The Missile Shield Idiocy

Despite the $130 Billion price tag and remarkable failures in the testing that lead up to this deployment, we're about to have a 'missle shield'. now tell me, just who is this to protect us from? China? This is pathetic. We're pursuing Reagan era protections (remember Reagan's "Star Wars" program? well that was largely a fake missle shield system which was primarily designed to scare the russians rather than actually work).

The pursuit of this program is remarkable in its lack of understanding of POST-Cold war threats, the willingness to forego proven systems when there's war profiteering to be done, and the abject disregard of budgeting discipline. well, i for one thank my stars we have a poorly working system that will likely not protect us from a form of attack which: (a) has never been visited upon american soil and (b) is less likely to happen now than at any other time in the last 60 YEARS.

Bush sure is conservative!

Where's that LIBERAL MEDIA when I need it?

NEW YORK — The conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation's homes with TV, is ordering its stations to preempt regular programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that attacks Sen. John F. Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War, network and station executives familiarwith the plan said Friday.

Sinclair's programming plan, communicated to executives in recent days and coming in the thick of a close and intense presidential race, is highly unusual even in a political season that has been marked by media controversies.

Has the media just ignored this? i've seen nothing on the TV news networks.

Over at the Talkingpoints website we find that the guy who created this film worked for the Bush Administration's Homeland Security media operation. so just how far can the president go to control this sort of 'news' for his campaign and still get away with it? Moverover, who thinks that mass ownership of the media by a handful of people really has no effect on what we get to see and hear?

HOLY JAMOLEY! NYTimes Picks up on the Bush Earpiece Story

Good lord! if this has any legs, it will be devistating. Evidently after that salon article ran, the white house was flooded with questions. here are the answers they fumbled out:

First they said that pictures showing the bulge might have been doctored. But then, when the bulge turned out to be clearly visible in the television footage of the evening, they offered a different explanation.

"There was nothing under his suit jacket," said Nicolle Devenish, a campaign spokeswoman.

"It was most likely a rumpling of that portion of his suit jacket, or a wrinkle in the fabric."

Ms. Devenish could not say why the "rumpling" was rectangular.

Nor was the bulge from a bulletproof vest, according to campaign and White House officials; they said Mr. Bush was not wearing one.

Pretty weak. this will probably go away but if not, it may be crippling. the idea that the president, this strong leader, cannot present his own record without any help. the idea that this president could not function without the training wheel guidence of his staff will be submitted and those dreams of a new face added to Mt. Rushmore will have to dissolve away.

Salon.com News Bush's mystery bulge

there's been a story that's been making the rounds lately. the link is above. its aobut this mysterious bulge on bush's back. it clearly looks like he has something under his coat, and many have speculated that he was using an earpiece to have lines fed to him last week. I was somewhat skeptical about this because this is pretty difficult to do in a debate format. of course, that may be the point. he did an awful job. part of the scuttlebutt on this has to do with a point in this debate where Bush was talking and, while not being interrupted by anyone else, began to talk to a mystery person...demanding 'can i finish?' at a time when no one was talking to him. odd.

Anyway, this article points out a few things that make me wonder:

Suggestions that Bush may have been using this technique stem from a D-day
event in France, when a CNN broadcast appeared to pick up -- and broadcast to surprised viewers -- the sound of another voice seemingly reading Bush his lines, after which Bush repeated them. Danny Schechter, who operates the news site MediaChannel.org, and who has been doing some investigating into the wired-Bush rumors himself, said the Bush campaign has been worried of late about others picking up their radio frequencies -- notably during the Republican convention on the day of Bush's appearance. "They had a frequency specialist stop me and ask about the frequency of my camera," Schechter said. "The Democrats weren't doing that at their convention."

Friday's debate went better for him. i have to wonder if anyone else saw the bulge under his coat last night. i thought i did.

Second Thoughts...

i think ikerry dikd a better job on the debate. he clearly won on healthcare...north korea....and the iraqi coalition issue. and again--with further thought--you just can't give it to bush simply because he didn't blunder through this one. he DiD get something out of it but i can hardly give him the win.

Debate Night part 2 (or is that 3?). Notes as we go commentary and observations from Mr. Mooch.

Bush is doing a LOT better. So far he's sounded good but not better than kerry. i've noticed some odd faces bush has made to the crowd but nothing crazy. it's a tough angle but if you follow the bush view on WMD and terror you have to just accept non sequitors. to wit: we had to go to iraq because the war on terror is bigger than just Afganistan...but don't ask me about why my expanded war on terror didn't hit actual terrorists.

AWESOME line: General's job is to win the war and the Pres' job is to win the peace. (talking about the fact there weren't enough troops on the ground.) this got the crowd nodding. Bush claims he gave the generals what they needed. unfortunately no other generals agrees w/ him.

WHOA! bush just said the report this week that shows iraq had no WMD since 1991 was proof sanctions didn't work...uh...WHAT!?!? that just doesn't make sense.

bush just said he 'heard there's rumors on the internets" HAW HAW HAW! i personally like to get on the interweb.

this debate seems more relaxed and thus more free flowing and less dreamatic.

HAW!! there goes a Poland SHOUT OUT!! woop woop! you knew that was coming and leading up to the comment bush got so mad he just shouted out/over the moderator...testy!

jesus...bush's riffing. i love this stuff. he just starts running through the campaign slogans. sometimes it just doesn't make sense. ...god...i should be doing shots.

drugs: Bush just got spanked. his defense for defeating cheap drugs from canada was 'but clinton did it too!" that was after he claimed he didn't actually block it.

Tort reform was a thud for kerry but bush can't hit it out of the park. bullet dodged...or at least got a nick. kerry hinted at caps on lawsuits. NOBODY believes that. note to anyone talking about caps: you cap a lawsuit and you punish ONLY those who PROVE their case was legit. you punish those w/ a GOOD case and ignore the 'bad' ones.
bush has been much more at ease in this format. one has to wonder about the wisdom of putting the 'home run' iraq debate on the opening night and the more relaxed 'town hall' meeting format on a friday when fewer people would be there to watch.

20 minutes left. nobody just walked off w/ this one. bush did SO MUCH better than a week ago that that's gonna be the story here. the question is how far can you run on 'i did better than "utterly bumbling"?' my guess is that it will firm up the even race we are in at this point.

ok ...the mendacity pulled me away. bush just claimed to be the only pres. to allow stem cell research (while somehow being the only one to ever ban it). what a crock. kerry just hit him right in his pentacostals! haw! kerry said you call it killing but then allow it on some stem cell lines? haw haw haw.

holy moses. bush just flubbed a dred scott reference.

Abortion: kerry just did a great job on the abortion issue.

closing statements: wha? oh i was getting some ice.

my apologies...this has gotta be a boring review. maybe i'll do a better version later. of course...if you liked it...CHEERS! bush didn't utterly fall on his face...which seemed to be the standard tonite. it was probably a draw that changed no one's mind and neither really connected or really 'brought it home' either. well bush's victory came from NOT falling dead on his face but hell...who wants to win that? that's like a goal for the simple. well...i guess that's what we're talking about.

An ill-advised Bulldog

i'm not much of an animal person. i don't hate them but i'm not the guy that just goes gaga over a pet or HAS to be near their beloved animal. i never wish them ill--which the idea of makes me uncomfortable--but none-the-less i've never really cared for them. well i'm finding myself wanting a dog. not just a dog...a BULLDOG! since a few years ago (watching Van Wilder) it got into my head that it would be cool to have a little tree trunk of a dog wandering around my house.

i'm utterly convinced this is an awful idea. one of those things that will get old VERY fast. i don't really want or care for dogs. i just have the Bulldog on my brain for some reason. i don't care for the everyday tending to pets. i've never enjoyed the company of dogs after the age of about 4.

Yeah. this sounds like a bad idea. maybe i should look into an aquarium...?

CNN.com - Official: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq - Oct 6, 2004

I wasn't going to post about this because I'm tired of every single entity in the world giving us the 'final word' on this (senate, UN, etc.). However I will give you this observation. On the eve of war, Bush gave Saddam a deadline to show us his WMD. Cough 'em up, or we invade. He didn't, and THAT was the actual 'trigger' that bush claimed as the reason we went to war. The last chance to avoid it, as he claimed. Now think about this. How could war be avoided if there was nothing to cough up? How could ANYONE on earth prove to bush that war was not necessary?

the answer? Who cares. It didn't matter what was done. The decision was made to go to war and nothing as insignificant as 'the facts' would de-rail that decision.

Peace in the Middle East?

From the AP:

Meanwhile, a former leading figure in the Iraqi National Congress party - the party led by Ahmad Chalabi - remained defiant after an Iraqi court indicted
him Sunday for visiting the "enemy state" of Israel.

Seems we're on the road to peace over there. Iraq's government isn't even 6 months old and Israel is already an enemy state!

CHENEY ADMITS BRIBE FROM HALIBURTON!

(Thoughts from an earlier conversation today) As you should know, Dick Cheney still gets money from Haliburton. He gets millions of dollars--NOW--while serving as the VP and clearly wielding influence that got them their No-Bid contracts worth Billions.

None the less, we have gotten the defense that this money comes from an agreement he made before being elected. Supposedly (and I believe this) he made an agreement to defer payment of "his pay" into the future. They’d fall as payments over the ensuing years and the deal was struck regardless if he was elected VP or not.

Now we, like the press, are expected to be OK with that. Well, I’m not and they shouldn’t be.

OK, just what the hell IS a bribe if not a pre-payment for some benefit to be delivered later? Is the fact that they worked the logistics out ahead of time supposed to make it not a bribe? They claim that no one knew if he was going to be elected so how could it be a bribe. Well, that implies that you are only bribing someone if you KNOW what you want will come to pass. That’s not true at all.

It’s a prepayment for something to be done in the future. No one bribes AFTER THE FACT! This has always been the explanation from the VP and the press has just nodded its head. They act as if an agreement to give millions to a guy that can influence the government to giver your company billion$ in no bid contracts is just some sort of common business set up. Its not. They tried to impeach Clinton over a land deal where he’d LOST money and they couldn’t prove the undue influence. Here the VP admits it and we’re supposed to act like its all ok.

Cheney should be held accountable. Don’t hold your breath.

The Daily Scribble: 10.06.04

I cannot tell you enough. this guy is great. Check out the VP Debate 'toon!

ONE LAST THiNG.

best line(s) of the night from Edwards:

'He voted against Head Start.'
'He voted against banning plastic weapons that can pass through medical detectors.'
'He voted against 'Meals on Wheels' for Seniors.'
'He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King.'
'He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela.'

Cheney had not a word to say to counter it. next time you see a cheney fan...drop that quote on them. indefensible.

As you could guess...somebody took a Poll.

CBS 'instapoll' results, from 200 undecided voters nationwide:

'Who won?'
Edwards: 42 %
Cheney: 29 %
tie: 29 %

'Debate improved your opinion of the candidate?'
Cheney: 29 %, opinion improved
Edwards: 58 %, opinion improved

Odd fact: when light of the question of Bush's qualifications to be Pres. 24% of these undecided voters in the CBS poll said that they were 'scared' of the idea of Dick Cheney as president. YOW! Who knows the quality of this poll but this isn't too bad. (this was reported by CBS and compiled on Salon.com)

Little Effect.

Here are some quick notes on the debate w/o me having seen any commentary so far:

This last Debate should produce little effect. that may not be true but it shouldn't do much. no one hit it out of the park. if you like a little rougher edged attack, you Dick Cheney did it. If you like a more 'above the fray' style attack then John Edwards did it. neither hit a home run or anywhere near it.

Let's stop for a second and just say that the moderator was the WORST in the history of the Pres/VP debates. badly worded questions, bad management of the debate, just bad.

now that i got that out of the way, you have cheney who slouched over the whole time. i kept having to look at the top of his head. he seemed calm and deliberate but only a few times really did he seem to have the upper hand. he's a deliberate speaker but with both these guys, it seemed they'd mostly be pleasing to the folks that liked them already.

I have to say Edwards was somewhat disappointing. while he did seem to have that charm he's famous for, he also screwed up his words a few too many times. not badly but we expect more from him. His answers could, at times wander all over the place and land anywhere but on point with the question. of course he wasn't the only one and the moderator had some god awful questions.

I really did not enjoy this debate. no fireworks. i don't expect it to have much of an impact unless the post-debate spinmasters see something i didn't. the problem is that they only have 2 days until the presidential candidates go at it again so that spin would be lost.

I got a little tired of having better answers in my head than Edwards had in his mouth. this is me being critical, but because i'm slightly annoyed. i just felt like he was trying to bunt the softballs that went his way.

I say there was no head and shoulders winner out of Edwards, Cheney, or the audience. you want a winner? i think you could really only go where ever you were leaning anyway. we'll see if anyone else agrees.

you Know what? i give it to Cheney. he was better prepared and Edwards was all over the place. i got tired of Edward having to go bac to the previous questions to try and clean it up. not good. he didn't seem BAD but he was all over. Edwards gave a MUCH better closing statement but here's the thing. no matter if you HATE cheney's views...he's certain about them and he put it out there well.

That being said...Cheney had a better control over the direction of the debate. to me Edwards seemed a little more canned. i give it to Cheney but not by much. 55 to 45. none the less...i don't expect it to be a problem.

Final thought: the edwards of tonite could not have pulled off the job kerry did last week (and i've been a LONGTiME edwards supporter).

Polly Explains the Polls.

lately there's been a BIG lead for bush in the gallup polls (until the debates came). here's why: they were weighting the polls with more GOP participants. guess what happens? you get a better turn out for bush. take a look!

Likely Voter Samples
Poll of September 13-15
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%

GOP: 40%
Dem: 33%
Ind: 28%

Poll of September 24-26
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%

GOP: 43%
Dem: 31%
Ind: 25%

Poll of October 1-3
Reflected Dead Heat 49%-49%

GOP: 35%
Dem: 39%
Ind: 26%

Also note above that it said "Likely Voters". this is commonly what we see in the news lately. that means registered voters that have a history of voting in previous elections. this sort of poll is designed to completely ignores the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of new voters on the rolls now. it also ignores voters too young to have a vote history. This just shows that a good turnout of new/young/pissed off voters can knock these poll numbers out of the water.

GOP mailing claims Democratic candidate, an Iraq vet, 'weakening' terror war

Amazing! The GOP attacks a man that FOUGHT their war for them. his crime? Not agreeing with the GOP version of the war on terror.

NORFOLK, Va. -- A state Republican Party mailing accuses Democratic congressional candidate David Ashe--a Marine Corps veteran who served in
Iraq--of "weakening the war on terror" by supporting John Kerry.

A flier sent on behalf of his Republican opponent, Thelma Drake, says Ashe and the
Democratic presidential candidate are "two peas in a pod" on "issues like higher
taxes, abortion on demand and the war on terror."

So it seems you can't be a vet and a Democrat. Otherwise they just brand you a traitor. what scum. Shouldn't somebody be egging Thelma Drake's house right now? better yet. thelma...why don't YOU go over to Iraq and show 'em how its done!

The Incompetence.

If you don't want to take my word for it. Read this if you want to have a clear view of what's before us.

Bush Calls Kerry a Danger

Quote swiped from yahoo via www.45net.org:

CLIVE, Iowa (Reuters) - President Bush sought on Monday to regain momentum after John Kerry's jump in the polls, calling him a danger to world peace and shifting gears to drop a health policy speech and focus instead on the war on terror in which the president still holds a solid lead.

This is how bad the debate hurt bush. Think about this: the 'coup' bush supposedly got was that the 1st debate was about foreign policy and that would certainly center around iraq and the war on terror. The 1st debate also gets the best ratings. The hope was that bush would be able to hit it out of the park. This is exactly what he's been building up. Bush is strong on protecting the US and Kerry won't protect us. This is a delicate mantra. Bush wants you to be damn scared of the dangers out there and at the same time feel that he's keeping you safe...All at the same time.

The trouble comes when bush has to move out from the world of his commercials and his rallies filled with people forced to sign loyalty oaths. That's what the debate was.

bush thought his TV ads and stump speeches were a good enough for the policy questions coming his way. When laid next to an opponent with real answers he was stumped. He didn't care for how bad it made him look and he often found himself struggling to find something to say for the full 90 seconds. It was pathetic.

Bush now has to pick up the pieces. Normally he'd be building up to the next debate which centers more on domestic issues. As you can see above he had to drop that homeland stuff. Bush's ONE winning issue has been terrorism concerns. The debates kicked those numbers in the teeth and now we're seeing the utter desperation. bush has abandoned the old implied scare tactics of his campaign to actually claim that a Kerry presidency would enganger the world. you now...it doesn't really bother me now because its so obvious...so desperate...so craven....you can just smell it on him. this is the thrashing of a man defeated. dead.

i say give me more articles like this! i'd like to see him flail about on his way to the bottom.

GREAT Toon!

i plug this guy on my site bc he's great. i look at his stuff every day. this one was great in every aspect.

Debate Night...My take:

2 thumbs up! In boxing there's a term for a guy that gets beat by a more skilled boxer. one that just out did him on the different areas. its called "out classed". Bush was clearly out classesed.

bush looked like a kid struggling to explain himself after (clearly) gettting caught doing something wrong and the split screen of him and kerry wasn't helping him when kerry was talking. best of all, bush tried to use the flip flop business and it went over weakly. bush would use it as a whole answer to a question. calling kerry a flip flopper, then kerry aptly brushed it away and gave a real answer leaving you feeling like bush didn't have much to say on thetopic other than the name calling.

all in all, it was a revealingly weak performance for bush. you know, surrounding yourself with people in "townhall meetings" that must take loyalty oaths to get in the door isn't the best way to get yourself sharp for a debate. he clearly lost and there was little spin material given over by kerry. that will prove to be one of the best parts of this.

On several occasions, while explaining himself on difficult questions,bush said 'this is a hard job'. oh is it? well, was that a shock toyou? being president IS a hard job but you aren't much of a presidentwhen that statement is part of an explaination on how bad of a jobyou're doing. let me show you one example from the night:

In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough.

It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's-and it's hard work.

I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work.

We're making progress. It is hard work.

You know my hardest, the hardest part of the job is to know that I provide comfort for the loves ones who lost a son or a daughter or husband and wife.

Her husband, P.J., got killed-been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq. You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can knowing fullwell that the decision I made caused her, her loved one to be in harm's way.

Yeah, we're the job done. It's hard work.

Understand how hard it is to commit troops. I never wanted to commit troops. I never - when I was running - when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that, but the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.

Which leads us to one of my favorite parts:

Jim Lehrer had asked Bush about his policy of preemptive war. Bush claimed to
have "never dreamt" of starting a war before Sept. 11 "but the enemy attacked
us, Jim."

Kerry: "The president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, 'The enemy attacked us.' Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al-Qaida attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains, with the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one criminal and terrorist ... That's the enemy that attacked us. That's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains."

Bush: "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us, I know that." (which was sorta funny because he'd already mixed up Saddam and Bin Laden earlier in the night).

On many occasions Bush seemed unable to extend his comments past the soundbites of his commercials and he had a few moments where he clearly drew a blank and would stare off searching for his words.

final note:

i've seen nothing on this in the press. During the lead up to the debate we heard a LOT about the strict rules and how the president won out by brokering the deal so that there was to be virtually no back and fourth between the candidates and as i recall, no extended follow ups. on SEVERAL occasions bush interrupted the moderator to demand these rules be ignored. HIS rules.

Tonight was billed as the bush's strongest area. if they wanted this to be his knockout punch, they better start worrying about the next 2 debates