Time Magazine Names Bush as Person of the Year

For sharpening the debate until the choices bled, for reframing reality to match his design, for gambling his fortunes—and ours—on his faith in the power of leadership, George W. Bush is TIME’s 2004 Person of the Year

You need a Time subscription to read the full story, but you can catch the excerpts here.

Kerik Picked for DHS Post

resident Bush will nominate former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik as the next secretary for homeland security, FOX News confirmed Thursday.

Bush is expected to name Kerik in an announcement Friday.

If confirmed by the Senate, Kerik, who was chosen to train the Iraqi police force after Saddam Hussein’s departure, will be responsible for running a collection of 22 disparate federal agencies with more than 180,000 employees.

Read more…

Tom Ridge Resigns - Updated

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is resigning, FOX News confirmed Tuesday. He is expected to announce his decision at a 2:45 p.m. EST press conference.

In an e-mail circulated to senior Homeland Security officials, Ridge praised the department as “an extraordinary organization that each day contributes to keeping America safe and free.” He also said he was privileged to work with the department’s 180,000 employees “who go to work every day dedicated to making our company better and more secure.”

Government officials, speaking on grounds of anonymity because a formal announcement was pending, confirmed his resignation.

Ridge was responsible for the implementation of the Homeland Security Advisory System.

The Bush administration - since its Nov. 2 presidential election victory - has already accepted the resignations of Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, Education Secretary Rod Paige, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.

Update:

Among those mentioned as possible candidates for Ridge’s replacement are Bernard Kerik, interim Minister of the Interior for Iraq and former New York City police commissioner, former Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Joe Allbaugh and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Mike Leavitt and White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend. Others are also believed to be interested in the job, including Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security in the Homeland Security Department.

Carlos M. Gutierrez Nominated For Commerce

The New York Times reports that President Bush nominated Carlos M. Gutierrez to be Secretary of Commerce:

President Bush on Monday nominated Carlos M. Gutierrez, among the most prominent Hispanic business executives in the United States, to be his commerce secretary, as the president continued with what Republicans said would be a broad overhaul of his cabinet.

Mr. Gutierrez, 51, has been chief executive of the Kellogg Company, the cereal maker, for more than five years, and has built a reputation as an innovative and forceful business leader with broad international experience. But he has little background in public policy, leaving him largely unknown in political circles and untested by the demands of a high-profile job in Washington.

“He understands the world of business, from the first rung on the ladder to the very top,” Mr. Bush said, with Mr. Gutierrez at his side in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. “He knows exactly what it takes to help American businesses grow and to create jobs.”

From California Yankee.

Bush I Avoids Jet Crash

A private jet that was en route to Houston to pick up former President Bush clipped a light pole and crashed Monday as it approached Hobby Airport in thick fog, killing all three people aboard.

The Gulfstream G-1159A jet, coming into Houston, went down about 6:15 a.m. in an undeveloped area 1½ miles south of the airport, officials said. The former president had been scheduled to travel to Ecuador for a conference.

“I was deeply saddened to learn of the plane crash this morning,” Bush said through spokesman Tom Frechette. “I’d flown with this group before and know them well. I join in sending heartfelt condolences to each and every member of their families.”

Read more..

Specter Wins Judiciary Panel Chairmanship

Conservative Republican senators on Thursday unanimously supported moderate Republican Sen. Arlen Specter as the next chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, ending a grueling campaign Specter waged both publicly and privately to guarantee his seat.

The effort followed a weeks-long controversy that erupted when Specter made comments concerning judicial nominees that seemed to suggest President Bush would have a hard time getting his choices confirmed.

“Arlen Specter will be our next chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We are pleased to support Arlen in this matter,” said outgoing chairman, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Read more..

Bush Chooses Spellings as Education Secretary

President Bush has tapped another Texan to be his education secretary.

Bush on Tuesday chose Margaret Spellings, his domestic policy adviser, to succeed Rod Paige as head of the Education Department, administration officials said.

Spellings, a graduate of Houston’s Sharpstown High School and the University of Houston, was a major force behind the No Child Left Behind Act, the president’s first big domestic legislative victory.

Spellings, 46, has worked for the president since 1994, when he was running for governor of Texas. She served as his senior adviser for six years and was responsible for developing and implementing his education policy. That policy later became much of the groundwork for the No Child Left Behind legislation.

Spellings took her first political job in 1980, when she worked on the failed presidential campaign of former Texas Gov. John Connally.

Read more…

It's Official: Rice Tapped for Secretary of State - Updated

Condoleezza Rice will be nominated to lead U.S. diplomatic efforts during President Bush’s second term, replacing Colin Powell as secretary of state, FOX News has confirmed.

An official announcement from Bush himself was expected at 12:30 p.m. EST Tuesday.

Powell announced his resignation on Monday, saying he had never intended to stay more than one term but would stay on until a replacement was named.

Updates after the press conference

Update:

President Bush this afternoon officially nominated Condoleezza Rice, his national security adviser and a longtime confidante, to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state.

“During the last four years, I’ve relied on her counsel, benefited from her experience and relied on her sound and steady judgment,” Bush said in announcing the nomination Tuesday at the White House.

Sources: Condi to Replace Powell

White House officials said Monday they expect President Bush to name Condoleezza Rice to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state, sources told FOX News on Monday night.

If nominated and confirmed, Rice would be the second woman and the second African American to be the nation’s top foreign policy representative.

Changes to Bush’s cabinet:

RESIGNED OR EXPECTED TO RESIGN

Secretary of Agriculture
Ann M. Veneman

Secretary of Commerce
Don Evans

Department of Justice
John Ashcroft

Secretary of Education
Rod Paige

Secretary of State
Colin Powell

Secretary of Energy
Spencer Abraham

Secretary of Health & Human Services
Tommy Thompson

Source: Fox News

Sources: Powell Resigns - Three Other Cabinet Members to Resign [Updated -4-]

Breaking on Fox:

Secretary of State Colin Powell announced his resignation to his staff during their Monday morning meeting, a State Department source told FOX News.

President Bush is expected to make the official announcement. The source suggested that Powell is likely to stay in place until a replacement is confirmed.

More details as we get them.

Update:

Powell reportedly handed in his resignation Friday. But the president has not yet accepted his resignation.
CNN reported that there is a lot of speculation that Condoleezza Rice will be offered Powell’s position.

More:

The White House was preparing an announcement to confirm Powell’s resignation. According to one official, Powell expects that his departure date will be sometime in January. It was not immediately clear whether he will leave before Bush’s second inauguration on Jan 20.

Most of the speculation on a successor has centered on U.N. Ambassador John Danforth, a Republican and former U.S. senator from Missouri.

Update:

Various other news services reported that Agriculture Secretary Anne Veneman, Education Secretary Spencer Abraham and Education Secretary Rod Paige had also told President Bush of their intentions to leave the administration.

Update:

This makes it look pretty definite that all those mentioned will be resigning.

More here…

Republicrescendo

After four years as education secretary, bringing President Bush’s signature law on education to classrooms across the nation, Rod Paige plans to leave the cabinet in the near future, administration officials said Friday.
..following the resignations of Attorney General John Ashcroft and Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans earlier this week.

Is this a build up to the resignation of the only respectable figure on the cabinet, Colin Powell? It seems he has been awfully busy for a man about to leave, with a rencent trip to Asia and regular interviews ( most recently ) with Arab journalist, Powell’s agenda is now lined up with
plans to meet with the new Palestinian leaders soon.

Recently with the power of a phone call to Mexico’s left Presidential runner

Powell’s tacit seal of approval will help López Obrador undermine his critics’ assertions that he is an irresponsible leftist populist.

Powell is Bush’s man of the world, in my view it would be fitting that he eventually leave. He is too good of a man who has earned too much respect to be associated with such a crowd, but on the other hand I feel a lot more comfortable with Powell keeping an eye on Bush, its a real quagmire.

Attorney General Nominee - Updated

At this hour, MSNBC is reporting that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales will be the Bush administration’s nominee to replace John Ashcroft as Attorney General.

Update:

Fox story:

White House counsel Alberto Gonzales has been chosen by President Bush to be the next attorney general, U.S. officials confirmed to FOX News on Wednesday. An announcement from the White House could come later Wednesday.

Gonzales, who would be the first Hispanic attorney general if confirmed by the Senate, would replace John Ashcroft (search).

“I would not rule out an announcement today,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

(Texan Editor’s Note: Gonzales’ hometown. It’s pronounced “Umble” and not “Humble.” The H is not just silent, but it is out drinking with its buddies.)

Ashcroft, Evans Resign [Updated]

Just breaking of FOX and MSNBC, details as they come in.

Update:

Attorney General John Ashcroft and Commerce Secretary Don Evans resigned Tuesday, the first members of President Bush’s Cabinet to leave as he headed from re-election into his second term.

The resignations were announced by White House press secretary Scott McClellan, who said Bush had accepted the decisions of both secretaries.

“The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved,” Ashcroft wrote in a five-page, handwritten letter to Bush.

More..

“Yet I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration,” said Ashcroft, whose health problems earlier this year resulted in removal of his gall bladder.

“I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons,” he said.

Both Ashcroft and Evans have served in Bush’s Cabinet from the start of the administration. Evans, a close friend of Bush’s from Texas, wrote, “While the promise of your second term shines bright, I have concluded with deep regret that it is time for me to return home.”

McClellan said Bush had accepted the decisions of both secretaries.

Transcript of President's Press Conference

Following is a transcript of President Bush’s news conference yesterday, as recorded by The New York Times:

Opening Statement

Yesterday I pledged to reach out to the whole nation. And today I’m proving that I’m willing to reach out to everybody by including the White House press corps.

This week the voters of America set the direction of our nation for the next four years. I’m honored by the support of my fellow citizens. And I’m ready for the job.

We are fighting a continuing war on terror and every American has a stake in the outcome of this war. Republicans, Democrats and independents all love our country and together we’ll protect the American people. We will preserve - we’ll persevere until the enemy is defeated. We’ll stay strong and resolute. We have a duty - a solemn duty - to protect the American people, and we will.

Every civilized country also has a stake in the outcome of this war. Whatever our past disagreements, we share a common enemy. We have common duties to protect our peoples, to confront disease and hunger and poverty in troubled regions of the world.

I’ll continue to reach out to our friends and allies, our partners in the E.U. and NATO, to promote development and progress, to defeat the terrorists and to encourage freedom and democracy as alternatives to tyranny and terror.

I also look forward to working with the present Congress and the new Congress that will arrive in January. I congratulate the men and women who’ve just been elected to the House and the Senate. I will join with old friends and new friends to make progress for all Americans.

Congress will return later this month to finish this current session. I urge members to pass the appropriations bill that remain, showing spending discipline while focusing on our nation’s priorities.

Our government also needs the very best intelligence, especially in the time of war. So I urge the Congress to pass an effective intelligence reform bill that I can sign into law.

The new Congress that begins its work next year will have serious responsibilities and historic opportunities. To accelerate the momentum of this economy and to keep creating jobs we must take practical measures to help our job creators, the entrepreneurs and the small-business owners.

We must confront the frivolous lawsuits that are driving up the costs of health care and hurting doctors and patients.

We must continue the work of education reform to bring high standards and accountability, not just to our elementary and secondary schools but to our high schools as well.

We must reform our complicated and outdated tax code. We need to get rid of the needless paperwork that makes our economy - that is a drag on our economy - to make our - to make sure our economy is the most competitive in the world.

We must show our leadership by strengthening Social Security for our children and our grandchildren. This is more than a problem to be solved. It is an opportunity to help millions of our fellow citizens find security and independence that comes from owning something - from ownership.

In the election of 2004, large issues were set before our country. They were discussed every day on the campaign. The campaign over, Americans are expecting a bipartisan effort and results. I’ll reach out to everyone who shares our goals. And I’m eager to start the work ahead.

I’m looking forward to serving this country for four more years.

I want to thank you all for your hard work in the campaign. I told you that the other day and you probably thought I was just seeking votes.

But now that you voted, I really meant it. I appreciate the hard work of the press corps. We all put in long hours and you were away from your families for a long period of time. But the country’s better off when we have a vigorous and free press covering our elections. And thanks for your work.

With that overpandering, I’ll answer a few questions.

Questions and Answers

Q. Mr. President, thank you. As you look at your second term, how much is the war in Iraq going to cost? Do you intend to send more troops or bring troops home? And in the Middle East more broadly, do you agree with Tony Blair that revitalizing the Middle East peace process is the single most pressing political issue facing the world?

Mr. Bush Now that I’ve got the will of the people at my back, I’m going to start enforcing the one-question rule. That was three questions.

Start with Tony Blair’s comments. I agree with him that the Middle East peace is a very important part of a peaceful world. I have been working on Middle Eastern peace ever since I’ve been the president. I laid down some - a very hopeful strategy on - in June of 2002. And my hope is that we’ll make good progress. I think it’s very important for our friends, the Israelis, to have a peaceful Palestinian state living on their border. And it’s very important for the Palestinian people to have a peaceful, hopeful future. That’s why I articulated a two-state vision in that Rose Garden speech. I meant it when I said it and I mean it now.

What was the other part of your question?

Q. Iraq.

A. Oh, Iraq. Yeah. Listen, we will work with the Allawi government to achieve our objective, which is elections and on the path to stability. And we’ll continue to train the troops. Our commanders will have that which they need to complete their missions. And in terms of the cost, I - we will work with O.M.B. and the Defense Department to bring forth to Congress a realistic assessment of what the cost will be.

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. How will you go about bringing people together? Will you seek a consensus candidate for the Supreme Court if there’s an opening? Will you bring some Democrats into your cabinet?

A. Again, you violated the one-question rule right off the bat. Obviously you didn’t listen to the will of the people.

But first of all, there’s no vacancy for the Supreme Court. And I will deal with a vacancy when there is one.

And what I - I told the people on the campaign trail that I’ll pick somebody that knows the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law. You might have heard that several times. I meant what I said.

And if people are interested in knowing the kind of judges I’ll pick, look at the record. I’ve sent up a lot of judges, well qualified people who know the law, who represent a judicial temperament that I agree with and who are qualified to hold the bench.

The second part of your two-part question?

Q. … Democrat to your cabinet by any chance?

A. I haven’t made any decisions on the cabinet yet.

Q. How else will you bring people together?

A. We’ll put out an agenda that everybody understands and work with people to achieve the agenda.

Democrats want a free and peaceful world. And we’ll - by the way, right after Sept. 11, we worked very closely together to secure our country. There is a common ground to be had when it comes to a foreign policy that says the most important objective is to protect the American people and spread freedom and democracy.

There’s common ground when it comes to making sure the intelligence services are able to provide good, actionable intelligence to protect our people. And this - it’s not a Republican issue; it’s a Republican and Democrat issue. And so I’ll - plenty of places for us to work together.

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. On foreign policy more broadly, do you believe that America has an image problem in the world right now because of your efforts in response to the 9/11 attacks? And as you talked down the stretch about building alliances, talk about what you’ll do to build on those alliances and to deal with these image problems, particularly in the Islamic world.

A. I appreciate that. Listen, I’ve made some very hard decisions - decisions to protect ourselves, decisions to spread peace and freedom. And I understand that in certain capitals and certain countries those decisions were not popular. You know, you said - you asked me to put that in the context of the response on Sept. 11. The first response, of course, was chasing down the terror networks, which we will continue to do. And we - we’ve got great response around the world in order to do that. There’s over 90 nations involved with sharing information, finding terrorists, and bringing them to justice. That is a broad coalition and we’ll continue to strengthen it.

I laid out a doctrine that said if you harbor a terrorist, you’re equally as guilty as the terrorist and that doctrine was ignored by the Taliban and we removed the Taliban. And I fully understand some people didn’t agree with that decision. But I believe that when the American president speaks, he’d better mean what he says in order to keep the world peaceful. And I believe we have a solemn duty, whether or not people agree with it or not, to protect the American people. And their - the Taliban and their harboring of al Qaeda represented a direct threat to the American people.

And of course and the Iraq issue is one that people disagreed with. And I don’t need to rehash my case. But I - I did so - I made the decision I made in order to protect our country, first and foremost.

I will continue to do that, as the president. But as I do so, I will reach out to others and explain why I make the decisions I make.

There is a certain attitude in the world by some that says, you know, it’s a waste of time to try to promote free societies in parts of the world. I’ve heard that criticism. I remember I went to London to talk about our vision of spreading freedom throughout the greater Middle East.

And I fully understand that that might rankle some and be viewed by some as folly. I just strongly disagree with those who do not see the wisdom of trying to promote free societies around the world.

If we are interested in protecting our country for the long term, the best way to do so is to promote freedom and democracy. And I simply do not agree with those who either say overtly or believe that certain societies cannot be free. It’s just not a part of my thinking.

And that’s why, during the course of the campaign, I was - I believe I was able to connect, at least with those who were there, in explaining my policy when I talked about the free elections in Afghanistan.

There were - there was doubt about whether or not those elections would go forward. I’m not suggesting any of you here expressed skepticism, but there was. There was deep skepticism. And because there is a attitude among some that certain people may never be free, and at least don’t long to be free, or incapable of running an election. And I disagree with that.

And the Afghan people, by going to the polls in the millions, proved - proved that this administration’s faith in freedom to change people’s habits is - is worthy.

And that’ll be a central part of my foreign policy. And I’ve got work to do to explain to people about why that is a central part of our foreign policy. I mean I’ve been doing that for four years.

But if you do not believe people can be free, and can self-govern, then all of a sudden, the two-state solution in the Middle East becomes a moot point, invalid. If you’re willing to condemn a group of people to a system of government that hasn’t worked, then you’ll never be able to achieve the peace.

You cannot lead this world and our country to a better tomorrow unless you see a better - unless you have a vision of a better tomorrow. And I’ve got one based upon a great faith that people do want to be free and live in democracy.

Q. Now that the political volatility is off the issue because the election is over, I’d like to ask you about troop levels in Iraq in the next couple of months leading up to elections. The Pentagon already has a plan to extend tours of duty for some 6,500 U.S. troops. How many more will be needed to provide security in Iraq for elections, seeing as how the Iraqi troops that you’re trying to train up are pretty slow coming on line?

A. Yeah. Well, first of all, the - we are making good progress in training the Iraqi troops. There’ll be 125,000 of them trained by election time.

Secondly, I have yet to - I have not sat down with our secretary of defense talking about troop levels. I read some reports during the course of the campaign where some were speculating, in the press corps, about the number of troops needed to protect elections. I - that has not been brought to my attention yet. And so I would caution you that what you have either read about or reported was pure speculation thus far.

These elections are important and we will respond, John, to the requests of our commanders on the ground. And I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops.

Q. Mr. President, your victory at the polls came about in part because of strong support from people of faith, in particular Christian evangelicals and pentacostals and others. And Senator Kerry drew some of his strongest support from those who do not attend religious services. What do you make of this religious divide, it seems, becoming a political divide in this country? And what do you say to those who are concerned about the role of a faith they do not share in public life and in your policies?

A. Yeah. My answer to people is I will be your president regardless of your faith. And I don’t expect you to agree with me, necessarily, on religion. As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society. The great - the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the - the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, they’re just as patriotic as your neighbor. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation. And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I’m glad - I appreciate all people who voted. And I don’t think you ought to read anything into the politics, the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites us is the fact you can worship freely if you choose and if you - you don’t have to worship. And if you’re a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you’re equally American. That is - that is such a wonderful aspect of our society. And it is strong today and it’ll be strong tomorrow.

Q. Mr. President, you talked once again this morning about private accounts and Social Security. During the campaign you were accused of planning to privatize the entire system. It has been something you’ve discussed for some time. You’ve lost some of the key Democratic proponents such as Pat Moynihan and Bob Kerrey in the Congress. How will you proceed now with one of the key problems which is the transition cost, which some say is as much as two trillion dollars? How will you proceed on that and how soon?

A. Well, first I made Social Security an issue for those of you who had to suffer through my speeches on a daily basis, for those of you who actually listened to my speeches on a daily basis, you might remember every speech I talked about the duty of an American president to lead. And we must lead on Social Security because the system is not going to be whole for our children or our grandchildren.

And so to answer your second question is, we’ll start on Social Security now. We’ll start bringing together those in Congress who agree with my assessment that we need to work together. We’ve got a good blueprint, a good go-by. You mentioned Senator Moynihan, I had asked him prior to his passing to chair a committee of notable Americans to come up with some ideas on Social Security. And they did so. And it’s a good place for members of Congress to start.

The president must have the will to take on the issue, not only in the campaign but now that I’m elected. And this, reforming Social Security, will be a priority of my administration. Obviously, if it were easy it would have already been done. And this is going to be hard work to bring people together and to make, to convince the Congress to move forward. And there are going to be costs. But the cost of doing nothing is insignificant - is much greater than the cost of reforming the system today. That was the case I made on the campaign trail. And I was earnest about getting something done. And as a matter of fact I talked to members of my staff today as we’re beginning to plan the strategy to move agendas forward about how to do this and do it effectively.

Q. Mr. President, you were disappointed, even angry 12 years ago when the voters denied your father a second term. I’m interested in your thoughts and the conversation with him yesterday as you were walking to the Oval Office. And also whether you feel more free to do any one thing in a second term that perhaps you were politically constrained from doing in the first.

A. At 3:30 in the morning on I guess it was the day after the election, he was sitting upstairs. And I finally said go to bed. He was awaiting the outcome and was hopeful that we would go over and be able to talk to our supporters. It just didn’t happen that way. So I asked him the next morning when he got up, said come by the Oval Office and visit. And he came by. We had a good talk. He was headed down to Houston. And it was, you know, there was some uncertainty about that morning as to when the election would actually end. And it wasn’t clear at that point in time. So I never got to see him face to face to watch his, I guess, pride in his tired eyes as his son got a second term. I did talk to him and he was relieved. I told him to get a nap. He was - I was worried about him staying up too late. But, so I haven’t had a chance to really visit and embrace.

And you’re right, ‘92 was a disappointment. But he taught me a really good lesson, that life moves on. And it’s very important for those of us in the political arena win or lose to recognize that life is bigger than just politics. And this was one of the really good lessons he taught me.

Q. Do you feel more free?

A. In terms of feeling free, well, I don’t think you’ll let me be too free. There’s accountability and there are constraints on the presidency as there should be in any system. I feel it is necessary to move an agenda that I told the American people I would move. Something refreshing about coming off an election. Even more refreshing since we all got some sleep last night.

But there’s, you go out and you make your case. And you tell the people this is what I intend to do. And after hundreds of speeches and three debates and interviews and the whole process where you keep basically saying the same thing over and over again that when you win there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view. And that’s what I intend to tell the Congress. That I made it clear what I intend to do as the president. Now let’s work - and the people made it clear what they wanted. Now let’s work together. It’s one of the wonderful - it’s like earning capital.

You asked do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital. And now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That’s what happened after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I’ve earned capital in this election. And I’m going to spend it for what I told the people I’d spend it on, which is, you’ve heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror. We have an obligation in this country to continue to work with nations to help alleve poverty and disease. We will continue to press forward on the H.I.V. AIDS initiative, the Millennium Challenge Account. We will continue to do our duty to help feed the hungry. And I’m looking forward to it. I really am.

It’s been a fantastic experience campaigning the country. It’s, you’ve seen it from one perspective. I’ve seen it from another. I saw you standing there at the last final rally in Texas to my right over there. I was observing you observe. And you saw the energy. And there was just uplifting about people showing up at 11 o’clock at night expressing their support and their prayers and their friendship. It’s a marvelous experience to campaign across the country.

Q. Do you plan to reshape your cabinet for the second term? Or will any changes come at the instigation of individuals? And as part of the same question, may I ask you what you’ve learned about cabinet government, what works, what doesn’t work. And do you mind also addressing the same question about the White House staff?

A. The post-election euphoria did not last very long here at the press corps. Let me talk about the people that have worked with me. I had a cabinet meeting today. And I thanked them for their service to the country and reminded them that we’ve got a job to do. And I expected them to do the job. I have made no decisions on my Cabinet and or White House staff. I am mindful that working in the White House is really, is exhausting work. The um, the people who you try to get to leak to you spend hours away from their families. And it is, there is, the word burnout is oftentimes used in Washington. And it’s used for a reason. Because people do burn out. And so obviously, in terms of those who are, who want to stay on and who I want to stay on I’ve got to make sure that it’s right for their families. And that they’re comfortable. Because when they come to work here in the White House I expect them to work as hard as they possibly can on behalf of the American people.

And the Cabinet, there will be some changes. I don’t know who they will be. It’s inevitable there will be changes. It happens in every administration. To a person I am proud of the work they have done. And I fully understand we’re about to head into the period of intense speculation as to who is going to stay and who is not going to stay. And I assured them, today I warned them of the speculative period. It’s great Washington sport to be talking about who’s going to leave and who the replacements may be and handicapping my way of thinking.

I’ll just give you, but let me just help you out with the speculation right now. I haven’t thought about it. I’m going to start thinking about it. I’m going to Camp David this afternoon with Laura. And I’ll begin the process of thinking about the Cabinet and the White House staff. And we’ll let you know at the appropriate time when decisions have been made.

Q. What works, what doesn’t?

A. Yeah, well, first I’ve learned that I’ve put together a really good cabinet. I’m very proud of the people that have served this government. And they, to a man or woman work their hearts out for the American people. And I’ve learned that you’ve got to continue to surround yourself with good people. This is a job that requires crisp decision making. And therefore, in order for me to make decisions I’ve got to have people who bring their point of view into the Oval Office and are willing to say it. I always jest to people, the Oval Office is the kind of place where people stand outside, they’re getting ready to come in and tell me what for and they walk in and get overwhelmed by the atmosphere. And they say “man, you’re looking pretty.” And therefore, you need people to walk in on those days when you’re not looking so good and saying you’re not looking so good, Mr. President. And I’ve got, those are the kind of people that served our country.

We’ve had vigorous debates, which you all during the last four years took great delight in reporting. Differences of opinion. But that’s what you want if you’re the commander in chief and a decision maker. You want people to walk in and say I don’t agree with this or I do agree with that. And here’s what my recommendation is. But the president also has to learn to decide. There’s ample time for the debate to take place. And then decide. And make up your mind. And lead. That’s what the job’s all about. And so I have learned how important it is to be, to have a really fine group of people that think through issues and that are not intimidated by the process. And who walk in and tell me what’s on their mind.

Q. Sir, does it bother you that there’s a perception out there that your administration has been one that favors big business and the wealthy individuals? And what can you do to overcome that, sir?

A. 70 percent of the new jobs in America are created by small businesses. I understand that. And I have promoted during the course of the last four years one of the most aggressive pro-entrepreneur, small business policies. Tax relief. You might remember, I don’t know if you know this or not but 90 percent of the businesses are sole proprietorships or Subchapter S corporations.

Tax relief helped them. This is an administration that fully understands that the job creators are the entrepreneurs. And so in a new term we’ll make sure that tax relief continues to be robust for our small businesses. We’ll push legal reform and regulatory reform. Because I understand the engine of growth is through the small business sector.

Q. Sir, given your commitment to reaching out across party lines and to all Americans, I wonder if you could expand on your definition bipartisanship and whether it means simply picking off a few Democrats on a case-by-case basis to pass the bills you want to pass or whether you would commit to working regularly with the Democratic leadership on solutions that can win broad support across party lines?

A. Do you remember the No Child Left Behind Act? I think that’s the model I’d look at if I were you. It is a - I laid out an agenda for reforming our public schools. I worked with both Republicans and Democrats to get that bill passed. In a new term, we’ll continue to make sure we do not weaken the accountability standards that are making a huge difference in people’s lives, in these kids’ lives. But that’s the model I’d look at if I were you.

And there’s a certain practicality to life here in Washington. And that is when you get a bill moving, it is important to get the votes. And if politics starts to get in the way of getting good legislation through, well, that’s just part of life here.

But I’m also focused on results. I think of the Medicare bill. You might remember that old stale debate. We finally got a bill moving. I was hoping it would get strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately it was an election year. And but we got the votes necessary to get the bill passed.

And so we will - I will - my goal is to work on the ideal and to reach out and to continue to work and find common ground on issues.

On the other hand, I’ve been wisened to the ways of Washington. I watched what can happen during certain parts of the cycle where politics gets in the way of good policy. And at that point in time, I’ll continue to - you know, I’ll try to get this done. And try to get our bills passed in a way. Because results really do matter, as far as I’m concerned.

I really didn’t come here to hold the office, just to say, Gosh, it was fun to serve. I came here to get some things done. And we are doing it.

Q. I know you haven’t had a chance to learn this, but it appears that Yasir Arafat has passed away.

A. Really?

Q. And I was just wondering if I could get your initial reaction and also your thoughts on perhaps working with a new generation of Palestinian leadership.

A. I appreciate that. My first reaction is: God bless his soul. And my second reaction is that we will continue to work for a free Palestinian state that’s at peace with Israel.

Q. Mr. President, as you look at your second-term domestic priorities, I wonder of you could talk a little bit about how you see the sequence of action on issues beyond Social Security, tax reform, education, and if you could expand a little bit for us on the principles that you want to underpin your tax reform proposal? Do you want it to be revenue-neutral? What kinds of things do you want to accomplish through that process?

A. I appreciate that. I was anticipating this question that, you know, what is the first thing you’re going to do when it comes to legislation. It just doesn’t work that way, particularly when you’ve laid out a comprehensive agenda. And part of that comprehensive agenda is tax simplification.

The - first of all, a principle would be revenue-neutral. If I’m going to - you know, if there was a need to raise taxes, I’d say, let’s have a tax bill that raises taxes as opposed to let’s simplify the tax code and sneak a tax increase on the people. It’s just not my style. I don’t believe we need to raise taxes. I’ve said that to the American people. And so the simplification would be the goal.

Now, secondly, that - obviously that it rewards risk and doesn’t have unnecessary penalties in it.

But the main thing is that it would be viewed as fair, that it would be a fair system, that it wouldn’t be complicated, that there’s a, you know, kind of - that loopholes wouldn’t be there for special interests, that the code itself be viewed and deemed as a very fair way to - to encourage people to invest and save and achieve certain fiscal objectives in our country as well.

You know, one of the interesting debates will be, of course, in the course of simplification: will there be incentives in the code? Charitable giving, of course, and mortgage deductions are very important. As governor of Texas, when I - at some time I think I was asked about simplification, I always noted how important it was for certain incentives to be built in the tax code. And that’ll be an interesting part of the debate.

Certain issues come quicker than others in the course of a legislative session. And that depends upon whether or not those issues have been debated. I think, for example, of the legal issue - the legal reform issues. They have been - medical liability reform had been debated and got thwarted a couple of times in one body in particular on Capitol Hill.

And so the groundwork has been laid for some legislation that I’ve been talking about. On an issue like tax reform, it’s going to - tax simplification - it’s going to take a lot of legwork to get something ready for a legislative package. I fully understand that.

The Social Security form will require some additional legwork, although the Moynihan Commission has laid the groundwork for it, I think is a very good place to start the debate.

The education issue is one that could move pretty quickly because there’s been a lot of discussion about education. You know, it’s an issue that the members are used to debating and discussing.

And so I think, you know, all issues are important. And the timing of issues as they reach it through committee and floor really depend upon whether or not some work has already been done on those issues.

A couple more questions.

Q. Mr. President, American forces are gearing up for what appears to be a major offensive in Falluja over the next several days. I’m wondering if you could tell us what the objective is, what the stakes are there, for the United States, for the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi elections coming up in January.

A. In order for Iraq to be a free country, those who are trying to stop the elections and stop a free society from emerging must be defeated. And so Prime Minister Allawi and his government, which fully understands that, are working with our generals on the ground to do just that.

Now, we will work closely with the government. It’s their government; it’s their country. We’re there at their invitation. And but I think there’s a recognition that these - some of these people have to - must be defeated. And so that’s what they’re thinking about. That’s what you’re - that’s why you’re hearing discussions about potential action in Falluja.

Q. Thank you, Sir. Many within your own party are unhappy over the deficit and they say keeping down discretional spending alone won’t help you reach your goal of halving the deficit in five years. What else do you plan to do to cut costs?

A. Well, I, you know, I would suggest they look at our budget that we’ve submitted to Congress, which does in fact get the deficit cut in half in five years. And it is a specific, line by line budget that we are required to submit and have done so.

The key to making sure that the deficit is reduced is for there to be on the one hand, spending discipline - and I’ve - as you noticed in my opening remarks, I talked about these appropriations bills that are beginning to move. And I thought I was pretty clear about the need for those bills to be - to be fiscally responsible. And I meant it. And I look forward to talking to the leadership about making sure that the - the budget agreements we had are still the budget agreements - that just because we had an election, that they shouldn’t feel comfortable changing our agreement. And I think they understand that.

Secondly, the other way to make sure that the deficit is - decreases - is to grow the economy. As the economy grows, there’ll be more revenues coming into the treasury. That’s what you have seen recently. If you notice that there’s been some - there’s been some write-downs of the budget deficit whereas the deficit is less than we thought because the revenues is exceeding projections. And the reason why the revenues - the revenues are exceeding projections. Sometimes I mangle the English language. I get - anyway - yeah, very inside.

The revenues are exceeding projections. And as a result, the projected deficit is less. But my point there is is that so - with good economic policy that encourages economic growth, the revenue streams begin to increase. And as the revenue streams increase, coupled with fiscal discipline, you’ll see the deficit shrinking. And we are focused on that. I do believe there ought to be budgetary reform in Washington, on the Hill - Capitol Hill. I think it’s very important.

I would like to see the president have a line item veto again when it passed constitutional muster. I think it would help the executive branch work with the legislative branch to make sure that - that we’re able to maintain budget discipline.

I’ve talked to a lot of members of Congress who are wondering whether or not we’ll have the will to confront entitlements, to make sure that there is entitlement reform that helps us maintain fiscal discipline.

The answer is yes. That’s why I took on the Social Security issue. I believe that we have a duty to do so. I want to make sure that the Medicare reforms that we put in place remain robust to help us make sure Medicare is available for generations to come.

And so there is a - I’ve got quite an active agenda to help work with Congress to bring not only fiscal discipline but to make sure that our pro-growth policies are still in place.

Q. I‘m interested in getting back to Steven - Stevenson’s question about unity. Clearly, you believe you have reached out and will continue to reach out. Do you believe that Democrats have made a sincere and sufficient effort to meet you somewhere halfway? And do you think now there’s more reason for them to do that in light of the election results?

A. I think the Democrats agree that we have an obligation to serve our country. I believe there will be goodwill, now that this election is over, to work together. I found that to be the case when I first arrived here in Washington. And working with the Democrats and fellow Republicans, we got a lot done. And it is with that spirit that I go into this coming session. And I will meet with both Republican and Democrat leaders and I am - they’ll see I’m genuine about working toward some of these important issues.

It’s going to be - it’s not easy, you know. These - I readily concede I’ve laid out some very difficult issues for people to deal with.

Reforming the Social Security system for generations to come is a difficult issue. Otherwise it would have already been done. But it is necessary to confront it. And I would hope to be able to work with Democrats to get this done. I’m not sure we can get it done without Democrat participation. Because it is a big issue. And I will explain to them, you know, I will show them Senator Moynihan’s thinking as a way to begin the process. And I will remind everybody who’s here that we have a duty to leave behind a better America and when we see a problem, to deal with it. And I think Democrats agree with that.

And so I’m optimistic. You’ve covered me when I was a governor of Texas. I told you that I was going to do that as the governor. There was probably some skepticism in your beady eyes there. But you might remember we were able to accomplish a lot by - and Washington is different from Austin, no question about it. Washington - one of the disappointments of the - of being here in Washington is how bitter this town can become and how divisive.

I’m not blaming one party or the other. It’s just the reality of Washington, D.C. Sometimes exacerbated by - by you because it’s great sport; it’s entertaining for some. It also makes it difficult to govern at times. And I - but nevertheless, my commitment is there. I fully - now I’m more seasoned to Washington. I have cut my political eye teeth, at least the ones I’ve recently grown here in Washington. And so I’m aware of what can happen in this town. But nevertheless, having said that, I am fully prepared to work with both Republican and Democrat leadership to advance an agenda that I think makes a big difference for the country.

Listen, thank you all. I look forward to working with you. I’ve got a question for you: How many of you are going to be here for a second term? Please raise your hand.

Gosh, we’re going to have a lot of fun then.

Thank you all.

Students Arrested Protesting President Bush's Re-election

About 250 Bard College students protested the presidential election results on Friday claiming George Bush was not the legitimate winner.

The protesters marched from campus to the center of the Hudson Valley village of Red Hook and blocked traffic at by staging a 45-minute sit-in:

“George Bush is not our president, and we reject him as our president,” protester Gabe Rey-Goodlatt said. “He’s a non-elected president who stole the election again in 2004.”

Twelve students were charged with disorderly conduct after becoming confrontational with officers.

From California Yankee.

Bush Outlines Agenda For Second Term

A minority president no more, President Bush sketched a second-term agenda Thursday that includes fighting the worldwide war on terror and seeking tax overhaul and fundamental changes in Social Security at home.

“I’ve earned capital in this election and I’m going to spend it for what I’ve told the people I’d spend it on,” he said.

Bush also pledged to pursue the foreign policy that was a flashpoint in the presidential campaign and has sparked criticism by some American allies in Europe.

“There is a certain attitude in the world by some that says that it’s a waste of time to try to promote free societies in parts of the world,” he said, a reference to Iraq in particular. “I’ve heard that criticism,” he said.

“Remember, I went to London to talk about our vision of spreading freedom throughout the greater Middle East and I fully understand that that might rankle some and be viewed by some as folly.”

Told by a reporter that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had died, Bush said he intended to “continue to work for a free Palestinian state that’s at peace with Israel.” Later reports said that Arafat, in a coma in Paris, was still alive.

Read more…

Election 2004 Endgame

Well it looks like it’s over overall pending the Democrats don’t throw a lawsuit our way challenging the 20 electoral votes of Ohio.

Right now New Mexico and Iowa is closing with 98% & 97% counted which will give Bush a total of 12 EC Points to take it to 261 EC Points (If Democrats challenging Ohio). Then there’s Nevada with 80% counted at this moment with 5 EC points and it’s leaning Bush. Which raises it to Bush’s 266 to Kerry’s 225.

Wiscousin, Michigan, & possibly Hawaii are going Kerry which will bring Kerry’s total to 252 Total.

Right now, Bush is the winner of the 2004 Presidential Election if Kerry respects the voters of Ohio.

My conclusion of the 2004 Presidential Election:
Bush 286 - Kerry 252

Bush Invites Pool reporters into White House

ABC News reports President Bush has invited the Press Pool in for a quick interview. According to ABC, this is highly unusual and may have never happened before during an election night.

UPDATE:
ABC Ran the tape, but it did not have any sound. Pres. Bush had his family around him, including his daughters, wife and Pres. Bush Sr. and the former First Lady.
Not sure what the point was….

Why You Should Vote For Me Today : Bush

From USA Today :

I am running for president with a clear and positive plan to build a safer world and a more hopeful America. My record demonstrates the consistent and principled leadership our nation needs in these challenging times. I ran for president four years ago with an ambitious agenda for America’s future, and I have kept my commitments. With bipartisan support, we passed the No Child Left Behind Act — the most sweeping education reform in generations. Now states are setting higher standards for schools, parents have more options for their children’s education, and student achievement is rising.

I also promised to lower taxes, and the tax relief we passed has delivered financial relief to more than 111 million Americans. A family of four with a $40,000 income has seen taxes reduced by more than $1,900. Families and small businesses are using that money to move our economy forward. In the past 13 months, we have created more than 1.9 million new jobs.

We added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Millions of seniors are saving thanks to Medicare drug discount cards. And in 2006, every senior in Medicare will be eligible for a voluntary prescription drug benefit that could save them as much as 75% off the cost of prescription medication.

Our nation has also faced challenges we did not expect. We endured the worst terrorist assault in our history, and the vicious attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, affected every American. As I stood in the ruins of the World Trade Center’s twin towers, I vowed that I would do whatever it takes to defend America.

To keep our communities safe, I strengthened our homeland defenses and created the Department of Homeland Security. First-responders have received billions more dollars for training and equipment. The Patriot Act is helping intelligence and law enforcement agencies work together to track down terror cells and prevent terrorist attacks.

We are staying on the offense against the enemy. Our armed forces acted swiftly and courageously, deposing the Taliban in Afghanistan. We liberated millions of oppressed men, women and children. In October, the Afghan people — including more than 3 million women — voted in free and democratic elections for the first time in their history. And to date, three-quarters of al-Qaeda’s known leaders have been captured or killed.

In Saddam Hussein, we saw a unique threat. We pursued diplomatic solutions through the United Nations, but when repeated attempts at diplomacy failed, we acted to end the threat Saddam posed. Some 30 nations, including Great Britain, Australia, Poland and Italy, joined us. We were right to take action, and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison.

As we pursue terrorists across the globe, we are also promoting freedom, hope and democracy in the broader Middle East. By supporting reform and democracy, we gain allies in the war on terror and help defeat the despair and hopelessness that feed terror.

This will make America safer.

We have made tremendous progress in only four years, but there is still more we can do in the years to come. My opponent and I have fundamentally different views about how to lead America.

I believe the government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives. I support efforts to keep taxes low, so families and small businesses keep more of their own money to spend and save as they see fit. My opponent would raise taxes on millions of American families and small-business owners.

I support litigation reform to lower the cost of health care and protect small businesses. My opponent has fought efforts to reduce frivolous litigation.

My health care plan would promote accessible health care that leaves decisions in the hands of patients and doctors — not the federal government. My opponent would enact the largest expansion of government-run health care in history. It would cost taxpayers at least $1.2 trillion and move 8 million people from private insurance to government-run care.

My opponent has no plan to strengthen Social Security. As long as I am president, older Americans can count on Social Security, and I want to give our children and grandchildren the option of saving in a personal account and building a nest egg the government can never take away.

Our biggest difference is found in our approach to the war on terror. I will always make America’s security my top priority. Sen. Kerry would be satisfied if terrorism were just a “nuisance.” And he would insist on passing a “global test” that would give foreign leaders more influence over America’s security. That’s not the right leadership for these dangerous times.

The problem with Sen. Kerry’s record on national security goes deeper than election-year flip-flopping. On the largest national security issues of our time — from the Cold War to the Gulf War to the war on terror — the senator has been consistently and dangerously wrong.

Americans face an important decision today — a decision that will determine the security and prosperity of the American people. For nearly four years, I have acted to promote opportunity and protect the safety of my fellow citizens. I ask for your vote to build on the good work we have begun.

Moronski predicts...

Today in political punditry from Sean Moronski, he treats us to his final predictions.

The only number to care about is 270 — as in electoral votes.

Last week, I gave an assessment of where I believe the Electoral College stands… not a whole lot has changed… with the likelihood that Maine will give all 4 of its votes (Bear bait amendments notwithstanding) to the Ds and that Coloradoans aren’t stupid enough to vote away their electoral clout by dividing their electoral votes by the popular vote percentage, I believe the College stands as follows:

Bush: 222 votes (26 states covering the South and middle America)

Kerry: 207 votes (15 states covering the Northeast, some of the Great Lakes region and the West Coast)

That leaves 109 votes up for grabs, which I predict will go as follows:

“Western 5-Card” - Nevada and New Mexico each have 5 electoral votes.  Bush has been trending well in Nevada and I expect him to hold serve there.  Kerry will probably win New Mexico barring a sudden Nader move.  Give them each 5.  Bush 227, Kerry 212

 “Iron Triangle” - The Upper Midwestern states of Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10) and Iowa (7).  Gore won all of these in 2000.  There will be no Democrat sweep this time around.  Bush will win at least one — Wisconsin.  I’ll give Kerry the other 2.  All will be close. Bush 237, Kerry 229

 “The BIG 3” - Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio

 Pennsylvania is the one Gore won in 2000 and Kerry will do it again.  Two reasons: the Philly suburbs have become fertile vote territory for Dems and there are probably enough votes that can be hustled (manufactured?) out of Philly to overcome the rest of the state.  Kerry 250, Bush 237

 Florida — the mother of all contests — won’t be razor thin this time.  For all the ranting and raving about 2000, it is estimated that Bush lost at least 5,000 votes in the Panhandle (located in the Central time zone) as the networks called the state for Gore while polls were still open.  Since 2000, Republicans have performed quite well in the state.  Hispanics, particularly Cubans, are motivated to elect Mel Martinez to the U.S. Senate.  Jews don’t have the same motivation to make John Edwards the VP as opposed to Joe Lieberman in 2000.  Close, BUT… Bush takes it… Bush 264, Kerry 250

Ohio… the center of the electoral universe.  No GOP has EVER been elected President without winning here.  The last Dem to win the Presidency without Ohio was JFK in 1960.  It will all come down to turnout — who is motivated more???  Kerry is not Clinton… he’s not even Gore… he doesn’t connect… W is not his father… whatever faults he may have, he will connect with enough Ohioans to win… Bush 284, Kerry 250… but wait…

UPSET SPECIAL… 4 votes are outstanding… in 2000, West Virginia was the Democrat state that came out of nowhere to go for Bush and provide the margin of victory… this time Aloha has a whole different political meaning… the latest polls out of Hawaii have Bush tied or slightly ahead… this time 4 years ago, Gore was up 19 in the same polls and won by 17… sometimes you have to make a call for the unexpected… lei the 4 votes for W…

final Bush 288, Kerry 250

for those of you who care I figure the national popular vote percentage margin will be 2.5%… Nader won’t break 2%

remember - vote early and often… for you Ds, election day is November 4… the Rs get to vote on November 2

Cheney "Cooks Kerry's Goose" in Hawaii

Dick Cheney, the first major party candidate to stump in Hawaii, addressed a crowd of about 9,000 in Honolulu:

“If you want my opinion, John Kerry’s goose is cooked,” Cheney told hundreds of cheering supporters in this Republican stronghold, where voters at military bases backed George Bush 2-to-1 in the 2000 election.

Hawaii, normally a strong Democratic state, suddenly finds itself in the spotlight as a battleground state this year.

Bush Regains I point Lead In Zogby Tracking Poll

Reuters reports that President Bush edged into a one-point lead in the Reuters/Zogby International Tracking Poll released on Monday:

Bush 48%
Kerry 47%

Bush and Kerry were deadlocked at 48 percent on Sunday.

From California Yankee.

"Tora Bora: What Really Happened?"

CNN’s terrorism analyst Peter Bergen:

New Democrat 527 Video

Another not-serious look at the US Elections. At least, I think it’s not-serious. You can never tell, when OBL is on tape channelling Michael Moore, parotting parts of the Democrat Platform, and pleading to “live and let live”.

A Minneapolis-based 527 group GeorgeTheMenace, has just produced a new video which they hope will counter the SwiftVet ones. The one showing hundreds of Veterans and ex-POWs of all party affilliations, all united against John F Kerry.

The video, which if taken at face value is extremely damaging to George Bush, is available in 2 formats:
QuickTime [800k]
RealPlayer[1.4 M]

Bush supporters will no doubt claim that the video has been “doctored” by Democrats, however the GeorgeTheMenace group hopes to put in on TV “straight”, according to their (satirical) website.

No doubt some people will believe it, but they probably wouldn’t be voting for Bush even before seeing it. Others will see it as an act of Democrat desperation, but they probably wouldn’t be voting for Kerry anyway.

Hat Tip : Captain’s Quarters

"Reporter saw insurgents loot Qaqaa arms depot"

From IHT:

See also ABC News: Video Suggests Explosives Disappeared After U.S. Took Control, “[KSTP] video may be linked to missing explosives in Iraq” and Al Qaqaa roundup.

From 10/06/04’s Outside Baghdad, lawlessness haunts a small Iraqi town:

Breaking For President Bush

Reuters reports that President Bush’s lead over Kerry has widened to 6 percent among likely voters in Newsweek’s poll.

From California Yankee.

"In final hours, Bush mailings display images of burning World Trade Center"

Pictures of the mailing are here:

Muslims cite betrayal by Bush

HOUSTON CHRONICLE: Muslims cite betrayal by Bush

Syed Ahmed voted for George W. Bush in 2000. But he won’t this year.

Ahmed, an engineering consultant and one-time delegate to the state Republican convention, said he believes the president has taken the country in the wrong direction.

Like many Muslims around the country who overwhelmingly supported Bush in the last presidential election, Ahmed now appears to be backing Dem-ocratic candidate John Kerry, according to several polls.

Muslim-Americans, who often identify themselves as fiscal and social conservatives, would appear to be a natural constituency for Bush. But when it comes to civil liberties, especially since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, their support is changing.

Muslims are disenchanted with the Bush administration for its support of the Patriot Act, which has left them feeling betrayed, several Muslims leaders said.

“The Patriot Act has many nonpatriotic provisions in it,” Ahmed said.

Political Human Sacrifice takes a shocking turn

As previously discussed, talk jocks John & Ken (KFI AM 640 - Los Angeles) are conducting a “Political Human Sacrifice” of two Californian congressmen. They’re encouraging their listeners to vote those congressmen out of office because of their support for massive illegal immigration. The congressmen are Joe Baca (Democrat) and David Dreier (Republican).

In a shocking development, John & Ken have received a federal complaint filed by the Dreier Campaign (Dreier site here) and the National Republican Congressional Committee. The complaint is relating to the McCain-Feingold law; although a copy of the complaint is not yet publicly available, apparently one of the charges involves John & Ken encouraging the crowd at a Political Human Sacrifice rally to shout “Fire Dreier!”

The L.A. Times reportedly interviewed John & Ken today, and, as they’ve appeared on several national news shows in the past, I would imagine this will receive national attention.

John & Ken are encouraging all their listeners and anyone else to contact the National Republican Congressional Committee; their contact information is here.

Dreier’s opponent is Cynthia Matthews. The district includes most of the San Gabriel Valley foothill communities. A map is here.

UPDATE: KFI producer and blogger Justin Levine comments here.

Quinnipiac Polls: Bush Leads In Pennsylvania And Florida

Bloomberg reports that Quinnipiac University polls find President Bush now leads Kerry in both Florida and Pennsylvania.

Florida Likely Voters
Bush 49%
Kerry 46%
The poll was conducted October 22-26 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent.

Pennsylvania Likely Voters
Bush 49%
Kerry 47%
The poll was conducted October 22-26 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent.

From California Yankee.

"[KSTP] video may be linked to missing explosives in Iraq"

From Minneapolis/St. Paul TV station KSTP:

Bush's Lead Narrows To 1 In Reuters/Zogby Daily Tracking Poll

Bloomberg reports that President Bush and Kerry are statistically tied in the Reuters/Zogby Daily Tracking Poll:

Bush 48% - Kerry 46%

UPDATE: The post was supposed to read “Bush 48 Kerry 46,” not “Bush 48 Kerry 47.” I have corrected the post. I wish to thank TCP reader dickmr for pointing out the error.

From California Yankee.

Political Human Sacrifice

If you live in Southern California, you’ve probably heard about Political Human Sacrifice by now. That’s the attempt by KFI AM 640 talk jocks John & Ken to unseat two Congressmen who refuse to do anything about our incredible problem with illegal immigration. These are the same talk jocks who played a major role in getting former governor Gray Davis recalled.

The goal is to send the message to politicians in Washington: either do something about massive illegal immigration, or lose your job.

If you aren’t familiar with how much illegal immigration is a hot button issue in SoCal, I’d suggest listening to their show. You can listen live over the internet here; they’re on from 3pm to 7pm Pacific time M-F. They have a segment on Political Human Sacrifice every day at 5pm Pacific time. And, they freely admit they’re doing this for ratings: their ratings have gone up since starting the sacrifice.

This effort is controversial and has national implications because one of the Congressmen is David Dreier, the third most powerful Republican in the House. The other Congressman selected to be “sacrificed” is Joe Baca, a Democrat.

John & Ken are encouraging their million-plus listeners to vote for their challengers.

In Dreier’s case that’s Cynthia Matthews, and in Baca’s case it’s Ed Laning.

Dreier appears to be worried. He’s spent around a million dollars on the campaign so far, and he’s even gotten Arnold Schwarzenegger to record a message that’s being phoned to his district. Dreier claims that his record on illegal immigration has been misrepresented, but a little research shows that’s not the case.

Dreier also has the assistance of a local newspaper chain that’s going to bat for him. Details here, including an example of a blatant lie by Dreier. As for Baca, read more about him here. The Washington Times offers older coverage here and here, and this has received national coverage in other papers as well. See also this site from a supporter of the effort. KFI producer and blogger Justin Levine has posts about this here and here.

To see what prompted Political Human Sacrifice and how angry many citizens are about this issue, read about the Temecula townhall meeting. And, to read about the administration’s heavy-handed tactics to influence John & Ken’s coverage of illegal immigration, click here.

"Wild Charges" Leveled In Desperation

Agence France-Presse reports that President Bush responded to Kerry’s attacks about missing Iraqi explosives calling Kerry’s explosive claims “wild charges” levelled in desperation.

“The senator is making wild charges about missing explosives,” said Bush. “Think about that: The senator is denigrating the action of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts.”

“Unfortunately, that’s part of a pattern of saying almost anything to get elected,” said the president, whom Kerry has accused of incompetent war planning in the wake of media revelations that the explosives went missing.

“America is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site,” said Bush.

“This investigation is important, and a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not the person you want as your commander in chief,” said Bush.

Terrorists Hope To defeat Bush

The Washington Times reports that leaders and supporters of the Iraqi insurgency say that the objective of attacks in recent weeks has been to defeat President Bush.

“If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, [Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John] Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people,” said Mohammad Amin Bashar, a leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, a hard-line clerical group that vocally supports the resistance.

Resistance leader Abu Jalal boasted that the mounting violence had already hurt Mr. Bush’s chances.

“American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together,” he told a Fallujah-based Iraqi reporter. “We’ve got to work to change the election, and we’ve done so. With our strikes, we’ve dragged Bush into the mud.”

From California Yankee.

Al Qaqaa roundup

From No Check of Bunker, Unit Commander Says:

Other reports:

10/26/04’s Al-Qaqaa spokesman says no weapons search has similar comments from the spokesman for the same unit.

10/26/04’s Timing of theft of explosives a mystery: Army officials told NBC News on condition of anonymity that troops from the Army’s 3rd Infantry did not arrive at Al-Qaqaa until April 4, finding “looters everywhere” carrying what they could out on their backs. The troops searched bunkers and found conventional weapons but no high explosives, the officials said. Six days later, the 101st Airborne Division arrived. Neither group was specifically searching for HMX or RDX, and the complex is so large — with more than 1,000 buildings — that it is not clear that the troops even saw the bunkers that might have held the explosives. The Iraq Survey Group discovered that the stockpiles of HMX and RDX were missing on May 27, seven weeks after the last visit by U.S. troops.

10/26/04’s Embedded Reporter Saw No Explosives Search: “There wasn’t a search,” [NBC Dateline reporter Lai Ling Jew] told MSNBC, an NBC cable news channel. “The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around.

10/26/04’s Paula Zahn: talks to former assistant Secretary of State Jamie Rubin, now a foreign policy adviser to the Kerry campaign, and Dan Senor, the former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority now representing the Bush campaign about this issue.

AP’s 10/25/04 Timeline on missing explosives in Iraq

10/06/04’s Outside Baghdad, lawlessness haunts a small Iraqi town: The insurgents probably are using weapons and ammunition looted from the nearby Qa-Qaa complex, a 3-mile by 3-mile weapons-storage facility about 25 miles southwest of Baghdad, said Maj. Brian Neil, operations officer for the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, which initially patrolled the area. The facility was bombed during last year’s invasion and then left unguarded, Neil said. “There’s definitely no shortage of weapons around here,” he said.

April 5, 2003’s Banned Iraqi Weapons Might Be Hard to Find briefly describes items found at al Qaqaa.

Earlier links in “White House Downplays Missing Iraq Explosives”.

Bush 49% Kerry's 46% In Daily Zogby Poll

Bloomberg reports that President Bush leads Kerry by 3 points 49% to 46% in the latest daily Reuters/Zogby tracking poll.

From California Yankee.

"White House Downplays Missing Iraq Explosives"

From Drudge:

However, from this:

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

And, note that the April 10, 2003 visit by NBC was not the first time troops arrived at the facility, and that the facility has 87 or so buildings.

See “Are troops at tip of Iraq chemical weapon cache?” That describes a visit to al Qaqaa on Friday, April 4, 2003:

The NYT has more on the political ramifications and statements from administration officials in “Iraq Explosives Become Issue in Campaign”.

UPDATE: The oft-repeated phrase “the explosives weren’t there when troops arrived” could be correct. However, it’s also quite misleading, and perhaps intentionally so. That phrase does not acknowledge that the troops in question were not the first U.S. troops at the site.

The NBC reporter visited the site on April 10. However, another group of U.S. troops visited the site six days earlier, on April 4. And, those April 4 troops found “thousands of 2-inch by 5-inch boxes, each containing three vials of white powder.” The white powder was believed to be explosives. I included this information in the original post, but it bears repeating.

Note also this:

UPDATE 2: On MSNBC today (October 26), the NBC Dateline producer (Lai Ling Jew) who arrived on the scene on April 10 was interviewed. A partial transcript is here:

UPDATE 3: The AP report Embedded Reporter Saw No Explosives Search summarizes the transcript in Update 2.

Bush Leads By 5 Points In Gallup/USA Today/CNN Poll

CNN reports that President Bush leads Kerry by 5 Points in the latest Gallup/USA Today/CNN Poll:

Likely Voters
Bush 51%
Kerry 46%
Nader 1%

From California Yankee.

Bush 48% Kerry's 45% In Daily Zogby Poll

Bloomberg reports that President Bush leads Kerry by 3 percentage points 48% to $%5 in the latest daily Reuters/Zogby tracking poll.

Reuters/Zogby polls over the previous three days showed Bush up 2 points.

From California Yankee.

Flu vaccine shortage roundup

10/19/04’s “Experts have been predicting flu vaccine shortage for years” offers a short but informative FAQ and 10/17/04’s “With Few Suppliers of Flu Shots, Shortage Was Long in Making” (excerpted below) is a longer piece that provides a good overview of the problem.

The most newsworthy charge is in “Without a Clue on Flu: A Hapless Performance on the Flu Vaccine”:

10/22/04’s “FDA ‘would have’ spotted flu shot problems” confirms that the FDA had not inspected the Liverpool plant during the period indicated above. The FDA claims that based on a “troubling” safety report from Chiron that the FDA ordered in August 2004, it would have reinspected the plant, but Britain’s 10/5/04 decision to halt production at the plant made that reinspection unnecessary.

Chiron’s Liverpool plant had changed owners a few times recently, it had a history of problems, and Chiron may have ramped up production too quickly. See “Questions remain about flu-vaccine maker” and “British plant suffers in flu vaccine fiasco”.

From 10/9/04’s “Britain: U.S. Told Of Vaccine Shortage”:

As for the bottom line, from 10/22/04’s “Flu vaccine shortage could cost billions”

The shortage resulted in “New Kerry Ad on Bush Flu Failures”. The GOP responds here. Rush Limbaugh blames it on Bill Clinton here. The NYT editorializes in “Supplying flu vaccine”. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) offers 10/18/04’s “Flu Vaccine Crisis: The Administration’s Response to Recommendations and Warnings” [PDF file]. Intel chairman Andy Grove says he’s voting for Kerry specifically because of this issue and what it indicates about the administration in “Flu muddle makes Intel’s Grove mad at administration”: “I can’t make an argument that a Kerry government would be better… But I can argue that (the Bush) government is not working and is unlikely to change.”

From 10/16/04’s Shaheen says administration was warned of flu vaccine issues:

The HHS requested that that private sector statement be included in the GAO report. See the letter in the 5/2001 GAO PDF “Supply Problems Heighten Need to Ensure Access for High-Risk People”.

The PDF “John Kerry’s Plan to Address the Flu Vaccine Crisis” proposes adding flu vaccine manufacturers to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, encouraging multiple manufacturers, and establishing a “strategic reserve of flu vaccine… The government will guarantee purchases of unused vaccines at the end of the flu season to help prepare for the possibility of sudden shortages…”

During the third presidential debate, president Bush addressed this issue:

07/30/2001’s “Production of vaccines in dire need of a boost” warned of potential problems over three years ago:

Chiron is under attack: “Shareholder Class Action Filed Against Chiron Corporation by The Law Firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP”, but seems to have already started protecting themselves at the start of 2004. From “Big lobbying effort from Chiron could boost defense”:

10/19/04’s “Flu vaccine providers took a random shot” discusses distribution issues, how chain pharmacies got some supplies and smaller pharmacies did not, etc. Summary: “Those lucky or big enough to order vaccine from Aventis got some. Those who ordered from Chiron did not.”

From 10/10/04’s “Flu shot shortage exposes bug in vaccine industry”

The FDA offers 2004 Chiron Flu Vaccine Chronology

10/20/04’s “Chiron vaccine in doubt for 2005” says that statement from Chiron might just be CYA.

10/17/04 With Few Suppliers of Flu Shots, Shortage Was Long in Making:

5/15/01’s GAO PDF Flu Vaccine: Supply Problems Heighten Need to Ensure Access for High-Risk People

From 10/11/04’s Experts Urge More Firms to Make Flu Shots:

Bush's IQ Greater Than Kerry's

The New York Times reports that George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than John Kerry:

That, at least, is the conclusion of Steve Sailer, a conservative columnist at the Web magazine Vdare.com and a veteran student of presidential I.Q.’s. During the last presidential campaign Mr. Sailer estimated from Mr. Bush’s SAT score (1206) that his I.Q. was in the mid-120’s, about 10 points lower than Al Gore’s.

Mr. Kerry’s SAT score is not known, but now Mr. Sailer has done a comparison of the intelligence tests in the candidates’ military records. They are not formal I.Q. tests, but Mr. Sailer says they are similar enough to make reasonable extrapolations.

Mr. Bush’s score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120’s, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry’s I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer’s extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test.

Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. “People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can’t understand,” Professor Gottfredson said.

On The Draft

The Star Tribune: “Trust that Bush won’t bring back the draft? Bad idea”

"Bush Backs Temporary Cards for Immigrants"

In the interview (Spanish-language version here), Bush also mentions that this would take the pressure off our borders and would allow these workers to send their money back to their home countries (a.k.a. “remittances”).

In January at a Cato Institute conference, Margaret Spellings, assistant to the president for domestic policy, discussed Bush’s guest worker plan:

In an interview last month, Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson (the “border czar”) said the following:

The details of how the administration would deal with guest workers who have overstayed the term of their work permit - especially those who have had U.S. citizen children - has not been disclosed.

See also Analysis: Bush temp worker plan open-ended:

Whether Bush’s plan meets the formal definition of amnesty or not, many do perceive it as an amnesty. Internal Border Patrol memos say that many are prepared to come to the U.S. to take advantage of any program that is perceived as amnesty: “Border Agents Warn of Influx”.

Regarding remittances:

Other countries receive an even greater share. Remittances represent about 29% of El Salvador’s GDP. Some, such as Dan Griswold at the Cato conference, say that remittances are good and a replacement for foreign aid. As pointed out here and here, others say they create an unhealthy dependency and have other negative impacts. Some say that one half of the residents of the Mexican state of Zacatecas reside in the U.S. That’s caused internal migration as Indians from southern Mexico move into that state to do the work previously done by Zacatecans: “Mexico’s other migrant wave”

See also “The Big Show on the Border” and regarding the general topic of guest worker plans, see “The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers”, “Guest worker program offers lessons: Bush might profit by German experience”, and “Unemployed in the U.S.: Guestworker amnesty not wanted, not needed”

Early Voting Problems for GOP in Florida?

Michael Graham:

I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who travelled down to Florida to work for the GOP at the polls. He’s monitoring the early voting in southern Florida and he says it’s a zoo. There’s very little Republican presence monitoring the voting, while Democrats are out in force at the early voting stations. He reports that Democratic thugs are blocking parking access for clearly Republican voters, and there has been at least one incident involving a shotgun. My friend, who’s got quite a bit of campaign experience and grew up in Florida, sounded dejected about the GOPs efforts thus far.

“The Democrats own this early voting,” he told me. Where is the Florida GOP?

Cross-posted:
Backcountry Conservative
Our Life

A debate on a draft

In a contentious debate on today’s PBS NewsHour, two retired generals squared off on the possibility of a draft. The segment was too short to arrive at much of a conclusion, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

Complete transcript here.

Progress for America To Spend $14 Million Airing "Ashley's Story"

USA Today reports that Progress for America Voter Fund will spend $14 million to run an ad about 16-year-old Ashley Faulkner’s encounter with President Bush.

From California Yankee.

Tampa Tribune Endorses No One for President

Tampa Tribune - “Why We Cannot Endorse President Bush for Re-election”

We find ourselves in a position unimaginable four years ago when we strongly endorsed for president a fiscal conservative and “moderate man of mainstream convictions” who promised to wield military muscle only as a last resort and to resist the lure of “nation building.” We find ourselves deeply conflicted today about the presidential race, skeptical of the promises and positions of Sen. John Kerry and disappointed by the performance of President George W. Bush.

As stewards of the Tribune’s editorial voice, we find it unimaginable to not be lending our voice to the chorus of conservative-leaning newspapers endorsing the president’s re-election. We had fully expected to stand with Bush, whom we endorsed in 2000 because his politics generally reflected ours: a strong military, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and small government. We knew him to be a popular governor of Texas who fought for lower taxes, less government and a pro-business constitution.

But we are unable to endorse President Bush for re-election because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open government and his failed promise to be a “uniter not a divider” within the United States and the world.

Neither can we endorse Sen. Kerry, whose undistinguished Senate record stands at odds with our conservative principles and whose positions on the Iraq war - the central issue in this campaign - have been difficult to distinguish or differentiate.

It is an achingly difficult decision to not endorse a candidate in the presidential contest, and we do not reach this decision lightly.

Putin urges voters to back Bush

CNN: Putin urges voters to back Bush

Russian President Vladimir Putin says terrorist attacks in Iraq are aimed at preventing the re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush and that a Bush defeat “could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world.”

Putin, speaking Central Asian Cooperation Organization summit in Tajikistan Monday, made his most overt comments of support so far for the re-election of Bush for a second term.

“Any unbiased observer understands that attacks of international terrorist organizations in Iraq, especially nowadays, are targeted not only and not so much against the international coalition as against President Bush,” Putin said.

“International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term.

“If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition,” Putin said.

Reuters Poll: Bush Keeps Four-Point Lead

Reuters reports that President Bush’s lead over Democratic Sen. John Kerry held steady at four points for the second consecutive day, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Saturday:

Bush 48%
Kerry 44%

The poll was conducted October 13-15 and has an margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percent.

From California Yankee.

Bush Leads by 6 % In New Newsweek Poll

MSNBC reports that according to the NEWSWEEK poll, taken after Wednesday’s final debate in Arizona, President Bush has a 6 percent lead among likely voters.

Likely Voters
Bush 50%
Kerry 44%
Nader 1%

The poll was conducted October 14-15 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

From California Yankee.

President Bush Opens 4-Point Lead

Bloomberg reports that Bush leads Senator John Kerry by 4 percentage points in the Reuters/Zogby tracking poll.

Bush 48%
Kerry 44%

The poll was conducted October 12-14 survey and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percent.

From California Yankee.

Reuters Poll: Bush Takes One-Point Lead

Reuters reports President Bush leads Kerry by 1 point in the latest Reuters/Zogby tracking poll:

Reuters/Zogby International Tracking Poll
Bush 46%
Kerry 45%
The poll was conducted October 11-13 and has an margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percent.

From California Yankee.

"Republicans and the Politics of the Latino Vote"

From the report “Losing Ground or Staying Even: Republicans and the Politics of the Latino Vote” by University of Maryland Professor of Government James Gimpel:

Is Bush Pulling Back In PA?

The AP / Philly.com report that the Bush campaign has “vehemently denied” reports that it’s pulling back in PA. Living there, I can’t say if B/C has pulled back, but the K/E direct mail offensive is in full swing … I’m getting three mailings a day …

National Rifle Association Endorses Bush

The Associated Press reports that the National Rifle Association endorsed President Bush for re-election:

The NRA plans to spend about $20 million in all, focused on 10 to 15 targeted states, with efforts including radio, television and newspaper ads, phone banks, door-to-door voter contacts, up to 10 million pieces of direct mail and election messages in magazines that go to the group’s 4 million members.

From California Yankee.

Bush Maintains Electoral College Lead

A new CNN survey based on state polling as well as interviews with campaign aides and independent analysts found that President Bush maintains a lead in electoral votes.

Bush 301
Kerry 237

Bush’s Electoral College lead is unchanged from last week.

ABC News Poll: Bush Maintains Lead Over Kerry

ABCNews reports that a new ABC News poll finds President Bush maintaining a lead over Kerry.

Likely Voters
Bush 51%
Kerry 46%
Nader 1%

The poll was conducted October 1-3 and has a three-point error margin for the likely voter sample.

From California Yankee.

Pew Poll: Bush Still Has Edge Over Kerry

The Associated Press reports that President Bush still leads Kerry:

Likely Voters
Bush 49%
Kerry 44%

The poll was conducted October 1-3 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.

From California Yankee.

Troops Support President Bush Over Kerry 4 to 1

USA Today reports that an admittedly unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel finds they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. Two-thirds said John Kerry’s anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam make them less likely to vote for him.

Bush 73%
Kerry 18%

The survey was conducted September 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing, which is owned by Gannett.

From California Yankee.

Robertson: If Bush 'touches' Jerusalem, we'll form 3rd party

HAARETZ: Robertson: If Bush ‘touches’ Jerusalem, we’ll form 3rd party

Influential American evangelist Pat Robertson said Monday that Evangelical Christians feel so deeply about Jerusalem, that if President George W. Bush were to “touch” Jerusalem, Evangelicals would abandon their traditional Republican leanings and form a third party.

“The President has backed away from [the road map] but if he were to touch Jerusalem, he’d lose all evangelical support,” Robertson said. “Evangelicals would form a third party” because, though people “don’t know about” Gaza, Jerusalem is an entirely different matter.

Bush Ahead In Ohio, Fla. And Pa.

USA Today reports that a New USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll finds President Bush widened his advantage with likely voters in Florida, taken the lead in Pennsylvania, and maintains a small margin over Kerry in Ohio.

From California Yankee.

LA Times Poll: Bush by 5

The latest Los Angeles Times Poll finds President Bush has a 5-percentage-point lead over Sen. John F. Kerry among likely voters.

Likely Voters
Bush 51%
Kerry 46%
Registered Voters
Bush 49%
Kerry 45%

From California Yankee.

Washington Post-ABC News Poll - Bush By 6

The Washington Post reports that a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll finds that President Bush maintains maintains a solid 6% lead over Kerry:

Likely Voters
Bush 51
Kerry 45
Nader 1

Registered Voters
Bush 51
Kerry 44
Nader 2

The poll was conducted September 23-26, 2004 and has a margin of error of ±3 percent for registered voters.

From California Yankee.

USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll - Bush By 8

USA Today reports that the latest the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds President Bush leads Kerry by 8 points among likely voters:

Likely Voters
Bush 52
Kerry 44
Nader 3

Registered Voters
Bush 53
Kerry 42
Nader 3

The poll was conducted September 24-26, 2004 and has a margin of error of ±3 percent.

From California Yankee.

Bush Volunteered For Vietnam

Knoxville’s WVLT Volunteer TV reports that when he was the National Guard President Bush volunteered for Vietnam:

One of the criticisms leveled at the President is that he sought guard service to keep him from serving in Vietnam.

Morrisey says, “not so.”

“The Air Force, in their ultimate wisdom, assembled a group of 102’s and took them to Southeast Asia. Bush volunteered to go. But he needed to have 500 [flight] hours, but he only had just over 300 hours so he wasn’t eligible to go,” Morrisey recalls.

Despite that, Lieutenant Bush stayed busy.

“He flew in active air defense missions, training missions. Day, night, regardless of inclement weather,” Morrisey says.

Colonel Morrisey assured us that to the best of his knowledge Lieutenant Bush was treated like any other officer in the Texas Air National Guard.

From California Yankee via Betsy’s Page.

Bush's Lead Narrows in Latest Time Poll

Reuters reports that President Bush leads Kerry by 6 percentage points in a new Time Magazine poll:

Forty-eight percent of likely voters surveyed said they would vote for Bush, and 42 percent said they would vote for Kerry, according to the magazine’s latest poll. Five percent said they would vote for Ralph Nader.

From California Yankee.

Bush blasts Kerry for remarks on the Allawi

From the Fort Worth Star Telegram:

President Bush hit back hard at Sen. John Kerry on Friday for what he called Kerry’s attacks on Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who stood by the president’s side this week as steadfastly as a member of the Bush campaign.

“This great man came to our country to talk about how he’s risking his life for a free Iraq, which helps America, and Senator Kerry held a press conference and questioned Prime Minister Allawi’s credibility,” Bush said at a speech in the southern Wisconsin town of Janesville. “You can’t lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility. The message ought to be to the Iraqi people: ‘We support you.’ The message ought to be loud and clear: ‘We’ll stand with you if you do the hard work.’”

Bush was referring to Kerry’s remarks Thursday saying Allawi was contradicting himself by asserting that terrorists in Iraq were on the defensive, after saying foreign fighters were coming into his country from across the border.

Bush Prepping In Crawford

KFOR reports that the president is spending the weekend in Crawford, preparing for the upcoming debates.

Does George W. Bush Have Presenile Dementia?

In the July/August Atlantic James Fallows has an excellent piece about the upcoming debates … an article worth reading in particular for its review of Bush’s not-well-understood history of performing well in debates, especially in situations when he’s expected to lose (as his defeats of collegiate debate scholar Ann Richards in the Texas Gubernatorial election demonstrates).

Good news for you: this article is among the few the Atlantic pieces online free, and you may read it here.

What caught my eye in the article, however, was this passage:

Yolette Garcia, who as the executive producer at KERA-TV, in Dallas, had supervised negotiations for the Bush-Richards debate, says that in those days Bush was noted for his poise and ease in public appearances—including the informal Q&As he has tried to avoid as President. “You never saw him in an awkward situation as governor,” she told me. “You expected he’d know the right thing to say.”

Obviously, Bush doesn’t sound this way as President, and there is no one conclusive explanation for the change. I have read and listened to speculations that there must be some organic basis for the President’s peculiar mode of speech—a learning disability, a reading problem, dyslexia or some other disorder that makes him so uncomfortable when speaking off the cuff. The main problem with these theories is that through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate. George Lakoff tried to convince me that the change was intentional. As a way of showing deep-down NASCAR-type manliness, according to Lakoff, Bush has deliberately made himself sound as clipped and tough as John Wayne. Moreover, in Lakoff’s view, the authenticity of this stance depends on Bush’s consistency in presenting it. So even if he is still capable of speaking with easy eloquence, he can’t afford to let the mask slip.

I say: Maybe. Clearly Bush has been content to let his opponents, including the press, think him a numbskull. Even his unfortunate puzzled-chimp expression when trying to answer questions may be useful: his friends don’t mind, and his enemies continue to underestimate him. But to me the more plausible overall explanation is the sheer change in scale from being governor of Texas to being President of the United States.

Then, in the current edition of The Atlantic, to which I subscribe, there is this letter to the editor:

James Fallows’s description of John Kerry’s debating skills (“When George Meets John,” July/August Atlantic) was interesting, but what was most remarkable was Fallows’s documentation of President Bush’s mostly overlooked changes over the past decade—specifically, “the striking decline in his sentence-by-sentence speaking skills.” Fallows points to “speculations that there must be some organic basis for the President’s peculiar mode of speech—a learning disability, a reading problem, dyslexia or some other disorder,” but correctly concludes, “The main problem with these theories is that through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate.”

I, too, felt that something organic was wrong with President Bush, most probably dyslexia. But I was unaware of what Fallows pointed out so clearly: that Bush’s problems have been developing slowly, and that just a decade ago he was an articulate debater, “artful indeed in steering questions and challenges to his desired subjects,” who “did not pause before forcing out big words, as he so often does now, or invent mangled new ones.” Consider, in contrast, the present: “the informal Q&As he has tried to avoid,” “Bush’s recent faltering performances,” “his unfortunate puzzled-chimp expression when trying to answer questions,” “his stalling, defensive pose when put on the spot,” “speaking more slowly and less gracefully.”

Not being a professional medical researcher and clinician, Fallows cannot be faulted for not putting two and two together. But he was 100 percent correct in suggesting that Bush’s problem cannot be “a learning disability, a reading problem, [or] dyslexia,” because patients with those problems have always had them. Slowly developing cognitive deficits, as demonstrated so clearly by the President, can represent only one diagnosis, and that is “presenile dementia”! Presenile dementia is best described to nonmedical persons as a fairly typical Alzheimer’s situation that develops significantly earlier in life, well before what is usually considered old age. It runs about the same course as typical senile dementias, such as classical Alzheimer’s—to incapacitation and, eventually, death, as with President Ronald Reagan, but at a relatively earlier age. President Bush’s “mangled” words are a demonstration of what physicians call “confabulation,” and are almost specific to the diagnosis of a true dementia. Bush should immediately be given the advantage of a considered professional diagnosis, and started on drugs that offer the possibility of retarding the slow but inexorable course of the disease.

Joseph M. Price, M.D.
Carsonville, Mich.

This letter is NOT available online, but I’ve decided to post it here nonetheless … if you want to register with The Atlantic and see it online, you may do so here.

An interesting, if ultimately sorrowful, hypothesis. About presenile dementia: Dorlands Medical Dictionary offers this definition of the affliction:

presenile dementia, that occurring in younger persons, usually in persons age 65 or younger; since most cases are due to Alzheimer’s disease, the term is sometimes used as a synonym of d. of the Alzheimer type, early onset, and has also been used to denote Alzheimer’s disease.

It was difficult to locate anything online about symptoms … any links or information from readers is welcome.

Update: First of all, I’m not saying I BELIEVE this any more than I’ve said I believe any other post we put on this page. As always, our interpretive stance is “we post, you decide.” So please keep that in mind if you’re about to make a personal attribution about me based on this post. I’ve posted a million items on this page favorable to G. W. Bush, and when folks from the left have leveled the “you’re biased” gun at my head I wouldn’t tolerate that attribution either, and I’m not about to invoke (or tolerate) a double-standard now. Thanks.

Now, as to whether this should be on Op/Ed: since it’s not my opinion, and since I’m not editorializing, and since it’s from a respected news publication, I don’t think so. Neither does Michele. Again with a possible double standard: when the first Rathergate items started to fly, they were all opinion or informed opinion, but they appeared on this page because we thought the claim was newsworthy and not editorializing.

If anything, y’all should fact-check the shit out of this and disprove it, if Bush is your guy. And if he’s not, you should hope the fact-checkers turn up diddly.

But for God’s sake: don’t rant at management. We just pay the bills and keep the lights on.

Update 2: This from a very trusted source … I’ll protect his anonymity, but I will say he practiced medicine for 35 years, and has served as a respected member of the international medical community for decades:

Dubbya may be losing it, but the evidence cited has no credibility. The “confabulation” part tells me that the author didn’t know what he was talking about. I’m sure that we can expect a bunch of conspiracy stories next, with Karl Rove and Laura hiding the president’s disability ala Edith Wilson.

So … if we buy the premise that Joseph M. Price, M.D. of Carsonville, Mich. really DOESN‘T know what he’s talking about, doesn’t it seem a bit untoward for the Atlantic to print the letter? Of course, Mr. Anonymous Respected Source above could be wrong (but I doubt it).

In Their Own Words: Allawi, Bush, Kerry

There have been 3 speeches in recent weeks that are worth reading on their own, unfiltered by media spin. So, here they are, in alphabetical order:

• Iraqi Interim Prime minister Iyad Allawi’s address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress. There was also a press conference later.

• U.S. President George W. Bush’s address to the United Nations

• U.S. Democratic Party nominee John Kerry’s recent “What I’d Do About Iraq” speech on Sept. 20.

Flash: Afghan Army In Najaf! (??)

I may or may not love our president, but I often love his candid style. Every once in a while, though, he serves up a softball for those who think his elevator don’t go all the way to th’ top, as he did yesterday.

From yesterday’s Bush / Allawi press conference (FOXNews):

[Bush speaking] The prime minister said something very interesting a while ago and it’s important for the American people to understand. Our strategy is to help the Iraqis help themselves. It’s important that we train Iraqi troops. There are nearly 100,000 troops trained.

The Afghan national army is a part of the army.

By the way, it’s the Afghan national army that went into Najaf and did the work there.

There’s a regular army being trained, a border guard being trained, their police being trained. That’s a key part of our mission.

But I think the world watches America. We’re an influential nation, and everybody watches what we say. And I think it’s very important for the American president to mean what he says.

That’s why I understand that the enemy could misread what I say. That’s why I try to be as clearly as I can. I don’t want them to be emboldened by any confusion or doubt.

I’m pretty sure he meant the Iraqi army, not the Afghan army, just to be clearly …

Church role in politics may be expanding without debate

The Bush campaign has been courting church-goers this year, soliciting church directories for potential voters, for example. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the role of religion in the business of politics may be expanding. A movement is afoot in Congress to attach a “Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act” to a bill that does not require debate or even a vote.

More than 130 members of the US House of Representatives want to amend the law that prohibits partisan activity - such as political rallies, fundraisers, distribution of political literature, and direct endorsements from the pulpit - by pastors and houses of worship. They hope to do this by inserting a provision into a bill that is already before a House-Senate conference committee - thus avoiding public debate or votes in either body.

Supporters say the provision is needed to restore free speech to religious leaders. Barring political endorsements from the pulpit curtails the First Amendment rights of pastors, they say.

But opponents argue that it would turn houses of worship into campaign vehicles and possibly reshape the America’s religious and political landscapes in harmful ways. They worry that political endorsements could divide churches, lead to reconfiguring memberships along political lines, adulterate their spiritual purpose and prophetic role as societal consciences, and even perhaps turn their coffers into unregulated channels for campaign financing.

Drudge: Burkett to Sue CBS

Drudge reports Burkett will sue CBS:

CBS DOC SOURCE SET TO SUE NETWORK FOR LIBEL
Wed Sep 22 2004 00:05:20 ET

Bill Burkett, the man identified yesterday by CBS as the source of the controversial documents used in its September 8 “60 Minutes II” report questioning President Bush’s Air National Guard service, plans to sue the network, the NY SUN reports.

Burkett has had “several meetings with lawyers to determine the best course of action.” The planned lawsuit would center on “defamation of character and libel.”

In particular, Burkett is complaining that CBS promised to authenticate the documents:

“Bill Burkett went with CBS News on this over ABC News, the New York Times, and the Washington Post because they promised to work the hardest to protect him and authenticate the documents. ,” Mr.Van Os told the Sun. “Bill leveled with [CBS] about his doubts over the papers, and they promised him they would take their time. They spent all of three days, maybe less, on authentication.”

Via JustOneMinute

"Bush's Passion For Secrecy"

The Boston Globe:

SOME MAY be tempted to dismiss this column as more self-interested whining from the media, but stick with it — it’s really about the public’s right to know, not the media’s. The Bush administration, resistant to scrutiny even before Sept. 11, has drawn a cloak of secrecy over its official actions that has steadily insulated it from the taxpayers. John Dean, counsel to Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandals, says the administration is using regulations and administrative actions to achieve what it could not get through Congress: an official secrets act.

Tracking No Child Left Behind

A No Child Left Behind opposition group has created a site to track the issue. From their press release:

A powerful and unique Web site – http://www.nclbgrassroots.org – being launched today is intended to help national policymakers and the news media understand that the controversial No Child Left Behind (NCLB) school reforms are not working as intended and have sparked widespread local opposition.

Featuring more than 500 recent local newspaper articles that can be sorted by state and eight key NCLB topic areas, the ambitious Web site is being launched by Results for America (http://www.ResultsForAmerica.org), a project of the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute. Articles collected in the Web site can be sorted by such issues as: federal intrusion in education policy; narrowing of curriculum; teacher flexibility; class size; funding burden; unintended negative consequences of NCLB; adequate yearly progress (AYP) reporting; and standardized testing.

Gore Voters Moving To President Bush

At the Wall Street Journal, Al Hunt reports that some Gore voters may be moving to President Bush.

Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney campaign, says internal polls show the president getting about 8% to 9% of the acknowledged 2000 Gore vote. He sees small gains from diverse constituencies: Hispanics, Jews, small-town and rural males and suburban women.

“The common attributes are strength and leadership,” Mr. Dowd explains.

From California Yankee.

Transcript of Dan Rather / CBS Monday Eve. News Response On Memos

From Ratherbiased, who has asked that we (and others) mirror the transcript of CBS Evening News’ Monday night response to the memo controversy:

DAN RATHER: Coming up on the “CBS evening news,” more on the controversy the president’s national guard record. It’s tonight’s “inside story.” [commercial break]

Besides checking on John Kerry’s service record, CBS has been checking president Bush’s service in the national guard, including whether or not he did or did not fulfill his commitment. We’re gathering information, asking questions and probing. CBS is also addressing questions about documents used to corroborate some of the information in our reporting. Documents used to corroborate some of the information in our reporting. Some of these questions come from people who are not active political partisans. It is tonight’s inside story. At a democratic national press conference today, some of the shots fired at military men were aimed at president Bush’s national guard service.

But official records showed he skipped a physical and was grounded. Do you know how hard it is to get your annual physical? I took 37 of them in a row.

RATHER: There has also been criticism of the new documents obtained by CBS. But CBS used several techniques to make sure these papers should be taken seriously. Talking to handwriting and document analysts and other experts who strongly insist that the documents could have be created in the 70s.

Everything in those documents that people are saying can’t be done, as you said, 32 years ago, is totally false. Not true. Like I said, proportional spacing was available, superscripts was available as a custom feature. Proportional spacing between lines was available. You could order it any way you like.

RATHER: Richard Katz, a software designer found other indications in the documents. He noticed the lower case l is used in documents instead of the actual numeral one. That would be difficult to reproduce on the computer today.

If you were doing this a week ago or a month ago on a normal laser jet printer, it wouldn’t work. The font wouldn’t be available to you.

RATHER: Katz noted the documents have the superscript “th” and a regular-sized “th”. That would be common on a typewriter, not a computer.

RICHARD KATZ: There is one document from may of 1972 which contains a normal “th” at the top. To produce that in Microsoft word, you would have to go out of your way to type the letters and then turn the th setting off or back over them and type them again.

RATHER: CBS news relied on an analysis of the contents of the documents themselves to determine the contents authenticity. It is in line with is known about the service and dates.

For instance, the official record shows that Mr. Bush was suspended from flying on august 1, 1972. That date matches the one on a memo given to CBS news, ordering that Mr. Bush he be suspended. Shortly after “60 minutes” broadcast the new documents last week, “usa today” obtained another new document. In the memo dated February 2, 1972, Colonel Killian asked to be “updated as soon as possible on flight certifications, specifically Bush.” That appears to be in line with newly released white house documents that indicate changes in Mr. Bush’s flight certification in early 1972. An analysis shows that instead of exclusively flying the f-102 he’d been certified in, the president began additional training in a lower level plane and flight simulators.

CBS news asked the White House today to answer a number of wuestions: Did a friend of the Bush family use his influence with the Texas house speaker to get George W. Bush into the National Guard? Did Lieutenant Bush refuse an order to take a required physical? Was he suspended for failing to perform up to standards? And did he, in fact, complete his commitment to the guard?

In reply, a White House spokesman told CBS’s John Roberts: “As you know, we have repeatedly addressed these issues, including during the interview you conducted on behalf of Mr. Rather last Wednesday.” The White House and the Bush-Cheney campaign always point out President Bush received an honorable discharge.

What is in the “60 Minutes” report CBS news believes to be true and believes to be authentic. Straight ahead on the “CBS Evening news,” they’re supposed to inspect your bags, not steal from them. He got caught red handed.

John Fund Would Rather Be Blogging

The blogger element of Memogate gains additional attention, this time from John Fund of the Wall Street Journal. From today’s OpinionJournal:

A watershed media moment occurred Friday on Fox News Channel, when Jonathan Klein, a former executive vice president of CBS News who oversaw “60 Minutes,” debated Stephen Hayes, a writer for The Weekly Standard, on the documents CBS used to raise questions about George W. Bush’s Vietnam-era National Guard service.

Mr. Klein dismissed the bloggers who are raising questions about the authenticity of the memos: “You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of check and balances [at ‘60 Minutes’] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.”

He will regret that snide disparagement of the bloggers, many of whom are skilled lawyers or have backgrounds in military intelligence or typeface design. A growing number of design and document experts say they are certain or almost certain the memos on which CBS relied are forgeries.

Newsweek Reports Bush’s Lead Narrowing

Newsweek reports that the double-digit “bounce” last week’s Newsweek poll found for President Bush has narrowed to six points.

Bush-Cheney had enjoyed an 11-point lead over the Kerry-Edwards ticket coming out of their convention, but in the latest poll, taken on the eve of the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks, the incumbents now lead 49 percent to 43 percent in a three-way race.

With 2 percent of the vote going to Ralph Nader, removing the independent candidate from the ticket has little effect on the spread, with 50 percent of the vote for Bush and 45 percent Kerry.

From California Yankee.

Killian son on H&C

originally posted here

Gary Killian is being interviewed by Alan Colmes right now. He thinks all the documents are forged - nothing new.

Meanwhile, Hannity had Amy Barnes on his radio show today, and apparently, there’s a lot of behind the scenes stuff going on. A publicist for her father apparently called Hannity’s screener and cancelled the interview - purportedly on her behalf. Very fishy stuff.

Killian says he gave names to a CBS producer BEFORE the 60 Minutes report. So what Dan Rather says about corroborating evidence is BS. Rather and his cohorts at CBS refused to air testimony from sources that disagreed with their angle on the story. This is NOT journalism.

Killian says he spoke to Mary Mates (sp?) out of a Dallas office of CBS before the story aired.

No one from CBS has contacted anyone from the Killian family since the story aired. Killian didn’t see Dan Rather’s defense on the CBS Evening News tonight.

Killian says he’d rather just “give it the benefit of the doubt and say they didn’t do their homework.”

Hannity says it seems they were setting up the president.

Colmes will be interviewing Amy Barnes after the break.

Faked Documents - Whose blood do the others smell - Bush or Rather? (UPDATED 9:13 ET)

cross-posted at SSG

Alright out of the ordinary for my blog, but as all of the political blogs are hopping on the possibility that Dan Rather may have reported on what may be faked documents, I went ahead and took a peak at the daily Nightline email with the subject line, “Truth and Politics.”

If you haven’t caught up on this brewing story take a look at Powerline, Command Post, LGF, Allahpundit, Spacetown, and Wizbang.

Now take a look at what Nightline’s daily email had to say~~

Tonight we’re going to look at two issues, separate but related. The first centers on new questions about whether or not President Bush really did complete his service in the National Guard. Our friends over at CBS News were the first to report on new documents that raise new questions about President’s service. One of his former superiors, who is now deceased, wrote a memo to his file saying that then-Lt.Bush apparently disobeyed a direct order in not undergoing a required physical. The White House fired back of course. Chris Bury will report on the new documents, coming out at the same time as a new ad campaign by a group calling itself Texans for Truth. Sound familiar? Of course. Does this issue resonate with the voters?

Also tonight, Dave Marash will report on a statement made by Vice-President Cheney earlier this week. In essence, the Vice-President said that the election of John Kerry could make it more likely that terrorists would attack the U.S.

(Full text of Nightline email can be found in the extended entry)

Regardless of how you lean during this election, this can be rather troubling for big media. Clearly, if the faked documents story bears out, it can (and probably should) be devastating to Dan Rather’s credibility. The second issue they claim to examine is a clear case of taken Cheny’s quote out of context. Here’s what he really said: (emphasis mine)

“If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again — that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,” Cheney said.

“And then we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we’re not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.”

He’s clearly talking about the way in which we respond to terrorist attacks, not that a Kerry presidency would bring additional attacks.

UPDATE: NBC’s First Read has this~~

• Thursday, September 9, 2004 | 9:30 p.m. ET
From Elizabeth Wilner, Mark Murray, Huma Zaidi and Aaron Inver

First glance (54 days until Election Day)
As the whole Swift Boaters episode proved, to the extent either side has to spend a news cycle or three explaining their man’s military records from the past, they lose the cycle. New documents released by the White House just shy of 10:00 pm last night, after first being reported on CBS, add more fuel to the Ben Barnes/Boston Globe-revived debate over whether Bush fulfilled his National Guard obligations, which is likely to overshadow Bush’s focus on the economy today and Kerry’s focus on health care.

UPDATE2: For what it’s worth, I sent the following to Nightline’s staff via their webpage~~

I received your daily email about tonight’s broadcast and am certainly intrigued. I am especially intrigued considering today’s developments regarding the possibility that the documents cited by Dan Rather may well be fakes. While there has been a great deal of documentation into what more and more appears to be the likelihood that the documents are indeed forged, the question becomes how will you deal with the story. I’ve added my thoughts at the web log The Command Post. You can read the whole thing at http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/015176.html.

The people will be watching, do us proud.

UPDATE3: Fred Barnes on Fox News’s Special Report with Brit Hume is attacking along all of the lines mentioned in Powerline’s and others posts and notes that Gary Killian, son of Lt. Col. Killian is disputing the documents.

UPDATE 4: Hannity and Colmes will be discussing the authenticity of the documents shortly, per their promos.

Nightline Daily E-Mail
September 9, 2004

TONIGHT’S FOCUS: New allegations about President Bush’s service in the National Guard. Vice-President Cheney makes a statement that many in his own party consider over-the-top. Looking for the truth, but in politics these days, does the truth really matter?

————————————————————————————————————————

Negative attacks work. No matter how much voters say they only want to hear about the issues and all, the reason that campaigns put so much effort into defining their opponents in negative terms is that it works. You have only to look at the impact of the attacks on John Kerry’s record in Vietnam. A rebuttal, even when it has the advantage of being accurate, never seems to have the same power as the original attack. And if you repeat something often enough, it takes on a life of its own.

Tonight we’re going to look at two issues, separate but related. The first centers on new questions about whether or not President Bush really did complete his service in the National Guard. Our friends over at CBS News were the first to report on new documents that raise new questions about President’s service. One of his former superiors, who is now deceased, wrote a memo to his file saying that then-Lt.Bush apparently disobeyed a direct order in not undergoing a required physical. The White House fired back of course. Chris Bury will report on the new documents, coming out at the same time as a new ad campaign by a group calling itself Texans for Truth. Sound familiar? Of course. Does this issue resonate with the voters?

Also tonight, Dave Marash will report on a statement made by Vice-President Cheney earlier this week. In essence, the Vice-President said that the election of John Kerry could make it more likely that terrorists would attack the U.S. This is, as many Republicans were quick to point out along with Democrats, over the top. The campaign, as campaigns are designed to do, immediately began explaining what he really meant. But does that matter, does anyone really pay attention to what comes after a charge like that? The Democrats are, of course, guilty of similar attacks. And these will certainly not be the last ones we see in the next two months or so.

Ted will anchor tonight, we’ll look at the truth, or lack thereof behind these two stories. There is a football game tonight, so we’ll be delayed on the East Coast. I hope you’ll join us.

Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff
Nightline Offices
ABC News Washington Bureau

New CBS Poll: Bush by 7

CBSNews reports that a week after Republican National Convention a new CBS News poll finds President Bush has a seven-point lead over Kerry.

From California Yankee.

President Bush Endorsed by Former Leaders Of Two Veterans' Groups

United Press International reports that President Bush has been endorsed by the former leaders of the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars.

From California Yankee.

President Bush Gains in Ohio And Missouri

USA Today reports that President Bush now holds a clear lead over Kerry in the critical battlegrounds states of Missouri and Ohio.

Bush’s margins in Missouri and Ohio are the first statistically significant leads that either candidate has held in a dozen surveys USA TODAY has taken in battleground states during this election.

His 14-point edge in Missouri raises questions about whether the traditional bellwether is still competitive. The Kerry campaign hasn’t purchased air time for TV ads in the state this month.

“What’s happening is more and more states that are Bush states (from 2000) are getting taken off the table,” says Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for the Bush campaign. “Now the battleground states are In becoming much more predominantly Gore states, which is good news for us,” he said.

From California Yankee.

New 527 Ads Reportedly Attack Sharpton, Willie Horton

The NY Daily News reports that an independent pro-Bush group, “MoveOnForAmerica[, ]led by GOP political consultant Stephen Marks”, is preparing to run two controversial ads. The first targets the Democrats’ embrace of Al Sharpton:

[snip]

Then there’s the second ad:

Note that the Horton-furlough case didn’t happen while Kerry was Dukakis’ Lieutenant Governor. Instead, the ‘hook’ is this:

I’ve got commentary on the ads on my own blog.

USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll: Bush by 7%

USA Today reports that the latest USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll results show President Bush has a 7% lead:

Likely Voters Bush 52% - Kerry 45% - Nader 1%

From California Yankee.

Campaign Finance Reform: 60-day window is here

In case y’all hadn’t noticed, we’re now within 60 days of the election, which means that in theory, 527 groups are now prohibited from running television and radio ads:

Restrictions on “Phony Issue Ads” Run by Corporations and Unions (The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment). First adopted as part of McCain-Feingold during the Senate’s February 1998 campaign finance debate, the Snowe-Jeffords amendment addresses the explosion of thinly-veiled campaign advertising funded by corporate and union treasuries. These ads skirt federal election law by avoiding the use of direct entreaties to “vote for” or “vote against” a particular candidate. Under the bill, labor unions and corporations would be prohibited from spending their treasury funds on “electioneering communications.” “Electioneering communications” are defined as radio or TV ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate or candidates and appear within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. This definition does not include any printed communication, direct mail, voter guides, or the Internet. It would also not cover issue advertising that does not identify a specific candidate or appears outside of the 30/60 day pre-election window.

The Snowe-Jeffords amendment applies to 501©(4) non-profit corporations and incorporated 527 organizations…

Update 9/6: Note that this restriction doesn’t apply to all 527’s, only those that are incorporated or take corporate/union money. If anyone knows a definitive source to identify which 527’s fall into this category and which don’t, please chime in.

So the question becomes: what the hell are the 527’s going to do with any money that they’ve amassed but haven’t spent yet?

One interesting theory is that 527’s may channel advertising dollars online. And hey, I’m all for that. Bring that dirty, filthy campaign lucre right on!

But does anybody have any money left anyway? Easy enough to check, thanks to the invaluable OpenSecrets.org. I pulled down the expenditures and receipts for the top 50 527’s, added columns to show the percentage of their funds that has been spent and their funds remaining, and put it back in a chart again:

So there’s a few interesting observations to be had from this data. First, it’s clear that —- assuming the reporting data is up-to-date —- there’s still decent piles of cash lying in the coffers of some of the major 527’s, including the Democrats’ mega-fund, the Joint Victory Fund, as well as others.

But then there’s the bottom end of the table, which is somewhat odd. Many 527’s have actually spent more than they are reporting as receipts. I would think that there are two explanations for this: first, that the group is in fact spending ahead of donations on credit or debt, or second, that the reporting is simply behind on receipts while it is up-to-date on spending. This makes a certain kind of sense; I presume it is a much less burdensome process to list expenditures than it is to report on all the tiny donations received.

But some of the numbers are wildly out of wack, including those for everyone’s favorite, MoveOn.org. They’ve spent $17M with receipts of only $9M, apparently —- a gap of $8 million. Now that is some fairly shoddy reporting, if you ask me.

But back to the funds that are left. At his current rates, $4,000 will get you an add that runs from here until Election Day over at Instapundit —- and you can even get the top slot for a mere $6,000. Glenn’s current traffic suggests that it’s a safe bet that he’ll get around 10 million visits between now and election day, so his rates are a bargain if there ever was one.

Further down the traffic, over at TTLB, you can run an ad until the end of the campaign for $70. Yes, $70. I mean, that’s less than the price of a power lunch. And while I can’t guarantee Glenn’s mega-visitage, my own traffic hasn’t been too shabby lately (especially in Great Britain, though they don’t vote, I’m told). And somewhere inbetween, here at The Command Post, you can run an add site-wide until Election Day for $300. Cheap, cheap, cheap!

Other blogs are priced similarly, generally with a pretty direct relation between traffic and cost. So it sure seems logical to expect that there might be a flood of political dollars headed our way sometime soon. So to use language that I know both Republicans and Democrats now understand:

Bring. It. On!

PS: Bonus 60-day tidbit: Another odd part of campaign finance regulations is that, believe it or not, Senators are prohibited from updating their own websites within 60 days of an election. Here’s the relevant rule:

During the 60 day period immediately preceding the date of any primary or general election (whether regular, special, or runoff) for any national, state, or local office in which the Senator is a candidate, no Member may place, update or transmit information using a Senate Internet Server (“FTP Server, Gopher, and World Wide Web), unless the candidacy of the Senator in such election is uncontested. Exceptions to this moratorium include the following: posting of press releases, posting of official statements of the member appearing in the Congressional Record, and technical corrections to the website.

Kind of odd, really, but if you can post press releases, I can’t see how it is very much of a restriction.

Originally posted at The Truth Laid Bear

Bush's Big Bounce

Newsweek reports that President Bush got a big bounce from the Republican National Convention. The Newsweek poll finds President Bush has the same 11% lead found by Time - Bush 52% Kerry 41%:

From California Yankee.

Jenna = Anna?

Only Yahoo! News dares to ask:

Has Jenna Bush become the Anna Kournikova of American Politics?

Americans continue to be more enthralled with the President’s daughter, than with the President himself. Even following the President’s address to the nation last night, Jenna Bush remains more a more sought-after news topic than her father who didn’t even crack the top 15 news topics on Yahoo! News. Jenna has clearly become a staple of American news interest. Her popularity on the list began during the Democratic National Convention, and continues through the completion of the Republican National Convention.

List? Oh, yes … the Yahoo! News most-popular-news-topics list.

Top News Topics on Yahoo! News (based on News searches and story click-throughs)

Friday, September 3, 2004:

1. Russia
2. Beslan
3. Miss Universe
4. Hurricane Frances
5. Iran
6. Chechnya
7. Maria Sharapova
8. China
9. Jenna Bush
10. Russian
11. Jennifer Hawkins
12. Iraq
13. Serena Williams
14. India
15. San Salvador

(Personally, I’ll take a #7 over a #9 any day … and don’t be afraid to toss in a #3 while you’re at it.)

Citation: This is all via Yahoo! email.

Time: Bush Opens Double Digit Lead

Glenn posts the early release:

• 52% Bush
• 41% Kerry
• 3% Nader

Three debates "too many" says Bush strategist

The Arizona Republic is reporting that a member of the Bush campaign is saying that a third debate is unnecessary and would needlessly “dominate the entire fall schedule.”

“Three debates would have a tendency to be a little overbearing on your campaign strategy and tactics,” Reed was quoted as saying.

On Thursday, after Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman visited a breakfast of the Arizona delegation to the Republican National Convention here, he refused to elaborate when asked whether that was the Bush campaign’s position.

“Debates are always very important,” Mehlman said.

But will Bush agree to all three of the commission dates, including the one in Arizona?

“We’ll see,” he said.

In later calls to The Arizona Republic, Bush campaign aides asking not to be identified insisted that Reed was not speaking officially for the campaign and that no decision had been made on the debates.

Albatross?

The Washington Post reminds us that George Bush may still finish his first term with fewer Americans earning a paycheck than when his term begain.

Crank's Report from the RNC

Through the efforts of a friend, I managed to get into the Republican convention last night, and will be returning tonight. A few thoughts on the evening, cross-posted at my blog; I’ll warn up front that since I’ve posted this in one long stretch, I haven’t really separated out my observations from my opinions, but it seemed more convenient to house it all in the extended entry section here:

*I only had to go through security twice to get in; although security was wall-to-wall and very observant and had closed off many of the numerous approaches to MSG and Penn Station, the actual run through the metal detectors didn’t seem as intrusive as the usual routine at airports and courthouses.

*My convention pass got me access to the press area behind the scenes, which means going past booths/tents filled with people from all the recognizable major media outlets, from newspapers like the New York Daily News to opinion journals like the Weekly Standard. But I wanted to see Bloggers Row, and eventually I followed the signs for the media until I got to Radio Row, where numerous radio stations are set up and broadcasting side by side. The blogger contingent was set up at a long patch of table off to the side - a small area crammed with laptops, but well-situated and visible. I was surprised at how many people were dropping by to see the bloggers, some of whom were quite smooth at setting up interviews. I got to meet all sorts of bloggers I had been in contact with by email but never met, including our own Alan Nelson, “Captain” Ed Morrissey from Captain’s Quarters, Kevin Aylward from Wizbang!, Matt Margolis from Blogs for Bush, and David Adesnik from Oxblog. Roger Simon was probably the most recognizable in his trademark fedora. I also spoke with Hugh Hewitt, who had just wrapped up his radio show with an interview with John Fund; Hewitt is set up right across the aisle from the bloggers and is most gracious in person.

*Michael Barone dropped by the bloggers’ area; there’s a skill level involved in being a really high-level pundit that’s truly impressive. Barone was peppered with questions from all sides and poured forth high-level punditry pretty much continuously, and was still doing so in a crowd when he headed away, talking about everything from the effect of down-ticket races (he cited Adlai Stevenson’s gubernatorial campaign as particularly crucial to Harry Truman’s re-election in 1948, complete with references to the number of electors Illinois had in that year) to the effects of abortion on national politics (he thinks Giuliani is such a star that we may see the first pro-choice GOP nominee in 2008). Barone reminded me of nobody so much as legal scholar Richard Epstein, who I met at a Federalist Society conference in law school, and who had a similar gift for rapid-fire extemporaneous opinions on every topic that passed his way.

*After that, I moved into the arena. A convention is a political junkie’s dream come to life; there were familiar faces from the media and politics just everywhere, and if I was more aggressive about these things I could easily have struck up a few interviews (on one of the entrances to the Garden I was on line behind Alan Keyes). From my perch in the arena I could see interviews going on with Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich, and watched Barone (again) and Candy Crowley and Rudy working the floor.

*Someone with a sense of humor set up the Al Jazeera booth right next to Fox News.

*The first two speeches I saw were Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey introducing her boss, Mitt Romney. Romney got a very warm reception, but it wasn’t 10pm yet, and the crowd clearly was not into the early speeches; Healey in particular seemed to be shouting enthusiastically into an empty room. Same-sex marriage? not popular with Republican delegates. Healey’s biggest applause line was her reference to how Romney “stood up to an activist court” to protect “traditional values.” She did also draw a little reaction by noting that John Kerry doesn’t talk much about when he was Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor under Michael Dukakis. Romney’s speech seemed just wasted; he told a moving anecdote about a U.S. Olympic athlete who carried the tattered World Trade Center flag at the 2002 Games in Salt Lake City, but nobody seemed to be paying attention.

*Then, John Kerry was given Zell. Zell Miller is not a guy you want coming after your candidate, as I remember well from 1992. I was surprised that Miller’s speech (1) didn’t do more to set out his Democratic bona fides (as he’s done in op-eds for the Wall Street Journal) and (2) focused entirely on foreign policy. My wife, watching at home - after having seen Rudy and McCain Monday but skipped most of Tuesday - was worried that the convention has been too overwhelmingly focused on national security to the exclusion of domestic policy, although I suspect that that is partly to help set the stage for President Bush to set out his Big Idea agenda tonight (as Bush told Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday when asked about his domestic agenda, “I’m going to save some of it for the speech if you don’t mind.”). Miller’s comparison of the Democrats of today to Wendell Willkie was rough stuff - the common Democratic complaint is that Bush has played politics with national security, but really, if the Dems had been as supportive of the Iraq war as they were in Afghanistan, the war on terror would be a much smaller issue. More on this another day, but it’s precisely because of the political battles over foreign policy that this is such a predominant issue this year, to the point that convention delegates seemed bored during the domestic policy parts of Cheney’s speech.

My wife worried that Miller came off as too harsh, and he was certainly rough: after he said, “nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators,” I half expected him to add, “Senator, you messed with the wrong Marine!”

Miller had a field day with Kerry’s opposition to various weapons systems, climaxing with “This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?” My wife said Miller was less prepared to deal with CNN interviewers later who pressed him with DNC talking points about how Dick Cheney as Defense Secretary had not pressed for some of those systems. That’s poor preparation: this has been a Democratic talking point for months, and if you take the record seriously it’s hard to put much stock in the notion that Kerry and Dick Cheney have similar records on defense spending and weapons systems. (This particular talking point is vintage Kerry; his campaign isn’t willing or able to tell you what Kerry stands for, but is instead obsessed with trying to disprove anything that’s said about his record).

This was also a good passage, tying together the long years of Kerry’s vascillations on foreign policy and blunting his efforts to hide behind his Vietnam service:

*Then, Lynne Cheney, who told us that her husband “entered public life as the Gentleman from Wyoming.” I know it’s too long ago to be worth explaining the relevance to today of Cheney’s term as White House Chief of Staff under Gerald Ford, but is it too much to ask his own wife to remember that he held the job?

*As for the Vice President, he was low-key as always. I was actually sitting next to Cheney’s speechwriters, which was amusing, since they knew exactly what was coming and were chattering about various passages in the speech as it went along. His speech started with the much-underappreciated fact that Cheney himself, despite his current image as the Mr. Moneybags guy from Monopoly, is from relatively humble origins: “my grandfather didn’t have a chance to go to high school. For many years he worked as a cook on the Union Pacific Railroad, and he and my grandmother lived in a railroad car.”

Many of Cheney’s lines were repeats of things he or Bush have said before, which was disappointing on one level, but a sign of both the consistency and the marketing savvy of the Bush team - they understand the importance of recycling key phrases to reinforce the public’s image of what they stand for. (And, having done so, they don’t blame those key phrases on “overzealous speechwriters”).

Cheney told us that Libya’s “uranium, centrifuges, and plans for nuclear weapons that were once hidden in Libya are locked up and stored away in Oak Ridge, Tennessee . . . ” Gee, should he have just given us a street address? I sure hope they are well-guarded.

The foreign policy section of the speech bored heavily into Kerry, in classic Cheney fashion:

After Cheney cited Kerry’s experience as a Senator and a soldier, I half expected him to say: “a man with John Kerry’s experience should know better.” I was specifically disappointed in two things: first, Cheney should drop that line mocking Kerry’s reference to a “sensitive” war on terror, which really is taken out of context; far more damning, in my opinion, was his reference back in June to “the real war on terror in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan” and his claim that the Bush Administration had “transferred it for reasons of its own to Iraq.” That’s a stark admission of Kerry’s fundamental unwillingness to accept the centerpiece of the war on terror, which is the idea of an offensive strategy of changing the conditions and removing the forces that support and nurture terrorists throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds, as opposed to concentrating solely on taking down those specific nations and organizations that can be proven to have already attacked us.

Second, even beyond the weapons systems and the $87 billion, I really wanted to hear more on Kerry’s plan to gut intelligence spending in the mid-90s. I could also have done with some of Kerry’s quotes about the Reagan policies that made such a difference in the Cold War; it’s one thing to cite votes, but Kerry’s speeches took some very tough lines against nearly every major controversial initiative of the Reagan years, from Central America to missiles in Europe. Still, there’s only so much time, and you do have to cut to the chase.

My wife was concerned that there seemed to be a lot of empty seats in the hall while Cheney was speaking, although that was news to me where I was sitting. I’m also not sure the TV caught the full impact of the rows of people doing the tomahawk-chop-style “flip-flop, flip-flop” wave. Which played in with this:

Aside from the laugh line, this is clearly a central point to Cheney: a guy who can’t keep his message at least straight enough that his supporters could answer the question “would Kerry have gone to war in Iraq” is never going to project the certainty about American intentions and resolve that is itself an important element of stability in foreign affairs.

All in all, an entertaining night, and one with a lot of red meat for the crowd; the parade of moderates was most definitely interrupted, and the base was happy. The stage is now set for the next-to-last major movement (other than the debates) of this campaign - the president’s address to the nation laying out his agenda for the second term.

Democratic Senator Zell Miller Tells Fox News Sunday Why He Supports President Bush

Georgia’s Democratic Senator Zell Miller tells “FOX News Sunday.” why he will vote for President Bush:

Because of the time that we live in, is one reason. In this dangerous time, we need a strong commander in chief, and I think that George Bush is one of the strongest that you could possibly have. I have admired and respected the way that he has grabbed terrorism by the throat. And I think he’s the commander in chief that we need these next four years.

[. . .]

We’re at war. 9/11 changed everything, as far as I’m concerned. It changed the way that we have got to look at how we do things.

[. . .]

I’m voting for George Bush. I’m voting for a commander in chief who has the strength to lead this country in a time of war.

And I cannot support Senator Kerry, because I think he’s weak on defense. And I think that his liberal voting record in the Senate is so far to the left that it’s off the charts. He’s not in the mainstream of this country. He’s way to the left of this country.

From California Yankee.

FP Grades The President

Foreign Policy grades the President:

Will the world learn to love President George W. Bush? As he enters the second half of his term in office, FOREIGN POLICY continues our long-standing tradition of asking noted contributors to grade the president and interpret the prevailing mood in their respective corners of the globe. Together, these commentaries—from nine regions and countries—form a mosaic far more nuanced than the familiar global caricature of Bush as a shoot-from-the-hip cowboy.

President Bush Gains In Connecticut

A recent poll shows Kerry’s lead over President Bush in Connecticut has shrunk to only seven points. According to the Greenwich Time:

Connecticut, which voted overwhelmingly for Al Gore in 2000, had been considered a lock for Kerry. But, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll, conducted Aug. 11-17 among 1,079 registered voters, Kerry leads Bush by seven points — 45 percent to 38 percent — with independent candidate Ralph Nader, a Connecticut native, taking six percent of the vote. Bush leads Kerry 43 percent to 36 percent in Fairfield County, according to the same poll.

Less than two months earlier, in a Quinnipiac poll conducted June 27-28 among 979 registered voters, Kerry held an 18-point lead over Bush in the state, 50 percent to 32 percent, with nine percent of voters favoring Nader.

From California Yankee.

Poll: Many Democrats in Florida may vote for Bush

the Tallahassee Democrat reports that a new poll found 11 percent of Democrats willing to vote for Bush on Nov. 2, compared to just 5 percent of Republicans who said they would cross over for Kerry. According to the Tallahassee Democrat:

And while only 18 percent of Democrats consider themselves conservative, more than one-third of conservative Democrats said they will vote for Bush.

From California Yankee.

Bush Overtakes Kerry in Latest L.A. Times Poll

The Los Angeles Times reports that its latest poll has found President Bush leading Kerry for the first time this year. The result 49 to 46 among registered voters is within the poll’s margin of error.

According to the Times:

With independent voters splitting evenly in the survey between the two men, one key to Bush’s tentative new advantage was his greater success at consolidating his base. While just 3 percent of voters who called themselves Republicans said they would vote for Kerry, Bush drew 15 percent of all Democrats, and 20 percent of Democrats who consider themselves moderate or conservative, the poll found.

From California Yankee.

Another Democrat Backs Bush

The Associated Press reports that Youngstown’s Democratic mayor is endorsing President Bush:

Mayor George M. McKelvey, in his second term, planned to pledge his support for Bush at a news conference scheduled for Monday afternoon, Bush campaign spokesman Kevin Madden said.

“He believes the president is providing the leadership the country needs with regard to growing the economy and making the country safer,” Madden said.

From California Yankee.

Bush Campaign's Top Outside Lawyer Resigns

From the New York Times:

The Bush campaign’s top outside lawyer, who said on Tuesday that he had given legal advice to the group of veterans attacking Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam War record, today said he was resigning from the campaign because his activities were becoming a “distraction” to Mr. Bush’ re-election efforts.
The lawyer, Benjamin L. Ginsberg, said that the group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, called him last month to ask for his help and that he agreed. The group has criticized Mr. Kerry’s war record and his and antiwar activism in a book, television commercials and appearances on cable news programs.
“I cannot begin to express my sadness that my legal representations have become a distraction from the critical issues at hand in this election,” Mr. Ginsberg said in a letter distributed today by the Bush-Cheney campaign. “I feel I cannot let that continue, so I have decided to resign as National Counsel to your campaign to ensure that the giving of legal advice to decorated military veterans, which was entirely within the boundaries of the law, doesn’t distract from the real issues upon which you and the country should be focusing.”
Mr. Ginsberg, the chief outside counsel to the Bush-Cheney re-election effort, agreed to an interview Tuesday after several telephone calls to him and the campaign’s asking that he explain his role. He said that he was helping the group comply with campaign finance rules and that his work was entirely separate from his work for the president. President Bush has called for an end to advertising by all groups like that of the Swift boat veterans, called 527’s for the section of the tax code that created them.

The Times continues to track the connections between the Bush campaign and the SBVT.

How a Philosophy Professor With a Checkered Past Became the Most Influential Catholic Layman in George W. Bush's Washington

From the National Catholic Reporter, regarding the Deal Hudson affair:

This past March 17, having paid tribute to the saint who drove the snakes from Ireland, George W. Bush — first lady to his left, Irish prime minister to his right — bounded off the Roosevelt Room podium. As he began to work the crowd of Irish Americans and Gaelic-wannabees, the president noticed a familiar face, a fellow Texan, among those assembled at the annual St. Patrick’s Day White House gathering.

“Immediately after George Bush spoke,” recalled former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican Ray Flynn, “the first person he greeted was Deal Hudson.”

Heady stuff, perhaps, to be the first among the gathered Catholic glitterati to be singled out by the most powerful man in the world. But by now Hudson — publisher of the conservative Catholic monthly Crisis, Bush political operative, and one-time philosophy professor — was accustomed to the treatment.

Hudson, a 54-year-old, thrice-married former Baptist minister, is a regular White House visitor, a leading Bush campaign Catholic proxy, and a widely quoted partisan unafraid to use his pen to serve the Bush cause.

In more than two dozen interviews conducted by NCR over a four-and-a-half-month period, mostly with former friends and Hudson’s ideological kin, a complicated portrait emerged. Though few of those interviewed would speak on the record, many of them painted a far less flattering picture of Hudson than his public moralizing would suggest, and several raised questions about the allegations that ended his academic career.

Also check out The Revealer, which generally turns out good criticism of reporting at mainstream and niche press, left and right.

UPDATE: The National Catholic Reporter has just posted the article that sparked the Deal Hudson affair — even before it was published. Joe Feuerherd’s expose is what religion reporting should be: tough, theologically and politically informed, empathetic, and attuned to the intersections of faith and the world. Here’s why it matters to everyone, religious or not: “The perception that [Deal] Hudson controls Catholic access to the White House is widespread [and] largely accurate.”

This isn’t attack journalism. Writes Feuerherd: “In my 20 years as a writer and journalist I’ve written what could fairly be termed “favorable stories” about such conservative Catholics as Cardinal John O’Connor, Opus Dei’s Fr. C. John McCloskey, Patrick J. Buchanan, and Jim Towey, director of the Bush Administration Office of Faith Based Initiatives. The notion that this story was somehow politically motivated is incorrect. I went where the story led me. “

Cross posted at my blog.

The Perils Of Casting Bush As A Bumbling Child

I was going to pull a quote or two from this Straits Times commentary piece, but instead I’ll think I’ll post the entire thing. [Note: Remember that my posting the commentary is not the same as my endorsing the commentary.]

MAYBE it is just that I am having too many long talks with my 16-month-old these days, but I find myself sensitive to the language of ‘daddies’ and ‘dummies’. This is the language of toddlerhood; it is not how we should be framing a national conversation about the President of the United States.

It cannot have escaped anyone’s notice that much of the current Bush-bashing aims to infantilise him. The most devastating segment in director Michael Moore’s film, Fahrenheit 9/11, for instance, features President George W. Bush - just after he learnt of the second attack on the World Trade Centre - perched on a chair in a Florida classroom, looking glazed and confused as he listens to a reading of The Pet Goat. Mr Bush’s aide might well have whispered the news to one of the students to greater effect, and the implication is inescapable: For seven long minutes, the President was not a man.

A glance at the top 150 advertisements selected by MoveOn.org for its recent political advertising contest, Bush In 30 Seconds, similarly reveals the extent to which childishness is woven into the current Bush-bashing. While kids have long been used in political advertisements to represent the future, many of the MoveOn entries use them to satirise the actual candidate.

Several of the proposed anti-Bush commercials use kids to condemn the President for unsophisticated thinking, for an infantile world view, for the fact that his daddy purchased his every big break and for the fact that he is beholden to the wealthy and powerful grown-ups around him. The clear message is Mr Bush is more a child than an adult.

What is wrong with continuing efforts to characterise Mr Bush as a not-particularly-smart third-grader? For one thing, it plays to every stereotype of liberals as snotty know-it-alls who think everyone in a red state is anti-intellectual or simple-minded. It answers name-calling from the right with name-calling from the left. These assertions also insult anyone who voted for Mr Bush in 2000.

Rather than offering an argument for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, they merely disparage voters who may be tempted to defect to the Democrats over the Iraq war or the economy, by sneering that they voted for a kid - and a dumb kid at that.

One of the most enduring memories from the Bush-Gore debates in 2000 was then vice-president Al Gore trapped in what must have felt like the middle-school playground fight from hell instead of a presidential debate. Everything about Mr Gore’s demeanour signalled that he felt he was giving a punk kid a much-needed scolding.

Which missed the point: A lot of very smart people voted for Mr Bush in 2000 because, to them, he represented a return to honesty and morality. Dismissing him as a stupid child, and these voters as stupid-children-by-association, is no way to win them back.

Furthermore, the campaign to cast Mr Bush as a bumbling child ignores the very grown-up machine that stands behind him. Infantilising the President shifts the focus away from the Cheneys, Rumsfelds, Ashcrofts and Wolfowitzes.

These are the men who promised us short, easy wars and painless little suspensions of the Geneva Conventions. These are the men of the secret energy-policy meetings. They are not a bunch of rowdy juveniles. They represent one of the most secretive, powerful administrations in recent memory.

Finally, there is a psychological consequence to labelling the President an incurious frat boy. With each attempt to cast him as a baby, we craft excuses for his childish behaviours. If Mr Bush misled us into a war in Iraq, it is because children have trouble telling the truth. If he sees the world in too-stark terms, it is because nuanced reasoning is not easy for children. With each comparison between the President and a youngster, we subtly lower national expectations and exonerate bad behaviour.

This presidential election is not a choice between adults and children, and it will not be won or lost with jokes about whether Mrs Laura Bush ties the President’s shoes each morning before she points him towards the Oval Office. Nothing is gained by offering Mr Bush even a metaphorical second childhood. Much may be gained by offering our real children a safe and just first one.

Bush Begins Preparing Acceptance Speech

Xinhuanet, via the Chicago Tribune, reports the President—who is spending a week in Crawford—has begun to prepare his RNC acceptance speech.

Gov. Bush may skip GOP Convention

According to the Tallahassee Democrat, Gov. Jeb Bush may skip or cut short his time at the Republican Convention due to ongoing recovery efforts from Hurricane Charley.

“I don’t know yet. My inclination is to certainly shorten my trip,” Bush said Wednesday. “Really, I want to see how the process goes. My first responsibility is to do my job. So I’m not sure…. I think I’ve probably got enough work to do.”

Bush Campaign Adviser Quits as Sexual Misconduct Case Is Recalled

From the New York Times:

Deal W. Hudson, the publisher of the conservative Roman Catholic journal Crisis and the architect of a Republican effort to court Catholic voters, says he is resigning as an adviser to the Bush campaign because of a Catholic newspaper’s investigation into accusations of sexual misconduct involving a female student at a college where he once taught.

“No one regrets my past mistakes more than I do,” Mr. Hudson wrote in a column posted yesterday on the online edition of National Review announcing his resignation.

“At the time, I dealt with this in an upright manner, and the matter was satisfactorily resolved long ago,” he wrote, without specifying the accusations. Mr. Hudson, 54, said he had been happily married to his current wife for 17 years. Called for comment, he declined.

UPDATE — 21 August 2004, 5.33 PM: See the entry above for the NCR piece on Hudson.

No Child Left Behind

The New York Times profiles the current state of No Child Left Behind, focusing on the response of an elementary school in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Instead of the Bush administration’s formula, Thomas D. Watkins Jr., the state superintendent, will try something less drastic: dispatching coaches to advise teachers and principals, importing new curriculums and monitoring school progress. Mr. Watkins likens state takeover of troubled schools to a dog chasing a bus. “What do you do with it once you get it?” he asked.

As events in Michigan and many other states suggest, all is not going as planned with the administration’s goal.

Real accountability or an unfunded mandate? I’m sure we’ll hear more in the comments.

Bush Hopes To Open Markets For Farmers

The News-Leader reports that during a visit to Michigan, the President said if re-elected he would try to open markets for farmers. No details, though. The Kerry camp response:

“George Bush must think there’s a sucker born every minute if he thinks he can trick the public into thinking he’s got an agenda for working families,” said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer. He said Bush’s “tax policies shifted the tax burden onto middle class Americans.”

CBO Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor the Wealthy

The New York Times has an article discussing report released today from the Congressional Budget Office confirming what has been widely alleged:

Fully one-third of President Bush’s tax cuts in the last three years have gone to people with the top 1 percent of income, who have earned an average of $1.2 million annually, according to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to be published Friday.
The report calculated that households with incomes in that top 1 percent were receiving an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, while households in the middle 20 percent of earnings - averaging about $57,000 a year - were getting an average cut of only $1,090.
The new estimates confirm what independent tax analysts have long said: that Mr. Bush’s tax cuts have been heavily skewed to the very wealthiest taxpayers. Those are also the people, however, who pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes.
The calculations, which were requested by Congressional Democrats, are all but certain to intensify a central debate between Mr. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee.
Mr. Bush has argued that the tax cuts provided crucial support to the economy at a time when it was mired in a recession and reeling from the effects of a stock market collapse, terrorist attacks and corporate scandals.
Mr. Kerry has argued that the cuts were tilted so much in favor of the wealthy that they provided relatively little stimulus to the economy and set the stage for record budget deficits. Since 2001, the federal budget has deteriorated from a surplus of more than $100 billion to a deficit expected to exceed $400 billion in 2004.

You can view the report in .pdf format here.

Bush Moving To The Middle

It’s sort of like the Shock and Awe of the Iraq war: we knew it was going to happen, we just didn’t know when. Is the Bush campaign finally making its swing to the center? The Boston Globe thinks so, and the shift is taking place first in the Southwest.

Al-Jazeerah: Bush Accused Of Politicising Terror

From Al-Jazeerah:

Our enemies never stop thinking of new ways to harm our country and our people and neither do we,” said the United States President last week, totally unaware of his audience’s muffled titter in response. This latest in a long series of amusing Bushisms smacks of reality for more and more Americans railing at the growing McCarthy type ambience within the country fuelled by the politics of fear.

Gallup Poll: Bush Approval at 51%

A new Gallup Poll shows a slight improvement in President Bush’s overall job approval rating:

The current poll also shows that 51% of Americans approve, and 46% disapprove, of the way Bush is handling his job as president. For the last three months, Bush has averaged 48% approval and 49% disapproval. The current figures are a slight improvement for Bush and represent the first time he has been above the symbolically important 50% level since mid-April.

[. . .]

The slight improvement in Bush’s overall job rating could result from slightly more positive assessments of his handling of the terrorism and Iraq issues. While a majority of Americans continue to disapprove of Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq (45% approve, 52% disapprove), this rating has improved slightly from a 42% approval to 56% disapproval rating in a June 21-23 poll.

From California Yankee.

Still more concern over touch-screen voting

Obviously partisan, Ronnie Dugger’s lengthy article in The Nation entitled How They Could Steal the Election This Time still presents a troubling picture of how this year’s election could overshadow all the fun we had in 2000.

In November 2 millions of Americans will cast their votes for President in computerized voting systems that can be rigged by corporate or local-election insiders. Some 98 million citizens, five out of every six of the roughly 115 million who will go to the polls, will consign their votes into computers that unidentified computer programmers, working in the main for four private corporations and the officials of 10,500 election jurisdictions, could program to invisibly falsify the outcomes.

The result could be the failure of an American presidential election and its collapse into suspicions, accusations and a civic fury that will make Florida 2000 seem like a family spat in the kitchen.

The biggest concern is the lack of a paper trail for re-counts, especially in Florida where the President’s brother is actively blocking attempts to prepare for a vote verification.

Not surprisingly, the starkest resistance to the voter-verified paper trail comes from Florida, where more than half the citizens will have to vote on touch-screen systems in November. The President’s brother, Governor Jeb Bush, and Jeb’s Secretary of State, Glenda Hood, express unqualified confidence in the trustworthiness of the DRE systems and militantly oppose providing a paper-ballot trail for them. Hood has denied that the electronic voting machines can be tampered with in the software, saying: “The touch-screen machines are not computers. You’d have to go machine by machine, all over the state.” A spokeswoman for her says flatly that “a manual recount is unnecessary.”

This past spring a powerful state senator proposed to make it illegal to recount votes in the DRE systems, but she backed down when called on it by activists. Then Ed Kast, director of Hood’s division of elections, who has since resigned, sought to achieve the same purpose by diktat, issuing a formal ruling that, despite the extant state law requiring recounts under certain circumstances, supervisors of elections do not need to recount DRE ballots. The ACLU and other groups have sued to invalidate that ruling; a spokesperson for the state Republican Party excoriates the suit as a left-wingers’ “ploy to undermine voters’ confidence.”

Administration Proposes "Incentives" For Illegal Aliens

The Washington Times reports that millions of illegal aliens in the United States would be free from arrest and deportation, have access to tax-deferred savings accounts and Social Security credits, and get unrestricted travel to and from their home countries under President Bush’s guest-worker program:

According to previously undisclosed details of the president’s plan, which some critics have described as a limited amnesty, the proposal offers numerous “incentives” for the 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens to come “out of the shadows,” Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson, the nation’s border and transportation security czar, told a Senate panel.

Mr. Hutchinson, in a written response to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the Bush plan would help eliminate sleepless nights for illegal aliens worried that a simple misstep, such as a traffic ticket or accident, “could result in bringing them to the attention of federal authorities and their subsequent deportation.”

“Eliminating the fear of deportation will be an incentive,” Mr. Hutchinson said in the 13-page response. “Undocumented aliens will tell you they often have trouble sleeping at night, and leaving for work each day, not knowing if they will make it home at the end of the day.”

Mr. Hutchinson said the president’s guest-worker plan recognizes that some aliens working illegally in this country who decide to pursue citizenship should be “allowed to apply for lawful permanent residence in the normal way.”

But, he said, in order not to give an “unfair advantage” to illegal aliens over those immigrants “who have followed legal procedures from the start,” the Bush plan would seek “a reasonable annual increase in legal migrants.”

From California Yankee.

GOP Platform Issues

The Washington Times reports that immigration and homosexual “marriage” are shaping up to be the most contentious issues facing Republican platform writers.

“Obviously, immigration is one of the issues we’ll be discussing,” said platform spokeswoman Ginny Wolfe.

Asked whether there was an effort to keep immigration and same-sex “marriage” off the committee’s plate, she said, “Historically, our platform delegates always have spirited debates, but I’m not going to predict what they’re going to be about this time.”

However, one Republican who is close to the platform process but asked not to be identified said Bush representatives working with the platform writers “will try to prevent extremism in language on gay rights by some evangelical groups and on immigration by some of our conservatives.”

[. . .]

Several Republicans associated with the platform-committee activities who requested anonymity described an effort by the Bush forces to head off any language that might seem “unwelcoming” to immigrants or intolerant of homosexuals.

From California Yankee.

Russert, Time Reporter Ordered To Name Plame Sources

Latest on a still-simmering scandal that’s been off the campaign radar lately: The US District Court for the District of Columbia today released an opinion (dated July 20, 2004; link opens as PDF file) ordering Tim Russert and Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper to disclose information provided to them by confidential sources (presumably, the identities of individuals within the Bush Administration) in the Valerie Plame investigation. (The Washington Post has more here).

Bush, Kerry receive different reax from Unity Conference

From the Chicago Tribune (reg. req’d) Bush urges fairness in college entry:

One day earlier, Kerry received standing ovations at the Unity conference of black, Asian, Hispanic and Native American journalists. Initially, Bush faced skeptical laughter, and a lone heckler in the audience interrupted the president’s opening remarks, shouting, “Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Liar.” By the conclusion, the audience applauded graciously.

From Reuters’ Bush Defends Terror Alert:

Journalists attending the Unity conference in Washington gave Kerry loud applause when he appeared before them on Thursday, so Bush had little doubt about the group’s political leanings when he agreed to talk to them.

Still, the derision that greeted some of his answers to their questions was a stark contrast to the fawning crowds Bush usually faces on the campaign trail.

Many in the crowd laughed when Bush struggled to answer a question about what tribal sovereignty means for Native American tribes in the 21st century.

“Tribal sovereignty means that; it’s sovereign. I mean, you’re a — you’ve been given sovereignty, and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities,” Bush replied.

The crowd applauded a questioner for asking Bush about his views on whether race and ethnic background should be used in college admissions and hiring. Bush has already stated his opposition to racial quotas in schools and hiring.

From the Houston Chronicle’s Bush: Colleges should end ‘legacy’ admissions:

During his hour-long appearance at the convention, Bush’s comments were greeted with skepticism and, at times, derisive laughter and a smattering of jeers at his rambling answers to questions about government relations with Indian tribes and guaranteeing voters’ rights in Florida.

A day earlier, the conference of mostly black, Hispanic, Asian-American and Native American journalists, public relations officials and academics loudly applauded Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, greeting him with a standing ovation.

Unity President Ernest Sotomayor, Long Island editor of Newsday.com, pointed out that conference members “extended the same courtesy (to President Bush) at the beginning and the end, but they were certainly less enthusiastic.”

While some audience members found the open disdain of the president off-putting, especially from a crowd mostly of journalists, Sotomayor defended the group’s behavior.

“They are individual voters and when they go back (to their newsrooms) they will be professional in their jobs as working journalists,” he said. “They have the same rights to free speech that we are advocating.”

Conservative Cavalry: Noonan's On The Way

Peggy Noonan is leaving Opinion Journal to aid the Bush campaign full-time:

In the past four years I have written about and given advice to both parties in this column. But a week ago, while watching the Democratic convention, I made a decision.

I am going to take three months’ unpaid leave from The Wall Street Journal and attempt to support the Republican Party in the coming and crucial election. (Every four years everyone says “this is the most important election of my lifetime,” but this year I believe it is true.) I’m going to give whatever advice and encouragement I have in terms of strategy, approach, message—I hate that word—and issues. No one has asked me to do this, and I do it as a volunteer, not for a salary but simply to give my time to help what I think is the more helpful side. This will take a bite out of my finances but I can do it. Actually most of us, when we die, wind up with a few thousand dollars in the bank. We should have spent it! I am going to spend mine now.

The White House does not need my help. They have the best political strategists, communications specialists and speechwriters since the Reagan era, which had the best of all these since the time of JFK. President Bush has his sound, and it’s a good one. He’s getting his sea legs on the stump—it’s hard to go from being-president to being-president-and-running again-for-president, it’s a bit of a shift and is always awkward. But he’s got it together and they’ve got it together.

There are others, however, lower down on the power pole, who might benefit from another hand on deck. I’ve called a few this week and they’ve been welcoming and I’ll see if I can add to their fortunes. If I can’t I’ll at least try not to sink them.

Bush Outnlines Appeal To Catholic Voters

CWN news reports on Bush’s August 3 speech to the Knights of Columbus.

The Gearhead demographic

Apparently, the sort of bike you ride may have something to do with the electoral politics you practice:

ONE of the many differences separating John Kerry and George W. Bush is their choice of bicycle - not an especially presidential mode of transport, one might think, except that these are not ordinary bikes.

The original article even contains pictures of each candidate on their really expensive bikes.

Cross-posted at Nate Knows Nada.

Mr. Kerry reportedly pedals an $8,000 Serotta Ottrott, as high-tech and skittish as a sports car. It is made of space-age carbon tubing and comes equipped with the patented ST rear triangle, whatever that is.

Mr. Bush pumps away (often emitting low “hrrr, hrrr, hrrr” grunts, according to an Associated Press article last week) on a $3,000 Trek Fuel 98. It, too, is made of carbon tubing, but unlike the Kerry machine, it has shock absorbers fore and aft. That’s because it’s meant to go off-road. If Mr. Kerry’s bike is a Ferrari, Mr. Bush’s is a Land Rover. Mr. Kerry rides on the flat, more or less, and usually on paved surfaces.

Mr. Bush likes to ride up into the hills of his Texas ranch and then come flying down. To put it another way, Mr. Kerry is more nearly like Greg LeMond, Mr. Bush more like Evel Knievel.

What this says about their political philosophies is best left to the analysts and the pundits. But a study posted recently on a New Zealand biking Web site suggests that downhill mountain-bike riders, like Mr. Bush, score considerably higher than cross-country riders on something called the Sensation Seeking Scale. (Road riders, like Mr. Kerry, are comparative wussies when it comes to sensation seeking.) Downhill riders are also more likely to drive a car too fast, and to have had a brush with the law.

Of course they also get hurt more often. According to Tim Blumenthal, the executive director of the International Mountain Bicycling Association, “minor cuts and scratches are pretty common in our sport.”

As far as we know, Mr. Kerry has fallen only once recently, after skidding on a patch of sand last May. On the other hand, Mr. Bush has tumbled twice in the last two months - and that’s not counting the time in June of last year he fell over the handlebars of his father’s Segway scooter, because he had forgotten to turn it on.

Mr. Blumenthal said that some of the worst mountain bike spills happen at slow speeds and are not necessarily the result of reckless driving. “I believe the president could benefit from an hour or two with a top mountain biker who could give him a few tips,” Mr. Blumenthal added. “They say that once you learn how to ride a bike you never forget, but there are a few little technical things the president could probably learn.”

On his most recent crash, last week, Mr. Bush executed what is known as an “endo” in mountain bike parlance - a sort of reverse wheelie, in which the rear tire lifts in the air and the rider sails over the front. Mr. Bush landed with the bike on top of him but was unhurt except for a cut on his knee. The last time, in May, he scraped his face, hand and both knees.

At least he didn’t hurt his liver, a particularly vulnerable area for mountain bikers, according to The Lancet, the medical journal, which has discovered that during a fall, the handlebars frequently slam into the rider’s right side, causing internal bleeding.

The origins of mountain biking are unrecorded. The sport probably began the first time some nut case took a two-wheeler off the road and went careering down a too-steep hill.

The advent of the balloon tire in the 1930’s made the experience less bone-shaking, but the finer points of mountain bikes and mountain biking were not developed until the mid-1970’s, when cyclists in Marin County, Calif., began racing down Mount Tamalpais.

From the beginning the sport has manifested a certain daredevil quality, and in some circles, it is fashionable for mountain bikers to brag about their mishaps. Many of them are recorded on the Crash ‘N’ Burn message board at the mountain bike Web site www.dirtworld.com - a remarkably upbeat catalog of road rash, concussions, and broken legs, collarbones and teeth.

The more interesting recent posts include ones from a guy who made a wide turn onto a highway and was smacked by a dump truck; from someone whose brakes melted during a 100K race; and from a rider who wiped out while attempting a wheelie drop off of a loading dock.

The palm, however, goes to a fellow who slid off a curve, deposited a lot of skin on some sharp golf ball-sized rocks and then dropped 40 feet into a river, where he found himself in Class IV whitewater rapids. Final E.R. total: broken ankle (requiring two steel screws), broken ribs, cracked skull, fractured wrist and missing fingernail.

Mr. Blumenthal said the crash-and-burn aspect of mountain biking is frequently overemphasized, but admitted that a certain element of surprise is part of the sport’s appeal.

“It clears your head,” he said. “In modern society, there are few opportunities to be spontaneous or adventurous. It’s not like we’re going to be running from a wild boar or anything. But in mountain biking, there’s always the chance to have something go wrong. It’s fun.”

The Fear Election

Here’s a view from the European Left (at Bellaciao.org):

With the declaration of “code orange” terror alerts in New York City, Washington, DC, and Newark, New Jersey, the Bush administration has set the stage for a national election in which government-inspired fear will be a principal tool in a campaign to coerce American voters.

…

In the final analysis, this turn toward police state measures is bound up with the immense and uninterrupted growth of social inequality within the US over the past three decades. The gulf dividing the fabulously wealthy top 1 percent that controls both major parties and the hundreds of millions of struggling working people has become so great that a genuinely democratic solution to any significant social question has become impossible.

The defense of democratic rights and the eradication of the threat of war and terrorism are possible only through a break with the two-party system. It requires the independent political mobilization of working people based upon a socialist and internationalist program that directly challenges the immense concentration of private wealth, while seeking to unite the struggles of American workers with those of working people in the Middle East and internationally.

The Socialist Equality Party is running in the 2004 election to advance such a program and to lay the foundations for the emergence of such a mass independent movement.

Socialist dyslexics, UNTIE!

Ron Reagan On G. W. Bush

Ron Reagan has authored a feature article for Esquire titled The Case Against George W. Bush. From the article:

The Bush administration can’t be trusted. The parade of Bush officials before various commissions and committees; Paul Wolfowitz, who couldn’t quite remember how many young Americans had been sacrificed on the altar of his ideology; John Ashcroft, lip quivering as, for a delicious, fleeting moment, it looked as if Senator Joe Biden might just come over the table at him; these were a continuing reminder. The Enron creeps, too—a reminder of how certain environments and particular habits of mind can erode common decency. People noticed. A tipping point had been reached. The issue of credibility was back on the table. The L-word was in circulation. Not the tired old bromide liberal. That’s so 1988. No, this time something much more potent: liar.

Politicians will stretch the truth. They’ll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken “normal” mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on.

Read the rest here.

President Bush Asks Congress To Create A National Intelligence Director

The Associated Press reports that President Bush is asking Congress to create a National Intelligence Director:

In asking Congress to create the position of a national intelligence director, Bush said the person holding the post would be appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and would serve at the pleasure of the president. The director would serve as the president’s principal intelligence adviser, overseeing and coordinating the foreign and domestic activities of the intelligence community.

[. . .]

“I want, and every president must have, the best, unbiased, unvarnished assessment of America’s intelligence professionals,” Bush said.

From California Yankee.

Bush Goes After Kerry's Record

The AP’s article shows Bush questioning Kerry’s Senate record:

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. - President Bush attacked John Kerry’s 19-year record in the Senate on Friday, answering the Democratic convention mantra “America can do better” with a new GOP refrain: “Results matter.”

Bush repeated the slogan to crowds here and in Springfield, Mo., the first two stops on a swing through four key election states. He also is campaigning in Ohio and Pennsylvania, wrapping up his latest tour with a rally Saturday in Pittsburgh, just hours after Kerry speaks in a nearby suburb.

“After 19 years in the U.S. Senate, my opponent has had thousands of votes, but few signature achievements,” Bush told supporters who waved large blue and red cutouts of the letter “W.”

“During eight years on the Senate intelligence committee, he voted to cut the intelligence budget, yet he had no record of reforming America’s intelligence capability,” said Bush, whose advisers are combing the Sept. 11 commission’s recommendations to revamp the nation’s intelligence-gathering ability.

Vote for an Iranian Voice at the Republican Convention

MTV has a contest on called “Stand Up and Holla” - and the prize for the candidate with the most votes is a speaking slot at the Republican National Convention!

Reza Torkzadeh is one of the 10 finalists. As his profile notes:

“Born in 1979 in Tehran, Iran, Reza and his family had to flee the country amidst the Iranian Revolution to save their lives. While leaving the country, one of his uncles was executed by the governing regime because of his political beliefs and aspirations.”

As things in Iran head toward a crisis point, Reza is absolutely the right choice. The RNC needs to hear an Iranian voice - and you can help, by voting for him on MTV’s site.

At The Bottom?

GWBUSH2004 contracts are trading in a tight range of 50.2 - 52.0 over at TradeSports. This pricing … which suggests that Bush winning reelection is nearly an even-money proposition … is down from a high of 75 near the turn of the year, and marginally up from a lifetime low of 49—depths that were plumbed just recently (click the pic to enlarge).

We’ll see what happens tomorrow, but I think the “bounce” has already been priced into the market given the narrow trading range today … although the first post-convention polls will have some influence.

Bush Campaign: Tuesday Night Speakers "Centrist Democrats"

I received a rather unusual email this morning from the Bush campaign, signed by Jeb Bush; the opening lines caught my attention:

The extreme makeover of John Kerry continued last night in Boston.

Centrist Democrats paraded across your television screen to praise the most liberal Senator in Washington and his running mate - the 4th most liberal member of the Senate.

As this is the news page and not the op-ed, I’ll just note the oddity of describing a prime time lineup whose three elected Democrats were Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and Barack Obama (see the full day’s speaker list here) as “Centrist Democrats.”

National Journal's Hotline Wake-Up Call! Gossip Buffet

You may read NJ’s Hotline Wake-Up Call! for free during the conventions here. It’s a great summary of news with a splash of irreverent fun, a sample of which I post below (today’s “Gossip Buffet”).

• Speaking to the Hispanic caucus, Al Sharpton tried to say “Yes, we can” in Spanish. But what he said means “Yes, we door” (Houston Chronicle).

• Teen daughter to her father in the security line yesterday eve: “I’ve never seen you wait in line before.” Father: “This is bigger than me, sweetie” (Wake-Up Call! sources).

• Richard Kind of “Spin City” fame was spotted on the 5th Floor concourse and then again wandering the streets of Boston outside “The Castle”, talking loudly, at 1:30 am (Wake-Up Call! sources).

• “I’ve been scared shi-less for the last 4 years” — Goo Goo Dolls lead singer John Reznick to lobbyists at “The Castle” (Wake-Up Call! sources).

• “Michael Moore is sitting next to Rosalynn Carter. Now what the hell is she talking to him about?” — an unidentified woman re: the fact that Moore was a guest in Carter’s suite at the Fleet Center, sitting between the Carters (Wake-Up Call! sources).

• KY Gov. Ernie Fletcher ® plans to appear on the “Tonight Show,” where Jay Leno suggested this state motto: “Kentucky: Got Teeth?” (Louisville Courier-Journal).

• “Because of the dark world of the Internet, I’m told there are now entire Web pages dedicated to my breasts” — Alexandra Kerry, in Harper’s Bazaar (AP).

• “1. Toilet paper, Kleenex 2. Cream and sugar, stir sticks 3. Wide variety of pop: (Diet Mt. Dew, please)” — wish list of donations in an email to supporters from the MN Kerry-Edwards camp (Wake-Up Call! sources).

• “If this keeps up, maybe they’ll start calling it Robertcbyrd.com instead of Amazon” — Charleston Daily Mail, on reviews of Sen. Robert Byrd’s (D-WV) new book.

• Monica Lewinsky “ordered a foot-long hot dog and gasped, ‘Oh my God!’ when the waiter placed the giant tube steak in front of her” (New York Post).

• Jay Leno: “At first Democratic Party officials were reluctant to allow Al-Jazeera in because they thought the coverage would be biased and hostile. And then they realized it couldn’t be any worse than Fox News” (“Tonight Show”).

Complaint Filed Against Falwell Website

The New York Times reports that the Campaign Legal Center has “filed a complaint with election regulators accusing a lobbying organization controlled by the Rev. Jerry Falwell of violating campaign finance laws by using its Web site to urge the re-election of President Bush and to solicit money for a political action committee.”

Club For Growth To Launch $1 Million Anti-Kerry Ad Campaign

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer / AP:

A conservative anti-tax group unveiled a $1 million advertising campaign Monday that paints Democrat John Kerry as a waffler, picking up where President Bush left off last week when his campaign pulled down its ads.

The Club for Growth’s launch is much smaller than what Bush had been spending. However, the group’s ads will give Republicans somewhat of a presence on the air in certain areas during a week in which Kerry news dominates the airwaves.

Bush’s campaign went dark this week, with the campaign opting to save money for an expected multimillion-dollar advertising offensive in August.

The Club for Growth’s new 30-second ad is to start running this week in pricey Boston, where Democrats are holding their national convention, before expanding to several Midwestern states.

The ad shows Kerry’s head, torso and arm as a spinning weather vane to claim that the Democrat makes decisions depending on which way the wind blows.

“In 1996 he opposed the death penalty for terrorists. Now he claims to support it,” the ad says. “Sometimes he’s for welfare reform, sometimes he’s against it. For a 50-cent gas tax hike, then maybe not. Kerry voted for higher taxes 350 times, but now says he’d cut taxes.”

Who is Club for Growth? From the “about” section of their website:

Founded in 1999 by Steve Moore, National Review president Dusty Rhodes, Cato Institute president Ed Crane, Richard Gilder, economist and CNBC Kudlow & Cramer co-host Larry Kudlow and other like-minded pro-growth conservatives, the Club for Growth sends campaign contributions from our members to the most free-market oriented candidates in tight, but winnable races.

Members of the Club are economic conservatives, like-minded political contributors who are frustrated with the ideological drift of both parties today. Club members have a shared goal of contributing to and electing more Reaganites to Congress who are willing to stand for the issues that they as members care about most, issues like: cutting taxes, controlling federal spending, personal accounts for Social Security, ending the death tax, eliminating the capital gains tax, fundamental tax reform, providing true school choice and minimizing government’s role in our daily lives.

Some of the people who are already Club for Growth members include:

Larry Kudlow, economist and CEO of Kudlow & Co. Larry is co-host of the the primetime CNBC show “Kudlow & Cramer.”

Milton Friedman, economist, winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics.

Thomas L. Rhodes, President, National Review magazine.

Bret Schundler, former mayor of Jersey City and 2001 New Jersey GOP gubernatorial nominee.

Bill Simon, 2002 California GOP gubernatorial nominee.

These people—and over 17,000 others—have already seen the value of joining the Club for Growth.

Meanwhile, In Other News ...

Dick Cheney … you remember the Republicans, yes? … spent yesterday on the attack / counterattack (depending on your perspective), stopping in Oregon and Washington, and today heads to California and Camp Pendleton.

At an appearance Monday afternoon in Kennewick, Wash., Cheney mentioned the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, by name only once — assailing him and his Senate Democratic colleagues for “obstructionist tactics” blocking a number of Bush’s judicial nominees.

He cited a recent Democratic-led filibuster that blocked a confirmation vote on Bush’s nomination of William G. Myers III to the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — the same court, Cheney noted, that ruled that requiring the Pledge of Allegiance in schools was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion because of the words “under God.”

“Looks to me like the 9th Circuit could use some new judges,” Cheney told about 400 supporters gathered for a $250-per-plate fundraiser in Kennewick for Dino Rossi, a former state senator seeking to become the state’s first Republican governor since 1984.

More at the LA Times.

Live By The War Room ...

USATODAY:

Tucked away on the fifth and sixth floors of an old brick office building on a narrow street two blocks from the FleetCenter, site of the Democratic National Convention, Republicans are running a rapid-response operation to make sure nothing the Democrats say this week goes unchallenged.

About 30 staffers of the Republican National Committee and the Bush-Cheney campaign have relocated to Boston this week. They’re using computers, printers, TV and radio satellite dishes, cell phones and every tool they have to comb through everything said by Democrats on the air, in print and in speeches almost instantaneously.

“Thanks to e-mail and BlackBerrys, we can respond in seconds,” RNC spokeswoman Christine Iverson says.

George McGovern: Cheney Is "A Menace"

In an interview with conservative talk show host Steve Malzberg Sunday, George McGovern noted:

“With regard to Cheney - and I say this thoughtfully, I think he’s the worst vice president in American history and a great menace to the security and well-being of this country.” …

… “Based on his role in getting us into this mistaken war in the first place, I think the man is a menace.”

You may check the source in two places: the conservative news site NewsMax, and you may listen to the interview itself here.

Pentagon Finds And Releases Bush's Records

The Dominion Post reports today that the Pentagon on Friday released payroll records from President Bush’s 1972 service in the Alabama National Guard. The Pentagon said the prior claim that the records were destroyed was an “inadvertent oversight.”

NYTimes: White House Knew Of Berger Investigation Months Ago

This from the New York Times:

The White House said Wednesday that senior officials in its counsel’s office were told by the Justice Department months ago that a criminal investigation was under way to determine if Samuel R. Berger, the national security adviser under President Bill Clinton, removed classified documents about Al Qaeda from the National Archives.

The White House declined to say who beyond the counsel’s office knew about the investigation, but some administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they believed that several top aides to Mr. Bush were informed of the investigation. President Bush himself declined to answer a question Wednesday about whether he had been told, saying: “I’m not going to comment on this matter. This is a serious matter, and it will be fully investigated by the Justice Department.”

The disclosure of the investigation forced Mr. Berger to step down as an informal, unpaid adviser to Senator John Kerry’s campaign on Tuesday, and on Wednesday the campaign accused the White House of deliberately leaking news of the investigation and said that Vice President Dick Cheney was involved in strategies to divert attention from the Sept. 11 report to be issued Thursday.

“The timing of this leak suggests that the White House is more concerned about protecting its political hide than hearing what the commission has to say about strengthening our security,” a statement issued by Mr. Kerry’s campaign said.

Bush Hints at What He'd Do in Another Term

And according to the LA Times, the hint suggests healthcare and retirement programs.

GOP Seeks Catholic Parish Directories

This from the Las Vegas SUN:

The Republican National Committee has asked Bush-backing Roman Catholics to provide copies of their parish directories to help register Catholics to vote in the November election, a use of personal information not necessarily condoned by dioceses around the country.

In a story posted Thursday on its Web site, the National Catholic Reporter said a GOP official had urged people who attended a Catholic outreach event in January to provide parish directories and membership lists to the political party.

“Access to these directories is critical as it allows us to identify and contact those Catholics who are likely to be supportive of President Bush’s compassionate conservative agenda,” wrote Martin J. Gillespie, director of Catholic Outreach at the RNC. “Please forward any directories you are able to collect to my attention.”

The RNC is using the information from parish directories only for its nonpartisan voter registration drive, RNC spokeswoman Christine Iverson told The Associated Press on Thursday. Those efforts target members of other faiths as well as people who belong to nonreligious organizations, she said.

Bush Stumps In Chicago

The president was making whistle-stops in Chicago yesterday … read the local take here at the Sun Times.

Bush Tells Republican Faithful He Is Victory-Bound

REUTERS: Bush Tells Republican Faithful He Is Victory-Bound

President Bush, down in the polls and facing a tough election-year fight, assured the Republican Party faithful on Wednesday he was treading a confident path to a second term in office.

But in a speech the White House had billed as a glimpse at his themes for a second-term presidency, the Republican incumbent offered few details about how he would lead America to a wealthier and safer future.

“In the weeks ahead, I will lay out an agenda worthy of this advancing and confident country,” Bush told a fund-raising gala that raised $23 million for Republican candidates for the House of Representatives and the Senate.

“This nation is on a rising path. And with four more years, we will achieve more growth, new and higher paying jobs and greater opportunity for all of our citizens.”

He promised new steps to expand access to private health care and a shift in the focus of public school reform policies from elementary grades to high school.

Bush Waiting to Lay Out 2nd-Term Agenda

AP: Bush Waiting to Lay Out 2nd-Term Agenda

President Bush’s supporters shout “Four more years!” but for now, it’s unclear what a second term would bring.

The president has been offering broad-brush descriptions of what he’d do if he were re-elected — “win the war on terror,” “extend peace and freedom throughout the world” and “continue to create jobs.”

Yet, with just over 100 days until the election, Bush is keeping the details of his plans private.

Bush’s advisers say that the run-up to next week’s Democratic National Convention in Boston is hardly a good time to outline second-term goals. At a speech Wednesday night at the Washington convention center, Bush is expected to take a stab at it.

“I think the president will begin to touch more on some of the broad themes of his vision for the next four years,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday. “It would be fair to say, I think, that as we move beyond the Democratic convention and into our convention that we will be talking more about the president’s agenda going forward.”

President Bush's Remarks at Oak Ridge

As a service not provided by several Major News Organizations -

Full Text of President Bush’s Remarks at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 12 July 2004

Complete text also provided in the Extended Entry.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for the warm welcome. I realize the Y-12 National Security Complex doesn’t get a lot of visitors — (laughter) — so thanks for the special arrangements. I’m also glad to have the opportunity to thank each one of you for the vital work you do here. And please pass the word to your fellow employees, many of whom were waving, I want you to know, as we drove in, for which I’m thankful. The nation counts on your great expertise and your professionalism in producing, protecting, and maintaining material that is critical to our security. America is safer because of your service at Oak Ridge. You need to know our nation is grateful for that service. (Applause.)

I appreciate our Secretary of Energy Spence Abraham. He traveled with me today. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your service. I want to thank Jeffrey Wadsworth, who’s the Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It’s not the first time I’ve met Jeffrey. I appreciate Jon Kreykes. I want to thank all the people who helped make this visit a successful visit. I want to thank Senator Lamar Alexander, the other members of the United States Congress who are traveling with us today — strong supporters, by the way, of Oak Ridge. I appreciate the Mayor being here, David Bradshaw. Mr. Mayor, appreciate you taking time to come. I want to thank my fellow citizens for giving me a chance to come and visit.

I’ve just had a close look at some of the dangerous equipment secured in this place. Eight months ago, the centrifuge parts and processing equipment for uranium were 5,000 miles away in the nation of Libya. They were part of a secret nuclear weapons program. Today, Libya, America and the world are better off because these components are safely in your care.

These materials are the sobering evidence of a great danger. Certain regimes, often with ties to terrorist groups, seek the ultimate weapons as a shortcut to influence. These materials, voluntarily turned over by the Libyan government, are also encouraging evidence that nations can abandon those ambitions and choose a better way.

Libya is dismantling its weapons of mass destruction and long-range missile programs. This progress came about through quiet diplomacy between America, Britain and the Libyan government. This progress was set in motion, however, by policies declared in public to all the world. The United States, Great Britain, and many other nations are determined to expose the threats of terrorism and proliferation — and to oppose those threats with all our power. (Applause.) We have sent this message in the strongest diplomatic terms, and we have acted where action was required.

Every potential adversary now knows that terrorism and proliferation carry serious consequences, and that the wise course is to abandon those pursuits. By choosing that course, the Libyan government is serving the interests of its own people and adding to the security of all nations.

America’s determination to actively oppose the threats of our time was formed and fixed on September the 11th, 2001. On that day we saw the cruelty of the terrorists, and we glimpsed the future they intend for us. They intend to strike the United States to the limits of their power. They seek weapons of mass destruction to kill Americans on an even greater scale. And this danger is increased when outlaw regimes build or acquire weapons of mass destruction and maintain ties to terrorist groups.

This is our danger, but not our fate. America has the resources and the strength and the resolve to overcome this threat. We are waging a broad and unrelenting war against terror, and an active campaign against proliferation. We refuse to live in fear. We are making steady progress.

To protect our people, we’re staying on the offensive against threats within our own country. We are using the Patriot Act to track terrorist activity and to break up terror cells. Intelligence and law enforcement officials are sharing information as never before. We’ve transformed the mission of the FBI to focus on preventing terrorism. Every element of our homeland security plan is critical, because the terrorists are ruthless and resourceful — and we know they’re preparing to attack us again. It’s not possible to guarantee perfect security in our vast, free nation. But I can assure our fellow Americans, many fine professionals in intelligence and national security and homeland security and law enforcement are working around the clock doing everything they can to protect the country. And we’re grateful to them all. (Applause.)

To overcome the dangers of our time, America is also taking a new approach in the world. We’re determined to challenge new threats, not ignore them, or simply wait for future tragedy. We’re helping to build a hopeful future in hopeless places, instead of allowing troubled regions to remain in despair and explode in violence. Our goal is a lasting, democratic peace, in which free nations are free from the threat of sudden terror. Our strategy for peace has three commitments: First, we are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy. We will confront them overseas so we do not have to confront them here at home. (Applause.) We are destroying the leadership of terrorist networks in sudden raids, disrupting their planning and financing, and keeping them on the run. Month by month, we are shrinking the space in which they can freely operate, by denying them territory and the support of governments.

Second, we’re protecting the peace by working with friends and allies and international institutions to isolate and confront terrorists and outlaw regimes. America is leading a broad coalition of nations to disrupt proliferation. We’re working with the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and other international organizations to take action in our common security. The global threat of terrorism requires a global response. To be effective, that global response requires leadership — and America will lead. (Applause.)

Third, we are extending the peace by supporting the rise of democracy, and the hope and progress that democracy brings, as the alternative to hatred and terror in the broader Middle East. In democratic and successful societies, men and women do not swear allegiance to malcontents and murderers; they turn their hearts and labor to building better lives. And democratic governments do not shelter terrorist camps or attack their neighbors. When justice and democracy advance, so does the hope of lasting peace.

We have followed this strategy — defending the peace, protecting the peace and extending the peace — for nearly three years. We have been focused and patient, firm and consistent. And the results are all now clear to see.

Three years ago, the nation of Afghanistan was the home base of al Qaeda, a country ruled by the Taliban, one of the most backward and brutal regimes of modern history. Schooling was denied girls. Women were whipped in the streets and executed in a sports stadium. Millions lived in fear. With protection from the Taliban, al Qaeda and its associates trained, indoctrinated, and sent forth thousands of killers to set up terror cells in dozens of countries, including our own.

Today, Afghanistan is a world away from the nightmare of the Taliban. That country has a good and just President. Boys and girls are being educated. Many refugees have returned home to rebuild their country, and a presidential election is scheduled for this fall. The terror camps are closed and the Afghan government is helping us to hunt the Taliban and terrorists in remote regions. Today, because we acted to liberate Afghanistan, a threat has been removed, and the American people are safer. (Applause.)

Three years ago, Pakistan was one of the few countries in the world that recognized the Taliban regime. Al Qaeda was active and recruiting in Pakistan, and was not seriously opposed. Pakistan served as a transit point for al Qaeda terrorists leaving Afghanistan on missions of murder. Yet the United States was not on good terms with Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders — the very people we would need to help shut down al Qaeda operations in that part of the world.

Today, the governments of the United States and Pakistan are working closely in the fight against terror. President Musharraf is a friend of our country, who helped us capture Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the operational planner behind the September the 11th attacks. And Pakistani forces are rounding up terrorists along their nation’s western border. Today, because we’re working with the Pakistani leaders, Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror, and the American people are safer. (Applause.)

Three years ago, terrorists were well-established in Saudi Arabia. Inside that country, fundraisers and other facilitators gave al Qaeda financial and logistical help, with little scrutiny or opposition. Today, after the attacks in Riyadh and elsewhere, the Saudi government knows that al Qaeda is its enemy. Saudi Arabia is working hard to shut down the facilitators and financial supporters of terrorism. The government has captured or killed many first-tier leaders of the al Qaeda organization in Saudi Arabia — including one last week. Today, because Saudi Arabia has seen the danger and has joined the war on terror, the American people are safer. (Applause.)

Three years ago, the ruler of Iraq was a sworn enemy of America, who provided safe haven for terrorists, used weapons of mass destruction, and turned his nation into a prison. Saddam Hussein was not just a dictator; he was a proven mass murderer who refused to account for weapons of mass murder. Every responsible nation recognized this threat, and knew it could not go on forever.

America must remember the lessons of September the 11th. We must confront serious dangers before they fully materialize. And so my administration looked at the intelligence on Iraq, and we saw a threat. Members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence, and they saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence, and it saw a threat. The previous administration and the Congress looked at the intelligence and made regime change in Iraq the policy of our country.

In 2002, the United Nations Security Council yet again demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs. As he had for over a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply. In fact, according to former weapons inspector David Kay, Iraq’s weapons programs were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. So I had a choice to make: Either take the word of a madman, or defend America. Given that choice, I will defend America every time. (Applause.)

Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.

Today, the dictator who caused decades of death and turmoil, who twice invaded his neighbors, who harbored terrorist leaders, who used chemical weapons on innocent men, women, and children, is finally before the bar of justice. (Applause.) Iraq, which once had the worst government in the Middle East, is now becoming an example of reform to the region. And Iraqi security forces are fighting beside coalition troops to defeat the terrorists and foreign fighters who threaten their nation and the world. Today, because America and our coalition helped to end the violent regime of Saddam Hussein, and because we’re helping to raise a peaceful democracy in its place, the American people are safer. (Applause.)

Three years ago, the nation of Libya, a longtime supporter of terror, was spending millions to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons. Today, thousands of Libya’s chemical munitions have been destroyed. And nuclear processing equipment that could ultimately have threatened the lives of hundreds of thousands is stored away right here in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Today, because the Libyan government saw the seriousness of the civilized world, and correctly judged its own interests, the American people are safer. (Applause.)

Three years ago, a private weapons proliferation network was doing business around the world. This network, operated by the Pakistani nuclear scientist, A. Q. Khan, was selling nuclear plans and equipment to the highest bidder, and found willing buyers in places like Libya, Iran, and North Korea. Today, the A. Q. Khan network is out of business. We have ended one of the most dangerous sources of proliferation in the world, and the American people are safer. (Applause.)

Breaking this proliferation network was possible because of the outstanding work done by the CIA. Dedicated intelligence officers were tireless in obtaining vital information, sometimes at great personal risk. Our intelligence services do an essential job for America. I thank them for their dedication and hard work. (Applause.) The Senate Intelligence Committee has identified some shortcomings in our intelligence capabilities; the Committee’s report will help us in the work of reform. Our nation needs more intelligence agents — what is called human intelligence — to cover the globe. We must have the best, cutting-edge technology to listen and look for dangers. We must have better coordination among intelligence services. I need, and the Congress needs, the best possible intelligence in order to protect the American people. We’re determined to make sure we get it.

Three years ago, the world was very different. Terrorists planned attacks, with little fear of discovery or reckoning. Outlaw regimes supported terrorists and defied the civilized world, without shame and with few consequences. Weapons proliferators sent their deadly shipments and grew wealthy, encountering few obstacles to their trade.

The world changed on September the 11th, and since that day, we have changed the world. (Applause.) We are leading a steady, confident, systematic campaign against the dangers of our time. There are still terrorists who plot against us, but the ranks of their leaders are thinning, and they know what fate awaits them. There are still regimes actively supporting the terrorists, but fewer than there used to be. There are still outlaw regimes pursuing weapons of mass destruction, but the world no longer looks the other way. Today, because America has acted, and because America has led, the forces of terror and tyranny have suffered defeat after defeat, and America and the world are safer. (Applause.)

All this progress has been achieved with the help of other responsible nations. The case of Libya’s nuclear disarmament is a good example. In the fall of 2003, American and British intelligence were tracking a large shipment of nuclear equipment bound for Tripoli aboard a German-registered cargo ship. We alerted German and Italian authorities, who diverted the ship to an Italian port where the cargo was confiscated. We worked together. These events helped encourage Libya to reconsider its nuclear ambitions. That was a dramatic breakthrough, achieved by allies working together. And the cooperation of America’s allies in the war on terror is very, very strong.

We’re grateful to the more than 60 nations that are supporting the Proliferation Security Initiative to intercept illegal weapons and equipment by sea, land, and air. We’re grateful to the more than 30 nations with forces serving in Iraq, and the nearly 40 nations with forces in Afghanistan. In the fight against terror, we’ve asked our allies to do hard things. They’ve risen to their responsibilities. We’re proud to call them friends. (Applause.)

We have duties and there will be difficulties ahead. We’re working with responsible governments and international institutions to convince the leaders of North Korea and Iran that their nuclear weapons ambitions are deeply contrary to their own interests. We’re helping governments fight poverty and disease, so they do not become failed states and future havens for terror. We’ve launched our Broader Middle East Initiative, to encourage reform and democracy throughout the region, a project that will shape the history of our times for the better. We’re working to build a free and democratic Palestinian state, which lives in peace with Israel and adds to the peace of the region. We’re keeping our commitments to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, who are building the world’s newest democracies. They’re counting on us to help. We will not abandon them. (Applause.) Delivering these nations from tyranny has required sacrifice and loss. We will honor that sacrifice by finishing the great work we have begun. (Applause.)

In this challenging period of our history, Americans fully understand the dangers to our country. We remain a nation at risk, directly threatened by an enemy that plots in secret to cause terrible harm and grief. We remain a nation at war, fighting for our security, our freedom, and our way of life. We also see our advantages clearly. Americans have a history of rising to every test; our generation is no exception. We’ve not forgotten September the 11th, 2001. We will not allow our enemies to forget it, either. (Applause.)

We have strong allies, including millions of people in the Middle East who want to live in freedom. And the ideals we stand for have a power of their own. The appeal of justice and liberty, in the end, is greater than the appeal of hatred and tyranny in any form. The war on terror will not end in a draw, it will end in a victory, and you and I will see that victory of human freedom. (Applause.)

I want to thank you all for coming. Thank you for your dedication. May God bless you and your families, and may God continue to bless our great country. Thank you very much. (Applause.)