush's National Guard situation), and now 2004.

Vietnam has indeed been a central part of the political discourse for going on 36 years now, and I think it's possible that it will remain a central part of our politics "until generational replacement has removed all the brave soldiers who experienced the event first-hand." However, I think it's much more likely that this election will be the last in which the war plays a central role in the campaign (unless John McCain or Chuck Hagel runs against John Kerry or another Vietnam vet in four years, which I don't see happening).

1988 was the first election in which a candidate for national office was the right age to have served in Vietnam, and Vice Presidential candidate Dan Quayle opted to serve in the Indiana National Guard rather than go to Southeast Asia. This did not play a major role in the election.

In 1992 and 1996, as Sabato writes, the Republicans nominated war heroes to run against alleged draft dodger Bill Clinton, to no avail. Bush 41 and Dole, however, were heroes of WWII, so the Vietnam issue was never fully flushed out. Moreover, the economy (bad in 1992, good in 1996) meant significantly more to the American people than a war decades earlier.

2000 was the first contest between two Vietnam era candidates, but Al Gore's service in Vietnam as a member of the media did not provide a large enough contrast for most Americans to see a real difference. As a result, George W. Bush's lack of Vietnam service did not play a major role in the campaign.

This brings us to this year's campaign, the last two weeks of which have focused on Vietnam. While the police action of the 1960s and 70s will undoubtedly continue to play a role in this campaign, the more significant part of this election is that it is the first to feature a candidate too young to have participated in the Vietnam War.

Kerry's selection of John Edwards as his running mate has begun the change of generations in American politics, like 1952 and 1988. When Eisenhower added WWII veteran Richard Nixon to his ticket, little could he have known that Nixon's generation would play a dominant role in presidential elections for the next 44 years. Bush's selection of Quayle in 1988 similarly brought on a changing of the guard as Quayle's Vietnam generation would lead America through the next millennium.

John Edwards could play this same role of opening the door of Presidential politics for his generation. Younger politicians, like Barack Obama, Eliot Spitzer and Mark Warner for the Democrats and Jeb Bush, Bill Frist and George Allen for the Democrats, not mired in controversies over Vietnam service, could take the mantle from the previous generation and create a new political order and thus remove Vietnam from its central role in our national debate.

As a result, although 2004 is the first election in which the candidates' participation in the Vietnam War has played a central role, it should also be the last. The issue of Vietnam may not be resolved "until generational replacement has removed all the brave soldiers who experienced the event first-hand," but I think it's fairly safe to say that our candidates won't be discussing it in 20 years.

Do you remember the case of Valerie Plame? I know the mainstream media have forgotten about her, or at least have decided that the outting of an undercover CIA agent by the current Administration is not newsworthy (but Scott Peterson is!!!???).

To get back at Ambassador Joe Wilson who uncovered that Bush Administration claims about Iraq's procurement of uranium from Niger were generally dubious, someone in the Administration informed members of the media that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a secret CIA agent. While all signs had pointed to the Vice President's office, no solid proof had yet to emerge pinning this allegation on a certain person.

Today, howerver, the AP is reporting that all indications are pointing to the involvement of Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Although those of us following the story over the past year have assumed that Libby was the leaker, it's great that there is some confirmation to these allegations.

We certainly won't convict Libby before he gets a fair trial, but it's safe to say that where there is smoke, there's fire. As a result, pay attention to this story in the next few weeks, because it's not going away.

Check out this article from this morning's Washington Post on John Kerry's upcoming appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I wrote briefly about this last night, but I'd again just let you know that you cannot miss the interview.

I must not have been checking up on Slate.com frequently enough as of late because I missed a great article on Oregon as a battleground state in this election. It's a definite must read if you want to know which way Oregon should go in November (you can also read up on my coverage of Oregon politics and my election previews here).

If you're more of an audio type rather than a reader, check out the story on NPR's Day to Day. It's basically a condensed version of the Slate article.

Realizing that writing about The Daily Show now that I'm on the West Coast (and seeing the program three hours later than those on the East Coast) makes my posts on the show slightly less timely, I nevertheless want to talk briefly tonight's episode, which again was one of the best I've ever seen.

During the opening segment, Jon Stewart let the audience know that John Kerry will be on the show tomorrow night (as has been posted here, here and here) in what is sure to be an amazing 23 minutes of television. Tell everyone you know that they must watch the show, if not at 11:00 PM or 1:00 AM then the next day. What is more, if you have Tivo or a DVR (or even just a VCR), record the program so you show it to all of your friends in due time. This will be a big moment in the presidential campaign, so definitely tune in!

Now for the rest of the evening's program. The main news story dealt with during tonight's show was on the "controversy" over John Kerry's Vietnam service. Although I've tried to cover the story and analyze it the best I can (here and here), nothing I've come up with--heck, nothing the entire media have come up with--can compare to the dead on reading of this disgrace of a news story produced by The Daily Show.

Jon Stewart began by explaining the background of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, which is an ironic name "because they're neither swift nor truthful."

He then continued by speaking about Bob Dole, who "used to have a reputation as a party hatchetman," but would surely be fair in analyzing the story on CNN as he's a veteran who received the Purple Heart, like John Kerry. After showing a clip in which Dole said, among other things, that Kerry did not deserve the Purple Hearts and that he "never bled that I know of," Stewart quipped, "it's the old Bob Dole. HE'S BACK!!"

Stewart then turned to correspondent Rob Corddry for more coverage of the Swiftvets issue. In an exchange that contained a thinly-veiled attack on the media's abhorrent coverage of the debate over John Kerry's war record, Corddry revealed the media's lack of objectivity better than any real media analyst, from Howard Kurtz to Ken Auletta.

"My job is to repeat what one side says half of the time and then the other side ."

The show wrapped up with one of the best celebrity interviews I've seen in a long time with former NFL player/new author Robert Smith discussing a range of really interesting issues with Stewart. What is more, it was hilarious and it was great TV.

If you have a chance to catch the show when it is rerun tomorrow, you definitely should. And, don't forget to watch Jon Stewart's interview with John Kerry tommorow--it'll be great.

The past week or so has proved to be the first complete media battle of the 2004 presidential campaign, with John Kerry's experience in Vietnam being debated by political reporters and pundits alike. True, there have been a number of skirmishes so far on issues ranging from the War in Iraq to education, the environment to unemployment; in most of these instances, however, at least one side has held some punches, waiting for a later moment to fully engage the competition. It appears as though the Swiftboat "controversy" has become the moment each campaign was waiting for, and both sides have been willing to go to great lengths to show that they can win at this relatively early juncture.

The other night I wrote about how Kerry's filing of an FEC complaint against the Bush campaign would prove to be an extremely shrewd move as Kerry proved he is no wimp; by laying down the gauntlet on the Swiftvets ads and thus upping the ante in the "Bitch-Slap" battle (as Josh Marshall so eloquently puts it), the Kerry campaign put the Bush team in an extremely tough situation. As a result, he won the meta-debate by proving he could and would defend himself against vicious attacks by Bush's shrouded allies (unlike Dukakis and Gore).

This strategic victory is not only important in proving John Kerry's strength, however; it is also offering to move the debate into friendly terrain for the Democratic nominee. While it's true that Kerry's war record is not perfect and his later anti-War stances may prove unpalatable to some, Kerry clearly possesses the upper hand in the debate over President Bush in their respective Vietnam War records (or lack thereof).

The Bush campaign has attempted to shift attention away from this debate by saying that what happened 35 years ago doesn't really apply to the current presidential election (even as they goad their cronies into attacking Kerry's war record). The Kerry campaign has not fallen for this obvious trap, however, and they will not shy away from the comparison now that the shadow-GOP is launching a head-on attack on Kerry.

Some might say that the Kerry campaign is not succeeding in this first full battle of the campaign because his support among veterans has declined since the Democratic National Convention. This line of reason is highly flawed. John Kerry does not need to win the veteran vote nearly as much as much as George W. Bush does; veterans and their families have been a major part of the Republican base for decades, and the fact that Bush is polling at about 50% among them (even if he is defeating Kerry by double digits in this category) does not portend well for the President. What is more, if Kerry is able to gain close to half of the veterans' vote in November, I cannot envision a scenario in which Bush is reelected.

Even more important than the veteran vote, though, is how the veteran issue is perceived by the vast remainder of the American public. For instance, polling has indicated that Kerry's Vietnam service means significantly more to the general public than it does to the veteran community (which might seem counterintuitive). Although some questions remain about John Kerry's Vietnam service in the minds of a few partisan pundits, most real Americans believe that his service was commendable and admirable. As a result, when they hear scurrilous attacks on John Kerry's highly decorated war record, they are generally offended.

On Sunday, former GOP standard-bearer and WWII veteran Bob Dole coldly stated on CNN that John Kerry did not deserve his three Purple Hearts, and that Kerry "never bled that I know of." Such malicious attacks are not accepted by most Americans, even if the partisan base loves to hear them; more clearly, Americans will accept negative campaigning only to a certain extent, at which point the attacks backfire.

To give an historical example of this, at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, Ann Richards said that George H. W. Bush was born with a "silver foot in his mouth." Although many Democrats loved that line, most Americans were turned off by the purely mean-spiritedness of it, and that accordingly did not help Michael Dukakis with the independent voters. Dole's comments, as well as those of the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth," though embraced by rabid Republicans, will inevitably hurt Bush by turning off the few remaining undecided voters.

John Kerry must continue to exude strength in the coming days and weeks if he wishes to win the White House, and the Swiftboat vets are playing right into his hand by reminding Americans that he is a true hero. What is more, these slanderous attacks--whether from Vietnam veterans or Bob Dole--are only making the American public more sympathetic to John Kerry's cause. Though the war for the Presidency has yet to be won we are yet in the midst of this decisive battle over Vietnam service, the advantage thus far clearly belongs to John Kerry. If the campaign continues in this direction for the next 70-some days, Kerry should not be too worried about his chances.

For what reason I have no idea, I ended up tuning to Fox News Sunday this afternoon while I was playing on my old 486 computer (those ancient games are still fun!). Chris Wallace was surprisingly mediocre (rather than horrible) in speaking with one of the right wing hacks... er, Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth. Although he was not nearly as inquisitive as Chris Matthews the other day when he demolished both Larry Thurlow and Michelle Malkin, he did manage to point out the many contradictions in the Swiftvets claims.

At the end of the program, a traditional Fox News panel (a neoconservative, a conservative, two non-partisan reporters and the moderator) was featured. I usually turn the program off before getting to this type of segment (nothing frustrates me more than the combination of moderate reporter Mort Kondracke and extreme right wing partisan Fred Barnes on a similar program, "Beltway Boys", or wimpy quasi-liberal Alan Colmes and uber-conservative Sean Hannity on "Hannity and Colmes"), but as I was engrossed in a rousing game of "A Train" (a 1993 Maxis release), I decided that I would be able to bear listening to the partisan drivel, perhaps for a few minutes at least.

The main topic that they spoke about, of course, was the "controversy" over the Swiftvets (I still don't understand how a few obvious liars attempting to rewrite history is a controversy). While most agreed that John Kerry's service was admirable in Vietnam and that the record that has stood for 35 years speaks for itself, the interminably idiotic William Kristol emphatically proclaimed that Kerry's account of saving Jim Rassmann has been obviously contradicted.

I stopped playing for a moment, because I thought I had heard Kristol misspeak. Perhaps he had mistaken this event for another, or the obviously contradicted accounts of some Swiftvets with the real memories of John Kerry and his actual crewmates. Kristol, never to be outdone in naked partisanship (maybe afraid to have his role usurped my Malkin given her "stellar" performance on Hardball), repeated the claim again, so I'm guessing it was no mistake.

I have no problem with people cashing in on the fame and prestige of their relatives, as everyone--from regent to pauper, aristocrat to peasant, Republican to Democrat, Bush to Kennedy--has done it in the past. Where I take offense, however, is when someone as obviously unintelligent as William Kristol attempts to carry on the mantle of his father, Irving Kristol.

Although I may not have agreed with much the elder Kristol opined, at least he carried true clout, having been one of the founders of the neoconservative movement along with others like Norman Podhoretz. A reformed Trotskyite, his ideas fundamentally reshaped American politics (whether you agree with them or not).

The younger Kristol's record is far less impressive. His main accomplishment in life has been creating The Weekly Standard (I know... The Weekly sub-Standard) with another neocon using his own father's credentials, John Podhoretz. Also included in Bill's second-rate resume (from Wikipedia):

• Running Alan Keyes tremendously ineffective 1988 run for Maryland Senate.
  
• Being "dubbed 'Dan Quayle's brain' by The New Republic upon being appointed the Vice President's chief of staff." (I think that one really hurts)

Now that I've gotten all of this frustration off of my chest, hopefully I will remember in the future never again to watch Fox News (even while playing on an antiquated computer). What is more, I hope you will pay heed to this warning: If you wish neither to be aggravated nor to lose countless brain cells by watching mind numbing "discourse," DO NOT WATCH FOX NEWS.

PS: Perhaps under the Kerry Administration, the new Surgeon General will require such a warning to be placed on all Fox News content, like what is mandated for all tobacco products.