I Agree

Watched the debate last night. Let's start with the obvious; President Bush gave a much stronger performance in this debate compared to the first one. I think being free of the lectern helped him a bit. But as good as he was, Kerry was better. Kerry seemed more calm and confident; and he was on the offensive. President Bush seemed defensive; in part because of the attacks being thrown at him, and in part, I suppose, because of his performance last week.

I more or less agree with Todd S. Purdum's analysis over at the New York Times.

At the outset, Mr. Bush seemed a bit strident and on edge, as if over-eager to avoid a repetition of his pained performance eight days ago. But he appeared to gain comfort as the encounter wore on, sounding considerably more confident and collected than he did last week. He strolled the stage, microphone in hand and characterized Mr. Kerry as "just not credible."

But as often as not, it was Mr. Kerry who was on the offensive on topics like tax cuts in wartime, prescription drug imports, the ballooning deficit, homeland security, the rationale for the war in Iraq and the daunting conditions on the ground there that he said had led to a "back-door draft" of National Guard and Reserve troops.

Mr. Kerry generally seemed to be more in command of his brief, more confident in demeanor and more intent than Mr. Bush to reach across partisan boundaries as he invoked the leadership of Ronald Reagan and Dwight D. Eisenhower and talked of the importance of balancing budgets. Mr. Bush seemed more content to play to his conservative base.

At any rate an interesting night; and we have one more of these to go.

Around the Horn Part 12, In which we move ahead to Part 13

Well first things first. We have a new member to the Liberal Coalition; Scrutiny Hooligans.

So to kick off this week's edition of Round the Horn, let's start with a post from Scrutiny Hooligans covering the Vice Presidential debate.

Speedkill also has very thorough comments on the Vice Presidential debate.

T. Rex's Guide for Life is back with a post about the difference between Liberals and Conservatives; I'm not sure if I buy his conclusions, but it's worth thinking about.

The Gotham City 13 have (or has, I'm never sure which one to use) a reaction to the news earlier this week that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Corrente treads similar ground, discussing how the Bush administration are trying to spin their decision to invade Iraq, now that the primary rational has official fallen through.

Trish Wilson's Blog has a post on Breast Cancer Awareness Month that is kind of important, so please all of you go over, look at it, and then click on the link there. Won't take long and it's worth doing.

The Fulcrum has a great story on tourism in Iraq that really puts it all together.

Sooner Thought has a bit on the limits of free speech; apparently criticizing the President near an election is outside of those limits.

Kick the Leftist has a piece on the latest atrocity committed by Michael Moore; hint, it involves underwear.

Left is Right has put together a collection of links on the possibility of a draft and what that could mean.

And that's it for this edition of Round the Horn. Tune in next time when we will be brought to you thanks to the letter A, the letter Q and the number 3,243.

Voting

Should you vote? Should that guy across the street be allowed to vote? How about that hostess at Applebees who comes up and asks you how your doing when you've just put a piece of steak in your mouth (you know the one I mean)? Should all people you see be encouraged to vote?

Let's put it another way, taking the individual out of it, what is a proper societal goal? To have as many people voting as possible? Or to have only well informed people voting (while discouraging those who aren't generally well informed?

Tough question. The traditional Democratic answer is, "Hell yes, everybody should vote. We should all vote, that's why we are a democracy." The traditional Republican answer is "Well, I think we want an informed electorate and we also want to make it super tough for people to commit voter fraud, so, no, high voter turnout isn't really a motivating factor for us."

Here's an odd electoral fact; higher voter turnout tends to favor Democrats. Odd how that works out, isn't it?

Thomas Sowell takes on this subject today, and he makes some ok points but kind of blows it at the end.

. . . the emphasis on a duty to vote is a very misplaced emphasis. When the right choice is so critical, the emphasis needs to be on making an informed decision, not a knee-jerk response to images and talk.

A citizen who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about the issues, not just media spin or party propaganda, is doing a disservice to this country by voting -- especially when electing leaders making life-and-death decisions whose consequences will affect this generation and generations to come.

Those who vote on the basis of what the government can do for them are especially short-sighted during a war against worldwide terror networks. What good would it do to get free prescription drugs forever if your forever is likely to be cut short by more attacks like those on September 11, 2001?

In case you missed that, Sowell implies that an informed electorate would vote for President Bush. Uninformed people are the ones who are going to support Senator Kerry.

It's a classic myopia. I have looked at the issues, studied them thoroughly, and figured it out logically. So I must have the right answer. Any deviation from my support of John Kerry is doubtless due to you being ill-informed or having bad priorities or something. Because we all know it's pretty impossible for two conscientious, good-hearted, intelligent people to look at a situation, analyze it thoroughly, and come to a different answer.

Except that exactly that happens all the time. Which is why everybody gets the Vote. If there was one clear answer, there'd be no point to voting.

At any rate, I'm not sure that Thomas Sowell is suggesting we do anything to depress the vote. Nor is he proposing anything to encourage a more informed electorate. I suspect the main point of this article is to deflate a little the idea that we Democrats are the party that wants everybody to vote.

Is Marvin Olasky a JINO (Jerk in Name Only)?

On careful consideration I've determined that Marvin Olasky's commitment to being a jerk is deep and heart felt. I would like to submit, as exhibit a, today's article in which he calls into question John Kerry's religious worship.

Look at this well selected quote on John Kerry's religious belief.

How nominal is Kerry's Catholicism? Just look at his 1998 interview with American Windsurfer, the journal of a charming sport that has become a Kerry metaphor. The senator said: "I am a believer in the Supreme Being, in God. I believe without any question in this force that is so much larger and more powerful than anything human beings can conceivably define." Sounds more like "Star Wars" than Christ on the cross.

Yep, how embarrassing. When talking to an audience of Windsurfers John Kerry failed to demonstrate the theological eloquence of a Thomas Aquinas.

Rest assured, I'm sure Mr. Olasky spared no expense pouring over Mr. Kerry's public statements on his religious beliefs to find just the right one to cull from. Right for his purposes of being a jerk, that is. Of course it's entirely possible that the only time John Kerry has talked seriously about his religious beliefs is in one interview in 1998 with Windsurfer Magazine. Wierd; you would have thought that at some point or another John Kerry would have mentioned his religious beliefs. But no, apparently the only instance Mr. Olasky could find where he went on about religion was with Windsurfer magazine.

In the spirit of fairness I should note that there is one quote attributed to John Kerry, but the quote lacks a source. While it certainly seems of a piece with the other two quotes, it could well be from some third interview / article with, say, Catholicism today. But I doubt it.

I think I knows Suzanne Fields

This is the title of Suzanne's latest article.

"Old Europe thinks it know the U.S. -- It doesn't"

I'm assuming sometime this morning someone will read that title and correct it.

The article is basically a psychological study of why Europeans hate America. It's not very good. Europeans basically hate Americans because their believe in their socialist ideology and they hate us for rejecting it. That's very comforting mythology, but it's not backed up by much and doesn't make a lot of sense.

Most of the "proof" comes from a book by Olaf Gersemann, which explodes certain myths Europeans have about the United States. The fact that Germans don't entirely understand what economic life is like in the United States isn't really proof that they hate us. And of course it says nothing about France, which is where Ms. Fields would like us all to focus.

The article suffers by ignoring the fact that President Bush, and fellow conservatives, have created or increased tension between our nation and parts of Europe. She alludes to this briefly.

The day after Sept. 11, the Paris newspaper Le Monde famously declared that "Today we are all Americans." That reads now like a dispatch from the War of 1812. Sit down for an espresso in a sidewalk café on the Champs Elysees today and you're more likely to hear, "Today we all hate America."

By declaring that Europe's disagreement with the United States is simply an irrational disdain based on misunderstanding, President Bush gets a pass for having created the problem. I mean if we can't work with them, we can't work with them, right?

And of course, if they are irrationally hating us, than all of John Kerry's suggestions that he might be able to work with them better are nonsense, as Ms. Fields makes explicit. "John Kerry is whistlin' Dixie if he think his love of all things French would be returned by the Europeans if he should become the 44th president of the United States. Old Europe would gleefully transfer its loathing of George W. Bush to him."

Of course, if Europe does hate America irrationally, why did Le Monde print that famous headline?

Son of Random Thoughts

I'd love to do a documentary about Bill Ranic, the guy who won the first season of the Apprentice. I'd follow him around this big construction project he is overseeing in Chicago and ask him every three seconds, "So, like, who's really in charge?" My goal would be to say that enough times that he'd either a) admit the truth and introduce me to the person who's really in charge or b) punch me in the face. Either way it'd be great television.

Considering option b, maybe I'd get someone else to answer the question.

Here is an offensive statement, from a review of Fatboy Slim's latest album, Palookaville.

"It also relies more on real instruments and proper songs, rather than Cook's laptop and fun floor fillers, swapping instant thrills for something longer lasting."

Granted this doesn't have the visceral thrill of "I'm so pleased with my gender. We're not that bright." But still it bugs the crap out of me, that now in 2004 there are still brain dead music critics who diss electronic music.

Bands like Fatboy Slim, Moby, The Chemical Brothers, Underworld, New Order, Pepe Deluxe, and so on have done both fun party tracks (and for the record, what exactly is wrong with that?) and meaningful and well written songs. The Laptop, the sample, the turn-table, the keyboard, these are instruments. Music comes out of them, music created by the skill of the players. There's a reason every fourth guy isn't Moby. Most people eat meat, but that's not the reason. The reason is that Moby (and Norman Cook (Fatboy Slim), Ed Simmons and Tom Rowland (The Chemical Brothers) and so on are big stars is because they write kick ass songs. I'd put "Born Slippy" or "Run On" or "Woman in Blue" up against any song made by a guitar or a piano or a kazoo.

Anyway that just got me riled up but I'm calmed down now. Sort of.

Random Thoughts

I just feel random today.

I don't know which commercial I feel is more wrong-headed. The Old Navy one that suggests if I buy their clothes I'll totally wig out, or the Dairy Queen one that suggests that eating a sandwich they produce might lead to me inadvertantly setting my office on fire. I guess I'll give the Dairy Queen fire-breathing ad the nod, because at least the Old Navy insanity ad at least looks enjoyable. You know, up until you get carted off (but of course they always stop the commercials before that part).

Two seasons of the Apprentice. Two "crazy" black woman. You'd think they could find a strong, competent, black woman. Unless, of course, that's not really what they are looking for.

I don't mean to imply racism; all contestents on that type of reality show are selected, I would imagine, for their ability to be entertainingly dysfunctional; on the Apprentice they try to make them look at least credible for the first few minutes of the show. After that the sooner they wig out the better.

Incidently I made this plug last year, but I'll make it again. If you enjoy laughing, you should definately check out Miss Alli's reviews of the Apprentice. She's smart and she's funny. She should be on the show instead of some of the disfunctional people they have on now.

Susan LaTourette's husband, a Republican Congressman from Ohio, went to Washington, and left her for a staff member who has moved from his staff to a lobbying firm. She now lobbys the committee Rep. LaTourette sits on, but not him directly, so there are clearly no ethical problems. All of this has given Ms. Latourette a somewhat cynical view on what happens in Washington.

He [her husband] was a wonderful husband and father, the best I ever saw, until he went there. I told him I was trying to get him out of the dark side -- all that power and greed and people kissing up to them all the time. Now he's one of them. All they care about is getting reelected. I hate them all.

. . . Congressmen are gods. Senators are gods. And there are tons of aides and tons of lobbyists, and they kiss their butts and they love that. Power corrupts, and I think the longer you're there, the more corrupt you become.

That's life in the city. Thank goodness I live out here in Tallahassee. Nobody every kisses my butt, and that's a good thing. I guess.

True Words

These are from a New York Times editorial published today on the Vice Presidential Debates.

"Like the presidential foreign policy debate that preceded it, the clash of the vice-presidential candidates was 90 minutes of serious talk about the issues."

I could be wrong, but it just seems like those words might have been prepared before the debate.

Early analysis of the Vice Presidential debate suggests that it was boring, and that neither candidate did particularly well or particularly bad. The debate was particularly vicious yet somehow yawn-inducing.

MSNBC online poll has Edwards winning by 63%. Take it for what it's worth.

I think, from what I saw, that it was a draw. Edwards did ok, but not great. Cheney kept his dark side pretty well under check. I don't think it's going to upset the momentum of this race very much (not like the first debate).

I also discovered that the debate remained dull even if you turned down the sound and put on Radiohead. It did get more interesting if you left the sound up but switched the video feed to Baywatch. But kind of hard to follow.

What Makes a Metro-Sexual?

After Fox's embarrassment over the weekend ("I'm metrosexual ? he's a cowboy") a lot of people are wondering just what a Metrosexual is. The term has recently entered the English language and right now it's definition is limited such phrases as, "Well it's when a guy is just kind of that way, you know?"

But never fear, I've tasked the members of the Make me a Commentator advanced center for Conservative Studies (headed by Mr. Irwin J. McIckleson) with determining exactly what makes a man a "metrosexual." They have just provided their results and I am ready to present them to you.

First of all, Metrosexualism only afflicts men. Women are apparently immune to it's debilitating effects.

They then tried to determine a simple and easy way to tell the Metrosexuals from normal men. Mr. McIckleson proposed the litmus test of men who bathe more than once a week, but being from the 1910's his proposal was rejected. Fortunately one of the sprightly young conservative lads had this suggestion; any male who has visited an art museum, of his own free will, is a metrosexual. This excludes grade-school men, junior high men, and high school men, but does not exclude college age men (as one of them put it, "If they don't know they are taking an poofy arts class, than they are probably already Metrosexuals").

So there it is, if you have ever or would ever visited an art museum of your own free will, you are a metro-sexual, and are inelligible to become the President of the United States.

So what next?

Tonight of course we see the big face off between Dick Cheney and John Edwards. Republicans and many pundits will be quick to point out how well Lloyd Bentson did against Dan Quayle in 1988. But of course President Bush 41, well, became President Bush 41 anyway. So does this debate actually matter? And what strategy will the two campaigns follow.

This might end up being the Red Meat debate for that reason. We have two candidates who clearly have little respect or admiration for one another. So why not let them just go at it. Certainly many Democrats would like to see Dick Cheney taken down a peg or two, and there must be many Republicans who would like to see John Edwards "exposed."

On the other hand, both candidates can try to continue the momentum (in Edwards case) or reverse it (in Cheney's case). That goal might lend them a little caution. If Cheney comes off as a foaming-at-the-mouth bulldog or Edwards comes off as overly lawyerly, well, that would hinder their goals. My prediction is that Cheney will remind us all that Edwards is a trial lawyer. I'm don't know if Edwards will remind us of Cheney's comments on the campaign trail, that we either vote for Bush-Cheney or get blowed up.

Paul Krugman has some typically well-reasoned analysis of Dick Cheney's obstacles going into this debate.

The vice president is portrayed as a hardheaded realist, someone you can trust with difficult decisions. But his actual record is one of irresponsibility and incompetence.

Case in point: Mr. Cheney completely misread the nature of the 2001 California energy crisis. Although he has stonewalled investigations into what went on in his task force, there's no real question that he placed his trust in the very companies whose market-rigging caused that crisis.

In tonight's debate, John Edwards will surely confront Mr. Cheney over that task force, over domestic policies and, of course, over Halliburton. But he can also use the occasion to ask more hard questions about national security.

The Vice President has gone further out on limbs attached to Iraq war than any other member of the administration. We'll have to see what Edwards does about that tonight.

More Post Debate Spin

There seem to be two ways to handle John Kerry's triumph on last Thursday for the Democrats. One is to ignore the President's poor performance and emphasize where you disagree with John Kerry. The other is to acknowledge the President's poor performance, but claim that he had more substance. We saw some examples of this response yesterday.

Rich Lowry takes the first approach, and gets points for rewriting the debate. He takes statements by John Kerry (out of context in some cases) and he puts them in a nonsensical order to make Kerry look extra stupid. He then provides what he thinks should have been said in response. Kind of like those old radio gimmicks where the radio announcer would ask a question and then play a snippit of song to answer (So, what's your ambition in life? "I wanna be Jessie's girl.") Yeah, kind of like that.

Dennis Prager also takes the first approach, suggesting that John Kerry's debating skills allowed him to appear to be all things to all people. So if you heard something you agreed with, than you should be extra suspicious of John Kerry. Dennis Prager's technique is also to take snippits of John Kerry's words and set them in such a way as they seem to contrast sharply with one another. For example, Senator Kerry apparently believes that invading Iraq was a mistake, but he also believes that now that we are in Iraq we need to win the war. But if you cut out the element of time, you can make it look like he both supports and opposes being in Iraq.

Robert Novak, on the other hand, offers this strange analysis--President Bush may actually be in trouble.

The gap in performance here between President Bush and Sen. Kerry hardly seemed wide enough to reverse the popular tide that had been flowing in the president's direction. Nevertheless, it was enough to still the exuberant optimism in Republican ranks. With two more debates and a month to go before the election, Bush has serious problems to solve.

One of President Bush's big strengths was his inevitability. The Republicans were excited, the Democrats depressed. That's obviously very good for President Bush. If nothing else (and I believe there is a lot more to the debate than this), the first debate broke that momentum. For now, at any rate, the Democrats are excited and Republicans nervous and jittery.

We'll have to see what happens next. (How's that for going out on a limb? I don't make the no money for not taking chances!))

The Thinker Vs. The Feeler

Basically that's David Brook's evaluation of President Bush and Senator Kerry's debate last week. Senator Kerry thinks things through; President Bush makes decisions impulsively and never reexamines them once formed. Of course that's not how Mr. Brooks puts it.

. . . I think you'd be getting closer to the truth if you put it this way: The atmosphere of Kerry's mind is rationalistic. He thinks about how to get things done. He talks like a manager or an engineer.

The atmosphere of Bush's mind is more creedal or ethical. He talks about moral challenges. He talks about the sort of personal and national character we need in order to triumph over our enemies. His mind is less coldly secular than Kerry's, but also more abstracted from day-to-day reality.

I'm not sure what kind of personal or national character President Bush has espoused, but I get the feeling it has something to do with voting for him. At any rate Brooks argument kind of reminds me of the following Dilbert comic strip.



Dilbert is perhaps a little too harsh, but at this point we've seen how effective President Bush's brand of decision making is; and I am definitely ready for a change.

Incidently, David Brooks does grossly oversimplify in his analysis of the two men; but that's sort of his stock in trade.

Tap-Dancing

Republicans are still desperately trying to tap dance around the question of why Senator Kerry looked so good on Thursday night, and their guy, well, didn't. They have now trotted out a moldy oldy. It's the style, stupid!

"Sen. John Kerry, though behind in the polls before the debate, remains within striking distance and viable for the next two debate nights and the election based largely on his superior speaking skills."
Cal Thomas

"I'll concede that style counts. It was fair game for critics to say Al Gore's demeanor defined his performance in the 2000 debates. In that spirit, my verdict is: On the demeanor question, George W. Bush lost Thursday night. But he won on substance."
Debra Saunders

"To his credit, Kerry was well coifed, poised, and surprisingly succinct. He managed to make his wildly divergent positions seem slightly more consistent, and he even scored on a few rhetorical digs.

"Missing from the 90-minute event, however, was any coherent Kerry plan for what to do in Iraq if Americans do choose to change horses midstream."
Joel Mowbray

This is actually somewhat comforting. If you'll recall, these were exactly the sort of things they said through eight years of the Clinton Presidency. And the argument failed to move many people. Granted these are more serious times.

The other problem, for the Republicans, is the old shopworn attacks on Senator Kerry seem a little, well, shopworn. It's hard to believe the caricature of Kerry as a lightweight dilettante when you see him standing toe to toe with President Bush, and, frankly, creaming him in the debate.

New Quote and Format Changes

New quote this week from a song by John Wesley Harding. The song has been stuck in my head for a couple of days now, and I might transcribe the lyrics in a few days.

A new Quotes Page as well.