When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.

Proverbs 29:2

John Kerry is a better choice for President of the United States than George W. Bush.  Kerry has dedicated his adult life to serving the people.  He fought this country’s enemies on sea and on land.  When he returned, he had the courage to speak against a war he knew was wrong, even though doing so made him unpopular with many.  As a young district attorney, he prosecuted violent offenders and brought new weapons to the fight on crime.  Kerry also served as Lieutenant governor of Massachusetts.  As a U.S. Senator, he led the fight to protect veterans, and drove terrorist funders underground with his investigation of the BCCI bank. 

George W. Bush has presided over one of the greatest downturns in U.S. history.  He will be the first President to preside over a net job loss since Herbert Hoover in the Great Depression.  In four short years, Bush’s massive tax cuts squandered the greatest surpluses the country had ever seen and left the nation with its largest deficit ever.  Bush let the world’s sympathy and good will slip away after September 11.  Instead of working to turn the Arab world against the terrorists, he launched a war in Iraq which attracted thousands of more converts to their cause.  Bush’s conduct of that war has left American troops undermanned and surrounded by a hostile population.  The result has been thousands of U.S. casualties and an unstable Iraq.  Worst of all, The Bush Administration has stripped away the freedoms that made America great at home while shockingly violating civil rights abroad.

This year, the choices for President of the United States could not be more distinct.  For four more years of fear, vote Bush.  To bring hope back, vote Kerry.   

Johnny, R.I.P.

Democrats have been feeling angst for the last five days.  Networks insist something is wrong, despite polls being as mixed as ever.  What seemed a sure thing a few weeks ago is now in doubt. 

The Iron Mouth reminds the nation of a simple truth: The People choose, state by state, the President of these States.  CNN cannot vote.  Fox has no vote.  CBS, NBC and ABC may present opinions, and polls may guess at the outcome of the race, but only the people may vote for the President of the United States. 

O'Reilly can only vote once.  Rush and Hannity get one pull of the lever each.  This is no more than any one of us.  At the end, the candidate with the most votes in the most states will win.  We can, we must and we will convince more people that John F. Kerry is a better choice for the Presidency of the United States.

Easier said than done?  Yes.  But an election is like any other game.  To win, you must outwork the other side.  We are outworking the other side:  A friend working with the party called from Pennsylvania yesterday.  The campaign's biggest problem is that record numbers of volunteers, far exceeding anyone's expectations, are pouring into the state.

Our task is simple--We must convince the people to vote for Kerry in the streets, the newspapers and the Internet, in short, anywhere where voters are.  Don't just stand there. 

This was just a blip, just a nothing in the political landscape. But of blips, of dust, of infinite private moments of wonder and discomfort is the world made…

Such things nearly pass for dreaming.

It was May of this year. I had heard that, in the run-up to handing over Iraq “politically” to Iraqis, in late June, the president of the United States of America would deliver a live speech weekly, to explain the administration’s thoughts.

Five Monday night speeches in five weeks. For an old newspaper delivery boy and later AP editor-reporter such as I, that was like what hearing of a surprise slew of off-season Monday Night Football playoff games must be to a football addict. That first Monday found me sitting down to dinner before the TV at promptly two minutes before 8 o’clock, ready to listen.

I must explain. I am not an aficionado of this current president. But I am mesmerized by his speaking genius. I confess to a lifelong funereal fascination with leaders who mean very little good for their people and who speak absolute insanity that passes in the minds of enough of the populace as inspired, defensible, godly, more than propaganda. I study carefully the pronouncements, daydreamy metaphors and money-printing abilities of administrators like Korea’s “Dear Leader” Kim Jong Il and Turkmenistan’s “Great Leader” Saparmurat Niyazov. With a similar gusto I await word from the “Leader of the Free World,” U.S. President George W. Bush.

How do such people rise to such power? Is politics the only profession in which the truly mad stand a chance at a grand and successful career?

That first Monday offered little more than mutters, stumbled attempts at awe and the promise of further speeches to come. On the second Monday, I cancelled plans I had in order to stay home and be before the radio at 8:00 sharp. No luck. The NPR airwaves returned to music after the Dow and Nasdaq numbers.

Well, there was much news that Monday, and it was also a holiday, so I thought the president must be otherwise occupied.

Week three came. And again, with the radio and television on and IMing with my friend Bill…nothing…no president, no speech. Was I awake, or politically dreaming?

Months passed, and after searching around a bit online for what I had missed, I gave up on the speeches. Did I hear right? Anyone I asked didn’t know of them.

So all summer I scratched my head in dreamy wonder like a sleeper just awoken. What happened?

Then, to my delight, last week, The New Yorker, in its great humor and righteousness, published its regularly appearing absurdist (but too true) quiz on the administration, this installation titled “The Thirteen Hundred Days: The Quiz.” (This is where, faithful readers, your present writer had a AP wire story appear last June, a blip about the president-candidate describing his wife as “the lump in the bed next to me.”)

It’s a compendium of administration faux pas. “Quiz” question No. 11 ran:

In May, the White House announced that George W. Bush would deliver five weekly speeches intended to shore up support for his Iraq policies. How many of the five did he deliver before abandoning the effort?

The correct answer: “(a), One.” Dreamers, awake.

--E.K. (Got comments? Write me at ekblog@yahoo.com)

Matt Drudge is fascinated with hurricanes.  This year, Mother Nature seems to be indulging his fancy quite a bit.  For the third time in four weeks, a hurricane is threatening to make landfall in the United States.  Drudge has prominently featured every one, featuring enhanced-color radar photos of menancing storms, followed by huge-type captions such as “Hell,” “Hellstorm” and “140 Miles an Hour.” 

Its almost as if an election isn't going on, that we aren't totally mired down in Iraq, or we don't have huge deficits at all.  To hear Drudge tell it, we live in a nation whose greatest threat is killer red-colored hurricanes.  Unfortunately, it isn't so.

President Bush has unintentionally given the United States of America a great gift--a gift which made us realize how precious what we have really is.  A government of the people, of rights, of a deep duty of every citizen to do his or her best to maintain those rights and that government.  That is a lesson that will not be forgotten for a long time to come.

Because President Bush has moved so far from that ideal, taken an evil act of desperation and used it to bring unprovoked war to far away places and fear to our own doorstep, threatened our liberties, our way of life and our very work, he has reminded us of the one thing we do have--the power and the duty to order our government according to principles of justice, fairness and right. 

Look around--the people of this country are stepping up, realizing that those civics-book lessons meant something and putting those lessons into action.  Interest in this election is intense and people are starting to use the tools of technology to discuss political issues in a way that has never been tried.  We can, must, and will do our duty to right the country and return it a course of justice and morality.   

Many people are decrying this election, saying that it is bringing out the worst in America.  I must differ.  This election is bringing out the best in the people of this country.  Certainly some of those who are running for office are making some bad judgments, but the people themselves are an awakening giant--learning what our duty to one another is and then going out into the public forum and fulfilling that duty in what was once called a “manly” way.

Cynics may dismiss what is written here.  But we must remember that this is the country that produced the Bill of Rights, Washington, Lincoln, the Constitution, and the victory over the Japanese and Nazi aggressors of the Second World War.  It cannot be denied that no matter how hard we are fighting one another right now, we are participating in the political process in a way that we have never seen our lifetimes.  I pray that it continues.

And but for these vile guns, He would himself have been a soldier.

King Henry IV, Part I, Act I, Scene III.

We here at the Iron Mouth are against negative campaigning.  We think it debases the political process and lowers the level of debate.  The Iron Mouth hopes that this destructive cycle of negativity ends and the Presidential campaign soon returns to an adult level of discourse.

The Iron Mouth Editorial Board is fully supportive of Karma, the process by which the Universe balances itself.  We applaud its appearance at any place where it is needed.  The Mouth makes a prediction.  Karma will be appearing regularly on the American political landscape in the very near future.  Indeed, Karma will be the dominant feature of the remainder of the election.  Whether it is good or bad depends on whom you support.  It will be good for us.

Rob's piece about the “do anything to win” moral relativism exhibited by many well-known conservative Republicans shook loose a few cobwebs and reminded me of a Rick Perlstein commentary from July titled The Church of Bush.  This is a must read for anyone disturbed by what I would describe as a conservative messianic cult of personality that has become the bedrock of support for the Bush-Cheney re-election effort.  Perlstein culls much of the material for this piece from going to a small GOP sponsored “Parties for the President” gathering in Portland, Oregon and comes away convinced that modern American Conservatism has increasingly cut itself loose from its own admirable intellectual traditions in favor of a bewildering modern day “Divine Right of Kings.” 

The conventional wisdom about this election is that Bush will avoid major combat in Iraq until after the election in order to mute criticism of the disaster there.  However, it is very possible that the Bush Administration, for reasons of political expediency, will attack Fallujah earlier.  Such an attack would make it difficult for Sen. Kerry to attack his Iraq policy, demonstrate that Bush is a strong leader, and undercut one of Bush's greatest weaknesses in the Iraq war, his handover of almost all of Western Iraq to Sunni extremists.  Furthermore, such a move would be in line with Bush's reputation as a political gambler.

Such an interpretation seems to be backed up by evidence of U.S. action in the Fallujah area.  On Sunday, two U.S. soldiers were killed at a logistics base on the western outskirts of Baghdad.  Yesterday, seven U.S. Marines were killed in a suicide bombing attack near Fallujah.  All of this activity may presage an early move on Fallujah.

Why would Bush take such a risk?  Because the payoff would be great.  A successful Fallujah operation would mute Kerry's criticism of Bush's Iraq mess.  Remember that during the month of August, Kerry's numbers slipped during fighting in Najaf.  Furthermore, any attacks on Bush's war leadership during an offensive could make Kerry look like a political opportunist, seeking advantage in the polls at the expense of the boys overseas.  Kerry's hands would thus be tied.

Furthermore, Fallujah is the biggest blot on Bush's war record.  The President told the nation that the Iraq Governing Council was going to communicate “with the insurgents to ensure an orderly turnover of that city” and insist that “those who killed and mutilated four American contract workers be handed over for trial and punishment.”  Yet these things never happened.  The killers of the contract workers were never brought to justice and Fallujah, like Ramadi and most of Western Iraq, remains in the hands of insurgents.

Furthermore, it might do much to strengthen the terror-Iraq linkage.  Zarqawi, the terrorist responsible for many of the worst acts of terror in Iraq, seems to have taken up residence there.  Killing or capturing him might make the dubious terrorism-Iraq link seem stronger in the minds of wavering Americans.

Finally, Bush is a gambler.  Indeed, the entire Iraq invasion was a gamble--based on the flawed premise that an overwhelming conventional victory in Iraq would result in the Arab world moving away from the support of anti-U.S. elements in their midst.  An attack on Fallujah before the election would be in keeping with known Bush behavior.

Although such a strategy is not without risks, a clean up of the Fallujah mess might provide the President with a boost.  Bush could prove his war credentials by launching an offensive, and Kerry could not attack him for it.

The solution for Kerry is simple.  The drumbeat must advance on economic issues first, Iraq second.  The first is the area where he will reach the undecideds and leaners and the second is an area where the base is already convinced.

The concept of personal responsibility is under attack.  Forces opposed to the idea that a person is responsible for his or her acts and should face their consequences have made a recent appearance on our shores.  Surprisingly, the assault comes not from the lefty pinkos who are named as the usual suspects in such attacks, but from the Right.

The Right has now come to embrace the worst sort of cultural relativism.  Its pundits and politicians attempt to explain away many of the more glaring examples of personal failure with relativist language which it once condemned.

At the top of these shameless moral relativists is one Rush Limbaugh, a righty pundit who apparently has a “radio show” where he preaches daily to “dittoheads,” persons who apparently lack the ability of thought and merely ditto their leader’s rants.

When news of the Abu Ghraib tortures first came to light, Rush told America that they should take it easy on the people who engaged in torture at the Iraqi prison.

"You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You heard of need to blow some steam off?"

According to Mr. Limbaugh’s philosophy of moral action, should a person suffer stress or emotional dissonance, striking another in one’s custody is OK.

But Rush isn’t the only person on the Right embracing the new moral relativism.  Examples of it seem to popping out all of the time.  Take, for example, the ballooning budget deficit.  Republicans are certain that despite the fact that they hold both houses of Congress and the White House, that the massive tax cuts and uncontrolled pork spending they have engaged in are not the cause of the problem.  According to President Bush, “[t]he reason we are where we are, in terms of the deficit, is because we went through a recession, we were attacked, and we're fighting a war.”   Not a mention of the huge tax cuts or spending increases.

The President seems to be involved in several of these incidents of moral relativism.  For example the so-called “Intelligence Failure of the CIA.”  According to the purveyors of this theory, President Bush was not responsible for the Iraq disaster, it was the CIA, who failed to warn him that his entire strategy in the war on terror sucked.   Had he had the good data, the theory goes, he would have never have gone to war in Iraq.  Of course the theory does not meet head on the idea that as an element of the Executive Branch, it was Bush who was responsible for making sure the CIA was doing its job.  No mention either of the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans, the outfit responsible for most of the failed intelligence involved in the Iraq debacle.

These new moral relativists are slowly destroying the most conservative American value: personal responsibility.  Their moral relativism does not square with the noble idea that the captain, as leader of the ship, should go down with it.  The American electorate has not forgotten.

A while ago, in a speech before the Democratic Leadership Council, Bill Clinton suggested that people who feel uncertain preferred somebody who was “strong and wrong” to somebody who was “weak and right.”  What was originally a critique of the Democratic Party's fumbling on national security was of course criticized at the time as a vicious attack on President Bush, but recently it seems like an apt description of the quality of the commentary and analysis provided by our beloved media.  While I understand that we rely on experts, pundits, journalists and the actual subjects of media attention to enlighten us on the finer points of the issues of the day, I am often struck by how little of their output actually turns out to be true or even bears any resemblance to observed reality.

A couple questions: First, how many times have you picked up a newspaper or turned on the TV to find forceful public figures making bogus statements with near impunity, and, far from being critically taken to task for it, are often praised for their insight, or at the very worst, elicit grudging admiration for their audacity?  Secondly, how many times have you had to listen to the same talking heads with the unimpeachable credentials and long track records of professional incompetence offer up pie in the sky wishful thinking as sober analysis?

The reason I ask these questions is that we're going through a period in this nation's history in which we've seen one catastrophic policy disaster after another, and yet if you pay attention to those supposedly in the know there seems to be no one to blame and no definite answers as to how we got here, merely conjecture.  Much of what happens to this country relies on the integrity of its public debate and truth be told we're not well served by those who are supposed to be moderating that debate by giving us the tools to sort out the issues.  Instead the Fourth Estate seems determined to play the role of passive onlooker and or accomplice to the machinations of those acting in bad faith and the American people are often the worse for it. 

In my last post I wrote about how our system demands that the media hold public figures accountable for what they do and say and that includes so-called experts and opinion makers.  So in this “bombast for all and accountability for none” media circus where some views are more equal than others I offer the following suggestion:

2.)  If they're consistently wrong, stop taking them seriously!

I like to think of this as the Richard Perle rule so here goes:

People that have demonstrated a long history of deceit and malfeasance should not be treated as experts, nor should they be given a platform to influence public debate.  Moreover, as a rule,if these people are allowed to contribute to our national debate, they should always be challenged to backup everything they say and do.  Everything!

Truth be told, the people we rely on to hold forth usually have a long track record of positions and statements that even a little research would easily discredit.  So somebody dust off that long lost tool know as “the follow-up question” and use it aggressively.  Think of it not as “trust but verify,” but “verify then trust.”

Hint:  How long do you think the sad red-baiting of the 1950's would have gone on if somebody had actually cornered Joseph McCarthy on the day he announced the list of Communists working at the State Department and then demanded that he produce real evidence and not merely wild accusations?

Okay, that's a veryspeculative question but you can see what I'm getting at. Now how about this?

Hint:  Would you believe me if I told you that there was a group of national security policy experts writing reports in the late 1970's saying that the Soviet Union was not only militarily superior to the U.S., but that its bankrupt command economy would soon surpass the United States in GDP growth?  Now, would you be surprised if I told you many of those same experts were most recently in charge of planning and promoting the Iraq war?

Sadly, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Ledeen, Feith and the rest of the gang are virtually assured subsidized positions of influence in the cozy world of conservative Washington think tanks, but I can't help wondering how much less damage they could have done if someone had long ago discredited they Pax Americana dreams and openly questioned their personal and professional integrity.  When I use the word “questioned” I'm not just talking about Tim Russert playing gotcha with quotes like, “Senator, you said this in 1991, but said the exact opposite in 2002, what gives?”  Instead it's about forcing these people to defend their actions, ideas and statements; it's about weeding out base and false assertions that poison our public debate; and, if the notorious few somehow attain positions of power, it's about being suspicious of their every move.

I know we can't always have perfect information nor are we always willing to call a spade a spade, but many time in our history a healthy skepticism and a strong push for accountability has helped us as a nation to change course when we've needed to.  Ultimately it all comes down to protecting the public good by doing all you can to ensure the integrity of our ongoing public debate called Democracy.  I realize in the fast-paced world of our 24/7 new cycle that the media probably won't be that brave, but it should be.....for our sake, if not its own.