Some Quick Hits: First, it's about damn time this happened:

The Internal Revenue Service has informed the NAACP that it is investigating whether the civil rights organization improperly "intervened in a political campaign" when it posted on its website a speech by Chairman Julian Bond that condemned the Bush administration's policies.

The NAACP has been a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party for my lifetime. They and the teachers' unions should get frisked in a big way.

Second, all the mainstream press could say about Karl Rove all year is that he's got a bag of dirty tricks, and he's used them all before; he's as cold-blooded as Lee Atwater, but without the dead man's love of the blues. (Last month's Atlantic Monthly had an archetype of this sort of crap. As a side note, have you noticed that, since Mike Kelly died, Atlantic is crawling with liberals? The magazine, which enjoyed a couple of years of whacking both sides, is back to its old place on the left.) Anyhoo, where's Rove's October Surprise, his last minute splash of mud, his final great dirty trick. Either way, 2004 is likely his swan song. Why not pull out all the stops? Could it be that Karl Rove is no worse a piece of shit than Donna Brazile? You won't read that in the Atlantic, anymore.

By the way, gents, cheers to you both for making your relatively unqualified (and I mean that in both senses) endorsements. The blogosphere, in general, is running pretty hard toward Bush (typical roundup here). The question remains whether this has to do with the right-winginess of this particular echo chamber. Razor always seems pretty convinced that the left is under-represented in blogland; but some relatively level-headed folks out there are using the word "landslide" rather freely. I think we're in for some surprises on Tuesday night. I suppose that's a pretty safe prediction, based on 2000. I still think that among the scenarios, one of the likeliest (and most satisfying) is the possibility of Kerry taking the electoral college, but not the popular vote. It would be throbbin' boner time to see how they address the no-mandate, illegitimate-president arguments they spat out in 2000. Some high-ranking Dems, in moments of sheer idiocy and naked partisanship, suggested that the electoral college had outlived its usefulness. I'd suffer a Kerry presidency just to laugh in their faces. Of course, one can expect the GOP to eat its own arguments from last time and take up its opponent's free cudgel: Bush v. Gore redux, but this time the GOP hires David Boies and starts impounding ballots.

At any rate, I think it will be close. See you Tuesday night.

Time to commit: As my fellows have done, so will I. I don't think it will surprise anyone, but I'll tell you why I've decided to vote for Bush.

First, while I wasn't biased at the start of the campaign, I did feel that any challenger to Bush had to convince me why they deserved my vote. I needed to be sold, otherwise I was sticking with the president we've got. That hasn't happened.

The situation in Iraq is troublesome, indeed, but I was supportive of the reasons for going to war in the first place and I still believe there is a lot of good being accomplished there and a lot more to be accomplished in the future. So we haven't found the not-yet-smoking gun of WMD; that doesn't mean that Saddam wasn't a threat, it just means the threat hadn't entirely manifested itself. Terrorism was a problem long before 9/11, and I don't think John Kerry was unaware of the problem, nor do I think the Clinton administration is to be held at fault entirely. Our collective thinking on security hadn't evolved to take into account the type of attack we were hit with the next day. It's easy to look back today and see how wrong we were, but none of the presidential candidates in 2000 made terrorism a central issue to their campaign, especially not Bush who ran against excessive overseas involement and "nation-building." I agreed with him then, and I've changed my tune as well. No, we cannot go everywhere or oust every distasteful despot, but the events in the Middle East have a newfound meaning in our lives and I want a president who is willing to take the fight overseas when it is to our advantage. I've seen nothing from John Kerry, in his record during the cold war, during the 1991 Gulf War, nor during his campaign that makes me feel he is of a similar mind. Many others have made the same argument better than I can, so I'll just say that I believe Bush is capable of "waging the peace" (there's a phrase I never thought I'd use) despite the fact that it's been difficult to this point.

On domestic issues, they're like chocalate and vanilla - different, but neither one is all that interesting or new. I think David Hogberg's Libertarian Guide is a pretty good wrap-up of most domestic issues and Bush wins by his standard which is good enough for me at this point. While I'd like to hold Bush accountable on things like steel tariffs and farm bills, as well as his inaction on real reform of education, healthcare, or social security, I think Kerry would be worse. Meanwhile, there's war to win and that's a little more important to me.

I flirted with the idea of voting for Michael Badnarik, even as purely a protest vote that in my small way chastises Bush for his domestic failings and mistaken planning (though not nonexistent as Kerry would have one believe) in Iraq and falls short of endorsing a man, Kerry, I have little common ground with ideologically. But third parties that are so unorganized and full of internal squabbles, as the Libertarian Party is, are not worth supporting just because they won't win. The fact is, one of these two men is going to win, and I felt I needed to cast a vote with one or the other. There are a lot of thoughtful, learned, and nobly intentioned people who have decided to cast their votes the other way, and, though they may not believe it, I think I've heard and understood their arguments. Some I don't agree with, others I simply think are for a different time with a different set of candidates. In the meantime, I agree with another George, that for all his faults, it must be Bush.

I mean, I really need to move: If you think I'm whining unnecessarily about the political ads, then look no further than this.

Blogger [Sound]Bites: Three posts over last three days never saw the light due to the apparent problems Blogger was experiencing. I suppose I could complain, but then again, it's free. I guess the question is whether it's the best of the free, and I think the answer is "no". But, when you invest so much intellectual capital (well, in Eno's case anyway), in a particular url, it's hard to pack up and leave...

Let me do a quick run down then of what I wanted to say earlier, plus a few things for today.

On Tues. night, I was watching the World Series, but since the Cardinals didn't seem interested, I figured I wasn't obligated. I wandered up one channel to PBS, which had a great "Frontline" piece on the rise of the Neo-Cons, taking Cheney, Rummy and Wolfy from their early Nixon years to the present-day. Then, they threw in Powell to show the contrast. Now, this was clearly a slanted look at the Neo-Con road to perdition, but it was fascinating nonetheless. Showing early versions of the preemption doctrine that is in play today, and how it had to be modulated over time, until it was ripe for the picking (i.e. Iraq). Showing too the rancor of Powell, and how he and his truly conservative (small "c") brethren over in the Army got cut out of the power structure on the war-planning, leaving Rummy all the cards. Again, you don't have to agree with the take of the piece to still end up being enthralled. Come to think of it, maybe that's what Tony LaRussa was doing in the dugout.

I need this election to end. Unless you cut yourself off from all media, living in this state (sorry, commonwealth) has become unbearable. From the national down to the local, the ads are just overpowering and sickening. The worst yet is one by a GOP running for U.S. Rep. who is promoting the fact that a couple of individuals who are associated with Moveon.org are endorsing a particular Dem, also running for Rep. They then make the logical (in an election year) conclusion that this candidate is supportive of al-qaeda, and wants another 9/11. Lovely.

Last, I watch Paul Bremer today on "Today" regarding the new videotape, which was taken Apr. 18, 2003, or 9 days after the fall of Iraq, of what may or may not be the conventional explosives stockpile south of Iraq which is at issue. Lauer asks Bremer if this new evidence controverts the Admin's wishy-washy talking point that "we don't know all the facts." Bremer's response: "Well Matt, we don't know all the facts." With truthful, thoughtful responses like that, you wonder why we lose faith in politics.

Really, the truth is much easier than the contorted stump positions each side is locked into. We went to war based on flawed intelligence: fact. We executed a perfect knock-out punch to Saddam and his forces: fact. The world is better off without Saddam: fact. We really weren't in any near-term danger from Saddam: fact. We bungled rather massively the post-war occupation as we didn't have enough "boots on the ground" (see "Frontline" show, supra): fact. Democracy is a wonderful thing, and in the long run, the Iraqis are much better off: fact.

Admitting you make mistakes does not mean you're unqualfied, unintelligent or uncaring. It makes you human, and it shows that you can learn, because you don't make the same mistakes twice. Unfortunately, Bush doesn't see that. His blind faith in his god and his provenance compound that flaw.

I think it's misguided to believe that Kerry will put our country at risk. While the man is indecisive in political decisions, he has always shown great personal courage, and I don't think he'd be afraid to use force where needed. The best argument I can make is that our country may be more vulnerable in the lame-duck period.

However, I won't vote out of fear. That may be called foolish, naive, or simply partisan; so be it. Kerry gets this Pennsylvanian's vote.

Anyway: Blogger just ate another post and is now moving with an alacrity that would make molasses look like Grand Prix racing. (Eaten post, briefly: is it soooooo over for REM or what?) These are my thoughts (although I may revise or extend them) until we have voted, or not, as the spirit moves us.

I don't need to tell the grown-ups out there the old saw that it's all about turnout. That old hackneyed piece of pundit-shit is . . . well, it's true, actually. I think Kerry's got the turnout advantage, on paper, based on the kind of anti-Bush sentiment rolling around. (It will quite an irony if Kerry cannot harness the Bush hatred and ride it to Pennsy Ave. If anyone can blow this, Kerry can.) Then again, long about 1984, everybody seemed to think Reagan was evil, a cretin, a warmonger, and/or a dolt with a Svengali wife; plus everyone in Europe hated his guts; and Ron had just pulled a trick in Lebanon that made Bill Clinton's Somalia bug-out look like a cooly considered decision; and on top of that Reagan had bowed to congress and agreed to re-raise taxes, thus pissing his conservative base all to hell. And the Gipper stomped Mondale with 49-state brutality. You just never f*ckin' know, do you?

The Envelope, Please: Just thought I throw out some off-the-cuff kudos for election year blogging, some that just came to me and some that I've been mulling over.

First, let's get to Best Performance by a Conservative: Eric Lindholm (aka Viking Pundit) has been on John Kerry's ass from jump city, and has done so with style as well as substance, ticking off Kerry's absences from the senate and his silly windsurfing-intellectual attempts to be unsquare. The blogosphere has rightwing commentary coming out its ears, and so much of it is awful stale retreading of what the NY Post's or JWR's columnists said today. Lindholm's stuff is pithy and fresh.

Biggest 180 of the Campaign Award goes to Sullivan, of course, who has formally endorsed Kerry. He's a good writer, Sullivan, but he's been a fart in the windstorm for the past year. For three and a half years, all we heard was "Bush gets it," over and over, comparing the president, more than once, to the original JFK. Sure, it hasn't been a great year to be a gay conservative. But Kerry represents everything Sullivan has railed against for three years. He's full of shit if he expects us to belive that he's suddenly found Kerry's nuanced positions credible.

Where Are They Now Award: Radley Balko gets this, hands down. He hasn't posted at his normal (read: frenetic) pace for quite some time, preferring instead to drop Mercutio's curse and offer links to his big league writings. His neo-prohibition article for Cato was, by the way, a fasciniating read, despite a title ("Back Door to Prohibition:
The New War on Social Drinking" -- needs an exclamation point or six) that made it sound like a hyperventilationist screed. But I miss the guy who could blog about Milton Friedman, John Hiatt, the Pacers, and the crappy life in DC in two paragraphs, no sweat.

I'm My Own Parodist: This one, stewing for a long time, is a bespoke award for Glenn Reynolds. Surely you've seen the satires of the professor's breezy, "indeed"-laden, "could-be-but-I'm-not-sure style. Some days it seems that Glenn is trying to outdo his parodists. Oddly, his MSNBC cheezblog typically has more actual protein.

The Last Big Sit-down: I'm probably shooting my wad here -- at least until election night. I don't see much free time over the weekend, so in case I don't get to post some final thoughts before Tuesday . . .

The best outcome for the country might be that Bush wins the popular vote, but Kerry picks off some combination of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida -- thereby winning the electoral votes the way Bush did in noughty-nought. Kerry takes the presidency, but with the diminished standing and lack of mandate that Bush was going to have until 9/11 came along. For one thing, as Flyer points out, it could be a relatively painless way for conservatives to take a few years in the woodshed to re-evaluate their national platform. (E.g.: "Do they really want to be triangulating, me-too entitlementistas?)

For another (and this is an old point), the GOP congress is more likely to catch that conservative old time religion with a Democrat in the White House, which could be a real boon, considering how this congress has rolled over every time Bush wanted to firehose some money into something like drugs for the old farts or more federal meddling in education. (I mean, for god's sake, Bush and Ted Kennedy collaborated on NCLB legislation -- the f*cking authoritative stamp of idiocy.)

That said, I'm still voting for Bush. Here's why.

I disagree with this conclusion by Ramesh Ponnuru.

It follows that, in a certain sense, Bush's defeat next Tuesday would be the
most crushing blow that organized conservatism has received since 1964 — or,
really, ever. Reagan, our most conservative president, was not repudiated when
he ran for reelection. Bush's father and Bob Dole had too distant a relationship
with conservatism for their defeats to be attributed, by conservatives or even
plausibly by others, to their conservatism; in the case of Bush's father, it was
easy to make the case that it was precisely his unconservatism that doomed him.

I don't think the case has been made against conservatism per se in this campaign as much as it has been made against Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, the real "Axis of Evil" so we're told. If Ramesh is speaking strictly of a tactical defeat in losing the White House, maybe he's right. Bush is a conservative, in the broadest sense of the word, and there's a chance that some narrow conservative goals might be pursued in a second term, but the inside baseball of "...Social Security reform, budget process reform, and other things that the President has endorsed" is only part of the larger strategy. Gaining conservative influence in the media and universities is just as important when it comes to advancing the conservative agenda. If Bush loses, it'll be the combination of incompetence and egotism that the Kerry campaign is hammering. The consrevative movement has plenty of problems, but I think it'll survive a Bush defeat just fine. In fact, it may cause a reevaluation of priorities that could be healthy.

Crystal high-ball: Looking into my glass I see a favorable court settlement and rising stock price in your future. Recommendation: overperform.

A study suggests that U.S. senators possess stock-picking skills that even the
most seasoned money manager would envy. During the boom years of the 1990s,
senators' stock picks beat the market by 12 percentage points a year on average,
according to the study.

I'm shocked, shocked to learn there's gambling going on in this establishment. Via instafillin Megan McArdle.

Quick Spin: Here's a worthwhile article, one of the best critiques of the "war room" campaign mentality, by the Weekly Standard's Noemie Emery. While the piece makes some good points about Kerry's rotten war room decisions, it suffers from two flaws. First, it makes the perfect the enemy of the good. Despite some of Kerry's ham-handed rapid response strategies, at least he has made an effort. Bush's strategy has been to essentially let his opponent's accusations float around, making no attempt to definitively shoot them down.

Second, Emery credits Clinton's "famed war room" with saving Bubba's bacon more than once. Odd, then, that Kerry's war room is staffed by Clinton veterans like Mike McCurry and Joe Lockhart. They just can't seem to pull off the same magic. Of course, Clinton's "comeback kid" reputation was always a myth. 1992 was the original year of the dwarves. (I've mentioned the SNL sketch before -- here -- in which all the heavyweight Dems offer excuses for not running.) Clinton's famous comeback that year was his loss (though not by as much as expected) to Paul Tsongas in New Hampshire, who's main promise seemed to be that he wouldn't die before his term was up. (And he was wrong, actually; he would have died two days before the end of his term.) Think about it. The Dems got stomped in 1988 running a liberal Greek guy from Massachusetts against George Bush. Did anyone really think the Dems were dumb enough to run against Bush in 1992 with . . . a slightly-less-liberal Greek guy (with cancer) from Massachusetts?

Of course, Emery makes the fine point that Clinton could argue that his girl trouble wasn't a policy issue, whereas Kerry's idiocy seems mainly policy related. Still, the war room wasn't even all it was cracked up to be for Clinton (who simply ended up being the biggest midget). And even if it was, Clinton needed it, since a new shady liason, whether real estate or sexual, seemed to arrive nearly every week. Kerry doesn't need it, since the man is perceived to be entirely composed of spin by much of the electorate.

Troubles I Seen: Still having trouble getting Blogger to run at better than a snail's pace. Razor and Flyer, thanks for keeping up appearances meantime.

As for the day's news:

World Series? Like I care. I know I've lived somewhere too long when I begin to root against the home team, but honestly, I've always hated Boston.

IAEA declares nearly 400 tons of explosives missing in Iraq? Somebody check behind the UN's stacks of bribe money.

Blah.

Troubles I Seen: Still having trouble getting Blogger to run at better than a snail's pace. Razor and Flyer, thanks for keeping up appearances meantime.

As for the day's news:

World Series? Like I care. I know I've lived somewhere too long when I begin to root against the home team, but honestly, I've always hated Boston.

IAEA declares nearly 400 tons of explosives missing in Iraq? Somebody check behind the UN's stacks of bribe money.

Blah.

Al Gore's not bitter: Speaking to black crowd in Florida, Gore tries to get out the vote.

"If anybody ever tells you that one vote doesn't count, you tell them to come
talk to me," he said"

Apparently one vote wouldn't have cut it, Al. Not if this is true.

"Last election, 27,000 of us voted, most of us for brother Al Gore," said Rev. Tom Diamond, of the Abyssinia Missionary Baptist Church. "The Republican Party threw out 27,000 African-American votes. By all rights brother Al Gore is the president-elect."

Well hell, the Supreme Court hasn't changed, and neither has Congress. Why should the Democrats even bother running? Bush has certainly got this one fixed as well, right?

The single payer debacle: Canada's health care system is a mess.

The total waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner
and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed,
increased slightly this year; rising to 17.9 weeks in 2004 (from 17.7 weeks
in
2003). “This stalling of waiting times is not a good-news story. It is
important
to remember that these waiting times are the longest that
Canadians have ever
experienced and that they exist despite record levels of
health spending,” said
Nadeem Esmail, senior health policy analyst at The
Fraser Institute and
co-author of the survey.

Bush managed to get HSA's attached to the Medicare funding bill, so at least he recognizes that a free market solution is the only long term answer to the health care question. But that's sorta like putting a trailer for The Godfather at the end of Mickey Blue Eyes and saying you've made a good mob movie. John Kerry doesn't even mention MSA's/HSA's in his great plan.

Empathy and a cop out: Razor, I agree wholly with that sentiment. Politics is more polarizing than ever and I'm suspicous of the motives on both sides - and i don't mean the pols. I had a creepy feeling during the debate series when some friends of mine were having a "debate party." Pop some popcorn and chill some beer, gather round the tube and cheer for "your guy," give the old "In your face" sign to your buddy.

A presidential election is all at once too important and too trivial to be treated like the Super Bowl, no? It feels (this year more than before, but not much) like the concept of listening to the candidates and making a choice has been replaced by picking your team at the outset and cheering for them all the way, watching every statement like a Fourth and Goal plunge up the middle. And this is certainly true of both sides, and probably of me at times as well. Is it the fault of the media, the candidates, 527's, PAC's? Is it the hypercompetitive nature of American culture, or is it that the issues we face today have so completely divided the public that the only possible result is a perfect balance between "The Left" and "The Right" with the fight escalating to a violent peak. What's the end game? How much worse can it get?

So what's the choice? I don't know. I live in North Carolina, a state that is not going to go Democratic in the Presidential election, just like Eno lives in the People's Republic which will never go Republican. I used to say I didn't consider a "protest vote" to be a viable option for me. There's no party or person who completely embodies my political thoughts (I'm sure this is true of just about everyone else) and the idea of picking one candidate inevitably involves some measure of compromise. I made a conscious compromise in 2000 supporting Bush, and I'd be okay with doing it again today if I thought it was the same bargain, but it's an entirely new calculation today, harder and more complex than before.

Now I'm beginning to realize that if making a compromise is inevitable, and if my vote really won't swing the electoral balance, maybe this is really one year where I could make a third party vote. I don't know, though. Still thinking

I doubt your vote is going to make the difference in Pennsylvania, but it's a battleground state so I don't know how you'll factor it all in.

The Lunacy of this Race: A full moon is still 5 days off, which means the Presidential Race is only going to get weirder. As if that were possible.

I'm not sure if it's the polarizing effect these two candidates have on the public, whether it is the lingering effect the laywers guns and money had on the 2000 outcome, or if the ever-growing, never-sleeping media has simply run out of things to say, but I cannot take the over-analysis of every little point, quote and otherwise insigificant event, and how each may or may not affect what happens on Nov 2.

Just take a gander over at The Note today and you'll see the following: questions over whether the Boston Red Sox will swing the race in favor of Kerry; how Theresa's "real job" quote is insulting and yet reassuring to both working and stay-at-home moms (people forget: if Hillary couldn't derail Bill [so to speak], why do they think Theresa can do much to JFK, when she's at worst, delusional?); Kerry reassuring us all he'll not give any quarter to semi-sentient life forms, be they fowl or non-specific embryonic stem cells (does Chris Reeves' wife one-issue opinion really make a difference here?); and of course, Florida will once again, be the unfortunate center of the universe come that fateful first Tuesday in Nvember (it seems four years wasn't enough time to work out the kinks in the voting process).

What will make up my mind? I don't know. I haven't yet heard the candidates' position on briefs or boxers (of course, they may not want to alienate those who wear underwear - no danger offending me then...).

MORE: And don't forget the combined hysteria of the election AND the inevitable flu pandemic to produce one of the more idiotic campaign attacks in recent memory.

Late campaign tactic: Bush to institute draft afterall.

"Two-thirds of the military want to see President Bush beat Sen. Kerry," said Mr. McClellan, "So, Karl Rove convinced the president that more soldiers means more votes for Bush-Cheney.

Heh!

Yeah, that's gonna make me subscribe: A few days ago I followed a link (I forget from where) to a TNR article, that made me login to read it. I wasn't a "user" so I went through the process of creating a user ID an all that crap, giving them my email address in the process. I even selected to receive one of the several email newsletters they offered, figuring that since I rarely remember to read TNR, either on paper or screen, it would be a good thing to see in my Inbox. First email arrives today, and the first article I click on is for "Subscribers Only." Screw you! Shouldn't I at least be allowed to read the articles you've sent me without signing up for a subscription? I don't mind "webzines" limiting some of their content to subscribers only, but if your send me an article, as a registered user, shouldn't I be allowed access to at least that content?

John Dvorak at PC Magazine is similarly frustrated, though I'm not sure I agree with his conclusion. The webside folks at Big Media sites are desperate to protect their jobs, since they make no money for the parent company. These constant registration requirements are an attempt to collect as many names as possible, so they can drag a list of email addresses back to their master, like my dog does with the occasional dead bird, hoping they'll get a pat on the head and a cookie. I have no use for the bird, and companies have no real use for all the information they collect, but I admire the pooch's effort to please. Think the folks at NYT are as easily pleased by their pets?

Starting to sink in: The bad dream that was the last 4 games of the ALCS has turned out to be real, as Daniel Drezner reminds me. I guess the law of big numbers says eventually the other guy will win, so you gotta tip your hat when they do it in dramatic fashion. It just makes the World Series a little less interesting when you know who's going to win. After all, the curse doesn't really kick in till the Sox get to the Fall Classic.

From the dept. of post hoc ergo procter hoc: Of course the events aren't related, but I'll be watching the Redskins/Packers game with a little more interest than usual this year.