I think the Miller speech was fantastic, as I said. But I do think that if it had been delivered by a Republican it would be seen as a major liability for Bush -- largely because the press would but that spin. I think the Bush campaign believes that the counter-spin that Miller's a Democrat will defuse that sort of thing; "the Republicans weren't mean. Zell Miller's a Democrat."

I think the gamble will pay off. But expect a blizzard of spin from those who want to Buchananify the speech.

Who knows? Maybe after seeing this speech viewers will think to themselves, "Huh, sounds like a true Democrat who's disappointed in his party. He didn't leave them, they left him. That's a shame. It's too bad the GOP is the only moderate and mainstream party left."

But I doubt it. I could be wrong, but really, I doubt it.

--Sam Rosenfeld

I want to stress this: Zell Miller is not an asset to the GOP. He's proved that much tonight.

--Sam Rosenfeld

No matter how much they dumped on Zell Miller, then, they still didn't plan the same anti-candidate barrage for Dick Cheney that they did for John Edwards. I hope Media Matters keeps on them.

--Jeffrey Dubner

--Mark Goldberg

Jeff Greenfield told Miller than he looked angry out there tonight, and asked him whether he thought there would be fallout from his negativity. Miller: "Me, angry? I'm sorry if I gave that appearance. I'm sure that probably some news anchors are saying that it could backfire, but that's what anchors do."

We'll have more in a moment from Zell's bizarro second interview, with Chris Matthews. This guy will be all over the news tonight and tomorrow. He just overshadowed Cheney and Bush and made this the Zell Miller convention.

--Ayelish McGarvey

But God bless Joe Scarborough. That's right, I said, "God bless Joe Scarborough." Right now, as I write this, he's back to uttering the typical partisan inanities, but his immediate response, just a minute after the speech, was perfect. To paraphrase, he said he was just astounded; after all he had heard about how this convention was going to tout George Bush's agenda for the future and lay out a case for a second term, that after three days the entire thing has been a single-minded attack on John Kerry. Exactly. Every pundit besides Scarborough on this network is fawning over the punch and effectiveness of these two speeches. I think they're wrong.

--Sam Rosenfeld

• NBC: Newt Gingrich
• ABC: George Stephanopolous
• MSNBC: Republican Ohio Governor Bob Taft and Republican Georgian Senate candidate Johnny Isakson
• CNN: Zell Miller
• PBS: Republican former Wyoming governor Jim Geringer

--Jeffrey Dubner

--Jeffrey Dubner

--Sam Rosenfeld

Forget for a moment, if you will, that this is not World War II and that Iraq was neither Germany nor Japan.

Pull the camera angle wider. Compare the two presidents on the domestic front. This is no FDR. They are working to reverse the New Deal. This is no Eleanor Roosevelt.

--Sarah Wildman

--Ayelish McGarvey

--Sam Rosenfeld

--Sam Rosenfeld

--Jeffrey Dubner

--Jeffrey Dubner

--Mark Goldberg

--Jodi Enda

Then tonight, he gets to announce that the president and vice-president got renominated.

Steele's sudden ubiquity reminds me of a story my old friend Rick Majerus, the basketball coach, once told about recruiting city kids to the concrete campus of Marquette University in Milwaukee. Rick said he would go to the one tree growing there and walk a full 360 degrees around it, so that he could get a picture of every building through the foliage of the one tree and convince recruits that Marquette was a luxurious sylvan paradise.

I know why Michael Steele is here. He's the Marquette University tree.

--Charles P. Pierce

--Jeffrey Dubner

From the look of things, Cheney's speech is almost pure negativity, a recitation of all the tendentious greatest hits from the RNC playbook. Even the thoroughly debunked "more sensitive" remark will be in there. I have to think that Republican willingness to keep pressing ahead with a line of attack no matter how discredited it already is constitutes a major source of strength.

--Matthew Yglesias

The scheduling went horribly awry, as the video ran right after a speech by Senator Rick Santorum (R-Galilee). If Santorum had looked up on the big screen and seen two dogs, he might've come back and done another eight minutes.

--Charles P. Pierce

Watching live, the great challenge is to resist the temptation to heckle. The governor of Hawaii was just onstage saying Bush had led the economy into recover "from a recession he inherited." "He didn't inherit it," I wanted to yell, "the recession started months after his inauguration!" But I didn't, I just told the photographer next to me, that it wasn't true. He shrugged.

--Matthew Yglesias

--Harold Meyerson

--Jeffrey Dubner

On Monday, protestors yelled at DNC response communications director Jay Carson -- the man who came up to NYC a week early to turn a 15000–sq. foot space into a War Room and response center for the Dems, to "Go home." "I got yelled at because I was wearing a shirt" -- he plucks at his button-down -- "and this," he says, lifting his lanyard and ID, which clearly states his DNC affiliation. "I was like, I'm trying to get (Bush) out."

--Garance Franke-Ruta

Kerry's conduct after the war, looked at in its entirety, shows a clear, admirable commitment to his fellow servicemen, particularly those still in Vietnam. Looked at in soundbites, on the other hand, Kerry's conduct seems a mass of paradoxes -- he pushed for VA funding and the return of POWs, but he also spoke of war crimes and met with the North Vietnamese.

The media is dependent on soundbites, but it also abhors paradoxes. Whoever provides a simple, consistent theme -- and, crucially, provides it first -- wins every time. So even though Kerry is doing one of the things I said was necessary when this all started, I'm not confident that it'll make a difference; he's just too far behind the gun.

Same deal with his analysis of the Iraq War in this speech. He offers a very clear explanation of how Iraq went wrong and some of the many things that the Bush administration failed to do, but it doesn't feel like it will take. This suffers from the same problems: The flip-flopping CW is so ingrained that new statements just seem like seventh-generation flops, and his position is too exhaustive to be repeated ad nauseam. Add to that the fact that he barely mentions George W. Bush by name, and it's got none of the obvious punch of the dozens of personal attacks coming out of the Republican National Convention.

--Jeffrey Dubner

Thompson echoed the sentiments of many delegates when he said California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech epitomized "why we're Republicans." Tommy even borrowed a couple of lines from the California governor's speech to rev up the Tavern on the Green crowd.

"I knew after that speech that George W. Bush is going to win re-election," he said. "After listening to Arnold's speech, if you don't vote for George W. Bush, there’s something wrong with you. If you don’t vote for George W. Bush, you truly are a girly-man."

--Sam Rosenfeld

--Jodi Enda

Trifkovic gives us the unvarnished, "politically incorrect" truth about Islam -- including the shocking facts about its founder, Mohammed; its rise through bloody conquest; its sanctioning of theft, deceit, lust and murder; its persecutions of Christians, Jews, Hindus and other "infidels"; its cruel mistreatment of women; the colossal myth of its cultural "golden age"; its irreformable commitment to global conquest by any means necessary; the broad sweep of the military, political, moral, and spiritual struggle that faces us; and what we must do if we wish to survive.

--Mark Goldberg

Off to the side two guys were chatting while examining a book display from the Socialist Worker's Party. "So . . . Communism like Stalin?" I asked. "Well, it depends what you mean by 'Stalinism,' but not really. More like Bukharin." I didn't want to know more.

--Matthew Yglesias

--Jeffrey Dubner

The decision is a re-interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and it's actually the second re-interpretation. The first was so egregious, according to the Economic Policy Institute, public outcry forced the administration to revisit the issue. The AFL-CIO has launched a campaign to overturn the DOL decision. From an Economic Policy Institute briefing paper:

Employees who can only recommend—but not carry out—the “change of status” of the two employees that they “supervise” will be exempted as “executives” even if they manage nothing more substantial than a team or grouping of employees. In all, 1.4 million low-level, salaried supervisors will lose their overtime rights, along with 548,000 hourly supervisors, who could be switched to being paid on a salary basis and thus denied overtime protection.

More than 900,000 employees without a graduate degree or even a college degree will be designated “professional employees” and lose the right to overtime pay, even if their pay and status fall far below that of degreed employees. As many as 2.3 million team leaders with no supervisory authority will be exempted as “administrative employees” even if they are line or production employees.

Approximately 130,000 chefs and sous chefs who are not executive chefs will be exempted as “learned professionals” and “creative professionals.” Pre-kindergarten and nursery school teachers, no matter how low their pay, will be exempt under the new rule, even if their work does not require the exercise of discretion and judgment. We estimate that 30,000 nursery school teachers will lose the right to overtime pay.

Mortgage loan officers will be affected by the new financial services industry exemption and by the gutting of the protections for employees who are line workers, rather than policy or business operations staff. Ultimately, 160,000 mortgage loan officers will lose the right to overtime pay that they currently have today.

In addition, nearly 90,000 computer employees, funeral directors, and licensed embalmers will become exempt professionals and lose their right to overtime pay.

Furthermore, the DOL creates a new exemption that will deny overtime protection to otherwise nonexempt employees who earn $100,000 or more a year, as long as they regularly perform a single task that could be considered characteristic of an executive, administrative, or professional employee. This new provision will exempt an estimated 400,000 employees who currently are entitled to overtime pay.

Altogether, we estimate that nearly six million employees will lose their right to overtime pay on the basis of just 10 of the many changes the final rule makes in these critical regulations

--Sarah Wildman

--Matthew Yglesias

At any rate, if the India alliance is the hoped-for future of Israeli regional security policy, the Turkish alliance may well be the past. The moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party recently came to power in Ankara; unlike India's Congress Party, it does seem determined to effect some changes in Israel policy. On a superficial level, Consul-General Omer Onhon (who AJC Director of Strategic Studies Barry Jacobs kept calling "ambassador" despite Onhon's protestations) gave an address that was all sweetness and light. Diplomats being diplomats, however, the policy content was pretty hard-edged. No reference was made to the traditional Turko-Israeli security cooperation against Syria (and, formerly, Iraq) and he went out of his way to mention that the relationship "is not purely military." Instead, Onhon suggested that Turkey could most be useful to Israel by parlaying its good relations with both the Jewish state and the Arab world to act as an honest broker in seeking "a just peace, based on UN Security Council resolutions . . . and the principle of land for peace," a none-too-subtle dig at the current policies of the Israeli and American governments.

Then Onhon turned to Iraq, where, in typical Turkish style, he managed to talk about the Kurds for a long time without ever using the term "Kurd." He emphasized that Turkey, too, has known terrorist attacks (from Kurds), that not all terrorism was related to religious disagreement (i.e., it might be done by Kurdish Muslims against Turkish Muslims), and that many countries were still indifferent to the presence of terrorist groups (i.e., Kurdish nationalist groups) on their soil. He outlined Turkey's insistence on an Iraqi state that not only maintained its "territorial integrity" (i.e., no Kurdish independence) but also its "political unity" (i.e., no Kurdish autonomy). He even indicated some opposition to any form of "assymetrical federalism" (where certain political sub-units have more power than others as in, say, the United Kingdom) for Kurdistan. Last but by no means least he said that neglect of Iraq's Turkoman minority would be "unacceptable," suggesting the existence of a possible pretext for intervention if things don't go their way.

Meanwhile, Israel has begun increasingly looking to Iraq's Kurds as a counterweight to pro-Iranian elements in the Shiite south, and the United States desperately needs not to alienate the one major population group in Iraq that still broadly supports our presence in the country. Under the circumstances, relations with Turkey will be a tough needle to thread for whoever may come to power in either Israel or the United States.

--Matthew Yglesias

Specter doesn’t have an awful history on labor issues; he supported the 1999 minimum wage increase, opposes tort reform, voted for the amendment to block Bush’s recent overtime changes before they began, etc. He’s got a 63 percent lifetime voting score by the AFL-CIO (compare this to his colleague Rick Santorum’s 14 percent), and the new Drum Major Institute study gives him a "B" for his 2003 votes. (See here for some primo wingnut rage at Specter’s labor record from back in his primary fight with Pat Toomey.) Perhaps more importantly, last week Specter hastily signed on as a co-sponsor to the Employee Free Choice Act, the Ted Kennedy–authored bill legitimizing card checks in union organizing. This is arguably the most important piece of labor legislation in years, and the brazenness of Specter’s opportunism in endorsing it only now (poor Hoeffel, with his 93 percent lifetime AFL-CIO rating, was an original co-sponsor of the House version of the bill) clearly wasn’t much of a mitigating factor for the union when it was making its choice.

Of course, the endorsement was above all strategic; the AFL-CIO just doesn’t think Hoeffel can win. The state AFL-CIO president Bill George told the Philadelphia Inquirer that “a lot of people felt that Hoeffel's polling number wasn't at the level that it should be to beat Arlen Specter," and they're not interested in burning bridges. For Hoeffel, this is a real shame, but it's the sort of bad break that keeps coming up in his campaign.

--Sam Rosenfeld

Two of the GOP incumbents in important races -- Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska -- earned a "B"; the other ten Republican incumbents got "C"s or lower. No Democratic incumbent got lower than a "B." And here’s a real shocker: According to the Institute’s Senate-wide analysis, 96 percent of all Democratic Senators earned "A"s, while fully a quarter of the Republicans got "F"s. Grading voting records based on a single legislative year is admittedly an inexact method, but one suspects the party disparity in 2003 wasn’t some statistical fluke.

--Sam Rosenfeld

But while there may have been some semantic ambiguity about this phrase in the fall of 2001, it's been well-established over subsequent years -- thanks, in large part, to the preferred usage of the Bush administration -- that we're to understand "war on terror" as referring to a battle against a rather specific militant Islamist ideology. A great deal of what the president has said over the years only makes sense on this understanding of "war on terror," but what he said to Lauer only makes sense on the other understanding.

This, I would suggest, is a serious problem. It's not that you need to pick the smartest person imaginable or something, but it is rather important for the President of the United States to have some idea of what he's talking about when the thing he's talking about is supposed to be his signature issue. It was the kind of thing a person would only say if he hasn't been paying any attention at all to the national security debate that's unfolded since September 11.

--Matthew Yglesias

Also attempted a little taxicab journalism en route. "Business is down," said my driver, a Muslim immigrant from India, "and I hear these Republicans don't tip very well." As for the Bush foreign policy, "he's worse than Chuck Schumer." Schumer, of course, being the most aggressive of New York state's many aggressively pro-Israel politicians, none of whom are much loved in the city's largely Islamic taxidriver corps.

--Matthew Yglesias

Because Chelsea Clinton was such a model presidential daughter -- poised, collected, and never louche or drunk in public -- it's easy to forget that many children of presidents go on to have disastrous and dysfunctional lives, troubled marriages, and drug and alcohol problems. Weekly Standard contributor Naomie Emerie wrote a piece about the history of presidential children going astray last summer that you can find on the History News Network:

But many more [presidential sons]suffered defeat and failure, and they flood history in a sad and angry tide. Andrew Jackson Jr. died in a freak hunting accident. Andrew Johnson Jr. was an alcoholic who died young in another accident. A brother died at age thirty-five, a possible suicide. Kermit Roosevelt, third son of Theodore, shot himself in the mouth on an army base in Alaska in 1943.

Many children, especially daughters, suffered through difficult marriages. The chaos reached new and strange heights in the family of Franklin Roosevelt-- the only man to be elected four times, and a man whose wife became almost as great a celebrity as her presidential husband. The five surviving Roosevelt children wracked up nineteen marriages, with associated scandals and suicide efforts. One daughter's second husband threw himself out of a window. A son's wife (the actress Faye Emerson) was hospitalized after cutting her wrists. The sons moved back and forth between using the family name to get money and indulging in acts of overt and covert hostility....

Why do so many presidents' children commit suicide? Or take risks or take drugs? Different reasons suggest themselves. Being a president's child does not merely refer to the few years the parents may live in the White House. It means a lifetime of being the child of the kind of person who wants to be and then makes himself president. It means having a father who drives both himself and the people around him. It means having a father who is constantly busy, frequently traveling, and for various reasons may be unavailable. It means having a father whose love affair with his calling and country often comes at the expense of his family.

Today, Jenna told the College Republicans what was supposed to be a cute little story about her dad, designed to show how he "sticks with his commitment and he can take the heat -- literally." Some years ago, when Jenna was little, she went to a Rangers game with her dad one Labor Day. It was 108 degrees out, and she was the only family member with him. Hot and bored, she "desperately tried to embarass him out" of the stadium, she says: "I covered myself in wet paper towels hoping he would take me home." He didn't budge.

The girls are taking a lot of heat today for their terrible performance at the convention last night, but I'm starting to wonder if, between their passive-aggressive promise of "payback" to family members and their determinedly "young and irresponsible" behavior, what they're really doing may be covering themselves in the behavioral equivalent of wet paper towels, hoping that if they can just embarass their dad enough they'll finally get his attention.

--Garance Franke-Ruta

--Jeffrey Dubner

Look, First Kids are off-limits, but these are two grown women who apparently can't go 35 seconds without reverting into full Bushian incoherence and unappealing adolescent smugness. The apple somehow fell inside the tree. They are manifestly and intrinsically incapable of being good on television. Assuming they rehearsed that godawful routine, where were the grown-ups who were empowered to prevent the humiliation? How about, "Thank you all for being here, and now, to introduce our mother, our Dad, the president of the United States." And then off the stage and away into the night.

Whatever you may think of the First Spalpeens, they didn't deserve what happened to them last night. Not that it will matter in the long run (right, Chris? Tim? Wolf?), but if people ever got fired for anything in this White House, somebody would lose their job over this.

And what in God's name would have happened had one of the No. 43s in that softball game gotten fooled inside and fouled one off into W's liveshot? Get it together, you hacks. You're running for president.

--Charles P. Pierce

Among the remarkable moments in last night's Apotheosis of the Arnold was His Gropination's citation of Mandela as one of the people for whom America was a beacon of freedom. Let us just say that old Nelson didn't have five votes in the room and leave it at that.

I was also charmed by the gratuitous kick given to the late Hubert Humphrey, who only helped wrench this country 180 degrees on the subject of human freedom, by a guy whose contributions to America thus far consist of being a (slightly) better actor than Jesse Ventura.

And when did Liddy Dole become the Reverend Ike? "In America, I have the freedom to call this man Lord, and I do."

I also called upon Him. Repeatedly. Fervently. For most of the evening.

--Charles P. Pierce

--Jeffrey Dubner

More generally, the attempts from pretty much every speaker to tie today's hodge-podge of military action to World War II and the Cold War are grating and tiresome. What daft treatment of history. Are we all waiting for the Islamic world to, I don't know, renounce Islam, so that we can say Bush defeated Islamic terrorism just like Reagan defeated communism? (Ann Coulter, please don't answer that...)

--Ken Nesmith

--Garance Franke-Ruta

It turned out to be the sort of party where I was under-dressed in a suit with a button-down shirt and no tie. Inside, Richard Leiby opined that conventions are "bullshit" (as opposed to what he normally writes about...) and Wonkette herself was being trailed by a New York Times photographer. Bill Kristol was not in evidence, but The Connection author Steve Hayes graciously remembered me from my hit piece on his book. (Further jokes about dubious "connections" were not appreciated.) Continetti spoke proudly of his piece defending John Kerry against the Swift boat liars, published on the Standard Web site.

Jonesing for a smoke, I was assured by a staffer that with the assistance of her handy stamp I could get back in without standing on the line (which, by midnight, had grown even longer), but upon attempting re-entry that proved to be false. Outside, luminaries like TNR Managing Editor Jeremy Kahn and assorted flunkies from various lobbying firms were still waiting to get in, but I headed home in hopes of awaking early to track down further signs of the burgeoning Jew-Hindu alliance against Islam.

--Matthew Yglesias

--Garance Franke-Ruta

Forget the balloon drop -- the real action Thursday will be when thousands of journalists and delegates try to retrieve their bumbershoots. I guess that's one way to keep people coming back.

--Jodi Enda

--Jeffrey Dubner

--Sam Rosenfeld

--Jeffrey Dubner

UPDATE: Conservatives and liberals agree: "The girls must go"!

Did anybody vet these girls? Karen Hughes told Larry King that she had worked on Laura Bush’s speech. Did she even glance at the girls’ prepared text? Was there one?

Even the folks over at the Corner were cringing. When that happens, you know it’s bad.

--Ayelish McGarvey

--Jeffrey Dubner

--Mark Goldberg

--Mark Goldberg

Matalin's tag-team partner Hughes topped herself tonight with an anecdote meant to illustrate the depth of Bush's commitment to his job. Apparently a supporter on the campaign trail recently asked Bush, "Why don't you take a break, why don't you go fishing?" But Bush won't, you see, because he's that focused. And, have no doubt, "he understands the stakes."

Karen Hughes is pretty insufferable. I recall Tucker Carlson's comments on her from several years ago:

I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness.

--Sam Rosenfeld

--Garance Franke-Ruta

--Matthew Yglesias

The next bit -- the gay-bashing -- is more to my liking. That's some good, old-fashioned conservatism.

--Matthew Yglesias

Q: General Franks, there has been a lot of criticism with some people saying that President Bush did not have a plan to win the peace. Can you address that?

A: Sure. Of course he had a plan to win the peace. Of course he did. Of course the United States had a plan to build the largest coalition the world has ever seen. And did it. Of course the United States had a plan to lead a coalition to remove one of the most despotic regimes we've seen in the last 100 years. Of course the United States of America has a plan to lead the coalition that will permit and assist the Iraqi people in claiming a new Iraq for themselves, a free Iraq. And all of that is going to take longer than a flash in the pan associated with popping a balloon.

--Matthew Yglesias

--Sarah Wildman

Listen to those words. Whenever the GOP talks character and values, the same themes Liddy Dole will touch on tonight, it's also talking gender.

If it sounds at all like Cheney was talking about what a certain sort of woman might want from a certain sort of man -- a protector, a decent husband, and a good father -- she probably was. This is the ideal of the warrior at home, a way of describing masculine strength from a traditionally feminine perspective. "George W. Bush is not just a great president," said Cathy Gillespie at the same event, "but... a good man."

And Laura Bush exists in this equally gendered world, "the most generous, most loyal, most soothing, smartest, and strongest person that I know," as her mother-in-law Barbara Bush described her.

What you will not find in this world of resolute men and soothing women is "girlie men." The Daily Standard (The Weekly Standard's convention daily) decrees it. "No Girlie Men Here" is today's cover line, in advance of the speech of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger -- himself a caricature of a man, from his exagerated physique to his history of groping women.

The attacks on gay marriage, the Purple Heart Band-Aids suggesting Kerry was honored for scratches, the accusation of Frenchness -- the GOP war on Kerry is as much a contest over the meaning of being a man as one over, say, overtime regulations and economic policy. And tonight, women will play, as they so often do, the central role in defining what that is.

--Garance Franke-Ruta

A Christian passerby was puzzled by the signs, and pulled out his Bible to check the verses cited in support of the bold Bush/God thesis. I helped the research effort by looking over his shoulder. We couldn't find much relevant evidence, but we had a chuckle finding that one cited verse was a passage that read to the effect of, "Whatever you do, do it quickly."

--Ken Nesmith

--Jeffrey Dubner

Whew.

--Nick Confessore

I think so. On the other hand, we're making great progress. Today at the Legion I said, "We're winning the war on terror, and we will win the war on terror." There's no doubt in my mind, so long as this country stays resolved and strong and determined, and by winning, I just would remind your listeners that Pakistan is now an ally in the war on terror. Saudi now takes Al-Qaeda seriously, and they're after the leadership. Libya is no longer got weapons of mass destruction. Afghanistan, I don't know if you've discussed this on your program, but there are over ten million people who have registered to vote in Afghanistan, which is a phenomenal statistic when you think about it. And then of course Iraq is now heading toward elections as well, and we're making progress.

--Matthew Yglesias

--Jeffrey Dubner

Certainly history does not support the White House assertion that national security officials like the secretaries of state and defense do not attend national political conventions. Ronald Reagan's secretary of state, George P. Shultz, attended the Republican National Convention in Dallas in 1984. So did Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, who gave an opening-night speech. The first President Bush's secretary of state, James A. Baker III, attended the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston, although he had just announced his resignation, effective after the convention, to become the manager of Mr. Bush's ailing campaign.

Let's not indulge them anymore on this one, okay?

--Sam Rosenfeld

--Jeffrey Dubner

It's entirely possible that a Limbaugh appearance was planned in advance, but I doubt it. As far as I can tell, George W. Bush himself hasn't appeared on The Rush Limbaugh Show since taking office -- but top advisors have, every time that the administration had reason to believe that it would lose popularity among stalwart military supporters in middle America. Dick Cheney, most memorably, went on the show when Richard Clarke was making prominent, credible, and damning criticisms of Bush's counterterrorism efforts. Cheney also spoke with Limbaugh on the first anniversary of September 11. Even before 9-11, Donald Rumsfeld appeared on the show while clashing with then–Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki.

There must be serious concern about the fallout from the suggestion that American can't win the war on terror, for Bush to take the drastic step of appearing on the show himself. Limbaugh espouses a whole raft of atrocious beliefs that run counter to the moderation of Rudy Giuliani et al., and I can't imagine the campaign wants its spokespeople to have to defend the president calling Limbaugh "a good friend" right about now. We've written before about Bush's failure to solidify his base; it looks like they're still scrambling.

--Jeffrey Dubner

This week, the newest version of the French ban on "conspicuous" religious symbols goes into effect. In theory that includes kippot and crosses, but in practice that means the veil.

Two things are striking about the kidnapping of the reporters, in addition to the obvious horror to which journalism is becoming more and more susceptible. One is that France thought it was going to avoid conflict in Iraq after opposing the war. French President Jacques Chirac said as much in his plea for the release of the journalists.

The other is that the French Muslim community has recognized that this turn of events is something to distance themselves from, without qualification. According to the Guardian, Lhaj Thami Breze, the president of the radical-leaning Union of Islamic Organizations of France said: "The headscarf issue is a solely French affair and we do not accept foreign interference. ... We must not negotiate. It is blackmail which the Muslims of France reject. It is blackmail which does not serve the Muslim cause and which unfortunately holds the Muslim community hostage." It's a rare moment of solidarity with France under horrendous circumstances.

--Sarah Wildman

The Falun Gongers weren't big on providing a U.S. angle to their story, but promoting human rights in China -- never a big priority for the American government -- has dropped even further down the list as an unintended consequence of the Bush administration's approach to the war on terrorism. On the one hand, we're collaborating with China in a joint effort (with Russia) to prop up a series of secular Central Asian dictatorships run by old hands from the Communist era. This has involved, among other things, our giving American assent to the dubious Chinese contention that the government's crackdown on groups campaigning for the rights of Sinkiang's Muslim population is primarily a counterterrorist effort. On the other hand, our own adoption of "stress positions" as a tactic of counterinsurgency warfare has tended to take the heat off China for its use of similar tactics against domestic political opponents.

Colin Powell, who's been basicallly running China policy while Don Rumsfeld handles the Middle East, bragged a few months back in a Foreign Affairs article (unfortunately not online) that U.S.-China relations have never been better. Sadly, he's right.

--Matthew Yglesias

--Jeffrey Dubner

This is one of the more paradoxical elements of the presidential campaign. Iraq, clearly, will be a very big issue -- if not the issue -- in the campaign. If voters feel that things are going well and that we're on course for success, they'll be inclined to vote for the candidate who promises to stay the course. If voters feel that things are going poorly and that staying the course will achieve nothing, then they'll likely vote for the other guy. But most people don't follow the Iraq news very closely. Instead, they use a heuristic -- they figure that if anything really dramatic was happening, they would see it on the front pages or the evening newscasts.

In reality, though, how much attention the news from Iraq (which, when you find it, is almost uniformly bad) gets is less a function of how important the story is than of how much space other events are taking up. Whenever the campaign heats up, Iraq gets squeezed off the front pages, which makes the situation look better, which assists Bush's re-election. My guess is that this will be a big help to the president come October when the race will be at its peak and there will be barely any news coverage of the underlying issues.

--Matthew Yglesias

The Progress Report recounts all sorts of smaller Greenspan flip-flops and reversed justifications over time on the linked matters of tax cuts and Social Security solvency. They all add up, however, to one great, crowning scam, which has unfolded over the years since his recommendation to jack up payroll taxes in 1983, continuing through his thumbs-up to Bush’s tax cuts for the rich in 2001, all the way to his most recent worries that, lo and behold, we’ve promised too much to our seniors. As The Progress Report puts it, through the bait-and-switch of Greenspan and company, “Social Security has been transformed from a retirement program to a regressive income redistribution program.” The Chairman’s dishonesty on this issue is genuinely scandalous. People should make some noise.

--Sam Rosenfeld

--Matthew Yglesias

Closer to the halls of power, however, interesting things are afoot.

An AJC staffer expressed to me the view that despite the perception that pro-Israel groups are enormously powerful on the Hill, the demographic time clock is against them as the country becomes steadily less white. Indian-Americans are "probably the only ethnic minority constituency that we have a good chance of working with on foreign-policy issues" he told me. Indian-Americans, meanwhile, want the United States to see India, like Israel, as a co-belligerent in the war on terrorism. The Indian-American community is comparable in size to the American Jewish community and is similarly well-educated and prosperous, but has considerably less political influence -- a situation community leaders are determined to rectify. Recent years have seen, among other things, the founding of the US India Public Affairs Committee (USINPAC) a group that's explicitly modeled on the success of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Many observers believed that the recent defeat of the historically pro-Israel party BJP and its replacement in government by the more left-wing Congress Party might spell an end to the recent era of enthusiastic Indo-Israeli cooperations. Not so, explained India's new ambassador to the United States, Ronen Sen. He was a key advisor to the short-lived Congress government of Rajiv Gandhi, which made the first step toward normalizing relations with Israel in Indian history, and he says that today's Congress Party is fully committed to warm relations. India and Israel are "very, very, very important partners in defense cooperation," he said, "and it's not an accident." (Basically, India isn't wealthy enough to sustain a high-tech armaments industry and Israel is; the Israeli market isn't large enough to sustain a high-tech armaments industry and the Indian market is. But put together two democratic non-signers of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, each wracked by Islamist terrorism, and you've got a military power far stronger than anything in the Islamic world.)

Sen claimed to possess intelligence information indicating that A.Q. Khan's global nuclear weapons market was conducted with the full knowledge of the Pakistani government, something he also says the U.S. government knows to be true. Nor was he above stretching the truth a bit to solidify Jewish-Indian ties, implying strongly that Indian forces in World War I were fighting against Arabs on behalf of the British, rather than fighting on the side of the Arabs and against the Turks on behalf of the British. He also seemed to suggest that Pakistan was or had been aiding the Iranian nuclear program, a contention that has no basis in fact of which I'm aware.

The fly in the ointment here is that the Bush administration has declined to seize the political opening by taking an anti-Pakistani line. Instead, they bestowed prestigious "Major Non-NATO Ally Status" on the country, giving them fast-track clearance on intelligence sharing and weapons sales, much to the consternation of USINPAC. Pro-Israeli groups seem happy to campaign against this relationship in exchange for support from Indian-American groups for a pro-Israeli policy; Representative Joseph Wilson of South Carolina, at least, was willing to break with president Bush over this issue in pursuit of a broad U.S.-Israel-India strategic alliance (in the circles where this idea has currency, Russia and/or Turkey are usually expected to join in) against Islamism.

On a related note: The anti-outsourcing rhetoric coming from the Democratic Party of late has deeply offended the Indian-American community's official representatives, who view it is a kind of thinly-veiled India-bashing.

--Matthew Yglesias

This, of course, at a convention in which everybody on the podium "honors" John Kerry's service in Vietnam. Once again, the existential question becomes how John McCain ever looks at himself in the mirror.

--Charles P. Pierce

"There is a lot of anxiousness out there," Luntz remarked. "People don't want to be told things are OK. They don't feel like things are OK." Noting that Bush said the war on terror was unwinnable, Luntz said: "Voters need to see the light at the end of the tunnel. They want someone who is confident, but there is a difference between confident and cocky."

--Jodi Enda

Did Rudy Giuliani's speech reassure you or move you to support the Bush-Cheney ticket?

Reassure

Move you to support

--Jeffrey Dubner

But the financial services industry, for its part, is worried. A Goldman Sachs employee tells me that many of their workers have been sent to work in New Jersey for the week. Many employees are taking time off, and institutions put their contingency plans on hair triggers in case of attack. Even though we heard much more about terrorism threats during the DNC, the industry considers the risk of terrorism during this convention much higher.

--Ken Nesmith

I'll leave aside McCain's elevation of the fight against terrorism with World War II, an oratorical and intellectual error he shares with many people, including many Democrats. The worst of his offenses against the truth came, predictably, with regards to Iraq:

After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq. Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.

The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.

Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents. And certainly not a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls.

Whether or not Saddam possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again.

The central security concern of our time is to keep such devastating weapons beyond the reach of terrorists who can't be dissuaded from using them by the threat of mutual destruction. We couldn't afford the risk posed by an unconstrained Saddam in these dangerous times.

But no credible voice in the Democratic foreign policy establishment was calling for an end to sanctions or backing down from our deployments in the Persian Gulf, nor considered Saddam an angel. The bottom line is that the choice McCain posited last night was a false one. It was not a choice between knocking Saddam off on the one hand, and letting him acquire nukes on the other. On the central justification for the Iraq War -- preventing a dictator from developing a WMD capability -- the inspections regime worked, showing before the invasion what is now undeniable: Saddam didn't pose a threat to us at the time. Certainly there was no "imminent threat" justifying a rush to war that alienated us from the very allies we need to pick apart terrorist networks. This is undeniable. It is a fact. McCain is ignoring it. Look at the elisions of McCain's own language: He never specifies which "terrible weapons" Saddam had, exactly, because that would tie McCain up in logical knots as he tries to defend Bush.

He also notes, shortly thereafter, that "the central security concern of our time is to keep such devastating weapons beyond the reach of terrorists who can't be dissuaded from using them by the threat of mutual destruction." McCain has a point, assuming by "devastating weapons" he's talking about chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Bush's record on this issue is horrendous. We spent billions of dollars and seriously overstretched our armed forces to knock off a dictator who didn't have any of these weapons, something our inspectors told us before we pulled the trigger. Meanwhile, Bush, through inattention and bungled diplomacy, has allowed North Korea, a known proliferator run by a madman, to develop a much more robust nuclear capability. He praised the Nunn-Lugar threat reduction initiative -- a bulwark against the serious threat of poorly-guarded and very real Soviet-era nukes falling into the hands of terrorists -- but then cut its funding. And where was the Bush administration when Pakistan let A.Q. Khan off with a slap on the wrist, after it turned out he was exporting nuclear weapons technology to anyone with the cash? Oh, yeah -- they were busy coddling Pervez Musharraf's government to make sure they'd catch some al-Qaeda officials during the Democratic convention.

--Nick Confessore

Bush campaign operatives argue that one cause of this small shift from Kerry to Bush was Kerry's statement that he would have attacked Iraq. My own view is that Kerry has been dinged by the questions raised about his record in Vietnam. Plus, the swift-boat controversy dominated the political news coverage, suppressing other issues. A week when the focus is on the economy and jobs, or on Iraq and casualties, the management of the war, and weapons of mass destruction is a good week for Kerry and a bad week for Bush. When the focus is on almost anything else, it's very likely to be a good week for Bush and a bad week for Kerry.

The point is that in the absence of some major external event or a monumental screwup by Bush or Kerry in this fall's presidential debates, neither candidate is likely to build a significant, sustainable lead. One can look at all the relevant factors in the race and shade it in one direction or the other.

For example, I put great weight in the enormous levels of pessimism among undecided voters and their apparently low opinion of Bush. I think the president's climb is still a bit uphill. My experience tells me that undecided voters invariably break against well-known, well-defined incumbents.

--Sam Rosenfeld

Just heard that a Louisiana appeals court has overturned the earlier ruling on Rep. Rodney Alexander's party switch in that state's 5th District. A GOP official described the ruling as "total victory" -- Alexander stays on the ballot as a Republican, and the filing process won't be re-opened for Democrats to field a new candidate. This ruling, however, can also be appealed.

--Sam Rosenfeld

Now, after only two days here, I've already learned that impugning someone's patriotism is like breathing to these people. But hasn't Frist ever looked at a globe? If Kerry goes so far left that he's left America, that puts him in Japan. And isn't the prevailing Republican japery that Kerry is too, well, French? And doesn't that mean that he's moved so far to the right that he's left America?

This is a confusing place.

--Charles P. Pierce

--Jeffrey Dubner

How can it possibly be that for a whole half hour after two incredibly combative speeches, the Democrats did not have a single voice on any of the three cable networks? The GOP would never make that mistake.

--Sam Rosenfeld

--Sam Rosenfeld

And with that, the conversation starts taking a turn for the worse. Some Republican men, I'm discovering, have strange ideas about politics that reflect strange ideas about sex and gender; they're only too happy to talk (or at least, talk to me) about both topics. You'd think being a conservative might mean treating these sensitive topics with a little reserve and delicacy, but the opposite appears to hold true.

One waitress at the club where California Representative David Dreier held a party the night before found attendees unusually crude. Twice she was told, "Nice rack." It's not the kind of thing the regular NYC clientele is given to saying. I finally have to excuse myself when my social conservative conversation partner starts telling me his theory about why there are so many gay Republicans. (The closeted homosexuality of a fair number of prominent party figures is taken as a given by the other Republicans I've spoken with, and like gossipy high school boys they are only too eager to tell you who they think is gay.) Men who love power and dominance, says the conservative operative, turn to having sex with men after they run out of positions and expriences with women; sometimes they turn to children.

A bit later there is a hubub about the Bush girls, who are rumored to be about to arrive; the secret service had swept the club earlier in the day. Then the elevator opens and it's just another group of young blondes in halter tops.

--Garance Franke-Ruta

--Jeffrey Dubner

--Sam Rosenfeld

He was, indeed, a sponsor of terrorism at one point -- terrorism directed against Israel. Anti-Israeli terrorism is still abhorrent, but the phrase "global terrorism" doesn't mean anything unless it means "terrorism that isn't just directed at one particular country." Besides, Saddam hadn't been an active sponsor of anti-Israeli attacks for years. Like his treatement of the Kurds in the 1980s, this stuff was deplorable, but it was hardly a justification for war in 2003.

--Matthew Yglesias

--Sarah Wildman

--Sarah Wildman

--Jeffrey Dubner

--Sam Rosenfeld

--Ken Nesmith

The Tennessee Titans–Dallas Cowboys preseason game is great, by the way. Both were playoff teams last year, and each has a good shot again this year. At halftime, the score was 14-13 Titans -- but Dallas would have been up by three if it hadn't been for a pretty cheap pass interference ploy by Tennessee cornerback Mike Echols. Knowing that he couldn't legitimately block Terry Glenn from a picture-perfect touchdown reception, he grabbed a fistful of Glenn's shirt and held him back, taking the penalty but preventing the touchdown. As a result, the Cowboys had to settle for a field goal and trail at the half.

Why the digression (besides the fact that I rarely have the opportunity to write sports commentary)? It just reminds me too much of the negative campaign being run on George W. Bush's behalf. Afraid that John Kerry has an easy route to the end zone, they're willing to drag him down by any means necessary in hopes of a narrow victory. It may be legal, but it's not exactly sportsmanlike. And not many true fans of the game feel comfortable with the outcome.

--Jeffrey Dubner

--Jeffrey Dubner

--Garance Franke-Ruta

First Wolf challenged Bartlett's spin on the economy, clarifying that the "1.5 million new jobs" Bartlett was crediting the president with came after the economy had lost 3 million jobs on Bush's watch. Then all three reporters did some serious tag-team damage on Bartlett over Bush's admission of inevitable defeat to terror in this morning's interview with Matt Lauer. They made the right point in their aggressive questioning, too -- not that what Bush said was unimaginably horrible or even wrong, but that had it been Kerry who'd said it, grimacing Dick Cheney and about 50,000 yapping attack dogs would be blanketing the airwaves with cries of treason right about now. (They didn't exactly phrase it that way, but that was their point.)

I'm sensing that CNN may actually have listened to the criticism of its abysmal DNC coverage -- though I may retract that before the convention is over.

--Sam Rosenfeld

It was just like the intro to SNL, see, only it was a Don Pardo impersonator, and instead of the cast members from the show -- no, seriously, you're gonna love this -- instead of the cast members, they announced the primetime speakers for the convention! Ha. Ha ha ha haah ha ha Ha HA HA HAAA HAAAA HAAAAA HA!!!!!! Oh man, when the Wolf promises comedy gold from the GOP, he and they deliver it. Just priceless. As Wolf helpfully told White House flack Dan Bartlett after they had finally picked themselves off the floor and wiped the tears of mirth from their eyes, "This shows the Republicans have a sense of humor."

Understatement of the millennium, Wolf.

--Sam Rosenfeld

Sharpton chose bling over Bush. Can't quite blame him.

--Ayelish McGarvey

On the way back out we were passing through the cafeteria where a French journalist could be heard loudly complaining to a Young Republican volunteer that all the beverages on offer were non-alcoholic. "This is America, you know," he said. "Well," she replied, "it didn't used to be this way. Not at the convention. We all would drink. How else do you sit through the thing!" My alcoholic acquaintance informed her that free beer could be obtained in the basement. (Whether he meant "free beer" or "free entrance to the basement," I don't know.) We then split up as I made my way to the mysterious empty desk labeled "Air America," where I found free Wi-Fi before. The desk, still labeled, is still empty in terms of people, but there's a lot of clutter on top including a hastily scrawled note to Al Franken and a flow chart of the Soprano crime family (really) indicating that Tony, like his Uncle Junior, is just a front man -- apparently blogger Matt Stoller is the real boss.

In other news, the Farley basement turns out (according to a very dirty sign I found) to have been constructed to serve as a bomb shelter during the Cold War, so in case of terrorist attack this is definitely the place to be.

--Matthew Yglesias

--Matthew Yglesias

--Jeffrey Dubner

• Propose private accounts for Social Security. Why not create 50-75 million new investor-class Americans by converting Social Security into a private account system? There's no better way to win the hearts and souls of young voters.
• End the tyranny of the IRS tax code by offering an optional flat tax for tax filers. Bush has gotten us halfway to a consumption tax through his reductions in the income tax, the death tax, and the capital-gains tax. Let's finish the job by offering every American a postcard return with a 19 percent tax rate and only one deduction — for his kids. If workers want to choose the flat tax, fine; if they want to stay with the complicated system, let them.

• Appoint a new Grace Commission to root out the waste and inefficiencies embedded in the federal budget. If Bush won't control spending, get a commission to shine a spotlight on how many of America's tax dollars go down the federal rat hole. Polls show that most Americans believe that anywhere between 25 and 50 cents on the dollar is wasted, and they're probably right.

--Sam Rosenfeld

--Jeffrey Dubner

--Jeffrey Dubner

In one sense, the "catastrophic success" mockery is a little unfair, just as the "sensitive war" blitz was. The phrase itself is an established concept. The term is similar to "Pyrrhic victory," the idea that an action may achieve its desired results but create the conditions for future, utter failure, either because of the costs of victory or some paradoxical consequence. It's been used regarding the Iraq War since shock and awe started, as in this March 20, 2003, Financial Times quote:

Furthermore, the advance may be slowed by "catastrophic success". As the allies move into Iraq, they may be swamped by surrendering troops and desperate refugees. Suppose an insurrection begins and there are reports of major bloodletting. There will be urgent demands to restore law and order to prevent a humanitarian disaster. Before they reach Baghdad, the allies may have to fill the vacuum created by the collapse of Iraq's central government. Despite the size of the US-UK forces, such logistical complications could rapidly tie up troops destined for combat and disrupt supply chains servicing those who have pushed forward.

As 2003 continued, it was invoked in a more specific, somewhat self-serving explanation of the insurgency: that the quick victory allowed "Baathist dead-enders" to melt away, and the insurgency was just the war against Saddam Hussein's army continued in guerrila form. That's the concept that Bush seems to associate with the phrase:

Had we had to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success -- being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day. I couldn't have sat down and said to you, By the way, we're going to be so victorious so quickly that we'll end up having to fight another third of the Baathists over the next year in order to bring liberty to the country. There's an idea that you can chew on.

--Jeffrey Dubner

But Anderson is here for a serious purpose: to learn how to reach out to women and get them to vote for George W. Bush. She's doing that even though she's pro-choice and he very definitely is not. In fact, most of the women I talk to in the crowded ballroom, in an event sponsored by "W Stands for Women," are pro-choice. "It bothers me, but everyone has a right to their own opinion," said Anderson. At 54, she's the mother of six and grandmother of eight. "It's about accountability and personal responsibility and that's very Republican."

Candice Trees, a management consultant in between jobs in Springfield, Illinois, said she differs with Bush on many social issues, including abortion and gay marriage. "I think our Constitution should be used for important things," she said. "Not to separate us by gender and sexuality. You can't tell me who to live with." So why is she supporting Bush? "He's done great things," she told me, "but not for social issues."

--Jodi Enda

It's an interesting question. He's popular, but not the most popular man on the planet. And the policy disputes he's associated with mostly have to do with urban policing procedures, which is not exactly an issue in this presidential election. Outside the subway station, moreover, I found a bunch of pro-life activists with the courage of their convictions holding signs accusing Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, George Pataki, Arnold Schwarzenegger, et. al. of being "baby killers." Allegedly the point of highlighting these folks is to make Bush more palatable to moderates, but I have a hard time seeing how their endorsement is supposed to trick pro-choice fiscal conservatives into thinking the president isn't pro-life. He's the president after all, and his views on this matter aren't a very well-guarded secret. Nor is Bush's appeal to fiscal conservatives -- social issues aside -- particularly evident to me.

--Matthew Yglesias

The President’s ownership initiative hasn’t featured prominently in the media coverage of the campaign, which, strictly from a news perspective, is understandable: he hasn’t announced many specific proposals to back up his talk. But in downplaying the Bush Administration’s economic agenda the media is missing one of the biggest domestic stories of the 2004 campaign. When the President pledges to create an “era of ownership,” he is not talking merely about encouraging people to buy their own homes and start small businesses. To conservative Republicans who understand his coded language, he is also talking about extending and expanding the tax cuts he introduced in his first term; he is talking about allowing wealthy Americans to shelter much of their income from the I.R.S.; about using the tax code to curtail the government’s role in health care and retirement saving; and, ultimately, about a vision that has entranced but eluded conservatives for decades: the abolition of the graduated income tax and its replacement with a levy that is simpler, flatter, and more favorable to rich people.

Work on achieving this ambitious program began with the tax cuts that Congress passed in 2001, 2002, and 2003, but the conservative economists who advise Bush and the right-wing institutes that support him have more in mind than consolidating their gains. Despite a gaping budget deficit, they are pressing the President to continue down a route that will reverse almost a century of American history. Since the personal income tax was introduced, in 1913, it has been based on two principles: the burden of taxation is distributed according to the ability to pay; and capital and labor carry their fair share. The Bush Administration appears set on undermining both of these principles.

UPDATE: Astute reader R.Y. notes:

Brooks didn't even address, let alone resolve, the question of the GOP's dependence upon the Christian right. Thus, Brooks elided into ether essential issues related to social equality and, yes, whether cosmopolitanism and modernity will be accepted by the 40% or so of Republican voters who are social conservatives. Abortion, homosexual rights, support of science, rather than theology, in making public policy decision -- not a word offered by Brooks on these subjects. Perhaps he realizes that there is no way to reconcile his largely secular and cosmopolitan beliefs with the evangelical masses of the South, the Mountain states, and rural Midwest, who are the foundation of the Republican electoral strategy, and who believe, with reason, that George W. Bush is one of them.

Pretty much makes the rest of the article a fantasy.

--Nick Confessore

Beyond that, the film is a classic example of the "character" case for the Bush presidency. Approximately nothing is said about the policy content of the Bush administration, but the president is praised to the skies for the fact that he has the utmost respect for the Oval Office. This doesn't only mean that no one gives him blowjobs there (although there is a bizarre ten-minute sequence about the failed effort of an intern on the Bush '92 campaign to seduce the First Son) but also the astounding relevation that he never enters without wearing a suit -- "even during non-working hours and on the weekend." What's more, "he expects everyone to be on time for meetings" and, again, "there are no casual-dress Fridays" in the Bush administration. Last, but not least, "he encourages everyone to pray every day."

At any rate, while the film may not have any policy content, the NFRA does. According to a pamphlet handed to me by a helpful press aid (Christian conservatives are very polite), the group thinks the United States should ignore the UN, base its foreign policy on the national interest, adopt a flat tax, stop government interference in the education of children (i.e., public schools), eliminate all government assistance to the poor, and end contingent federal grants to state governments.

--Matthew Yglesias

The problem for the Cheneys is one experienced by the Mosbachers, the Bonos, the Gingriches: where do family and politics meet, intersect, and influence each other? Does a gay family member necessarily mean gay-friendly policy positions? In each of the conservative families listed, the answer has bene a qualified no. Sonny Bono, for example, despite the active opposition of his lesbian daughter, Chastity Bono, signed the Defense of Marriage Act. The difference today is that last week the vice president appeared to contradict the White House when he said he believed that "people ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to," which was something he had articulated in the debates with Lieberman in 2000 but seemed to have forgotten until now.

Yet Cheney's comments, coupled with his first-time-ever acknowledgement that he had a gay daugter, have come too late, whether heartfelt or not. Not only has the GOP platform included Bush's support for a discriminatory constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but it has been co-opted by the right into including truly divisive and (again) discriminatory language that is anti–civil union and anti–gay family (indicating a stance against gay parenthood which is worth an entire blog item; I'll come back to this). It doesn't matter if Mary Cheney talks or not. It doesn't matter if her father acknowledges her presence or not. Her party likes her where she is. Quiet, in the background, and (preferably) invisible.

--Sarah Wildman

This from a man who has called gambling "a cancer on the American body politic."

Here's more detail:

In an interview last week, Reed reiterated that he has never been employed by any casino operator, including Indian tribes.

“I’ve worked for decades to oppose the expansion of casino gambling, and the work Century Strategies did on these projects was consistent with that longstanding opposition,” said Reed. “The work that we did was part of a broad coalition that included anti-gambling groups, churches and nonprofit organizations. And at no time did my firm have a relationship with nor were we retained by any casino or any casino company.”

Scanlon, however, was working for four different Indian tribes with casinos, and Reed was brought in on a number of projects to gin up opposition to increasing the number of casinos from conservative Christian groups, including sites proposed by rival tribes in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as a video poker initiative in Alabama. Reed’s efforts specifically benefited two of Scanlon’s tribal clients, the Louisiana Coushattas and the Mississippi Band of Choctaws, in their bids to protect their casino interests.

Scanlon also worked for the Saginaw Band of Chippewas in Michigan and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in California, although Reed did no work that aided those tribes.

Abramoff lobbied for each of the same four tribes as Scanlon and recommended they use Scanlon’s firm for grassroots and public relations projects. Reed and Abramoff have a longstanding relationship going back to their days as College Republicans in the early 1980s, and Abramoff asked Scanlon to use Reed on several of those projects, according to sources close to the issue.

Scanlon declined to comment on his relationship with Reed. Scanlon insists that he has engaged in no improper activities and provided sworn statements from three of the four tribes praising his efforts.

“Across the southern United States, there is a long list of would-be casinos that were blocked by the public affairs strategies implemented by our firm,” said Scanlon. “Our objective was to protect several hundred million dollars of our clients’ market share by working against casino expansion; we were paid very well to do so, and obviously we were very successful. This has obviously become a very political situation, and because of this, the search for controversy will be omnipresent. The bottom line is gaming expansion was thwarted and our clients are happy.”

This one is worth keeping an eye on.

--Nick Confessore

--Nick Confessore

Not wanting to pay, I thought I'd stop by "blogger's corner" where, surely, there would be internet access. To the chagrin of many a conservative blogger, though, there wasn't. But, the communications office people promised, there would be soon. Maybe. As long as your hardware was compatible. Then Alan Keyes walked by and I got distracted. Meanwhile, the media workspace in the Farley building is set to a temperature more suited for a meat locker than human habitation and to find the bathroom you practically need to walk to the other side of the galaxy. Surly-looking U.S. Postal Inspection Service cops (the Farley building used to be a post office) keep giving me dirty looks. Pretty unimpressive so far.

--Matthew Yglesias

I'm not sure there's any better solution to this dilemma, except maybe to say that conventions shouldn't be held in locations that are adjacent to train stations you can't shut down, but it makes the intense security (I thought the secret service was going to kill me for having a loose paper clip in my pocket) in the Garden look a bit preposterous.

--Matthew Yglesias

I wonder, then, whether David Catania will get the Casey treatment. Catania, if you are not familiar with the name, is a Republican member of the Washington, D.C., city council. Like Casey, Catania will not be supporting his party's nominee this year because he disagrees with the nominee (George W. Bush, in his case) on a major issue: whether or not to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. So the GOP has bounced him from the party's convention, to be held this week in New York.

Note that Catania isn't being bounced because he doesn't support the amendment. (Neither do John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and they all have speaking slots.) He's being bounced because he's told the press he won't vote for Bush. Personally, I agree with Catania regarding the issue of gay marriage. But I don't think it's wrong for the GOP to bar him from the nominating convention. It's their party, so to speak.

The question is: Will we be treated, in the coming months and years, to endless recollection of the time the heartless, intolerant Republicans banned Catania from the convention because he supported gay marriage? Somehow I think not.

--Nick Confessore

"A couple dozen, I guess," she shrugs. "And how many in your delegation?" "About a dozen -- it's the most diverse convention ever." And how.

On a more serious note, Republican delegates are far better dressed than were the Democrats. With the exception of a handful of cowboy hats (which, for all I know, are formal wear in Texas) and a couple guys with American flag–patterned button-down shirts, just about everyone was wearing sober business attire, a stark contrast to the t-shirts and goofy hats I saw in Boston.

--Matthew Yglesias

What's funny about Last's piece is that, in his inability to admit how spurious and deceitful the Swifties allegations were, he misunderstands the entire process. He sees a mainstream media sitting on the story, than trying to downplay it, then trying to attenuate it by making the story about something else -- how nasty attack ads are these days, or whatever. I see a mainstream media properly looking with great skepticism on a bunch of political operatives making claims for which there is no evidence, and slowly being dragged into covering the story against their bettter instincts. We're poorer for it.

UPDATE: If only every newspaper had an editor as discerning as the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's deputy editorial page editor, Jim Boyd.

--Nick Confessore

The Columnists

• David Brooks: The Republican Party could be such a wonderful party.
• Dahlia Lithwick: I know what Clarence Thomas did last summer.
• Michael Kinsley: Mocking Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is harder than you'd think.
• David Broder: I'm not going to recommend that George W. Bush denounce lying attack ads, but he probably should.
• Jim Hoagland: Oh, Ali Sistani. Where would we be without you?
• George F. Will: Neither candidate can keep us safe from nuclear terrorism. Crap.

• Jacob Heilbrunn on Reaganism and Republican foreign policy.

• Jim Boyd: "I am sick to death of being played for a chump by the likes of Karl Rove."

Meanwhile, there continues to be an astounding dearth of concrete proposals (as opposed to mere hand-wringing and righteous outrage) among Western observers of the crisis. Even Samantha Power's powerful New Yorker piece punts on the question, "What next?" It's now clear that any remotely credible plan of international action or engagement in Darfur would hinge on the African Union (AU). The AU has shown surprising energy and aggressiveness in involving itself in this crisis, though no one seems to quite understand why. The AU is a very young, untested institution; people, particularly journalists, keen on having something done in Darfur would do well to learn more about it. (This was another minor disappointment with Power's article -- I was hoping to finally see some real reporting on the AU with answers to some basic questions: whether to take the organization seriously, why Nigeria and Rwanda are so keen on intervening in this crisis under its auspice, etc.)

Via David Englin's invaluable blog on Darfur, Ripple of Hope, I came across the International Crisis Group's plan of action, which centers on an AU peacekeeping force of several thousand backed by Western logistical support. This strikes me as the kind of realistic and semi-specific proposal that those who care about this issue could get behind -- they'd be more effective for actually having something to point to and say, Do this. Now is not the time for more philosophical discussions on our moral failings in the face of genocide or the bankruptcy of the United Nations. Let's get some actual plans out there.

--Sam Rosenfeld

--Matthew Yglesias

--Matthew Yglesias

The place is packed with Californians and Republican business types from New York. One of the latter is Satya Ponnuru, a young Deutsche Bank Securities analyst, who is the first Republican I’ve meet at the convention to come down on George W. Bush’s side solely as a consequence of Bushonomics. Ponnuru fears that John Kerry would raise taxes on the highest marginal incomes, thus compelling people who make a lot of money to feel discouraged and work less. I ask him if his fear of diminishing work ethic among the rich is based on empirical evidence or faith, and he admits he has no hard data to back up his apprehension. I ask him if he would work just as hard, and he allows as he would -- he’s a young guy still making a name for himself. He’s not sure, though, about the senior members of his firm -- although when I ask him if they worked hard when the highest marginal rate was 39.5 percent, as it was under Bill Clinton, and which is the rate that Kerry proposes to restore for income over $200,000, he says that they did.

I spy Los Angeles GOP consultant and commentator Allen Hoffenblum across the room -- a figure whose relatively moderate politics are offset by his often cantankerous disposition. At the moment, Hoffenblum is upset by what liberal commentators such as myself and E.J. Dionne, who happens to be standing there, have written about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. “You focused on the veracity of what they said, but you ignored their motivation!” he complains. As Hoffenblum sees it, Kerry’s 1971 Congressional testimony defamed the Viet Vets (himself included). Both E.J. and I point out that the Swift Boat ads have just now turned to the testimony, that the first ad leveled bogus charges, and that focusing on their veracity seemed like the germane thing to do at the time. But Hoffenblum will have none of this. After a few minutes, the debate sounds as though it’s 1968 all over again. Which, in many ways, is precisely the year that the Bush people want it to be.

Meanwhile, the wait staff of Bowlmor is knocking itself out serving the large and boisterous crowd. I mumble something to a server about being with the press, and she breaks into a big smile. It’s not that the Republicans are behaving badly in any way, she explains. It’s just that I’m not one of them.

--Harold Meyerson

Later, Pataki makes his way through the throng and stands -- oddly enough for a pol -- behind a TV camera. He beams as his daughter, Emily, a 25-year-old law school student, stands in the spotlight to report on the confab for Extra!. Emily is interviewing Joe “Joey Pants” Pantoliano, a beret-wearing actor recognized by seemingly everyone in the room except me. My friends tell me he played “Ralphie,” the guy who was beheaded on The Sopranos. I am one of the few people in America who has never seen the show, so I decide to ask about it. Joey Pants tells me my friends are wrong! “I’m not on The Sopranos,” he says. “I’m on Dr. Vegas on CBS.” He’s also co-president of the nonpartisan Creative Coalition, which hosted one of the hot-ticket parties at the Democratic National Convention and is doing the same here. (He doesn’t offer a ticket.) I find out later my friends were right: He definitely was on The Sopranos. Perhaps being around so many politicians compelled him to fib!

--Jodi Enda

Although the crowd was more racially homogenous than I'd expected, it was more socially diverse than I would have thought. I was slightly surprised to find consultants and Wall Street traders marching and carrying signs themselves, reminding me of recent WSJ articles that report reluctant and declining support for Bush in the financial industry. The traders did qualify their association with the march, though, noting that they disagree with fellow protesters on "85 percent of issues -- but we agree that Kerry should be elected, not Bush." One group they especially disagreed with was the communist contingent -- I thought the revolutionaries were perhaps troublemakers from the Republican group Communists for Kerry (an organization parallel to Billionaires for Bush), but they were in fact real communists, against Bush if not for Kerry. (I suppose there are real billionaires who are pro-Bush, likewise.)

Signs were of course creative and plentiful. "So many reasons, so little sign," said one, summing it all up nicely. Some messages were lost on me, such as, "Kerry is not dead." I agree completely, although I fail to see the relevance. "9/11: Bush Did It," read another, giving unfortunate fodder to media who will seek to dismiss the march as unthinkably radical. (I consulted that signholder, and learned that by "did it," he mostly meant, "failed to stop it." He also noted that Osama bin Laden received CIA help, and so forth.)

--Ken Nesmith

The Log Cabin Republicans are the vanguard of the Denial of Reality Caucus in the Republican Party -- the GOP moderates, located chiefly in the Northeast, who persist in the illusion that the party cares about their opinion or support. And things have only been getting worse for gay Republicans, as West Hollywood gay Republican activist Scott Schmidt points out during the reception. “Log Cabin Republicans aren’t welcomed in either New York or L.A. now -- except by Mayor Bloomberg.” Nor, he adds, do they feel very welcomed by the party establishment.

Schmidt was an alternate to the 2000 Republican Convention in Philadelphia, a time and a place he remembers fondly. “The gay bars had bunting up during the convention,” he recalls. Is the difference, I ask, really the one between Philly and New York, or the result of four years of the Bush presidency? “Maybe a little bit of both,” he concedes.

--Harold Meyerson

Meanwhile, in the most effective use of real estate for political protest I’ve seen in a very long time, someone placed anti-war banners in the windows of three floors of an otherwise empty building on Liberty Street overlooking the WTC site. There are peace symbols, clenched fists, and in very, very large print visible to all visitors to the WTC site the message: “NO WAR.”

--Garance Franke-Ruta

The day’s protests, in contrast, are remarkably peaceful. This should come as no surprise. The fact of the matter is that today’s protestors are to those of ’68 the way last year’s blackout victims were to those of ’77. Something fundamental about the people of this country changed in the past three decades, and that’s reflected in how they now behave in large groups.

--Garance Franke-Ruta

--Matthew Yglesias

But that’s not the take-home the ticket-taker got. All he knows is that they dropped their clothes, and from that he intuits the following: “They wanted the president to drop taxes,” he tells me. “They are dropping their clothes to say to drop the taxes.”

--Garance Franke-Ruta

"They’ve seen me make decisions, they’ve seen me under trying times, they’ve seen me weep, they’ve seen me laugh, they’ve seen me hug, they’ve seen me make decisions," he said. "And they know who I am, and I believe they’re comfortable with the fact that they know I’m not going to shift principles or shift positions based upon polls and focus groups."

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with polling. What's pathetic is Bush's pretense that he doesn't use the services of pollsters, when we know he does. My friend Josh Green was the first to reveal, back in April 2002, the absurdity of this little chestnut, finding that the White House spent about $1 million in polling in 2001, a non-election year. Public records also reveal that the Bush-Cheney campaign spent $805,039 on survey research this cycle, with the Republican National Committee -- which, during any election year, basically becomes an outpost of the White House political shop -- spending an additional $2.2 million. (I'm indebted to the Democratic National Committee for these numbers, but they come from the invaluable Tray.com site.)

What did they do all that polling for? To figure out what the White House staff wanted on their pizza?

--Nick Confessore

Maybe Matt's got a different take on this, but if he does, he isn't telling us what it is. As Peter Beinart notes this is the general trend in conservative commentary on Kerry's anti-war activism -- a lot of vague talk about disloyalty and weakness, but no claims that Kerry was wrong to oppose the war, or that letting it drag on for additional years achieved anything wortwhile. Meanwhile, what was Bush doing at Yale while Kerry was participating in the important national security debates of the era? Cheerleading. I'm not seeing any obvious pro-Bush connotations to the comparison.

--Matthew Yglesias

All Texas attorneys are subject to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct:

Rule 8.02 Judicial and Legal Officials (a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the *qualifications or integrity* of a judge, adjudicatory official or public legal officer, or of a *candidate for election* or appointment to judicial or legal office.

Rule 8.04 Misconduct (a) A lawyer shall not: ...(3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

I filed an ethics complaint with about 15 attachments evidencing what I see as violations by John O'Neill. I believe that other complaints have been filed as well.

Will you please follow up on this, as I have a concern that the Texas State Bar may not be inclined to diligently prosecute.

--Jeffrey Dubner

Mr. Bush also acknowledged for the first time that he made a "miscalculation of what the conditions would be'' in postwar Iraq. But he insisted that the 17-month-long insurgency that has upended the administration's plans for the country was the unintended by-product of a "swift victory'' against Saddam Hussein's military, which fled and then disappeared into the cities, enabling them to mount a rebellion against the American forces far faster than Mr. Bush and his aides had anticipated.

He insisted that his strategy had been "flexible enough" to respond, and said that even now "we're adjusting to our conditions" in places like Najaf, where American forces have been battling one of the most militant of the Shiite groups opposing the American-installed government.

Mr. Bush deflected efforts to inquire further into what went wrong with the occupation, suggesting that such questions should be left to historians, and insisting, as his father used to, that he would resist going "on the couch'' to rethink decisions.

More distressing is the reference to going "on the couch" as though the point of rehashing errors would be the president's mental health. Believe it or not, there's actually more at stake here than one man's ego, and any organization worth its salt would engage in some rigorous self-examination after a major undertaking didn't work out as planned. Everyone makes mistakes, and responsible leaders try and look honestly at those mistakes to improve in the future. Instead, we're getting yet more posturing from the White House.

--Matthew Yglesias

Unnoticed in the controversy over the Swift Boat group's accusations is an undercurrent that lingers from the war. The men who fought in Vietnam and survived came back as divided as the public at home. Most suffered in silence, then picked up their lives and went on. But some, like John Kerry, were so disillusioned that they felt they had to do something to stop the war. Another minority persisted in their faith that the war could be won, that America is an exception to history and can do no wrong.

The nation has yet to come to grips with what really happened in Vietnam, and Mr. Kerry's accusers are among those who simply cannot and never will. They are driven by more than a political desire to further the fortunes of George Bush. Their remarks make clear that what they really hold against Mr. Kerry are his antiwar activities after his return and his testimony then that atrocities were being committed in Vietnam. They regard these as undermining the war effort and casting aspersions on their service. "We won the battle,'' one of Mr. Kerry's accusers, former Navy commander Adrian Lonsdale, said. "Kerry went home and lost the war for us.'' The group's second television commercial focuses on this issue, running bits of old news film of Mr. Kerry's testimony in a 1971 Senate hearing, excerpting his remarks to twist their meaning.

The truth is that atrocities were committed in Vietnam. The worst and most horrendous atrocity was officially sanctioned. The American command coldbloodedly set about to deprive the Communists of the recruits and other assistance the peasantry could provide by emptying the countryside. Peasant hamlets in Communist-dominated areas were deliberately and relentlessly bombed and shelled. Free Fire Zones - anything that moved, human or animal, could be killed - were redlined on military maps.

By 1968, civilian deaths, the great majority from air strikes and artillery, were estimated at about 40,000 a year and seriously wounded at 85,000. The wholesale killing cheapened the value of Vietnamese life in American eyes. It created an atmosphere that fostered the massacre at My Lai hamlet on March 16, 1968, when 347 Vietnamese old men, women, boys, girls and babies were butchered. That same morning another 90 unarmed Vietnamese were slaughtered at a nearby hamlet by a second army unit.

In Vietnam, America the exceptional joined the rest of the human race and demonstrated that it could do evil as easily as it could do good. Mr. Kerry undoubtedly said some intemperate things in 1971. That is the way of youth. But he also showed the moral courage to try to persuade his fellow citizens to halt actions that were disgracing their nation.

--Nick Confessore

--Nick Confessore

Showing none of the alarm about the North's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that the North may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons. [Emphasis added.]

After all, what could a president possibly do? It's not like he's got any real power or anything. Besides, said Bush, sounding a different note from the days before declaring war on Iraq: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators.''

--Garance Franke-Ruta

--Nick Confessore

On environmental issues, Mr. Bush appeared unfamiliar with an administration report delivered to Congress on Wednesday that indicated that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were the only likely explanation for global warming over the last three decades. Previously, Mr. Bush and other officials had emphasized uncertainties in understanding the causes and consequences of global warming.

The new report was signed by Mr. Bush's secretaries of energy and commerce and his science adviser. Asked why the administration had changed its position on what causes global warming, Mr. Bush replied, "Ah, we did? I don't think so."

--Matthew Yglesias

Instead, note only that this is yet another article on Greenspan’s Social Security agenda that fails to mention his leading role first in pushing for increases in the regressive payroll taxes in the 1980s to secure the system and then, two decades later, advocating for George Bush’s massively regressive tax cuts -- tax cuts that are, of course, the underlying cause of the ostensible Social Security “crisis” he’s so worried about now. It’s simply the most brazen and drawn-out Robin Hood-in-reverse scheme I’ve ever heard of, and it’s worth emphasizing every time the Maestro opens his mouth on the subject.

--Sam Rosenfeld

At some level, the thinking inside the administration seems to be that maybe this doesn't matter, because we can resolve the wide problem of anti-Americanism in Arab countries by producing a successful outcome in Iraq. But after a brief honeymoon, our problems with Arab public opinion in general simply replicated themselves among Iraqi Arab public opinion, which was baffled by our inability to provide security and basic infrastructure, and which is suspicious of our motives since America's Iraq policy has shifted so many times in the past twenty years. Abu Ghraib was and is a powerful reason for Iraqis to think that the aforementioned problems were the result not of bungling, but of malice.

Under the circumstances, the harm done to the victims of "abuse" is in many ways the least of the problems caused by the "command failures" these inquiries have exposed. The most serious upshot has been this body blow to the country's strategic objectives. If policies implemented by the commanding general and the Secretary of Defense had led to a military fiasco -- the sudden deaths of dozens of soldiers -- there would (rightly) be a public outry in America and a demand for accountability. The harm that their policies have done is, however, no less damaging to what our military is trying to accomplish. The failure to hold people to account rigorously has only redoubled that harm. Consider the contrast between America's response to the torture and mutilation of three of our citizens (and one South African) in Falluja, which amounted to collective punishment of the whole town, and our response to the torture of many more Iraqis at Abu Ghraib.

We're doling out pretty light punishment to a handful of low-level people, subjecting their commanders to mild written rebukes, and the vice-president is praising Don Rumsfeld as the best Secretary of Defense ever. If Iraqis conclude from this that, despite their words, the U.S. government doesn't really care about them, they can hardly be blamed. I have no particular reason to doubt that, subjectively, the president believes he's acting with the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart, but if that's the case he's deceiving himself -- his actions, to anyone without an unreflecting faith in the innate goodness of the United States, speak otherwise. And creating that perception is contrary to the best interests of Americans.

--Matthew Yglesias

The central issue in the lawsuit – as it is to one degree or another in all the pending legal actions – is whether TRMPAC violated Texas campaign finance laws by using corporate funds ("soft" money, as opposed to "hard" individual donations) illegally for direct campaign expenses. Under Texas law in effect for a century, corporate and union donations are limited to "administrative" costs, which by the Ethics Commission and long practice have been defined to include only office space, phone, utilities, and the like. TRMPAC (and its ally the Texas Association of Business (TAB), subject to a separate lawsuit) blithely expanded the definition of "administration" to include polling, fundraising, phone banks, consultants, etc. etc. Although only a handful of defeated Dems brought suit, all in all TRMPAC and TAB spent some $4.5 million – a whole lot of it from corporate sources – on two dozen legislative races that effectively transformed the balance of power in the Texas House.

In the courtroom and on the PR trail, attorney Scarborough has taken the novel position that the longtime Texas political understanding of "administrative expenses" is in fact a mass delusion. Instead, he insists, the relevant Texas law (and Ethics Commission opinions) only forbids the use of corporate funds for "express advocacy" – urging voters to vote for or against a particular candidate. "It may be that the TAB pushed the envelope a little further [in their advertising]," Scarborough told me, "but what TRMPAC did, didn't even come close to the line." Asked if he thought the court would share his interpretation, he continued, "My case is going to turn on that [express advocacy], and I'm going to win because of it."

…To Lewis, the prolongation of the civil cases against TRMPAC and TAB, like the institutional feebleness of the Ethics Commission, has increasingly become a mockery of the law. "We're entering another election cycle," he points out, "and I hope the lesson is not: We might as well continue doing it [raising corporate cash] because we're going to get away with it."

Lewis is not the only one beginning to wonder whether and when the ongoing investigations of possible criminal violations by TRMPAC, TAB, Speaker Tom Craddick, the state GOP, and the various players leading back to DeLay – are going to bear fruit. Travis Co. Attorney David Escamilla just announced an indefinite delay in the misdemeanor investigation, apparently punting to the Lege itself (good luck). District Attorney Ronnie Earle – who some weeks ago declared the case to be about "corporate greed" – has shifted to more gnomic utterances: "We are searching for the truth, and the truth has no deadline."

Maybe not. But another major election is only a few weeks away, a new Republican PAC (Stars Over Texas) has begun cheerfully accepting huge corporate donations, and before too long, justice delayed will begin to look very much like justice twice denied. [Emphasis added.]

Charles Kuffner has more helpful links here.

--Sam Rosenfeld

The Shadow is the easiest of the archetypes for most persons to experience. We tend to see it in "others." That is to say, we project our dark side onto others and thus interpret them as "enemies" or as "exotic" presences that facinate. . . . The Shadow is the personification of that part of human, psychic possiblity that we deny in ourselves and project onto others. The goal of personality integration is to integrate the rejected, inferior side of our life into our total experience and to take responsibility for it.

--Matthew Yglesias

A secret passage in the report, though, says that with General Sanchez's first order, on Sept. 14, national policies and those of his command "collided, introducing ambiguities and inconsistencies in policy and practice,'' adding, "Policies and practices developed and approved for use on Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees who were not afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions now applied to detainees who did fall under the Geneva Conventions' protections." It goes on to cite several further problems with the order.

On September 14, 2003 [Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez] signed the theater’s first policy on interrogation, which contained elements of the approved Guantanamo policy and elements of the [Special Operations Force] policy. Policies approved for use on al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, who were not afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions, now applied to detainees who did fall under the Geneva Convention.

--Mark Goldberg

It's not just, as Noam says, that "D.C. conservatives aren't necessarily representative of conservative voters elsewhere in the country." The problem is that conservative elites aren't doing what elites are supposed to do -- leading public opinion by effectively communicating their views to the base. The only parts of elite conservatism that Bush really needs to keep on his side are the congressional leadership, the fundraisers, and the folks who run the conservative propaganda network. Pat Roberts' recent heresy on intelligence reform aside, Bush seems to have Congress well under his thumb, and certainly the leadership has amply demonstrated its commitment to doing no oversight of the executive branch whatsoever. Fundraisers, meanwhile, are perfectly happy with the administration's decision to substitute corruption for ideology as its main source of domestic policy guidance.

Which brings us to the conservative media. I would agree with Noam that "based on my occassional interactions with ... the D.C.–based media" that there's actually plenty of discontentment among the relevant people. But you don't see or hear that discontentment on FOX News or on conservative talk radio, and for electoral purposes that's all that really matters. As the recent Swift boat fracas has amply demonstrated, the right's media remains disciplined, well-oiled, highly partisan, and utterly uninterested in subjecting the president to any sort of principled scrutiny. I understand that David Brooks plans to express some non-trivial unhappiness in a New York Times Magazine cover story we won't get to see until tomorrow, but that's The New York Times Magazine, not exactly regular reading in the small towns of Red America. Until disgruntled conservative elites start speaking clearly and directly to rank-and-file conservatives, not much is going to change, and the country -- which deserves a principled conservatism -- will be the poorer for it.

--Matthew Yglesias

--Jeffrey Dubner

It's likely that some of the bill's backers expected, and even desired, this outcome. As Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council wrote today:

Fortunately, there are still opportunities for the courts to uphold a ban on this barbaric and inhumane procedure. In the end, the Supreme Court will be faced with a decision to rule again on the constitutionality of a ban. This time we hope the Court will rule with judicial prudence and uphold the will of the American people to ban this gruesome abortion procedure.

--Jeffrey Dubner

Florida conservative Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen loves bargain shopping downtown! "Soho with its great restaurants and art districts; Orchard Street has good designer clothes stores; Pepolino Italian restaurant in Lower Manhattan," are her top picks.

Former House impeachment buff Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana loves parables about deluded men on quests! "My favorite New York experience has to be watching the Man of La Mancha performed live on Broadway. The story of Don Quixote is truly one of my favorites, and the New York atmosphere made it that much more exciting," he writes.

Colorado anti-immigration Rep. Tom Tancredo loves to eat meat! "Meals at Peter Luger's never disappoint. Steaks as good as the porterhouse's they serve up are hard to come by anywhere else," he says.

Rep. Chris Chocola of Indiana also loves to eat meat! "There is no better hamburger in the world than the one served at The 21 Club in New York City. It might be called "The '21' Burger," but it gets a perfect 10 in my book," he writes.

Iowan Rep. Steve King loves the money-men! "To be able to ring the bell and start a day of trading on the busy floor of the New York Stock Exchange was an exhilarating experience. And I was pleased to see that because of the Bush tax cuts, more money was available for American families to invest, which has done wonders for our nation's growing economy," he says.

Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama loves writing this kind of thing himself! "New York City holds several memories for me. When I was in grade school back in the late 70s and early 80s, I traveled with my mom and dad to New York City on several occasions. My dad would travel to that area on business and would time his meeting with my Spring Break. Being an only child, the entire family would travel along. Growing up in the South, New York City was quite a different place. After my dad finished his meeting in New Jersey and Connecticut, we would spend a couple of nights at the Waldorf-Astoria and see some of the city's highlights. On one of these trips, I vividly remember going to the top of the World Trade Center Towers and having dinner at Windows on the World. That was actually the last time I dined there."

But Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle loves the Statute of Liberty! "My favorite landmark in New York City is the Statue of Liberty. America is a country of immigrants - people who came here seeking hope and opportunity. That's what the Statue of Liberty stands for, and when you look at it you realize anything is possible," she writes.

And so does Calif. Rep. Richard Pombo! "My favorite landmark in New York City is the Statue of Liberty. America is a country of immigrants - people who came here seeking hope and opportunity. That's what the Statue of Liberty stands for, and when you look at it you realize anything is possible," he, uh, also writes.

While Calif. Rep. George Radanovich really, REALLY loves the Statue of Liberty! "I feel strong ties to the city as my ancestors traveled by boat from Croatia so many New York moons ago, passing our honored Statue of Liberty along the way, looking for the freedom that we are so privileged to enjoy today," he writes.

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee loves duck and the unity following major national disasters! "Favorite New York City restaurant: Peking Duck in Chinatown," he writes. "Favorite New York City memory: Visiting New York City firefighters in the days following Sept. 11 as part of a delegation of governors." And in case you're seduced by the anonymity of the big city, don't forget: "There are no secrets in New York City!"

Meanwhile, Texas Rep. Henry Bonilla loves early-80s New Wave and Staten Island! His "Favorite NYC Memory" is "Going to see the band Flock of Seagulls in 1983 for only $1.00. After the concert we saw David Bowie walking down the street. It was a great night and great memory." Best bargain? "Without a doubt: the Staten Island Ferry"

What a coincidence! Staten Island Rep. Vito Fossella loves Staten Island, too! "Congressman Vito Fossella's Top 10 Favorite Italian Restaurants & Pizzerias in Staten Island and Brooklyn" are his contribution to the NY experience, including the "Trattoria Romana - Staten Island American Grille", which is "Not Italian but still excellent."

Upstate N.Y. Rep. James T. Walsh wants you to remember, though -- as much as you may fall in love with New York City because of the pizza, the shopping, the duck and the Bowie, all good Republicans ultimately agree: "It's a great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there!"

--Garance Franke-Ruta

Muravchik's an established national security commentator. He's got a long record of public statements on hotly disputed policy issues. Kerry's not neocon enough for Muravchik's taste, and that's why he won't vote for him. That's fine, we can debate the rightness or wrongness of that some other time, but why pretend that you care about this Cambodia business when obviously -- quite obviously -- you don't care about it at all.

Muravchik's supposed to be a "scholar" but here he is acting like a campaign operative. There's nothing okay about it.

--Jeffrey Dubner

President Bush's re-election campaign refused a request by the U.S. Olympic Committee on Thursday to pull a television ad that mentions the Olympics.

Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said the ads will continue through Sunday, the final day of the Athens Games.

"We are on firm legal ground to mention the Olympics to make a factual point in a political advertisement," Stanzel said.

The USOC asked the campaign to pull the ads on Thursday, committee spokesman Darryl Seibel said. The ad shows a swimmer and the flags of Iraq and Afghanistan. ...

The International Olympic Committee and the USOC have the authority to regulate the use of anything involving the Olympics.

"We own the rights to the Olympic name, and no one has asked us," said Gerhard Heiberg, the Norwegian IOC representative and IOC market commission leader.

Heiberg told the Norwegian news agency NTB: "We're watching, and we hope they will stop the commercial."

It would be nice if the President would allow the nation to bask in the international spotlight for once without turning it into another opportunity to highlight how much disdain he has for global opinion. Not that the Norwegians are such critical allies, but still -- couldn't we just lose basketball games and have questions raised about our gold-medal–winning gymnasts, like a normal country?

--Garance Franke-Ruta

--Jeffrey Dubner

Obviously, something has to be done about this situation; someone has to figure out a way to commingle these two branches [The Directorate of Operations which does clandestine work, and the Directorate of Intelligence which does analysis] of without violating their morale and mores. One clear way not to do this is to chop them completely and formally apart. If the head of the CIA has a hard time coordinating the spies and the analysts when they're all in the same agency and working in the same building, how is some überhead going to do any better after the two branches have been split into autonomous agencies and he's sitting across town, simultaneously trying to manage a dozen other headaches?

But won't giving a single NID so many different agencies to ride herd on make it harder for him to crack heads and force interagency collaboration? It probably will, but as Kaplan himself points out the "head cracking" model of information-sharing has been tried by many CIA chiefs and it simply doesn't work. Roberts wants to change the structural incentives by forcing intelligence officers to rotate between agencies so that they get in the habit of thinking of themselves as part of a broader team rather than as representatives of a parochial agency. Right now, people hesitate to share information, because helping Agency B to break a big scoop isn't a great way to get ahead in Agency A, whose boss will wish you'd sat on the information and helped Agency A get the credit. Making the new system work requires the NID to be truly in charge of the whole shebang, complete with the power to hire and fire people from within all the different agencies. That way he can effect a cultural shift away from interagency conflict toward interagency cooperation.

Kaplan's other knock is that this goes too far in taking power away from the Pentagon, which right now does too much intelligence, but really does need to obtain what's known as "order of battle" intelligence for the purpose of war-planning and war-fighting. It's possible that Roberts does this to some extent, but I'm not so sure. He leaves each military service with its own intelligence agency, and it's clear from the Senate report into Iraq's WMD programs that the DIA (which Roberts would basically take out of the Secretary of Defense's purview) got involed in a lot of stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with military planning. (As it happens they also managed to do this stuff incredibly poorly.) That's all I'll say for now -- the plan is very bold and very complicated so I hesitate to fully endorse it without further study, but it deserves to be taken very seriously, and I don't see any reason to cast these kinds of aspersions on Senator Roberts' motives.

--Matthew Yglesias

[BOB] SCHIEFFER: Well--but the fact is that you have launched these ads and that your friends have spent $ 2 1/2 million now...

Gov. BUSH: Well, these are--these are...

SCHIEFFER: ...on a, on an ad that you say you know nothing about, attacking his environmental record. I mean, isn't that just exactly what Senator McCain says has gone haywire in America? Where somebody can come in, spend all this money, no one would have known who spent this money up there, attacking his environmental record if the reporters hadn't rooted it out? And yet he--these friends may wind up spending more in New York than you and Senator McCain are spending up there.

Gov. BUSH: Bob, there are people spending ads that say nice things about me. There are people spending money on ads that say ugly things about me.

BORGER: Should...

Gov. BUSH: That's part of the American--let me finish. That's part of the American process. There have been ads, independent expenditures, that are saying bad things about me. I don't particularly care when they do, but that's what freedom of speech is all about. And this allegation somehow that I'm involved with this is just totally ridiculous. It is uncalled for. There is no--no truth whatsoever. This--the notion that this man who ran the ads spent the night in the governor's mansion--I think Senator McCain just made that allegation--they're--they're just not true.

BORGER: Well, Governor...

Gov. BUSH: It is--yeah?

BORGER: ...do you think you should stop these ads?

Gov. BUSH: You know, let me--let me say something to you. People have the right to run ads.They have the right to do what they want to do, under the--under the First Amendment in America. (emphasis added)

Today, according to The Washington Post:

"The president said he wanted to work together [with McCain] to pursue court action to shut down all the ads and activity by these shadowy 527 groups," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters on Air Force One after Bush spoke to McCain by telephone from the presidential jet Thursday morning.

Sounds like a bit of a flip-flop to me.

--Garance Franke-Ruta

Indeed, the Brookings figures significantly understate the growth in the proportion of insured Americans who get their insurance from the government. They excluded Medicare beneficiaries from the analysis, but they've grown as a proportion of the population. People getting insurance from the government because they're employed by the government, moreover, were counted as part of the employer-based system rather than part of the public sector. But in the context of overall net job losses, the Bush years have seen a significant uptick in public-sector enrollment.

What's made all this possible, of course, is that the federal government can borrow lots of money, thus expanding public-sector employment and public-sector health insurance while watching revenues shrink. On the state level, however, this stuff doesn't work. Texas, which experienced a series of big, Bush-led tax cuts during the 1990s, wasn't able to simply borrow its way out of the resultant fiscal crisis. Instead, they had to change eligibility and other rules for their SCHIP program, which covers poor children. The new policies kicked in last October, causing 149,000 kids to lose their health care. Following the current course will eventually cause the federal government to likewise need to cut back (indeed, in his 2003 budget Bush tried to implement a sneaky cut in federal Medicaid spending, only to be beaten back by complaining governors) on health care spending after more and more people have come to depend on it.

--Matthew Yglesias

--Matthew Yglesias

Strange, though, that they were satisfied with Marc Racicot's insistence that "To suggest, as Sen. Kerry has, that the military should 'answer questions' about President Bush’s honorable discharge is an outrage." Why one set of accusations merits a call for investigation, but not the other, I can't imagine...

--Jeffrey Dubner

Margaret Thatcher's son [Mark Thatcher] is under house arrest and facing the possibility of 15 years in prison after being accused over an alleged plot to overthrow the government of oil-rich Equatorial Guinea….

…Sir Mark has been charged with violating South Africa's anti-mercenary law in connection with the alleged coup attempt. Prosecutors allege that he helped finance a purported attempt to overthrow Equatorial Guinea's controversial president, Teodoro Obiang.

The list of those accused in this plot are a who's-who of politically connected oil barons, soldiers of fortune, and arms dealers: Sir Mark’s neighbor in South Africa Simon Mann, a Briton and founder of infamous mercenary firm Executive Outcomes, was arrested in Harare in connection with the plot; notorious South African arms dealer Nick Du Toit was arrested for supplying arms to Mann's mercenaries; and Equatorial Guinean officials have accused a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, David Hart, and a millionaire oil tycoon from Chelsea, Ely Calil, of planning and financing the coup. It appears that all of the above intended to install their man in exile in Spain, Severo Moto, as the new leader of Equatorial Guinea.

Finally, in a truly bizarre twist, it seems that Sir Mark smelled trouble in the air and was planning to high-tail it to Texas.

Makhosini Nkosi, a spokesman for [South Africa's] National Prosecuting Authority, today said: "It does appear that he was planning to leave the country.

"The house was on the market, he had disposed of some of the cars, and there were suitcases around the house which indicated they were planning to leave. He did confirm he was planning to relocate to Texas."

--Mark Goldberg

I don't think there's any doubt that Sen. Kerry made this a very big part of his campaign and therefore legitimized this issue.

--Sam Rosenfeld

But whose authority sanctioned these soldiers to loose dogs on the teens?

We know from the Fay/Jones Report that Military Intelligence officers from the 205th Battalion didn't have any dogs of their own, so they asked soldiers from the 372nd Military Police Company to use MP dogs to scare prisoners. For his part in this, the head of Military Intelligence in Iraq, Col. Thomas Pappas, has been recommended for official rebuke. Thus far, he is the highest-ranking officer that anyone has suggested be reprimanded (though, importantly, the Fay/Jones report does not recommend a criminal proceeding against him).

Pappas, however, testified in the Taguba report that scaring prisoners with dogs was a technique that he personally discussed with Gen. Geoffrey Miller when the then-commander of Guantánamo visited Abu Ghraib in August 2003.

Miller denies this, but the former head of Abu Ghraib, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, has sided with Pappas. Last May she told the Washington Post that Miller was sent to Abu Ghraib to “Gitmoize” the prison. And this, we know from the Schlesinger report, includes one technique, “exploiting individual phobias, e.g. dogs,” that was approved for use in Guantanamo between December 2, 2002, and January 15, 2003. Further, we know that this technique “migrated” to Abu Ghraib sometime after Miller visited the facility in August. Therefore, if we are to believe Pappas and Karpinski, Miller seems to be misrepresenting himself.

But does this amount to perjury? Perhaps. On May 19, in sworn testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Miller responded to a question about his August 2003 trip to Iraq:

“No methods contrary to the Geneva Convention were presented at any time by the assistance team that I took to CJTF-7 [Lt. Gen. Sanchez’s command].”

--Mark Goldberg

From CHARLES KAISER: Editor and Publisher quotes Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie as saying, "We are not judging the credibility of Kerry or the (Swift Boat) Veterans, we just print the facts." If that quote is accurate, the Post has abandoned a basic function of journalism.

--Matthew Yglesias

--Nick Confessore

--Jeffrey Dubner

Laurie Mylroie, however, seems ready to pick sides. She runs an email list, consisting mostly of recommended articles that appear here and there, occassionally with comments. Today, thanks to Jeff Dubner I've found an online archive of her missives, and the latest one seems to be a suggestion that Hezbollah could be a useful ally in the struggle against al-Qaeda. Meanwhile, she's a member of the new Committee on the Present Danger whose mission is "resisting and defeating terrorist organizations, ending collusion between rogue regimes and terrorists, and supporting reform in regions that threaten to export terror." Like, you know, Iran and Hezbollah.

--Matthew Yglesias

The issue isn't whether or not George Bush has command and control influence over the Swift Boat Yadda Yaddas, the point is simply that he could have put a stop to the "controversy" at the beginning by clearly stating that these allegations were false and baseless and that he doesn't want his followers to have anything to do with it. That would have instantly transformed the group from participants in the political debate into marginal figures who, like this guy, would be roundly ignored by the press.

But he didn't do it, because his campaign is desperate and he needs this kind of help to win. But he wouldn't stand up and say he agreed with the smears either, because he couldn't risk dragging his credibility down any further. So, instead, he's chosen to try and shift the debate to 527s in general, thus equating harsh, negative, and accurate advertisement with harsh, negative, and slanderous advertisement while demonstrating contempt for freedom of speech and association in the meantime. Apparently, to the president, a constitutional principle or two is a small thing to sacrifice in order to avoid drawing a distinction between truth and falsehood.

--Matthew Yglesias

This came long after last winter’s Taguba report had made specific charges against one CACI employee, Steven A. Stefanowicz, for giving interrogation instructions “he clearly knew . . . equated to physical abuse.” CACI did not suspend or fire Stefanowicz after the Taguba report was issued. Indeed, just two weeks ago the company announced the results of its own internal investigation: it found no evidence that any CACI employees were involved in abuse of any Iraqi detainees. Wonderful.

Anybody even passably interested in the Abu Ghraib saga and its place in the larger story of our Iraq intervention absolutely needs to read Patrick Raddin Keefe’s fascinating and thought-provoking piece in the New York Review of Books on our privatized military. (Tragically, subscription is required.) For more trenchant and immediate commentary on the two new Abu Ghraib reports and the judgments of responsibility they evade, don’t miss Dahlia Lithwick’s blistering column in today’s New York Times.

--Sam Rosenfeld

Early on I thought the ads should be condemned. I thought a number of the other ads that I saw that unfairly attacked President Bush should be condemned. And I think the President has condemned the ads. Would I like to see a more specific, condemnation? Probably, because of the sensitivity of the war issue to me. I'd like to make two most important points. One is I'm sick and tired of re-fighting the Vietnam war. And most importantly I'm sick and tired of opening the wounds of the Vietnam war which I've spent the last 30 years trying to heal. Now there were a whole lot of Vietnam veterans that had trouble getting all the way home because of the divisions within the United States of America. Eighteen and nineteen year old kids didn't understand when they served honorably and came home why they were mistreated by their fellow citizens which contributed to a lot of the problem that they had. So I spent a lot of time, by the way with John Kerry, in trying to resolve the POW/MIA issue. Trying to normalize relations between our two countries. And now these wounds are being reopened in the most unsavory fashion. Meanwhile, yesterday five young American soldiers died in Iraq. We can't erase a single name of that wall on the Vietnam war memorial here. They're dead, they're gone. And now instead of trying to work together to win the war in Iraq and come up with the best ways of handling it we're spending our time re-fighting a war that was over 30 years ago. And it's offensive to me and angering to me that we're doing this. It's time to move on.

One imagines that, with Bush looking like the odds are against him, McCain is positioning himself to take over the party should Bush lose (which could well result in a GOP crack-up). So there's a limit to how much partisan disloyalty he can afford.

--Nick Confessore

That's why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle.

And that's why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities – and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

Lastly the letter states that "You can't build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up." Near as I can tell, that's a positive defense of the swift boat liars, rather than the blanket condemnation of 527 ads that the campaign is supposed to be offering, but it seems the Bush campaign is being thrown off-message in more ways than one by yesterday's showdown.

--Matthew Yglesias

Provided that the seemingly out-of-control Iraqi police forces don't manage to mess things up by firing on any more groups of unarmed protestors (links courtesy of the invaluable Juan Cole), this should lead to a welcome resolution of the standoff after which both sides will try to portray Sistani as having sided with them in order to try and acquire some penumbral legitimacy.

But as is so often the case, U.S. policy here amounts to short-term crisis management that does little to address the underlying issues. Al-Sadr is still at large, Allawi still doesn't have a clear policy toward al-Sadr's movement, no one has any idea how his forces could be dislodged from Sadr City, the Sunni insurgency (which, having bona fide links to al-Qaeda, is more of a threat to America than the old Baath government or al-Sadr ever was) continues unabated (remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Where'd he go?), and none of the political tensions that produce these occassional shooting matches have been addressed. Meanwhile, Allawi's erstwhile strongman regime remains utterly dependent on either U.S. forces or else the occassional timely intervention from Sistani to maintain any semblance of control over the country.

--Matthew Yglesias

--Jeffrey Dubner

Amid the horrific details of abuse contained in the report, the General who oversaw the investigation, Paul J. Kern tries to assures us that all is better and explains:

“There are people who are very clearly in charge of Abu Ghraib [right now]-- Maj. Gen. Geoff Miller, who has brought organization, discipline and leadership to that prison facility”

Although the harsher policy was solely approved for use at Gitmo, Sanchez apparently took the hint. On September 14, 2003, he signed an interrogation policy memo which placed Iraqi prisoners in the same legal void as al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Gitmo. Page 14 of the Schlesinger report explains:

Policies approved for use on al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, who were not afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions, now applied to detainees who did fall under the Geneva Convention.

--Mark Goldberg