Just a quick note to say that we had another great chat tonight on AMERICAblog. We had a much more fun night than our last chat during the Republican convention - that was more like a group therapy session.
Tonight was a great night for our side. John Kerry did a great job, he looked like the President he can become. He was honest with the American people - and I can tell you that the chat room loved every minute of it. Hopefully we'll have another chat at the next debate.
Like we did during the Republican Convention, AMERICAblog will host a chat. Send an AOL Instant Message to robinbaltimoremd and I'll invite you to join.
Tonight marks the end of the giving quarter when financial statements have to be filed with the feds. If you can give to the DNC to help Kerry's election BY MIDNIGHT TONIGHT it will be counted in the forms they file tomorrow. Why does this matter? Because the more money the DNC files tomorrow, the BIGGER the story about the momentum Kerry has picked up in recent donations this quarter. May sound silly, but it's for real - this kind of stuff matters big-time when influencing public opinion. Also, it's not like the DNC couldn't use more money to help run its ads for Kerry.
So, if it moves you, please use this link to go to the DNC Web site and give some love to help defeat Bush. I'm clicking right now and giving $100 bucks. Please give whatever you feel appropriate. JOHN
Ok, I'm going to watch the debate at a friend's party and will have Internet access there, so I can post throughout. I think I'll post an open thread - or several open threads - where folks can post their comments DURING the debate. Obviously, you can also post to anything I write during the debates. Atrios is doing the open-thread idea, giving each thread a different purpose (exposing Bush's lies, etc.). I think it might just be easier to have one big open thread for folks to post in. What do you guys think?
Also, if I can get it to work, I *might* be on AOL instant messenger during the debate, under screenname: AMERICAblog And I don't ever check that email address, so do NOT email me at AOL.
Released: September 30, 2004
The Race Is Still Kerry’s To Lose
By John Zogby
I think even more today that if John Kerry loses this race it will be because he has blown an opportunity rather than from any innate strength of the present incumbent....
Remember, this is a candidate who gets about 45%-47% of the vote just by showing up. That is the purely anti-Bush vote....
the Massachusetts Senator still has aces in his hand that he can play. First, the President’s numbers are still not good. Despite a few outlier polls that show a large single digit or even a double digit lead for Mr. Bush, my poll has the President’s lead at only 3% and the average of all the public polls (as of this writing) is only a 4 point lead. Mr. Bush is only polling at 46% to 48% both nationally and in many key battleground states, hardly victory territory. And his barometric readings are still more negative than positive.
The best that can be said is that the President’s numbers are still better than Mr. Kerry’s. But my polling reveals another important fact – Mr. Kerry has more room for growth than the President. He has to first consolidate his base with an anti-war message that his base wants. He need not worry about accusations of flip-flopping on this issue because that is what the other side says about him and they are never going to vote for him under any circumstances. This alone will bring him to parity with the President in the polls.
From there we see a startling statistic: only 16% to 20% of undecided voters feel that the President deserves to be re-elected. Forty-percent of this relatively small group feel that it is time for someone new. They seem to have their minds made up about the President and have been given no reason to vote for Mr. Kerry. What is most important to this group? They agree with Mr. Bush on values, leadership, the war on terror, and likeability. They prefer Mr. Kerry on the economy, health care, the war, and education....
As of this writing this race is still John Kerry’s to lose.
A visitor just posted a really nice comment I wanted to "bump" up so everyone could read it. And it raises a valid point. We bitch so much about how Bush has so totally fucked things up by going into Iraq, that we may not mention enough the bind our troops are in.
Our troops went to Iraq because they volunteered to help defend our country. They didn't "choose" to go to Iraq, they got ordered to go. They were told they were there to help the war on terror, there to find the WMD, there to help stop Osama and Saddam. They got lied to as badly - if not worse - than the rest of us. I say "worse" because it's THEIR lives that are now on the line for Bush's lie, not ours. And when it comes down to it, they're the ones who Bush sent without adequate body armor, they're the ones who had to approach Baghdad without enough food so that they actually had to beg for it from locals, and they're the ones who are being treated like crap once they're injured.
With all of that in mind, here's the post (and after eading this post, check out this amazing Washington Post article from a few months ago about the liberation of Paris in 1944, I still get chills re-reading this article):
My admiration of the American soldier is unreserved. It is the commanders with whom I have trouble. Security in Baghdad is rapidly deteriorating. To put children and troops in harms way to try to deny this reality is logically inexplicable.
When I studied in France my French mother told me about the fall of Caen. When the first American tanks came in, after days of bombardment, she ran away with her young children, and hid in the ruins of a church. (Ruins being all that was left.) She was afraid of both the American firepower and German retaliation if the American advance failed.
When it became clear that the Americans had won, she and many others went begging to American troops for food, fuel, clothing, everything, and the quartermasters did their best.
She vividly described the chocolate bars and cigarettes that the GIs would give as they marched by. Convoys of Americans going to the front were like holidays with GIs throwing rations, cigarettes, chocolate, sometimes blankets or jackets.
The generosity of the average GI was well remembered then and will be remembered in Baghdad also.
Kerry simply needs to do okay and he wins. Here's why...
Cokie Roberts mentioned last weekend something about voters in 1980 being unsure if Ronald Reagan was really presidential material. After the debate with Carter some voters told her: "You know, I didn't even think of Ronald Reagan before the debate, but he held his own against the president of the United States for an hour and a half - I actually think he could do the job."
That is all that Kerry need to prove tonight: That he can hold his own against the president of the United States and do the job at least as well as Bush. Why? Because the majority of the public wants someone other than Bush to take over. They think the country is going in the wrong direction, and they want a replacement. But they don't yet trust John Kerry, nor do they yet KNOW John Kerry. And that's where the debates come in.
All Kerry has to do is hold his own against Bush. Come across as having a brain. Come across as having a heart. Come across as having the nerve (not to get too Dorothy on you). All he has to do is be as good as Bush and he's won. People don't want Bush, they want a viable alternative. They're not convinced that Kerry is yet viable. So all he has to be is viable.
That's not to say I don't want Kerry to do even better than ok tonight. But he doesn't have to, and that's why he's going to win.
Okay, everyone has advice for John Kerry and surely his staffers have stuffed his already-bulging brain with an overload of information about catch phrases and taglines and points of attack.
Can they fit in one more word? If so, here's one word Kerry should arm himself with tonight:
AFRAID
As in Iraq: "We are in a terrible, terrible situation in Iraq and you can't tackle the problem until you face up to it. George Bush may be afraid to face the truth, but I'm not."
As in firing staffers when they screw up: "George Bush could learn something from Donald Trump: the importance of telling staffers who screw up -- "You're fired." We've had the worst intelligence failure in decades and George Bush didn't fire anyone. We've had a complete collapse of decency in the Abu Ghraib scandal and George Bush didn't fire anyone. We've had a total mess in post-war planning and George Bush didn't fire anyone. Well, George Bush may be too afraid to fire staffers who let down the American people but I won't be. Everyone makes mistakes but if you fail time and time again, you should be fired. Hopefully, George Bush will learn this come November."
As in Saudi Arabia: "George Bush says he wants to spread democracy around the world. But who are his allies in that fight? Not Canada or Germany or Mexico. No, the countries George Bush is most closely linked to in this fight are Syria and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Syria has a dreadful record of human rights abuses. Pakistan is responsible for the spread of nuclear knowledge and material to more rogue nations and more terrorist groups than Iraq ever was.
"And Saudi Arabia...[pause as he grasps the shame of it] Saudi Arabia is a corrupt and cruel monarchy that keeps its women enslaved under the most dreadful conditions. Saudi Arabia stifles any dissent and spends its wealth on spreading terrorism and hatred of the US throughout the world. But George Bush and his father and their family have worked hand in hand with Saudi Arabia his entire adult life. They've made millions of dollars together for themselves and their companies. George Bush and his family consider these people their dearest friends and George Bush has always been too afraid to denounce the Saudi government for what it is: the enemy of freedom and the enemy of its own people.
"I doubt George Bush will find the courage tonight to face the truth about the corrupt Saudi government. But if he does, it will be the first time in his life that he's ever done so."
AFRAID.
It will push George Bush's buttons and it's a defining characteristic for him. Afraid to fight in Vietnam. Afraid to try and succeed on his own. Afraid to fire employees who don't do their job. Afraid to back down to the religious right and turning on the children of his vice president instead. AFRAID. That one word will either make him furious or make him stumble. Either way, we win. And you can worry about Saudi Arabia later. They've got no where else to turn.
Someone in Boston "borrowed" the photo I did of the Bush twins in military garb and made it into a protest poster! That so friggin' rocks! If you click on the photo, below, it'll take you the Yahoo page where the photo sits. Make sure you vote at the bottom of the page to give the photo a high ranking so it will get seen more:
Wed Sep 29, 7:11 PM ET
Protesters picket outside a Boston bar during a campaign visit by President Bush's daughters Jenna and Barbara for young Republicans, Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
Yet they have the time to vote, YET AGAIN, on gay marriage in the House today. The highway bill? Not done. The funding bills for EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL AGENCY save defense - all due today, mind you? Not done.
But hey, the flag, the pledge and marriage are all now safe. Osama take THAT.
I just got a press release from one of the "ex"-gay groups (i.e., religious-right-funded anti-gay groups that think you can pray away the gay.) The release claims a billboard of theirs in Virginia was "vandalized." Curious, I clicked on the link to see if they had a picture of the crime scene, and lo' and behold they do.
Here's the picture. See if you can figure out what is wrong with this picture? I kid you not, this is the picture in its state of already having been vandalized!
Now click on the high-res copy and you can just barely see the problem.
Like I said, if they weren't "straight" now, I'd say they were a bunch of whining fags :-)
PS A fun little aside: The head of the "ex"-gay group is a woman with a full-grown openly-gay son who was actually living with her a few years back while frequenting gay bars (I know this because I saw her speak at a conference about this). But she's supposedly an "expert" on "curing" gays. Uh huh.
Despite President Bush's promise to spend $9 billion on reconstruction contracts in Iraq in the next several months, administration and congressional officials said on Thursday it could take more than a year to actually pay out that much money for projects.
With the reconstruction held up by an intensifying insurgency, the administration has faced criticism over the slow pace of spending. Just $1.2 billion has been paid out of the $18.4 billion that Bush asked Congress to rush through last year.
Bush sought to counter the criticism last week by promising that over the next several months "over $9 billion will be spent on contracts that will help Iraqis rebuild schools, refurbish hospitals and health clinics, repair bridges, upgrade the electricity grid, and modernize the communications system."
On Thursday, as Bush prepared to debate Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry on foreign policy, White House officials sought to clarify the $9 billion estimate.
The officials said Bush was not talking about actual spending for work on projects themselves. Rather, they said, he was referring to the amount of money that has been "obligated" to contracts.[Note from John: Bush was apparently talking about "make-believe" spending. Like in fairy-land, or the land of the Pet Goat.]
The figure promised by Bush included $7 billion already under contract but not yet spent on the ground, officials said. Another $2 billion worth of contracts would be added within the next several months.
But spending the full $9 billion on the ground in Iraq will take time -- anywhere from 15 to 30 months, based on Congressional and administration estimates.
Just read it. I love how the Republican has "written up" his staffer. Gee, that sounds scary. I hope it doesn't go in her permanent record.
The real question is: Is this woman going to be working on Capitol Hill if this GOP candidate is elected? The woman should be fired immediately. Or will it take a few comments about Jews and blacks to reach that point?
This is from the DNC, and they're exactly right. You "win" the debates only if you win the AFTER-DEBATE SPIN in the ensuing 48 hours. It's sad, but true. Let's make sure we get our spin out there. The DNC tells us how in this email I just received:
Tonight, don't let George Bush's henchmen steal another victory. We need your online help immediately after the debate, so save this email, print it out, and have it ready with you as you watch the first Presidential debate tonight.
We all know what happened in 2000. Al Gore won the first debate on the issues, but Republicans stole the post-debate spin. We are not going to let that happen again, and you will play a big role.
Immediately after the debate, we need you to do three things: vote in online polls, write a letter to the editor, and call in to talk radio programs. Your 10 minutes of activism following the debate can make the difference.
Vote National and local news organizations will be conducting online polls during and after the debate asking for readers' opinions. Look for online polls at these national news websites, and make sure to vote in every one of them:
Write Immediately after the debate, go online and write a letter to the editor of your local paper. If you feel John Kerry commanded the debate and had a clear plan for fixing the mess in Iraq, put it in your letter. If you feel George Bush dodged tough questions on Iraq and didn't level with voters, put it in your letter.
With just a few clicks, you can write your letter at our online media center:
Call Do you listen to national or local call-in shows on the radio? How about on TV? Call them and let them know what you thought of John Kerry's plan to keep America secure and George Bush's continuing refusal to admit the truth about his record.
Here are some national shows to get you started. (All times are Eastern.)
Air America (all day): 646-274-2346
Alan Colmes (10 a.m. to 1 p.m.): 212-301-5900
Ed Shultz (3 p.m. to 6 p.m.): 701-232-1525
Bev Smith (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.): 412-325-4197
Doug Stephen (5 a.m. 10 a.m.): 1-800-510-8255
Find shows in your area on our media website:
Your actions immediately after the debate tonight can help John Kerry win on November 2. Make your voice heard!
Don't forget to visit our 2004 Debate Center before, during, and after the debate for important information, including questions Bush must answer, a Bush/Kerry contrast on keeping America safe, and Bush Debate Bingo, a game you can play with friends during the debate.
Well, their outright panic over the issue is evidence enough to me that we need to go full steam ahead with it. Not to mention, I sincerely believe the draft is coming.
Ok, is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with enticing small children to show up at high-profile US photo ops in Baghdad? Does it take a rocket scientist to know that these events are high-value terrorist targets? I mean, you wouldn't catch me dead at an event like that if I lived in Baghdad (hell, you wouldn't catch me in Baghdad at all). But the US authorities assume it's safe enough for kids? And now they're all dead.
Now that I've had a few more minutes to think about this... President Bush said things were going well in Iraq and it was only a handful of people causing disturbances. His puppet Allawi said last week, in a speech we now know was written by the State Department and Bush's presidential campaign staff, that things were going well in Iraq and most of the country was fine. Did local US officials on the ground in Baghdad rely on Bush's and Allawi's assurances when planning this event? Is that why they felt it was safe enough to entice children to a clearly-dangerous propaganda fest, an invitation that just got 35 children killed and over 100 wounded? Because they relied on Bush's and Allawi's lies?
A series of bombs killed 35 children and seven adults Thursday as U.S. troops handed out candy at a government ceremony to inaugurate a new sewage treatment plant. Hours earlier, a suicide blast killed a U.S. soldier and two Iraqis on the capital's outskirts.
The bombs in Baghdad's al-Amel neighborhood caused the largest death toll of children in any insurgent attack since the conflict in Iraq began 17 months ago.
"The Americans called us, they told us, 'Come here, come here,' asking us if we wanted sweets. We went beside them, then a car exploded," said 12-year-old Abdel Rahman Dawoud, lying naked in a hospital bed with shrapnel embedded all over his body.
Two bombs went off in quick succession at the ceremony about 1 p.m., then were followed by a third explosion a short distance away, said Interior Ministry spokesman Col. Adnan Abdul-Rahman. He said there were two suicide car bombs and one roadside bomb; the Americans said all three were car bombs.
The explosions killed 42 people and wounded 141, including 10 U.S. soldiers. The wounded included 72 children under the age of 14, said Dr. Mohammed Salaheddin.
One boy lay swathed in bandages on a stretcher, his severed leg on a table beside him. Others were scarred by shrapnel, their clothes blown off by the force of the explosion.
A very interesting Web site is letting folks from EVERY country vote for who they'd prefer to win the US presidential election. If this is any guide, President Bush's highest support is in:
At some point, I should just write a stock story and simply reprint it every time Bush gets caught telling a new lie about Iraq.
