Kicking ass "reproduces" the DNC's gracious acceptance of Senior Bush Strategist Matt Dowd's invitation to talk about Halliburton every day until election day in this memo:

Subject: Historic Halliburton Chats

The RNC surely will get back to us after checking their calendar while the DNC will set up a conference call for tomorrow so we can kick off our daily Halliburton chats.

...what time works best for you. Below are some times that work for us.


ALL DAY LONG

Heh, Bring it on.

The Associated Press has had two strange stories today:

This first via StopDemocrats.com (screenshot)  was briefly up and running then taken down, but not before Political Wire and Atrios saw it and spread the news to the world that Bush not only already won the election four weeks from now, but it was a landslide.  Not only that, his coattails were huge, solidifying the GOP stranglehold on congress.

The second AP story is picked up by virtually everyone, and hopefully has more validity and will prove the lie of the first bogus story four weeks hence.:  AP Poll: Kerry Takes Small Lead Over Bush Via Talk Left, Atrios again (which no cognitive dissonence whatsoever),  every news source there is.

UPDATE" Daily Kos has the correction

Correction: President Bush Did Not Win Election on October 7

Whew, I hope the corrected version is the "correct version."

NOW IN OHIO TOO:

Pandagon says: It's Over!

It's Over!

Ohio's election results, four weeks early, behind the cut:

Jesse Taylor has the whole story of how Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is merely practicing to turn Ohio '04 into Florida 2000. COMPLETE WITH A SCREENSHOT of republicans winning every contested election statewide.

John Furie Zacharias' cartoon analogy might just have it right on picking your hero.

Don't forget to listen to the Bush/Brando debate at the end of the post.

The fun speculation that Bush wore and earpiece during the first debate, and at other events too, keeps rolling (and keeps me rolling on the floor laughing). Now Countpunch adds to the hillarity by making this suggestion to the Democratic Contender:

Equip Kerry with a miniature, high-tech multi-frequency jammer to keep in his own jacket pocket. At awkward moments for the president, Kerry could just press the button in his pocket and broadcast a loud electronic squawk.

Such interference could make for interesting television!

Can't you just see Bush clamping his palms against his ears and running around the stage screaming, "Stop it!! Stop it!!" as the Secret Service tackles the moderator . . . fun, fun, fun.

"Media Matt" Yglesias' took a while to point out that it took until last Sunday for someone to finally ask someone in the administration what they mean when they say they have killed or captured 75% of al Queda's known leadership

We got a rare piece of skilled interviewing from Wolf Blitzer last Sunday:

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: To be clear, we are after Osama bin Laden. He is being chased by Pakistani forces and Afghan forces and American and other forces. We have broken up 75 percent of the al Qaeda known leadership. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia fully...

WOLF BLITZER: Well, when you say 75 percent, of how many leaders are we talking -- 75 percent of a quantity of what? 30, 25?

RICE: Of its known leadership.

BLITZER: But how many...

RICE: I would suspect that that's in the tens to hundreds -- tens to 100.

So when Bush et. al say "75 percent of the al-Qaeda known leadership" they could mean as few as eight people. But more to the point -- it's easy to understand why you would nead to employ estimation when doing quantitative measures of al-Qaeda. But how could the number of known al-Qaeda leaders possibly be an estimate? If Rice knows anything about al-Qaeda it should be how many al-Qaeda leaders she knows about. Does she know of ten, or does she know of 100?

[matthew]

As Rummy likes to say, there is the known unknown, the unknown known, the unknowable known and unknown . . . Jeez

Or to paraphrase Linclon who has been spinning in his grave since the day Bush proclaimed himself the standard bear of the Great Emancipator's party:

We can be fooled some of the time, or we can be fooled all of the time, but sometimes we're just fools.

Even a madman understands the "Global Test."

Juan Cole quoting Saddam Hussein from the Guardian on why he didn't use WMD's when he still had them in the first gulf war:

"Do you think we are mad? What would the world have thought about us? We would have completely discredited those who had supported us."

The new spin of the final weapons report showing that Saddam Hussein really, really wanted to make some WMD's real bad like, but had no way of getting them as long as the sancitons were in place . . . is being spun as a false choice. To sum up the administraiton's posiiton, if sanctions had been lifted, which is what Saddam wanted, then he could have gotten the other thing he wanted, WMD's.

So, I'm supposed to believe that if the US had not invaded, we would not have veto'd any move to lift sanctions? Riiight. Just becasue Saddam wanted sanctions lilfted, he would have gotten his wish. He would have held his breath until we gave in and ended any plans to keep a close eye on the loon. Hell, the criminally tragic oil-for-food program was such a cash cow for the dictator, he probably was content to play that game indefinitely.

There was no duel choice here between war and facing a fully armed Iraq. The choice was between a defanged Saddam farting in our general direction and the quagmire we see now, which the administration predicted would cost very little in blood or treasure because we would be greeted as liberators. Those of us who warned the cost would be far greater were marginalized, laughed at, or ignored. And now that things are going baddly enough that it cannot be covered up, we are the one's emboldening the enemy. Feh!

The Bush administration has no choice but to defend their tragically mistaken acitons because to do otherwise undermines any legitimate reason to keep them in office -- or out of prison. They're trying Scott Peterson on less evidence than we have against Bush, Inc.

The resonating point John Edwards wanted to make in last night's debate certainly was that Dick Cheney wanted to reward "wealth, not work"  It is a fundamental difference in approach between liberals and conservatives summed up in one neat sound byte. 

Indeed, I've often heard this debate point turned on it's head by the likes of Rush Limbaugh who insists that liberals want to punish success.  Yes the better you do, the more a progressive tax system will tax you, based on the theory that your fair share of the burden of running a government is proportionally larger because not only have you taken better advantages of the nation's opportunities, but you are better able to carry that disproportional weight.

Any time you hear George Bush talk about "simplifying" the tax code and making it more fair, remember that they want to make it more fair for those who pay that higher percentage of taxes, the wealthy.

Yes there is some merit to the idea that under some circumstances lowered taxes does increase revenue to the government because at a certain point the marginal rate of return decrease as you raise taxes.  But this "law of diminishing returns" only works when you reach a certain threshold below which just plain common sense takes over and the tax system behaves logically, lower rates resulting in lower revenue.  The tipping point is finding that mythical level (which changes daily) where for every percentage point of tax increase or decrease, the revenue received for that change also reacts proportionally in consort with the rate of return.  This maximizes the overall average effect of the tax rate system.  To date I have never seen tax rates approach this level, but jump all around it like the tax system does when treated like a political football.

Rewarding "wealth not work" themes by democrats are also attacked by conservatives because by taxing the rich more, it makes it harder for those who actually create jobs to create more.  Again this is a sliding scale and tries to quantify individual hiring decisions on a macro scale.  At one point, where your business is producing at capacity or at least adequately meeting demands, the additional income provided by a tax cut will not translate into more jobs but merely a windfall lining the pockets of ownership. 

In other words, conservatives welded to their religion of tax cuts, deny once again the law of diminishing returns, that there is a tipping point where tax policy does not provide the result intended.  In each case where the marginal return on the policy is reached or exceeded, it is not the wealthy or successful who are punished, but the burden is shifted to the middle class who find that maintaining that status is harder and harder, yet when taxes are increased, especially on the wealthiest citizens, they, unlike regular working people, can pass that additional tax burden along to their customers, once again the middle class.

We've had four years of tax cuts sold for diametrically opposed reasons.  Because there is a surplus, because there is recession, because it will create more jobs, because we are still losing jobs despite last year's or the year before's tax cuts, and of course deficits don't matter.  The jobs are still not there although corporate America has done fantastic under Bush's "corporatism." 

The bottom line is that the burden of keeping this nation going will always be the middle class whether directly or  by the wealthy passing their burden on.  Anything designed to help the middle class helps this nation as a whole and has the added benefit of being populists. Yet I have never seen a thoughtful cost benefit of tax policy in the middle of a campaign.  It, like so many other things is used as a was to divide Americans into the haves and have-nots. 

What a shame.  But I understand the appeal.  Other than references to John Edwards, the googlable references to "wealth not work" involve get rich quick schemes which have the same appeal as GOP tax strategies.

UPDATE: Train wreck of typos fixed. (Hope I got 'em all)

ADDENDUM: I guess I'm not the only one thinking along these lines, and they not only say it much more elequently than I, they have the credentials to back up their conclusion that Bush's economic policies are an imminent disaster.

Sensible and farsighted economic management requires true discipline, compassion, and courage – not just slogans.

A large group of business school professors, an open letter to the President joined by

• Scientists and Engineers for Change
• Clergy
• The Union of Concerned Scientists
• Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
• Generals and Admirals in the United States Military, and
• 180 Ambassadors

VIA: Medley

Juan Cole's site is usually one of the most informative places on the web for Middle Eastern analysis of the news. Today there is an extraordinary treatment of who the real enemy is in the muslim world and an explanation of John Kerry's stance on the war in a guest editorial by Professor Joseph White, Director of the Center for Policy Studies at Case Western Reserve University

Well worth the read. Professor White answers the question:

Why invading Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, but, once the U.S. is there, trying to win may be the best among bad choices.

Just as an exersize, I'm writing this as the Cheney/Edwards debate gets underway.  If you're reading this, I actually got through it without too many interruptions.

1st question:  On Iraq, for Cheney, not enough troops, link between Saddam and Zarquari?  Ennhhhh..Wrong answer, there are no freaking links.

Broken record time? "Wrong war, wrong place wrong time" twice, $87 Billion four times in first 15 minutes.

Wow, they're both excellent, Cheney twists Edwards' words without effort, Edwards objects like a Defense attorney smelling hearsay evidence.

Even today they don't know the "extent" (or even existence) of an Iraq/al Queda connection, but it was good enough for a war, unbelievable, we went to war to get Zarquari?  Wasn't the military stopped from getting this guy at his camps before the invasion......draw that connection because for me it doesn't grok.

"Haliburton", I lost count ho many shots I owed for each time it was mentioned and have decided just to keep drinking steadily.  "No bid," has me buying a couple rounds. . .

OH NO, Cheney took the bait!! Actually went back to Hali (burp) ton!  The old man couldn't resists, really made no defense but just used it as a platform for a nasty crack about Johnny being absent from the senate, then agreed essentially with Edwards on Israel/Palestine (which was what the question was about.  Edwards came back swinging and just plain nailed Cheney on his congressional votes:  Plastic gins, head start, meals on wheels, MLK and Nelson Mandella.  Nice Job Johnny.

Domestic issues: Cheney non responsive on jobs and poverty, Edwards points it out slickly and lays our the numbers.  Cheney has numbers too and counters effectively with a zinger about not being able to take four more years of this kind of experience-- again they're both good. 

Qwen couldn't resist the gay marriage question.  Good for her.  Cheney outright deceived on what the Massachusetts Supreme Court did, but otherwise swallowed the hypocrisy well.  Edwards also misleads on the recognition of marriage from state to state under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  Tort lawyers, feh!  Us family lawyers don't get rich but we sure help people get on with their lives.  Why Edwards is wrong is because the issue has come up in the context of "common law" marriages going back to the establishment of this nation.

Can't speak on Edwards "fix" for malpractice cases.  Ohio has been doing that right along and even adds a step, mandatory arbitration.  Hasn't helped the rise in medical cost or malpractice premiums.

The personal questions were so revealing in distinguishing the two men, not in what they said but how they said it.  Edwards was charming and laughing, Cheney hunched over and grumbled.

Flip Flopping:  The administration being "Back and forth" was a nice reference by Edwards, Ack! "$87 Billion" and "Wrong war, Wrong place, wrong time" again.  What else ya got Dick??  Edwards again has Cleveland numbers on top of national numbers.  The boy (yeah I know he's 50, but look at him) does do his homework.  Cheney gave a broken record of his stump speech on flip flopping, a soft ball for him which he had a chance to swing for the fences and bunted instead.

Uniter not a divider, "Biggest disappointment?" says Cheney but we'll keep working at it,  By getting ZELL involved more!!??  WTF. Gimme a break.  Softball for Edwards, who swings well but changes the subject, goes back to health care, fine, but he didn't run out the play when he could have at least got a double.  Ennhhhh!

Cheney's summation was far better than Edwards' tale of his dad, but then again while Edwards was in college, Dick was running this nation or multinational corporations.

Final thoughts, once again, as it was in 2000, the GOP must wish their ticket were switched.  Cheney did fine next to Edwards, who also did well.  Both in glaring contrast to Bush's performance (or lack thereof) Thursday night.

Why on earth would anyone be sceptical of the Bush administraiton and congressional republicans insistance that there will be no draft should Bush get reelected. Who would ever doubt the word of these guys? Except for the fact that we may not have any choice if we want to finish the job in Iraq right.

Draft rumors blow chill wind over campaign

What's intriguing about the draft rumor isn't whether it's true or false--though on key points it's clearly false.

What's intriguing is the warmth with which the Republicans deny it and must deny it. The gap in public opinion between support of the draft and support of the war requires such a denial and reveals something else that ought to leave them vexed:

When the question really hits home, not many Americans believe in our mission in Iraq enough to put their lives or family members' lives on the line for it.

Mind you if you want to read some of the draft rumor propaganda from my leftist friends, read this alarming post at Kos. But don't forget to have a "dispassionate" glace at this factcheck Doc provided at no extra charge from Ara