Dean,

Wonderful post! You said it all. I actually am aggravated by the Dems' total unwillingness to be serious on serious subjects and thus force the Republicans to be a better party. For that matter, if Dems were serious and not silly and insulting, I very well might never have deserted.

In a comment thread weeks ago, I said I wanted to see W fight back and give as good as he gets. That is true, but I did not mean that he should sling dirt and add to the noxious mayhem. I want him vigorously defending his record and attacking theirs (now Kerry's). The records -- of programs, of voting, of taking a stance on issues that can be defined (no easy feat in Kerry's case) -- are all fair game. On Brit Hume's roundtable last night, he, Fred, Mort and Mara all agreed that 9/11 is absolutely fair game in this election, though Mara rapidly switched subjects to Vietnam being equally fair. Personally, I disagree, at least on lending it equal weight with 9/11, for the reason that it was 30 years ago and why the hell can't the MOVEON crowd move on from that one?? I was as anti-war as anybody back then and I've gotten over it. I have no patience for anyone stuck in the past with no vision for the future. Kids these days get it, but my generation is largely stuck in the mud of the past, unable to deal with the now.

I'm one of the ones who thinks that, while this might not be a blowout, it won't be a nailbiter, either. I have nothing to substantiate this; just gut feeling. It seems like the Dems have become extremely adept at beating themselves, and W is outrageously adept at playing them for fools.

Oh, and I love the new Bush/Cheney ads.

The Democrats are acting so much like the Republicans did during the Clinton Administration. One difference is that the Bush Administration has had far fewer scandals (so far) bleeding into the water to arouse the press sharks.

I would add to this that Bush has a habit of letting other people do the dirty tricks while he keeps his own hands clean.

As for these ads? Pffft. I would be far more impressed if Democrats responded to the ads with a little blitz of their own. Imply Bush was asleep during 9/11. Imply that he squandered America's goodwill abroad with his high-handed foreign policy.

An election is like a fistfight. You win by hitting the other guy harder then he hit you, or by vigorously defending yourself. You don't win by whining that the other guy isn't fighting fair.

--|PW|--

Dean, your exasperation with the Dems is EXACTLY what drove me away from them. I voted for Clinton 3 times (once in the '92 primary) and then watched in horror as the party changed under his leadership from ideas and programs (not all of which I agreed with, but which basically worked with my world-view) to circling the wagons to protect their power and the one man, Bill Clinton, who symbolized their power. No wonder they're such losers now.

I don't think it will be as close as people think. Although the two candidates are very close in the polls, it's not necessarily who gets the most overall votes that wins. It's who gets the most electoral votes. Winning 90% of a state gets you no more electoral votes than if you won 50.1%, except for Nebraska and the other state which I cannot remember that split their electoral votes.
While he might change his mind, Kerry has virtually conceded the South. No Democrat, at least not in the last century or more, has won the White House without carrying most of the South.
Also, hopefully, the networks will not "call" Florida until all the polls close, including in the panhandle which is on central time. The networks "called" Florida in 2000 soon after 8:00 EST, causing many panhandle voters, who as a majority vote Republican election after election, to not vote. Had the networks not been in a rush to be the first to declare Gore the winner, court involvement would have been totally unnecessary.

W has got something going that's kind of unique, and more useful in politics than almost anything I can think of. Something his fish-eyed Connecticut blueblood father never had. Something that rather-similar John Kerry never had.

That "something" is is a sense of humor that he can ad lib in response to all kinds of discussions and situations, where ordinarily you would expect him to be tongue-tied. The real JFK, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, had that kind of capability as well, and occasionally used it.

Do you remember how Reagan all but destroyed Fritz Mondale in two seconds during one of their debates in 1984? I'm sure he knew in advance how he was going to handle any remarks about his relatively advanced age, but he was deft enough to pull it off.

W does this almost better than Reagan did. Because he is continually underestimated. Maybe that's part of the reason most Americans like him so much. In the 1950s, Adlai Stevenson tried to sound as if he were freshly sprung from a high-grade university campus, and everyone thought Dwight Eisenhower was just a midwestern dullard. But people liked Ike, enough to make a political slogan out of just that phrase. So Stevenson couldn't have beaten him if he had 20 campaigns to do it in.

Sure, Bush will take Kerry down on the issues. But...

I think in some live debate carried on all the TV screens of the country, Kerry is going to rattle off a line of stuff showing how bright and serious he is. And then W is going to respond with a one-liner that will cause the studio audience to laugh their heads off, and destroy the pompous senator from Massachusetts. And that is precisely what will be remembered on election day.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Zwicker, thanks for the reminder about the FL panhandle. Without a doubt, a lot of Republicans didn't vote because the networks called it early for Gore. If Republicans came out of 2000 with a single lesson, it was that every vote counts! (Dems are no doubt busily scraping up lists of dead people for their votes. I just want all of our live ones to vote!)

Dean, I think you're ready for change. The SPSers welcome you.

“Bush runs a high-minded campaign centered on ideas and principles.”

I didn’t know you started doing humor on your blog. You might be taken seriously if you included the fact that it was 9-11 victims families who first objected to Bush’s crass use of that tragedy to further his political ambitions. Though I suppose that would pretty much bankrupt your new “Democrats suck” meme. Sadly funny, Dean.

so Mr. and Mrs. Esmay how many other bloggers are in on your clever money making scheme?

what % of the money you make lying to these suckers do you give to top blogs that refer to you asking to give you money?

Are you cheating them out of some of the profit?

I bet you are.

I worry about the dems. If they were overconfident, I'd REALLY worry about them. Overconfident based on what?
It appears the objecting families were cherry-picked from Kerry supporters who were Kerry supporters before the ads. That's how the Kerry folks knew who to call. "Object? Be hurt? Sure, I can do that."
Somebody did some math and discovered that, with the same states for Bush as last time, redistricting gives him ten more electoral college votes. Dems, ten less.
I have never liked dems, with the exception of a couple of local guys who are pretty okay but have to run as dems to get elected dogcatcher.
But I am starting to be worried about losing a check on the party in power. The dems are making themselves such a pile of garbage that their influence will be substantially less than their election results, which will drop election by election until they get themselves fixed up.

Did anyone see the dude from moveon.org on Chris Matthews last night? Matthews was beggin him to explain what the Democratic policies are...and the guy could not come up with one. Every sentence started with..."well Bush....."

Finally, after being asked about 6 times by Matthews, he said, "anybody but Bush!"

Nice way to define crassness down, shep. The Dems have been pointing fingers at Bush and screeching that he's a failure in the response to 9/11 and carping and whining for months in the aftermath. Then Bush comes out and refers to his success and suddenly *he's* crass.

No, it's just desperation. If the Dems had a leg to stand on in regards to 9/11 and the aftermath, they'd be using it themselves. Dean is right: Bush has done a very smart thing here. He's given the Dems months of free shots at him. And now that he's starting to look at them - they suddenly get the vapours and can't stand the thought of a negative campaign?

Give me a break. The effin' kind.

You might be taken seriously if you included the fact that it was 9-11 victims families who first objected to Bush’s crass use of that tragedy to further his political ambitions.

Uh-huh. Yeah, and I don't suppose it occurred to you to wonder about those "9-11 victims families" at all?

9/11 Family Members With Axes To Grind.

Irrespective of the merits of the issue, I fail to see how Bush wins by getting into a page 1 wall to wall covered pissing match with people who lost loved ones on 9/11 - regardless of their political affiliation and regardless of whether or not they were asked to comment by Kerry's campaign (which although it seems possible to me the automatic assumption that these people are acting out of political partisanship strikes me as the height of disrepect). I don't see how young grasshopper has somehow pulled off some sort of political jujitsu you guys are all convinced he has.

Secondly, from the stories I've read so far, which isn't many, the emphasis has been on the bereaved (largely negative view) and on the firefighters (their support of JFK prominently featured). I'm not aware of how the DNC is reacting but this media construct you people have created of Democratic operatives going over the top doesn't strike me as realistic, although we'll see how the coverage plays out.

Umm, no Rick. I didn't "wonder" about the victims families except how they must feel. I suppose, if I were a cynical, purely partisan creature, that's where I might go. Thankfully, I'm not a Republican or an appologist for one.

the weirdest part about reading the blogs i read, is that half of the people are screaming about "how can bush not win?!?!" and the other half are screaming "how can bush not lose?!?!" i think this is most indicative of the fact that this race is going to be every bit as close as the 2000 election, and anyone who says otherwise is probably just deluding themselves.

obviously the intended audience of the anti-bush furor is not bush supporters, just as the target of scott mclellan's dizzying spin-tactics are not bush's accusers. therefore, just because respective parties "see through" their opponents' maneuvers says nothing about how those maneuvers are seen by their opponents.

i'm not sure either candidate has much of a leg to stand on in this race, so come november we'll probably have to choose between which candidate looks better flat on his face, covered in slung mud.

Dean,

How does he do it?

Discipline...lots and lots and lots of discipline. I don't know if it was his mother or the National Guard that instilled it in him, but President Bush is the most self-disciplined man I've ever observed. Everything he does unfolds according to a carefully scripted plan and he sticks to the script...the only time I thought I saw the President off-message was when he called Adam Clymer an asshole in 2000...but as time has gone on, I've more and more wondered if that mike was "accidentally" on after all...you know, he did handle the kerfuffle adeptly and it made him more down-home (who among us has not wanted to call some insufferable creep an asshole in public from time to time?).

The man is a Democrat-eating machine and he's going to have Kerry for lunch.

Brian Jones wrote:
“The Dems have been pointing fingers at Bush and screeching that he's a failure in the response to 9/11 and carping and whining for months in the aftermath.”

Pure crap, Brian. The Dems rallied behind Bush after 9-11 in spite of the fact that they could have made hay with his air tour of the country while New York and Washington were burning. They stuck with him through Afghanistan and didn’t break ranks until he crassly used 9-11 and “the war on terror” to bludgeon them in the 2002 Congressional elections (“thanks for your non-partisan support”). Then came Iraq. Apparently, 9-11 victims families who thought that was bad policy were supposed to stay shuttered in their apartments to avoid being questioned about their motives when they challenge Bush’ crass use of the their (and the nation’s) tragedy for his own political ends.

This is a very good article and you are right.

Zach,

Keep in mind that the media, right left and center, will NOT give the true state of affairs...they want it looking like a horse-race right up to election eve because they want you tuned in and buying the papers...

The true state of affairs is a bit different. John Kerry isn't nearly as strong as he looks, and President Bush isn't nearly in as bad a shape as current reporting would indicate.

How does he do it?

Discipline...lots and lots and lots of discipline. I don't know if it was his mother or the National Guard that instilled it in him

He stays on-message, a very clear and forceful message, because he's got a very talented team of advisors behind him who manage his message with a lot of skill. Clinton had more natural political talent in his pinkie finger. As for the National Guard instilling dicipline - well come on now. You can argue he did his duty, racked up just about enough points in the last two years to scrape through - but contemporary accounts hardly point to a character changing experience, like he says, he was young and irresponsible...

Is it possible for a long-time democrat and an admitted Bush hater to be objective about Bush's recent campaign ads? Probably not, but here goes. Within a week after 9/11 you could have guessed that some kind of imagery from the disaster would creep into ads in 2004. The images were so powerful no director could resist the sight of Bush as the rallying point for the nation. Whether he or Gulliani was the focus of strength and leadership at that moment is not the issue. If you were making a commercial, what would you use? I'd drape the president in the flag, put his image in front of brave rescue workers, firemen, policemen, and even iron workers who without fear of personal safety dug into that hellhole to find just one more survivor. Dirty, devastated, yet proud Americans looking up to the sky while the President's words at ground zero and to the nation from the Capitol rang in the background. Poetry, even if you think a trained monkey could have delivered that speech. Sure, what else was he going to say, but he was the guy and he was the one who said it.

You knew you would see those towers fall again, just as you were sure that the words "mission accomplished" would be seen in campaign ads until that bit of presumption was preempted. Sure you are going to piss some people off who say that using 9/11 is exploitive if not just bad taste, but they weren't going to vote for Bush anyway. Since the target audience is the "'tweeners," if you walk that thin line, then don't worry about pulling the undecideds toward you, the predictable shriek and outrage from the left will do all the pushing. Politics is a cynical game indeed, and these ads are fully calculated risks which were undoubtedly focus grouped to death. Besides, what else had he got.

I don't think they'll backfire, but neither do I think they changed a lot of minds. It's way to early. But George had to put out some kind of show after the beating he's been taking lately, just to prove that he wasn't dead yet. Watch the shiny keys folks, as the hunt for Osama heats up as the snow melts in the Kush, North Korea could implode: then we'll have a real "war President."

"Umm, no Rick. I didn't "wonder" about the victims families except how they must feel. I suppose, if I were a cynical, purely partisan creature, that's where I might go."

You might also have done it if you are older than 12. There are over 3,000 9-11 families. Anyone not still wet behind the ears knows that in a group that large you can find people who say nearly anything. Considering that if 1% of 9-11 families object to the add, that's about 30 people, you're going to have to talk about statistics before you can say anything meaningful.

Besides which, why on earth do 9-11 families have some sort of special say about the use of images from a national tragedy? The entire reason why 9-11 is so meaningful for all of us is that it might have been any one of us in those towers, the other 299,997,000 (using round numbers) were just lucky that we live somewhere else, or that we work somewhere else, or in a very few cases, that we were sick that day.

On Semptember 11th, 2001 death came to America indiscriminantly. It struck three buildings, and took whoever it could in them. Death came to claim Americans and it took some. While this is especially a tragedy for the families of those it took, it is a tragedy and more relevantly, a warning for us all, for the death that came for those 3,000 people might come for us again.

Frankly, as much as I sympathise with them, I don't give a shit what the 9-11 families think of Bush's ads. Neither should anyone else. Life isn't going to stop merely for the memory of the dead, and the nation should not forget when it was brutally attacked because the memory is painful, especially to some.

Government should be run according to thought, not emotion. Unfortunately, 9-11 matters to matters of government. That means that we're going to have to think about it. If you don't like it, the only other option is suicide. Good luck on whatever you pick.

Shep: There is no "new" criticism of Democrats here. I've said most of the same things for a long time about how sad Democrats are these days, how lacking in vision and ideas, and how horribly they've been acting since the summer of 2002.

Your spin on the 2002 election strikes me as quite partisan. In my eyes, Democrats behaved very poorly in the year running up to election 2002, and they got spanked hard in response by voters, deservedly so, then blamed the President for it rather than having the courage to look hard in the mirror.

What they should have done is given the President everything he asked for, no questions asked, on the war effort, giving him a chance to prove his vision, and fought it out with him on domestic issues. They failed to do that, and instead chose to try to unionize DHS employees and oppose missile defense system expansion. They were punished by voters as a result. Do they blame themselves? No. They blame Bush, and, by extension, believe voters are just stupid and easily led astray.

Tell you what, Shep. If I'm such a partisan, how come I've voted for as many Democrats as Republicans in my life? How is it that I've pledged to vote for certain Democrats over Bush? Why is it that when I criticize Democrats, I also say what I think would help them? Why is it that I can list dozens of Democrats that I like and respect, and Republicans too. So, can you name dozens of Republicans that you like and respect? I'd really like to know. My friend Ara can't. Can you?

I say again and again that Dems' problems are self-inflicted and easily fixed. I've said it dozens of times. Yet, whenever I do so, folks like you accuse me of attacking Democrats, and just attack Bush some more, usually spouting Democratic party line on Bush but never suggesting alternative policies you'd like better. So, you know, whatever. I'm pointing the way out of the wilderness, and you're mad at me for it?

As a former Democrat, and as an American that still respects that great party and sees it as an important part of our repoublic, I am saddened by its current state, not gloating. They've been off-message and deeply wrong in my view, for two years running now, and all they have is unfocused rage, animosity, and resentment. It's going to cost them, it really is, even if they win back the Presidency. In any case, it's very unhealthy for the country as a whole.

By the way, in other news: The witless coward above (NOT Shep) who posted under the name "heh" used Glenn Reynolds' email address. Very low-class, very nasty. I fixed it, but I'll leave the comment there. Not sure why I should provide someone with a forum to libel me, but whatever [shrug]

Anyone who thinks I've ripped anyone off is free to say so publicly. My car is fixed, my dog is being medicated and treated, and I've been sober for 7 days. Seen two therapists and am going to meetings. What do you want, receipts?

Max M,

Umm...well, I was a bit of a party animal from my 22nd to my 32nd years...and that was after four years in the Navy...but, ya want to know what? That four years of military discipline gave me enough to ensure that when I had to, I could concentrate on the task at hand with amazing clarity and keep going until the objective achieved. Never underestimate the benefit of a few years in the military - it gives anyone who has been in a built-in advantage over anyone who hasn't been in.

"Pure crap, Brian. The Dems rallied behind Bush after 9-11 in spite of the fact that they could have made hay with his air tour of the country while New York and Washington were burning."

What a fantasy. Democrats hid behind Bush because they knew they'd be politically crucified if they started carping about the war immediately.

Back to Democratic miscues, consider Kerry's recent comment that the Republican Attack Machine is going to turn the campaign negative. This, of course, came immediately after a Democratic Primary which included implying Bush was a traitor for having pre-knowledge of 9-11, calling him a deserter, and constantly claiming his only purpose in government is to loot the Treasury for his rich oil buddies.

What exactly does John Kerry consider negative? And further, why does the mainstream press regurgitate such asinine charges without challenging them? What is he going to say when this hypocrisy starts popping up in issue ads? Is he going to take the standard Democratic line that the action is inviolable but criticism is a negative attack? College students and Shep may fall for this type of crap, but moderates who decide elections aren't.

It also shows that Kerry's hypocrisy isn't limited to his judicial record where he may have been concerned about an unpublicized matter. This actions shows that he will say absolutely anything to get elected, even to the point of lying to the voters face.

It also says he's an unoriginal nitwit. There's a million things to accuse your opponent of, so why pick one that's so easily rebuttable? He's so stuck in the standard liberal boilerplate mantra it must not have even ocurred to him to consider whether any of it was true. This is good red meat for people who are going to vote for a Democrat no matter what. But it's bad politics for winning voters who want someone to deal with the issues honestly.

9/11 families don't own that tragedy anymore than Pearl Harbor families own that one. What kind of BS idea is it that they do? Some have shown great grace; some have been self-aggrandizing whiners. I feel for the families but we didn't decide to go to war against terrorism for them. We did it for our country and our civilization. WE ALL own 9/11. Don't tell me because I didn't fight in Vietnam that I have no right to an opinion on it and on a man who has spent his entire career capitalizing on it, and don't tell me because I didn't lose a loved one on 9/11 that I wasn't irrevocably changed by it. This "I own this and you can't use it" is ludicrous. W is a WAR PRESIDENT. WE ARE AT WAR. What part of that do all you Bush haters not understand?

This is good red meat for people who are going to vote for a Democrat no matter what. But it's bad politics for winning voters who want someone to deal with the issues honestly.

Precisely, MJ. Precisely.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that sooner or later Republicans will badly overreach and disgust me, and when that happens I'll inhesistantly support the Democrats in helping to spank them.

I was listening to NPR and a bunch of Democratic consultants talking on the day after Super Tuesday. The way they were talking was simply revolting me. I nearly lost it completely when a caller asked them what would happen if Bin Laden were caught now. The consultants were very honest about it: they said if it happened far enough before they election, they'd wait for public sentiment and patriotism to die down, then attack the President. If it happened too close to the election, then they'd be sure to accuse the President of hiding Bin Laden and waiting to spring it on the electorate to help him get reelected.

I turned the radio off. These are the people in charge of this party today, and no one is questioning them. I wanted to throw up.

Wouldn't you agree, Peg, that if John Kerry used 9/11 in every one of his campaign ads and speeches, few would criticize him for it? I know I wouldn't. I'd feel a lot better about him as a potential President if he did, in fact.

Well, as long as it wasn't cheap shot vileness, like accusing the President of knowing in advance or planning it or something like that. I mean if he just used it to show he got it, how serious he was, and how hard he was going to work to be sure nothing like that ever, ever happened again. And then explained, clearly and succinctly, why his vision of how to defend the country was better.

Maybe he'll do that yet. I hope he does. I really do.

How does he do it?

>Discipline...lots and lots and lots of
>discipline. I don't know if it was his mother or
>the National Guard that instilled it in him

It's not the Guard and it's not Barbara. It's the alcoholism. In order to overcome it, he had to, day after day, turn down drinks, sip ginger ale when everyone else had champagne, fight back cravings, and in general deny the demands of his own body to say "yes, a double". To quit, and quit for good, that took discipline he didn't demonstrate before. Discipline those of us not having been addicted can't really comprehend.

I have agreed that the response to the ads is over-the-top at my online space.

However, you leave a couple of things out.

First you say only Democrats and a firefighters union don't like the ads. Forgetting the widows aren't you? And there have been Republicans quoted in these stories who don't like it much either.

And I'm real tired of hearing this:

>>Democrats have become a party of bitter, mean, angry people who stand for nothing except "Bush sucks" and "Republicans are evil." It's really quite revolting to watch. Ideas? Principles? What matter those, when the more important task of tearing apart Bush, never giving him credit for anything and blaming him for everything possible, is so much easier?

If you - and others who believe the same thing think that's true you really have not been paying attention. I like Kerry like I liked Gore - ie not much - but the man has a plan for the war on terror. Or did you miss that?

Or, at my most cynical, was it kind of buried because it doesn't fit the media script for this election? (Remember I "are" a member of the media).

Secondly, as you profess in your post, I'm sure you would love to have GWB proclaim loud and clear, more and more, over and over, about 9-11. It might crowd out all the issues surrounding Iraq.

I know your general opinion - humanitarian and all that. I'm not trying to dredge that up again. But "Remember 9-11" is not the answer to everything.

This War On Terror is one defining factor among many in this election. Republicans want it to be the only one because everything else (I'm just giving, for now that the WoT is going well) isn't anything to be proud of.

The rest of your post seems to be a celebration of Bush stonewalling, though I agree that Kerry needs to get his ideas message out - and let other's do it.

A few 9-11 firefighters, Republican Vietnam war veterans that he saved, and widows speaking up for him should do it.

But Andrew, the very stories that lead with the disgusted 9-11 families also include several quotes from 9-11 families who support the President and his use of the ad. You just have to get past the opening salvo and read the final paragraphs to see that. And that's the point: the presentation bias is so bleeding obvious that it raises many, many other questions. Why isn't the headline, "9-11 families disagree over Bush ad?" or "9-11 families approve Bush ad?" Either would be just as true (or more true) than "9-11 families disgusted with Bush."

“Shep: There is no "new" criticism of Democrats here. I've said most of the same things for a long time about how sad Democrats are these days, how lacking in vision and ideas, and how horribly they've been acting since the summer of 2002.”

That’s how I know it’s you Dean: constant anti-Democrat bloviating (hat tip: you) right from the RNC spin machine, with a few crocodile tears and a “sincere” desire for the Dems thrown in. Trouble is, you can’t be so relentlessly partisan and avoid being called on it because you simply claim not to be. That might work for your fellow partisans – they believe anyone who’s anti-Democrat enough – but not the rest of us.

“Your spin on the 2002 election strikes me as quite partisan. In my eyes, Democrats behaved very poorly in the year running up to election 2002…”

Well, why didn’t you say so, Dean. Your non-partisan viewpoint changes everything.

“Tell you what, Shep. If I'm such a partisan, how come I've voted for as many Democrats as Republicans in my life? How is it that I've pledged to vote for certain Democrats over Bush? Why is it that when I criticize Democrats, I also say what I think would help them? Why is it that I can list dozens of Democrats that I like and respect, and Republicans too. So, can you name dozens of Republicans that you like and respect? I'd really like to know. My friend Ara can't. Can you?”

Dean, I don’t know you well enough to even try to figure out why you pretend to be non-partisan. Sorry, I’ve never seen your list of respected Democrats and your idea of saying what “would help” the Dems: “Democrats have become a party of bitter, mean, angry people who stand for nothing except "Bush sucks" and "Republicans are evil." It's really quite revolting to watch. Ideas? Principles? What matter those, when the more important task of tearing apart Bush, never giving him credit for anything and blaming him for everything possible, is so much easier?” seems to me to be, ummm, less than helpful. Go figure.

John McCain
Olympia Snowe
Rudy Giuliani
Chuck Hagel
Richard Lugar
Arlen Spector
John Chaffee
Fred Thompson
John Warner
Jim Leach
Christopher Shays
Mark Foley

There’s my first dozen and I would vote for John McCain for president in a heartbeat. A piece of advice: reread your entire blog as if you were from Mars and ask whether this guy’s a partisan and which way. I’m guessing that from Mars, like right here on Earth, you’re an anti-Democrat, pro-Republican partisan.

mj wrote:
"What a fantasy. Democrats hid behind Bush because they knew they'd be politically crucified if they started carping about the war immediately."

So, even if the Democrats do the right thing, it must be for the wrong reason. And who has a reality problem?

There is no evidence that Bush is an alcoholic.

All we know from his words is he decided to give it up when he found his faith.

That's a far cry from developing discipline while sipping ginger ale.

Shep,

Count the number of Democrats like Joe Liebeman standing up for the war as they all did in the aftermath of 9/11. I count Joe Lieberman and, uh, Joe Lieberman. There are probably a few others with lower profiles. Then count the number of Democrats who, like Kerry, are now retroactively rescinding their support and crying about being "misled".

Do you honestly believe there are more of the former? Every one of the Democrats who ran for President and cast a vote for the Iraq War repudiated it during the primary, except Lieberman. Still nothing? Blinders on?

Kerry and the others are now voicing their true beliefs: 9/11 wasn't a big deal and should have been dealt with as a law enforcement matter. These people weren't misled. They knew exactly what they were doing: waiting for the matter to blow over.

“Wouldn't you agree, Peg, that if John Kerry used 9/11 in every one of his campaign ads and speeches, few would criticize him for it?”

First of all, yes, Republican partisans would (you know they would). Second, why should he? 9-11 was in 2001 and Kerry actually has forward looking policy ideas about how to turn the policy emphasis back to Islamic fundamentalism (how's that for focusing on 9-11?) and dismantling the terrorist networks that really threaten us, begin to rebuild our tattered relations and credibility with the world community, put the United Nations (under US leadership) in charge of the reconstruction and governance-building processes in Iraq, re-engage in the reformation of Afghanistan, take on Saudi Arabia for its shameful role in fostering Islamic fanaticism, increase international cooperation to control loose nukes and other WMD materials and de-politicize our intelligence services. In other words, policy ideas other than tough-talk, war, tax cuts and pandering to the social engineering sensibilities of his base.

“Every one of the Democrats who ran for President and cast a vote for the Iraq War repudiated it during the primary, except Lieberman. Still nothing? Blinders on?”

Yes, mj, they all have more nuanced positions on the Iraq than “fer it or agin it” (why they're all better than Bush). And, I’ll type this really slowly, Iraq in no way confronts the near-term danger revealed by 9-11. Nope, none, nadda. Maybe in 20 years we’ll have gained some security benefit from invading Iraq; or not. I know you can understand this stuff, I just get the sense that you don’t want to.

Let's not forget that in the last election, they threw temper tantrums over the fact that a fade in campaign ad made it look - for less than one second - like they were being "subliminally" called "RATS."

The subject matter is ir-relevant, their only recourse the last several years has been to whinge, moan, carp, complain, and hurl vicious personal attacks at Republicans (while castigating them for "smear tactics" when even the mildest rhetoric is directed their way). Actually presenting some competing new ideas is, apparently, not something they feel they need to do.

Shep,

Nice effort at changing the subject. The issue is whether the Democrats "rallied behind Bush", as you claim. But when arguments fail, stoop to insults. We know that's really all you can offer.

Yes, mj, it must have my niceness "blinders" on now. No change of subject at all, however. Democrats supported Bush in the war on terror. When he stabbed them in the back and went rogue on Iraq, they did they're jobs as the opposition party. What is it you can't understand about rallied behind between 9-01 and 11-02, got screwed, challenged Bush?

Between now and November, people are going to be asking the question:
Should the terrorist threat be handled primarily by
A) the Defense Department?
B) the Justice Department?
C) the Department of Health and Human Services?

Between now and November, another September 11 is going to bring that question into even sharper focus. The candidate who gives the right answer to that question is going to win the election. Unfortunately, that candidate is going to be George W. Bush.

I oppose President Bush, but I will never, never underestimate him. He is brilliant. And a major part of his brilliance is in letting so many of his opponents think he's dumb. He. Is. Not. Dumb. Not at all!

During the Bush vs. Gore debates in 2000, Camille Paglia observed Bush's quiet, almost meek, demeanor in the face of Gore's put-downs of his intellect, and remarked: "This is like Zen!"

I think Bush will win, he is already winning at this rate, and I don't need Pat Robertscum's God or Santorum's dog to tell me that it may well be "a blowout". That's just the way it is. I'll vote against him, but I won't be at all surprised if he wins by a landslide. It's too bad, but that's the way it is.

Shep:

"What is it you can't understand about rallied behind between 9-01 and 11-02, got screwed, challenged Bush?"

I don't understand why you think everyone is required to unquestioningly believe the Democratic spin. If you took some sort of oath of allegiance that's your problem.

Stabbed them in the back? They approved of it! I don't want to hear how Bush duped them. Isn't he supposed to be a moron. How could a moron be so clever? That intelligence was all we had, and were you calling the Democrats (and others) liars when they said how Iraq was a threat that needs to be dealt with from 1998-2002? The CIA and other agencies have had their budgets cut by a lot after the Cold War. Maybe now they will figure out how important that is when they are talking about the intelligence failures.

About the ads using 9/11. Some are focussing on the families who did not approve of them and not mentioning those that did. Aren't they just as important. Also, aren't some candidates, voters, and websites against Bush because of 9/11 and how he let it happen (though he hasn't been a contender in a while Wesley Clark said something about how he no terrorist attack would happen on his watch or some BS). I don't know if Kerry has said anything like that, but it wouldn't surprise me. Kerry just uses Vietnam and the fact that he served while conveniently ommitting stuff about how he accused veterans of atrocities and seemed anything but proud when he came back (not to mention his voting record and what he said about POWs in 1993:

"The Kerry committee's final report, issued in January 1993, delivered the ultimate insult to history. The 1,223-page document said there was "no compelling evidence that proves" there is anyone still in captivity. As for the primary investigative question —what happened to the men left behind in 1973—the report conceded only that there is "evidence . . . that indicates the possibility of survival, at least for a small number" of prisoners 31 years ago, after Hanoi released the 591 P.O.W.'s it had admitted to. " )

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0408/schanberg.php

"I don't understand why you think everyone is required to unquestioningly believe the Democratic spin. If you took some sort of oath of allegiance that's your problem."

Sorry, mj. I've sworn an allegiance to reading and listening to major metropolitan dailies, cable and network news, and web news, even blogs like these. Other than Deans’ World, all hopelessly liberal Democratic spin, I know. You should try reading some hard news though; you can still believe anything you want ;-)

Shep,

"I've sworn an allegiance to reading and listening to major metropolitan dailies, cable and network news, and web news, even blogs like these."

You omitted "and to ignore inconsistencies and outright contradictions in democratic positions".

Dean,

What a ruckus you started. ;-) It seems Shep answered your question for me, but anyway, I would have a problem with the Kerry I know using 9/11 in all his ads. He would have had to display a serious attitude and policy toward terrorism and our security before this. I cannot take anyone seriously who simply brays about internationalism and the U.N. as the solution, and has nothing but criticism for all that we have achieved so far. I fully admit I am already at the point where I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. With him and his fellow candidates, it seems that he didn't rise to the top, they all merely fell to the bottom. If I were a Dem and looking at Kerry as my choice, I'd feel suicidal.

To the JACKASS that asked for receipts, I want to hear of THIS in a post and only of THIS and I DAMNED WELL KNOW I have full support on this you ASSHOLE! (Don't delete me Dean, I'm spittin' mad and even Arnold would like this rather than my damned heart!)

Dean has not even told all of you some other things going on in his life because believe it or not he has pride and he is a strong man.

I have known him a long time and have read him before he started this blog. Yesterdays postings of his work with his good good friend that passed away, they worked GEnie and we did bulliten boards! He is honest to the core and at times it seems insulting, yeah right... but if you look inside yourself you will realise it IS NOT AIMED at you personally, it is just thrown out into the wind so to speak. Man oh man, he let's all comments come aboard and that is to be applauded! Find that somewhere else! You will not!

He is a Husband, A Father, A full time student, works full time, runs this blog as he says... as his addiction, and I for one am glad he does.

Now, those receipts! TAKE YOURSELF TO A BOOKSTORE DEAN AND BUY YOUR FAVORITE BOOK THAT IS ON SALE RIGHT NOW! TAKE ROSEMARY TO DINNER! TAKE YOUR LITTLE BOY TO AN AMUSEMENT PARK!!!

YOU GIVE SO MUCH!!! We remember Uncle Wiggles Sir Esmay!

YOU HAVE GIVEN SO MUCH UP over the last few months!!! DAMMITT!!!

GO OUT and ENJOY THE FRUITS OF YOUR LABOR!

Or I will get a band of Commandos and Texas Rangers to come after YOU ESMAY!!!

Yeah, yeah, yeah the democrats do need to be exactly as most of the commentors are saying here regarding what happened...I'm just mad at that JACKASS! NOW GO GET THE RIGHT RECEIPTS DEAN OR WE'RE COMING UP FROM TEXAS!!!

For me it, would depend on *how* Kerry used 9/11 in an ad.

If he went postive and attacked Bush by saying he divided the nation after or something. I would have thought that ok, since that fits the Dem talking points and all. I would have been outraged if he used 9/11 in an ad and suggested that Bush was to blame for the attack.

It all depends on how it's done.

Shep,

In what sense are you non-partisan?

And were you here during the time when Dean kept rooting for Joe Liberman?

Look, the democrats get as much credit for supporting Bush after 9-11 as they do for not robbing a bank. It's good, but since they'd get destroyed if they did otherwise, it doesn't prove anything at all. They may have done it through virtue or self-preservation.

Given the way that so many democrats bitched and moaned about how the resolution authorizing the President to use force was far too important to happen before an election, when they might have to face voters over it, but rather should be pushed until after the election when they can safely vote against it and hope that the voters won't remember in 2004, they get no credit whatsoever. Frankly, you have to be beyond stupid to give the democrats credit; that or a partisan democrat.

So which are you, O least memorable of the three stooges?

Excuse Me, I stand corrected! It is Chief Wiggles and he is back in the United States.

I hope you answer me properly kid or ELSE WERE COMING, and I have a few other tricks up my sleeves!

“He would have had to display a serious attitude and policy toward terrorism and our security before this. I cannot take anyone seriously who simply brays about internationalism and the U.N. as the solution, and has nothing but criticism for all that we have achieved so far.”

Great point, Peg. What would a US Senator with over 16 years on the Foreign Relations Committee know about terrorism and national security compared to dubya? Otherwise, he's merely a member of the Senate Finance Committee and senior member of the Commerce Committee, Kerry is also chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee. Kerry is also chairman of the East Asian Affairs Subcommittee on the Foreign Relations Committee, while also leading the Oceans, Fisheries and the Enviroment Subcommittee on the Commerce Committee. Kerry also serves in the Senate Democratic Leadership as Chairman of the Steering and Coordination Committee. But, how can you take all that seriously.

Oh, BTW, Kerry had praise for Bush’s handling of the war on terrorism before he embarked the nation on his highly questionable Iraq policy. But I’ll let you get back to your meme…

Actually, I think Kerry should use 9/11 in his ads, and tell what he really thinks happened and should be done.

He should come on TV and accuse Bush of letting 9/11 happen -- just like his PR machine is trying to do right now.

He should claim that if he would have been in charge that Osama bin Ladin would have been captured by now.

He should repeat several times during the ad that if he would have had his way, Saddam and his sons would still be in power and Kuwait would be Iraq's 19th province. He should also point out that if he had been President, Iraq would never had the problems they have now with the proliferation of newspapers on the streets and satellite antennas on people's roofs.

He should emphasize that the US should never do anything without the approval of France, Germany, and Russia -- else it would destroy international relations for the US. He should also repeat that the nations that are in Iraq right now -- such as Britian, Italy, Australia, Poland, etc. --- are really inconsequential, and shouldn't be regarded as real allies.

He should also repeat that he thought the war on terrorism was somewhat overblown.

He should also repeat how there are legions of war demented Vietnam vets in the US that are causing societal chaos -- just like he predicted in his testimony to Congress in the 70's.

He should remind people that he was right on the nuclear freeze -- that the US should have disarmed unilaterally and shouldn't have opposed the USSR, contrary to what Ronald Reagan did.

And finally, he should emphasize to America that at this point the reason there are terrorists is because of George Bush. It is George Bush that is creating more terrorists.

ctl wrote:
"In what sense are you non-partisan?"

That's Deans claim, not mine. Try re-reading Dean's Leiberman posts. I don't doubt that he genuinely likes him (that's 1) but he also consistently used poor Joe as a partisan bludgeon against other the Democrats.

BTW, it's "Shemp" and yes, he relatively sucked.

It's George Bush's rope-a-dope strategy. The Dems should have learned their lesson after he shocked Ann Richards out of the Texas Governor's mansion.

Shep:

"before he embarked the nation on his highly questionable Iraq policy."

You mean the policy that Kerry voted to authorize?

Dean, I must correct you on one rather glaring error in your otherwise excellent column.

Mohammed Ali's "rope-a-dope" strategy was used against George Foreman when they fought in Zaire in 1974.

The fight in Manila was not the "rope-a-dope", but the "thrilla in Manila" against Joe Frazier.

To address one of the side issues above, quitting drinking requires and instills discipline even if one is not metabolically an alcoholic. Something happened at work as a result of the couple of nips I had taken at lunch which made it clear to me that my drinking had become a problem. After work I poured out what was left in the half-pint of bourbon under the seat of my car, and I didn't take another drink for 2-1/2 years (or another toke for 6 months).

It was not easy. It actually resulted in personal problems for me. But I realized I needed to do it, and I did, and I'm a better person, and a different kind of drinker as a result. So I can indeed see that quitting drinking, whether Bush was an alcoholic or a party animal, would have helped develop discipline.

You mention - so many times! - how brief the visual reference to 9/11 is, in the tv spot.
As in, 'hey, it may be tacky, but it's brief!'
Telling, very telling.

Shep,

Sorry for the name error.

So you admit that you're a highly partisan democrat?

Look what I found over at National Review...This group gets it's funding from the Tides Foundation a left wing org

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp

NO "PEACEFUL" GREETING FOR DUBYA [Tim Graham]
One driving force behind the Bush 9-11 ad kerfuffle is the group September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows (peacefultomorrows.org). To get a clue of how these unfortunate Americans are also hard-core lefties, see their speaking schedule here.

One founder is pounding at Bush on the front page of the Washington Post this morning, but she's not identified with the group. "The idea that President Bush would rally support around his campaign by using his loved one in a way that is so shameful is hard for me to believe," says Rita Lasar. You'll find her routinely on the group's speaking calendar. The Peaceful Tomorrows clan is noted and Colleen Kelly of the group is quoted on A4, but it is described softly as a "nonpartisan group."

Then note that this group also plans to get in the GOP's faces during the convention this fall. From the August 10, 2003 NY Times: "The unifying theme about the Republican convention next year is keep your hands off ground zero," said Rita Lasar, a founder of September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, a group of about 80 relatives of attack victims. "Do not make a political football out of this. This is a place where very close, dear relatives died. It's not the backdrop for a political campaign."

“Peaceful Tomorrows” is being portrayed as an independent group of relatives of victims of the 911 attacks. They are getting a lot of press claiming to be outraged over the new Bush ads.

Call me insensitive if you like, but I wonder if this outrage could possibly be a tad overblown, and more likely attributable to the millions and millions of dollars this group has received from endowments chaired by Teresa Heinz, wife of Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry.

...........................

According to their own contribution page http://www.peacefultomorrows.org, “Peaceful Tomorrows is a project of the Tides Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization.”

According to an article in the Pittsburgh Review, “Between 1995 and 2001, $4.3 million of that money came from the Howard Heinz Endowment. In 2002, it and the Vira Heinz Endowment blessed The Tides Center, a San Francisco spin-off of the Tides Foundation, with another $190,000 while the two endowments gave $1.6 million to the new Tides Center for Western Pennsylvania.” (The Heinz Endowments have teamed up with a secretive left-wing group) http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/s_169770.html

Oh, good grief, Peggy. Why not let people speak for themselves, instead of putting words in their mouths?

Try to pay attention:

Yes, the image was brief. As in, "any longer and it would seem like wallowing, which is not what we're about."

Too bad the Democrats are so ashamed of their behavior since 9/11 that they're trying to take the issue off the table.

Dean,

Bush will indeed wait to counterattack. And his apparent apathy will only embolden Kerry to attack with all that much more fury. Bush will also wait to see what ideas Kerry proposes. By restraining from attacking Kerry too soon, Bush will be able to coopt Kerry's good ideas, and leave him to defend only his bad ones. He'll steal Kerry's ammunition, leaving him only blanks to fire. And then, when Kerry is virtually disarmed, is when Bush will bring out the big guns and blow him away.

Using the image was done as it should have been done and it was done in very good taste as the others Dean posted for us to review.

This is what happened to All of US on OUR *Mainland*. This was a catastrophic event that was felt accross the world and don't forget there were families here that had familes from other countries.

Going forth after those days we were attacked on our *mainland* has been an astronomical endeavour to ever ever come out in our history to make our government rearrange our entire Security System.

Bringing about the change of Homeland Security and having all the Enforcement of Justice under it and then the INS with the Border Patrol and Customs.

Those ads were done as they should. It happened to all of us and it's scope reaced around the world. A War... War was declared on our soil and we must not forget because they are scheming to do more and Bush and Kerry needs to talk about not only what happened but what we are still going to do to protect our *homeland*.

I do think Kerry will see the need to talk more about it once the advisors get through the reality of how the ad was not negative but in fact a very real issue a very hot button for the American people that are still fearful of another attack. Kerry is really not stupid because he is coming along pretty good and he needs to step back and remember his future support may very well be in this issue alone. Because Bush knows where and who he wants to be with him and around him to continue in this war. Read the new book...Rumsfields War. That man has A PLAN and the backing with the years and of course the POTUS.

Steven,

Oh, just get over it and become a Republican already....its really kind of good being part of the Evil Empire...you get to go to the V,RWC picnics, and the kitten blender is fun to watch...

"The true state of affairs is a bit different. John Kerry isn't nearly as strong as he looks, and President Bush isn't nearly in as bad a shape as current reporting would indicate." - Mark Noonan

That to me seems to be a key, Mark. There's a huge "middle" if you will that doesn't read weblogs, and they're going to get their information on the two candidates from the mainstream news, their neighbors, and their own experiences and perceptions over the course of the past 4-5 years. How Bush and Kerry manage to come off in that area of perception between now and November will shape a lot of votes, not us here in Blogistan.

Sorry Dean, but I don't think that this election will be as lopsided as a number of other pundits on both sides of the political divide seem to. I don't think it'll be as tight to the wire as 2000, but it probably won't be a walkaway for either candidate.

'Course, I'll be happy to be proven wrong by actual events. I'm not wedded to my call on this.

By the way... congrats on the seven days of sobriety, Dean. I've been in recovery for 21 years, and I still remember how rough those first days are.

If you ever need anyone to talk to, feel free to email me and I'll give you my number. Or call you on my own nickle if you give me yours.

Shep, not to get off on what I consider a distracting and meaningless tangent, but I have very low regard for the Senate as a whole. I definitely have no regard for the chairmanships and memberships a senator has on his resume. Orrin Hatch is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and I am HOPPING mad at him for his handling of judicial nominations, filibusters, etc. The Republican Senate Campaign Committee is forever after me for $$ and I would never give them a thin dime, I am so disgusted with their behavior. There is a very good reason why presidents rarely come from the ranks of the Senate: senators are solely after power and rarely display leadership. You pushed my button there...I have problems with the House but I really, really am fed up with the Senate. And my own are two of the worst ever.

And all our enemies appear to be rooting for Kerry. That alone would prevent me from ever voting for him.

Scott, yes, and of course, the instant Bush counterattacks is when the scales will fall from the media's (and Kerry's!) eyes and they will all realize what a pure and uplifting endeavor we're all supposed to be witnessing - and so they'll condemn Bush for "going negative" and whisking away the veil of sweetness and light that had covered the proceedings.

It'll be hilarious!

Mark Noonan wrote:
"Steven,

Oh, just get over it and become a Republican already....its really kind of good being part of the Evil Empire...you get to go to the V,RWC picnics, and the kitten blender is fun to watch..."

The puppy grinder, too. HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL!!!!

I must mention that I voted a straight Republican ticket in 2002 in support of the War on Islam's Terror. I've always split the ticket in the past, and will have to do so again.

I must mention again that, throughout 2002, and, in fact, from the time President Bush stood on Ground Zero and told the firefighters: "I hear you, we all hear you, and pretty soon the people who knocked down those buildings are going to be hearing from all of us!" to the time when he praised Mr. Man on Dog as "an inclusive man", I would not have hesitated to vote for him. I would love to be able to vote for him now, but I cannot sanction his perfidy on the FMA. The Enemy within is one and the same as the Enemy without.

What i'm going to vote for this November is nor Democrats or Republicans but GRIDLOCK, i.e., checks and balances. I would like, therefore, to vote for Bush _and_ a Democratic Congress, but it looks improbable that we'll see a Democratic Congress this year, so the next best bet is a Democratic President and a Republican Congress.

That said, the Bush people would be fools (and, as I said, I think they are _not_ fools) if they didn't milk September 11 for all it's worth, which is plenty. I think that will be the decisive issue of this campaign. Nearly all campaigns have been "negative" (i.e., nasty) anyway, ever since the Federalists vs. the Anti-Federalists, and certainly including LBJ's infamous 1964 "Senator Goldwater will blow up the world and kill little girls" ad, so why not go for the jugular?

If Kerry and his supporters thought that brief flash on 9/11 was offensive to them, then take a look at _this_ classic in the history of warblogging, one of my favorite posts ever:

A Silent Fisking:
http://bigsblog.blogspot.com/2002_09_15_bigsblog_archive.html#81664214

There will be plenty more of that to come between now and November, and the Democrats had better come up with a better answer than "let's forget it ever happened" or "let's beg the UN for permission to defend ourselves".

Brian,
I'll ask that you pay attention now: I did put words in either Dean's or M. Scott's mouth. My point, which may have been too subtle for you, is that I find it curious, in this and other threads on the subject, how Bush defenders almost always point out how brief the 9/11 images are in the tv spot. To me it suggests a certain amount of nervousness about the appropriateness of using the images in a re-election campaign ad- a nervousness that few on Bush's side will own up to. It was a simple observation; sorry you missed it.
I'd just like to also say that I would think it entirely odd if Bush made *no* mention of 9/11 in his tv spots, because it is indeed something that occurred on his watch and something he, as President, was charged with helping the country deal with the horror, the aftermath, and the hunt for the perpetrators.
So I am not offended by the image of the ravished building, but I do think it was unnecessary (and insensitive) to show the dead firefighter being carried away. We know people died that day. Those images are burned into the American psyche. George Bush should respect the dead...and the living.

er,.."did not put words..." etc.

Steven

I too urge you to consider voting for GWB. This FMA is going nowhere and is just buying time for Bush on this issue. He's keeping the Baptists happy for the time being but the FMA is NOT going to happen. Didn't Orrin Hatch offer an idea just in the last few days for a new bill which will turn all this back to the states good and proper? I couldn't find the article when I went back through my newspapers but I'm sure I saw it. It was a great idea and would solve the problem, I just can't remember the details...Duh, senior moments are a bitch.

I'm glad to say that I personally finally get it and have had a change of heart on the issue of legalizing SSM. This civil disobedience of late has generated some very good, honest and compelling discussion on another blog I comment on and as a result of that I now join the ranks of those who are in favor of legalizing SSM. Even though on the surface, the marriages starting in SF in February appear to have created a backlash, I feel down deep that this is just a temporary setback which will soon die down if some sort of sensible deal can be worked out on a bill which will reinforce that this is a State issue, not federal. Then it will just be a matter of time before all or a large majority of states will allow legal SSM. I'm not sure why I feel so optimistic but I do. If Orrin Hatch is showing signs of relenting, then doesn't that give you heart? I'm expecting Bush to drop his opposition if that comes about.

Cheers

Jane M.:

Thank you! I did read your comments in Lt. Smash's blog, and I like you (also Susan) very much for that. That was a very good discussion which got better as it went on.

An amendment that would purely leave SSM to each state to decide would be acceptable to me. The Hatch Amendment is far preferable to the Musgrave Amendment.

"George Bush should respect the dead...and the living."

The only way to honor the dead and to protect the living is to make sure no enemy ever dares perpetrate such an atrocity against us ever again. And that means that we must keep the memory of that atrocity, in all its horror, burning in our minds, lest we forget. That's why we remember the Nazi Holocaust. That's why we must remember also the Communist Holocaust. We should see those images and be disturbed by them. We should see the horrors of war -- and the greater horrors of defeat or surrender. We should see what abortion looks like. We should see executions -- and also the victims of the murderers. We must see these things. We must face the things we do, or else leave off doing them. That, to me, is the first principle of ethics.

September 11, 2001: Never forget. Never forgive. NEVER AGAIN!

"The only way to honor the dead and to protect the living is to make sure no enemy ever dares perpetrate such an atrocity against us ever again."
I completely agree with that, but that's accomplished through better intelligence and law enforcement here and around the world, not by George Bush's (or anyone else's) chest-thumping rhetoric or through immersing ourselves in the images of that brutal day.
You (and others I've read) seem to be saying that unless we shout out things like NEVER AGAIN that we as a people aren't 'doing something about it,' when, in fact, there's precious little the average person can do. Except vote, that is.

Oh, shep, if only you knew -

"What would a US Senator with over 16 years on the Foreign Relations Committee know about terrorism and national security compared to dubya?"

You mean a US Senator with over 16 years on the Foreign Relations Committee who voted against the B-2 Bomber, Apache Longbow helicopter, Bradley Infantry fighting vehicle, Abrahms tank, Patriot Anti-Missile system, Tomahawk cruise missle, and AEGIS Cruiser? The same US Senator with over 16 years on the Foreign Relations Committee who voted time and time again against pay raises and Cost Of Living Allowances for the US military? THAT Senator, shep?

I've seen Kerry's voting record, shep. And I can't think of anyone LESS fit to be President.

And shep, it's nice to see that you would vote a straight gun-control ticket. And you have the audacity to claim that you're non-partisan?

GMAFB.

The dead cannot cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them.

""The only way to honor the dead and to protect the living is to make sure no enemy ever dares perpetrate such an atrocity against us ever again."
I completely agree with that, but that's accomplished through better intelligence and law enforcement here and around the world, not by George Bush's (or anyone else's) chest-thumping rhetoric ..."

Give me a break. The best way to do that is to kill them.

That's why the Democrats are going to get obliterated this November. Everybody remembers how well the law-enforcement method worked with the mafia, right? Al Copone--who everybody knew exactly who he was and what he did, if not exactly how many hundreds of people he killed--got sent to jail for tax evasion.

Last year Sen Kerry said he didn't support the death penalty for terrorist.

This year he does.

Last year he didn't support the death penalty for non-terrorist killers of American children.

This year he is still of the same mind. His position on the death penalty for child killers is the only one he hasn't flip-flopped on..so far.

A person who is inconsistant in their positions is a danger to us all.

KING: I've done a lot of shows recently dealing with the death of little children. A person who kills a 5-year-old should live?

KERRY: Larry, my instinct is to want to strangle that person with my own hands. I understand the instincts, I really do. I prosecuted people. I know what the feeling of the families is and everybody else.

But we have 111 people who have been now released from death row -- death row, let alone the rest of the prison system -- because of DNA evidence that showed they didn't commit the crime of which they were convicted.

After spending -- I myself worked to get a person out of jail who had been there for 15 years for a murder that person did not commit.

Now, our system has made mistakes, and it's been applied in a way that I think is wrong.

Secondly, I don't believe that, in the end, you advance the, sort of, level of your justice and the system of your civility as a nation -- and many other nations in the world, most of the other nations in the world, have adopted that idea, that the state should not engage in killing.

(APPLAUSE)

Because they have very bad memories of what happens when the state engages in killing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10722-2004Feb26_2.html