Illinois GOP narrows list to Alan Keyes & Andrea "Is that a kaleidoscope in your pocket?" Barthwell to replace Jack-Off Ryan

I'm from Illinois. Ycch. Alan Keyes is a total far-right freak. How anyone can seriously even propose him as a candidate is beyond bizarre. Not to mention, this is Illinois folks - I can't imagine anyone I know back home not thinking Keyes is a total moron. I suspect the choice will be Andrea Barthwell, even though she has a hell of a history that is CLEARLY going to become an issue in the campaign. She's been accused of engaging in "lewd and abusive behavior" while working for the Prez. Of course, short of murder (and even then), it's not clear what disqualifies you from running as a Republican nowadays. Read the rest of this post...

Kerry's bounce was as big as Clinton's, and here's why

1. The August 2d Newsweek says that in 1992, by one count, roughly 66 percent of all voters were up for grabs. According to the same story, 17 percent are up for grabs now (my friend Rob, who knows such things, says other polls show only 10 percent up for grabs). If you take the 17 percent figure, that's almost 4 times as many voters up for grabs in '92 as compared to today.

2. Clinton got a 16 point bump from his convention in 1992 - that was considered a "massive" bump according to the AP. The average bump, according to Gallup, is 5 to 7 points.

3. Kerry gets a bump of 4 points from last week's convention, according to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll. That's a tad below average, according to Gallup.

4. But more importantly, Kerry's bounce was as strong, if not stronger, than Clinton's, and here's why.

This election, as Newsweek notes, is NOT AT ALL AN AVERAGE ELECTION. There are MUCH FEWER voters up for grabs - most have already committed to one candidate or another. AP reports 75% of Kerry and Bush supporters say they will "definitely" vote for their candidate - that's a big jump from 1992, when fewer than half of Clinton's supporters said the same about their candidate going in to the convention.

Clinton in 1992 was able to use the convention to woo 16 of the 66 "up for grab" voters - or around 1 in 4 of the "up for grab" voters.

Last week, Kerry was able to woo 4 of the 17 "up for grab voters" - or 1 in 4 "up for grab voters." (And if you believe that only 10 percent of voters were "up for grabs," then Kerry won over 4 out of 10 voters as his convention bounce.) Using either figure - 1/4 or 4/10 - that's pretty darn good, and just as good if not better than Clinton did with his one-in-four "massive" bump.

Were 66 percent of all voters up for grabs this time around (as they were with Clinton in '92), and Kerry got one-in-four (just as he did at the last week's convention), that would have given Kerry a "massive" 16-point bounce. And had Kerry gotten four-in-ten of 1992's 66 undecideds, that would have been an over 26 point bounce!

Now I'm not arguing that Kerry got exactly the equivalent of a 16 or a 26 point bounce, BUT, the fact remains that Kerry inherited a very divided, set-in-its-ways electorate. If only ten percent of the electorate were in fact "up for grabs," and Kerry had gotten all 10 percent as a result of his convention bounce, the media would still be saying "gosh, Clinton got 16 percent, and Kerry only got 10%, so Kerry didn't do as well" - even though, in fact, KERRY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN ALL THE AVAILABLE VOTERS.

The bottom line is that Kerry's convention won an equal or larger percentage of the available undecideds as compared to Clinton's phenomenal 1992 success. It is patently unfair for the media, or anyone else, to suggest that Kerry got a small bump when he and Bush are fighting for a smaller pie, and when, in fact, Kerry got as large a proportion of the remaining voter-pie as any candidate in recent history. Read the rest of this post...

Commerical airliner diverted to pick up Busch twins

The Kansasy City Channel:

US Airways confirmed Tuesday that a scheduled flight between Boston and Washington, D.C., was diverted Saturday so some stranded passengers -- including President George W. Bush's twin daughters -- could get on the plane....

A representative for US Airways said the decision to divert the plane had nothing to do with the Bush twins. In fact, the representative said US Airways often diverts planes for such problems, but could not provide an exact number when asked.

I'd read about this earlier today, and while I was debating whether to publish it, I've decided it's finally time to go ahead.

At first I thought, maybe US Airways is telling the truth. Maybe they DO do this all the time - say, as often as they lose my luggage. Then I got to thinking - I've NEVER been on a flight that's been diverted to pick up additional passengers on the way. That's just bizarre. And when asked how many planes they divert like this - since they claimed they do it all the time - the US Airways rep had no answer. Hmmm...

Now, sure, they picked up 22 other passengers in addition to the Busch twins (this is my new spelling for them). But if I were doing a special favor for the Bushies, I'd let other passengers on too in order to give me cover, and ensure that the special perk wasn't so glaringly obvious.(Thanks to Garrett for reminding me about this article.) Read the rest of this post...

Is this even legal?

Yeah, I went to law school, but I'm not 100% up on my c3 vs c4 campaign law. Nonetheless, this story, below, strikes me as odd. Can a non-partisan organization invite one presidential candidate to speak and not the other? Don't they legally HAVE to invite both?

From the radical right's propaganda organ, AgapePress:

On Tuesday afternoon, President Bush will appeal to a key segment of voters who could help him win crucial swing states -- Roman Catholics. Bush is scheduled to address the annual convention of the Knights of Columbus -- the world's largest lay Catholic organization with 1.7 million members. About 2,500 Knights and their families are expected at the convention in Dallas, along with 60 bishops and 13 cardinals. The Knights of Columbus did not invite Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry -- a professed Catholic -- to speak. While officially nonpartisan, the conservative-leaning group strongly supports President Bush's opposition to abortion and homosexual marriage. The nation's 65 million Catholics constitute 27 percent of the electorate.

Read the rest of this post...

Vatican Sets Up Sports Department

AP:

Pope John Paul II has set up a sports department to give the Vatican a kind of new playing field in its drive to spread Christian values around the world.

Wondering what kind of "sports" the Vatican will be promoting. Smear the Queer? Find the Pocket Rocket? Suggestions anyone? Read the rest of this post...

New Blog - worth a look

My friend Steve Clemons has apparently started his own blog, the Washington Note. (I had to learn about it via TalkingPointsMemo.com - BAD Steve.) Anyway, Steve is a very interesting guy and, as TPM points out, he knows a LOT of people here in town, so I suspect good stuff to come from his blog. Check it out. Read the rest of this post...

Something still isn't right...

Let's say this new intelligence about Al Qaeda casing the NYSE, the IMF, etc.:

1. Is not something the Pakistanis found weeks or even months ago and sat on until the Dem Convention, but rather is something new that they just found;

2. Is credible information, even though most of it is dated 3+ years ago; and

3. We have no idea when the attack is coming - it could be tomorrow, it could be in 3 years.

So, the response to such news is to certainly take the threat seriously and respond appropriately to address the threat. But you don't respond to a long-term threat with a short-term fix-it that you know you can't afford to keep in place very long (can't afford it financially, in terms of manpower, and in terms of the impact the security has on people trying to get into their offices).

A short-term fix-it will have to be lifted in a matter of days or weeks, thus putting the target buildings at the same level of risk they were before the massive security descended on them. And since we had no information to suggest the attack was coming in the next few days or weeks, then why implement measures that are only effective for that period of time? What is Bush planning on doing in 3 weeks, when employees get fed up of the lines going into the Prudential Bldg? Are we going to have men with sub-machine guns permanently deployed in all the cars of the DC Metro? That'd be lovely, and more than a bit coup-ish.

My point isn't to suggest that we don't need heightened security at these buildings. But rather to suggest that Bush's response to the threat is simply bizarre because it's a response that can't be maintained long-term, while the actual threat may be a long-term rather than short-term one. If Bush were serious about all of this, and not playing politics - or simply being stupid - he'd beef up security at those buildings in a way that can be maintained long-term if not permanently, rather than giving us the military equivalent of duct tape. Read the rest of this post...

Mission Accomplished

(Source: NYT)

George Bush wanted to scare the shit out of the American people for little to no reason, and he succeeded. Read the rest of this post...

Helping Al Qaeda, looking at porn, what's the difference?

Yes, we now know why the nation went to Orange Alert yesterday. I know, you all thought it was because Al Qaeda was thinking of maybe blowing up the IMF and the NYSE? Nope. Apparently military chaplains have been - oh my! - looking at - can I even say it in a public blog? - PORNOGRAPHY. Yes, you recall the Muslim Army chaplain who was accused of possibly spying for Al Qaeda at Gitmo? Well, he's announced that he's resigning from the Army - now that the charges have all been found to be bogus - and do you blame him? Muslims in the military are becoming a lot like gays in the Republican party, of late. Membership does NOT have its privileges.

But my favorite part of the article announcing his retirement was this little quip I didn't even realize until today:

"Eventually the military dropped all criminal charges against him, but it still pursued accusations growing out of the investigation that he had committed adultery and stored pornographic images on a government computer. He was reprimanded for those lesser offenses, but that ruling was thrown out on appeal."

Yes, when they couldn't get the guy on terrorism charges, they went after him on adultery and pornography! I guess the bigots in the Bush Administration are dead set on finding a "dirty Arab" and they're gonna get one any way they can. Read the rest of this post...

Washington Post editorial board drops acid, Part II

What is it with these people? It's like someone came in the night and stole the REAL editorial page writers and replaced them with the Washington Times mind-melded with FOX News.

The latest outrage? Today's absolutely LIE of an editorial that states:

"It is equally important that the administration not politicize its warnings, because to do so would weaken them. In his statement, Mr. Ridge stayed away from politics..."

I'm sorry, but in the middle of Ridge's "non-political" terrorist warning, he said this:

"'We must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror,' Mr. Ridge said."

How on God's earth can the Washington Post write an editorial claiming Ridge avoided making the alert political, when in fact, Ridge did just that?

It's really all very sad. I've lived in DC for nearly 20 years, and have always loved the Washington Post. But their editorial board has become a big piece of shit over the past year. While in the past it was nuanced and smart, and in spite of FOX News' claims to the contrary, unbiased. Today it's little better than the painfully partisan crap we get from the Moonie Times. If this weren't the only "real" newspaper in town, I'd unsubscribe from this piece of crap in an instant.

I highly recommend EVERYONE write a letter to the editor asking the Post what happened to its once-impartial editorial board? Atrios also posted Fred Hiatt's email address at the Post, he's the editorial page editor: fredhiatt@washpost.com Read the rest of this post...

Anybody know who this is?

From Page 6:

WHICH congressman recently voted for the Marriage Protection Act, which prohibits same-sex marriages, even though his sister is a lesbian "married" to another woman — and the lovers even have kids. "We wonder why he has one of the most anti-gay voting records in congress," fumed one gay activist. The lawmaker is ducking phone calls about his sister, even though his family has accepted her homosexuality. Their mother "even joined his sister in the annual Gay Pride event," said our source.

Read the rest of this post...

Oh, where to begin with this one...

Bush makes it so hard sometimes. Do we make fun of him for being gay, or do we make fun of him for getting $130,000 worth of jewelry from the evil Saudis who, up until recently, looked the other way while Osama and his buddies went on a rampage, and who are having a gay old time (oops, I did it again) raping us with $2.00 a gallon gas prices?

Read the rest of this post...

The Bush Twins and the Hollywood Hookah

Hey, if the Republicans can attack the Kerry daughters for simply sharing smokes with movie stars, then it's fair game for us to revisit the Bush twins big adventure with the Hollywoood hookah.

Did the Bush twins inhale? Kutcher won't say
By Karen Thomas, USA TODAY

The White House didn't return phone calls Wednesday, but the president and first lady must be reeling over Ashton Kutcher's comments about their twin daughters in the new Rolling Stone.

Ashton Kutcher tells Rolling Stone that he partied with the Bush twins more than a year ago.

The shaggy-haired TV star tells the magazine he met Barbara and Jenna Bush, now 21, at a party about a year and a half ago, and the sisters (along with a Secret Service agent) went back to his place afterward. "The Bushes were underage-drinking at my house. When I checked outside, one of the Secret Service guys asked me if they'd be spending the night. I said no.

"And then I go upstairs to see another friend, and I can smell the green (marijuana) wafting out under his door. I open the door, and there he is, smoking out the Bush twins on his hookah."

Kutcher wasn't apologetic Wednesday, because in the article "he didn't say what was being smoked or who was doing the smoking," says spokeswoman Leslie Sloane Zelnik.

Actually, Ms. Sloane Zelnick he said very clearly what was being smoked. So, you lied. Read the rest of this post...

The Truth Hurts

The dandy girly-men of the Republican party are up in arms over Democrats having criticized their wonderfully inclusive party. What their game really is, is to scare Democrats from making ANY criticism of the Republicans. How? Simply do what they always do. They yell and scream any time a Democratic shows any sign of life. The goal: Scare the Dems so bad that in the future they won't have the nerve to speak up.

The latest evidence of this is from this email I just got from Newsmax:

Hollywood Highlights From a Bounceless Convention

Hollywood's presence was all over the place. But at the Democrat convention, celebrity sentiments were anything but inclusive when it came to talk of Republican types.

Alec Baldwin said that the GOP was "hijacked by fundamentalist whackos." [JOHN'S NOTE: ABSOLUTELY TRUE]

Rob Reiner accused the GOP of using "wedge issues to divide the country." [JOHN'S NOTE: GAY MARRIAGE, ANYONE?]

Janeane Garofalo called right-wingers "emotionally immature." [JOHN'S NOTE: THEY SURE CAN'T HANDLE ANY CRITICISM]

In an accurate description of the Democrat ticket, Ben Affleck told the world that the "GOP is the party of the haves and have mores." [JOHN'S NOTE: YEAH, CHENEY'S $20 MILLION HE'S GETTING FROM HALLIBURTON PROBABLY MAKES HIM ELIGIBLE FOR THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.]

Speaking of Moores, Michael was the most visible face at the Democrat happening. He was even able to score the seat of honor next to Nobel Prize-winning ex-prez Jimmy Carter. [JOHN'S NOTE: I THOUGHT I'D READ THAT THIS WAS A LIE - DIDN'T MOORE ACCIDENTALLY SHOW UP IN JIMMY CARTER'S BOX SEATS WITHOUT CARTER REALIZING IT, NOT THAT IT MATTERS.]

The Peace Prize's spirit failed to rub off on Moore. The "Dude, Where's My Conscience" said conservatives "are up at six in the morning trying to figure out which minority group they're going to screw today. The hate, they eat for breakfast. They are going to fight, and they are going to smear, and they are going to lie, and they are going to hate." [JOHN'S NOTE: TRUE AGAIN]

Meanwhile, the Kerry daughters were playing celebrity courting.

Alexandra shared smokes, jokes and kisses with John Cusack, while Ben Affleck hugged Vanessa at the GQ party for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome. [JOHN'S NOTE: LEST WE FORGET, THE BUSH TWINS SHARED JOINTS AT ASHTON KUTCHER'S PLACE.]

Alexandra is the same Kerry daughter who revealed in a prime-time address to the convention that her father had heroically administered CPR to the family's hamster.

The Left Coast Report is pleased to hear that John Kerry is at least pro-rodent life.

Read the rest of this post...

Feeding Paranoia III

So now the US government is adopting a "softer tone" and cooling down the "run for your lives!" rhetoric it adopted just yesterday about a possible Al Quaeda attack on NYC or Washington. And the info that was collected, the surveillance that was done was in fact three or four years old. Yes, the info about this surveillance was found only a month ago, but why the sudden raising of alert levels as if an attack was imminent? It just ain't so. Per the NYT:

"The information, which officials said was indicative of preparations for a possible truck- or car-bomb attack, left significant gaps. It did not clearly describe the suspected plot, indicate when an attack was to take place nor did it describe the identities of people involved."

In other words, it confirmed what we should have already assumed: that Al Quaeda has cased any number of buildings around the country and would love to bomb them. Don't say the gov't knows stuff we don't know, because the reason the gov't is tamping down the rhetoric today is because it was overheated, just like John Ashcroft went overboard on that dirty bomb scare and had to be chastised by the President and just like Tom Ridge went overboard the LAST time he warned of an imminent attack and the FBI publicly distanced themselves from him and said they had no idea what he was talking about. Ridge using the new terror alert announcement to repeatedly praise Bush's leadership certainly didn't help either.

Eventually, they'll be right, of course, because eventually there will be another terrorist attack inside the United States. The sad truth is that we KNOW New York and DC are now and forever will be targets for terrorists. That will never change. So every new tidbit of information can't be an excuse or a knee-jerk "we better say something or they'll blame us for not saying it" reason for raising the terror alert. If it continues, we'll get so blase that when there is real and credible information and they do raise the terror alert in the future, average citizens and local law enforcement may be so innured to it by then they won't increase their vigilance to the utmost degree. Read the rest of this post...

Likely Voters: A Silver Lining

Here's an attempt at positive spin on the no-bounce Democratic Convention. Polls are starting to focus in on "likely voters." Everyone defines this grooup slightly differently. But basically, it includes asking the person you're polling if they voted in the last election, do they know where their local polling station is, etc. It's safe to assume that NOT having voted in the last election makes you much less likely to be considered a "likely voter." As pointed out on "Real Time With Bill Maher" on HBO, the American public is focused on politics with a real passion not seen perhaps since Vietnam. There is probably a significant percentage of Americans who didn't vote in 2000 who are now bound and determined to do so -- it's a post 9/11 world, they're angry about Iraq, they saw Michael Moore's movie, or whatever. If just one percent of the population feels driven to vote in 2004 and they didn't vote in 2000, that's three million votes, enough to turn a victory on either side into an electoral landslide. And there's a good chance that shift, that passion to vote -- be it "Throw the bum out" or "God bless George Bush" -- won't be reflected in the polls. Read the rest of this post...