All right, I'm back off the road, infused with caffeine jitters and ready to try and blog the d-bate as it comes across my TV, I'll be switching to C-SPAN in 24 minutes.

Nice to see Laura Bush be true to her word and wore blue as promised.

Everyone in the audience might be THE one, or one of several actually, who gets to ask a question, so Gibson sets them up like Oprah jingling car keys to practice.  The anticipation can be cut with a forged memo. . .

"Cuticle" Carl Cameron from FOX has a memo from ABC saying that (basically) since Bush is a serial liar, his spin will be given greater scrutiny.  Brit Hume wonders if it's forged, there will be much more on this crap.  (Good for ABC if it's true, FOX has no shame, why should ABC.

This has got to be an attempt to deflect the anticipated disaster Bush will present after such an unimaginably bad week for his administration, by impuning ABC's Charles Gibson's credibility.  Already before the lights go on, the GOP is calling foul.

Wishy washy question for Kerry:  Kerry's downright charming, smiles like an expert assassin sticking the knife in the "weapons of mass distraction."
Bush's rebuttle,   Usual meme but decently delivered.

WMD justification for Bush's Iraq invasion and how does it play with N. Korea.  Bush seems at ease, and that each situation is different, calling for inconsistency?  He just went on and on about how Preznitin' is tough and you need to be consistent.  WTF?  He is comfortable and smooth. 
Kerry rebutts, Kery getting steamed early, or is that just forceful?
Bush just frickin LIED dammit.  Saddam had no weapons to give to the terrorists he wasn't talking to.  And Kerry called him on it.

Bugging out question for Kerry.
Bush is Sneering.  There's just no other way to describe it.  Kerry has new quotes, good info and logic, Bush counters with more of the same talking points.  This song and dance is lame.

They've almost reached the point of shouting at each other, and it's real early.

Good question for Bush, how are you going to fix our broken alliances.  He compared himself with Reagan, I hope Kerry reminds him what a diplomat his father was.  Bush doesn't answer the question but only justifies why he screwed things up, not how he'll fix it.
Kerry calmed down,   Broken promises in a rush to war.  Bush is rightfully indignant but not over the top.


Kerry question on Iran nukes.  Nice start, the UN isn't the only thing to rely on, nice.  The rest is a repeat of the last debate meme's on N. Korea.
Lame scowel joke from Bush.  "I get it."  Bush saying Kerry is "Naive and dangerous" "making progress," blah blah blah...

Bush:  Draft rumors on Internet-S??  Dufass.  A real promise of no draft from Bush.  That's new.
Kerry and the "backdoor draft," and adding 40K soldiers and not go alone.
Bush is just interrupting, he's losing it.
Kerry strides "presidentially" and getting even more secure, he knows Bush just lost this thing.

Kerry security question: Getting the terrorists "over there" means the best intelligence, which means cooperation, ties in homeland security and Bush's ponzie scheme tax plan, all in one.  Well done.  Who cares what happened in 1993.

DOMESTIC
Canada Drugs.  Aren't Safe?  So much for not denigrating allies.  OO, but wait til December, he might let them in.  Riight.  Was that an anticipatory flip/flop?
Kerry calls Bush a liar again.  The President DID block it according to Kerry.  Kerry makes the nice point of Bush being the champion of corporate welfare.  Bush blames Clinton, bahahaha.

Trial Lawyers question for Kerry who points to a real web site to see his tort reform plan.  Lawyers fixing lawyers problems.  It really does work, just nobody will trust it.
Bush jumps on Kerry's liberalism.  Tax and spend meme from the spend and spend Preznit.
Kerry is amused, not grimacing. Taking a Dispassionate Liberal stance against the "compassionate conservative." 
Bush take another swing at the trial lawyer on the ticket and swaggars off like a gorrilla.  "Top that ya whimp." He's repugnant.

NO VETO question for Bush.  Preznitin' cost a lot.........especially when you cut taxes.
Kerry clarrifies his "liberal" health care plan.  Bush opened the door on jobs, silly boy.  Kerry doesn't hesitate to pounce.  Bush is struggling to remember not to roll his eyes or grit his teeth, and failing. . . . ENROOOOOooonnnn.  It echos.

No tax raise question.  Kerry was just given a gift of a question, "straight into the camera."  Where is the fact checking on Kerry breaking the balance budget 200 times, and more checking needs done on the "green eye shades???"  We're down to only 98 votes against fiscal responsibility, isn't that down from 350?
Kerry:  Fuzzy math, I remember that.  Didn't work last time either.

Environment question for Bush. Hmmm, Kerry should eat this one for dinner.  Bush does sound credible, but . . .
Kerry on Bush's Orwellian fantasy.  Blinded Bush with science, but  Kyoto plays to Bush.  But Kerry rebounds  nicely.

Competitive Manufacturing question for Kerry.   Lou Dobbs parroting outsourcing answer, but it has appeal.  Other than closing the loophole on outsourcing companies, I don't think he answers the question.
Bush follows the thread and never gets back to fixing the PROBLEM IN OHIO and elsewhere OF THE LOSS OF MANUFACTURING JOBS. 
Bush back on fricking tax cuts,  Please someone hit the buzzer....
Gibson calls Kerry on his non-response.  Kerry merely says he can't fis it all but wants to level the playing field, which seems at least honest.
Fact-check the little tyrant on his timber company he doesn't even know he owns (nice joke about it though).  Kerry could not have just pulled that out of the ether.

Patriot Act Question for Bush.  He defends the act well, but doesn't relieve any worries by the guy who asked the quesiton judging by his reaction.
Kerry loves to hate Ashcroft.  Tin hats with facts.

Stem Cell next for Kerry, Nap time.  Oops, name dropping Superman will wake anybody up. 
Bush handles this question better than anything I've seen, but Kerry steps on the waffle line and rubs it away.

FINALLY someone brings up the Supreme Court in this Campaign.  I hate Strick Constructionists and Bush wants them on the bench.  Esototeric I know but Bush is way out of his league in this, citing Dred Scott?  Wrong case at the wrong time for the wrong reasons -- overturned by an "activist" court.  Read a damn book once in a while George.  Any 1st year law student could rip that argument apart.
Kerry (wisely probably) doesn't argue just how idiotic Bush sounds talking about case law.  He quotes Bush wanting more conservative judges and scores with this former law student.  Opinions should be politics neutral, something lacking in since Renquist took over.

And Kerry gets a chance to "explain" his abortion position.  Always a thicket for us liberals.  He does alright but changes no minds on this.  Not because his answer didn't grok, it did and was excellent, but becasue those that care about this issue made up their minds whether they would vote "D" or "R" years ago.
It figures that Bush doesn't get it.  And touting his record doesn't do anything but really get the hackles up of anyone tired of Government legislating culture.  That would be me.
Kerry lectures Bush so the Idjit understands. Bush only gets things if they are black or white

FINAL QUESITON IS A WHOPPER.  Name not just one, but THREE mistakes, hehehe he can't come up with anything wrong, only that Iraq was right (dag gonnit!)

Appointment mistakes?? No names?  Um, O'Neil comes to (his?) mind, Bremmer maybe, personally I would say RUMSFELD

Can Kerry keep it down to three.  Gut check?  Was this war a last resort? 
$87 Million again, what a jerk, the question was about YOUR mistakes Mr, President.
Kerry repeats defense from last debate (mistake in talking about the war, versus a mistake going to war) and gets the last word by (finally) mentioining CheneyBurton!  Yeah!!

Summations:   Kery on the stump, live.  Bush on the stump, likable.


Bush will be the toast of St, Louis because his head didn't explode.  But Kerry certainly looks more "presidential."

LET THE SPIN BEGIN (I'm reserving the right to fix my typos, but otherwise it was fun)

Gone to Cleveland for the day, hope to be back by the debates, but if not, hit the online polls for me. Kos or Atrios should have them up.

Vote early and vote often.

That's what I would do. I haven't weighed in on Tom's Troubles. Hardly a surprise that I find him repugnant, but I also think Nancy Pelosi is repulsively nagging and nasty. I know I wouldn't hesitate to tell her to shut up and sit step down if the ethic committee came down on her like they did on DeLay yesterday. If Congressmen were held to the same standard as lawyers, or judges, he would be fighting disbarrment proceedings for fostering the mere appearance of impropriety, a sanctionable offense for the bar.

Not that DeLay received a real "behind the woodshed" spanking, nor do I have enough facts in hand (nor care to find out) if he deserved more or less of a punishment. But it was, in the words of Joe Gandelman, "a SIGNIFICANT series of rebukes." I do think his response was inappropriately smug and belligerant when a bi-partisan committee reaches a unanimous decision that he be reprimanded. Niether juries or voters forgive and forget arrogance. Maybe he is the perfect choice for majority leader when you think about it.

When you have to be reelected every two years, you would think you'd be more circumspect. He may be in a "safe" district this November (after all the gerrymandering he did it would be supreme irony if he weren't) but you'd think that a plausible/respectable republican could make a decent challenge against him next go-round in the primaries if he wins this time.

I was disgusted with Mary Rose Oakar's scandalous behavior in the early '90's. I lived in Louis Stoke's district in the Cleveland area at the time, now represented very well by one of the first Judges I ever appeared before, Stephanie Tubbs Jones. But across the river, Mary Rose was every bit the liberal democrat icon that is now embodied by the current rep of the district, Dennis Kucinich. Needless to say, that seat is "safe" for Democrats.

The district hats [sic] a strong Democratic tilt. However, in '92, Republican Martin Hoke defeated incumbent Cong. Mary Rose Oakar (D) in a bloody battle. Oakar, an eight-termer, had been nailed with 213 over-drafts at the House hank and had been embroiled in a dispute arising out of the post office scandal. Her brash and aggressive personality was wearing thin on her constituency, which even showed in the Democratic primary that year when she won renomination by a slim 39-30 percent margin. Relying too heavily on labor in the general election, Oakar went down in flames when voters put Hoke in office with 57 percent of the vote. The same year, Bill Clinton defeated George Bush in the district by five points. Ohio's Comeback Kid

If history is any indicator, DeLay's days are numbered. The ultimate jury is the electorate. Like any jury, they determine facts despite spin and mete out punishment.

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