It's that simple.

Former conservative Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough: "I don't know how anyone can see this and not say that this was a very clear Kerry win on the issues."

David Gergen: "One of the best debates we've had in a long time... John Kerry had the most to prove, and he proved it... Kerry's back in the game now."

JOHN KERRY WON THE FIRST DEBATE, and that makes me happy.

[Update 8:54]: CNN reporting that the Gallup poll taken immediately after the debate breaks down thusly: Kerry win 53, Bush win 37. This is awesome!

[Update 9:06]: Newsweek's Howard Fineman says that Bush spinners looked worried but Kerry spinners were "hopping and skipping"; this means htat Kerry did better than Bush.

Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford: "Kerry did what he needed to do."

[Update 9:07]: MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "There's no question that on style, Kerry won."

MSNBC: Kerry looked Presidential.

We can continue here.

[Update 7:33]: This just in... Mrs. Allan Greenspan (Andrea Mitchell) finally says Kerry did well. She generally leans right, so it's great to hear her be fair.

[Update 7:35]: Former conservative Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough says that this was John Kerry's best performance ever. Strong words. "I don't know how anyone can see this and not say that this was a very clear Kerry win on the issues." Wow!

[Update 7:38]: Andrea Mitchell- Reaction shots could kill the President, whereas Kerry looked great in his reaction shots.

[Update 7:42]: WES CLARK ON CNN! This makes me happy... very happy!

[Update 7:45]: Kerry looked calm and strong, "Bush didn't look like he wanted to be there." (MSNBC analyst)

[Update 7:47]: CBS Poll- Kerry win 44, Bush 26!!!! This is great.

[Update 7:51]: CBS Poll of uncommitted voters on a clear plan of Iraq- Kerry has a clear plan 51%, Bush has a clear plan 38%

CBS Poll of uncommitted voters on how the debate changed view of Kerry- improved view of Kerry 52%, worsened view of Kerry 14%

I'd have to say the response sounds good!

[Update 7:54]: CNN internet poll (at the bottom of the page)- Kerry win 84%, Bush 12%. This, unlike the CBS poll, was not scientific, but it's a good thing to see.

[Update 7:58]: MSNBC internet poll (at the top of the page)- Kerry win 73%, Bush 27%. This, unlike the CBS poll, was not scientific, but it's a good thing to see.

[Update 8:03]: A reader comment-

Was anyone watching C-SPAN? Bush left the stage first, leaving Kerry and his wife---AND THE AUDIENCE STOOD UP AN CHEERED KERRY! Thanks for letting us know... I missed that.

[Update 8:16]: Brian Williams fact-checking on MSNBC:

• Bush says we've trained 100,000 Iraqi troops already. The only problem is that Iyad Illawi says only 45,000 have been trained, and I'm sure that's a high figure.

[Update 8:18]: Clintonista Joe Lockhart is doing a great job in spinning the debate, and I'm glad to see that Kerry picked him up for the campaign.

[Update 8:23]: I just flipped over to Fox News. Boy, has Peggy Noonan had a lot of plastic surgery since the last time I saw her. She almost looks like Van Susternernerner...

[Update 8:26]: Jon Meacham, Newsweek Managing Editor-

"Bush is running on 'I'm a leader, even if I'm not saying where I'm leading'" (or something along these lines).

[Update 8:29]: CNN spin- Jorge Ramos, Univision News Anchor, seemed to indicate that Kerry did better than Bush. David Gergen: "One of the best debates we've had in a long time... John Kerry had the most to prove, and he proved it... Kerry's back in the game now."

I like what I'm hearing.

---

Feel free to comment in this thread... just click the "comments" button. I'll try to put the best ones up on the front page.

I'm watching the debate on MSNBC, and I'll keep updating this post throughout the evening.

[Update 6:11]: Unacceptable answer from the President on whether he thinks America is more likely to be hit if John Kerry is elected; he didn't say yes, he didn't say no. This underscores his campaign's attempt to make Americans think that the nation will be hit if Kerry is elected.

Kerry did not answer the question as well as I wish he did, hitting the President for this unfair attack, but listing the Generals supporting him (especially Eisenhower's son) was an effective counterattack.

[Update 6:19]: The President looks a bit flustered on whether Iraq was a diversion from the War on Terror. He, like Don Rumsfeld a few days ago, almost confused Saddam and OBL, which doesn't look so good.

Kerry hit back hard, saying that the President diverted funds from Afghanistan to Iraq and strongly said that Bush has mishandled the war. Good stuff from Kerry.

[Update 6:24]: Kerry has a great point--the President and I don't need a tax cut, we need to defend America.

[Update 6:27]: Bush is looking pretty flustered... it looks like Kerry is getting under the President's skin, and that's exactly what he needs to do to win.

[Update 6:30]: Kerry on the "I voted for it before I voted against it":

I made a mistake in the way I explained myself, but the President made a mistake in leading the country to war... which is worse?

Beatiful! That's exactly what we want to hear.

[Update 6:38]: Kerry just hit the "truth" line, and I think he should continue with it.

[Update 6:39]: North Korea getting nuclear weapons... Kerry says, "talk about mixed messages!"

[Update 6:44]: Bush just fell into Kerry's trap, saying that the best leader doesn't go around changing positions. I hope Kerry uses this to say that you can't lead if you can't admit when you're wrong.

[Update 6:46]: A comment I really liked on this thread:

Annonymous- I think Kerry looks a lot more presidential and his answers are a lot better. Book looks very hesitant when answering...of course we all knew public speaking wasn't his strong suit. However, I think that Bush looked a lot more polished in the 2000 debates than he is looking tonight.

[Update 6:47]: Great Kerry line... the President's plan is "four words: MORE OF THE SAME." This is a great comparison.

[Update 6:49]: Good to hear Kerry mention Israel so it doesn't appear as though Bush is the only one that cares about the country.

[Update 6:57]: "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us; Osama Bin Laden attacked us, Al Qaeda attacked us." It's great to hear Kerry hitting the President for diverting strength from Afghanistan and the War on Terror to Iraq.

[Update 6:58]: "If the President could have been more patient..." That's what I want to hear!

[Update 7:03]: Wow... the President can pronounce world leaders' names. Impressive!

[Update 7:04]: With all of these giant pauses in his speeches, the President sure sounds flustered.

[Update 7:07]: I take that back... the President can't pronounce world leaders' names (who's Kim Jing Il?)

[Update 7:09]: Another comment...

Annonymous- Did you notice on the split screen that Fox (since they control the cameras) has made George as tall as Kerry? Cheap shot on Fox's part. I've been watching on PBS, so no, but thanks for alerting me. I'm watching over at Fox now and I'll let you know how I feel when I notice it.

[Update 7:12]: GREAT question from Lehrer, asking Bush if he thinks there is anything that makes him think Kerry shouldn't be President. He asked it before, but Bush didn't answer it. Bush is not handling it well, at least in my opinion.

[Update 7:15]: "It's one thing to be certain, but it's another thing to be certain and be wrong." I've been waiting for Kerry to say this for SO long. It's a great line. He's got to keep on hitting it.

[Update 7:16]: What is the greatest threat facing America? Kerry: "Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation." That's right on.

[Update 7:19]: "You're talking about mixed messages"... this is a President who is trying to stop nuclear proliferation but is beginning to proliferate a new nuclear weapon.

Bush could not have fumbled the response worse. He sounds like a bumbling idiot, and having a bumbling idiot as President is not a show of strength.

[Update 7:20]: Another comment...

Nucular Pliferation

[Update 7:22]: I do notice that Fox is trying to make the President look as tall as Kerry, though it looks silly as the podiums are in different places on the split screen.

[Update 7:26]: I didn't hear Kerry say anything about Saddam Hussein, so why did the President just bring it up in his rebuttal? I don't get it... perhaps it's because he just doesn't have the mental capacity to handle more than three lines at a time.

[Update 7:27]: Another comment...

I want to see how many more times GW can mispronounce "Vladimir".

---

Feel free to comment in this thread... just click the "comments" button. I'll try to put the best ones up on the front page.

I'm off to class until just before the debate, but I'll have ongoing analysis during the debate and afterthoughts as soon as possible following the debate, so stick around Basie! I also encourage you to post your feelings in the comments thread, and I'll try to put the best ones on the front page.

This is great news:

The Republican-controlled House emphatically defeated a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Thursday, the latest in a string of conservative pet causes pushed to a vote by GOP leaders in the run-up to Election Day.

The vote was 227-186, far short of the two-thirds needed for approval on a measure that President Bush backed but the Senate had previously rejected.

[...]

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip, accused GOP leaders of "raw political cynicism" and said they hoped to "create the fodder for a demagogic political ad."

Whatever the motivation, there was no disagreement that the amendment lacked the two-thirds majority needed to pass, just as it failed by a lopsided margin in the Senate earlier this year.

Link.

Here's more from last week's Willamette Week:

SHUT UP and VOTE!

Zach Dundas

According to the poll of eight local Klingons, a whopping 75 percent support the Democratic nominee.

Two Klingons polled--or 25 percent--said they planned to write in Satan.

Bush scored an abysmal zero percent in the poll.

"A good war is based on honor, not deception," says K'tok (Earth name: Clyde Lewis), a 40-year-old Klingon from Lair Hill. "The first warrior, President Bush, deceived us all with this war."

Link of the entire article.

From Rasmussen Reports:

In the sixteen-Battleground States that are likely to determine the winner of Election 2004, President Bush and Senator Kerry are tied at 47% each.

Until the Republican National Convention, Kerry had been ahead in the 16-Battleground States for most of the year. In Election 2000, Bush and Gore split the vote in these states 48% to 48%.Link.

Michael Scanlon, a public-relations consultant and former aide to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) now under investigation for his business dealings with Indian tribes, failed to show up to testify before a Senate panel yesterday after federal marshals were unable to serve him with the committee’s subpoena.

“The U.S. marshals tell us Mr. Scanlon is hiding out in his house with the blinds drawn,” said Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, after the hearing. “But we’re going to [subpoena] him again. He will be before the committee one way or another. … I want to ask him questions. He is going to have to duck and dodge.”

Josephine Hearn, "Scanlon ‘is hiding out’", The Hill, September 30, 2004.

From this weeks issue of the Economist, which you can buy at local news stands:

So that's where Rummy's been

A new “Porn for Kerry DVD” will portray the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Jenna Bush. Profits from the epic (“part political satire and part hardcore hot sex”) will go to help the Kerry campaign.

New York Post, September 29th

Klingons for Kerry

“A good war is based on honour, not deception. The first warrior, President Bush, deceived us all with this war.”

K'tok, ie, Clyde Lewis, an Oregonian Klingon. An in-depth poll of eight warrior-race members purchasing “Trekkies 2” revealed that 75% support Mr Kerry and 25% plan to vote for Satan. Willamette Week Online, September 22nd

Link. (Subscription reqd.)

I like this story.

John Eisenhower, son of Republican President Eisenhower, said in a newspaper column this week that he will vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president on Nov. 2.

In a rare public announcement, Eisenhower said he switched his party affiliation from Republican to independent after 50 years after losing confidence in his former party. He said Kerry has demonstrated courage, competence and a concern for tackling the "widening socio-economic gap in this country."

"There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them," Eisenhower wrote in the opinion column published Tuesday in The Union Leader of Manchester, N.H.

Link.

The race is still quite tight, according to the most recent Harris Interactive poll. Mirroring the results of this weeks Economist/YouGov poll, the Harris poll of likely voters has Bush up by a 48-46 margin, within the margin of error of +/- 2.5%.

Michigan: Strategic Vision (R) poll of 801 likely voters from September 26-28, 2004, MoE of +/- 3.0%

Kerry 49, Bush 42

Minnesota: Strategic Vision (R) poll of 801 likely voters from September 26-28, 2004, MoE of +/- 3.0%

Kerry 48, Bush 46

New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind poll of 489 likely voters from September 23-28, 2004, MoE of +/- 4.5%

Kerry 45, Bush 44

Ohio: CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 802 registered voters from September 25-28, 2004, MoE of +/- 4.0%

Kerry 50, Bush 46

Pennsylvania: CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 799 registered voters from September 25-28, 2004, MoE of +/- 4.0%

Kerry 49, Bush 45

Pennsylvania: Mason-Dixon poll of 625 likely voters from September 27-28, 2004, MoE of +/- 4.0%

Kerry 45, Bush 44

Though President Bush has constantly been leading in Virginia--a state taken by the GOP in every Presidential contest since 1964--recent polling indicates that he is having trouble getting over 50% support in the state. If you check out electoral-vote.com's graph of the state (excluding the most recent SurveyUSA poll, which appears to be an outlier), the President hasn't been over 50% since May.

A new Mason-Dixon poll of 625 likely Virginia voters conducted from September 24-27 shows the President with a lead of 49-43 over challenger John Kerry. While it may appear as though Kerry does not have a chance at winning the state, the fact that the President cannot muster a majority in a likely voter poll--which generally favor Republican candidates--speaks to the Senator's chances at winning the state.

I'm not sure if Kerry is even planning on campaigning in the state, but I think it would behoove him to place some focus in Virginia--especially over states like Oregon and Washington--to broaden his base of possible pickups in the Electoral College and thus increase his chances at winning the White House.

There are a couple of new polls out from SurveyUSA that show the Democrats have a decent shot at picking up a couple of seats being vacated by Republicans. Here's the info:

Democrats have opty for pick-up in CO CD3: Salazar leads by 12 pts

Open House seat in a District that Bush carried in 2000

• In an election for U.S. House today in Colorado's 3rd Congressional District, to fill Republican Scott McInnis's seat, Democrat John Salazar defeats Republican Greg Walcher 52% to 40%, according to SurveyUSA poll of 731 likely CD3 voters conducted 9/25-9/27.
  
• John Salazar (brother of Ken Salazar, who is running for U.S. Senate in Colorado), holds 92% of Democrat base. Just 5% of Democrats cross-over to Walcher. Walcher holds 74% of GOP base. 19% of Republicans cross-over. Independents break 2:1 for Democrat.
  
• Walcher, just emerging from bitter primary, is tied in suburban parts of district, but trails by 16 in urban areas. Walcher leads by 41 pts among conservatives. Salazar leads by 35 pts among moderates & by 74 pts among liberals.

Washington CD8: Ross, Reichert in slugfest to fill open GOP seat

Opportunity for Democrat pick-up in battle for Jennifer Dunn's GOP house seat

• In an election for U.S. House of Representatives today in Washington's 8th Congressional District, Democrat Dave Ross & Republican Dave Reichert tie, according to SurveyUSA poll of 596 likely WA CD8 voters conducted 9/27 + 9/28.
  
• It's Ross 45%, Reichert 43% today. 12% are undecided or would vote for someone else.
  
• Many demographics are fiercely contested. The race is effectively even among young voters, voters age 50+, whites, men, college grads & urban dwellers. Ross with slight edge among women & in suburbs. Reichert holds 83% of GOP base. Ross holds 78% of Democrat base. Ross has 16-pt advantage among independents. Reichert up 56 pts among conservatives. Ross up 26 pts among moderates & up 48 pts among liberals.

It sure sounds like it...

After the swift boat attacks of August and the Rathergate debacle – CBS' botched attempt to paint President Bush as an insolent National Guard officer deserving of court martial – John Kerry seems to have found his footing. Kerry seems a liberated man.

He is now pummeling the president on the great issue of this campaign. "The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy, Al Qaeda," declares Kerry. It has turned Iraq into a haven for terrorists. He describes "the real war."

"(T)o destroy our enemy we have to know our enemy. ... They are not just out to kill us, they want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region's governments and pave the way for a new empire: an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area from Europe to Africa, from the Middle East to Central Asia. That's their goal."

Truth be told, this is exactly what we confront.

From a Pat Buchanan piece today.

[Note: The Los Angeles Times opinion section editors accepted this op-ed piece for publication before the last presidential election, only to have it vetoed three days later by some higher-up managerial intervention. With the recent publication of Kitty Kelley’s The Family, along with the charge therein that George W. Bush used cocaine at Camp David during his father’s presidential term, i.e., past George W. Bush’s 40th birthday, it would seem that the issues raised four years ago in this piece are again current and have yet to be addressed.]



A Tragic Unfolding of Character


John Seery October 2000


Has George W. Bush ever used hard drugs such as cocaine? Even as a scrutinizing campaign season draws soon to a conclusion, the American public still doesn’t know Bush’s answer to this question. He has groused about, danced around, and heretofore successfully evaded the famous “cocaine question,” and shockingly news editors and press pundits have deferred to his annoyance over the matter. Media reporters across the nation, unable to find hard confirmation of earlier allegations about possible drug use in Bush’s past, haven’t even put the question to candidate Bush for many months. The silence is curious. Yet for many reasons—for one, to avoid another grueling impeachment trial of a sitting U.S. President—the American electorate deserves an unequivocal answer to this question, which indeed holds public, not simply personal ramifications. George W. Bush should step forward before the election and volunteer a simple and clear answer: yes or no.

Rumors about past drug use have dogged Governor Bush since his first days running for governor, but rumors should be regarded as only rumors until proven otherwise. Yet Bush for years has prolonged the rumor mongering about his alleged drug use by ducking and dodging the issue. He has created a climate of additional suspicion, intrigue, and ambiguity. His evasiveness raises questions about his current, not just about his past character and candor.

Even more troubling, possible use of cocaine raises a question not just about character, but about Bush’s legal fitfulness for elected office at all. If he indeed used cocaine, he would have committed a felony. If convicted as a felon, under almost all state constitutions he would lose the right to vote and the right to hold elected office. Surely the American people deserve to know: Are we about to elect a felon, albeit an unconvicted felon, to the Presidency of these United States?

In 1994, when asked about drug use in his campaign for governor of Texas, Bush replied, “What I did as a kid? I don’t think it’s relevant.” But it was and still is relevant, if only because his dismissive response reveals a profound misunderstanding of the severity of the charge. Imagine if he had sidestepped a similar question about other felonies such as armed robbery or rape. Moreover, if the rumors are true, namely that Bush used cocaine in college through the end of his military service at age 26, he certainly wasn’t a “kid” at the time but was an adult citizen of this country, especially in the eyes of the law.

About a year ago, during the presidential primaries, 11 out of 12 candidates in both parties denied ever using cocaine. George W. Bush was the sole candidate who refused to answer the question. He quipped, “When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.” But youthful irresponsibility is not the same as felonious criminality, and most state constitutions observe that distinction quite strictly.

At the time, the press probed for more details. Bush first said that he could pass the kind of background check required of Clinton administration employees, which meant in effect that he had been drug-free for the past seven years. On further prompting, he said that he could pass the kind of background check his father imposed on White House employees, which was interpreted to mean that he has been clean for the past 25 years, since he was 28 years old. A bevy of dubious reports then emerged about “lost weekends in Mexico” and about failed or deliberately skipped military medical exams hinting provocatively at hard drug use.

Bush fended off a media frenzyby saying that he refused to play the game of “gotcha” politics and would answer no more drug-related questions about himself. His parents, George, Sr. and Barbara Bush, both defended their son’s “principled” refusal to talk about his “misspent youth,” though they admitted that they had never actually asked him about drug use. Apparently the Bush family wanted the media to follow suit, thus abdicating their responsibility to serve as a vigilant fourth estate. Indeed, many media commentators started lamenting gutter journalism, tabloid tactics, and privacy intrusions, as if it were beneath their dignity to inquire further into George W. Bush’s most basic track record as a law-abiding citizen, or not.

“Gotcha” politics based on youthful or private indiscretions are regrettable. Many members of the boomer generation indulged in “recreational” drugs in their youth, and maybe we should concentrate instead on their more recent public behavior, policies, and qualifications. But a distinction needs to be drawn between “hard” drug use on the one hand, and marijuana use, heavy drinking, and womanizing on the other—because the former was and still is felonious. Our democracy does not allow felons to participate in most forms of electoral politics, and voters tend not to reward those exhibiting felonious behaviors by electing them to high office. Whereas then-candidate Bill Clinton feebly confronted but nevertheless diffused the issue of his youthful marijuana smoking by claiming that he “never inhaled,” George W. Bush cannot effect a similar triangulation by saying that he “sniffed but never snorted” cocaine. Were he to admit such a serious crime, compounded by a calculated cover-up, he would either need to leave office or be forced to leave, just as drug-aided Olympic athletes must return their gold medals even after the competition is over.

George W. Bush has waged his entire presidential campaign on character. He has promised to restore honor and dignity to the Oval Office. No one, even a President, should be above the law, he has told us. He wants the President to be able to serve as a role model for our kids. He wants to be able to speak straight from the heart without needing to appeal to obfuscations such as “no controlling legal authority.” But his fuzzy answers and fuzzy memory on the drug question, left unchallenged by a complicit or obsequious national media, belie and potentially sabotage his high-minded aspirations. The American public deserves to know in advance whether he is legally fit to uphold the laws of our land. If he has nothing to hide, then he should exonerate his good name as soon as possible.




Professor John Seery is Professor of Politics at Pomona College.

I was just speaking with a source of mine very involved in Democratic politics (about as insider as it gets) who let me know that the big story from Washington is that the Pentagon--unhappy with the Bush Administration for trying to pin the Iraq mess on them--is the source of the constant stream of leaks in the past few weeks and months. Interesting stuff.

Later tonight or tomorrow morning I'll have an important Bush cocaine piece that had been scheduled to run in the LA Times Op/Ed section in the fall of 2000 before the paper was bought out by the Tribune. It's a very interesting piece from a highly respected American political theorist, so I think you should enjoy it.

Although it is certainly disconcerting that the ballot initiative proposing Gay Marriage ban in the state of Oregon is currently ahead in the polls (57-38 as of 9/13-16), there appears to be some good news in the fight to defeat the measure. Jeff Wright notes in today's Eugene Register-Guard that opponents of the amendment to the state constitution have been drawing significantly more financial backing than the proponents. In "Foes of gay-marriage ban outspend backers", write reports:

Opponents have raised the most money, but supporters may have the upper hand in persuading Oregon voters that marriage should be limited to unions involving a man and a woman.

With the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force accounting for nearly half the amount, opponents of Ballot Measure 36 raised more than $1.1 million through Sept. 16. That figure has since climbed to about $1.4 million toward a goal of nearly $3 million, said Shauna Shindler Ballo with the No on Constitutional Amendment 36 Committee.

Supporters, led by the Defense of Marriage Coalition, have raised nearly $660,000 through Sept. 16. Many of those supporters, both statewide and in Lane County, have been churches. South Hills Assembly of God in south Eugene was the largest Lane County contributor at $1,000.

Wright continues:

But Ballo said a poll by opponents - giving respondents the primary arguments both for and against the measure - shows a statistical dead heat. The campaign has enlisted 5,000 volunteers to take part in door-to-door outreach, Ballo said.

"Some `yes' voters can be moved to `no' with enough information on the measure," she said. "We're working to talk with both the undecideds and the persuadables."

Ballo said opponents are already airing radio spots and plan to begin airing TV ads on Oct. 11, just before ballots are mailed for the Nov. 2 general election.

Oregon is one of 11 states with proposed constitutional amendments on the November ballot to ban same-sex marriage - but the only state where opponents are given any chance of prevailing.

Again, it's quite disappointing that in a state with the great history of progressivism like Oregon, a faction of extreme conservatives has been able to convince a majority of the population that discrimination should be written into the state constitution. That having been said, anti-gay groups like Lon Mabon's Oregon Citizens Alliance have been attempting to do similar things in the state for more than a decade, and though nearly half of the electorate has voted for amendments seeking to curtail the rights of the state's homosexuals, the initiatives have always been defeated.

It doesn't get any bigger than this:

In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time, made the observations answering audience questions after a speech to the Discovery Institute in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait.

[...]

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.

"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Kudos to Joel Connelly and Charles Pope of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer for finding this important quote. Link.

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 September 27-29, with 2773 respondents ("Registered to vote": 2402, "Will definitely vote": 2225), 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 46% (45, 46); 47% (46, 48)
John Kerry 45% (46, 45); 46% (47, 46)
Ralph Nader 2% (1, 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 47% 48%
John F Kerry 47% 48%
Ralph Nader 2% 1%
Someone else 3% 3%
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 38% 42%
Dissatisfied 57% 56%
Don't know 4% 3%

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

(Total, Def to vote)
Approve 43% 46%
Disapprove 52% 51%
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 43% 45%
Republicans 38% 42%
Don't Know 18% 13%

There has been essentially no change in this poll over the past five weeks indicating that not only is Bush not pulling away--as some polls might indicate--the race is in fact tied and hs settled in a tie. This is quite different than a substantial Bush lead, which is found is some heavily skewed surveys (like the one from Gallup).

Although Kerry's support is a few points lower than it was at its peak of 48% in this poll, Bush has yet to crack 47% in the survey. For all of teh hemming and hawing about Kerry's plight, the fact remains that an incumbent that is unable to pull a lead against a challenger is in a poor situation, regardless of anything else.

In tonight's The Daily Show, Jon Stewart felt John Kerry is a little too tan now... a la George Hamilton.

As if he weren't facing mounting pressure from a possible House Ethics Committee probe and the indictment of several of his former employees who worked in a PAC he set up, it appears as though House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is in a bit of trouble once again. Unsurprisingly, the issue at hand regards possibly unethical contributions.

Susan Schmidt and Thomas Edsall write in tomorrow morning's issue of the Washington Post that the heat is being turned up on the Texas Republican. In "DeLay Criticized in Probe of Tribal Funds", they write thusly:

The investigation of powerful GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his business associate Michael Scanlon led to partisan sparring yesterday as a Senate committee prepared to begin a hearing today into the millions of dollars in lobbying and public relations fees the pair were paid by Indian tribes that operate gambling casinos.

Democrats contended that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ability to campaign for fellow Republicans has been damaged by news reports on the business dealings of Scanlon, a former spokesman for the Texas Republican, and Abramoff, and the indictment last week of three DeLay aides on charges of illegally raising political funds.

[...]

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee and a federal grand jury are investigating at least $50 million in lobbying and public relations fees Abramoff and Scanlon garnered from Indian tribes that operate gambling casinos. The FBI and a task force of five federal agencies are investigating campaign contributions the two men directed the tribes to make to members of Congress, and whether tribal funds were misused in the contracts the two men obtained or the fees they collected, government sources said.

It's been since 1994 when a sitting House Speaker has been ousted and I'm not sure when the last time a party's #2 Represented has been forced out of office; nevertheless, it's appearing that the more DeLay's associates are under investigation and the closer these investigations get to the Congressman, the more radioactive he becomes to his party. I'm definitely not saying that Democrat Richard Morrison has such a great shot at knocking off DeLay, but if (or possibly when) one of these charges sticks, DeLay and the Republicans are going to be in a really tight spot.

The AP wire has the story:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a last-ditch bid to put Ralph Nader on Oregon's election ballot.

Nader supporters had asked the court last week to block Oregon from printing ballots without Nader's name. The court declined, although Justice Stephen Breyer noted he supported the stay.

Gina Holland, "Nader Supporters Lose Supreme Court Appeal", September 28, 2004.

Research 2000 has just finished a poll from Oregon that shows John Kerry once again at the magical 50% number in the Beaver state, an indication that the race for the state's 7 electoral votes has settled into a nice lead for the Democrat. The likely voter poll shows little movement from last week as Kerry now leads by a 50-44 margin (it was 51-44 before), with a MoE of +/- 4.0%.

Also striking is the fact that Kerry's ratings in the state are significantly higher than those of the President. The Senator is viewed favorably by 50% of the state to 38% unfavorable, while the President's numbers are 44% positive and 49% negative.

The results of this poll are very similar to other recent polling in the state. Here is a brief rundown:

• Research 2000 (9/20-23; 600 respondents): Kerry 50, Bush 44
  
• Rasmussen (9/8-21; 500 respondents): Kerry 51, Bush 43
  
• SurveyUSA* (9/19-21; 747 respondents): 52-43
  
• Zogby (9/13-17; 787 respondents): Kerry 53.9, Bush 41.9
  
• Research 2000 (9/13-16; 600 respondents): Kerry 51, Bush 44
  

* - Reweighted to reflect the real Oregon electorate.

The truth that becomes very apparent when looking at these polls is that John Kerry is over 50% in Oregon, and that's all that really matters. You might look to see progressive 527 organizations moving out of the state soon--like they did Michigan--to redeploy staff and reallocate funds to closer swing states. As I argued many times in my "Oregon: No Longer a Battleground State" series, while the Beaver state was close in 2000, it should be an easy win for Kerry in November and he'd be better served by paying attention to Ohio and Wisconsin (among other states) than Oregon.

New DSCCPoll Gives Knowles Biggest Lead

A new Democratic poll showed former Gov. Tony Knowles (D) leading Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) with his biggest lead to date.

The Global Strategy Group poll commissioned by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and conducted Sept. 19-21 showed Knowles leading 47 percent to 41 percent among 600 likely voters.

The survey's error margin was 4 percent.

Independent polls have shown the race neck-and-neck for months, with Knowles often enjoying a slight lead but one usually within the poll's margin of error.

Registration reqd., so no link available.

This from the Investor's Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll:

LIKELY VOTERS
KERRY 46 (43)
BUSH 45 (46)

REGISTERED VOTERS
KERRY 44 (43)
BUSH 44 (44)

Not too bad... not too bad at all.

While Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews and other rock stars sing on a "Vote for Change" concert tour, another disgruntled group - this one of scientists - will crisscross the well-worn landscape of battleground states over the next month, giving lectures that will argue that the Bush administration has ignored and misused science.

The group, Scientists and Engineers for Change, another addition to the flood of so-called 527 advocacy groups that have filled this year's election discourse, announced its existence and plans yesterday in a telephone news conference. At least 25 scientists will give talks in 10 contested states: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Among the headlining lecturers are 10 Nobel Prize winners, including Dr. Douglas D. Osheroff, a professor of physics at Stanford; Dr. Peter C. Agre, a professor of biological chemistry at Johns Hopkins; and Dr. Harold Varmus, former director of the National Institutes of Health.

Kenneth Chang, "Scientists Begin a Campaign to Oppose President's Policies", September 28, 2004.

There is an interesting story in today's issue of the Hill about John Kerry's tactics to win the debates--even if he doesn't actually win them. Hans Nichols writes in "Dem lawmakers primed for big post-debate spin" that Kerry is hoping to use a cadre of surrogates to first lower the expectations then trumpet his performance in the debate, an attempt to avoid a major mistake by Al Gore. Nichols writes:

The Kerry campaign has enlisted congressional Democrats to play down expectations of the challenger’s performance in the first presidential debate this Thursday, and then flood the airwaves with jubilant analysis that he has won it.

The Democratic lawmakers will seek to influence media analysis by drumming campaign talking points into the press’s “echo chamber” before and after the Florida showdown. Democrats want to avoid the mistakes they say 2000 nominee Al Gore made by ceding both pre-debate expectations and the post-debate conversation to Republicans, allowing aggressive GOP lawmakers and sympathetic pundits to set the tone for the debate analysis.

Although it would clearly have been better had this story not reached the media, it's nonetheless good to see that the Kerry folks know what they're doing with the debates. I cannot overstate the importance of expectations in debates, and if current polling holds true, the populace expects the President to win the debates, so it appears as though Kerry has won round one of the debates. We'll have to wait until Thursday night for round II...

Douglas Jehl and David Sanger have the story in today's New York Times:

The same intelligence unit that produced a gloomy report in July about the prospect of growing instability in Iraq warned the Bush administration about the potential costly consequences of an American-led invasion two months before the war began, government officials said Monday.

The estimate came in two classified reports prepared for President Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council, an independent group that advises the director of central intelligence. The assessments predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.

One of the reports also warned of a possible insurgency against the new Iraqi government or American-led forces, saying that rogue elements from Saddam Hussein's government could work with existing terrorist groups or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare, the officials said. The assessments also said a war would increase sympathy across the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives, at least in the short run, the officials said.

"Prewar Assessment on Iraq Saw Chance of Strong Divisions", September 28, 2004.

This can't help the President, but hopefully it will stick--because pretty much everything else hasn't.

This is where Charlie Cook sees the situation in the House today:

Bottom line: The scenario today suggests that Republicans could gain or lose as many as three seats. That would give Republicans a majority of as many as 233 seats or as few as 227 seats.

Sorry, no link for today.

There is some great news out of Oklahoma as Democrat Brad Carson continues to surge in the wake of Tom Coburn's unraveling. A new poll from Wilson Research Strategies indicates that Representative Carson has picked up a substantial lead for the first time this year. The poll mirrors an internal poll taken for the Carson campaign.

Over the past three weeks, Carson has increased his support by a whopping 8 points while Coburn's numbers have diminished by 3. Here is the trend:

September 28: Carson 44, Coburn 39
September 21: Carson 41, Coburn 40
September 14: Carson 39, Coburn 37
September 7: Carson 36, Coburn 42

The poll of 500 likely voters taken from September 24 – 26 has a margin of error of +/- 4.4%, so Carson's 5% lead is significant.

Michael Baker writes up the survey in "Carson takes lead over Coburn in poll" in today's issue of the Oklahoman thusly:

Monday's poll is the first time that the Claremore Democrat's advantage has been greater than the margin of error in any polls commissioned by The Oklahoman or NEWS9.

[...]

Just last month, Coburn, of Muskogee, had a 9-point lead over Carson in a poll conducted by the Virginia-based company.

This is great news, and it increasingly appears as though Oklahoma will turn out to be a Democratic takeover come November.

Robert Pear has the scoop in tomorrow morning's edition of the New York Times. His story entitled "Inquiry on Medicare Finds Improper Limits on Choices" has the details about how the Bush Administration enabled various insurers to reap huge profits by overcharging the elderly. Here's the lead:

Federal investigators said Monday that the Bush administration had improperly allowed some private health plans to limit Medicare patients' choice of health care providers, including doctors, nursing homes and home care agencies.

The investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, also said that the private plans had increased out-of-pocket costs for the elderly and had not saved money for the government, contrary to predictions by Medicare officials.

The study, the most comprehensive assessment of a demonstration project that the administration has described as the best hope for Medicare's future, focused on the program's experience with a form of managed care known as preferred provider organizations, the type of health insurance most popular among people under 65.

Medicare is spending $650 to $750 a year more for each beneficiary in such private plans than it would have spent if the same people stayed in traditional Medicare, the investigators said.

While it's disappointing that this is happening, it's hardly surprising that PPOs (the private insurers) are charging more than traditional Medicare, thus leading to insolvency in the fund. As these PPOs often offer worse coverage than traditional Medicare plans, perhaps the President's true motive in passing the Prescription Drug bill that enabled the use of these plans was to hasten the agency's bankruptcy...

I like this:

The folks at Comedy Central were annoyed when Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly kept referring to "The Daily Show" audience as "stoned slackers." So they did a little research. And guess whose audience is more educated?

Viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor," according to Nielsen Media Research.

[...]

Comedy Central also touted a recent study by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, which said young viewers of "The Daily Show" were more likely to answer questions about politics correctly than those who don't.

The best line of the piece, leading me to think that this article was meant as a piece of comedy and maybe not reporting:

Comedy Central had no statistics on how many people watch "The Daily Show" stoned.

Link.

Good news for Kerry in Charlie Cook's new Electoral College scorecard as a number of states move from the "lean Bush" category into the "tossup" category. At this moment, Cook has the race essentially tied with 208 electoral votes in Bush's hands, 207 in Kerry's and a whopping 123 in the undecided column.

On September 10, Bush led 222-207, so it would appear as though Bush has lost some support in key states recently. Nevertheless, both Bush and Kerry have solidified their respective levels of support (Kerry's solid went from 95 to 150, and Bush's solid/lean went from 172 to 208).

Here are the changes in the past two weeks, according to Cook:

• Arizona: Moved from "Lean Bush" to "Likely Bush"
  
• California: Moved from "Likely Kerry" to "Solid Kerry"
  
• Colorado: Moved from "Lean Bush" to "Tossup"
  
• Kentucky: Moved from "Likely Bush" to "Solid Bush"
  
• Missouri: Moved from "Lean Bush" to "Likely Bush"
  
• North Carolina: Moved from "Lean Bush" to "Likely Bush"
  
• Tennessee: Moved from "Likely Bush" to "Solid Bush"
  
• West Virginia: Moved from "Lean Bush" to "Tossup"

Additionally, Cook eyes a trend that has not yet been mentioned in the national media: Bush must defend much more of the "Tossup" column than Kerry; of the 123 Electoral Votes deemed by Cook to be in this category (CO, FL, IA, MN, NV, NH, NM, OH, PA, WV, WI), 70 come from states the President won in 2000 while only 53 come from Gore states. As a result, it would appear as though Bush is actually in a more tenuous situation than the challenger Kerry; what candidate would want to be forced to defend such a large swath of that should be his territory but now is instead undecided?

Overall, I think the key point to take from this Cook piece is that although pundits try to scream at the top of their lungs that John Kerry is finished, in reality the race is not decided by national polls but rather the combination of voting in key swing states. As Cook shows, Bush's lead in these states is far less dramatic (1 Electoral Vote) than you might guess from some of the national polling, so this race is much closer than many think. Coming from the nation's top non-partisan political analyst, that means a lot.

Rasmussen Reports has Bush up by 1.7% today in its three day tracking poll, well within the margin of error. The race today is Bush 47.8, Kerry 46.1.

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of likely voters narrowed from a Bush lead of 13% to a Bush lead of 8%. While this is still a substantial lead for the President, the fact is the race is moving in Kerry's direction.

According to the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll of likely voters, Bush leads 51-45.

I'll try to get you all of the new polling as soon as it comes through.

But a decade later, the fervor of the 1994 “Republican Revolution” has been tempered by a resolve to keep control of the House. GOP leaders are choosing pragmatism over populist zeal on many issues, and are treating the minority as unfairly as they were treated for decades under Democratic rule.

What's more, several Republican leaders, most recently House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have become snared in ethics scandals similar to those that led to the Democrats' downfall. The record is a reminder that the temptation by the majority party to abuse its status is a bipartisan failing.

Certainly, House Republicans have been true to their word in adopting two-thirds of the 75 policy changes itemized in their contract — from cutting taxes to getting tougher on crime. Yet many of their promised reforms have been watered down. And some of the biggest pledges remain unfulfilled.

Link.

I always hate to link to a Bob Novak column, but his reporting is often decent (even if he is a partisan hack in editorializing). From "Is CIA at war with Bush?" in today's Chicago Sun-Times:

A few hours after George W. Bush dismissed a pessimistic CIA report on Iraq as ''just guessing,'' the analyst who identified himself as its author told a private dinner last week of secret, unheeded warnings years ago about going to war in Iraq. This exchange leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the president of the United States and the Central Intelligence Agency are at war with each other.

Paul R. Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, sat down Tuesday night in a large West Coast city with a select group of private citizens. He was not talking off the cuff. Relying on a multi-paged, single-spaced memorandum, Pillar said he and his colleagues concluded early in the Bush administration that military intervention in Iraq would intensify anti-American hostility throughout Islam. This was not from a CIA retiree but an active senior official. (Pillar, no covert operative, is listed openly in the Federal Staff Directory.)

For President Bush to publicly write off a CIA paper as just guessing is without precedent. For the agency to go semi-public is not only unprecedented but shocking. George Tenet's retirement as director of Central Intelligence removed the buffer between president and agency. As the new DCI, Porter Goss inherits an extraordinarily sensitive situation.

From Howard Kurtz's article "Up Next: The News In Red and Blue" tomorrow morning in the Washington Post:

If you were watching the network evening news in June, July and August, you would have seen somewhat favorable coverage of John Kerry -- six out of 10 evaluations were positive -- and somewhat unfavorable coverage of President Bush.

If you were watching Fox News Channel's 6 p.m. newscast, you would have seen about the same coverage of the president. But Kerry's evaluations were negative by a 5 to 1 margin.

That finding, by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, might suggest that some Fox folks have it in for Kerry. Or it might suggest that the broadcast networks are too easy on Kerry, who the group says has gotten the best network coverage of any presidential nominee since it began tracking in 1988. Or that we have entered an era of red media and blue media to match the country's polarization.

Boy is it surprising that Fox News is more biased than the rest of the national media...

As he often does at campaign events, President Bush got his biggest rise out of the crowd in Bangor Thursday afternoon when he said he was simply paraphrasing Senator John F. Kerry's statements.

"Incredibly, this week my opponent said he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today," Bush said at a campaign rally at Bangor International Airport, drawing a round of boos.

There was just one problem: Kerry never said what Bush said he did. In a major address Monday in New York City, where Kerry laid out his opposition to the manner in which Bush invaded Iraq, he was careful to call Hussein "a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell."

"The satisfaction that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure," Kerry said, blaming what he described as Bush's lack of diplomacy and proper war planning for putting the nation at greater danger.

Rick Klein's piece, "On the stump, the art of distortion", appeared in Sunday's issue of the Boston Globe, and it's a very good read.

Ford Fessenden penned an important article in this morning's New York Times that is a definite must read in this election cycle. Entitled "A Big Increase of New Voters in Swing States", the piece explains that not only are the voter rolls in key states increasing at previously unheard of rates, but moreover that one party in particular is benefitting much more than the other. Fessenden writes this:

A sweeping voter registration campaign in heavily Democratic areas has added tens of thousands of new voters to the rolls in the swing states of Ohio and Florida, a surge that has far exceeded the efforts of Republicans in both states, a review of registration data shows.

The analysis by The New York Times of county-by-county data shows that in Democratic areas of Ohio - primarily low-income and minority neighborhoods - new registrations since January have risen 250 percent over the same period in 2000. In comparison, new registrations have increased just 25 percent in Republican areas. A similar pattern is apparent in Florida: in the strongest Democratic areas, the pace of new registration is 60 percent higher than in 2000, while it has risen just 12 percent in the heaviest Republican areas.

While comparable data could not be obtained for other swing states, similar registration drives have been mounted in them as well, and party officials on both sides say record numbers of new voters are being registered nationwide. This largely hidden but deadly earnest battle is widely believed by campaign professionals and political scientists to be potentially decisive in the presidential election.

Oregon is a prime example of this trend in swing states. Two weeks ago, the Salem Statesman Journal reported that Democrats had bested Republicans in new voters registered by roughly a 2:1 margin, increasing the party's already substantial lead in the state.

The increased Democratic registration in states like Ohio and Oregon isn't the only part of this effort that will surely effect this race. Fessenden has more:

The precise impact of the swell in registration is difficult to predict, as there is no reliable gauge of how many of these new voters will actually vote. Some experts, though, say that the spike has not been accurately captured by political polls and could confound prognostications in closely contested states.

What is clear is that each side has deployed huge numbers of workers and devoted millions of dollars to the effort. Much of it is being directed by civil rights and community groups, as well as soft-money organizations allied with the Democrats. One such Democratic umbrella group, America Votes, says its constituents - labor unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, community organizations - will spend $300 million on registration and turnout in swing states, a sum that dwarfs the $150 million in public financing the two candidates together will receive for the entire fall campaign.

The registration drives are just the first step in a campaign by each side to get more Americans to vote by using personal contact. As registration winds down, with early October cutoffs in many states, efforts will shift to staying in touch through Election Day with repeated phone calls and visits, and, on Nov. 2, ferrying people to the polls.

The recent opinion polls are most definitely not picking up these new voters--even in their "registered voter" models--and as Fessenden notes, it is unknown whether or not the majority of these people will indeed end up voting. Nevertheless, if these pro-Democratic groups are indeed successful in getting out the vote this November, Bush's political acumen--forged by years under Karl Rove's tutelage--will prove useless against the sheer millions of voters who support his challenger.

From Nancy Benac's AP story "Candidates Look to Avoid Debate Pitfalls":

"Bush debates the way Chris Evert plays tennis — no unforced errors," says Democrat Paul Begala, who played the part of the president in rehearsals with Al Gore for the 2000 debates. "He doesn't get out of his game. He won't try to get into philosophy and nuance and deep thinking."

Where Bush can get into trouble is if he's forced out of his comfort zone, and becomes flustered. Or if his single-mindedness starts to look simple-minded, given the profound uncertainties surrounding Iraq, the war on terrorism and other matters, says Wayne Fields, an expert on political rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis.

"His strongest quality is also a kind of weakness to be exploited, so you don't know how this is going to play out," said Fields. "If all of a sudden the situation looks more complicated, and Kerry is able to show he can take things on and master them, then this could turn against Bush.

From ABC's Noted Now today:

BUSH EVASIVE WHEN ASKED ABOUT SWIFT BOAT ADS BY O'REILLY:

O'Reilly: "Did Karl Rove know anything about it?"

Bush: "I don't think so."

NBC's David Gregory made a reat point on the Chris Matthews Show on one of the President's few, but perhaps most fatal, debating flaws. Remarking about the exchange in the 2000 primary debate between McCain and Bush in which McCain went right after the Governor for allowing his surrogates to attack his Vietnam service, Gregory explained that Bush becomes both angry and flustered when he is interrupted.

While Bush was able to stay away from this in his debates with Gore later in 2000, if Kerry can cause Bush to get noticeably angry during the debate, the Massachusetts Senator could come away with a resounding victory.

In what is arguably the toughest Senatorial reelection campaign across the country this year, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle is facing up against former Congressman John Thune to represent South Dakota for the next six years. The polls have widely varied over the past months, with Daschle at times holding decent leads and Thune at times barely pulling ahead. The most recent poll, though, shows Daschle in a better situation than he has been in for quite some time.

Jon Walker of the Argus Leader writes up the latest poll commissioned by the paper and KELO-TV thusly:

An opinion poll released today shows Tom Daschle with a 5-point lead in a South Dakota Senate race that observers say remains too close to call and promises more aggressive campaigning by both sides as the election nears.

The phone survey of 800 likely voters - sponsored by the Argus Leader and KELO-TV in Sioux Falls - shows the Democratic incumbent with a 50 to 45 percent lead over Republican challenger John Thune. But the poll also indicates a growing negative opinion toward both candidates. With 5 percent still undecided, and with the poll's margin of error of 3.5 percentage points, South Dakotans can expect the two campaigns to accelerate their efforts to persuade voters and get them to the polls.

[...]

The polling was last Monday through Wednesday, immediately after Thune and Daschle's icy exchange over the war in Iraq on NBC's "Meet the Press." The poll shows Thune's unfavorable score with voters jumping from 23 percent in May to 34 percent last week, and Daschle's rising from 33 to 37 percent.

[...]

Besides his 5-point deficit and the rise of his unfavorable rating, concerns for Thune include results showing 18 percent of Republicans crossing party lines to support Daschle. That compares with 6 percent of Democrats going the opposite direction to back Thune.

Those are not fatal numbers for Thune, and perhaps not even a red flag, because the state has 44,000 more Republicans than Democrats. But they point to an old puzzle for the dominant party in a state that sends mostly Democrats to Congress.

This race is not over, but it looks like Daschle is not in nearly as bad shape as some pundits would have you believe. If Daschle is able to win and the Democrats win four out of the five other competitive races (Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, and Oklahoma), the Democrats would most likely win outright control of the Senate for the first time in a decade.

Per Ruy Teixeira:

Bush leads Kerry 48-44 among nation-wide RV's in a new Time magazine Poll conducted 9/21-23. (Bush was up by 12 among RVs in Time's poll 2 weeks earlier).

For the last three days, President Bush has held a paltry 1 point lead over John Kerry in Rasmussen Reports 3-day tracking polls. With a likely voter sample of 3000 respondents, Rasmussen's poll has a much smaller margin of error than the polling done by large media outlets like Time and the AP. Here's the data from the last three days:

Today: Bush 47.2, Kerry 46.5
Sept 25: Bush 47.9, Kerry 46.3
Sept 24: Bush 47.4, Kerry 46.5

With a MoE of +/- 3.0%, this race should be considered a tie.

Sugar beet farmers in a rural Minnesota district that turned out solidly for President Bush in 2000 are having second thoughts about his re-election now that the administration is supporting a trade agreement they see as a threat.

"That is overshadowing everything," said Diane Ista, a community activist and longtime Democrat who grows sugar beets on a farm in Norman County.

That could make the difference in the state Bush lost to Democratic candidate Al Gore (news - web sites) by fewer than 60,000 votes. Winning Minnesota's 10 electoral votes this year depends on turning out the sort of support Bush received in the 7th District, which the Republican carried by nearly 15 percentage points.

Kevin Nelson, a wheat and sugar beet farmer near Glyndon, donated money to the first Bush campaign. Now, the president has "lost all my support," Nelson said.

"I was unsure of him back then, too," Nelson said. "He has never been very strong on agriculture in general."

Link.

This story speaks to a lot of the rural anger that the Bush Administration faces today, despite the fact that the mainstream media has decided to ignore this issue. Many farmers, unhappy with the President's free trade policies, could swing key midwestern farming states plus North Carolina into the Democratic column this year, and thus genuinely effect the election.

I am not certain how this all will play out, but from what we saw in Louisana in December 2002 (when Senator Mary Landrieu [D] used the President's support for Mexican sugar to ensure her reelection), local agricultural issues can trump national themes in key races, and as a result, we could see the President losing key swing states come November even if he appears to be leading in the national polls.

In observance of Yom Kippur, I won't be posting tonight or tomorrow. Talk to you after then.

Feel free to use this as an open thread in the "comments" section if you want.

Rasmussen Reports has a new poll out from Oregon that has a lot of good news for Democrat John Kerry. The poll of 500 likely voters, conducted between September 8 and 21 with a margin of error of +/- 4.5%, shows Kerry with a commanding 51-43 lead over President Bush. In Rasmussen's previous poll of the state taken before the Republican National Convention, Kerry led by a similar 53-43 margin. Rasmussen explains further findings from the poll:

Just 46% of Oregon voters have a favorable opinion of the President. Fifty-three percent (53%) have a favorable opinion of Senator Kerry.

In Oregon, 45% of all voters Approve of the way President Bush is performing his job. That's down from earlier surveys and below his national Job Approval rating).

The results of this poll are very similar to other recent polling in the state. Here is a brief rundown:

• Rasmussen (9/8-21; 500 respondents): Kerry 51, Bush 43
  
• SurveyUSA* (9/19-21; 747 respondents): 52-43
  
• Zogby (9/13-17; 787 respondents): Kerry 53.9, Bush 41.9
  
• Research 2000 (9/13-16; 600 respondents): Kerry 51, Bush 44
  
• ARG** (9/10-13; 600 respondents): Kerry 47, Bush 45

* - Reweighted to reflect the real Oregon electorate.
** - Poll included Ralph Nader, who is no longer on the ballot.

The truth that becomes very apparent when looking at these polls is that John Kerry is over 50% in Oregon, and that's all that really matters. You might look to see progressive 527 organizations moving out of the state soon--like they did Michigan--to redeploy staff and reallocate funds to closer swing states. As I argued many times in my "Oregon: No Longer a Battleground State" series, while the Beaver state was close in 2000, it should be an easy win for Kerry in November and he'd be better served by paying attention to Ohio and Wisconsin (among other states) than Oregon.

Jerome over at MyDD.com found this ad, and it's just great.

New Kerry Ad Questions Bush Right Track, Wrong Tack Comments - Continuing to point out that George W. Bush's rhetoric on Iraq does not match reality, the Kerry-Edwards campaign will take to the airwaves with the new ad - "Right Track." The ad uses footage of the president's right track/wrong track comments in the Rose Garden yesterday.

Bush: "I saw a poll that said the right track wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America."

Narrator: "The right track? Americans are being kidnapped, held hostage, even beheaded. Over a thousand American soldiers have died. And George Bush has no plan to get us out of Iraq. John Kerry does. The Kerry solution: Allies share the burden. Train Iraqis to protect themselves. John Kerry. A new direction in Iraq."

Bush 47.4
Kerry 46.5

This is well within the margin of error, so in reality the poll shows a tied race. Here's what they write:

It's been more than a month since John Kerry held a lead in the Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll, but the challenger has moved within a point of the President.

The latest numbers show President George W. Bush with 47% of the vote and Senator John Kerry with 46%. The Tracking Poll is updated daily by noon Eastern.

For the previous eight days, and most of September, Bush has held a 2-4 point lead in the Tracking Poll. It will take a couple of days to determine if today's results reflect a tightening of the race or are merely statistical noise.

Link.

"Two million people who fought in World War II and lived through the Great Depression die every year. That generation has been an exception in US history, because it has defended anti-American policies. They voted for the creation of the welfare state and for obligatory military service. They are the Democratic base, and they are dying."

--Grover Norquist, the conservative Club for Growth.

Link.

Former U.S. Sen. Mark Hatfield is recovering from a head injury that he suffered while visiting family on the East Coast.

Hatfield, 82, was undergoing tests Thursday at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, where he was transferred after a fall Wednesday night at his daughter’s home in Maryland.

He was in intensive care and undergoing a CAT scan, results from which were incomplete Thursday.

Gerry Frank of Salem, Hatfield’s longtime associate and former chief of staff, described the procedure as “precautionary observation.”

“Doctors have reported that his recovery appears to be proceeding normally,” Frank said in a statement. “He is expected to remain in the hospital for at least the next few days. The Hatfield family appreciates the prayers and good wishes of all.”

Well-wishers are advised to send messages in care of Mark Hatfield’s office in Portland: Suite 1600 Pioneer Tower, 888 SW Fifth Ave., Portland OR 97204, or P.O. Box 8639, Portland OR 97207.

Among Registered Voters

Bush 47
Kerry 45
Nader 3
Undecided 5

This survey was conducted from September 20th through September 22nd, 2004. 1,216 adults 18 years of age or older within the continental United States were interviewed by telephone. Telephone numbers were selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. The results of the entire survey are statistically significant at ±3%. There are 929 registered voters and 630 likely voters. The results for these sub-samples are statistically significant at ±3.5% and ±4%, respectively. The margin for error increases for cross-tabulations.

This evening I attended a talk by Patrick Guerriero, the Executive Director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a GOP organization devoted to forwarding gay and lesbian rights. Mr. Guerriero, whose group made history by not endorsing the Republican candidate for President for the first time in its history, spoke at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California. After his speech, I had the opportunity to speak with him, and the following is a transcription of my exclusive interview with him.

Jonathan Singer: Mr. Guerriero, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me.
Patrick Guerriero: My pleasure.
JS: As I'm a blogger interviewing you, let me ask you about the outing of gay members of Congress and congressional staffers by a blog. What are your feelings on this?
PG: I disagree with the outing campaign because it's counterproductive. I do oppose those who are closeted but support or sponsored the Federal Marriage Amendment, like Ed Schrock of Virginia.
JS: How about less vocal closeted members of Congress? There is a move to forcibly out the Congressman for this district, David Dreier.
PG: Again, I strongly disagree with the outing campaign. From what I understand, David Dreier is planning on voting against the amendment.
JS: In November or December, Josh Marshall of The Hill and Talkingpointsmemo.com suggested that when the President's approval rating dipped below a certain point--I think it was 45%--he would come out in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Not long after his approval ratings hit this mark, he indeed did come out for the Amendment. What do you make of this?
PG: I believe this was a pure political and strategic move to affect key voters in the six swing states I mentioned earlier (Iowa, Missouri, the Florida panhandle, West Virginia, etc.). This was based on Karl Rove's polling that showed that if the President stressed social issues in these states, he could move voters into his column.
JS: Lincoln Chafee this past week indicated that he might not vote for the President, in which case he would write in another Republican. Is this also where you stand?
PG: Let me say first that I couldn't vote for John Kerry. He is against gay marriage and for amendments banning gay marriage in states like Missouri. He also campaigned against me in the past in Massachusetts. I think the reality is that gay conservatives are doing a lot of soul searching right now--
JS: What about voting for a third party candidate like Michael Badnarik (the Libertarian nominee)?
PG: We don't advocate voting for any other parties.
JS: I've been writing a lot on my blog lately about the decline of the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party. Where does your organization fit into this?
PG: There will be a Rockefeller Republican resurrection when we have a Republican nominee who won't use social issues to divide Americans. That will not happen sooner, though.
JS: I have a question about my Senator Gordon Smith and other members of congress in general. Senator Smith originally ran for Senate with the support of the anti-gay group Oregon Citizens Alliance, but has since changed his views on Hate Crimes legislation, for example. After his reelection in 2002 with the support of the gay community, however, he has moved back to the right and supported the Federal Marriage Amendment. How does your organization feel about this?
PG: Gordon Smith, like many, is struggling with the issue of Gay Marriage--he is a very religious man, and I've spoken personally with him about this--but let me say that the person who we are most frustrated with on this issue is President Bush. That having been said, there is anxiety and anger about this, and we are disappointed that he didn't come out forcefully against the amendment. Nevertheless, he has been the leader in Congress in the fight to extend Hate Crimes legislation to the homosexual community, and for that we are very appreciative.
JS: Now for a final question. Should John Kerry win the Presidency, some insiders say Congressman Barney Frank might run for Kerry's Senate seat. Where would you stand on his candidacy?
PG: I'm friendly with Barney Frank, but our organization only supports Republican candidates.
JS: Mr. Guerriero, thank you so much for your time.
PG: You're welcome.

Kerry 49, Bush 49

Link.

Patrick Guerriero, the head of the Log Cabin Republicans, is speaking later tonight at Claremont McKenna College, and I'll be on hand to hear what he has to say. For those who have missed the story, Guerriero's Log Cabin Republicans--a group of conservative gay and lesbian voters--have withheld their endorsement from George W. Bush, the first time in their history they have not endorsed the GOP candidate.

The talk should be interesting and I'll write it up when I get back.

It's tied.

Among Likely Voters

(Two way, three way)
Bush 45, 46
Kerry 43, 42
Nader -, 1
Undec. 12, 13

Is this real?

Evidently the Washington Post seems to think so.

But if Kerry has been sacked for Lambert Field, it was Democrats' turn to chortle Thursday when Bush gave a speech at Dick Putz Field in St. Cloud, Minn.

Link.

Although some Americans feel the Economist has a slight bias to the right, at least in its editorials, I find it to be one of the world's premier publications that is generally fair in both its news and opinion pieces. This week, their American columnist "Lexington" penned an article entitled "The comeback Kerry" which aptly explains the state of the race today (in my humble opinion).

IN SEPTEMBER 1980 Ronald Reagan was stuck behind Jimmy Carter in the polls. His campaign was in such a shambles that he had to sack his campaign manager. And he was dogged by the belief that he was unelectable. All that changed with a single debate—and Reagan crushed Mr Carter by more than 8m votes.

John Kerry is no Ronald Reagan (though one supporter recently introduced him twice as John Kennedy). But he still has time to turn his campaign round. It is true that the Republicans have the wind in their sails at the moment (New Jersey is now considered a swing state, for heaven's sake). But swing voters seem in an unusually volatile mood. Mr Kerry still has a lot going for him—particularly the energy of a Democratic rank-and-file that will do anything to get George Bush out of the White House, and widespread worries about where the country is heading.

How can Mr Kerry translate all this energy and anxiety into victory? This week the Kerry camp produced a surprising answer: focus on Iraq. Mr Kerry had originally planned to spend the autumn talking about the economy and health care. But now—thanks to the influence of a group of Clintonites who have been drafted into his campaign—he has put Iraq at the centre of his campaign. Mr Kerry's pivotal speech in New York this week, ripping into Mr Bush's Iraq foray, may prove similar to Hubert Humphrey's denunciation of the Vietnam war in late September 1968, which narrowed the gap with Richard Nixon.

Lexington says that although Kerry has appeared to be somewhat successful using this meme, it might be difficult for the Senator to keep it up. He opines that if Kerry is forced once again to defend his votes on Iraq (for the war, against the supplemental bill), then this stategy will fail.

Lexington offers up another line of attack that Kerry could use perhaps more effectively while still distancing himself from the President on the issue of Iraq: mismanagement.

...it surely offers Mr Kerry a better line of attack.

First, it is a far less contentious charge to prove. By any reasonable standard, the White House has a mind-boggling record of incompetence in Iraq, from the lack of post-war planning to the disgrace of Abu Ghraib. Mr Kerry can tap into the sense that Mr Bush is out of touch with what is happening on the ground, especially in Iraq's no-go areas. The more Mr Bush repeats his mantra about the march of liberty, the more he risks sounding like a Texan version of “Comical Ali”, the Iraqi propaganda minister who declared that the infidel dogs were in retreat even as American troops rolled into Baghdad.

The article has much more than this, and it's a good read. Overall, Lexington feels that this race is very much winnable for Kerry, and on that point I would have to agree with him. If you're interested, it's one of the free articles offered on the Economist's website this week.

In this morning's issue of the Oregonian, longtime Oregon Republican Senator Mark Hatfield endorsed President Bush. This is what he had to say:

As a young Navy officer in World War II, I was one of the first Americans to see Hiroshima after the atomic bomb was dropped in 1945. That experience lives with me today, and it helped to shape the view I held during my public service career: a view that war is wrong in nearly every circumstance.

As Oregon's governor, I was the only governor in the nation who refused to sign a statement supporting President Johnson's Vietnam War policy.

As a senator, I joined with Sen. George McGovern in an unsuccessful effort to end that war. I was the only senator who voted against both the Democrat and Republican resolutions authorizing the use of force in the 1991 Gulf War.

In my final years in the Senate, I opposed President Clinton's decision to send American troops to Bosnia.

During my 30 years in the Senate, I never once voted in favor of a military appropriations bill.

I know that this record will cause many to wonder why I am such a strong supporter of President Bush and his policy in Iraq. My support is based on the fact that our world changed on Sept. 11, 2001, a day on which we lost more American lives than we did in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

This move was not entirely unexpected for me as he indicated as much when I had lunch with him last summer, and I completely respect his stance in this race. Nevertheless, I am somewhat disappointed in his decision given the fact that he is one of my politial idols in the state of Oregon and his words and actions mean so much in this state.

I just found a poll of Oregon that was released two days ago in the Portland Tribune, a semi-weekly that has some great writing. The poll is a bit old, but it nonetheless has a lot of good information I haven't before seen in other polls (other down-ticket races, for example). Here it is, nonetheless:

The Tribune/KOIN poll results reported here were compiled from Sept. 13 to Sept. 16. Pollsters interviewed by telephone 600 likely voters statewide, who vote regularly in state elections.

President: John Kerry (D) 51, George Bush (R) 44
Senate: Ron Wyden (D) 58, Al King (R) 31
Secretary of State: Bill Bradbury (D) 46, Betsy Close (R) 35
State Treasurer: Randall Edwards (D) 51, Jeff Caton (R) 23
Attorney General: Hardy Myers (D) 44, Paul Connolly (R) 30

There are extensive internals for each of these races, and there is also polling for a spate of ballot initiatives that Oregon voters will soon face (it looks like the Gay Marriage ban might indeed pass).

The most important thing to note in this poll is that it appears as though the Democrats will continue to dominate the executive branch of the Oregon state government--they currently hold all statewide offices (other than one Senate seat). Although I'd like to see Myers and especially Bradbury up over 50%, they both nonetheless have pretty substantial leads right now, so I'm not to worried.

Per CBS' Washington Wrap:

Although Republicans may still have the upper hand in the 2004 Senate race, with five Southern Democrats retiring and the election map tilting in their favor, the Democrats appear to be running surprisingly strong campaigns, especially in the South, reports the Wall Street Journal. Democrats are doing better than expected in North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana and Florida. Even states usually considered to be Republican strongholds like Colorado, Alaska and Okalahoma, are not out of bounds for the Democrats who are doing notably well in many polls. The Republicans seem only to have a sure hold on one seat: Georgia, where Democrat Sen. Zell Miller is retiring.

In an attempt to boost morale and soothe anxiety about new developments in the campaign, Sen. John Kerry sent campaign chairwoman Mary Beth Cahill to Capital Hill on Tuesday to meet with Democrats. Although numerous Democratic senators expressed post-convention concern, there seemed to be renewed positive energy, The Hill reports. "I feel they're getting it straight," said retiring Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-SC. "Now they're finally beginning to fight."

In other Senate news, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee acquired new strength in the form of a $1 million donation from Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Schumer's gift came from his $22 million campaign account, which was built over the last six years. Schumer donated $500,000 two week ago to other Democrats' efforts, a large portion of which went to the DSCC with the remainder going to state parties. On Tuesday, Schumer pledged another $500,000 directly to the DSCC, bringing his total to $1 million, Roll Call reports.

In a post earlier this afternoon, I disagreed with SurveyUSA's Republican bias in its poll of Oregon (I reweighted the poll using registration numbers from an Oregon pollster, Bob Moore, to come up with a Kerry lead of 50.81% to 45.3% for Bush in the state). Chris over at MyDD.com finds that if you use the exit polling from the 2000 election to find out the proportion of Democratic and Republican voters in the state and plug them into the SurveyUSA poll, the results are even more staggering: he finds a Kerry lead of 52-43, which is more in line with Zogby's poll of the state.

John F. Harris gets space on the front page of tomorrow mornings issue of the Washington Post for this piece:

Despite Bush Flip-Flops, Kerry Gets Label

One of this year's candidates for president, to hear his opposition tell it, has a long history of policy reversals and rhetorical about-faces -- a zigzag trail that proves his willingness to massage positions and even switch sides when politically convenient.

The flip-flopper, Democrats say, is President Bush. Over the past four years, he abandoned positions on issues such as how to regulate air pollution or whether states should be allowed to sanction same-sex marriage. He changed his mind about the merits of creating the Homeland Security Department, and made a major exception to his stance on free trade by agreeing to tariffs on steel. After resisting, the president yielded to pressure in supporting an independent commission to study policy failures preceding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Bush did the same with questions about whether he would allow his national security adviser to testify, or whether he would answer commissioners' questions for only an hour, or for as long they needed.

Harris continues by showing that the Democrats have lost their media battle to paint the President as a flip-flopper, though they have not yet given up.

For a while this summer, Kerry's team tried to answer Bush's charge that Kerry is equivocating and inconstant by alleging that Bush is just as much or more so. But lately the campaign has laid off this line of argument after concluding it was ineffective against an opponent who surveys show is seen by a majority of voters as decisive, even to the point of stubbornness.

"When it comes to shifting positions, he can shift with the best," Kerry spokesman Joe Lockhart said of Bush. "We are prosecuting a different case. We are not arguing that he's a flip-flopper -- he is -- but that the policy choices he has taken have failed miserably."

There's a lot more in the article, so I definitely suggest you read it (because this cursory introduction does not give it due justice).

Oregonlive.com runs the whole Charles Beggs AP story on Ralph Nader's disqualification from the Oregon ballot.

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Ralph Nader will not appear on the Oregon presidential ballot, reversing a lower court.

The high court unanimously upheld a ruling by Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, who determined that errors on petition sheets left the independent presidential candidate 218 signatures short of the 15,306 needed to put him on the Nov. 2 ballot.

[...]

Nader said the decision would be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[...]

Oregon voters will have five choices for president if Nader remains off the ballot.

Besides Kerry and President Bush, candidates qualifying earlier were David Cobb, Pacific Green Party; Michael Anthony Peroutka, Constitution Party, and Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party.

Oregon is now basically a shoo-in for Kerry.

Now to the man at the center of this story.

If there is one Oregon politician with whom I feel a real connection it is Bill Bradbury. When I volunteered in my first campaign at the age of 16 (the Oregon coordinated campaign for Al Gore), Bradbury was running for Secretary of State and I got a number of opportunities to speak with him.

After he was elected for his first full term, the Republicans attempted a Texas-sized gerrymandering to steal as many seats in the state legislature and the US Congress as possible. Then-Governor John Kitzhaber vetoed each plan so the courts left it up to Bradbury to redraw the districts, and he was very favorable to the Democrats (though much more reasonable than the Republicans. As a result of his work, Oregon sends four Democrats and one Republican to the House, and the Democrats have a chance to retake the Oregon legislature for the first time in nearly a decade.

At Ron Wyden's biennial campaign bash last summer at the Rose Garden, I got to speak with Bradbury again, this time on a wider number of issues such as his 2002 run for Senate against Gordon Smith and all of the great work he does for the state. This summer, I got to speak with him again at David Wu's annual event (I even passed on the link Basie! to him).

Bill Bradbury is a truly classy guy and one of the nicest men you'll ever meet. All Oregonians are lucky to have him as Secretary of State, and I feel honored just to have had the time to speak with him so many times.

(note--this originally appeared in this post when Nader was first disqualified for the Oregon ballot at the beginning of the month)