In November, 1972, Richard Nixon could be forgiven for feeling that his entire life had been vindicated. He had just won a massive victory, anhiliating George McGovern by one of the most lopsided margins in American history, and in so doing had defeated everything he detested in America: liberals, the Kennedys, peaceniks, blacks, Jews, and hippies. He had gone before the country, having governed in as divisive a manner as possible, showing his true colors, and he had not only prevailed, he had conquered. His assholishness had not been kept hidden; the Watergate break-in, and its association with his reelection effort, had been public knowledge for months, but it hadn't mattered. He had done it his way, and he had won. And thus, his epic fall from grace was inevitiable.

He couldn't have imagined it, but the forces that were to bring him down were already in play. Too many of the people he had bullied were still breathing, patiently waiting for the moment when they could strike back. He had not only created very real enemies, but he had very little support even from those who were his partisan allies. The consequence of stepping on other people to achieve your ends, especially when they are supposed to be on your side, is that few will come to your aid when the mask of infallibility is stripped away, and your human faults lay exposed to the world. And so, throughout 1973 and 1974, when the full depravity of the Nixon White House was revealed, he had no one to rally to his aid, to defend him out of a sense of loyalty and obligation.

I thought of that while listening to the President's press conference this morning. After one of the closest elections in history, with a country dangerously riven across ideological and cultural lines, when true leaders should offer an olive branch to their vanquished foes, Bush instead demands surrender. Three years after one of the most terrifying days in our history, when we as a nation were never more unified, he announced today that he would work with only those members of the opposition who saw things the same way he did (which, with the retirement of Zell Miller and the disappearance of the southern Democrats, can now fit comfortably into a White House linen closet). The hubris of that demand, only days after almost losing a national election to a left-liberal Massachusetts Democrat, is breathtaking.

Some are now calling on us, the defeated, to accept those terms of unconditional surrender, to put aside the bitterness and rancor of the last four years, and to pay allegiance to his agenda. Tuesday marked a sharp defeat for the Democratic Party, especially in races for the U.S. Senate, where five seats in the South were lost, and the party is at its lowest ebb since the election of Herbert Hoover. But although we still have a ways to go to become a majority party again, there is a big reason why Democrats are in no mood to be conciliatory: by sharpening the lines of division, and by achieving victory not by an appeal to voters in the middle, but by focusing almost solely on his ideological base, George Bush has insured that a large opposition to his agenda will not only continue to exist, but actually thrive, without any fear of harm.

Looking at a map of the United States, one can see the outlines of a broader problem to our national politics. The Democratic Party now dominates the West Coast and the North Atlantic region, while the Republican Party controls the South and the states in the Great Plains and Big Sky regions. For all intents and purposes, the other party no longer exists in those areas. A two-party system continues to exist in the Mid-West and in some Rocky Mountain states, as well as Florida, and national elections will continue to be won and lost there, but for 75% of the country, there is no partisan competition as such.

What that means is that Democratic officeholders in Washington are increasingly detached from any sort of political threat from the other side. If one looks back at other recent turning-point elections, such as 1974, 1980 or 1994, the defeated side not only lost a lot of incumbents, but many of those who won did so by the skin of their teeth. Having a political near-death experience was chastening, and it made the losers less willing to obstruct the legislative goals of the winners.

But this time, one would be hard-pressed to find a Blue State Democrat so inclined. At the same time Bush was winning the popular vote, and the Republicans were snatching up open Senate seats in the South, candidates like Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Harry Reid, and Russ Feingold, who six years ago all had tough, competitive races, each won decisive victories over their opponents. Illinois, which voted Republican in every Presidential election from 1968 to 1988, and which elected an unbroken string of GOP governors for almost thirty years, sent an African-American to the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly. To say that incumbent Democrats in the House had it easy would be an understatement; outside of Texas, where a crooked mid-term gerrymandering picked off four Democrats, one would hardly have known that this was supposedly a big Republican year.

Thus, there is no political incentive for Democrats to compromise in any way whatsoever with the Bushies. In fact, it is in their own best interest, from a nakedly partisan standpoint, to be as inflexible and obstructionist as possible, since there is no longer any real political cost in being so, whereas being perceived as a compromiser invites a primary challenge, which is now the only real threat to one's political career. And of course, the same has become true in areas dominated by the Republicans; if one can get elected to the Senate by supporting the execution of doctors who perform abortions, or by demanding the firing of all pregnant schoolteachers who are single, or by claiming that one's opponent bore a strong resemblance to Uday Hussein (and in each case, defeating Democrats from the center-right of the spectrum), there is little incentive to reach across the divide to find common ground.

That is the true political legacy of the first four years of the Bush Administration. In a way, his throwing down the gauntlet today was a relief. Having to accept defeat is tough, and agreeing to let bygones be bygones is always so emotionally difficult, since it entails having to acknowledge our own faults as well. Since the President intends to exhibit "leadership" the next four years the same way he did the first four, by using his power and his "iron will" to steamroller any and all opposition, and to impose the narrow, homophobic agenda of his base on the rest of the country, it means I don't have to go through the difficult task of soulsearching, of trying to figure out what my share of the responsibility is for the national divisions. If he wishes to govern as President of the Red States, not President of the United States, I don't have to give him my allegiance, since I am proudly not a Middle American. I don't have to identify his goals as mine, or see his wars as being America's. Since no quarter is to be given, none will be offered.

One of the revisionist accounts of yesterday's defeat for the Democratic Party concerns the use of social wedge issues, particularly referenda to ban gay marriage, as an explanation for the disappointing result. Pointing to Ohio, where an anti-gay initiative passed easily, the claim is that Karl Rove, et al., drove up Republican turnout by diverting attention from Bush's crummy record on the economy and terrorism onto a familiar scapegoat, in this case gays. While it might have helped get a few extra homophobes to the polls in Ohio (where an initiative outlawing gay marriages and civil unions passed over the opposition of the Republican governor and two U.S. Senators), an all-encompassing explanation for what went wrong it is not. Of the eleven states where gay marriage bans were on the ballot, two (Oregon and Michigan) were carried by the Democrats, in both cases by larger margins than expected, and seven of the other nine were unreconstructed "Red States". In only two states, Ohio and Arkansas, could it be said that Bush carried a state where there were both competitive races at the Presidential level and a ballot measure before the voters on gay marriage. In neither instance does it seem plausible to me that Kerry lost because of an influx of new voters drawn to the polls because of an antipathy to gay marriage.

Where the issue might have made a difference, though, was in the battle for the Senate. In two states, Kentucky and Oklahoma, the initiatives may have drawn enough bigots to the polls to aid in the victory of two rather weak GOP candidates, both of whom used homophobia to attack their opponents.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall's post, on how push-polling was used in Ohio to draw out the bigots, comes to a different conclusion on its effectiveness in that state.

If a jet hits the World Trade Center, but the vote from the 2000 election is essentially unchanged, did either of the Towers fall?

About five hours into the election, it appears that the President is running about two points ahead of his exit polling numbers across the board. If he maintains that (and the networks are clearly not calling Florida for Bush in deference to what happened last time), he will win reelection.

Early exit poll results give no reason for Kerry supporters to be pessimistic, so far...but, as always, take these polls with a grain of salt. They mainly have value for telling who's voting and why; the 2002 exit polls were so inaccurate they were discontinued half-way through the day; absentee and early voters are harder to incorporate into the general mix, etc. These polls certainly don't indicate that a landslide is in the offing, and the next release may show a Bush "surge". Still, it's better to be ahead.

African-Americans in Michigan being push-polled in the middle of the night. An appellate court freeing up Ohio Republicans to perform the "Brown Bag" test in Cleveland. Supporters of a challenger to Tom Daschle attempting to bully Native Americans in South Dakota. Ballots magically disappearing into the ether in Broward County, Florida. Registration forms for Democrats getting torn up and discarded in Nevada. It's Election Day, 2004, in all its spectacular, shabby glory.

I'm not going to have a lot to say between now and tomorrow night. Like many of you, I will be scoping out RCP, Daily Kos and Drudge for the exit polling results during the day, and examining the websites of various Secretaries of State from swing states at night. My prediction: a narrow Kerry victory, offset by substantial GOP pick-ups in both houses of Congress. We're still going to have to live with each other Wednesday morning.

Yesterday, Red Sox pitching ace and playoff hero Curt Schilling backed out of appearing at a campaign event for George Bush, and in effect apologized for publicly endorsing him. Schilling was quoted in a post on a Red Sox fan website that "(w)hile I hope to see (Bush) re-elected, it's not my place, nor the time for me to offer up my political opinions unsolicited."

Huh? If the final four days of a Presidential campaign isn't the right time to offer up your political opinions, when is? To suggest that Democratic citizens of RedSoxNation are somehow going to feel betrayed because one of their heroes is a Republican is ridiculous. Lefty sports fans long ago came to terms that many of our heroes on the field and in the arena are, shall we say, politically disagreeable. White athletes are a more dependable Republican vote (that is, when they actually care enough to register to vote) than Evangelical Christians, so Schilling's endorsement of Bush (and dissing of Kerry) isn't going to break anyone's heart. He should have stood by the courage of his convictions.

FWIW, by winning on Wednesday, teams from Boston (and its immediate surroundings) have now beaten teams from St. Louis in the championships of all four major American sports. I'm still checking, but I don't think any other city has beaten another city for three different sports titles.

The big problem with trying to prognosticate who benefits by the reappearance today of Osama bin Laden is that the election isn't going to be held tomorrow; it takes place Tuesday. No matter what reaction people are having right now to seeing his ugly mug pop up again, that same feeling ain't gonna last four days. The reality is that OBL is still alive (and seemingly healthy), he's still a threat, and Bush hasn't caught him yet. Any benefit he might provide the President's reelection dissipates every second he remains at large.

UPDATE: Upon further examination, the oft-cited parallels between this election and 1980 are again brought into focus. That year, an unpopular incumbent President had a slight lead in the polls going into the last weekend of the campaign, but also faced an increasingly bleak picture in the Electoral College. The challenger had the momentum following a clear-cut victory in their one debate, but had by no means wrapped up the election. In that final weekend, a deal to release the hostages in Teheran was seemingly in the works, and the public was led to believe that it would be announced shortly.

It turns out that the mullahs were yanking our chain, again, and the negotiations fell through. No one could fairly blame President Carter for that, or for the kidnapping of the hostages in the first place. But being reminded of what had come to symbolize that president's shortcomings on the eve of the election was enough to turn what had been a neck-and-neck battle into a blow-out.

For those of you obsessed with Electoral College calculations, you ought to make Frogblog your first destination.

Best way to tell that Kerry is going to win on Tuesday: not the fact that he's pulled even in the polls, with the remaining undecided voters likely to break his way, or that the market-based predictors show him pulling even or ahead, or even the high turnout figures in Dade County among non-Cuban Latino voters. It's today's column by Dick Morris, predicting a Bush victory.

LYING PONDSCUM !!!!!!

Quickie Trivia: Name the living members of the Baseball Hall of Fame that were alive the last time the Red Sox won a World Series. Winner gets a night of free drinks and my good company. BTW, there are, at last count, seventeen deceased members whose entire lives were spent after the 1918 Series.

Availing myself of the early-voting program the County of Los Angeles offers, I performed my civic duty yesterday. After a great deal of soul-searching and internal debate, I finally decided to cast my ballot for the challenger, John Kerry. It was a tough decision. I could either choose a candidate who promised to restore some measure of fiscal sanity to Washington, to renew our nation's commitment to the environment, to pursue more civilized policies in areas like gay rights, and to finally take the fight to the terrorists. Or I could vote based on my material interests, in favor of a candidate who would keep my taxes low, in the off-chance that I ever marry into money, and who, like his father before him, has always pursued policies guaranteed to give people in my line of work, bankruptcy law, a steady income. In the end, competence and security won out over tax cuts and future clients.

On the one hand, you have the Bush Campaign trying to come up with a tidy explanation as to why over 300 tons of explosive just got up and walked out of an Iraqi storage facility about the time of The Liberation: either it disappeared when we weren't looking, or it was already gone by the time we got there, but we didn't notice. On the other, you have the righteous outrage of some junior orwells at a claim by John Kerry that he was at the Sixth Game of the 1986 World Series, when there is a press report indicating that he attended a political dinner in South Boston the same night. I shouldn't have to waste my time on this, but Logan Airport in Boston is less than three miles away from where the dinner was held, and JFK LaGuardia is literally on the doorstep of Shea Stadium. A flight between the two cities takes only an hour, so it's not as if Kerry would have needed to charter the Concorde to be at both events the same night. Game Six went extra innings; four hours elapsed between Bob Ojeda's first pitch to Wade Boggs and Mookie Wilson's dribbler through the legs of Bill Buckner. Kerry had plenty of time to shake hands at the dinner, put in a token appearance, then head off to New York to have his heart broken by the Mets.

The Spice Boys: One big difference between Band Aid and Band Aid 3 is that the original featured British performers who hadn't been thoroughly rejected by stateside music fans. I guess if it's for a good cause, we're supposed to pretend Liam Gallagher and Chris Martin are important rock icons....

As a result of last night's game, this post has now been retracted by its author.

Jacques Derrida "dies": The Onion has its pre-election review of the swing states.

George Soros also rigged my fantasy baseball league.

Karl Rove has a reputation for being a genius, perhaps undeservedly, considering the late collapse his candidate had in the 2000 election. If he's going to earn that rep this time around, it could well depend on how well he's can make gay marriage a wedge issue again, after the week we've just spent discussing the sexual preference of the Vice President's daughter. The controversy clearly played to the short term benefit of the President; after being swept in the debates by John Kerry, and seeming to be less "presidential" than his opponent in the polls taken in the aftermath, it may have been a necessary diversion to change the topic to the propriety of that subject being raised by the Democrats in the first place, and (especially) the rather clumsy and stilted way Senator Kerry brought the subject up. Bush has moved into a slight lead again, and for the time being the momentum the Kerry Campaign had generated since the end of September has stalled.

All of that is fine and dandy, but as far as a winning strategy for November is concerned, it's not going to mean squat. After all, we're talking about the modern-day Republican Party. To Karl Rove, George Bush, et al., gay-bashing isn't a bug, it's a feature. For a campaign that was relying on the "Three G's" (God, gays, and guns) to turn out its base, and that had made rather unsubtle references to its opponent being "French-looking", to now be forced to adopt a defensive posture over this issue can't be what anyone planned.

Let's remember how this all came about in the first place. George Bush was asked, during the third debate, whether he thought homosexuality was a lifestyle "choice". The correct answer is the one that the scientific community has come to, as well as (at least in his public actions) the Vice President: No. John Kerry used his response to point out that fact, that the Cheneys have a daughter whom they are proud of, who has a prominent position in his campaign, who has a partner considered to be enough a part of their family that she came on stage after the Vice Presidential Debate, and who is openly gay. If the Cheneys ever attempted to deprogram their daughter from her lifestyle decisions, the public record is silent.

But to answer that question in the negative would be disastrous before his religious conservative base, which is overwhelmingly homophobic. Answering "I don't know", when his Administration's actions contradict the public behavior of his Vice President, is a lawyerly way of evading any truthful answer. It is the sort of answer a tobacco executive might give if he was asked whether his product causes lung cancer, or a fascist historian might use if asked whether there were any Jews gassed at Auschwitz. After all, there's always some doubt; who can tell, with absolute, 100% certainty, what is true and what is false. If the President was to be asked whether he believes that the Theory of Evolution is a more accurate description of the origin of mankind than the Book of Genesis, does anyone doubt what his answer would be?

Kerry's response, while clearly hurting him in the short run, puts the Bush Campaign in a bind for the final two weeks. Any attempt to press the issue of gay marriage among swing voters is going to bring back the discussion to the sexual preference of Mary Cheney, whose privacy (and, it goes without saying, her right to be gay) the campaign has strived to defend the past few days. I don't see how Karl Rove gets around that.

Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan has had the best takes on the most stunning revelation from the third debate: that the Vice President has a gay daughter. In particular, he notes (or one of his e-mailers notes) that the battlelines on this issue seem to be generationally-based: with varying degrees of sincerity, fogies seem to be most offended, while those of us born after 1960 (including, it should be pointed out, Mary Cheney, who has refused to bash Kerry over this issue, even though she is running her father's campaign) don't think it matters at all. Sullivan, who has broken with the Bush Administration on, among other things, their efforts to limit civil rights for homosexuals, has deftly exposed the hypocrisy of those on the right concerning this issue (as well, it should be noted, the hypocrisy of those who pay lip service to supporting gay rights, but who act with shocked revulsion when the topic is discussed during a Presidential debate).

Model Ballgirls: I was always under the impression that tennis was more exciting to watch in person than on TV. So why use this rather cheesy gimmick? Not that I'm objecting....

A few people have noted their discomfort with the reference by the Democratic candidates, first in the Veep Debate and again last night, to the fact that the daughter of Vice President Cheney is openly gay. One of the commentators on FoxNews last night went so far as to claim that the mere mention of that fact by John Kerry was the low point in the debate, while Mickey Kaus asked "What if Kerry were debating a conservative on affirmative action, and that conservative had a black wife, and Kerry gratuitously brought that up in an attempt to cost his opponent the racist vote?"

Well, let's try a little thought experiment. The equivalent time in the struggle for equality with African Americans would have been 1962, when the momentum was clearly moving in the direction of the supporters of civil rights, but a large and seemingly impregnable section of the country was resistent, and seemed to have the political power to thwart progress in that area. Imagine a gubernatorial race in Tennessee, or Missouri, or some other border state, between a candidate with "moderate" views on civil rights for that time (ie., dismantling much of Jim Crow, supporting a ban on lynching, greater voting rights), and a candidate with, shall we say, views more in line with the Confederacy, who claimed that his opposition to civil rights came not because he was a racist, but because he opposed the "intrusion" of the federal government into local matters.

Let's also say that the Dixiecrat had a daughter, who had attended college up north, become a lawyer, joined her father's campaign staff, and, incidentally, was married to a black man. Would it be inappropriate for the moderate candidate to mention that fact during the campaign, in the context of calling for a more free and open society, especially if the Dixiecrat was running on a platform that included support for anti-miscegenation laws? Of course not; one of the reasons the walls of bigotry inevitably fall is that they ultimately reach us at where we are most vulnerable, in our backyards and with our families. Does it make Dick Cheney, and the rest of us, uncomfortable? Of course; it should.

It really is no different than asking Michael Dukakis in 1988 how he would feel about the death penalty if it was his wife who was the victim. If conservatives really do have a non-homophobic reason for supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, then dealing with the fact that people they know and care about are affected by their stance is obligatory.

John Gill Watch: It turns out the Phillies-great-turned-U.S. Senator has every reason to go cuckoo-for-Cocoa Puffs. Today, he accused his opponent's campaign staffers of having beat up his wife at a picnic this past summer, in full view of the public and press, which, oddly enough, hadn't seen fit to report on the matter. In fact, considering the grievous assault, it does seem odd that Senator Bunning did not go public with the incident until today, when he was forced to explain why he had used a teleprompter to deliver his lines in a debate (mentioned below), in clear violation of the rules.

Well, I didn't go out drinking after all. My sister was held up at work, so I babysat my nephew, and thereby got stuck watching the debate (and a good live summary can be found at Prof. Johnson's site, here). Bush finally came up with a persona that didn't alienate the audience, and stuck with it, but his miniscule record of domestic accomplishments put him pretty much on the defensive anyways, so he benefitted little. His lib'rul-lib'rul-lib'rul attack line grew tiresome after awhile, and he just doesn't have the gravity to make that a compelling indictment of his opponent. And I'm sure the media "truth squads" will have a field day with him falsely denying that he had said he wasn't that concerned about Osama anymore.

Kerry was Kerry, knowledgeable and aggressive, but without the ability of a Clinton to land bruising shots at his opponent, or to turn uncomfortable issues on their head. He has no common touch whatsoever, as his discomfort when he made the Tony Soprano reference showed. But after an opening half hour that was dominated by religion and social issues, where Bush did well, the debate settled into a pattern similar to the previous ones, in which Kerry gradually took command. The first instapoll, by ABC, gave Kerry a narrow win, in spite of again showing that more Republicans than Democrats tuned in. Like the second debate, which appeared on its surface to be even until it became evident that Kerry had done the more effective job impressing the voters in the middle, I suspect that his good political fortune over the last two weeks will continue.

For the first time, Kerry now leads the WaPo/ABC tracking poll, having gained seven points on the President in two days. Gallup also reported a couple of days ago that Kerry had moved into a slight lead. Both polls continue to make the assumption that more Republicans will turn out this year than Democrats, so the momentum evidenced here is clearly advantageous for the challenger.

If, on the morrow, it appears that the debate moderator, Bob Schieffer, is tossing his fellow Texan a few softballs, don't be surprised. His brother is an old business partner of the President's, and currently sits as Ambassador to Australia. In any event, keep me abreast of what happens; the League Championships have first priority from where I'll be sitting, and even if the Red Sox lay another egg in sports' most contrived, one-sided rivalry, anything is better than watching the Manchurian Candidate parrot the same lines over and over again.

A couple of weeks ago, I attended a party in honor of Reason Magazine that was thrown by the LA Press Club (I'm a member, thanks to my position as Legal Counsel for Bloggers Monitoring the Media), and had the privilege of meeting some of the most interesting thinkers, writers, raconteurs and libertines in all of Christendom. Matt Welch, a friend to bloggers of all political stripes, has recently joined their staff, and his latest column (on the "Swift Boat" scam) neatly encapsulates the mistakes made by both old and new media in covering those charges.
A typical Matt Welch column is as fun to read, and as provocative, as one of Michael Kinsley's "TRB" columns during The New Republic of the Reagan Era, and the fact that the LA Times had him at their back door for the past decade without snapping him up will be as inexplicable in the future as the Dodgers' decision back in 1992 to play Jose Offerman at shortstop rather than the outfield Hitler's decision not to wipe the British out at Dunkirk.

If the GOP loses control of the Senate this year, it may well be because one of its incumbents had the bad luck to go stark raving mad this year. The junior Senator from Kentucky, Jim Bunning, had a seemingly comfortable lead over his underfinanced opponent when he suddenly went all Kim Jong-Il on his constituents, demanding extra security at personal appearances out of fear that he was being "targetted" by Al Qaeda, quipping that his Italian-American opponent both looked and dressed like one of the sons of Saddam Hussein, returning to Washington the day of his one scheduled debate to cast what he said were urgently needed votes (in fact, the Senate had just gone into recess), then insisting that he be allowed to participate in said debate by locking himself in the basement of the RNC Headquarters, thereby preventing any independent observers to see if he was being spoonfed his answers, a la John Gill in the "Patterns of Force" episode from Star Trek. Bunning, a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame serving his first term in the Senate, denied the rumors that he's gone insane. [link via Daily Kos]



UPDATE: According to James Wolcott, Senator Bunning may well be suffering from Zell's Disease, an affliction that has reached epidemic proportions among Republican officeholders.

Huge day for the local teams yesterday, with top-ranked SC avenging its only loss of the previous season and the Dodgers winning their first playoff game in sixteen years. For a team that has had the image of being a button-down, corporate operation long before they were purchased by Rupert Murdoch, having a player like Jose Lima really provides a crystal meth-sized jolt to the fanbase.

To those of you who do not know the concept of "Lima Time", the pitcher in question is a journeyman who won twenty games late in the last century, but who had pretty much disappeared from baseball, pitching last year for the Newark Bears in an unaffiliated minor league. He has always had a cult reputation among fans, thanks in large part to the hype he has received over the years from Jim Rome. He tried out for the Dodgers in spring training, made the team, and when Hideo Nomo's arm finally gave out, won a spot in the starting rotation. He still pitches like a journeyman on the road, where he gets lit up by the opposition routinely, but at Dodger Stadium, he has been almost unbeatable, and probably generates more excitement than any Dodger starter since Fernando.

In the tradition of Jim "Mudcat" Grant and Black Jack McDowell, he is also a professional singer of some repute, even singing the National Anthem before games. It is now routine for stadiums to blare out familiar songs when a particular hitter is at bat, often chosen by the player himself (for example, Adrian Beltre is greeted at the Stadium with "Hell's Bells" by AC-DC, while Shawn Green makes his plate appearances to the danceable beat of "Song 2"). When Jose Lima goes out to the mound, it's to something he wrote and sung himself.

Watched last night's debate at a Woodland Hills sports bar. Although I couldn't hear any of the action, and saw the debate only intermittently between breaks in the playoff game, it did seem like Kerry was, once again, composed and reassuring. Bush looked like he had improved; I didn't spot a single rude gesture the whole night, and the "deer in the headlights" look that can seem so unsettling to even the most fervid Bush-basher was not in evidence. But who goes to a sports bar to watch a debate?

I wonder if the debate audience got larger as the night wore on, since the Yankees pulled away from the Twins about an hour in. Gallup, polling what it described as a GOP-leaning audience, gave Kerry a narrow victory, and that seems to be the consensus (see Andrew Sullivan and Mickey Kaus); even Baghdad Hugh doesn't seem to have his heart in spinning for our Great Maximum Leader's performance last night. No gaffes, with both men performing cautiously, so my guess is that the essential momentum of the race will continue to move in Kerry's favor.

No WMD's in pre-war Iraq: Did anyone out there see that one coming? Who knew?

In the 8th inning tonight, Garret Anderson bore a queasy resemblance to John Mayberry in Game 4 of the 1977 ALCS. What an awful, potentially career-defining at bat that was; isn't Andres Gallaraga on the post-season roster? Come back, Jose; all is forgiven....

Happy Birthday to me?!? There are some years when I think the flu season doesn't officially start until October 6. Alas, no Bavarian, hop-and-barley based folk remedies for this illness....

I didn't get to watch the Veep Debate tonight, on account of there being a ballgame on, but apparently those who tuned in did get to hear someone in the GOP finally give some props to George Soros, billionaire philanthropist and do-gooder. Isn't that nice? My non-interest in tonight's face-off doesn't mean I can't authoritatively state that the clear winner was Edwards: after all, how can I conclude otherwise if someone as conservative as Andrew Sullivan has concluded that "[I]f last Thursday night's debate was an assisted suicide for president Bush, this debate - just concluded - was a car wreck. And Cheney was road-kill. There were times when it was so overwhelming a debate victory for Edwards that I had to look away." The next real debate takes place on Friday, a "townhall" meeting that I will, again, miss because it conflicts with baseball, but hopefully, Bush can explain why he disagrees with Thomas Jefferson on the "global test" issue [link via Jack O'Toole].

Thornton Melon, R.I.P.

Who is Tom Wilson? Well, it was nice while it lasted, but this afternoon was a sobering experience for those of us who have long looked forward to a Freeway Series. I figured Schilling v. J-Wash would be a mismatch; getting the automatic loss out of the way was probably the only reason Scioscia allowed that stiff to pitch. But Perez was probably the Dodgers best hope to win a game, and he got shelled early. The other starters (Lima and Weaver) don't exactly strike fear into the best offense in baseball. Dodgers and Angels see their seasons end Saturday.

Apparently, they're not having success with the "global test" spin. As new polls show that their candidate's lead has gone the way of the Bay Area's baseball fortunes, the newest attempt to breathe life back into the Bush Campaign focuses on whether Kerry "cheated" by bringing notes into the debate on Thursday. No word yet on whether his cheat sheet was in Times New Roman. What can I say; there's no rest for the wicked !!

...'cause I'm a ball,
and I go boo-bip-bip boo-bip-bip YEAH !!!

He may have lost the first debate, but President Bush hopes to regain some of his momentum after receiving the endorsement of former Michigan football coach Bo Schembechler. No word yet on whether Bush has picked up the all-important Earle Bruce endorsement, although football fans may remember the ideological contortions performed by Lou Holtz back in 1984, who may have been the only public figure in America to endorse both Walter Mondale and Jesse Helms.

And the conventional wisdom was supposed to be that having the first debate focus on foreign policy was to the President's benefit...Kerry started off nervous, but eventually took off, while Bush seemed ill-prepared, unable to improvise or think on his feet. More devastating for the President tonight was the fact that Kerry seemed more forceful, even, dare I say, tougher than his opponent. No obvious gaffes, for either candidate, but Kerry can't help but be pleased; foreign policy, and most importantly, Iraq, has been a drag on his campaign, but tonight went a long way towards neutralizing that Bush advantage.

On the way home from last night's Booze-and-Schmooze LA Press Club party in Beverly Hills, I drove by my old high school, Harvard (now Harvard-Westlake). There is now a gate surrounding much of the campus, an imposing castiron structure that, combined with the trees unnaturally planted along Coldwater Canyon Blvd., has seemingly cut the campus off from the rest of the planet. From the outside, it is almost impossible to see in (I can only imagine what it's like from the inside), so this beautiful school is now hidden away, its students shrouded more like convicts at San Quentin. Is this just a sign of the times, an attempt to keep out unwelcome visitors, or have the school trustees decided that their wards are best kept isolated from the rest of the world?

Read William Safire weeping about a "runaway prosecutor" trampling on the Constitution (including the "intrepid Judith Miller"), or Christopher Hitchens whining about "paranoid" October Surprise conspiracies, and try not to laugh...I guess we all just miss the day when the paranoid fantasies of pundits included the belief that the President of the United States was going after Al Qaeda in order to distract the public's attention from a semen-stained dress.

Another wacky poll from Gallup, this time showing Bush with an eight-point lead among "likely voters", but a thirteen-point lead with registered voters. There is no info provided about the partisan breakdown of whom they chose to interview, but since this is almost a reverse of their previous post-convention polls, which showed Bush with a larger lead among LV's than RV's, it stands to reason that in order to now give Bush a significant lead, Gallup has to find a sampling base where Republicans outnumber Democrats by close to a dozen points.

Or to put it another way, it is as if Gallup chose to poll only in the state of Montana, and use those results to extrapolate data for the entire nation. Now, it might well be that the national political landscape, post-9/11, now looks like Montana did four years ago, with a massive, historical partisan shift poised to give Bush a landslide victory reminiscent of FDR over Alf Landon, or Reagan over Mondale. Since Gallup's state polls (and other state polls, collected here by Donkey Rising) actually show a race similar to 2000, with Kerry comfortably ahead in California and New York, and swing states like Ohio and Florida within the margin of error, and since Gallup's national pre-election polling in 2000 also sucked, I'm going to stick my neck out just a little and predict that is not the case, and Kerry will probably pick up more than a dozen electoral votes.

Now, it may be easy to laugh off Gallup's quadrennial folly, but this poll (and others like it) have very serious tactical consequences. One of the ways in which polling data is used right now is to demoralize the side that's losing. If the punditocracy can convince enough people that Kerry is toast, or that he needs a miracle, perhaps in one of the debates, to turn around the election, the public perception that he can't win will set in. Through the use of rigged polling data, enthusiasm for the trailing candidate is diminished, his crowds dwindle, and his supporters marginalized and effectively silenced. And that is why the partisan breakdown of the polling sample is so important to know, and why any poll that doesn't provide that information be looked at with extreme skepticism.

In fact, the translation of the slogan on Hugh Hewitt's website is "The influence of Democrats must be destroyed". A bit fascistic, but not atypical for a conservative blog....

Bush Gets Swifted: Well, maybe correlation is causation, at least with respect to the recent focus on Bush's National Guard record: a new poll (by Fox, no less!!) shows that Bush's lead among veterans has been cut in half in the last month. By obsessing about Dan Rather for two weeks, it appears that conservative bloggers may have done the Kerry Campaign an invaluable favor by keeping the focus on a part of the Bush biography that does not redound to his credit. I guess that's just another example of the way the blogosphere is overturning the established order, challenging the hegemony of the Old Media in setting the terms for how the Law of Unintended Consequences can influence an election.

In perhaps the surest sign that the Presidential race is neck-and-neck, the latest Time poll shows Kerry cutting Bush's edge over in half, down to 6 points among likely voters. However, as with the Gallup poll published last week, the Time methodology includes a disproportionate percentage of Republicans; among both registered and likely voters, their sample has 6% more Republican respondents than Democratic, exactly matching the Bush lead, even though the actual party I.D. numbers in the electorate have slightly favored the Democrats over the years. Although it's entirely possible that the GOP suddenly has picked up ten percent in voter identification since the last election, in all likelihood their gains (if any) are far less than that, and the real state of the race shows a dead heat, or even a slight Kerry lead.

I know the adage about how correlation is not causation, but isn't it interesting how Bush's poll numbers have fallen since Col. Burkett "found" the Killian Papers three weeks ago. From a double-digit, post-convention lead to a dead heat: maybe the "fake but accurate" meme has caught on with the electorate. Or then again, maybe the polls several weeks ago showing the President with a suddenly commanding lead were a joke, taken too close to the convention to have any contextual connection with public opinion, and with too many Republicans sampled to reflect a true picture of the American Voter. I like the former suggestion better, since it shows how a determined set of bloggers, huddled around their terminals wearing their cotton jammies, fact-checking and document-scoping the asses of the lib'rul media, and thereby forcing the largely-irrelevant issue of Bush's service in the National Guard into the public limelight for three weeks. Advantage: Blogosphere !!!

One of the things striking about the ARG polling results is how low Bush's support is; the rule that any incumbent with below 50% in the polls is likely to lose applies not just nationally, but in each state as well. Even those states where Bush possesses a slight lead, such as Ohio, Colorado, West Virginia and Arkansas, as well as the Purple States won by Gore in 2000, such as Iowa and Minnesota, his numbers are under 50%, and falling ever-so-slightly.

For what it's worth, the latest poll from out here shows Kerry leading by 15 points in California, as clear a sign as any that he has the momentum (or rather, that Bush's post-convention bounce has gone the way of the LA Dodgers' NL West lead). Since Gore won the state by only 13 points last time, this bodes ill for the President.

Can you imagine being an airline passenger on a flight from London to D.C., no doubt having to fight exhaustion, boredom, the incessant whining of babies, and the discomfort of sitting in a seat designed for a person half your size, having waited for several hours at Heathrow to board your plane (United, btw, so you just know there was only a minimal delay taking off), then another six or so hours doing nothing on the plane except eating the gristle-and-gravy dinner with salad and watching an expurgated version of Catwoman, then having to delay being reunited with family and loved ones for another half the day after the plane gets diverted 1000 miles north to Bangor, Maine, because one of Ashcroft's weenies thought that Cat Stevens was a hijacker? If you want to punish the guy for "Morning Has Broken" or for his politically incorrect statements about Salman Rushdie, fine, but don't take it out on the commuters, to whom he wasn't a threat.

Three Debates: After weeks of negotiating, the campaigns have decided to do pretty much go along with what the presidential debate commission already decided, a series of debates between Bush and Kerry, with one debate slated to be "town hall" format before undecided voters. Considering that the undecided voters will be selected by Gallup, the polling outfit that just went out of its way to rig a poll to show Bush with a huge lead, don't be surprised if the President gets the same sort of soft ball questions he often gets at one of the potemkinesque "Meet the President" gatherings his campaign sets up.

In defense of CBS, it should be pointed out that it took them less time to conclude the obvious than it took the White House to acknowledge that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and which still claims, sans evidence, that the forged documents "detailing" Iraq's purchase of yellowcake from Niger were "fake but accurate". The whole debate about whether this story symbolizes the decline of "Big Media" and the rise of the blogosphere is unimportant to me, especially when one realizes that the same blogs that broke this story knowingly spread false stories from the "Swift Boat Vets" that were discredited after further review. What it should teach us is that anonymously-sourced stories should always be read with a jaundiced eye, but I think most of us already learned that moral from Judith Miller.

Europe 18 1/2, U.S. 9 1/2: Now that I've had further time to reflect, these guys aren't entitled to make the Iverson Speech. Never send rich white Republicans (and one Cablinasian) to do anything that entails representing the Stars and Stripes....

Here's another "hypothesis", from blogger Robert Musil, based on the assumption that the "disgruntled" ex-guardsman with an axe to grind against Bush was merely the "conduit" for the Killian Papers. He suggests that the actual creator was an insider with the DNC or Kerry campaign, which managed to bind Dan Rather into silence by a crafty non-disclosure agreement drafted by a "fancy lawyer". One problem: if the DNC or Kerry went to the trouble of drafting forged documents, wouldn't they also have taken the added burden of "pre-authenticating" them, let's say, with the assistance of their "fancy lawyer"? Putting these documents out into the public domain was an extremely risky move, especially if it could be traced back to them, so wouldn't it have been worth doing right? Assuming that whichever lawyer drafted the alleged agreement performed some sort of due diligence before sending them to their "conduit", wouldn't the same problems that made the Killian Papers so questionable from the outset have been spotted?

Musil also questions CBS' investigative zeal, defending the White House's initial response to the documents by suggesting that there was no way Dan Bartlett, the spokesman quoted by 60 Minutes II, could have vouched for the authenticity of documents. As I've mentioned previously, though, the White House can be excused for not immediately claiming that these documents were forgeries, but they could hardly be excused for not knowing if the contents of said papers were true or false. After all, these documents have been "proven" to be fake only to the same extent that the "Swift Boat Vets" stories about John Kerry's cowardice in battle have been proven to be "false"; there may be an overwhelming circumstantial case, but, theoretically, the Killian Papers could still be authentic.

However, Bush would know if he ever received an order to take a medical exam, and there was certainly plenty of time, in the twenty-four hours preceding the broadcast, for the White House to challenge the accuracy of those allegations. It is most telling that, unlike John Kerry's forceful denunciation of the "Swift Boat" charges, they did not do so.

Europe 11, U.S.A. 5: The stench emanating from Michigan grows worse. But we are doing better in singles this afternoon, so Tiger, Gagger, and the rest might not have to give the Iverson Speech (you know, where they say it's an honor just to play for your country, win or lose).

Literary Digest Revisited: It turns out the polls showing Bush with a significant lead over Kerry overweight Republicans in their sample by a significant margin. Registered Democrats narrowly outnumber Republicans by about three points, but the Gallup and NY Times pollsters are interviewing more Republicans, giving them a margin of between 4-7 points. In fact, the NY Times poll not only shows Bush with an eight-point lead, but does so from a sampling base that preferred Bush to Gore four years ago by the same margin, varying ever so slightly from the actual result, which saw Gore winning by a point. If you factor in the party bias in those polls, the race is suddenly dead even.

In fact, I would predict that if the hardworking people at Gallup were to arbitrarily oversample Democrats, lets say by between 10-15 percentage points, their results would show a dramatic shift by the voters, and Kerry would suddenly have a double-digit lead. The Chattering Class would suddenly be talking about how Kerry's staff shakeup has led to a resurgent campaign, while the continuing controversy about his National Guard service has put the President into freefall. On the other hand, they could simply interview only Republicans, and probably reveal a massive surge in support for the President, and a likely historic loss for the Democrats.

Europe 6 1/2, U.S. 1 1/2: I wonder if American golfers are going to slammed in the same manner as our men's basketball team in the Olympics.

Europe 3 1/2, U.S. 1/2: Horrible start for the American Ryder Cup team. Two of the four-ball sets were routs; a pairing of Tiger Woods and Gagger Vance flopped. This is becoming a familiar story.

Mickey Kaus, who was kind enough to bring my Grand Hypothesis to wider exposure through his weblog on Wednesday, referred me to the following e-mail, from an "RP". It's a bit on the longish side, but then again, so is my response, so if you want to skip to the next post, go here. The e-mailer has kindly consented to my publishing his thoughts, so here goes:

Grand Theory that documents are forgeries but transcribed from handwritten notes taken after viewing the originals has some flaws.

1) If true the documents shouldn't have any errors of style or jargon that have also come into question (e.g. OETR vs. OER, billet vs. a more appropriate word for slot in the air force). Presumably Killian wouldn't make those mistakes.

2) If true, isn't it possible that they still could be substantially or slightly embellished? Why bother to reproduce slightly incriminating documents when you can make them blockbuster smoking gun documents? I might change one to reflect a DIRECT ORDER rather than something less inflammatory. How can an accurate but fake document ever make us comfortable with all of it? In fact, why not take the liberty of creating one extra document just to seal the deal. If you are making a forgery, do you really have to be so morally pure as to recreate the original exactly, without changes, and without the addition of inaccurate info?

3) If true, why would Killian create errors of fact? Supposedly there are errors as to when a physical would be required, as in on his birthday. Also the question of Staudt's retirement or of his use of the phrase sugar coat hurts the theory as well.

NEW GRAND THEORY: Rumors of Bush's failure to follow orders, show for a physical, and complete his full requirements for National Guard service have been floating around for a long time in TX politics. The issue has been brought up in every one of his campaigns for office. Each time, opponents of Bush watch the issue not stick even though they know in their heart of hearts, that it has to be true and should ruin him. Someone finally fed up with Bush getting away with this for so long convinces them that evidence is required to take him down. After thoroughly reviewing Bush Guard documents released by the military, an individual Bush opponent decides to create some evidence. It seems easy enough and with the author of the documents deceased, no one can contest them. And if they feel they have stuck almost
entirely to the "word on the street" or "rumor" that exists about Bush's service, then it is believable and quite possibly accurate. Sorry to burst the theory bubble, but this one has fewer flaws.

BONUS PLOT TWISTER (trying to prove that I am a fair and balanced, not so alert reader): Possible that this is an elaborate Linda Tripp like trap for the President to fall into. The documents are in fact forgeries, but exact copies of real documents. The conspiracy is lying in wait with the originals ready to release them once the White House and the President categorically deny their validity. The conspiracy then puts the authentic documents out for verification, they are verified. So not only is the President a "duty-shirker" but also a liar. BUSH LIED AGAIN!!!

I think that this second theory is just as plausible as the Smith Grand theory, but much less than my new grand theory.

Obviously, I propounded the original Grand Hypothesis before Ms. Knox came forward on Tuesday. People who are engaged in a search for the truth cannot let themselves be tied down by speculations that have been proven false, and it's always a good idea to keep Occam's Razor in mind. Even Steven Hawking has to publicly disavow former viewpoints once the facts on the ground make them no longer operative. And if I'm wrong about other particulars, and if the Killian Papers are not what I believe, then I'd like to break that story as well....

The first point is clearly the most troublesome to my hypothesis, if it is correct that the errors of jargon and style referred to would not have appeared in a TANG memo (and since Marian Knox' other statements are the best support I have for the rest of the G.H., I have to reluctantly concede that these probably weren't "verbatim"). Deep ^throat could still have been working from transcribed notes derived from real documents, but made inadvertant changes to the style/format of the documents when he reproduced them later.

His other two points I don't buy, simply because whoever did this had to have known that the real Killian documents might be released at some point, making any embellishment or exaggeration extremely risky. As I posted, the documents themselves, with one exception, do not contain any bombshell evidence, and even the "Direct Order" letter was something that could have been presumed based on Guard policy regarding annual physicals. And if Killian's actual file contained factual errors, such as the exact date his subordinate was required to take his annual physical, Deep ^throat could not well correct those mistakes afterwards if he wanted to avoid getting burned in the event the real documents were released.

The New Grand Theory (and technically, it's a "hypothesis"; none of this has been proven under laboratory conditions yet) brings up a very interesting issue, which is the role of "rumor" (btw, it is not simply a "rumor" that the future President didn't show for a physical; he didn't show up for his physical, period. The controversy has been why he didn't show up, and/or whether his failure to do so was somehow excused.) Although it is unfair to base impressions on people based on rumor, there is often something in the background that gives credence to those rumors, especially rumors as specific as the ones mentioned here. In Bush's case, the "rumors" may well have derived from the documents kept by the TANG, including the Killian file, but which were heretofore kept from public view.

Even more importantly, the one "rumor" about George Bush from that period that doesn't show up anywhere in the doppelgangers is the one about his alleged coke habit. A forger unconcerned about the truth, and hungry to destroy the President at all costs, could have easily dropped a reference in, let's say, the August 1 Memo, alluding to his "recreational" activities, and made it seem just as credible as the other statements. In terms of the public reaction, such a charge would have been far more devastating to the B-C campaign than alluding to what Staudt (or whoever) was doing to Hodges in August of 1973.

In any event, thanks to all of you who responded in the last few days; I didn't get a single comment, even from those who probably believe that yours truly must enjoy a coprophilous existence to come up the idea in the first place, that could be considered rude, nasty, or unpleasant. I can only hope that some of you return in the future.

Nothing like spending eight hours at an amusement park in Valencia to painfully remind me that I'm about to hit 41. It used to be that roller coaster rides would simply frighten me; now, I ache just about everywhere in my body. The neck I possess is not in any condition to withstand the G-forces I imposed on it today.

The argument that I've read most frequently to counter my Grand Hypothesis is the view (summarized here by Tom Maguire) that Bush's "silence" on this issue is appropriate: when your enemy is doing his best to destroy himself, the adage goes, it's best to stay out of his way. As I noted below, however, the White House hasn't been silent. The immediate response assumed the memos were authentic, and attempted to explain away the President's actions at that time. If the Killian Papers were anything other than "fake but accurate", the more reasonable response would have been to immediately challenge the factual allegations contained within (and they were given copies of the documents in advance), but concerning the one document that the President would have had first-hand knowledge of, the letter ordering him to take a physical, he didn't do that. And regardless of what happens to Rather and CBS, he's stuck with this albatross.

In what may well be a nadir for Sports Illustrated, the magazine published a story today alleging that Kobe Bryant admitted to having an affair with ANOTHER WOMAN when he was interviewed by police investigating the now-discredited rape charge in Eagle, Colorado. Just a reminder, folks: rape is a crime; cheating on your wife isn't.

In reaction to the "fake but accurate" story in the morning's paper, Josh Marshall writes:

The word is out and about now that the CBS Bush National Guard memos are not forgeries but rather recreations of actual documents authored by Lt. Col. Killian.

(snip)

There's a word, though, for these sorts of recreations, if that's what they are: forgeries.

There's no sense or possibility of getting around that.

Actually, that's not quite true, either. The correct word for that sort of recreation is counterfeit, which Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary defines as something "made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive: FORGED". Forgery, on the other hand, is defined as "the crime of falsely and fraudulently making or altering a document (as a check)." While forgeries are always counterfeit, not all counterfeits are forgeries; the distinction is whether the creator of the document intended to defraud another, that is, to obtain some form of pecuniary benefit through his act of trickery, and not merely done solely to trick or fool someone.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the other "triumph" of the blogosphere this presidential campaign: the Swift Boat fraud. Bob Somerby hasn't....

The first confirmation of yesterday's Grand Hypothesis has come from a former secretary for the late Col. Killian, who states that the Killian Papers are forgeries (and she should know, since she was his typist), but that their contents accurately reflect real documents that she prepared in the course and scope of her duties. Also of interest in the Dallas Morning News article is the reference to a possible forger, who definitely did have a motive. And, of course, this is now the sixth consecutive day the President has refused to denounce the alleged fraud.

Doppelganger v. Forgery: So far, the dog that hasn't barked in the Killian Papers controversy has been any sort of non-denial by the President. In fact, the original reaction (and thus probably the more accurate reaction) by the White House was to a) dispute the meaning of the documents, by claiming that Bush was actually working to obey the direct order he received; and/or b) accuse the Kerry campaign of desperately trying to reverse its slide in the polls by dredging up old news. Even now, after the authenticity of the documents has been a matter of public dispute for four days, there has been no attempt by the White House to challenge the truthfulness of the contents. And that fact alone, no matter how advocates for the President try to shrink fonts in order to superficially derive a match with certain memos from the Killian Papers, is enough to keep this controversy alive.

I would like to posit another hypothesis, one that I believe is consistent with both sides in this matter. The Killian Papers given to CBS and USA Today, and released to the world by the White House, are documents that were created recently, by a third party from a computer, and did not come directly from any personal file kept by the late colonel. Everything about them, from the typesetting and fonts used to the signature of Col. Killian on two of the letters, are recent creations. However, they are verbatim reproductions of actual documents, documents that may still exist somewhere, probably with the Texas Air National Guard, in their original form.

There are several reasons to believe that this might be a more accurate explanation than anything else we have heard to date. The source for these documents was apparently a retired officer connected with the TANG. If Col. Killian actually had a "personal file", that officer may have had access to those documents. However, he might not have been able to remove those papers for photocopying, so he did what he thought was the next best thing: he transcribed them for posterity.

Perhaps nursing a grudge against the President, this officer may have approached other media outlets for years with the information he had obtained from the Killian file, but without solid evidence, reporters may not have had any desire to pursue something that was little more than a hearsay account of what a long-deceased colonel had written. So, out of frustration, he goes home one night, transcribed notes in hand, and recreates the Killian Papers on his home computer. Suddenly, 60 Minutes is interested, and the documents take on a life of their own. The officer with an axe to grind has people listening to him again. And the White House, knowing that the original Killian documents are identical in content to the doppelgangers provided to CBS, doesn't press the issue.

Why do I think this is a better explanation than what Bush's allies and foes have proferred to this point? Well, first of all, CBS has not yet presented a strong case for the authenticity of these documents. The expert they cited on Friday merely authenticated the handwriting, but I suspect it may not be that difficult to transpose a copy of an actual signature on a fake document, especially one that has been copied and re-copied several times. If they did use forensic typing analysts to authenticate these documents, they have not provided any information as to the names, qualifications, or services performed by those experts. The provenance of these documents has not been established to the satisfaction of anyone. And we do know that most of the experts who have studied these documents have concluded that there is a high probability that they were created by a computer, not an early-70's typewriter.

Second, though, is the fact that witness after witness has stated that the sentiments expressed in those documents reflect the actual state of mind of Colonel Killian during those months. Even his superior officer, who said on Friday that he now believes these documents are forgeries, who backs the President, and who states that he believes Bush was an outstanding pilot, affirmed that Col. Killian shared the opinions expressed in the memorandum, and that his earlier "authentication" was based on a belief that the papers in question were handwritten, not typed. Another officer who worked under Killian at the time stated that the memos were consistent with his normal practices, while the retired general who ran the TANG at that time said it was common practice for his officers to generate personal memos for the file.

And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the President, who is the one person who could give a categorical denial of these events, has not done so. The single most damning piece of information in any of these documents comes from the May 4, 1972 letter, giving George Bush a direct order to undergo an annual physical. The other stuff, from frustrating his superior officers with his lackadaisical commitment to his duties at that time to the fact that well-connected people were assisting him avoiding the consequences of his behaviour, has already been reported on at length, and the Killian Papers add little new to the discussion.

But his refusal to obey a direct order is a new charge, and, if true, one that should potentially disqualify him from remaining Commander-in-Chief during wartime. It is also a charge that he would have first-hand knowledge of its accuracy; he may not have known what "Staudt" or "Hodges" were doing on his behalf in August of '73, but he should definitely know whether he was given a direct written order from a superior officer that he didn't obey. If the May, 1972 letter is a fraud, and the information contained within is false, he should have said so by now. The fact that he hasn't, and that he has instead used surrogates over the last four days to try to explain away the substance of that charge, speaks volumes.

Anyways, that's how I see it. If you don't buy this hypothesis, let me know.

UPDATE: Dan Rather tonight did another report attempting to justify the story, finally introducing some forensic typing expert to buttress the authenticity of the Killian Papers. Perhaps the most significant evidence has to do with the use of the number "1" in place of the small case "L" (or "l") in some of the documents, something that is more difficult to pull off on a computer. Whatever. This story seems to be petering out; without a smoking gun one way or the other, we may still be arguing about this four years from now.

UPDATE (Pt. 2): Thanks to everyone who has put in their two cents, both in the comments section and through e-mail. The discussion has, for the most part, been civil, even where you disagree with me, and I appreciate that. I will respond in a new post shortly.

For those of you who still want to believe in the authenticity of the Killian Papers, here's an article from Media Matters, detailing how much of what has been reported about the capabilities of early-70's typewriters has been subsequently discredited. These posts, here and here, on the Daily Kos website, takes to task the amateur sleuths who've transposed the PDF files of the Papers with their own concoctions created by the computer in their mom's basement, and reveals discrepancies in the documents that could only have been created by a typewriter. And Jerralyn Merritt discusses the fallibility of "expert witnesses" in the field of forensic typing comparison. To that I would like to add that it is not uncommon for expert witnesses in any area to provide that testimony most desired by the side employing them, and that one of the experts used to challenge the authenticity of the Killian Papers received hate mail and threatening phone calls after he seemed to back away from that position to the Boston Globe. And, of course, the one person who could provide an account different than that contained in the Killian Papers, the President, remains silent.

None of this is to say that I remain any less skeptical of the Killian Papers. As usual, the digital brownshirts went over the top in their early posting, making claims about typing technology and the like that went way beyond the facts, and their efforts to play investigative journalists have merely shown what the level of quackery that pervades the fields of both blogging and forensic typing analysis. But something still tells me to be wary, especially since CBS has not been particularly forthcoming as to how it received these papers, where these papers came from, and (with one exception) who their authenticating experts are. Since it doesn't appear that 60 Minutes ever received originals, we may never get a resolution of this dispute.

From the outset, one of the more suspicious aspects of the Killian Papers has been its similarity to what can be produced using Microsoft Word programming. Using the default settings, some bloggers have been able to produce documents nearly identical to the May 19, 1972 and August 18, 1973 documents, at least to the untrained eye.

However, there is one distinct difference between the May 4 and August 1 letters and the documents generated via Microsoft, and is probably the best evidence for the authenticity of at least those two documents. The letterhead at the top is slightly askew, and doesn't match up with a document produced by the default setting. In both cases, there is an attempt to center the address of the memos, but using the default settings, the letterhead is one space to the right of the letterhead used in the memos.

Thus, in order to produce a letterhead that is centered where it is in the Killian Papers, the typist needs to change the default settings by one space in the letterhead, than return the margins to the default setting for the rest of the letter. That would be highly improbable, and it's probably the reason you haven't seen animated "superimposed" letters on websites seeking to debunk the Papers; the rest of the text may match, at least on a superficial level, but the centering is noticeably off. On the other hand, manually calculating the center of the letter for purposes of placing the letterhead, which was the centering process used with typewriters before it was done automatically with computers, could easily produce a letterhead situated exactly where it is in the two memos.

Anyways, Mr. Drum is right; this is the wrong day to play amateur investigator. Today, lets live our lives to honor the dead.

Increasingly, the argument about the Killian Papers has shifted to terrain more favorable to CBS. After two days of pretending the controversy didn't exist, CBS last night finally named one of their attesting experts, who verified the handwriting on one of the documents, while the Boston Globe obtained the statement of an outside witness who had previously doubted the veracity of the documents, but now thinks it possible that a specific typewriter from that period could have produced the fonts, subscripts and spacing that have been at the heart of the dispute. The Drum Questions, which are more concerned with the provenance of the documents, have not been answered, however, and until they are, further skepticism is warranted.

The fact that bloggers like Kevin Drum, Matthew Yglesias, Josh Marshall, and Ezra Klein have been willing to give credence to these claims has not gone over well with some other bloggers on the left. One such blogger went so far as to note sarcastically that "It's admirable that lefty bloggers are being duly skeptical of the CBS documents and diligently reporting it on their blogs. It means that we have more integrity than the other side and will probably go to heaven. Unfortunately, it also means that we are helping Republicans spin their lies and hurting our candidate. Again." He goes on to note that the "other side" plays hardball, and that if we want to win this election, we have to engage in the same tactics.

To which I reply, bullshit. First, to claim our skepticism about the authenticity of the Killian papers is proof of our moral superiority over our conservative counterparts is simply wrong. It is proof, rather, of our liberalism. Liberals are, by nature, people who question authority, who are skeptical of anything that might be defined as received wisdom. The ideology of liberals may have changed over the past two hundred years, from supporting laissez faire free market policies to backing an active governmental role in the economy, but the one consistency has been an aversion to being subservient to any sort of institutional authority, whether it be the sovereign, the church, the government itself, or, in this case, the Tiffany Network.

Second, while I can't speak directly for what motivates other bloggers, I know that I'm not doing anything here for the purpose of proving that I have more "moral integrity" over anyone else. I'm doing this because I happen to enjoy writing, and I find that this site is one of the few places I can really be myself. I'm most decidedly not doing this to advance my career, or because I think I'm this great undiscovered writer, or to elect some candidate, although people who read this site regularly have a pretty good idea as to whom I'm supporting in November.

And after the "Swift Boat Veterans" controversy of a few weeks back, to have "more moral integrity" than the bloggers who advanced that fraud is hardly difficult. On the one hand, you have dirtbags who congratulated themselves for having advanced a story of questionable veracity throughout the internet, complained when the "lib'rul media" didn't initially write up their claims, then wailed to high heavens that when they did investigate those charges, and found them wanting. On the other hand, you have writers like Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall, who, in spite of the questionable reputation of some of the right wing sources involved in questioning the Killian documents, nevertheless drew their own conclusions, and found that the claims of blogs like Powerline had some weight.

The fact that some wackjob is obsessed over what holiday Kerry was technically in Cambodia does not mean that we have to believe every negative thing said about President Bush; I think it has something to do with the adage about the blind pig and the acorn. And I'm quite content to play for the side that values the truth, even if it means we lose elections now and then.

CBS is sticking by its story, as well as the authenticity of the Killian Papers, but still has not provided any further information as to its "experts" or the basis for their conclusions. Until they do so, I'm sticking to my position as well.

UPDATE [3:56 p.m. PST]: Dan Rather has gone on the air tonight with a defense of the documents. About the only thing new is that one of their authenticating experts is finally identified, who posits that the difference in opinion with the others who have studied these papers may lie in comparing originals with 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation copies, which necessarily degrade the quality of the comparison. He also concludes that the signature of Mr. Killian on the documents is authentic, which has been a bone of contention with the skeptics. On other issues, particularly the Drum Questions, there is nothing new to report, and no reason to believe that anyone who has already arrived at an opinion on this subject will change his mind.

According to the NY Times, some of the same "experts" quoted by skeptics of the Killian Papers are now backing off somewhat from the earlier categorical conclusions, admitting it's possible that typewriters of that period could have generated the documents in question. I can go either way on this, although my trial lawyer-instincts tell me to be suspicious of CBS, at least until they come forward with more info. Kevin Drum, who has been wary from the start, asks the right questions, here.

Be that as it may, there is still one question that continues to nag at me: why didn't Bush denounce the veracity of these documents from the start? I'm not merely talking about questioning their authenticity, since I assume Dan Bartlett, et al., do not have any expertise as typewriting analysts. But Bush would had to have had some idea as to whether the contents of these documents were accurate, regardless of their authenticity. If, for example, he wasn't given a direct order by Col. Killian to take a medical exam, the May 4, 1972 letter could easily have been refuted by a White House denial, just as you, the reader, could deny a similar allegation made about your past. The White House received copies of these documents the day before the 60 Minutes report aired, so they had some time to get their story straight. Instead, the response has been that the Democrats are recycling old charges, and/or that Bush either didn't need to comply with said order, or was complying. Why hasn't the White House simply rejected the charge? What gives?

I am as partisan a Democrat as they come, and am not inclined to give the incumbent President any break in this campaign, so it pains me to say that the burden of proof is clearly on CBS to show that they were not the victims of a hoax concerning the "Killian documents". So far, the evidence that these documents were forgeries, generated decades after Bush left the T.A.N.G. and years after their purported author had passed away, seems compelling, and, as of right now, unrefuted. CBS has refused to reveal the names of its authenticating "experts", but those who have reviewed the copies have concluded, almost to a man, that the Killian documents were probably produced by a word processor or computer, not by a typewriter that existed in 1972-3. These documents may well reflect the thinking of Col. Killian, as his superior officer, a Bush supporter, confirmed, but that doesn't make the documents legitimate, and if CBS wishes to maintain any sort of journalistic credibility, it has to put up or shut up.

Of course, that then leads to the question of who forged the documents. It would have to be someone who knew the late Col. Killian's opinions about Bush's antics in the Air National Guard, who had some ability to imitate the style of military memos from the early-70's, and some background knowledge of George Bush and the Texas Air National Guard from that period, including Bush's address at the time. And, if the reporters acted in good faith in performing due diligence, the forger would have to had laid at least the groundwork for authenticating the provenance of these documents.

But the forger would also have to be either an amateur unaware of the difference between the font used by a typewriter and one used by a computer, or he would be someone who wanted the forgery to be easily exposed. Considering that the content of these documents was embarassing to the President, but not earthshattering (it's not like Col. Killian "drafted" a memo stating that he caught Lt. Bush snorting coke in a gay bar in Austin with John O'Neill), I suspect the latter possibility is more likely.

Lastly, it's also possible that only one of the documents (specifically, the August 18, 1973 "memo", which was a Saturday, FWIW) is inauthentic, tossed in with a set of authentic documents for some nefarious reason. Both of the family members to comment on this story have said it was not like Col. Killian to type memos of this nature; it may well be that these were transcribed from his handwritten notes by a third party well after his death, via word processor or computer. That might explain why the Bush White House has not attacked the authenticity of these documents; if the truthfulness of what's contained within the Killian papers is not at issue, there might not have been any reason to challenge their authenticity. Of course, that would still mean CBS has a lot of explaining to do.

Frank Rich, on George Bush:

Though pundits said that Republicans pushed moderates center stage last week to placate suburban swing voters, the real point was less to soften the president's Draconian image on abortion than to harden his manly bona fides. Hence Mr. Bush was fronted by a testosterone-heavy lineup led by a former mayor who did not dally to read a children's book on 9/11, a senator who served in the Hanoi Hilton rather than the "champagne unit" of the Texas Air National Guard, and a governor who can play the role of a warrior on screen more convincingly than can a former Andover cheerleader gallivanting on an aircraft carrier.

On the "Swift Boat Vets":

Democrats are shocked that the Republicans have gotten away with it to the extent they have. After all, John O'Neill, the ringleader of the Swifties, didn't serve "with" Mr. Kerry anywhere except on "The Dick Cavett Show." Other members of this truth squad include a doctor who claims to have treated Mr. Kerry's wounds even though his name isn't on a single relevant document and a guy who has gone so far as to accuse Jim Rassmann, whom Mr. Kerry saved from certain death, of being a liar. How could such obvious clowns fool so many? It must be Karl Rove's fault, or Fox's, or a lack of diligence from the non-Fox press.

To some extent, this is true. The connections between the Swifties and the Bushies would be obvious even if the current onslaught didn't mimic the 2000 Bush attack on John McCain, or even if each day didn't bring the revelation of overlapping personnel. When Marc Racicot, the Bush-Cheney chairman, says (dishonestly) that Mr. Kerry has called American troops "universally responsible" for Abu Ghraib, his message sounds coordinated with the Swifties' claim (equally dishonest) that Mr. Kerry once held American troops universally responsible for the atrocities committed in Vietnam.

And on John Kerry:

When the Democrat asks "Who among us does not love Nascar?" and lets reporters follow him around on a "day off" when his errands include buying a jock strap, he is asking to be ridiculed as an "International Man of Mystery." In the new issue of GQ, you can witness him having a beer...with a reporter as he confesses to a modicum of lust for Charlize Theron and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Presumably the only reason he excluded the demographically desirable Halle Berry is that her Catwoman outfit too closely resembles his own costume for windsurfing.

The flaw in Mr. Kerry is not, as Washington wisdom has it, that he asked for trouble from the Swifties by bringing up Vietnam in the first place. Both his Vietnam service and Vietnam itself are entirely relevant to a campaign set against an unpopular and ineptly executed war in Iraq that was spawned by the executive branch in similarly cloudy circumstances. But having brought Vietnam up against the backdrop of our 2004 war, Mr. Kerry has nothing to say about it except that his service proves he's more manly than Mr. Bush. Well, nearly anyone is more manly than a president who didn't have the guts to visit with the 9/11 commission unaccompanied by a chaperone.

It's Mr. Kerry's behavior now, not what he did 35 years ago, that has prevented his manliness from trumping the president's. Posing against a macho landscape like the Grand Canyon, he says that he would have given Mr. Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq even if he knew then what we know now. The setting may be the Old West, but the words do sound as if they've been translated from the French. His attempt to do nuance, as Mr. Bush would put it, makes him sound as if he buys the message the
Republicans hammered in last week: the road from 9/11 led inevitably into Iraq.

For some reason, the conventional wisdom holds that in order for John Kerry to reclaim control of the Presidential campaign, he must be willing to get down into the muck with the Bushies, put on his brass knuckles and to fight dirty, if necessary. Thus, we have seen him challenge the manhood of the Vice President the last two days, questioning whether someone who received five deferments during the 1960's can contribute anything to the national dialogue on fighting terrorism. In so doing, he has looked petty and small, forgetting that most American males of his generation stayed out of Vietnam with dodges similar to the Veep and the Commander-in-Chief, and giving off the air of desperation.

In fact, the more reliable post-convention polls show that Bush has a small lead, not surprising following a month in which Kerry was limited as to what he could spend, and Bush received the benefit of being in charge of the country during the Summer Olympics, when incumbent presidents always receive a significant boost. The gap, which Josh Marshall reports is close to four points, can be easily overcome without any dramatic change in strategy, simply by letting events in Iraq and the economy run their course.

Thus, the fact that Bush is about to have his own version of the "Swift Boat" book published should give liberals pause. Gossip Kitty Kelley is purportedly set to release a book that alleges, among other things, that the President has had a series of mistresses and a more significant drug habit than previously acknowledged. It also alleges that the President's mother is "almost a practicing witch", that the first President Bush may have a few incidents of statutory rape under his belt, and that the Anthrax mailings of 2001 were actually done by government agents to cover up embarassing photos of the President that were in the possession of the editor of the National Enquirer.

I really hope that this book gets the scorn it deserves, and not just because I believe that this campaign has already devolved into the sewer. The charges Kelley lays out are so wacky and bizarre so as to embarass Lyndon LaRouche, and will surely discredit her more serious allegations in the minds of most readers. In addition, Bush is pretty much innoculated against any attacks on his character prior to 1988, thanks to his religious conversion. His base does not hold his coke-snorting and boozing against him, for the simple reason that he has mastered the language of the born-again convert. Accuse him of living a dissolute life, and he will vaguely confirm it; actually prove that he freebasing at a Texas bordello in 1984, and the President's supporters will simply shrug and acknowledge that he was a sinner back before he found Jesus.

So lets just ignore this book, and focus instead on Bush's execrable record over the past four years. That gives us plenty of ammunition to fire at the Republicans, without diminishing ourselves and the political process. Down the other path madness lies [link via Tony Pierce].

I have seen my future, and it's name is "Barney's Beanery". The legendary West Hollywood dive, famous for being the home away from home for legendary drunks such as Jim Morrison and Janis Joplin, has opened up a new site at the 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica. Located where Teasers used to be, it provides a huge beer selection, decent chow, and about a hundred TV's to watch any and all sporting events, including all the college football a growing boy could see yesterday afternoon. I am truly home.