The New Republic: John Kerry for President. Salient quotes:

The president's war on terrorism, which initially offered a striking contrast to his special interest-driven domestic agenda, has come to resemble it. The common thread is ideological certainty untroubled by empirical evidence, intellectual curiosity, or open debate. The ideology that guides this president's war on terrorism is more appealing than the corporate cronyism that guides his domestic policy. But it has been pursued with the same sectarian, thuggish, and ultimately self-defeating spirit. You cannot lead the world without listening to it. You cannot make the Middle East more democratic while making it more anti-American. You cannot make the United States more secure while using security as a partisan weapon. And you cannot demand accountable government abroad while undermining it at home.

* * * *

On domestic policy, Bush has been Newt Gingrich without the candor. . . . But, rather than explicitly opposing popular government programs, as Gingrich did, Bush has pursued a more duplicitous strategy: He is eviscerating the government's ability to pay for them. His tax cuts. . . will produce what Bush's former Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, has privately called a "fiscal crisis"--a collapse in government revenue just as the baby-boom retirement sends Medicare and Social Security costs skyrocketing. This crisis will sap America's ability to wage the war on terrorism--since government will lack the funds to adequately safeguard homeland security or expand the military. It will create enormous pressure to eviscerate the government protections that guarantee poor and middle-class Americans even the meager economic security they enjoy today. And it will be entirely by design.

* * * *

By contrast, John Kerry has a record of fiscal honesty and responsibility that continues the tradition of Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin. Unlike most Democrats, he supported the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit-reduction plan. Unlike most Republicans, he supported Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction package. And, unlike President Bush, he supports the "pay as you go" rules that, in the 1990s, helped produce a budget surplus.

* * * *

In the weeks after September 11, Bush presided over a country more united--with more faith in its government--than at any other time in recent memory. He has squandered that unity and trust for the cheapest of reasons. His administration has used the war on terrorism as a bludgeon against congressional Democrats and has implied that its critics are aiding the enemy. And it has repeatedly misled the public--touting supposed evidence of Iraq's nuclear program that American intelligence analysts knew was highly dubious, rebuking General Eric Shinseki for telling the truth about how many troops it would take to occupy Iraq successfully, and firing Lawrence Lindsey for saying how much it would cost.

The result is a country bitterly divided, distrustful of its government, and weaker as a result. The next time an American president tries to use force in the war on terrorism, he will not merely lack the world's trust, he will lack much of the American people's as well. That may be Bush's most damning legacy of all. He has failed the challenge of these momentous times. John Kerry deserves a chance to do better.

A damning indictment of the Bush presidency, and, to my way of thinking, an accurate one.

Glenn says that when he's elected president, he'll nominate Eugene Volokh for the Supreme Court. Hey, what about ME???

I mean, not to rely on influence, long association and knowing where his skeleton-filled closets are, but I do also have to room with him on our dive trips. That oughtta be worth something.

Anybody there?

From the Wall Street Journal bureau chief in Iraq comes this scathing report of conditions inside the country. Some scary quotes:

I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote. This is truly sad.

* * * *
One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a
bottle.

* * * *
I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

Interesting postscript: the bureau chief author of the above is now reported to have left Baghdad for a "long vacation."

Whether the U.S. can succeed in its stated goal to bring stability and democracy is an open question. What is quite clear by now is that the Bush Administration completely failed to comprehend [refused to believe?] that making war would cause chaos, create a clearing house for terrorism, and quite possible lead Iraq into internecine cvil war.

If things had gone well, Bush would have been able to take the credit, and probably the election in a landslide. But things did not go and are not going well, so Bush must take the responsibility.

An outfit called IceRocket has a search engine just for blogs. Check it out.

I just got an email from the Bush campaign, addressed to "Jewish Outreach." The subject was Arafat's "endorsement" of Kerry. Awfully kind of the Bushies to let me know. It does beg the question, however, of why people other than Jewish folks would not be interested in this news. The religious/ethnic stereotyping obviously employed by the Bush campaign is, frankly, reprehensible.

Interestingly, Arafat, technically, has not endorsed Kerry or anybody else:

Arafat deputy and chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told WND in an exclusive interview that while "we do not involve ourselves in internal American politics," at the same time "our region has been sliding deeper and deeper into chaos because of certain policies over the past few years, and this needs to change."

While he would not directly endorse Kerry, it was clear Erekat was implying the PA wants a change in White House leadership: "If things continue the way they are, if certain policies toward our region are maintained in the years to come, there is going to be a lot of violence on both sides."

Thus, Arafat has made no direct statement on the matter; an aide is speaking for him. Further, no direct endorsement was made.

Now, this might be splitting hairs, but the Bush trumpeting of an Arafat "endorsement" is just not accurate. Moreover, Kerry has no control over what Arafat or his people do. It would be a mistake to assume that Kerry is pro-palestinean or pro-Arafat simply because a Palstinean fellow made supporting statements about him. That does not compute.

And, while I no more support the Palestinean cause than I do terrorism [maybe the same thing?], it's no surprise that the Palestineans want regime change in the U.S., as Bush has been anathema to them.

Actually, the only good thing I can say about the Bush Administration is that its policy re: Israel has more or less recognized that the Palestineans have not acted and still do not act in good faith. Conversely, my biggest fear about a Kerry presidency is that he would re-elevate the grandaddy of terrorists and further muddle the situation in the Middle East.

Note by the way that I do not use the term "peace process," because I think that there is no peace process without both the warring parties acting in good faith. Given the Palestinean track record, I see no evidence of good faith movement toward peaceful co-existence with Israel. Ever.

JibJab has competition. Check this out for a, ahem, lighter side to this political season.

God help us all? A scathing graphical presentation accusing Katherine Harris, then Florida Secretary of State, Supervisor of Elections and head of the Bush campaign in Florida, of illegally disenfranchising at least 55,100 voters. As the presentation says, did she go to jail? Was she censured? Publicly lambasted? No. She is now a congresswoman from Florida. If the animation is accurate, it's devastating.

The Greg Palast BBC newscast upon which the presentation is based is here. And while the report is from 2001, it does beg the question: will it happen again?

Bad sign for Bush -- Dwight Eisenhower's son is a Kerry supporter. Pertinent quote:

The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
****
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.

The implication here is that prominent old line Republicans are deserting the Republican party as having moved too far to the right, too far in favor of the wealthy to the exclusion of everyone else. I agree.

On my way to pick up my car from the shop today, I asked the kid who was driving me whether he was going to vote. He said, "Yes." I said, "Well, you should vote for Kerry, unless, of course, you make over $200,000 per year. In that case, Bush is your man." Sadly, I believe that exactly to be the case.

Finally, a photo of the damage on Grand Cayman.

UPDATE: Here are more photos.

Devastating stories from Grand Cayman, including an unconfirmed report of 50 fatalities:

Angela and her friends Darina Fennel ,Nick Robinson, Darina's sister and boyfriend who are visiting,Emma and Clive and those who sheltered in Walkers Building and Caledonia house are okay, including Mr William Walker and his sons Robert and David.(The rest of the Walker family are not on the Island.)She said the navy ships are trying to get in now although they have been near all day but due to the bad conditions of the waves could not come close.Angela said that where they live just south of Georgetown just next to the water by some miracle, their apartment on the 2nd floor still is intact except for some water damage near the door and windows.and the landline phone seemed to be working ,but they feel it is not safe to live there because of the ocean conditions and they are moving back to a shelter.They have some water and some food left.They have spent the day helping others whose homes are either non existent or badly damaged and trying to help salvage some of the possessions. At this point they have not been able to make contact with other parts of the Island but they do know there are at least 50 people who have lost their lives.She said that they hope they can leave the Island as soon as The Powers That Be can help everyone to make arrangement ,as the Island is not livable given that there is no water , no electricity and the tremendous damage.

I have been trolling for news on my favorite places and people, and am struck by the can-do attitude of the victims on the scene, in terms of getting the infrastructure working again. More Cayman news at CaymanNet News.

UPDATE: Here's that fighting spirit in action:

The absolute priority of the Cayman Islands Government is to ensure the Islands get back on their feet. The Cabinet Secretary, Orrett Connor, said: "The Cayman Islands has picked itself up from hurricanes in the past. There is a tremendous team spirit here, and we are working together to rebuild and regroup. We are absolutely determined to be back in business extremely quickly."

I love these people!

The news from Grand Cayman is very, very bad.

Here's the winner for the most shameless solicitation of the month award: Lawyers for Bush. Considering his well-established record of fighting to put litigators out of business, this come-on indeed takes cojones.

Osama seems to be the least of our worries. Following is an email I just received from a distant family member. It delivers a chilling message:

This past Friday evening we attended services at Temple Bethel in Palm Beach. We went there specifically to listen to a lecture by Dr. Khaleel Mohammed. Dr. Mohammed is a professor of Islamic Studiesat the University of San Diego. He received his Ph.D. at the University of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and is an Imam schooled in the Wahabi-Sunni tradition of Islam. The title of the lecture was "Can Militant IslamCoexist with the state Of Israel?"

What we heard was blood chilling,but not at all surprising. His opening statement was, "The people of the United States worry aboutOsama. He is nothing but a tiny offshoot of the problem. The mainproblem is (and I quote) "EVERY SINGLE MOSQUE IN THE USA ESPOUSES FROMTHE PULPIT THAT EVERY SINGLE JEW (not just Israel) IN THE WORLD MUST BEANNIHILATED. No ifs ands or buts!! And these mosques don't even consider themselves militant.Trading land for peace. A big joke!

The Koran states (as he quoted) that any treaty between a Muslim and a non-Muslim nation is not binding and is meant to be broken once the Muslim nation becomes stronger than the non-Muslim nation with whom the treaty was made. So all the treaties with Israel to be made in the future will eventually (and must) be broken once the Muslim nation feels it is strong enough. It took 200 years for the Crusaders to be vanquished and driven from the Holy Land. Israel is a mere 50 yrs old. Islam has patience. Dr. M. has received numerous death threats and is constantly booed and driven off the pulpit in the many mosques that he lectures in because he espouses peaceful co-existence with Israel. The frightening aspect of this is that there a huge 5th column right here in the USA.

I can't vouch for the reliability of this report, but at the same time, I have no reason to disbelieve it. And except for the Israel-Egypt peace, it is consistent with Arab/Islamic practices in the region since 1948.

Osama seems to be the least of our worries. Following is an email I just received from a distant family member. It delivers a chilling message:

This past Friday evening we attended services at Temple Bethel in Palm Beach. We went there specifically to listen to a lecture by Dr. Khaleel Mohammed. Dr. Mohammed is a professor of Islamic Studiesat the University of San Diego. He received his Ph.D. at the University of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and is an Imam schooled in the Wahabi-Sunni tradition of Islam. The title of the lecture was "Can Militant IslamCoexist with the state Of Israel?"

What we heard was blood chilling,but not at all surprising. His opening statement was, "The people of the United States worry aboutOsama. He is nothing but a tiny offshoot of the problem. The mainproblem is (and I quote) "EVERY SINGLE MOSQUE IN THE USA ESPOUSES FROMTHE PULPIT THAT EVERY SINGLE JEW (not just Israel) IN THE WORLD MUST BEANNIHILATED. No ifs ands or buts!! And these mosques don't even consider themselves militant.Trading land for peace. A big joke!

The Koran states (as he quoted) that any treaty between a Muslim and a non-Muslim nation is not binding and is meant to be broken once the Muslim nation becomes stronger than the non-Muslim nation with whom the treaty was made. So all the treaties with Israel to be made in the future will eventually (and must) be broken once the Muslim nation feels it is strong enough. It took 200 years for the Crusaders to be vanquished and driven from the Holy Land. Israel is a mere 50 yrs old. Islam has patience. Dr. M. has received numerous death threats and is constantly booed and driven off the pulpit in the many mosques that he lectures in because he espouses peaceful co-existence with Israel. The frightening aspect of this is that there a huge 5th column righthere in the USA.

I can't vouch for the reliability of this report, but at the same time, I have no reason to disbelieve it. And except for the Israel-Egypt peace, it is consistent with Arab/Islamic practices in the region since 1948.

Dumbest. Election. Ever. A pertinent excerpt:

Issues we are not hearing about because we have spent so much time talking about television advertisements:

Millions of jobs lost in the last four years;

Unbearably expensive health care;

A total loss of confidence within the international community in our moral leadership;

The underfunded farce that is the Department of Homeland Security;

The underfunded farce that is the No Child Left Behind bill;

The fact that military assault weapons will soon be making a perfectly legal return to a neighborhood near you;

The deeply illegal outing of a deep-cover CIA agent by Bush administration officials, who did it because they wanted to silence a critic;

The rape and torture of men, women and children in the Abu Ghraib prison, horrors that were sanctioned in writing by Bush's own lawyer and the Secretary of Defense;

The allegation by Senator Bob Graham of Florida that Bush torpedoed any aspect of the 9/11 investigation that came within spitting distance of his friends in the Saudi royal family;

The allegations by several generals that Bush's people started stripping necessary troops and resources from Afghanistan to bolster their ill-conceived charge into Iraq;

The myriad accusations by a dozen insiders that Bush and his people ignored the terror threat until the Towers fell, and then used the attacks to scare the American people into an unnecessary war in Iraq and a mammoth payday for their friends in the weapons and oil business;

The fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq;

The fact that no connections between Hussein, bin Laden and 9/11 have been established beyond the bloviating hyperbole of a few senior Bush officials who haven't yet gotten the memo;

Does anyone even remember Enron?

This supports what I have been saying, that what happened 35 years ago to the two candidates is insignificant compared to what people are having to deal with today.

Grand Cayman got hit HARD by Ivan the Terrible. Here's a sobering report. Here's another one. Reports are that a tidal surge possible flooded the entire island.

This latest business about Bush and the National Guard is a waste of time, in my opinion. My guess is that everybody pretty much knows that Bush used influence and his family's political power to get into the Texas Air National Guard, and to get special dispensation while serving. Again, no one cares what this guy did 32 yeards ago. It's got a 2-3 day news arc, at best. If the Kerry people are pushing this story on the media, it's a mistake. If it's the media, then you can't stop them anyway.

Interestingly, I have somehow gotten on the email list for the "Bush-Cheney '04 Grassroots Team." Here's their response to the story:

In response to President Bush's Agenda for America's Future and a critique of his policies and Senate record, Senator Kerry's campaign is implementing a strategy of vicious personal attacks against the President and Vice President.

The campaign is bringing in a bevy of former Clinton henchmen, including CNN commentators James Carville and Paul Begala. In August alone, Begala called President Bush a "gutless wonder," said he has a "lack of intelligence," and called Vice President Cheney a "dirt bag." Carville said the President is "ignorant big time" and said "George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are a couple of nobodies."

It's not like Bob Shrum needed encouragement to engage in personal attacks. At a Kerry rally Friday morning in Ohio, campaign surrogate John Glenn compared the Republican Convention to a Nazi rally, and Kerry called the President unfit to lead our nation and once again sought to divide the country by who served and how 35 years ago.

Of course, the President was called a "cheap thug," a "killer" and a "liar" at a Kerry-Edwards campaign event in New York, Mrs. Kerry has called the President's policies "unpatriotic" and "immoral" and DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe falsely accused the President of being AWOL.

Democratic strategist Susan Estrich outlined the strategy last Wednesday in a column warning Republicans to "watch out." "I'm not promising pretty," she wrote before going on to call President Bush and Vice President Cheney alcoholics, then ask "is any alcoholic ever really cured?" ("I can see the ad now.") She deems the President's service as a National Guard fighter pilot "draft dodging," and says, "a forthcoming book by Kitty Kelly raises questions about whether the President has practiced what he preaches on the issue of abortion." (Interestingly, the New York Daily News reported back in February that the Kerry campaign intended to spread such a rumor in pro-life chat rooms late in the campaign.)

So the former Dukakis campaign manager has an advance copy of Democrat donor Kitty Kelly's book, which promises to throw unsubstantiated gossip at President Bush in the same way she falsely maligned the late President Reagan as a date rapist who paid for a girlfriend's abortion and wrongly castigated Nancy Reagan as an adulterer who had an affair with Frank Sinatra. A recent story says Kelly's book alleges President Bush used cocaine at Camp David while his father was President, which is as credible as her story that then Governor and Nancy Reagan smoked marijuana with Jack Benny and George and Gracie Burns.

And tonight on CBS, longtime Democratic operative Ben Barnes-a friend of, major contributor to and Nantucket neighbor of Senator Kerry's and vice chair of the Kerry Campaign--will repudiate his statement under oath that he had no contact with the Bush family concerning the President's National Guard service. (Anyone surprised that Barnes would contradict a statement he made under oath probably doesn't know his long history of political scandal and financial misdealings.)

So brace yourselves. Any mention of John Kerry's votes for higher taxes and against vital weapons programs will be met with the worst kind of personal attacks. Such desperation is unbecoming of American Presidential politics, and Senator Kerry will pay a price for it at the polls as we stay focused on policies to continue growing our economy and winning the War on Terror.

Anybody notice how the Repubs decry the so-called personal attacks, and in the same literary breath, they do the same thing! (see "bevy of Clinton henchmen"] What's happening is that they are muddying the water so throroughly that no one knows what to believe, and in the absence of strong evidence one way or the other, the tendency is to retain the status quo. This tactic, by the way, is commonly practiced by defense lawyers; make it so confusing that the jury has no idea whether the plaintiff's case has merit. In the absence of clear evidence, the jury is inclined to leave things the way they are and not deliver a verdict for the plaintiff.

Kerry is the plaintiff here, and he is losing his case.

UPDATE: The New Republic, in commenting on this story, slams Ed Gillespie for the above "panicky" memo that he wrote, saying, "Ed Gillespie, chairman of the RNC, circulated a panicky memo to supporters on Wednesday claiming that Barnes "will repudiate his statement under oath that he had no contact with the Bush family concerning the President's National Guard service." Gillespie's statement proved to be absolutely false." The article points out that Barnes's interview was completely consistent with his previous story. Ryan Lizza's article goes on to say:

CBS obtained four documents from the personal papers of Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, Bush's Texas National Guard squadron commander. These memos tell a fascinating story about the struggle of a by-the-book commander caught between a self-important young pilot trying to cut corners and wriggle out of the rest of his Guard commitment, and superiors who seem all too willing to let the privileged son of a Texas VIP bend the rules.

That's the real story here, if we're interested in character as an issue. Kerry didn't duck Vietnam service; he volunteered for it. Bush not only ducked Vietnam, he couldn't be bothered to do his duty, even though it was [relatively] cushy state-side pilot training and physicals.

I still say, though, that the Kerry poeple need to ignore the issue and just let the media run with it, if they want.

Don't send a machine to do a man's [or woman's] work. Off the top of my head, it strikes me that of the unmanned devices we have sent out into space in the last few years, there is something like a 50% failure rate. Let's find some cowboys, strap some boosters on, and just GO.

Some months ago, I predicted that the Bush camp had something on Kerry, and would spring it, probably after the conventions. I was half right. This Swift Boat Veterans for Truth nonsense, which surfaced after the Democratic Convention, is what they were waiting to jump Kerry with. Is that the worst they've got? A show of hands please: who really believes that the Bush Administration and the Republican establishment don't control these "527" groups? I don't.

In my copious spare time [i.e., none], I have perused some of the blogs [i.e., Instapundit], and have seen the joyous lambasting of candidate Kerry, and I get depressed. Not because they are right [I don't know that they are], but because the Kerry campaign is running such a lousy campaign.

I have said all along that Kerry has got to dispel the notion of "Northeastern Liberal." He really has not done that. He had to dispel the notion that he is a flip-flopper. He has not done that. He had to craft and convey a "message": a vision of the U.S. that he wanted to bring to the table. He has not done that.

Instead, his campaign has allowed itself to get sucked into the minutiae of who did what, when and where 35 years ago in Vietnam. Who cares? The campaign is REacting, not PROacting. The campaign is not on message, because it seems to have no message at all.

If I were running the show, this is what I would be pushing:

1. The economy: deficit spending tends to depress the economy. Bush has gone from surplus to record deficits in four years. That kind of incompetence takes some doing. And Bush is the first president in history to seek tax cuts in wartime. What's that about? People are most concerned about how they are going to live and thrive. There are many, many people who are not doing as well now as they were four years ago. Tap into this dissatisfaction. Refute the propaganda that Bush had a recession when he entered office in 2001. Evoke memories of how good things were when Clinton was president. It's not all about 9/11. The Bush Administration is letting jobs slip away from us, trade deficits are at an all-time high, and the economy is at best sluggish. It's the economy, stupid. Don't forget healthcare.

2. National Security: Kerry voted for war in Iraq based on misleading information, if not out and out lies from the Administration. While it's generally a good thing for Saddam to be out of power, Americans don't like to be misled -- or lied to. At best, the Bush Administration myopically went to war where the need did not exist. At worst, the Bush Administration went to war based on a vendetta to oust Saddam, no matter what the cost. Whichever is true, it is undeniable that the Administration is giving us now a different rationale for war than it did before we went in [see credibility, below]. However, now that we're committed, we must finish the job, with a coherent plan to win the peace, as well as the war. I don't know what Bush's plan is; Kerry needs to formulate one and articulate it.

3. Credibility: Kerry must refute, simply, the accusations that he cannot be consistent on a position. Seems to me they said the same thing about Clinton in 1992 and 1996. The problem is that Kerry seems to keep shifting, and is not fighting back against those charges. At the same time, Kerry needs to go after Bush and the Republican establishment he controls for their lack of credibility on life and death issues, on civil rights, on the envoronment, on cronyism, and a host of other issues.

4. Distance Kerry from any aspect of the 1988 Dukakis campaign. The Bush people are crowing about John Sasso's possible involvement in the campaign. Comparisons between Kerry and Dukakis are starting to happen. Take steps to stop the references; Kerry must establish himself as his own man, and stay the hell away from Dukakis

There are a lot of people, including Republicans, who are mad as hell at the Bush Administration right now. The Kerry people have got to give them a reason to vote for their man. It's not too late for the Kerry campaign to turn this around, but it's go to get its collective head out of its collective ass and move. Where's James Carville when you need him?

My cousin, Fred "Rico" Hurvich, sent my mother this opinion piece, who sent it to me. I'm not usually one to cite to Garrison Keillor, but he certainly says it loud and proud. An excerpt:

Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy—the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president’s personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.

Also: "It’s a beautiful world, rain or shine, and there is more to life than winning." I guess Keillor thinks Kerry is going to lose?

Have George II and his merry men been lying? On the right hand side of the aisle, you'll hear, "no -- just bad intelligence, and besides, we did a good thing." To the left of center, you're likely to hear the slavering growl of "Hell yes, he lied!" I think this compendium is probably from the latter. Notwithstanding the approach, there's nothing here that sways me from my thinking that the Administration at best misled us into war.

The Kerry camp is missing the boat on this issue. Americans will get mad if it becomes clear they were misled into war, with the resulting human and capital costs. Instead, Kerry & Co. are fixating on a 35 year old Vietnam war service issue, which will inevitably paint him as an irrepressible lefty, based on his protest work afterwards. He does NOT want that to happen, yet he has let it happen.

I don't care whether Kerry stepped across into Cambodia in 1968. I do care about how I'm going to make ends meet in this economic environment. It's still the economy, stupid.

People for the American Way and the NAACP have published a disturbing report on voter intimdation and suppression. Among its findings:

In 2004 in Texas, students at a majority black college were challenged by a local district attorney’s absurd claim that they were not eligible to vote in the county where the school was located. It happened in Waller County – the same county where 26 years earlier, a federal court order was required to prevent the local registrar from discriminating against the students.

In 2003 in Philadelphia, voters in African American areas were systematically challenged by men carrying clipboards, driving a fleet of some 300 sedans with magnetic signs designed to look like law enforcement insignia.

In 2002 in Louisiana, flyers were distributed in African American communities telling voters they could go to the polls on Tuesday, December 10th – two days after a special Senate election was held.

In 2000 in Florida, thousands of voters whose names mistakenly appeared on a flawed list of felons were purged from the state’s voter rolls. Despite the ensuing outcry and litigation, the state has not yet restored the rights of many of those voters -- and in fact has begun a new purge of an additional 40,000 names for the 2004 election.

In 1998 in North Carolina, GOP officials openly planned to videotape voters in heavily Democratic districts in a partisan attempt to avoid alleged “voter fraud,” until the Justice Department stepped in to warn that taping minority voters at or near the polls would violate federal election laws.

I was one of those who have been saying about Florida in 2000, "Get over it!" Howver, with documented evidence of denying the franchise to a large number of voters, based on an unforgivable mistake, "I think I'd better think it out again!"

Pal Glenn links to yet another John Stossel hatchet job on trial lawyers -- this time ripping John Edwards for being a good trial lawyer.  As usual, he's just dead wrong. 

"Every product you buy has a built-in cost to cover what lawyers make through lawsuits."  No -- lawsuits about defective or unreasonably dangerous products have made those products safer. 

First, let's call it what it is: people -- through their lawyers -- suing wrongdoers for for injuries caused by their misdeeds.  If it's so wrong that some lawyers make a lot of money taking enormous time and financial gambles on behalf of their clients, then I'd like to know how much ABC pays Stossel.  I'll bet he wants for nothing.  On the other hand, is Stossel jealous over how much Edwards has made in his career?

Why do we have airbags, headrests, even seat belts?  Because the auto industry, having been sued for its failure to make their products safer, finally did it.  A sad truth is that corporate america will not do anything unless it is in their financial interest to do so.  "Hit 'em in their pocket books" seems the only way to get them to make positive changes.  Now, that's not why we file lawsuits, but if one consequence of a case is that the defendant will act more responsibly in the future, that's OK with us.  Us, meaning the public.

A good example is water heater litigation, something I've had some direct contact with.  Did you know that the water heater industry has known since the late 1950s that its gas fired water heaters can ignite flammable vapors and cause a fire?  All they had to do to reduce the potential of this catastrophic occurence 90% would have been to sell their water heaters with an 18 inch high stand.  But that cost too much, so they slapped a 35 cent label on their water heaters, which they knew did not effectively warn the public, and continued to make gazillions of dollars.  All the while, a person a day on average was being burned or killed from a water heater fire.

In other words, they made a financial decision to absorb the costs from successful personal injury cases arising out of their defective water heaters, and did so for decades.  It was cheaper than making their product safer.  Only through the efforts of trial lawyers have they now finally developed new technology to eliminate the threat.

"But paying higher prices is not the biggest effect of what the lawyers do. What may be worse is what the fear of lawsuits do to medical care and innovation."  I think this is just crap.  I tell my doctor friends that all they have to do is their best.  Just like me, if they screw up, they might actually have to take responsibility for their actions.  How unfair!  And frankly, unless it's a pretty bad screw-up, they probably won't get sued anyway.

"Everybody is in mortal fear of being sued."  Good propaganda, but if it's true, it means we've got a lot of really lousy doctors out there.  I'll just say what I have said on this blog for the last year and a half: no decent lawyer will file a medical malpractice lawsuit unless he's damn sure he's got a case.  Example: I just reviewed a possible case involving a psychiatric hospital.  Seems the guy checked himself in because he was suicidal, and they zapped him with all sorts of central nervous system depressors, as well as 100mg of MS Contin [an opiate], twice a day.  Family reported him to be acting like a zombie.  After three days, he was found dead.  Cause of death: opiate toxicity.  The hospital proably killed the guy, but the consultant who reviewed it for us wasn't terribly excited about who was negligent and how.  So we turned down the case, because it wasn't clear cut enough. 

To invest three to five years and tens [or hundreds] of thousands of our dollars, it better be clear negligence, clear causation, and catastrophic damages.  Otherwise, it's too big a gamble.  And I would bet my bottom dollar that most, if not all, trial lawyers feel the same way.

Stossel plays cute, saying first that most doctors are being sued [note the tense] and then saying that 76% of U.S. obstetricians have been sued.  The one is not supported by the other.  Just because I may have been sued in the past doesn't mean that I am one of those lawyers who are being sued currently.   In other words, it's a false or misleading statistic.

Then Stossel takes Edwards to task for a cerebral palsy case he won.  Now, it's very hard to make a case that labor and delivery caused birth injury.  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists will have us believe it never happens.  But it does.  I represented a little boy who was profoundly impaired becuase the idiot OB/GYN waited hours before a C-Section, when he should have known the baby was in serious trouble.  In other words, he was reluctant to do what Stossel syas most OB/GYNs do more often: C-Sections. 

I had an expert who did 90% of his work for the defense supporting me completely.  I never even had to disclose him to my opponents, because the case settled fairly early in the proceedings.  Even so, it still took three years and close to $20,000 to get there, and because the doctor had filed for bankruptcy, this child, who was going to require care that will cost $18 million over his lifetime, got much much less, limited to only the doctor's relatively low insurance coverage.  There's justice for you.  And if Stossel had his way, I guess we wouldn't even have been able to do that much for that poor child.

Stossel blames trial lawyers when hospitals cover up malpractice by failing to report it.  Shouldn't he be castigating those institutions for doing the Watergate thing?  For failing to insist that its doctors and staff perform medical services at least reasonably?  Why shouldn't they be held responsible for their misdeeds?

I'm fine with the concept of personal responsibility.  But consistency demands that we hold doctors, manufacturers, and hospitals responsible when their negligence causes injury.

Stossel says that "this kind of fear doesn't make Americans safer."  No, but the people, through their lawyers, holding manufacturers, doctors and others responsible for their negligence or defective products has made us safer. 

Oh and by the way, when the conservatives bitch about big media being liberal, take a look at Stossel and his bully pulpit.  He's touting the straight Republican tort reform -- and anti-Deocratic ticket -- line.

John Stossel: give me a break.

I don't care where you are on the ideological landscape.  You've got to check this out.   It's a hoot!

In the Techno-Geek category, here's a cautionary tale.

CompUSA was selling a DVD-Recorder for what seemed to be a very good price -- $199, after rebate. It was the Lite-On, model LVW-5001. I took a chance and bought one. I spent $50 extra [25% of the purchase price, mind you] to buy what the CompUSA folks said was a replacement policy. That is, if it breaks within the 2 year period, they will replace it with the same or like model.

I took it home and spent an hour putting it into my TV system. Dead on arrival.

Next day, I took it back. They said they had 3 in stock, but when they went to get a replacement, it turned out that 2 were also defective, and the only other one was a refurbished model. Did I ask for my money back? Did I run screaming from the store? No, and more fool I. I took the refurb.

This one worked, but had two funny characteristics. One, it overheated and failed on may functions. Checking the relevant message board, I found that thse models, unbelievably, do not have either a cooling fan or a heat sink! I also found that the color balance on recorded material was off. I had to adjust my hue and color depth to get a decent picture.

I went into the CompUSA store a week later, described the problems, and was advised to wait a couple of weeks, and then use my warranty plan to get a replacement. Because the 5001 was discontinued, I would get bumped up to the next Lite-On model, the 5005. OK.

I talked to the Tech Support gal a week later, just before my 14 day return window expired. She said to wait a week and then come in and get the replacement. OK.

Last Saturday, I unhooked the sumbitch and took it in. After waiting 45 minutes, I had the new model. And a cash register that said I owed them an additional $218! Turns out the replacement plan only applies my purchase price toward another unit, if that unit is more expensive. It appeared irrelevant that I had a deal with the Tech Suppor gal; besides, she denied having the arrangement with me to replace the 5001 with the 5005. I threw a fit, and after 15 more minutes, they refunded my money. So, I got my money back, but I've got a hole where a DVD-recorder ought to be.

Moral: beware of these replacement plans. They usually do not provide what the sales people say that they provide. Also, beware the bait and switch, because that's what I think was happening. They make the deal with you, and then make you wait, and then finally give you the new unit, and...surprise, it's more money! I'll not do business as CompUSA again, unfortunately.

I don't know Bill Hobbs, but his comment on my earlier post about the Bredesen sellout of Tennessee's workers is, shall we say, misguided. He is also insulting, by headlining the comment "A Lawyer's Whine." For the record, I'm not whining: I'm pissed! He says:

Cutting the high cost of worker's comp insurance in Tennessee will mean increased job creation. More jobs is good. More money flowing into trial lawyers's pockets doesn't create more jobs, just wealthier trial lawyers.

First, no worker's compensation carrier has said that it will cut the cost of comp insurance contingent upon passage of this legislation. History teaches us that that carrot is always dangled in front of us, and then it's yanked away when we lose interest, down the line. So, I have no doubts that the cost of comp premiums will go UP, and not down.

Second, I have been shown no data that the cost of comp coverage is costing Tennessee jobs. All I have seen is the unsupported, bald assertion made by the Bredesen Administration. Having worked with comp for 12 years, I can tell anyone willing to listen that Tennessee's benefits prior to this legislation were quite middle of the road, contrary to the line put out by the proponents of the change.

Third, where does Hobbs get off with the nonsense about "wealthier trial lawyers?" If I was "wealthy," I wouldn't care about the legislation, and I damn sure wouldn't handle worker's compensation cases. By statute, the maximum fee a lawyer may recover for representing a worker's compensation claimant is 20% of the recovery. Most worker's compensation claims are resolved for under $20,000. Thus, I will work a comp case for -- sometimes -- years, and maybe get a fee of $4,000. And don't forget that you sometimes lose. I represented the nicest fellow in the world for 9 1/2 YEARS, tried the case, and the judge ruled against us. You've got to factor in the losses and no recovery claims [i.e., those where there is no permanent injury and therefore no fee], which these knee-jerk tort reformers fail to account for.

Fourth, Hobbs may be right about a 40% cut in revenue. But he fails to understand how the drop comes about, and what it really means. There will likely be a cut in claims made, because the new law reduces potential comp recoveries so low that many lawyers will not be able to afford to take the case. Put another way, Joe Lawyer is not going to take on a case if he's going to lose money on it even if he wins the case! So, there is a two-fold agenda at work here: (1) Big Insurance and the Chambers of Commerce get rid of those pesky employees who had the bad taste to get hurt on the job, and (2) those trial lawyers who operate at or near the profitability line may be forced out of business, which means even fewer claims to worry about. At bottom, this legislation repesents a very cynical approach to protecting our citizenry. Remember, an employee hurt on the job may make a comp claim, and ONLY a comp claim, against his employer. It's the exclusive remedy. The translation of all this, for the uninitiated, is: Bend over, grab your ankles, and....

What really gets me and those like me is that our Governor, who ran a campaign designed to engender trial lawyer and regular folks support, just spat in our faces -- and our clients as well -- by forcing this legislation down our throats. Hobbs's argument is a mirage; it looks real good till you stare closely at it. Then it dissolves.

Spam sucks. While I'm not in the league of some friends of mine [Read Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds], I'm getting 30-40 pure crap emails per day. It seems like I get one every 5 minutes or so. What a pain.

Speaking of Glenn, he's a real sweetheart. He's posted an ad for my firm's web site on his blog ads. This is my great experiment: can an Internet presence generate new cases for a predominantly plaitiff's personal injury firm? Five years ago, I was convinced that the answer was "No." Now, I'm not sure. I figured that the exposure from the mega-hits that Glenn gets is one not terribly scientific way of finding out. If I get hits on the firm's site, then I'll know.

The verdict so far? Not great. I've had like 1 hit all day. Well, I'll give it time. Life is long....

Apparently I'm not the only one who is scratching his head at the lack of attention given to Al Gore's speech yesterday. I watched most of it on C-Span last night. Boy, he was pissed. And after actually listening to what he said, as opposed, apparently, to folks like these, he made good sense.

Has not our credibility in the eyes of the world suffered due to the prisoner abuse scandal? Aren't the torture tactics used on these prisoners reminiscent of Stalinist gulags and the Gestapo? Aren't we, as Americans, sickened and disgusted by the obvious conclusion that torture of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions is a top-down policy of this Administration, and not the aberrant acts of "a few bad apples"? Don't we expect reasonable and humane treatment of our prisoners, just as we would expect the same if our people are taken prisoner by an enemy in the future?
I'm just as mad as Gore was.

Look, I'd like to believe that what happened in the Iraq prison and what may be happening in Guantanamo is off the reservation, and that the Bush Administration did not intend to treat our prisoners this way. But then I look at reports that the president's own Office of Legal Counsel has called the prisoner treatment provisions of the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete," and that strikes me as a rationale for treating prisoners the way I would expect the KGB or the Nazis to have done. As Wilford Brimley's character said in the movie Absence of Malice, "It ain't legal, and by God, it ain't right!"

Yeah, it IS politics, because Bush is running for office, and so is his opponent. But my rant has nothing to do with politics. We're Americans. We don't do the things that we apparently ARE doing, as dictated by policy from the White House. We have always seen ourselves as the guys in the white hats. This policy changes that for a lot of people.

Frankly, it was refreshing to see a professional politician speak his own mind, without thinking too much of the consequences. If Gore had done stuff like this 3 1/2 years ago, he'd be president now.

In my absence, Tennessee's Democratic governor, whom all us trial lawyers supported, sold us down the river, by pushing forward a worker's compensation "reform" package that is execrable, to say the least. To find out how I really feel, check out my proto-blog post on my new web site, with links.

I've been off the radar screen for a while now. Lately, I can blame my absence on getting my firm's new web site up and running. The only thing I've had real trouble with is figuring out how to update the copyright and date last modified items in the footer. The site is written in Dreamweaver. Any mavens want to give me a hand and tell me how to change that?

I just got a cool email from my mother, forwarding one of Dennis Miller's rants, this time on Palestinians. It's online here, and here, but I've got to put it in here, 'cause it's great:

A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all Americans who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you really need. Here we go:

The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention.

Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no Palestinians" then, and the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the Palestinians," weeping for Their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation."

So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."

I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters." Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't. They could 've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, Especially two years ago at Camp David.

But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living. That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course -- that's where The real fun is -- but mostly they want Israel.

Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it -- for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth, and if you've ever been around God's Earth, you know that's really saying something.

It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about. The great history and culture of the Muslim Mideast. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.

Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five Million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, Everyone will be pals. Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: just reverse the numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the Worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations in Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a Roomful of supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away.

However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11 our president told us and he world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint. If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan. (Hey, wait a minute, that's actually not such a bad id . . . ooh that is, what a horrible thought, yeah, horrible.)

While I often disagree with Miller, he's dead right here. What's interesting is that he seems to have changed positions, in that he ranted about the Middle East back in May 2002, concluding that "if I can forgive that motherfucker Sinbad for beating me on Star Search, than Israel and Palestine can certainly get their shit together." He also had some wicked one-liners. Example: "On the other side of the sandbags, you have Ariel Sharon. Now, Ariel Sharon has never been a guy who knows verses 3 through 5 of 'Kumbaya.' But this recent intifada has hardened him like a dead guy on Viagra."

Miller's May 2002 proposal for the Palestinians:

Give the Palestinians CASINOS! It worked here in the U.S. for our Native Americans. Look, all religion has done is to jump-start a grudge war over it's individual beliefs and at least in casinos everyone can get along, have a few drinks, play a little Black Jack and forget their problems. You don't even have to build a lot of new buildings because they already have a thousand-year-old Holy Land theme going on over there. "C'mon, seven. Baby Jesus needs a new pair of shoes!"

He must be wise, because I think casinos are the way to solve a lot of problems, including Tennessee's ongoing fiscal woes.

From Anne...Straight From the Hip comes a great link to an extraordinary photo journal of a motorcycle trip through present-day Chernobyl, now a ghost town, taken by a woman from Ukraine who writes great English, and has lots more guts than me. Apparently, this is her idea of fun. Regardless of motive, it is a powerful set of photos, not to be missed. Check it out.

At some point on our glorious and expensive dive vacation, Glenn speculated that Donald Trump was deliberately looking for a lot of positive exposure with "The Apprentice" because his business must be in trouble. I don't know how he does it, but Glenn is right again [transcribed from the NPR audio broadcast]:

Real estate titan Donald Trump, known as a consummate dealmaker, desperately needs a deal to avoid losing his gambling empire to bankruptcy. . . . Donald Trump needs $400 million, and he needs it fast.

I heard on NBC that he owns half the show and gets $375,000 per episode, but I don't think he'll be getting bailed out from "The Apprentice." According to the radio report, he is trying to restructure his debt, which will involve him having to give up control of the casino hotels business.

UPDATE: As usual, I'm behind the times. USA Today reported on Trump's gambling operations' dreadful performance 3 weeks ago.

Musicians? We don't need no stinkin' musicians!

It's official: Bush has changed his running mate! Someone named Orwell....

And the nostalgia goes on. Glenn's reader Scott Kent thought my 1979 Etc. photo made me look like Pete Townshend, and Glenn invoked St. Keith Moon. Funnily enough, my drum teacher, Doug Klein told me around that time that I played like Keith Moon.

What I didn't know was that -- I think -- he meant my out of control over the top style. Over time, I have, hopefully, developed a more tasteful style. It's not the years, it's the mileage.

God, I loved those Rainbow, Robin Williams, Mork and Mindy suspenders....

Last week, Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds outed an earlier me, circa 1980. Yes, he took the photo, it was outside my parents' house in Knoxville, and if I look sombre, it's because I was 24 hours post my first root canal. Turn about being fair play, here's a VERY young looking Glenn, also from the halcyon days of Etc. [the band]. Ah, we used to draw a real crowd in those days. Note the woman center background. She's apparently about to fall asleep. Must have been during a break?

Mary Littleton at the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association was kind enough to send me a copy of The General Assmebly's Joint Tort Reform Subcommittee Report, which I can't find online. However, the salient conclusions are quoted as follows:

1. The Committee finds that increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums are and have been a consideration in the decisions of physicians to continue their practice or maintain the same level and type of services. However, there was no evidence that access is being eopardized throughout the state, tlut there was some evidence that specialties in rural areas have been impacted (thought the degree was uncertain and unquantifiable) and might tend to be adversely impacted first.

2. The Committee finds that Tennessee does not really regulate medical malpractice insurance premiums, unlike some other states, but the committee was not able to determine from the limited testimony what the impact on premium regulation would have on premium stability or availability of coverage.

3. The committee has determined that medical malpractice insurance premiums for physicians have increased in the last two or three years at rates greater than in previous years. However, it cannot at this point in time reach any definitive conclusions as to the cause of those increases without further information.

4. The committee acknowledges that there is evidence tending to show a correlation between the imposition of limitations on damages in medical malpractice cases and stability in medical malpractice insurance premiums, but the committee also finds that the correlation was not absolute or quantifiable and that other reforms and factors may contribute more directly and timely to market stability.

5. No testimony was provided by any presenters regarding the need for or the effect of any kind of reforms other than a limitation on damages, some of which other reforms Tennessee has already adopted into law. The committee desires to have more information on how these other reforms are working in other states and what combination of factors or reforms may be keeping medical malpractice insurance costs stable in those states with the greatest premium stability.

6. The committee desires to have more detailed claim and court case information reported and would recommend for passage legislation that would provide the committee with a clearer picture of the litigation and claim trends in Tennessee, the impact of litigation (and claims) on medical malprac;tice insurance premiums, and those actions that might best lead to premium stability.

In other words, there was no proof submitted to the Joint Committee to justify tort "reform" whatsoever. Quite interestingly, the various witnesses before this Joint Committee were ALL from the hospital, doctor and insurance (i.e., pro tort limitation) side of the issue.
Guess what? The emperor has no clothes!

"The next big challenge is to return pieces of Mars to Earth," says Jim Garvin, a Mars scientist at NASA. So let's pile some astronauts in a ship and go GET them! We have the technological capability right now, but do we have the will?

Looks like she blew it....

I just got a cold call from the Republican National Congressional Committee. Apparently, they got the idea that I'm a Republican, and gave me the honor of listening to a tape recorded message from some congressman exhorting me to join an advisory council [read: give money]. Here's the pertinent part of the message, verbatim:

As a former business owner, I understand the crippling effects overtaxation, government regulation, and red tape has on your business. That's why I'm asking you to serve as an honorary chairman of the Business Advisory Council, an organization of America's top business leaders that was formed in 1995. As an honorary chairman, you'll have the opportunity to meet with and provide input to members of Congress, business experts, and the movers and shakers in Washington at periodical [sic] meetings in the nation's capital. And I'll be sending you an invitaiton to join me, as my honored guest, at the annual black tie President's dinner. It is always the event of the year in D.C.

Then a young woman came on the line and this colloquoy took place:

HER: The latest numbers do show that the President's economic plan is starting to take effect.
ME: Could have fooled me.
HER: Oh, you don't think it's starting to take effect, sir?
ME: Nope.
HER: I'm sorry [pause]. So I take it you are not interested in this call.
ME: Probably not, no.

Hee, hee. So where did they get MY name, anyway?

Anybody else get their message? Money buys access, access buys influence. And by the way, the black tie dinner referred to? I lived in D.C for 9 years and I've never heard of it.

UPDATE: It's all a telemarketing scheme. And, the RNCC/NRCC has been busted before for illegal contributions from foreign nationals. And, "NBC’s Lisa Myers recently not[ed] that awardees 'have included a convicted sex offender and a maker of drug paraphernalia....' "

ANOTHER UPDATE: It wasn't some congressman. Apparently the recorded voice was NRCC chairman Tom Reynolds. This "Business Advisory Council" is a real thing, albeit a fundraising device.

Glenn reports that Hugh Hewitt has given John Edwards a golden opportunity:

Memo to John Edwards and his campaign staff: I know you aren't in the habit of sitting down with center-right radio hosts, even those with a long PBS resume, but my radio program is open to you, each and every day between now and March 2, for all three hours if you'd like. It is aired in drive time in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, the Inland Empire and Sacramento as well as in numerous other Super Tuesday markets, and word has it you are low on cash. Send me an e-mail at hhewitt@hughhewitt.com, and I'd be glad to have you as my co-host for the next ten broadcast days. Why? Just because I like a good race.

Hewitt broadcasts in several at-play states: Boston, Atlanta, Cleveland and Cinncy. I agreed with Glenn that Edwards would be crazy not to grab hold of that kind of free publicity, especially in the morning drive time. I even sent an email to Edwards's national office as well as all his field offices, urging them to get the candidate on the air with Hewitt soonest. No response, either to me or apparently to Hewitt. Why?

Clearly, Kerry is getting the bulk of the free media coverage, especially with him hitting the Vietnam and veteran issues hard. A canny short term strategy to keep Edwards out of the spotlight, but in the long term, I think the last successful presidential candidate who ran primarily as a war hero was Eisenhower. And to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, Kerry is no Eisenhower.

Meanwhile what flummoxes me is this perception that Kerry is more electible than Edwards. Again, why? Perception is everything, in the stock market and in national politics. Kerry inevitably must be perceived as a northeastern liberal Kennedy democrat. I don't care how many hare-brained electoral strategies the pundits come up with, the presidential election for the democratic candidate comes down to whether he can win at least one state in the south. I simply don't believe that Kerry can do it.

Edwards, on the other hand, is demonstrably southern. He is a better campaigner than Kerry, who is stiff and stand-offish, to my eyes. It is more likely that Edwards is going to take one or more southern states than Kerry. In the bedrock democratic states, the democratic nominee, whoever he is, is going to win. It's the fringe states, and the fringe voters [independents, libertarians, etc.], who are going to make the difference for either candidate. My sense is that if Kerry is the nominee, those on the fence are going to analyze it like this: Kerry flip flops, he might be too liberal for my taste, we are in the middle of a war situation, and I don't want to take the chance on changing horses in the middle of the stream. I'll vote for the democratic nominee, probably, whoever he is, simply because I think Bush is bad for the country, both domestically and in foreign policy. But I feel in my gut that Edwards will be competitive, while Kerry will probably lose handily to Bush.

What I think the Bushies are doing now is hitting Kerry with a low level of negatives. My crystal ball tells me that they have something on him, and are waiting to spring it until after the conventions, when it really makes a difference. Once the Democrats lock into Kerry [if they do], then the Bushies hit, and hit hard.

What's interesting is that they have not even paid attention to Edwards. That's because the only thing they can say about him is that he used to be a very good trial lawyer who represented regular people. If Edwards gets the nomination, I HOPE that the republicans try that argument. I think they'll get their collective head handed to them. The bottom line, however, is that unless Edwards does something significant, like get on Hewitt's morning drive time show in at least 3 at play markets, then it'll be tough for him to catch up, much less win.

Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds appears perturbed that the organizers of the Boston Democratic National Convention are considering establishing a "free speech zone" in a disadvantageous location. Well, they just learned it from the Bushies:

The dissidents were confined to a specific site - a "protest zone" or "First Amendment zone," depending on one's interpretation - across the street.

Besides, Mr. Bush couldn't have seen the crowd, or the signs, even if he had ducked out of the $1,000-a-plate festivities taking place inside the hall and strolled to one of the east-facing windows for a gander.

That's because a wall of KAT buses and Knoxville fire engines had been strategically positioned outside, completely surrounding the Henley Street side of the building. His only view of the immediate area would have been end-to-end panels of orange, blue and red sheet metal.

I would agree that in each case, we see a "crushing of dissent." But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we are to castigate one, then we should castigate both.

War of words: Ann Coulter -- she's cute and smart, but nuts -- lambasted Democrats and former Senator Max Cleland for questioning Bush II's National Guard Service. Molly Ivins took gleeful exception to Coulter's remarks:

But for sheer, vicious nastiness, no one cam compete with Ann Coulter, whose latest error-riddled effusion is an attack on former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, who has been critical of the Bush administration. Apparently in an effort to make George W.'s incomplete in the National Guard look better, Coulter wrote a column distributed by the Heritage Foundation saying Cleland, a triple amputee, had showed "no bravery" in Vietnam, "didn't give his limbs for his country," is not a war hero. My favorite sentence is, "Luckily for Cleland ... he happened (to lose his limbs) while in Vietnam," her point being that if he had been injured at Fort Dix, he wouldn't be a hero.

He also wouldn't have been under enemy fire at Fort Dix. She says he lost his legs in "a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends." Actually, Cleland lost his limbs when a grenade detonated after he and another soldier jumped off a helicopter in a combat zone.

As for not being a war hero, Cleland earned the Silver Star in a separate incident just four days before he was injured. The citation reads, "during heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland disregarded his own safety, exposed himself to rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted them in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Cleland's gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit and the United Sates Army."

How lucky for Cleland ...

Not knowing when to shut up, Coulter responds, quoting Jill Zuckman in the Boston Globe:

"Finally, the battle at Khe Sanh was over. Cleland, 25 years old, and two members of his team were now ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away. The three gathered antennas, radios and a generator and made the 15-minute helicopter trip east. After unloading the equipment, Cleland climbed back into the helicopter for the ride back. But at the last minute, he decided to stay and have a beer with some friends. As the helicopter was lifting off, he shouted to the pilot that he was staying behind and jumped several feet to the ground.

"Cleland hunched over to avoid the whirring blades and ran. Turning to face the helicopter, he caught sight of a grenade on the ground where the chopper had perched. It must be mine, he thought, moving toward it. He reached for it with his right arm just as it exploded, slamming him back and irreparably altering his plans for a bright, shining future."

And, here's the pot calling the kettle black: "They [liberals] ought to stick to their specialty -- hysterical overreaction. The truth is not their forte."

Who's right and who's wrong? Probably both are both, somewhat. Context, accuracy of quotation, and spin are key in these disputes. However, Coulter loses credibility with me, at least, in that she seems to think I'm a traitor.... ["Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason"] [click "Next Page 9 times to get to the quote].

The sharks are starting to feed on themselves:

For example, Peggy Noonan, the Reagan speechwriter, had this to say on Sunday in opinionjournal.com about Mr. Bush's "Meet the Press" interview: "The president seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse."

George Will, the conservative columnist, wrote in his syndicated column on Sunday, "It is surreal for a Republican president to submit a budget to a Republican-controlled Congress and have Republican legislators vow to remove the `waste' that he has included and that they have hitherto funded."

While most conservatives remain squarely behind Mr. Bush, the united front has not been quite as united.

Columnists like Robert Novak, conservative television hosts like Joe Scarborough of MSNBC and others on local radio and the Internet have raised questions about Mr. Bush.

"It's a critical departure," said J. David Hoeveler, a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, who said last week that he believed that his local conservative radio host, Charlie Sykes, had begun sounding less exuberant about Mr. Bush. "Generally it's been whole-heartedly Republican," Mr. Hoeveler said of the tenor of the conservative media. "It would suggest that those who would call themselves Republicans are quite possibly breaking ranks."

This dovetails with a lot of on-the-street evidence I've seen that even bedrock Republicans want Bush out of the White House.

Bush: we don't need your stinkin' jobs!

[No] Tennis, anyone?

I seem to have misunderstood the results from last week's primaries.

According to a CBS-supported campaign blog, Edwards beats Elvis in Memphis: "There was also an Elvis impersonator that was trying to attract a lot of attention, but much to his dismay, the focus this morning was on Edwards and not Elvis." It also reports that Edwards is in the best financial shape it's been in, and that he "will fight to the very end." Scroll down about 3/4 of the way to see the Edwards blog.

It looks like the races in Virginia and Tennessee are tightening, albeit probably too late for Edwards. CBS reports that

Kerry led an American Research Group poll of 600 Tennessee voters by 32 percent to Edwards 21 percent and Clark's 20 percent. Dean had 8 percent.

In Virginia, an ARG survey of 600 voters had 35 percent for Kerry, 22 percent for Edwards and 17 percent for Clark. Dean was at 9 percent.

Yesterday, it was 45-21 Kerry in Tennessee. What this shows is the unreliability of small sample polling, but even more dangerously, the tremendous effect the polls have on voter preferences/turnout. It's rainy here in Knoxville. Does that mean a light turnout, which probably doesn't help Edwards?

Edwards doesn't have to win in Tennessee and Virginia to carry on. This assertion was confirmed to me yesterday by an Edwards campaign worker, who advised that the Edwards campaign still had plenty of money.

OK, who's put up this anti-Kerry blog? I'm betting it's not a democrat....

Yep, it's true; I am related to Trevor Rabin. Also true that I am related, by marriage to the Kennedys [Rory married my cousin Mark Bailey; that was the wedding that didn't happen when JFK Jr. augered in]. Here's an interesting musical family tree for Trevor. I was hoping to find my name in there, as I play drums, but alas, it was not to be; I never played with T.R. [sigh]. Since leaving Yes about 10 years ago, Trevor has become one of the big movie music guys. For a graphic scroll of the movies he's scored, check this out [also, an annoying loop comes along with it]. Here's a refreshingly in-depth interview with Trevor from 2002, which details his movie work. Interestingly, his son, Ryan, is a working drummer in L.A.

I went to see John Edwards Friday night here in Knoxville. Overflow crowd. Standard stump speech, which is to say, awfully good. I tried to get Glenn Instapundit Reynolds to go with me, and even tried to get the candidate for an Instapundit bloggerview [I just made that up; pretty good, huh?], but we couldn't get it set up on short notice. Glenn then decided to veg out instead.

What I like about Edwards is (a) his message, which promotes hope for the future and the democratic concept of helping those that need a helping hand; (b) his positioning, which is as close to Clinton 1992 as any candidate in this race; and (c) his electibility, which is the strongest in the field. I also think it's cool that he plays Creedence Clearwater Revival/John Fogerty out of his tour bus.

Unfortunately, the tracking numbers don't look good for Edwards, who could really use a win here in Tennessee or in Virginia. On the other hand, Edwards has been endorsed by the Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees, 500,000 strong.

Interestingly, it's all perception. In terms of delegate count, Kerry has about 400, and Edwards has 116:

Going into Maine's caucuses, Kerry had captured 409 delegates, compared with 174 for Dean, 116 for Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, 82 for retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, 12 for New York civil rights activist Al Sharpton and two for Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. To win the nomination, a candidate needs 2,161 delegates

Not an insurmountable lead, especially with 75% of the delegates yet to be chosen. Question: why is the media portraying this as a done deal for Kerry? Don't they know that when they say it, that makes it true? And, it doesn't make sense; it's a much better story if the nomination continues to be contested. Example: "Each needs a primary victory in Virginia or in neighboring Tennessee to slow the Kerry juggernaut, reports CBS News Correspondent Joie Chen. " Since when is Joie Chen the last word on electoral politics?

This is kinda cool. Check out the underwater conditions in Bonaire with their constantly updated underwater Webcam. They've got other webcams around the island, too.

Raucous caucus: Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby polls it as Kerry: 25%, Dean: 22%, Edwards: 21% and Gephardt: 18% Undecided: 9%. Meanwhile, Kucinich and Edwards have agreed that if either looks to get less than 15%, they will throw their votes to the other. Dean, in a shameless Clinton 1992 ripoff, is calling himself the "ultimate comeback kid." How silly: Dean has faced none of the adversity Clinton faced in the days leading up to New Hampshire in 1992. All that has happened to Dean is that the Iowa voters are recognizing that (a) he is unlikely, at best, to win a general election against Bush, and (b) the one candidate in a realistic position to take some of the South is Edwards. This, of course, is why Edwards is surging. In fact, if any one candidate resembles the Clinton 1992 model, it would be Edwards, with his modest background and his geographic advantages.

In related news, Kerry is practicing from the get negative and then apologize school. I cry foul -- you can't have your cake and eat it too. By the way, anybody else think that Kerry is looking more and more like a basset hound?

Not to toot my own horn [you are anyway! -- ed.], I modestly note that I was an early booster of Edwards.

UPDATE: Dean apparently is desparate. His wife, who previously had better things to do, came "halfway across the country" to kiss him publicly. Sounds to me like Howard thinks Iowa is off the beaten path. NOT the way to encourage voters....

Ugh. I just looked at my previous post from 1/9. The basketball vols are a terror at home, but can't hit the side of a barn on the road. On the other hand, they have had he bad luck to run into two teams -- South Carolina and Florida -- that shot lights out against the Vols. Do we have a team? Tomorrow tells the tale, when Tennessee goes up against Kentucky in Knoxville.

On the brighter side, it looks like Tennessee may have a basketball team this year. These guys, who are playing ball with each other for the first time, look like they're veterans. And, they beat Georgia handily. Georgia just recently beat the number 3 team in the country, Georgia Tech.

The $64 question is whether the B-Ball Vols can play consistently as well against what must be one of the toughest conference schedules ever: Florida, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, etc. Whew.

Stay tuned.

As anyone who knows me will confirm, I am a big Tennessee football fan. I'm the one who caught the Flu -- and then pneumonia -- because I had to sit in the rain to see Tennessee whip Ohio State in the 1996 Citrus Bowl [driving rain that day, ugh]. I'm the one who has sat through the losses and the wins since 1970. I have been to the top of the mountain, and to the depths of the valley with my Volunteers. Being something of a student of this team through the years, I feel mildly qualified to comment on the team's status now, with the 2003 campaign ending not like a lion, but like a lamb.

The uninitiated must understand that most Tennessee fans are (a) educated as to the game, (b) vociferous in their desire to achieve the pinnacle of college football, and (c) not afraid to let anyone know what they think. I'm like that. So it will come as no shock to learn that I am, to say the least, dissatisfied with where the football program is, and has been, since we achieved the ultimate [national championship] in 1998. Evidence of unacceptable results from the 2003 season is found here , here, and here, as well as the "flop" in the Peach Bowl last week, linked above. Even when we did win, it felt like we lost. Evidence: needing overtime to beat an eventual 5-7 South Carolina, or 5 overtimes to beat an outmanned and outmatched 4-9 Alabama.

OFFENSE: our offensive production has declined every year since the 1998 season. The offense often doesn't know who's supposed to be on the field at a given moment. Penalties are endemic. We are not playing our best personnel. Playcalling is predictable and stale. We appear to be afraid to throw the ball downfield, between the zone. Execution is glaringly inconsistent. In the past, when we had a good play, we, well, expected it. Now, when we have a good play, we breathe a sigh of relief because a minor miracle has occurred to allow us the good fortune. We no longer know inherently how to do what it takes to win. If we get behind, we more often than not lose the game. If we get several touchdowns behind, as against Georgia, we quit. And anybody who sat through the debacle of the Tennessee-Georgia second half knows that I do not overstate the case. In fact, I read published reports from the coaches that they in fact intentionally quit, so as not to get players injured [I couldn't find links]. What message does that send your players, when the COACHES give it up -- and admit it -- with a quarter and a half remaining in the game?

I refuse to believe, as the pundits will declare, that these shortcomings are a result of a lack of talent. Aside from last year's class, Tennessee has had top 5 recruiting classes every year at least over the last 7 or 8 years. I make the assumption therefore that our talent is at least as good as any other top program in the country. It is at least as good as USC's or LSU's talent.

If our lack of success is not as a result of lack of raw talent, then where does the blame lay? I refuse to blame the players, who have come here to learn how to win at the highest level. The blame must fall at the feet of the coaches, who have taken the Manning years, and the record-setting Tee Martin offense, and run it into the ground, through lack of player development, lack of adequate preparation lack of creative game planning, lack of motivation to execute, and ultimately, lack of success at the only goal meaningful: the winning of championships. Let's look just at a couple of offensive areas as examples.

Quarterback: Casey Clausen should have been a Heisman candidate -- or at least Maxwell Trophy. He's got the talent and the intelligence to have exceeded even Peyton Manning at the quarterback position. Why did he not? He wasn't developed properly. I truly believe that if Clausen had been brough along by David Cutcliffe instead of Randy Sanders, Clausen would have broken all the reocrds in the book, and would be a top round draft pick for the NFL. As it is, it will be lucky if he gets drafted at all.

Instead of decrying Clausen's lack of development by his coach [Randy Sanders], the pundits started making up statistics to make him look good, like the one early this season when it was crowed that Clausen was undefeated in regular season games on the road. Never heard that one before. Anyway, it didn't last, because we promptly lost at Auburn, despite Clausen's heroic effort. It was a stupid statistic, especially in light of our embarassment in the 2001 SEC championship to LSU, and expecially in the 2003 Peach Bowl loss to Maryland, 30-3.

Offensive Line: Tennessee has long been known as a team that turns out top offensive linemen by the bushel. Phillip Fulmer is a linemen and former line coach. We have top blue chip talent in the offensive line. Why then can't those guys make a hole for a running game? Answer: coaching. The offensive coaches took outstanding potential, and turned out mediocre linemen. Replacing the offensive line coach after the 2002 season did little or no good; we had less than 50 yards rushing in the last game.

Of course, one has to consider the running backs, as well. We are loaded with talent, with Cedric Houston, Jabari Davis [who clearly gained a step in 2003], Gerald Riggs, Corey Larkins and Derek Tinsley. Each has a different style, and none was successful rushing the football this year. Why? Neither they nor their linemen have been developed to pay at the high level demanded of them by the Tennessee football community. It's not their fault; it's the coaches' fault.

Does anyone honestly believe Jay Graham was such a better back than these kids currently on the roster. I don't. I thought Graham, who played in the mid 1990s, was a fine back, but he benefited from better training as a running back, as well as his linemen being better trained. Remember, we're the team that, in the 1996 Citrus Bowl, made Graham the showcase back, instead of an outplayed Eddie George. Fast forward to January 2, 2004, when the unknown backs from the unranked Clemson looked like stars, while our running backs looked like wimps. What's the difference? Coaching.

DEFENSE: I don't comment a lot on defense, because I think John Chavis is one of the best 5 defensive coordinators in football today. I have for years had a problem with our philosophy of secondary coverage, which emphasizes playing off the receiver instead of looking for the ball. This style of play probably explains why Tennessee does not intercept the ball more often.

In general, however, the defense over the last several years has made more with less than any defense I can remember. Especially 2002. That year, the defense literally was decimated with injuries. Yet, if you take away opponents' scores caused by offensive miscues, and look solely at scores allowed by the defense, I believe the Tennessee defense led the nation in least amount of points scored. Game in and game out, the defense plays well enough for us to win; it's the offense that blows it. A notable execption is the win at Miami this season, 10-6. Again, offensive production was minimal, but the defense played its heart out, and held the 'Canes to only two field goals. Essentially, we won in spite of our offense, and because of our defense.

So what's answer? Obviously -- at least to this observer -- a revamping of the offensive coaching staff is in order, nay, desperately needed. Sure, we went 10-3 this year, but so what? We did not compete for any championship, and had we played LSU -- a team in disarray four years ago -- we would probably have gotten spanked but good. Let's face it: most of us breathed a sigh of relief when we didn't have to play in the SEC Chamionship. Our talent is still outstanding, but other teams are improving in their talent -- and more to the point, in their coaching. See for example what Georgia has done with Mark Richt, and of course national champion LSU under Nick Saban.

At the end of the 2002 season, I said that Phillip Fulmer was not at risk in his job, If he took fundamental steps to fix the ongoing problems on offense. He failed to do so, and having suffered through another boring, mediocre, and unsatisfying Tennessee football season, I have to now say that another season without seeing the improvements in coaching, preparation, motivation, execution, and ultimately contending for a championship will very possibly mean his job will be on the line in Knoxville.

How far the mighty have fallen. . . .

The Administration wants to go back to the Moon. That's good. Apparently, however, the Administration, in doing so, will at least temporarily eliminate our manned space flight capability, end investment in the space station, keep the project controlled completely in-house through NASA, and use an Apollo Plus methadology in doing so. That strikes me as very, very bad.

Consider the difficulties in getting federal appropriations for such an increased effort, in light of the ongoing problems funding the space station, and the consistent lowering of the NASA budget. Why would we cut off our nose to spite our face by leaving the space station out in the cold, when it could be a Moon/Mars staging point. Also, the current NASA ethic strikes me as incompatible with the spirit of exploration ncessary for this concept, which is literally the "Wagon Train to the Stars" idea. Furthermore, to make such a massive effort workable, it seems to me that business and industry, i.e., the private players, have to have an incentive to invest in the effort; there's just not enough government money available, and the national mindset may not be as supportive of a Moon shot now as it was 40 years ago (race to space, beat the Russians, and so forth). Many decades ago, Robert Heinlein wrote about "The Man Who Sold the Moon." If manned space exploration is to succeed on any kind of reasonable basis, we must sell it as a society to our society, and not as another insular government agency raison d'etre.

Is this initiative the Administration's way to get NASA's juices flowing again? If so, it's like going to England to get to California: taking the wrong direction.

(Thanks to Instapundit and Rand Simberg)