Yes Sir!  From Deride and Conquer.

 http://home.earthlink.net/~houval/gopconstrm.mov

The irony of the debates was that the Bush campaign banked strongly on beating Kerry in a physical sense.  They hoped that Kerry's physical appearance would cause voters to turn against him.  Yet it was Kerry's powerful physical presence, combined with Bush's slouched defensiveness which led to a Kerry victory.

The debate rules included lights on the podiums to let viewers know when the candidate's time was up.  Bush strategists negotiated for “rules that would make it clear if Kerry was breaking the rules, like time limits imposed on the candidates' answers reinforced with timing lights visible to the debate audience and television viewers.” 

Republican handlers also negotiated to keep both candidates at their podiums in order “to take away some of Kerry's strengths, such as the former prosecutor's ability to move about.”  

Similarly, Republican flacks flooded the media zone with stories of Kerry's skin tinted strangely orange as if he had used a no-sun tanning solution. 

But the Republicans were a victim of their own propaganda.  They had mocked Kerry's supposed predilection for long statements for so long that they believed it themselves.  The Bush camp spent so much time trying to box in the other candidate, they forgot about their own.

As a result, Kerry not only skillfully used the timing lights to his advantage, closing out each timed response as the final light flashed with an excellent one-liner, but Bush several times flubbed the lights up, either asking for more time long before the timer had run out, or worse, finished his answers before the time limit was up, awkwardly nodding to moderator Jim Lehrer to indicate he was done.

Similarly, Kerry stood straight, as Reagan had twenty-four years earlier, and used his hands in an offensive way, often using a chopping motion to get points across.  In contrast, Bush several times defensively pointed to himself with both hands and slouched at the podium. 

The result was obvious.  Kerry physically dominated Bush.

We got the big bounce.  Time to pour it on.  Know an undecided?  Time for a talk.  Have a local paper?  Write a letter.  It does not matter if you are in a battleground state or not. 
Its simple math.  The more players on our team, we win.

An analysis of the new Newsweek poll numbers indicates that not only did Kerry win Thursday night's debate, his team also won the post debate spin wars.  An ABC News poll, taken right after the debate, showed that voters thought Kerry won the debate 45 percent to 36 percent.  CBS polls also showed a convincing win for Kerry, 43 percent to 28 percent. 

But Newsweek's post-debate poll showed that registered voters believed Kerry trounced the president 61 percent to 19 percent, a forty-two percent lead for the senator.  For anyone at all familiar with polling, these are big, big numbers.

Why the change?  Simple--by late Friday, the conventional wisdom in the blogs, papers and on the TV networks had concluded that the debate was a big win for Kerry, and the public opinion followed along. 

How did the Kerry team pull it off?  Kerry's new and improved media team are the masters of rapid reaction, having honed their craft in the impeachment wars of the last decade.  The results were on full display on Friday, with the Democratic National Committee releasing a video featuring Bush's hit parade of childish looks.

Winning the post-debate spin was as important as winning the debate itself.  Gore suffered badly when he lost the critical spin game.  Voters who watched the debates felt Gore won, but those who had not thought Bush won, based on critical media interpretations of his performance.

Should Kerry continue his new-found dominance in the spin game, Bush will face a long, uphill battle to regain what he lost Friday.

The Iron Mouth is not an aggregator blog which passes on reports from others.  However, this one was too good to pass up.  In the latest Newsweek poll, Kerry has reversed his post-RNC decline and pulled ahead 47-45 in a three-way race with Nader amongst registered voters.  In a two-way race, the lead is 49-46 for Kerry/Edwards.  We just be gettin' started folks.

You know your boy got schooled when the Washington Times runs a story entitled “President to Hone Skills For Debating” on Page 1.  A little late, isn't it?

Karen Hughes, on Fox, last night, explaining why we went into Iraq.

HUGHES: September 11th, we were attacked. That's the difference.

QUESTION: Not by Iraq.

HUGHES: Terrorist who want to gain informational materials to develop weapons of mass destruction; Iraq clearly had that capability.

Apparently we were afraid Hussein would be handing out brochures.

Despite my long support for Governor Dean, John Kerry showed us why he is the Democratic nominee for President.  Howard Dean could not have done what John Kerry did last night.  Kerry was presidential.  Indeed, if I had to compare his debating style to anyone, it would be Ronald Regan. 

Only Kerry could have brought home the message that Bush has sold short the country and the troops, that Bush's military decisions, far from being on target, have been colossal blunders.  Dean, excellent speaker that he is, simply cannot bring the kind of gravitas that Americans need during times of trouble. 

The nation also found out that George W. Bush does not have that kind of gravitas either.  His fumbling of questions, defensive body language and prickliness does not inspire confidence.  It is hard to believe that this man runs our country.

George W. Bush showed he was not a leader last night in Miami.  John F. Kerry demonstrated to all that he has the poise and equanimity to lead the world's greatest nation.     

The Washington Times headline screams: Bush rips Iraq flip-flops, but below the fold it says: Political strategists declare debate a draw, especially when the “Democratic Strategist“ is some shill for the polluters, whose office at the firm is next to Marc Racicot, Chairman of Bush-Cheney 2004.

Drudge leads with: Estimated 55 Million Watch: TV Viewership For Debate Over 2000 Levels.

And all the Weekly Standard can say is “A Mixed Bag For Both”

I'm having so much fun
With the
Poisonous People
Spreading rumours and lies and stories
they made up

David Bowie, “Candidate”

Feel like the world is slanted against Kerry?  Feel like there's no way people could be buying Bush's parade of lies, yet the news is reporting them as truth?  Afraid of Bush winning? 

The fact is, people aren't believing Bush's lies, and Bush isn't winning.  No one can win a game before it starts, and gametime most definitely is November 2, 2004.  Polls test only the attitude of the voters before the election, and the polls right now are decidedly mixed.

But if this is so, why does it seem like the media is reporting the election as if Bush is winning? The answer is simple: spin.  Karl Rove wants us to feel like we will lose.  If he can, he might win the election. 

Literally, at this moment, Karl Rove has thousands of people working night and day to convince you that Bush will win.  They are manning phone banks, calling reporters to push stories, and arguing with reporters that are writing stories that might hurt them.  The Bush campaign is spending millions on getting you to believe that a Bush victory is all but inevitable. 

Our task is to beat the spin.  Think of it this way.  Bush is spending millions to convince people he's going to win, because he has a terrible record.  So every time you hear bullshit on the news asserting that Bush is winning, think to yourself--Bush can't win a game that hasn't started.  Then mentally subtract $100 from Bush's war chest.  Every time someone tells you Bush will win, convince them its not true.  Subtract $1,000 from the Bush campaign.

This is a war of perceptions.  Start fighting it.

On my bus ride into the downtown area of Washington D.C. this morning, I was shocked to see a giant unmarked blimp hovering above the city.  Turns out the Army is using its new A-170 Airship to conduct tests of a surveillance system known only as RAID until October 2.

According to our friends the Defense Department, the RAID system is a “persistent surveillance system consisting of electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) cameras mounted on towers and tethered aerostats and controlled from an operations center.”  I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I am not happy with the idea of a “persistent surveillance system” anywhere near me. 

Have any questions? I'm sure  Lt. Col. Gerard Healy, 703-614-2487, Gerard.healy@hqda.army.mil or Ms. Pamela Rogers, 256-842-0561 or 256-509-4966, pamela.rogers@us.army.mil, would be glad to answer them for you.  Let them know exactly how you feel. 

It was reported yesterday on the American Prospect website that Bush opposes extension of TRICARE military insurance to inanctive Guard and Reserve personnel.  Much of the resulting handwringing centered on the fact that the nation is asking them to risk all in Iraq and elsewhere, but can't seem to get them health insurance when they are not activated. 

But even more importantly, the failure to provide full-time insurance to Guard and Reserve personnel is yet another stupendous military error by the Bush administration.  As the country comes to rely more and more on Guard and Reserve strength to fight our battles overseas, it only makes sense to make sure our military personnel are healthy and available to do their duty if they are called to service. 

The Gallup Poll is rigged.  As detailed here, at the Leftcoaster,  Gallup has increased its weighting of Republican party ID by 3% and decreased its weighting of Democratic party ID by 2% in the last two weeks.  That means that they think that 5% of the population decided to turn Republican in the last two weeks.  Gallup would have us belive that 43% of the populace are Republicans, 31% are Democrats and 25% are Independents.  These numbers account for 99% of the electorate.  Thus only 1% of the population are members of other parties, failed to respond or indicated that they did not know their affiliation.  The figures lead to only one conclusion--Gallup is throwing all of the other categories to the President.

This makes no sense, even before you take into account the fact that during the last Presidential election, voters identified more with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.   Indeed, recent LA Times polling of the Party ID numbers suggests something completely different (scroll down page for info):

These numbers were sent by LA Times Poll Director Susan Pinkus to ABC News' The Note to counter allegations that a June LA Times poll weighted Democratic ID too heavily.  No complaints now Mr. Dowd?

The Iron Mouth only reports the facts folks.  We must fight every second of this race through Election Day, through the inevitable court battles, through it all.  Do not stop until we are the winners.

Update/Correction (9/29/04):  The problem with Gallup is not weighting per se, as Gallup does not throw out voters to meet party ID percentages, but that Gallup's likely voter formula is skewed in such a way that it overrepresents Republican Voters.

“When you have the angel and the devil on each shoulder, which do you choose?”

You first have to look very carefully, because as we know, from at least Luther on, a devil may appear as an angel as well as itself. Don't forget the only woodcut Luther had in the translation: the Antichrist, wearing a papal crown.

When a Christian says the people should kill in war or as punishment for a crime, that's the devil trying to impersonate an angel. Even when that spirit on your shoulder is a beaming Baptist.

The devil also makes the angels look bad. Remember that he is an angel, though fallen. The devil will try to convince you that the purest spirit on your other shoulder is the weak, wrong, wicked one.

You have to look very carefully. And then, always go with the angel. 

--E.K. (Comments? ekblog@yahoo.com)

Note the interesting mini-drama going on in the photo.  These soldiers were on a plane in Bangor, Maine headed to Iraq.  Although the soldier on the left seems glad to shake the President's hand, the mustachioed one on the right wants no part of this dog-and-pony show.  He won't even look Bush in the face.

 (Reuters)

Maybe this is why:

All week, the Kerry campaign hammered Bush on the Iraq issue.  They attacked Bush's straight shooter reputation by contrasting Iraq's daily hit parade of kidnappings, bombings and beheadings with Bush's “stay the course” nonsense.

Bush struck back yesterday and brought out Iyad Allawi, who thanked the U.S. from the podium in the House of Representatives and then robotically spouted Republican talking points supplied by Karl Rove in a Rose Garden press conference. 

Past Democratic practice against a Rovian assault of this magnitude would have involved a quick switch to traditional “issues“ talking points, effectively giving the set to Bush.  This time it was different. 

Amazingly, the Kerry Campaign came back with the same smash-mouth assault the next day.  Overnight the campaign had taken a terrible Bush joke about wrong track/right track polling in Iraq and turned it into a 15 second spot.  Instead of a morass of confusing statements to the press, the ad laid out Kerry's Iraq plan in nine terse words: “Allies share the burden. Train Iraqis to protect themselves.”  Vintage Clinton.  These are the moves that get people elected.

And the Kerry team did not stop there.  Edwards kept up the pressure and released a statement that started with the fateful sentence  “The administration’s credibility on Iraq collapsed today.”   

The effect was heightened by off-script babble from Administration officials.  Sec Def Rumsfeld later on Thursday qualified the January election pledge by indicating that partial elections might be held. 

All of this action signals one thing.  Kerry is staying on message and Rove is not knocking him off of it.  Unlike Gore four years ago, he isn't getting kicked off message by the counter-punch. 

We be just gettin' started folks.