Having failed to realize that the hapless wishy-washy caricature they painted of Senator Kerry only worked so long as you didn't put the two candidates in the same room, the Bush campaign decided to roll out a new strategy at last night's debate best described as, “Feel sorry for me.”  While the President maintained his superficial grasp of the issues, the pouting, defensive man of the first couple debates was replaced by the “down on his luck” underachiever going through a rough patch but half-heartedly optimistic his lack of stature or accomplishments isn't so bad.  Whether it was the continuous “deer in the headlights” look on Mr. Bush's face, the pleasant stilted smile, the aborted ill-timed attempts at humor or even the long rambling answer about education for a question dealing with the minimum wage, the President seemed to be making the most of this new strategy.  In fact, this new approach appears to have given the post-debate commentators some cover to once again call the debate a tie.

Some suggest that the initial phases of this plan can be seen in the first debate when the President used the words “ It's hard work,” more than a dozen times within the first half hour.  Furthermore, campaign research suggests that the Mr.Bush's past likeability coupled with his bad judgement and lack of control over events is creating an opening to run with this new strategy and really make the final weeks of this campaign interesting.  Anecdotal evidence from NPR interviews in Missouri during April 2004 further cemented the shift to this new strategy.  Half of the respondents interviewed were angry that the President neglected to actually answer any questions at his last nationally televised press conference, however, the other half of the respondents said they felt sorry for the President but understood it's a hard job and he's doing the best he can, similar to what one might say when sticking up for your friend's retarded cousin. 

To be sure, the President will continue to strongly hammer Senator Kerry with references to Ted Kennedy and liberal,liberal, liberal, but if he can hold onto his base and expand on this potentially emergent “ I feel sorry for your retarded cousin” voter, then the President may be in a good position to come out on top in this very close race.  After all, the American people love an underdog, even one with as poor a record as the President.

Back to the newsroom...

One of the supposed important factors in the Presidential Campaign of 2000 was “Clinton fatigue“.  According to this dubious theory, voters were tired of the “years of scandal surrounding Clinton” and were anxious for a change. 

Clinton's poll numbers after his presidency showed “Clinton fatigue” to be a myth.  He is now rated one of the best Presidents ever by the public. 

But something curious has happened with the pundits this year.  Not a single one has thought to mention that the abrasive attack-all-comers style of George W. Bush has created far more controversy and public anger than Clinton ever did. 

Yet, more than anything, it is Bush fatigue which is gripping the nation and driving voters away from the President.  Not to take anything away from Kerry, who has shown that he is the one man of Presidential quality left on the stage, but the public is rapidly tiring of the man from Crawford and his aggressive and conflict-based style.  In a Zogby poll from yesterday, only 11% of undecided voters thought Bush should get a second term.

The voters are looking for someone who is going to rule more on consensus than conflict.  Kerry, who has rationally laid out his case against Bush and not engaged in the histrionics that the President seems to love, is that man.  More and more, the public wants relief from division and rationality in place of emotion.  Kerry is delivering just that and that is why he appears to be on his way to the Presidency.

While watching the debate last Friday, I was suddenly reminded of a political science class I took as a junior in college.  During one particular class session we were discussing the legitimacy crises of the totalitarian governments of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and as an illustration my professor told us an odd but amusing story about former East German leader, Erich Honeker. 

Honeker, he said, was an avid hunter, but it was also well known that the man's eyesight was so poor that he was practically blind.  To make sure he could periodically go hunting, he was always taken to a game reserve near his country residence that was so ridiculously overstocked with deer and other animals that wherever Honeker fired his rifle it was almost certain that he would hit something.

I was reminded of this story because George W. Bush, when speaking about his policies and their consequences, also seems to be living in a some sort of convenient parallel universe that would also be amusing if the consequences of it all weren't so tragic.  As the debate proceeded it became clearer that this man occupies a world of his own making; a world where his bluster and perceived moral rectitude always overcome inconvenient facts or truths and the entire artifice is rigorously abetted by a legion of sycophants.

It's a world where where history begins in 2001 and all troubles are caused by “a pre-September 11th mindset.“  Furthermore, the best policy is not to have more friends or even a plan, merely the sheer will to use the greatest military machine ever conceived in the most indiscriminate manner possible. 

It's a world in which soldiers go into battle without proper equipment because the generals didn't ask for it and his opponent was one of a handful of Senators who voted against an $87 billion supplemental bill several months after the war supposedly ended.

It's a world where other nations couldn't possibly see that things have gone badly in Iraq if his opponent hadn't brought it to their attention.

It's a world where if the visiting interim Iraqi Finance minister says things are looking up in Iraq, then that's all the president needs to know. 

It's a world in which the shortest recession in US history, the one that ended three years ago, is still the principle reason the budget deficit continues to grow ever larger. 

It's a world where sacrifice is for suckers and rich people are so skilled at tax evasion its better that we indulge them because future generations neither give the president money nor will they show up at the polls on November 2.

It's a world where lackluster job growth over the last nine months obviously makes up for the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE OPTIMISTIC ECONOMIC FORECAST OR PREDICTION MADE BY THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS EVER, EVER COME TRUE!

It's a world where the president see himself as an icon, a brand name, a man among men; he doesn't have to admit mistakes, answer any questions, put forth a workable policy or even tell the truth because it's never his problem.... it's his opponent's problem to solve. 

I don't know about you, but I was constantly struck by how small and petty Bush was, how he insulted my intelligence and talked down to me when he wasn't pleading for a sympathetic reading of the utter mess he's created.  In fact it's as if he's running like he never actually was the President for the last four years.  He wasn't even talking to the audience, he was shouting to the people who already agree with him much in the way he used an opportunity to speak at the UN to give a campaign speech. 

As we head into the last debate, just remember that the point of Professor Friedman's story was that the facade created to support the regime was so obviously corrupt and ridiculously transparent to even the most apathetic citizen that the extreme efforts taken to maintain it only intensified the regimes inherent internal contradictions and illegitimacy.  This is where we find ourselves today, and although there are plenty of genuinely good people ready to buy into the facade, domestic and world events are fast causing it to fall apart. 

Four years ago I told a friend that unlike his past history of mismanagement, if Bush screws up the country, there was literally no one powerful enough to come along and bail him out.  In retrospect the choice couldn't be more clear, nor the power to make change more firmly in the hands of the American people if they choose to take it.  In my mind, nothing could be more right and just than to send this small, shallow man back to his ranch in Texas....the one he bought when his handlers were developing his “cowboy-everyman” image during the 2000 presidential race. 

The Iron Mouth has consistently held that the polls are undersampling those who normally do not vote, but who are going to turn out in huge numbers to crush Bush.

Take the example of Mike, an Iron Mouth relative in the suddenly-in-play state of Colorado.  Mike is 36 years old and has only voted twice, both times for the Democratic Party.  Mike is currently the most mobilized anti-Bush voter we know.  He spends significant amounts of time phone banking for Kerry during the week, including a three-hour stretch on Friday.  Saturday he was out doing door-knocking for the Senator.

But anectdotal evidence is not enough.  Today's Washington Post discusses the rising sense amongst analysts that the polls are not are not telling the full story.  Indeed, the Post's story indicates that Bush gets five extra points in the survey when the likely voter screen eliminates persons who are currently registered but did not vote in past elections.  Enter Mike.

Perceptions are going to play a large role in these last weeks.  As long as Kerry seems in the game it is likely these voters will turn out in droves.  A significant number may turn out regardless of what the polls say.  They key for us, then, is to keep the message in circulation regardless of the polls.  See you November 2, Mike.

Update, Thursday 11:15 AM:  According to factcheck.org, Mike is 35 years old. 

At first it didn't seem to make sense.  Pawn reactionary TV corporation Sinclair Broadcasting Corporation orders its 62 stations to air an anti-Kerry movie “Stolen Honor” a few days before the election, despite the fact that the whole “Swift Boat” meme has apparently breathed its last breath.

But then again, Rove always telegraphs his moves.

But out comes the Knight--a story in today's New York Sun calling into question Kerry's discharge from the Navy.  By misconstruing the statues involving discharges and casting aspersions on Kerry's medal reissue, Rove is attempting to make it seem like Kerry got less than an honorable discharge.  But why?

Because Rove is trying to push attention on to Kerry's post-Vietnam record.  They are going after his protest past as a last result.  Expect a series of stories on Fox, in the right-wing press, on their blogs, everywhere, involving John Kerry and Hanoi Jane.  Just don't believe them.

Harmonica: The reward for this man is 5000 dollars, is that right?
Cheyenne: Judas was content for 4970 dollars less.
Harmonica: There were no dollars in them days.
Cheyenne: But sons of bitches... yeah.

We learn today from Las Vegas, that a so-called private voter registration firm has been destroying hundreds if not thousands of Democratic voter registrations.  In South Dakota six of them there Republicans resigned due to voter fraud.  What should be done?

String 'em up, of course.

Update, Wed 10:20:  One of the gang even admits it.

The Iron Mouth tips its brim to: Atrios and Daily Kos.

Please welcome guest poster JF, a concerned Catholic

I just finished reading an article in the New York Times about the fact that some Catholic Bishops are banding together against Kerry and saying that any Catholic who adheres to Catholic teachings should vote for Bush and against Kerry.

My first reaction is, what ever happened to separation of church and state? I'm amazed, as a Catholic, that the church feels the need to step in and demand that the followers of the faith follow a certain candidate. 

My second reaction, however, is that many people who are pro-life will probably buy into this absurdity.  It's absurd because if someone really looked into how much influence a president has on something like abortion, they will find that a president's ability to change the abortion issue relies primarily on his or her ability to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.   Some might say that he can do what Bush has done and "ban 'partial-birth' abortions." The reality of that is, however, that many courts are overturning that ban based on the fact that it is unconstitutional.  The Court, then, is the primary way to overturn Roe v. Wade and other cases.

However, the President's ability to appoint a Supreme Court Justice is reliant on a Justice either retiring or dying.  As Stevens is the oldest Justice, and the one most likely to step down next, the focus should be on him. My bet, however, is that unless a liberal president is elected, Justice Stevens will wait four years to retire.

But, if for argument's sake, if we pretend that the President will appoint the next Justice, we then have to believe that the Court will also get a case on abortion, which may or may not happen. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that the court would fully criminalize abortion. Therefore, someone would elect a president based solely on his or her ability to appoint a Supreme Court Justice who might get an abortion case, and who will then vote (with the other Justices) to limit abortions in some fashion. That is pretty tenuous if you ask me.

If, however, a person wished to look at the reasons why people get abortions, and then try to stop abortions through prevention, the clear choice for President would be Kerry. I would argue that many abortions occur because women and families lack support, there is a lack of education about birth control options, and there is a lot of domestic violence, mental illness (I work with people with mental illness. This is not to disrespect anyone with mental illness. There have been studies, however, that indicate that people who get multiple abortions often have a mental illness) and other issues which contribute to people feeling like they have no options other than to get an abortion. To then examine what the candidate's position on these issues, clearly Kerry is closer to giving women/families more options. Kerry supports programs like Head Start, WIC, TANF, food stamps, Section 8 (housing) and other programs which directly assist women and families. Under Bush, programs such as Section 8, WIC and others have had their funding substantially cut. There are two million more people who are homeless (than when Clinton was president), 1/2 of which are children. No Child Left Behind is terribly underfunded. He sponsors giving "incentives" for poor people who are married, which sounds like a nice idea, but encourages people to stay in domestic violence situations. He continues to cut funding to programs supporting the poor, and those with disabilities, including mental illness. He also suggests that we teach abstinence, which bellies the idea that teens continue to have sexual intercourse at increasingly young ages. When one looks at the totality of each candidates views, Kerry is far superior in supporting programs which will actually support women and families rather than the possibility of appointing a Supreme Court Justice who might limit abortions in some fashion. The outcomes are counter-intuitive.

I will vote for John Kerry on November 2nd. Even as someone who considers herself in theory, pro-life; I cannot vote for a candidate based on his ability to possibly appoint a Supreme Court Justice who might possibly limit abortions, when that candidate will also cut funding to all the programs which will support families. One-issue voting is misinformed. It's time to get informed about the issues and the stances that each candidate faces. Plus, how come the church can ignore such glaring disparities when it comes to other social issues such as supporting the poor, going to war, etc. etc.? How come the church possibly sides with someone because of one issue, when other issue that the candidate takes are so contradictory to Catholic social teachings? I would have to say that, not the first time in the history of the church, the church's stance is for all intents and purposes, wrong. Issues are not black and white. Anyone who suggests that they are has not fully thought through an issue.

For some time now, Andrew Sullivan has clearly seen that this Administration has been incompetent on Iraq.  He calls Bush on as many of the uncountable errors in the invasion as he can.  Yet Sullivan still gets the big picture wrong.  He still shares a key aspect of the neo-con creed: the idea that there is a “transformative effect of regime change and democratization in the Arab world.”  It is this idea, more than any other, that has led to our current disaster in Mesopotamia.

To this point, there has been much ink spilled on Administration “incompetence,” and very little written about the reasons for it.  But it is the belief in an Iraqi democracy as a beacon which will transform the states around it into pro-western democracies which is at the root of the string of errors in Iraq.

To understand the roots of the failure, one must look back to the early 1990's, when it was axiomatic that democracy was a political philosophy on the march, a rising tide that would transform the world for the better.  It was widely assumed that democracy would be easily built in states which used to be authoritarian in nature.  Social conditions which gave rise to authoritarianism were ignored.  Similarly, the strong middle classes with firm investments in the stability of government in the West were seen as not playing a critical role in the creation of democracy in these new states.

Nowhere was this more evident than in the assistance the West planned for the former U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe.  Cadres of Wall Street types argued that Russia should use a form of “shock therapy” in which capitalism in its rawest form was to be introduced, creating a rapid economic change which would support democracy.

It didn't turn out to be that way.  The mass dislocations caused by the rapid change-over to capitalism left millions jobless and ready to follow the next strong leader who promised stability and a return to the old days.  Citizens expecting capitalism to bring streets paved with gold overnight were rapidly disillusioned, while the lifting of some of the stringent controls of authoritarianism created a vacuum filled by lawless gangs.

Unsurprisingly, it was only in areas where capitalism and bourgeois democracy had roots that democracy seemed to take hold.  The Czech Republic and Poland have done relatively well, and Russia, Belorussia and the Central Asian Republics have struggled.

These lessons were ignored by the thinkers at the Project For A New American Century and their followers.  From the beginning, the neo-cons sought to have Saddam Hussein removed from power.  Generally the basis for the regime change was the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.  But as the prospect of finding these weapons began to fade, neo-cons often brought out another idea--the idea that democracy created in Iraq would then spread democracy to other Islamic states in the region. 

Of course, these same pundits ignored the lessons of the 1990s when examining the chances of such a democracy being set up in the barren lands between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.  Despite the fact that no western-style middle class existed in Iraq, the neo-cons insisted it could be done.  How wrong they were.

As we now know, there was no struggling middle class yearning to be freed that could set up a democracy.  Instead, tribal and religious affiliations ran deep, deeper than even Saddam's brutal regime.  Not surprisingly, a mass movement towards democracy never occured in the wake of the U.S. invasion.  Instead, Iraqis seeking stabililty in chaos have either gone to ground or allied themselves with radicals such as al-Sadr and his thugs.

This belief was embedded into U.S. operational planning.  The error in assuming that democratization would be the key task of U.S. troops was found in more than in the motivation for invasion itself--it was a basic error whose pervasiveness endangered the whole plan and made it ripe for failure.  Belief that Iraqis would greet us as liberators led to an undermanning of the entire plan.  During an argument over deBaathification and the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, CPA head Paul Bremer told General Jay Garner “The president told me that de-Baathification comes before the immediate needs of the Iraqi people.”

Indeed they did.  As one looks back at the last three years of this mess, it is sometimes hard to believe that rational human beings are responsible.  Democracy is a long way off in Iraq, and the cause of democracy in the region has been set back, not advanced.  The sympathy that millions in the region demonstrated towards the United States immediately after September 11 has been lost.

Despite this obvious failure, Andrew Sullivan still gets Iraq wrong.  The entire idea of establishing a democracy ready-made in post-Saddam Iraq was a key assumption in the Administration's plan to invade Iraq.  It was that assumption that led to the low troop levels and the disastrous plan to disband the Iraqi Army.  And it is that assumption that keeps the Administration from sending more troops to Iraq.  Its time for Andrew Sullivan to get it right.

According to a new piece “President's Record of Achievement” appearing on the White House Website, “President George W. Bush’s first term has been among the most consequential and successful in modern times.”

The Board of Editors welcomes old friend GH to its editorial board.  Expect his wide-ranging intellect to comment on politics, law, theater and anything else. 

Earlier this week, I was struck by an aside in one of Josh Marshall's posts.  On Friday, he ended a post about Paul Bremer's sad op-ed in the NY Times with a cryptic reference and a link.  The close was succinct: Viva La Boosh, Viva La Muerte!  Long Live Bush! Long Live Death!

Marshall was making reference to a famous incident in the Spanish Civil War, when one of the supporters of General Franco's coup, the philosopher Miguel de Unamuno, learned that the Franco forces were bent on destroying more than the Spanish Republic, but were planning to destroy much that he held dear as well.  As General Millian Astray praised the Spanish Foreign Legion's role in the Franco uprising, the soldiers at the back of the hall shouted out the Legion's motto: Viva La Muerte!  When de Unamuno told the General his forces would need to persuade more than conquer, the General screamed  Muera La Intelligencia!, Death to Intelligence!

Josh's reference was no accident.  Right now, as we speak, the President of the United States is trying to make sure that the people of our nation vote based on everything but rational decision making.  Kerry's record is daily distorted all out of proportion--procedural votes against tax cuts are now votes to raise taxes, and quotes from the Senator's first campaign for public office, more than thirty years ago are breathlessly characterized as being his current views.

Looking at this parade of lies coming daily from the White House, one cannot but wonder: What will be the effect of a Bush victory in November?  If a candidate can simply lie his way to the highest office in the land, why cannot any candidate do so in any election?  If the press just lies down and conflates minor errors or distortions made by the Kerry camp with the jaw-dropping assertion of the Vice President that he had never connected Saddam and 9/11, then what is the future of the American Republic going to look like?

Not good, certainly.  If any fool can use the Big Lie technique of propaganda and win, what is to stop every candidate in the future from using it?  The consequences for the Republic are staggering, almost too much to comprehend.  That for which our forefathers worked will be worth little.  Muera La Intelligencia! 

Sometime in the last twenty-four hours, the race for the Presidency of the United States changed.  Before yesterday, this race was all about George W. Bush.  Unprecedented numbers of people, some never before politically involved, found themselves wrapped up in a huge, expanding effort to ensure that Bush does not win this election.  Bush partisans were dedicated to making sure he stayed at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. through 2008. 

But the anybody-but-Bush crowd has started to lose out to another faction, the Kerry faction.  Suddenly this race is all about John Kerry.  And its Bush's fault.

Bush has spent millions questioning the good character of the Senator from Massachusetts.  But this over the top vilification effort has backfired.  Every time both have stood on the stage together, Kerry's presidential bearing, composure and ability to address the needs of the common voter have compared unfavorably with both the exaggerated caricature of Kerry that Bush has been selling for months, and, more importantly, with Bush himself.

About a month ago, a friend high up in the Obama campaign predicted a Bush win, “because we can't win by capturing the 40% of the electorate that hates Bush.”  I disagreed with that statement at the time, but now I am starting to think that not only was my friend right, but that Bush's greatest mistake has been to place all of the emphasis on Kerry and his character.  Every time the two have stood on the stage together, Kerry has come out showing more character, more poise and more knowledge.  In short, Bush has encouraged the electorate to compare the two men and then come up short when his lies were belied by everything Kerry has done when the two are on stage.

Kerry is the Payback Kid.  Bush has run and led by tempting fate again and again, by pushing the envelope as far as it will go, trying to substitute boldness of action for character, analysis and leadership.  His campaign of straight-faced lying about Kerry is no exception. The defining characteristic of this election season is Kerry making Bush pay for that boldness--by forcefully showing the American people the costs of Bush's recklessness in such a way so as physically shake Bush's resolve in front of TV cameras.

And the future will offer Kerry many more opportunities to do the same.  If there is one defining characteristic about Bush, it is his propensity to deliver more of the same again and again and again.  Here's hoping he continues the trend.

Expect many lies to spill from the maw of George W. Bush.

Deceivers may be deceived:
They play a game that ends
In grief, and not in pleasure.

Sophocles, Oedipus At Colonus, ii

The last eight days have unfolded like the next-to-last act of a Greek tragedy for the President.  Payback is a bitch, baby.  Its an amazing feeling to watch everyone around you start to wake up to the terrible and obvious truth that you have been living with for thirty-three months.  We've dreamed of these days for so long that we thought they would never come.

Yet come they did, and with a poignancy and sharpness that no Greek tragedy could possibly hope to imitate.  The President, riding a lie for two and a half years, has been boxed in by its sudden evaporation.

What is even more amazing is the decisive nature of the comeuppance the President now faces.  We have all dreamed of the McCarthy moment, where the wrongdoer must face directly his errors, but never dreamed it could happen in a way so obvious to all that it cannot be doubted.  But the timing and effect of the downfall is stunning, even for those who hoped for it. The irony is reaching delicious new heights.  Bush, for months running a negative campaign against Kerry's consistency while emphasizing his own, is now forced to perform the ultimate flip-flop: to assert that while his earlier justification for launching an unprovoked invasion of another country was wrong, new information, not known until this week, still makes his decision the right one.  Nobody's buying it. 

Yet dangers remain for Kerry.  This debate is an unknown.  I suspect it will be the most interesting presidential debate in American history.  Bush may be able to convince the voters that because French politicians were allegedly on Saddam's payroll, no amount of alliance building could have gotten them on board.  Kerry better have Chriac's admission that he was about to give Bush 15,000 French troops for the invasion on the tip of his tounge. 

Kerry also has to deal with rising expectations as his debate performance and new status as frontrunner-apparent might trip him up.  Voters may expect an even greater performance from him this time and be disappointed no matter what he does.

But Bush is alone.  His conflation of bull-headedness with strength led him into the very trap he set for Kerry.  And, under the hot glare of TV lamps in St. Louis, no one will be on the stage to help.   

Bush Defends Iraq Invasion Despite Report

Oil Sets New $53 High Supply Concerns

Judge Holds NYT Writer In Contempt

I always think that if I went back in time four years, nobody would believe what happened to America.  And then something else happens that is even more unbelievable.

Things have been going from bad to worse over on the other side of the Potomac.  The Bush Cheney '04 camp in Arlington seems to be suffering setbacks by the hour.  Indeed, even its best efforts, such as last night's debate, seem to slip away in the light of the next day.  The campaign seems to be drifting and running out of ideas.  The hot light of media and blog attention is rapidly dismembering its 'lie early, lie often' strategy.  As the Kerry Edwards camp continues to build up a head of steam, there seems little Bush can do right.

Take the message on Iraq.  Bush arch-satrap Donald Rumsfeld slipped Monday and deeply undercut the al Qaeda-Saddam rationale by admitting that he had not “seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.” Even more stunning was the admission of Jerry Bremer, former CPA chief in Baghdad, that “the one thing that would have improved the situation - would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout."   Reporters quickly uncovered that Bremer had asked multiple times for more troops--requests that were denied by the White House.

Seemingly moments after these admissions had been fed into the news cycle, key Bush assertions about the rationale for the Iraq war were debunked by releases of phone book-sized government reports.  First, a comprehensive CIA report indicated that contrary to Administration claims, Iraq had voluntarily destroyed all of its weapons of mass destruction almost immediately after the 1991 Gulf War in an attempt to comply with U.N. sanctions.  Another CIA report stated that Bush's claims that Saddam Hussein had sheltered number-one-with-a-bullet Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could not be backed up with any conclusive evidence.  

It got worse.  Reports over the weekend also showed that the Administration was fully aware that the vaunted aluminum tubes which figured so prominently in Powell's U.N. presentation were not for nuclear enrichment purposes.

The press of events also seemed to be raining beat-downs on the Bush Administration.  As if on cue, the Iranian government admitted that it had been processing yellowcake into Uranium Hexafluoride, the first step toward enrichment into nuclear fuel which could be used in the construction of nuclear weapons.

All attempts by the previously high-flying Bush team to get their “pitch to zero” seemed to be similarly doomed.  At first take, the collective judgment had been that Vice President Dick Cheney had at least debated Sen. John Edwards to a draw, if not better.  But by morning, Cheney's claim that Edwards was so absent from the Senate that he had never met him while presiding over the senior chamber was dismantled by legions of bloggers armed with photos of him and Edwards together. 

Cheney's attempts to bolster his lies with reference to a fact checking website led to another blunder.  The Administration's resident Sith Lord erroneously directed viewers to a parked domain name by mixing up the .com and .org in the name.  Staffers at the hosting company noticed the spike in visitors and promptly directed the traffic to George Soros' new website, which screamed “President Bush Is Endangering Our Safety, Hurting Our Vital Interests and Undermining American Values.”  By evening, Newsweek's lead story was “Rewriting History: Cheney's Assertions in Debate Open to Question.”  Running right next to it at the top of the MSNBC website?  NO IRAQI WMD. Damn.

The twin parades of bad news and blunders collided with a third: The Polls.  Rasmussen's daily Prez Track poll showed Kerry pulling even with the President for the first time in weeks.  The Washington Post tracking poll had Kerry surging to within two points of Bush.  Coming on top of the weekend's Newsweek poll showing Kerry leading, the news could not be worse.

The Bush response?  As usual, more of the same.  Bush's “significant speech” designed to turn the tide was a barely-altered version of his stump speech.  Rove's lie, lie, lie and lie again strategy left Bush little room for maneuver.

Breathing room?  You know there is none.  Bush, coming off the disastrous Thursday Night Massacre, must come back big Friday night to stay in the race.  He'll need all the Klonopin in the world just to stay on the stage.

Bush's  Presidency suddenly hangs in the balance.  To echo the famous Six Million Dollar Man intro, he truly is a “man barely alive.”  Can Rove rebuild him?  Signs point to no.

Editors Note: Today we offer our first guest post from GH:

"We knew the dictator had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long record of aggression and hatred for America.  He was listed by Republican and Democrat administrations as a state sponsor of terrorists.  There was a risk -- a real risk -- that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons, or materials, or information to terrorist networks.  In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

A close look at this section of Bush's "significant" speech today supports my hunch: Bush has made a subtle, yet significant, departure from his justification for invading Iraq.

From now on (or until Bush slides further in the polls and Rove dreams up an October surprise), Bush's "my-story-and-I'm-sticking-to-it" will be not that Saddam Hussein posed an "imminent threat" to the U.S., but rather a "potential" threat.  But not a threat in the sense that Colin Powell argued to the United Nations - that Saddam Hussein was actively developing nuclear weapons - but rather a threat in the sense that Saddam might "pass information to terrorist networks."

So now we have it: the justification for a $200 billion quagmire with over 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed, thousands more permanently disfigured, and God knows how many Iraqi deaths?  Because Saddam might let terrorists know the Bush family's fondness for pork rinds.

By softening the justification for the war, Bush can claim that he is doing everything in his power to protect America and its citizens.  No WMDs and no imminent potential for developing WMDs?  No problem.  The risk was still too great because Saddam is an EVIL DOER and therefore he had the potential to DO MORE EVIL at some mythical point in the future if we hadn't stopped him.  Shoddy intelligence?  Perhaps, but the nature of intelligence gathering is an art form, not a science - there are no certainties.  All we can do is act upon a hunch.  And even if the intelligence was wrong, we still had the MORAL AUTHORITY to go to war preemptively because Saddam is an EVIL DOER and he had the potential to DO MORE EVIL at some mythical point in the future if we hadn't stopped him.  Not enough troops?  We had a sufficient number of troops to topple the regime.  I know we had a sufficient number of troops to topple the regime because we succeeded in toppling the regime.  In fact, we toppled the regime so swiftly that we didn't have time to add more troops to secure Iraq and its borders and to provide paramilitary support for the new regime that the brave Iraqi people will have the privilege of electing in January.  But no matter, we're adding more troops now, even though we've always had a sufficient number of troops to get the job done.

Got that?

So Rob, your hunch was right, but Bush has not taken a page out of the playbook of William Jefferson Clinton.  It’s more like a page from Orwell: American leaders have the moral authority to do as they please because Americans are morally superior to everyone else.  Thus, there is no need to justify any action taken by American leaders, because any action will always be right.

Or in Orwellian prose: Four legs good, two legs bad.

Looks like I gave those guys at Bush Cheney way too much credit.  There was literally nothing new in the “significant speech.”  You'd think they would be focus grouping that “Global Test“ shtick.  It ain't playing too well with the undecideds.

Looks like they have nothing new for the American People.  Apparently it will be nothing but terror alerts and Xanax from here on out for the President's reelection campaign.  Its clear that they are going to try and get their base revved up as much as they can and toss the undecideds out the window.

Grampa Evil by a hair.

Update (Wed. 12:17 PM)

I think there was a lot for both parties to be happy about in the debate.  The spin seemed more normal this time, like a regular debate, with each side's partisans claiming victory and no clear-cut winner.  This favors the Democrats, of course, as Cheney needed something more to counteract Thursday's clear drubbing of Bush.

All and all, the debate left me cold.  Edwards missed some clear shots, but Cheney was not believable.  Edwards should have stayed on the question asked more.  His reliance on talking points was his biggest negative.  Bush proved that the electorate is so saturated by talking points that a candidate parroting them appears out of touch, because they have all been heard before. 

But Edwards was at his best when it counted--at the beginning during the Iraq questioning.  He clearly threw Cheney off his game and set the tone for a good forty-five minutes, the same forty-five minutes that the viewers were most attentive to.