Month: October 2004

Of all the debates, this seemed to me to be the hardest to call. On substance, I give Kerry a clear advantage. There were some issues in which he simply out-debated the president, answered more questions and had a better case. But on manner and style, Bush came in extremely strongly in the last half-hour, emerging finally as the funny, humane figure that many of us came to admire in the last election cycle. Over all, Kerry cemented his new image as calmer and, oddly enough, more presidential than Bush. But Bush critically regained his likability, his rapport with people, and his moderate voice. What all this means I’m not sure. Kerry seemed marginally more likable than before, thanks, in part, to the president – but he’s still a stiff; and we may be tiring of him a little already. Bush, however, came off as a good guy, but he didn’t really advance on his fundamental weak spot: competence and a vision for the next four years. He never gave us a reason to re-elect him, except more of the same. Kerry, while emerging as a less appealing character for the first time, offered plan after plan. The whole debate advanced a narrative: that you don’t have to hate Bush to vote for change. Who watched? Not sure. Will it make a big difference? Short term, I think it may arrest the Kerry surge and give Bush a small fillip. Long term, it may help swing undecideds toward the challenger. Stay tuned for a detailed account of the debate and a defense of this instant judgment. Back in a few …

I’m only nominated in one category – and up against some biggies – in the Washington Post Best Blogs contest. If you feel like it, spread some love. Vote here.

In the Washington Post tracking poll – for the first time since it started. Sure, he lost the debate last Friday. Sure. Big Bush win.

What’s the practical difference between Bush and Kerry? Not much.

The pollster who got 2000 right is now calling the race a dead heat – with a caveat. The number of undecideds who feel Bush deserves re-election has sunk to an all-time low of 11 percent. Makes sense – given that Bush has essentially ignored the undecideds in favor of evangelicals. Forty percent of undecideds now say “it’s time for someone new.”

NRO is beginning to realize Bush is losing. The second debate didn’t help much. Women were particularly unimpressed with Bush’s “Furious George” testosterone-flush. And now we hear he’s talking about putting his “foot on John Kerry’s throat.” Ugh.

TINY BONES: New evidence of Saddam’s monstrous regime: mass graves of Kurdish children. And then this kicker:

Mr Kehoe said that work to uncover graves around Iraq, where about 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam Hussein’s regime, was slow as experienced European investigators were not taking part. The Europeans, he said, were staying away as the evidence might be used eventually to put Saddam Hussein to death.

There you have European elite morality. Ignore mass graves of children in order to spare Saddam the death penalty. You couldn’t make this up, could you?

Cheney gets serious.

“I spent the last 8 months in London, working near Moorgate/Old Street. While I did wander into some virulent pockets of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism (Hello Whitechapel, Hello Finsbury Park), I saw nothing as universal as what was described in the article. True, they loathe Bush, but my experience with the mid-20’s set was nothing but a great time.
I don’t know much about the chattering classes, but the girls I met loved the American accent. Maybe I just got the ‘I’m from NYC’ exception.” More feedback on the Letters Page.

Larry Sabato explains why. Money quote:

We continue to believe that President Bush absolutely, positively MUST have at least a 51 percent approval rating in the nation as a whole to be reelected. Second, given our surmise that the undecideds/leaners will break somewhat more heavily for Kerry, we think Bush needs to have built a lead of at least several points overall to win narrowly. In other words, a polling tie probably results in Kerry’s election.

Then add in the massive new registration numbers in Democratic constituencies. Tonight’s debate is obviously critical for momentum in the home-stretch. Check in for post-debate reactions tonight.

Some of you scoffed at the notion that WMD equipment and materials might have been lost in Iraq under allied occupation. What WMDs? But the point is not that nuclear bombs have been looted – but that equipment that could be used in such efforts has been purloined. Money quote from the Guardian:

The inspectors have been virtually barred from Iraq by the US since before the war and Dr ElBaradei’s information on the missing equipment has come from satellite photography and other sources. Some of the contaminated equipment and material from Iraq is believed to have been located in Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and the Netherlands. Iran is widely suspected of conducting a clandestine bomb project and might be keen to obtain some of the sophisticated engineering equipment on the loose in Iraq.

Iran? Yes, there are caveats in this story. But given the haphazard way we have occupied Iraq, and our apparent unconcern about WMD equipment being stolen or looted (“hey, stuff happens”), this surely needs a follow-up, no?