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.

Bush is highlighting the endorsement of 9-year old “Presidential Expert” Noah McCullough on the front page of his website today. 

So this is the guy running Iraq policy.  Let's hope he doesn't lock up the under-10 crowd for the President.

Yesterday, we saw the President of the United States, supported by the leader of another nation appointed only by him, tell the country that progress is being made in Iraq and that everything will be all right.  Like you, we wish that were true. 

But unlike you, we cannot sit by idly and stake the future of two countries on that hope when all facts and all logic show otherwise.  The Iron Mouth asks that all those considering voting for George W. Bush heed to the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln before casting your ballot in this, the most important election in seventy years.

Are you quite sure the demon which you have roused will not turn and rend you?  What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence?  It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army.  These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land.  All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle.  Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms.  Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere.  Destroy the spirit, and you have planted the seed of despotism around your own doors. . . 

Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you have lost the genius of your own independence, and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises. 

For Real.

Juan Cole, yesterday from Informed Comment:  If America Were Iraq, What Would It Be Like?

Hey Sickos,

Some photos below of the candidates, surreptitiously obtained. But if Eddie Izzard is any indication, this may be our reality soon enough. (Question, class: Why do the incumbents look so much hotter?) Cheers, EK  (COMMENTS?: Write me at ekblog@yahoo.com)

Yesterday, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett was featured on “Ask the White House,” where regular citizens send in questions to be answered by the President's minions.  As first reported by Oliver Wills, yesterday's questions were dandies, we can tell you.  Makes you wonder what questions they didn't choose to answer.

The Iron Mouth has edited Dan's answers for clarity. Each answer actually corresponds to its proper question.  Although Dan would certainly deny it, we are sure the edited version reflects the truth of the matter.  We are certain the questions do.

Dan Bartlett:
Great to be here today. I know there are a lot of questions so let's go right to the questions.

From the Department of I Really Think I Can Get Away With Not Answering, But I Inadvertently Revealed The Truth of The Matter:

Stephen, from Colorado Springs, CO writes:
Dan, Why is it that the president or you will not declare that the documents (CYA Memos) are false and untrue? Certainly if the documents are fakes, then the information in them is false as well.

Let's hear you and Mr. Bush say they are false and untrue accusations and we can settle all this mess.

Dan Bartlett:
We don't have the technical expertise to determine if they were fake or not. Remember, these supposedly came from the personal files of man who died more than 20 years ago. Thankfully, a lot of expert bloggers and other news organizations did get to the bottom this growing scandal.

Unintended Truth:

Nathalie, from Washington, DC writes:
Will the President come clean about his missing years in the Texas, Alabama, New England Air National Guard?

Why can't he just release the missing records so we can all get on with our lives?

Dan Bartlett:
I wish it were that easy.

Straight Shooter:

John, from Royal Oak, MI writes:
Why have there only been two white house press briefings in the last two months?

Dan Bartlett:
He's been traveling a lot lately.

Can't argue with this one:

George, from Kettering, Ohio writes:
1. I would like to understand why President Bush is unwilling to acknowledge the mounting problems we facing in Iraq?

2. Does the White House realize that the rosy picture it presents to American people is unrealistically over-optimistic?

Dan Bartlett:
Insurgents are trying to literally blow up the progress we are making.

Yes, He REALLY Did Say That: 

Michael, from Miami Beach writes:
How has the administration's overall approach toward securing Iraq changed, given what appears to be a progressive increase in insurgent activity against American troops and the Iraqi government, as well as violence against American and other foreign civilians?

Dan Bartlett:
It's also important that Iraqis fight the enemy, not just Americans.

They Made Sense to Us, Too:

Danny, from Chicago writes:
Mr. Bartlett, Why did you not question the authenticity of those CBS memos when you met with John Roberts? Why did the White House subsequently release them?  

Dan Bartlett:
We released them because we believe everyone should have the opportunity to see any record related to the President's military service.

Half Truth:

Dan Bartlett:
Sorry I need to run. I enjoyed taking your questions.

One measure of how far down we have sunk in these last four years is the content of the editorial pages of our erstwhile allies in Europe.  This morning's op-ed headline in Berlin's Der Tagesspiegel said it all.  “Wahrheit nützt nichts”  insisted Berlin's top daily when analyzing Bush's speech to the UN yesterday.  Truth is Useless.  No matter how many cities fall under insurgent control, no matter how many American soldiers and Marines fall in an attempt to prop up a policy doomed to fail from the start, no matter how many Iraqis die in the useless attempt to transform the Middle East at gunpoint--the President is sticking to his story. 

According to President Bush, “Freedom is finding a way in Iraq and Afghanistan,” and “the Iraqi and Afghan people are on the path to democracy and freedom.”  For Bush, fantasy, apparently, truly is reality.

When Fahrenheit 911 came out, I took it as a piece of important propaganda which overstated the problems in Iraq in order to counter Fox's relentless lie parade.  Now I find myself sorely disappointed.  Michael Moore understated the dire situation in Iraq.  The troops over there know it.  Right-wing columnists and bloggers know it.  Republican Senators know it.  Even the CIA knows it.  But stubborn Bush either refuses to face it or is determined to convince the American people that the spiraling conflict in Iraq is on the right track, despite knowing the opposite to be true. 

For Bush, truth really is useless.  He does not have to live with it.  We do. 

I woke up this morning and started to feel it--the election was shifting into new ground--ground where Bush was going to be on the defensive about Iraq.  Ground where John Kerry was going to hit hard and where Bush would really not have an answer. 

Then it hit me.  Bush under fire?  It must be about time for another terror alert.  Lo and behold, when I arrived at work today, there it was: 

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded recently that al Qaeda . . . is moving ahead with plans for a major, "spectacular" attack

Apparently, the terrorists, much like our President, feel the need to engage in macho posturing--

They [al Qaeda] think their credibility is on the line because there hasn't been a major attack since 9/11," said one official familiar with intelligence reports on the group.

Of course,

details of the possible attack remain murky, but analysts say it is planned to be bigger and deadlier than the September 11 attacks, which killed 3,000 people.

I'll tell you something about this administration.  They really are consistent.  They run the same damn play over and over again.  No wonder our enemies can see it coming from a mile away.

For the last few months we've been hearing that Bush is a “resolute” leader because he is willing to stay the course in Iraq.  According to Mr. Bush: “all the world can be certain: America and our allies will keep our commitments to the Afghan and Iraqi people.”

However, Republican pundits are now indicating that word from the White House is that a new type of “resoluteness” is required.  According to all of Bob Novak's sources, all of the expected foreign policy team for a second Bush administration is expected “opt for a withdrawal.”   Since such a course would be sure to provoke civil war,  “[i]t would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out.” 

Such “resoluteness” has not been seen since Big Brother decided to fight with Eurasia instead of Eastasia.

Afghanistan:  The Republic of Kabul.

budget estimates:  Laughable.  The soft bigotry of low expectations for professional economists.

Bush hatred:  More intense than Clinton hatred.  Has yet to generate impeachment proceedings.

congressional oversight:  Embarrassing in an era of one party rule.  Made Harry Truman and Sam Ervin household names.

Conservative Democrats:  Dying breed.  In bygone days they used to vote with their Party most of the time.

Democrats:  Amateurs.  Not to be taken seriously due to a lack of media savvy.

diplomacy:  Sign of weakness.  Easier to avoid all manner of foreign entanglements without it.

elections:  Too important to be left to the pollsters.  Get out and vote!

follow-up question:  Disrespectful.  Rarely used with much effectiveness.  General fear among press corp as to where a good one might lead.

Gallup Poll:  Confusing.  Survived calling the 1948 election for Dewey to become the most respected polling operation in the land.

health care reform:  Expensive proposition.  No real solutions given that it's a responsibility and not a right.

investigative reporting:  Lost art.  Woodward and Bernstein would have had to give up Watergate investigation due to lack of interest shown in Washington Post/CBS polling.

Iyad Allawi:  George Washington of the New Iraq.  Only Nguyen Van Thieu had a higher percentage of popular support.

likely voters:  Mysterious unknown quantity.  Fastest growing segment of our hypothetical electorate.

loyalty:  Rewarded more often than competence and integrity in current political climate.

lying:  More useful as a governing principle than even Machiavelli could have conceived.  Currently no objective means to disprove.

Moderate Republicans:  Much talked about but perenial no-shows in any political debate.  Vote with the conservatives in their Party more often than Conservative Democrats.

negative campaigning:  Rigged game.  American voters supposedly dislike except when it's effective.

North Korea:  Strange paranoid remnant of the Cold War.  If the President isn't worried, why should you be?

nuance:  Overused.  Once referred to slight differences, now synonymous with a lack of principles.

The Pentagon:  Poorly managed.  Closest thing we have to a Soviet-style bureaucracy.

political campaigns:  Boring.  Expensive dog and pony show briefly seen on the nightly news.

Registered Republicans:  Recent polling data suggests they have miraculously defied all historical precedent and are now regularly counted as almost 40% of the entire electorate.  Up from only 33% in all previous elections. (see Gallup Poll)

Southerners:  A proud, somewhat sensitive lot.  “They have only two solutions to every problem; more guns and more Jesus.“  Be assured they know even less about where you come from. 

Texas:  Bigger than France and twice as assured of its own cultural superiority.

Vice Presidency:  Superfluous.  Used to be about as ceremonial a position as the governor of Texas.

War on Terror:  Equivalent of declaring war on Japanese torpedo bombers after Pearl Harbor.  May last longer than the war between Oceania and Eurasia.

Winston Churchill:  Vociferous defender of the British Empire and patron saint of American Conservatism.  He had troubles in Iraq, too.

younger voters:  Rarely have anyone looking out for them.

On Monday, Michael Tomasky wrote a great piece on the American Prospect website arguing that Republicans do well in presidential elections because, knowing they lose on the issues, they focus on character.  The article made a big splash, and a number of bloggers argued against it. 

Mark Schmitt of the Decembrist, however, got it right.  He argued that "It's not what you say about the issues, it's what the issues say about you."   According to Mark, the Kerry Campaign needs to “start trying to choose some issues that really emphasize whatever it is that they want to say about Kerry as a person that contrasts him to Bush.”   

Not only do I think Mark is right, I think the Kerry campaign understands this—and began to connect Kerry's character and the issues yesterday.  The “character issue” Kerry needs to emphasize is Bush's handling of Iraq.

But what is Kerry’s character?  According to the campaign myth, Sen. Kerry is a man who would never short change those he led, and a person who would never send his men in where he would’t be willing to go himself.  The key incidents of his Vietnam service echo these traits.  Kerry went back to save a comrade in the water and in a later incident turned into an ambush and jumped on shore to personally kill the VC attacking the boat.  Indeed, even the key endorsement of the International Association of Firefighters can be seen as playing into the “band of brothers” theme.  The campaign's theme song, Springsteen's “No Surrender“ is also geared to this campaign meme.

So far, Kerry’s problem on Iraq is that its really hard to argue that anyone could put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.  Most Americans realize that the Iraq situation is grave and don’t think anyone can really fix it. Yesterday, Kerry began to argue that the real issue on Iraq isn’t how to fix it, but whether President Bush has leveled with the American people and shortchanged the soldiers and Marines forced to fight this war.

[H]onoring your service with our thoughts and prayers is not enough.  Especially when right now, in so many ways, we’re shortchanging our men and women in the Guard. . .

[I]n our democracy, which you defend, it is so important to have a truthful conversation about the choices we face in our nation. . .

Right now, our troops over-stretched and over-extended and the Guard and Reserve have been called on to fill the gap. As President, I pledge to you that I will end the backdoor draft of our National Guard.   

Subtly, Kerry began to bring the character issue to the fore—and linked it directly to the issue at hand.  This was a direct attack on the President's so-called “leadership qualities,“ the only real leg Bush can claim to stand on.

The way I see it, this is a matter of values and priorities – and on these issues, President Bush and I couldn’t be more different.  I believe that America’s security begins and ends with our men and women in uniform – with every member of our armed forces who stands guard at the gates of freedom.  I will be a President who goes into the Oval Office every morning knowing that it is my job to help you do yours. . .And you deserve no less than the best.

And there’s something else we owe you and all the men and women serving right now in Iraq.  We owe you the truth. True leadership is about looking people in the eye and telling the truth – even when it’s hard to hear.  And two days ago, President Bush came before you and you received him well, as you should.  But I believe he failed the fundamental test of leadership.  He failed to tell you the truth.  You deserve better.  The Commander in Chief must level with the troops and the nation.   And as president, I will always be straight with you – on the good days, and the bad days. 

Two days ago, the President stood right where I’m standing and did not even acknowledge that more than 1,000 men and women have lost their lives in Iraq.  He did not tell you that with each passing day, we’re seeing more chaos, more violence, more indiscriminate killings.  He did not tell you that with each passing week, our enemies are getting bolder – that Pentagon officials report that entire regions of Iraq are now in the hands of terrorists and extremists.  He did not tell you that with each passing month, stability and security seem farther and farther away. 

. . .   But that is the truth – hard as it is to hear.    You deserve a president who will not play politics with national security, who will not ignore his own intelligence, while living in a fantasy world of spin, and who will give the American people the truth about the challenge our brave men and women face on the front lines. 

 . . .So when it comes to Iraq, it’s not that I would have done one thing differently than President Bush – I would have done almost everything differently.

And when you compare Bush and Kerry as people, the nexus of character with this issue presents a stark contrast.  Kerry volunteered for Viet Nam.  Bush, it is becoming more clear, avoided facing the very fate he sends American soldiers and Marines to daily.  Kerry would do well to play these themes subtly and often.  Doing so would highlight the central aspect of this race: Kerry must campaign against lies about his record, while Bush must campaign against the truth of his.

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 nat