The state of the debate...

Kerry impressed me. His tone was good—challenging but not belligerent. He was articulate and poised, and he had good control of his material. Bush was weak, though not terrible. He didn’t seem well prepared, though perhaps he was and Kerry took him out of his game. Bush got fired up a few times, but didn’t seem to be able to channel his passion into effective responses. Instead he would fall back onto his talking points, which were solid, but too often not in the context of the question he was addressing. He wasn’t able to say much of substance once he got beyond his talking points.

I suspect that those who have followed the campaigns will seize on the holes in Kerry’s statements—inaccuracies, inconsistencies, distortions—and discount his performance. Those same people will have a tendency to “fill in the gaps” in Bush’s responses and count them as beefier than they were.

Those less familiar with the issues and the candidates’ previous statements, however, lack the benefit of perspective and interpolation. They will have to rely merely on the night’s performance, and I believe this will work to Kerry’s advantage. I expect the race to tighten somewhat.

One last note: my initial reaction to Bush, whether he is debating, speaking, or giving a press conference, is almost always far worse than it is on second viewing. I’m not sure why this is, but I invariably think he did poorly only to like his performance much better on review.

Update: I've just been zipping around seeing what other bloggers had to say, and the question of who won on substance versus who won on style seems to keep coming up. I think it's clear that Kerry won on style, but I believe he won on substance as well. To echo what I said above, those who say Bush won on substance are biased by the truth. They know the facts and use them as a measuring stick to judge each candidate. But someone who doesn't know the facts will perceive Kerry as speaking with more breadth and confidence on the specifics while seeing Bush recite talking points about mixed messages (which weren't in evidence within the frame of this 90 minute debate). Kerry comes off as more substantive in this context.

Another thought: the exchange on Korea was one of the better presidential debate moments in memory. There are clear philosophical differences between the candidates and they were made plain. However, even here I must repeat my point from above: everyone watching will understand that Bush and Kerry disagree on what to do about Korea, but someone without previous knowledge (i.e. most viewers) probably doesn't have a clue about how we got here or which approach is best. So what should be a standout moment in the debate will probably end up being dismissed by most watchers.

Byrd Droppings...

I’ve enjoyed reading Lorie Byrd’s postings at Polipundit for some time. She recently started her own blog called Byrd Droppings, where she can stretch her wings a bit more and get into some areas that don’t fit the format at Polipundit. She’s a talented writer with a lot to say, so be sure to check her out on both blogs. I especially found her post on health care interesting, including the comment section. It’s a credit to Lorie that she has such high-quality readers.

Democracy under fire...

David Brooks draws an historical parallel between the situation in Iraq and that in El Salvador in the early ‘80s, where citizens risked bombs and sniper fire to cast their votes. Over time, elections grew safer as freedom took hold and the violence waned.

Cassandra at I Love Jet Noise finds the analogy an apt one, and says critics have put the cart before the horse.

We just need to hold elections. With every election held, a tradition is reinforced. Time, and the repetition of successful elections, are what will establish democracy and eventually smother insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq is a different time, place, and culture than El Salvador and it remains to be seen how badly Iraqis prize their freedom. But my sense is that Brooks and Cassandra (whom you should be reading everyday, by the way) are exactly right: we don’t need to end the insurgency to pave the way for the elections; we need to hold elections in order to quell the insurgency. All democracy needs is a foothold.

Update: More from Dale Franks at QandO.

John Kerry evolves...

The evolution of John Kerry's Campaign message:

1) I'm not Geroge Bush

2) I'm a war hero

3) Bring it on!

4) Make it stop!

I guess he was for negative advertising before he was against it.
[via Betsy]

Privatizing Social Security...

Thomas Sowell's column is up. Go read it.

Update: Read the second part of Sowell's column as well.

Trackbacks...

I've added trackbacks to my posts via an add-on from HaloScan. However, either I'm having a mental hiccup or HaloScan is, because the trackback counter isn't working. I've got a note up on their support forum asking for help. In the meantime, please let me know if you experience any related problems.

Measuring success in Iraq...

In discussing our chances for success in Iraq, I cut a corner in not defining what I mean by success. I did this intentionally so I could get to my larger point about how we are being unrealistic in our examination of the war. Let me see if I can square up that corner a bit.

At a minimum, success in Iraq must include the ousting of Saddam Hussein and the securing of Iraq’s weaponry. This is necessary to address our national security concerns, which most would agree were our primary reason for invading. Saddam has indeed been unseated, and, if we accept the conventional wisdom, his weapons are not a threat because he didn’t have them to begin with. I’m not convinced of this last point. Some WMD have been found, and my guess is that we will learn of more. In any case, Saddam has been captured and Iraq’s known weapons (and weapons programs) have been secured—so by this standard we have already achieved success.

This standard is too modest, however. Were another despot to rise in Saddam’s place, intent on building WMD, our national security would once again be threatened. In addition, we feel a moral imperative to help the Iraqi people leverage their freedom to a more promising future. And so our goal must be to help Iraq establish a stable, self-representative government. Such governments not only provide well for their citizenry, they tend to be less aggressive, more peaceful, and more willing to be responsible members of the international community.

This is our task, and let us be clear that it is a long-term one. Let us remember that it took seven years to achieve these goals in Germany and Japan after World War II. Let us recall that, in what is snidely referred to as his “mission accomplished” speech, President Bush spoke of the long path ahead:

[M]ajor combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country…

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous… We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools.

And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

We are five months into what is a 3-phase transition. Phase 1 was completed in July, with the passing of sovereignty to the Iraqi government. Phase 2 is to transform this interim government into a representative one. This process is under way. Some local elections have already taken place, and national elections are scheduled for January. This will undoubtedly be a difficult time and dangerous undertaking, but Prime Minister Allawi’s determination is encouraging.

Mr. President, we also discussed the importance of holding free and fair national and local elections this coming January, as planned. I know that some have speculated, even doubted, whether this date can be met, so let me be absolutely clear that elections will occur in Iraq on time in January, because Iraqis want election on time. In 15 out of 18 Iraqi provinces, the security situation is good for elections to be held tomorrow.

Here, Iraqis are getting on with their daily lives, hungry for the new political and economic freedoms they are enjoying. Although, this is not what you see in your media, it is a fact. The Iraqi elections may not be perfect; they may not be the best elections that Iraq will ever hold; they will undoubtedly be an excuse for violence from those who disparage and despise liberty, as we -- the first elections -- as were the first elections in Sierra Leone, South Africa and Indonesia. But they will take place, and they will be free and fair.

Successful elections will undoubtedly be an enormous milestone in building a free Iraq. What will remain is Phase 3, which will be the longest, and probably the most difficult, period of the transition: fostering stability. There will be a lot of very unhappy bad guys in the world once the elections have been completed. A free, democratic Iraq will continue to be a target for terrorism. The U.S. and Iraq’s new allies will need to provide support and training until Iraq security forces are strong enough to maintain control. This may take many years.

So, what would I consider success in Iraq? Well, if we see elections held in January, I'd call that progress. If we can look back a year later and that elected government is still in place, I'd call that remarkable progress. And if we can look back in five years, or ten, and see a free Iraq, then I think we can fairly say we succeeded in Iraq.

And I'm optimistic; I think our chances are excellect as long as we don't lose our will.

Update: Update: John Podheretz has similar thoughts.

Are things worse in Iraq than they were, say, six months ago? If you measure solely by the number of attacks against U.S. and Iraqi targets, the answer is undoubtedly yes. The insurgency has demonstrated a terrifying capacity for organized terror.

Their capacity is dispiriting and depressing. And that's the point of it: It has no military value. The terrorists will not win a single head-to-head fight against the United States. Their purpose is to make us feel that the chaos will never end and therefore we should cut our losses and get out…

But if the security situation is worse than it was six months ago, the political situation is so dramatically improved that it's almost a miracle. In almost every respect, the transition to Iraqi sovereignty has gone better and has had greater success than anyone could have predicted half a year ago.

Read the whole thing.
[Via Betsy]

Challenge to SwiftVet critics...

I wrote here and here about my frustration with how often the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are dismissed as unsubstantiated smears by “Big Media” types. Beldar notes a couple of recent examples of this and issues this challenge:

Can you identify even one specific and material SwiftVets allegation that you believe to have been fully "debunked" or fully proven to be "unsubstantiated"? [emphasis his]

It’s good to see someone with a large readership on the case.

Optimism in the face of pessimism...

Ann Althouse agrees with a point Christopher Hitchens made on Tim Russert’s show. What caught my attention about the excerpt she quoted, however, was an earlier comment by Andrew Sullivan:

RUSSERT: What do we do about Iraq? What's going to happen? When American people are confronted, day in and day out -- a thousand soldiers killed -- 7,000 wounded and injured. There's a sense, obviously, in the world, that the United States will eventually say: Enough! We're getting out!

SULLIVAN: I hope to God not. If we need more troops, put more troops in there. ... You've gotta go through with this. And I think there's still a twenty, thirty percent chance of our succeeding.

Twenty or thirty percent? This just floored me. Now I realize I’m in the minority in thinking that the war is going very well, and I’ve gotten used to hearing views that are less optimistic than my own, but a twenty or thirty percent chance of success? Yet neither Russert nor Hitchens balked at this assessment, nor did Althouse find it worthy of note. I suppose I should conclude from this that I’m the one who needs a reality check, but I continue to believe that the received wisdom is wrong.

As I’ve said before, we seem to have lost all perspective on how war works. Somewhere along the way, we’ve gotten it into our collective heads that wars should be organized and predictable. I’m not sure where that notion came from, but it’s dangerous. If we fail in Iraq, it won’t be due to poor planning or execution. Failure will come at the hands of a withering spirit, poisoned by a lack of realism. I worry that far too few grasp the big picture, so I’m heartened when I find a kindred voice like Thomas Sowell’s:

Has the war in Iraq gone according to plan? No! But name any war that did.

Even World War II -- the "good war" of "the greatest generation" -- didn't go according to plan. The invasion of Normandy was a historic feat but lots of things went wrong.

Our paratroops who were dropped behind enemy lines were dropped in the wrong places. Intelligence reports about the big gun emplacements our troops were supposed to knock out turned out to be wrong.

Our own bombers accidentally dropped bombs on American troops, killing over a hundred men. We got caught completely by surprise by the German counter-attack that led to the Battle of the Bulge. But we won the war -- and that's the bottom line.

Any Civil War buff can spend hours telling you all the mistakes that were made on both sides. Robert E. Lee, whom many regard as the greatest general in that war, was so mortified by one of his disasters that he offered his resignation.

Mistakes in war are not new. What is new is a widespread lack of realism about war, especially among people who have never been in the military, who are like the proverbial little kid on a trip who keeps asking: "Are we there yet?"

No, we’re not there yet. But we will get there, and we’ve accomplished much in a short time. The “experts” predicted the loss of 10,000 troops just taking Baghdad. Eighteen months later, our casualties are a tenth of that. Saddam is in prison. The oil fires and refugee problems never materialized. Control and sovereignty were transferred to the interim government ahead of schedule. Local elections have been held in many cities, and national elections will follow in a few months. What we’ve done is remarkable.

There have been mistakes and “miscalculations.” There will be many more. They will be easy enough to spot with the war being broadcast with “play by play” analysis like some sporting event. Wars have always been disordered, chaotic, and faltering. The difference is that now we are able to put them under the microscope of the media to an extent we never could before. Anything is ugly if you zoom in close enough—especially something as ugly as war.

What are Republicans thinking?

The Republican National Committee sent out mailings in two states suggesting that liberals want to ban the Bible. This is despicable, and so are Republicans who try to “defend” the tactic by pointing to liberal efforts to legalize same-sex marriage or remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Senator Edwards has called for President Bush to “condemn the practice immediately and tell everyone associated with the campaign to never use tactics like this again.”

He is exactly right, and Bush should not have to be prompted to do so.
[via Andrew Sullivan]

Update: Professor Volokh examines this issue on his blog. He has no comment section, so I wrote him an e-mail:

I have some disagreements with your take on the "Bible banning" mailers. Let me begin by saying, with tongue only slightly in cheek, you are thinking much too much like a lawyer. The issue is not strictly dishonesty, but also fair play--whether a false impression is being deliberately advanced in order to rally support. It seems clear to me that the image of a Bible with the word "banned" stamped across is exactly such a "dirty trick.”

You used an analogy of a Democratic mailer accusing conservatives of wanting to destroy a woman’s right to choose. The difference is that a “woman’s right to choose” has a very narrow meaning in our political culture. It is a clear reference to abortion, a practice that conservatives do indeed wish to end. One may support or oppose the policy, but the statement is an honest one and can’t rightly be seen as a “dirty trick.”

You argue that because the book-banning image sends an ambiguous message, we can’t condemn the mailer as dishonest until we open it up and examine the contents. I question whether the message is truly ambiguous. My sense is that when most people hear of a book being banned, they take this somewhat literally. They assume that the book itself is being prohibited in some context, rather than concluding only that selected ideas in the book are under assault. That aside, there is a more compelling aspect to this. Like the phrase “a woman’s right to choose,” the image of book banning carries a connotation--a powerfully negative one. Whether or not the book-banning image is ambiguous in its intellectual message, I submit that it is decidedly unambiguous in its emotional message. This is an image that rings of oppression and persecution, more so because of the religious facet of it. Its very use ascribes evil to the opposition. For these reasons, I consider the use of this image both dishonest and contemptible.

Update: More from Captain Ed, who says the Dems have a few things to apologize for as well.

Aiding and comforting the enemy...

Charles Krauthammer writes about Kerry's attempt to undermine Australia's support for the war. As I said here, Kerry is a threat to national security. Sadly, this hasn't gotten much media attention in the U.S. I hope Bush nails Kerry on it during the debates.

Quote of the day...

Betsy points to this collection of Kerry flip-flops and remarks: "My worry is that Kerry has had so many positions that Bush won't remember them all during the debates."

Election fraud...

More evidence of election fraud found in Ohio.
[Via Betsy]

Merit pay for teachers...

I goofed when I titled the previous post--accidentally calling it “Merit pay for teachers.”--so I went back and changed the title. Unfortunately, some people had already linked to it before I made the change. Since Blogger uses the title as part of the URL for the link, that caused the link to go dead. This post is a "placeholder" so those connecting to that old link won't get an error.

The upshot of all this is if you got here from an external link, please click here to get where you were going. Everyone else can just ignore this post.

Sorry for any confusion

Merit pay for parents...

I have an unconventional idea that I’d like to get some feedback on.

One of the problems with our struggling education system is a lack of parental support. For a variety of reasons, many parents simply don’t put a strong emphasis on education. This is unfortunate because parents have the potential to wield an enormous amount of power to affect education reform. Teachers, administrators, school boards, and politicians all sit up and listen when parents bring pressure to bear.

So the question I’ve been pondering is: what kind of changes can we make to public policy that will get parents to care? After all, if we can’t make parents care, we’ll always being doing the heavy lifting from the other end—placing a growing burden on our already overwhelmed educators.

One answer I’ve come up with is something I call “merit pay for parents.” We’re all familiar with the arguments for merit pay for teachers: if we stop rewarding endurance and start rewarding excellence, we give teachers an incentive to improve, and along with it a greater sense of worth. So what happens if we take this idea and apply it to parents? Yes, I’m talking about paying parents.

What if we said to a parent, “We’ll give you $1000 if your kid does well on the NAEP test; we’ll give you $2000 if he does great?” I have to believe that an extra grand or two would motivate a parent to make sure his kid does his homework and shows up for school on time and ready to learn. I have to believe that parent would be in the face of teachers and administrators who don’t do their jobs. I have to believe that such a program would be especially motivating to poor, minority, and single parents, who need the that extra money and whose kids typically perform poorly.

If this works, it would introduce greater accountability into the system. And it has a built in efficiency, since no money is paid out until the results are actually achieved—i.e. the buck is proportional to the bang.

Okay, so I know this is an off the wall idea. I also know it has a lot of holes in it. I’m aware of some of them. I’m sure there are a hundred others I haven’t considered. So what are they? Brainstorm for me. Tell me why it would work, and why it won’t. Poke holes it; rip it apart; rethink it; rework it. All feedback is welcome and encouraged.

Update: Welcome to those visiting from Number 2 Pencil (thanks for the link, Kimberly, and congratulations!). You might also be interested in this post, which discusses NCLB, and this post, which does some fact checking on an AFT article on John Kerry's stance on education. I hope you like the blog.

New chapter of "Unfit for Command"...

Previously, I linked to a site that offers four chapters of the book “Unfit for Command” to be read online. The Mudville Gazette links to a second site that has these chapters available, and also provides a link to an additional chapter [pdf].

The latest chapter discusses John Kerry’s anti-war activities after returning from Vietnam, and his meetings with North Vietnamese leaders in Paris in 1970. The chapter provides additional background on the new Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad.

We’re all familiar with the Swift Vets by now, so the latest chapter and ad do not carry the same emotional impact as earlier installments. I also suspect that the significance of John Kerry meeting with the enemy in time of war will be lost on most people. It’s difficult, especially for those of us who are too young to remember the era, to consider that Kerry was actively working to undermine U.S. war efforts and policy. It’s also tempting to dismiss his actions as being ancient history, the poor judgment of an idealistic and reckless youth. However, as this story suggests, wisdom doesn’t always come with age. Sometimes age makes the journey alone.

Thomas Sowell...

Thomas Sowell's latest column is up at Townhall. For those who are familiar with Sowell, that's all you need to know. For the rest:

If someone applied to you for a job but didn't want to talk about what he has been doing in the last 20 years, wouldn't you be suspicious? Might you not think he was insulting your intelligence by expecting you to hire him on the basis of what he did decades ago?

Ask yourself why you already know who he is talking about. Read the whole thing.

You have the right to be uncomfortable...

A heartening report from California:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday vetoed a bill that would have prohibited five high schools from using the nickname Redskins, considered by some American Indians to be a racial slur.

Three cheers for Arnold!

This trend of forcing schools to change their mascots is maddening, and it’s about time some commonsense took hold. We’ve become obsessed with outlawing all forms of discomfort. Not only is this impossible, it’s simply an awful goal. Comfort is not a right. In fact, just the opposite is true: discomfort is a right. Sound crazy? Consider…

When the American colonies demanded a Bill of Rights as prerequisite to ratification of the Constitution, they were fighting for the right to be uncomfortable. The freedoms enumerated were not designed to protect an individual, but rather to protect all individuals. The upshot is that that others, and government in particular, can’t tell you how to run your life. The bad news, of course, is that others have that same protection; you can’t tell them how to run their lives either. That means they have the right to do things that make you uncomfortable. To the extent that a society guarantees freedom for all, it necessarily guarantees discomfort for all.

Forcing a school to change its mascot is not, therefore, a defensive of civil rights, but rather an attack on them. A community’s freedoms are being denied simply because certain individuals are uncomfortable.

There is, of course, another aspect to this, which is equally absurd. Supporters of this law would have us believe that the use of the term Redskins is offensive. There’s no doubt that the word can be used as a slur, but we all know that schools adopt positive images for their teams. They choose mascots that represent strength, bravery, and courage. It is a tribute to American Indians that these schools chose them as their symbols.

It's interesting that, though the article begins by saying that some American Indians are upset by use of the name Redskins, the only angry people cited are liberal politicians. In fact, the article specifically states that the local American Indian communities endorse use of the name.

The people who support these types of laws are not only trying to outlaw discomfort, they are actively seeking it where it doesn’t exist.
[Via Boortz]

Liberty's century...

As I read the transcript of the President’s speech before the United Nations, one thought kept occurring to me: John Kerry could not have given this speech.

Some excerpts:

[W]e gather at a time of tremendous opportunity… For decades, the circle of liberty and security and development has been expanding in our world… Now we have the historic chance to widen the circle even further, to fight radicalism and terror with justice and dignity, to achieve a true peace, founded on human freedom.

I’m struck by the optimism and the vision. We have a unique opportunity to do good. We must seize it.

[The] bright line between justice and injustice -- between right and wrong -- is the same in every age, and every culture, and every nation...

Eventually, there is no safe isolation from terror networks, or failed states that shelter them, or outlaw regimes, or weapons of mass destruction. Eventually, there is no safety in looking away, seeking the quiet life by ignoring the struggles and oppression of others… Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind.

This is the lesson of 9/11. George Bush has learned it; John Kerry has not.

We're determined to end the state sponsorship of terror -- and my nation is grateful to all that participated in the liberation of Afghanistan. We're determined to prevent proliferation, and to enforce the demands of the world -- and my nation is grateful to the soldiers of many nations who have helped to deliver the Iraqi people from an outlaw dictator.

Have you ever heard John Kerry express gratitude to those who have helped bear the burden?

[T]he Security Council promised serious consequences for [Saddam’s] defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say "serious consequences," for the sake of peace, there must be serious consequences.

Every parent knows that threats without consequences undermine authority. U.S. threats carry weight; U.N. threats do not.

Our great purpose is to build a better world beyond the war on terror.

Again, vision. The war is the process, a transition. Even victory isn’t the goal. It’s just a crucial step toward a grander goal.

Because we believe in human dignity, peaceful nations must stand for the advance of democracy. No other system of government has done more to protect minorities, to secure the rights of labor, to raise the status of women, or to channel human energy to the pursuits of peace.

Contrast this with John Kerry’s words:

I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those needs with almost any kind of political structure, giving it one name or the other. In this name it is democratic; in others it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist.

To be fair, that was 30 years ago, but has Mr. Kerry given us any reason to believe he feels any differently today?

Returning to the President’s speech:

We can expect terrorist attacks to escalate as Afghanistan and Iraq approach national elections. The work ahead is demanding. But these difficulties will not shake our conviction that the future of Afghanistan and Iraq is a future of liberty. The proper response to difficulty is not to retreat, it is to prevail.

I love that last line, because that’s the heart of it. We will do the right thing, not the easy thing. Success should be our compass, not “finding an exit strategy.”

History will honor the high ideals of [the United Nations]. The charter states them with clarity: "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights," "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom."

History will honor those ideals, but, sadly, not the organization that professes them but does not animate them. It is the U.S. that most faithfully serves them in all the world, and most distinctively in Iraq.

Let history also record that our generation of leaders followed through on these ideals, even in adversity. Let history show that in a decisive decade, members of the United Nations did not grow weary in our duties, or waver in meeting them. I'm confident that this young century will be liberty's century. I believe we will rise to this moment, because I know the character of so many nations and leaders represented here today. And I have faith in the transforming power of freedom.

May God bless you.

Liberty’s Century…

Vision. I repeat. John Kerry could not have given this speech.

Update: More on this from John Addis, who describes himself as more "anti-Kerry" than "pro-Bush.

Bush is a uniter...

Critics of the President often say that he ran as a uniter, but has been a divider. I equally often wonder what this means.

What does it mean to say we are divided? Sure, we have opposing, even polarized, views on many issues of the day. But hasn’t this always been the way? Surely when Mr. Bush promised to be a uniter, he wasn’t pledging to get everyone to agree about everything.

I suppose critics would point to the “tone” of the debate. There certainly is a lot of vitriol and hate in the political air. But let’s be honest: Is the source of that that venom the President or is it those who oppose him? How often have you heard the President calling those who disagree with him cowards, claiming they betrayed their country, comparing them to Hitler? And short of surrendering his principles, and abandoning the policies he campaigned on and believes in, is it realistic to suggest that the President could do or say anything that would soothe the types of people who make such attacks?

So, what was the President promising when vowed to unite? He was promising leadership. He was promising to act in good faith. He was promising to work with his opponents in Congress to seek solutions.

The record shows that Mr. Bush has done that. He extended a hand to Senator Kennedy to draft the most significant education reform in decades, and united Congress in bipartisan support for this bill. He led Congress in providing prescription drug benefits to Medicare recipients—something previous presidents talked about, but none accomplished. He united the country and the Congress in bipartisan support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It’s true that Bush is now criticized sharply for the very ventures his opponents collaborated with him on. But time and again, he demonstrated leadership in building support on important and divisive issues. That, I submit, is the mark of a uniter.

What voters want...

Dean Esmay links to a Gallop Poll that suggests that voters support Bush for positive reasons—his policies, leadership, performance, values—while Kerry’s support derives more from dissatisfaction with Bush. As Dean observes, this confirms the conventional wisdom.

Interesting is that a combined 31% of Bush supporters cite Bush’s good moral values, religious beliefs, honesty, integrity, and ethics as a main reason for supporting him. Only 6% of Kerry supporters feel the same about their candidate.

More interesting, I think, are the breakdowns between men and women. In particular, 16% of women who support Kerry say they do so because they “favor the Democratic Party,” while only 5% of Kerry’s male supporters cite that as a reason. No Bush supporters of either gender cited favoring the Republican Party as a reason for supporting him.

Apparently, Democrats in general, and female Democrats in particular, are more strongly attached to their party than their counterparts. Is this a “parental” attachment due to Democrats, and women, being more likely to view government as “provider,” or is something else at work?

How to steal an election...

Jeff Jacoby has a good column on voter fraud. This is an important issue that doesn’t get near enough attention. Jacoby gives alarming examples--from New York residents voting in Florida in 2000, to cats being registered by mail, to illegal immigrants voting, to hundreds of thousands of bogus registrants. Go read the whole thing.

A personal example: Last week New Hampshire held it’s state primary. New Hampshire allows you to register when you vote. I’ve long had a problem with this practice--it seems ripe for fraud—but since this was my first time voting in New Hampshire, I took advantage of it. I was alarmed when I was allowed to register and cast my ballot without having to prove my identity. I wasn’t asked for a driver’s license, a birth certificate, or proof of residency. The official just took it on faith that I was who I said I was, that I lived where I said I did, and that I was legally eligible to vote. It occurred to me that I could come back in a few hours, or perhaps go to another precinct, and vote again. I wrote a letter of complaint to the County Clerk and was assured that my experience was an exception and not policy. I wish I could believe that.

Unfortunately, I had similar experiences when living in Los Angeles. The ballots in Los Angeles tend to be rather large, so “sample ballots” are mailed out several weeks before the election. This is handy because it gives you a chance to “vote” ahead of time, then simply copy your choices onto an official ballot on voting day—big time saver. I recall voting on many occasions and having to show nothing more than the address label from my sample ballot. Now this is just a plain white label with a name and address printed on it. Anyone with a printer could make one—in less time than it takes to forge a National Guard memo.

So the potential for voter fraud is definitely there. As Jacoby puts it, “the system is not only open to manipulation, it invites it.” I suspect our elections aren’t nearly as pristine as we like to think. I suspect it’s happening on a grand, organized scale. By the way, have you heard about vote swapping?

Kerry rumbles and rambles...

John Kerry has been shopping for a “clear message” on Iraq for six months. I’ve given up on trying to understand what he really thinks. Either he doesn’t know himself, or he knows but figures he can’t afford to tell us. In either case, here’s the latest from the L.A. Times:

NEW YORK — Sen. John Kerry said today that mistakes by President Bush in invading Iraq could lead to unending war and that no responsible commander in chief would have waged the war knowing Saddam Hussein didn't possess weapons of mass destruction and wasn't an imminent threat to the United States.

This again? I submit that no responsible candidate would keep recycling these tired myths. Bush didn’t claim Iraq was an imminent threat. He argued that we couldn’t afford to wait until the threat became imminent:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. (State of the Union, January, 2003)

Kerry’s suggestion that Bush knew there were no WMD is equally irresponsible. Bush believed Iraq had WMD for the same reason everyone else did: because every major intelligence agency in the world said so. CIA Director George Tenet told Bush it was a “slam dunk.” Even Kerry, who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, believed Iraq had WMD:

"I'll be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force ... to disarm Saddam. ... I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., 10-9-02

"... a brutal, murderous dictator ... an oppressive regime ... continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... the threat of Saddam with weapons of mass destruction is real." Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., 1-23-03

Maybe Kerry should have attended a few more of those meetings.

And for the record, we have found some WMD, though the standard has shifted from whether they existed to whether there were “stockpiles.”

Continuing with the Times article:

"Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious?" Kerry said at New York University.

Kerry, a fourth-term Massachusetts senator, voted to give Bush authority to wage the war and he said in August he still would have voted that way had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Looks like we should be asking the same question about Mr. Kerry: How can he possibly be serious? The Times answers that question:

The Democratic presidential candidate makes a distinction between granting a president war-making authority as a member of the Senate and, as commander in chief, actually taking that fateful step. Republicans have accused Kerry of waffling on the war.

The answer is that Kerry isn’t a serious candidate. He talks the talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk. He speaks of voting… of granting… of empowering... of authorizing… of threatening. But he never speaking of acting. This is the United Nations mindset that failed to make progress for over a decade. A President has to be willing to act, and John Kerry doesn’t have that resolve.

Kerry said today, "Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."

Another myth. The 9/11 Commission report makes clear that there were numerous connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. You’d think with all those advisors, Kerry would find someone who actually read the report, or at least a newspaper.

"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell," Kerry said. "But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

I beg to differ. Removing a mass murder from power was a noble and just cause for going to war. We didn’t trade a dictator for chaos. We liberated 25 million Iraqis, and are helping them build a future. The war is the process, not the end result.

Kerry said today, "The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer."

Yes, the choice is clear—stark even. Kerry will take the easy route. He will pursue an illusion of short-term “safety,” which will take the pressure off those who are committed to exterminating us. Bush recognizes what is at stake, and he has the resolve to make the tough decisions so that we will be secure in the future. As Thomas Paine said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children will know peace."

Kerry then describes his four-point plan for Iraq:

-- Get more help from other nations.

This is a fantasy. France and Germany have made clear that they have no intention of putting their troops at risk in order to save American lives.

-- Provide better training for Iraqi security forces.

This is already being done. NATO has agreed to the President’s request to train Iraqi security forces.

-- Provide benefits to the Iraqi people.

Is this the same John Kerry that complains that the war is costing too much, and says we should be opening fire stations at home instead of in Iraq?

--Ensure that democratic elections can be held next year as promised.

Again, this is exactly what we are doing. So far, every phase of the Iraq invasion has been completed on time or early—from the overthrow of Saddam, to the installation of the interim government, to the transfer of sovereignty. The President has a plan, and he is working it.

On the other hand, Kerry’s “plan” isn’t one at all. It’s just a bunch of empty promises, based on fantasy and that which is already being done.

Bush's mistakes, Kerry said, "were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment -- and judgment is what we look for in a president."

Yes, judgment. Something Mr. Kerry seems to be lacking—along with consistency and resolve.

Kerry contended that Bush has not been honest about the war's rationale or costs. He said the president's decision to go to war against Iraq has distracted from a greater threat to the United States -- more terrorist attacks.

"In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and underperformed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the President has held no one accountable, including himself," Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery.

Let’s see: no plan, lack of candor, arrogance, and incompetence. Which candidate does that most remind you of? I think it was Dr. Laura who said that if a person criticizes you long enough, they eventually end up describing themselves.

With six weeks remaining until Election Day, the Massachusetts senator was pressing the debate on an issue that has given him trouble in his bid for the White House.The Republicans have accused him of staking out unclear, even contradictory, positions on Iraq. His speech was aimed at explaining his stance and drawing clear differences with Bush's leadership at a time when troubles in Iraq are mounting.

He’s done a better job of drawing clear differences with his previous positions.

Kerry tried to turn the criticism back against the president by pointing to varying administration arguments for going to war.

"By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war," Kerry said. "If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.

"Exactly! It was never “all about WMD,” as Kerry and other Democrats have been claimed. The whole “Bush lied” mantra is bunk. Bush didn’t lie, and he gave many reasons beyond the threat of WMD.

By the way, I read about the study Kerry is referring to a while back (don’t have a link). In addition to identifying the many compelling reasons given for why it was right to remove Saddam, the student also showed that the “Bush said there was an imminent threat” argument is false—that it was fabricated in the media.

Kerry said Bush's two main rationales -- weapons of mass destruction and a connection between Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks -- have been proven false by weapons inspectors and the bipartisan commission investigating the attacks.

Asked and answered.

"This president was in denial," Kerry said. "He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.

"Which is it? Did Bush blindly follow those advising him? Or did he blindly disregard their advice? It sounds to me like he considered varying opinions, and then did his job: making the tough decisions about our nation’s future.

Kerry can now point to other Republicans who are also voicing concern about the president's leadership in Iraq. Among them is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Indiana Republican Richard Lugar, who said Sunday problems with reconstruction show there is "incompetence in the administration." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he would like to see the president be more clear about the dangers in Iraq.

Unfortunately, this is true. I think these Republicans are wrong in their criticisms. As I mentioned here, I think we have lost perspective. War, by its very nature, is messy and unpredictable. We have adopted unrealistic expectations, and by doing so have undermined our efforts. Meanwhile, these criticisms are welcome fodder to the Kerry Camp at a time when it needs them most. I’m sure we’ll be hearing about them for the rest of the campaign.

Update: More at QandO.

A threat to national security...

John Kerry is a threat to national security. I’m not exaggerating; I mean precisely that. For months he has shown disrespect to our international allies. These countries have sacrificed their treasures and the lives of their young to fight the War on Terror. Each time he mocks this effort as “unilateral,” Mr. Kerry declares those sacrifices insignificant. When he refers to a “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted,” he spits on the graves of those who have fallen beside our own brave soldiers. Kerry boasts that, as President, he would leverage his alleged diplomatic skills to bring new partners to the coalition. This is pure fantasy, and based on his irresponsible statements, it’s doubtful he could even manage to hold the current coalition together.

Now we learn that, not content to simply insult coalition members, the Kerry Campaign is actively working to break up the coalition!

JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Is this the man we want protecting our country?

Kerry can only be doing this for one of two reasons: 1) He’s trying to undermine the war effort for political gain; or 2) He simply has no understanding of what is at stake or how to handle it. Either way, he’s totally reckless and irresponsible. He is putting our soldiers and our country at risk. John Kerry lacks the judgment to be Senator, let alone President.

Via Captain’s Quarters, who has more.

NYT wings Swift Vet story...

The New York Times ran an op-ed piece today in which Nicholas Kristof puts the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth under token “scrutiny,” then summarily dismisses them as “smears.” Not only did Kristof not do his homework, apparently he cheated off of Team Kerry’s notes. Captain Ed, who has been all over this story from the beginning, gives Kristof a failing grade, and points to some of the many problems in the article. There are a number left to address. Let’s look at two of them. Kristof writes,

Did Mr. Kerry get his first Purple Heart for a self-inflicted wound? That's the accusation of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who say that the injury came (unintentionally) from a grenade that Mr. Kerry himself fired at Viet Cong. In fact, nobody knows where the shrapnel came from, and it's possible that the critics are right. It's not certain that the Viet Cong were returning fire. But the only other American on the boat in a position to see anything, Bill Zaldonis (who says he voted for Mr. Bush in 2000) told me, "He was hurt, and I don't think it was self-inflicted."

Kristof completely ignores the testimony of Rear Adm. William Schachte (USN Ret.). Schachte was Kerry’s commanding officer and the one who devised the strategy employed on these missions. He says went on every one of these missions and was on the boat that night with Kerry. Schachte is adamant that they received no enemy fire and that Kerry’s injury was self-inflicted.

Kristof also ignores other statements made by Zaldonis:

Zaldonis and Runyon both said they were too busy to notice how Kerry was hit.

”I assume they fired back," Zaldonis said. "If you can picture me holding an M-60 machine gun and firing it — what do I see? Nothing. If they were firing at us, it was hard for me to tell."

In addition, Kristof fails to mention that there was “no report of hostile fire that day (as would be required [for a Purple Heart]), nor do the records at Cam Ranh Bay [where Kerry was stationed] reveal such hostile fire. No other records reflect hostile fire.”

In fact, the only one who claims there was enemy fire that night is John Kerry, who describes the event as his “most frightening night” in Vietnam and said he was "scared s---less". Yet Kerry’s version of events is contradicted by his own war journal, in which, nine days after the incident, he wrote that he and his crew were feeling cocky because they “haven’t been shot at” yet.

Returning to Kristof’s piece:

Did Mr. Kerry deserve his second and third Purple Hearts? There's not much dispute that the second was merited. As for the third one, the Swift Boat Veterans' claim that he received it for a minor injury he got while blowing up food supplies to keep them from the enemy. But documents and witness accounts show that he received a shrapnel wound when South Vietnamese troops blew up rice stores, and an injured arm in a mine explosion later that day.

I don’t know what documents and witness accounts Kristof is referring to, but the Swifties have on their side published accounts that quote both Kerry and a pro-Kerry witness as supporting the Swift Vet version. John O’Neill, author of “Unfit for Command,” sites these sources chapter and verse:

[F]irst of all, in the morning, before any of the incident occurred, Kerry threw a grenade into a sampan full of rice and he got a tiny amount of rice and shrapnel in his fanny. How do I know this? First of all, Thurlow heard the grenade and was aware of the incident. He was ashore with Kerry that morning of March 13. Second, I go to Kerry’s own book Tour of Duty, pages 313-317, where he relates from his journal “I got a small piece of grenade in my ass from the rice bin explosion” and then on page 317, the doctor removed the rice and shrapnel. So, I know from Kerry’s own mouth that he did this. Finally, I go to the Kranish book and in the Kranish book, I think it is page 105, but people could look, that at Michael Kranish’s autobiography of Kerry (John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best). Kranish quotes Rassmann as seeing the rice bin explosion where Kerry threw his grenade in and ended up with a small amount of rice in his fanny.

The next thing I have are the records that prove that, in fact, it was rice and shrapnel removed from Kerry’s fanny and, finally, I have the physical impossibility of getting rice and shrapnel from a watermine explosion.

Why does Kristof fail to mention of any of this competing evidence? Why does he fail to mention that other Swift Vet claims have been corroborated? It’s hard to believe that all of this managed to escape his attention in his search for the “truth.”

So many in the media are unwilling to fairly present the evidence the Swift Vets have amassed. They are portrayed as a “shadowy” group that is irresponsibly spewing unsubstantiated smears. The truth is they’ve done quite a good job of documenting their claims. While Team Kerry has been back tracking, changing their stories, and admitting to falsehoods, the Swifties have calmly and credibly stood by their accounts. If you haven’t read the book “Unfit for Command,” be sure to check out the four free chapters available online. Also, read David Limbaugh’s extensive interview with John O’Neill. Each of these will give a sense of the quality of evidence and the credibility of the Swift Vet claims.

Update: Oh, my. Much more on this at Just One Minute, Patterico, and Beldar.

What is John Kerry hiding?

"I have nothing to hide. I want you to ask me questions."
--John Kerry, Democratic candidate for President
Reuters, August 3, 2004

Oh really?

If Mr. Kerry has nothing to hide, why won’t he let us see the following:

Military records: Kerry promised to release his military records. He claims he has released his full military records. But he has not.

Although Kerry campaign officials insist that they have published Kerry's full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not permitted independent access to his original Navy records. A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least a hundred pages.

Many of Mr. Kerry’s claims about his war service have been called into serious question. In addition, the U.S. Navy is conducting official investigations into several of Kerry's award citations which appear to be improper. Kerry’s military records would undoubtedly help resolve these issues.

Medical records: Presidential candidates have routinely released their medical records for years. The public has a right to know the physical condition of anyone who seeks such an important position, yet Mr. Kerry has refused to allow access to his full medical records. As the American Thinker remarks:

Equally troubling, but virtually unnoted, is the Senator’s failure to release his medical records. Keep in mind, that Senator Kerry is a cancer survivor, having emerged from surgery to remove a cancerous prostate early last year. His surgeon has spoken publicly about the case, assuring the public that the operation went well, that the cancer had not spread, and that there is nothing to worry about.

But is this level of information good enough?

…Paul Tsongas held the United States Senate seat now occupied by John Kerry. Tsongas also underwent surgery for cancer, emerged successfully, and even publicly swam laps in a pool, to show his physical vigor and Speedo-wearing physique. The late Senator Tsongas became the first cancer survivor in history to launch a major Presidential campaign. Regrettably, Tsongas later died from a resurgence of his cancer, which we had been assured had been successfully eliminated. Had his Presidential campaign succeeded, his Vice President would have taken office.

Tax records: John Kerry is the first presidential candidate in over three decades to block access to his spouse’s tax returns. This is particularly relevant because it is doubtful that Kerry would even be the candidate if not for his wife’s millions. He’s been quick to make a distinction between “his and her” when the subject arises, but equally quick to dip into her money when campaign funds run low. He shouldn’t be able to have it both ways. Campaign funding is a delicate issue in this election, and voters have a justifiable interest in monitoring the flow of money into and out of campaigns.

War journal: Kerry kept a diary during his time in Vietnam, which he has made exclusively available to Douglas Brinkley, Kerry’s official biographer. The excerpts published in Brinkley’s book, “Tour of Duty” contradict some of the major claims the candidate has made, and the release of the remainder of Kerry’s journal would no doubt be invaluable in resolving some of the remaining discrepancies. But as the Washington Post reports,

The Kerry campaign has refused to release Kerry's personal Vietnam archive, including his journals and letters, saying that the senator is contractually bound to grant Brinkley exclusive access to the material. But Brinkley said this week the papers are the property of the senator and in his full control.

"I don't mind if John Kerry shows anybody anything," he said. "If he wants to let anybody in, that's his business. Go bug John Kerry, and leave me alone." The exclusivity agreement, he said, simply requires "that anybody quoting any of the material needs to cite my book."

Senate Intelligence Committee attendance record: According to FactCheck.org, although Mr. Kerry touts his record of “improving intelligence over the past 20 years,” he failed to attend nearly 80% of public meetings as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. In rationalizing his poor record, Kerry noted that most of the committee’s meetings are closed sessions for which attendance records aren’t made public. Other members of the committee refuse to comment on Kerry's attendance at those meetings, but say his records are readily available if he requests them. Kerry has refused to make such a request.

“New Soldier”: This is the "other book" John Kerry doesn’t want you to read (the first being John O'Neill's “Unfit for Command). Kerry wrote "New Soldier" in 1971 during his Vietnam protest days, and it is no longer in print. According to this web site, where you can read the book in its entirety, Kerry will not allow the book to be reprinted and is trying to buy up all available copies. John O’Neill offered to re-print and re-release the book, but Kerry has refused.

The obvious question is this: if John Kerry has nothing to hide, then why is he hiding so many things?

Update: An e-mailer to David Limbaugh touches lightly on some of these issues, and more heavily on issues I raised here.

Update 2: Also via David Limbaugh, a newer report on Kerry's stonewalling and the Navy's investigation into his improper award citations. I'm glad one of the bigger bloggers is working to keep these stories alive.

Update 3: A month later, Kerry releases a small part of his wife's tax returns.

How many legs does a dog have?

Lincoln is said to have observed: "If you call the tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? The answer, of course, is four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

And so we have this:

"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
--Stephanie Cutter, chief spokesman, John Kerry for President
Los Angeles Times, September 9, 2004

Stephen Hayes explodes this myth by citing chapter and verse from the various Senate intelligence reports that conclude that Iraq was actively engaged in terrorism before the war.

Charles Krauthammer nails it...

This is a must read. Charles Krauthammer explains why John Kerry has zero credibility on the most important issue of our time. No excerpts. Read the whole thing, then e-mail it to a friend.

You heard it here first...

I mentioned here that bloggers have gotten a bit too full of themselves over this CBS memo affair. They made a splash, sure, but they are fooling themselves if they think they've toppled the "Old Media." John Henke of QandO makes the same point and calls for a little perspective. John is a much bigger wheel in the blogosphere than I am, so maybe the message will take hold.

This just can't be a good thing...

I wrote about Canada’s failing national health care system here and here. Well, France is having the same problem. McQ at QandO hits the main points and notes that Kerry wants to take our health care in the same direction.

How we undermine the war...

There is a good discussion going on over at Buzz Machine about the wisdom of admitting mistakes. Sadly, when it comes to public life, be it journalism or politics, admitting a mistake is just too costly. Dan Rather and CBS are scrambling to avoid that trap. The president is hoping to break free of it.

Recall how Bush’s remark that he had “miscalculated” the post-war situation in Iraq has come back to haunt him. The media replays it daily. The Dems harp on it in interviews, speeches, ads, any chance they get. It will be used as a weapon against Bush during the debates. (I predict that a journalist will bring it up in the form of a “question” long before Kerry gets a chance to mention it.)

This is not only unfair, it is harmful. Errors in war are the rule. Take a close look at any military action and you’ll find a million of them. Victory isn’t awarded to those with great plans, but rather to those who best adapt to changing circumstances. By creating an environment where every decision is under the microscope and even the hint of a mistake is punished, we’ve taken away perhaps the strongest weapon any commander has: the ability to adapt, the freedom to abandon a course of action as a more expedient one presents itself.

This doesn’t mean that we can’t hold people accountable for their decisions. It just means that we need to acknowledge that war is messy, and that there is little that resembles a plan that is useful. It means that we need to be fair, to be patient, and to have a little perspective.

Shooting the messenger...

Go read this column on the gun ban by Mike Adams. As usual, Adams serves up a fun read on an important issue. Go on. I'll wait.

I really don’t have strong feelings about gun control. My admittedly non-expert reading of the Constitution is that gun control laws are unconstitutional. But that doesn’t matter; expert opinion varies, the courts have ruled, we’re stuck with it.

Mostly, I don’t think gun control matters much. People who go around murdering people just aren’t all that concerned with making sure they’re doing it with the right kind of weapon. And it seems that, as gun control laws go, the recently expired weapons ban was pretty feeble to begin with—allowing some types of weapons while prohibiting others that look a little different but do the same thing.

The dishonesty I’ve seen in this debate, however, is something I do care about. I’m bothered that so many people, with such strong opinions, don’t seem to know what they are talking about. I haven’t heard one person who supported the ban correctly describe what the law does. I’m particularly bothered that John Kerry, who enjoys a national audience, is putting out bad info. I don’t know if he doesn’t know the facts, or if he just doesn’t care, but either way the man is irresponsible and undermining fair and honest debate. He should stop shooting off his mouth.

Is this the best we can do?

I think Joshua Claybourn has it mostly right in his criticisms of the Medicare policies of both presidential candidates. In a nutshell, Clayboure concludes: Bush is bad; Kerry is worse.

It’s admirable for an enlightened society to want to care for its young, its elderly, and its infirmed. It’s a noble goal. But it’s far from clear that we are taking the best approach. Is it a given that all good things must emanate from government? I’d like to think that such matters can be addressed through individual responsibility and charity, but perhaps I’m naïve. President Bush has promoted health savings accounts and support for faith-based initiatives. I have no idea if these ideas are an improvement over what we have now, but it seems time to give them a try. In the meantime, what's the objection to using means-testing to make sure our tax dollars are going only to those who really need the help?
[via Andrew Sullivan]

Not so fast, he said swiftly...

I’m a flipper. When I watch the news in the evening, I flip back and forth between half a dozen stations so I can see what folks are talking about, who they are talking to, and generally how different stories are being played.

For the past several nights, during coverage of the CBS memo story, I’ve heard liberal pundits basically saying: the memo story is “just like” the Swift Vet story in that “unsubstantiated charges” were brought forth only to be “totally discredited” once the media caught up with the story. This statement is invariably met by silence from the conservative pundit, and I’m totally lost as to why.

Now I’ve followed these stories pretty closely, and the equating of the two strikes me as completely dishonest and irresponsible. On the one hand, we have some memos. Experts of every type have examined every aspect of these documents and concluded that they are most certainly forgeries, for any number of reasons sufficient unto themselves. Though CBS continues to stand by the story, even their “experts” have abandoned them. We have no idea who wrote these memos or when they were written. They are supported by absolutely nothing beyond Dan Rather’s ego.

On the other hand, we have the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of 245 decorated Vietnam veterans who have openly come forward to tell their story. Their book, "Unfit for Command," is richly sourced and footnoted. We know who these men are. They don’t hide behind unnamed sources. They have given sworn affidavits and made themselves readily available for interviews and public scrutiny.

Tell me how these two affairs are remotely the same. While you’re at it, tell me exactly which of the Swifties' claims have been disproved. To my knowledge there are none. Meanwhile, we can list a number of their claims which have borne fruit—bright red, juicy ripe, dripping down your chin fruit. For example, among other things, we know that:

• John Kerry lied about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. We know this not only because his war diary says so, but because the Kerry Campaign now admits it. This is important because Kerry has told this story countless times over the past three decades. He said the story was “seared” into his memory. He told the story on the floor of the Senate in an attempt to impugn the motives of two U.S. presidents and to influence national policy.
• John Kerry lied to get his first Purple Heart when he claimed that he was injured by “intense enemy fire.” We know this because he wrote in his war diary a week later that he "hadn't been shot at yet" and because even the Kerry Campaign now acknowledges that his wound was probably accidentally self-inflicted.
• John Kerry lied about his “no man left behind” story, where he claimed that he alone stayed behind to rescue a crewmate while all other swift boats fled. We know this because the Kerry Campaign now admits the opposite—that Kerry fled while all other swift boats remained behind.
• John Kerry tried to take credit for commanding several combat missions that took place before he had even “reported for duty.” We know this because Lt. Tedd Peck, the actual commander came forward upon hearing the fabrications to set the record straight. The Kerry Campaign has since admitted the error and removed from Kerry's official web site the 20 pages describing the missions.
  

So, far from being “discredited,” the Swifties’ claims have actually been supported, by Kerry’s own words and admissions, and any attempt to cast these matters in the same light as the CBS memo scandal is contemptible

Update: More support for Swift Vet claims. [via Betsy]

A second opinion...

Here’s another look at Canada’s failing health care system. I won’t excerpt from it, since it paints the same picture I talked about here, only in even darker colors. I ask again, is this really the direction we want to move?
[via Right Wing News]

Bloggers need to take a deep breath...

I haven’t posted on the CBS memo scandal because I have no special expertise or unique perspective to contribute. I’ve been following the story, and I’m pretty well convinced the memos are fake, and I’ll be watching to see how it all sorts out.

Meanwhile, bloggers are busy congratulating themselves on taking down CBS or even the “Old Media” in total. James Pinkerton describes the recent events as a paradigm-shift in media history, “the day the ‘blogosphere’ took down CBS News.” Captain Ed says, “CBS is Toast.” Tom Maguire speaks of the “battle for the credibility of the Mainstream Media.”

These types of comments strike me as unseemly and premature. Sure, the blogosphere was at the center of this story, and CBS has taken a hit. But there have been media scandals in the past. CBS isn’t going to crumble over this, nor is the main stream media in general going to panic. They will survive, and survive quite nicely.

These are large organizations with lots of resources. They not only have the means to report the news, they have the infrastructure to adapt and evolve. It remains to be seen how large a wave the blogs have made with this issue; my guess is that it’s a pretty small one in the overall scheme. To the extent that recent events change the way the news is produced, it’s much more likely that the “Old Media” will incorporate or simply absorb the blogosphere than it is that any real revolution will take place.

Bloggers should be proud of their contributions, and they’ve given reason to be taken seriously. But when they go around singing “Ding dong, the witch is dead,” it undermines that contribution. They come off looking more like a bunch of adolescent hacks on some power trip than like responsible journalists who wish to be taken seriously. And that's a dangerous thing, because that is same trap that CBS fell into.

Price gouging is a good thing...

Thomas Sowell explains why “price gouging” is a sound economic phenomenon.

Charter school report card...

Last month the New York Times ran a story about an American Federation of Teachers report which claimed that charter schools don’t perform as well as traditional public schools. The report was widely blasted as experts pointed to flaws in both the study and the AFT’s conclusions. Daniel Drezner gave a nice roundup of it here.

Drezner now points to a new, more comprehensive study which indicates that charter schools are outperforming their traditional counterparts. Drezner quotes this abstract:

This study compares the reading and mathematics proficiency of charter school students to that of their fellow students in neighboring public schools. Unlike previous studies, which include only a tiny fraction (3 percent) of charter school students, this study covers 99 percent of such students. The charter schools are compared to the schools that their students would most likely otherwise attend: the nearest regular public school and the nearest regular public school with a similar racial composition. In most cases, the two comparison schools are one and the same. Compared to students in the nearest regular public school, charter students are 4 percent more likely to be proficient in reading and 2 percent more likely to be proficient in math, on their state's exams. Compared to students in the nearest regular public school with a similar racial composition, charter students are 5 percent more likely to be proficient in reading and 3 percent more likely to be proficient in math. In states where charter schools are well-established, charter school students' proficiency "advantage" tends to be greater.

Kerry's low intelligence quotient...

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, there has been a lot of scrutiny of those whose job it is to protect our nation. The policies of both Presidents Bush and Clinton have been put under the microscope. The performance of the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence apparatus have been dissected. The roles of the State and Justice Departments have been analyzed. But the one body that has received little attention in all this is the Congress—specifically those whose duty it is to review and oversee intelligence matters. John Kerry, who served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for eight years, is one of those people, and he has largely been given a pass. Andrew McCarthy says it’s time for that to stop.

After two decades in the Senate, Kerry is bereft of notable lawmaking accomplishments. Nonetheless, he has touted his membership on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from 1993 to early 2001 as a powerful presidential credential. But that stance could not be more at odds with the 9/11 commission's findings.

According to the commission, legislative oversight of America's intelligence community in the years prior to the 9/11 attacks was, in a word, woeful. The commission found that Congress gave its oversight responsibilities low priority and performed them exceedingly poorly. Terrorist organizations in particular received virtually no attention, and, the panel added, congress was essentially AWOL in helping the executive branch "address the questions of counterterrorism strategy and policy" (p. 106, footnote omitted).

McCarthy quotes extensively from the 9/11 Commission report, which characterizes the performance of the Senate Intelligence Committee as nothing short of derelict. But John Kerry’s conduct on the committee is particularly abysmal:

According to published reports, Kerry was absent from over 75 percent of the public hearings conducted by the intelligence committee during his eight years of service — skipping 38 out of 49 such sessions. Edwards is reported to have missed 50 percent of the public hearings (four out of eight).

Kerry needs to be challenged on this. He’s asking us to put faith in him to defend our country. First he’s got to defend his record.

Are you a liberal?

I’m a fan of clear thinkers—those who are able to boil an argument down to its very essence--those who take the complex and make it simple. Earlier I mentioned Thomas Sowell as an example of a clear thinker. Radio talk show host Dennis Prager is another. One of Dennis’ mottos is that clarity is more important than agreement, and it was listening to him put this principle into practice daily on his radio show that quickly made me a fan.

Dennis has long had a theory that many who call themselves “liberal” actually disagree with the majority of identifiably liberal positions. To test his thesis, he put together a list of questions on which liberals and conservatives generally disagree. One of my “liberal” friends took the test a while back and was surprised by the results. She now considers herself a conservative—something that was unimaginable to her not long ago. Take the test. You may be surprised.

Can CNN come out and play?

As reported by CNN, this morning, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” (I'll link the transcript here when it becomes available), Secretary of State Colin Powell said:

We know that there had been connections and there had been exchanges between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at. But I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11.

Later, Kerry used Powell’s statement to launch an attack on the Bush administration.

Kerry said Powell "came clean with the American people about the lack of a connection between Iraq, Saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks."

Not only that, Kerry said, Powell also contradicted comments Vice President Dick Cheney has made as recently as Friday.

John Kerry is playing games, accusing the administration of backtracking on claims that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. But the administration has made no such claim. They have said consistently that connections between Iraq and al Qaeda existed, but that there is no proof that Iraq participated in the attacks—all of which has been confirmed by the 9/11 Commission Report.

So, will the media play Kerry’s game? Here’s how CNN handles it:

At campaign stops Thursday and Friday, Cheney mentioned al Qaeda in discussing the Iraq war, but he did not link Iraq under Saddam to September 11.

On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who "provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."

In Wisconsin on Friday, he said the "al Qaeda organization had a relationship with the Iraqis."

So Kerry lied. CNN called him on it, and Kerry's got no one to play with. But then this:

In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Oops! Cheney is busted big time, as he actually claims that the 9/11 terrorists were based out of Iraq. This is bad news for Bush, and as Kerry says:

"The president needs to answer the question: Who do you think is right? Vice President Cheney or Secretary Powell? And if it's Secretary Powell, will you direct your vice president to stop misleading the American people?"

But wait just a minute. Let’s go back and put Cheney’s quote in context. The quote comes from a “Meet the Press” interview on September 14, 2003.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Tim, we can do what we have to do to prevail in this conflict. Failure’s not an option. And go back again and think about what’s involved here. This is not just about Iraq or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it’s very, very important we get it right. If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. They understand what’s at stake here. That’s one of the reasons they’re putting up as much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that’s going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.

So when Cheney spoke of the geographic base, could he have been talking about the region in general as opposed to Iraq specifically? Not so clear, and CNN can certainly make a case for their interpretation. But wait another minute. Let’s look at a little more context. The very next thing that happens is this:

MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that time was not on our side, that in this part of the world, in particular, given the problems we’ve encountered in Afghanistan, which forced us to go in and take action there, as well as in Iraq, that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11 is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home territory. And it’s a global operation. It doesn’t know national boundaries or national borders. And the commitment of the United States going into Afghanistan and take down the Taliban and stand up a new government, to go into Iraq and take down the Saddam Hussein regime and stand up a new government is a vital part of our long-term strategy to win the war on terror.

Aha. So Cheney was careful not to link the events in Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. That’s sort of the opposite of what CNN implied, isn’t it? Now I suppose one could argue that even this second statement by Cheney is ambiguous and that CNN can't be faulted for it's conclusion. But wait yet another minute. Let’s look at some more context. Here’s an exchange from a bit earlier in that same interview:

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven. Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

“We just don’t know.” It’s tough to read that and then argue that Cheney was claiming a link between Iraq and 9/11 in his comments just a few moments later.

So, CNN not only played Kerry’s game, but it played it well. It gave us the old head fake, setting us up with the fair-and-balanced routine and then reverting to form. Will any other media outlets join the game?

Stay tuned…

Update: The AP doesn't refute Kerry's claim about what Cheney said "as recently as Friday," but mildly suggests that Kerry lied:

Bush said last Sept. 17 that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties." But at the same time he said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

ABC New Online takes the lazy approach, merely reporting Kerry's claim without taking the trouble to fact check it.