This was sent to me by someone I work with who I hadn't even suspected was a Kerry voter. It's funny. It's going up on my refrigerator. And the source of it actually made me even prouder of being a blue stater.

We have to stand up for OUR values because they represent noble, pure Jeffersonian ideals for our democracy. We need to defend this line in the sand and stop apologizing for being who we are.

Enjoy:

I've read a lot of discussion that the first task facing the Reality Based Community is the definition and "framing" of a message. I understand that, as well as the need to cultivate suitable candidates.

However, I think there are two other important tasks that must precede that. The first one is the establishment of a truly uniform, unimpeachable system of voting. The second is to utilize the vast amount of entertainment talent within our ranks to produce a news station that would attract a mass audience.

My biggest fear, which I'm sure is shared by many, is that this election may have been pre-stolen by the Diebold voting machine manufacturers. However, in general, I reject the concept of unfounded paranoia. I know NOTHING about computers except how to turn them on. Can someone with knowledge and training answer any of these questions?

1. What oversight has been done regarding the coding in these machines? Has it been vetted and verified as an objective mechanism for counting votes?

2. Are the machines checked for integrity prior to being set up, and are there any mechanisms in place to keep them secure?

3. If the machine code were tampered with during election day, would there be a record of that in the machine?

4. After the election, is there any procedure in place to verify that no tampering took place with any of these machines?

5.I've heard that 30% of the voting is taking place on paperless machines. Is this true?

6.I also heard one of the Diebold inventors died suspiciously some time ago. True?

I'd be eternally grateful for any substantive facts on any of these questions.

This email came from a lifelong Republican, who, as you will be able to infer, has as his occupation basically what you would call Union-Busting. You will be surprised and thrilled to read his well reasoned comments.

Gina's Rapid Response diary has this observation: During the draft question, when Bush adjusts his tie, right after he says "manned vee-hick-les" ...you can see a thick wire running from his left side into his shirt. It is unmistakable!

What is it?? Can anyone do screen captures? It is as clear as day.

HELP!

Specifically - Can the audience applaud, laugh, cheer, etc? In all other debates the audience must remain silent, which is proper. How about this one? What was the protocol for Bush/Gore town hall in 2000? Again, didn't see it. Can someone summarize Bush's demeanor?

Thanks so much. I am dying for an answer to this question.

First of all, I doubt there were many truly undecided voters who sat through that whole thing. If you're undecided at this point, you're probably either uninterested or unwilling to think. I found the debate at times numbingly boring, and I just can't see what would keep a less interested observer's finger off the remote control. Especially with the baseball that was on last night.

However, if you were undecided, I think Edwards' performance, while lacking in the deathlike gravitas that the commentators orgasmed over, was the one that stuck in your mind. Reasons:

1. He repeated in simple clear language as often as possible that there were  NO LINKS BETWEEN SADDAM & 9/11  and OSAMA GOT AWAY AT TORA BORA.  If people didn't know these facts before last night, they clearly need to have it beaten into their heads with a club, and that he did. Cheney harrumphed in response and spun a nonsensical web of lies. Average joes understood  Edwards' point and saw that Cneney couldn't refute it.

2. He kept hammering on health care. Not with the clarity I would have liked, but he showed how VITAL he considers it. Health care health care health care. I know from personal experience that this factor is MOST important to the average folk who don't care about politics. Whether its health care coverage or Medicare, this is the hot button domestic issue. Cheney skirted it. Edwards kept chewing and chewing on it. Message: This is important to Kerry Edwards ticket. We care about this problem.

3. He planted the picture (again not as forcefully as I would like) of Cheney the liar, Cheney the corporate liar. That Halliburton was doing business with terror-sponsoring states is a point Kerry now needs to reinforce STRONGLY. It's an ugly reality, and Cheney's toad skin was crawling every second it was being discussed.

4. He talked simple language, family language. The fact that there are so many people that still like George  Bush shows how much average people like this. That's how they want to be spoken to. Cheney was putting me to sleep. I can't imagine an average watcher felt any empathy coming from him, but they got plenty of identifiable moments from Edwards.

So, I think, asshole pundits aside, Edwards made a better appearance to undecided voters than  Cheney did. Media spiin will favor Cheney. But they'll also have fun with his big ass lie about never meeting Edwards before. Again, people like the simple stuff. That's the story they'll hang on to.

In this case, I do think, the simple way so many people digest news events has worked in our favor.

Now bring on Georgie  Porgie!  I want more of that!

I don't even care if Edwards gets his ass handed to him tonight on every other question (well of course I really do, but...) as long as he FINALLY delivers a succinct explanation to the American people about the $87 billion vote. I just about broke my TV when Kerry let this one go by in the first debate.

Just say: We had a bill ready to be signed that included a partial repeal of tax cuts for the rich, in order to responsibly fund the war and spread the sacrifice fairly..and the President declared he would VETO it. The second bill was tailored to the President's demands and was assured of passing by a huge margin. However, Kerry and I could not abide the irresponsibility of the President's bill, and since we were assured the troops would be properly supplied, cast a protest vote, despite the political risk. It had become time to start to speak truth to the abuse of power by this administration and we started with that vote.

PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE! People will understand this. Cheney will be forced to dig a deeper hole if he chooses to continue discussing it.

I don't get this guy. I admit to not reading Plan of Attack, only summaries of it. Isn't this the  book where Bush says "I don't have to explain myself because I'm the President" and where it is revealed how quickly the preordained plan to invade Iraq was put into action following 9/11?

On Hardball, I hear him saying "Kerry must go through the list of 50-60 decisions that Bush made in the course of entering the Iraq war and say how he would have handled them. Maybe then we can consider him for Commander in Chief"....WTF? Woodward implied he was privy to these 50-60 decisions.

Of course Mathews just nodded at the asinine notion that the American people are going to go down a checklist of 50+ decisions and ask for answers, as if that would have any value whatsoever in the choice we need to make. But am I imagining Woodward has a kind of reverential attitude towards Bush? That he deeply respects him? Has anyone read this book, and can they explain this odd attitude?

I'm convinced Bush can not possibly be an impressive individual in private. Yet Woodward gives the impression he's genuinely in awe of him.

Does anyone know?

Will they be at podiums, or walking free with mikes?

Though audience cannot ask follow up questions, will the moderator be able to ask them?

This time, are questions submitted in advance? I was very surprised last night to hear Lehrer say the questions had not been prescreened. (Pretty sure that would be a concession Kerry's negotiating team won.)

And most importantly - Do we get to watch the lights again???? They were fun.

Pat Buchanan on Imus made the following lovely, wonderful points:

- Whether or not Kerry's performance was enough to win the election, it was absolutely enough to WIN him the debate.

And, my favorite:

- Bush's problem was that when he went on and on describing a flipflopping waffler, he wasn't describing the man who was standing next to him up on the stage.

Far and away the most astonishing part of this campaign for me is the number of times I've listened to  Buchanan and found myself grinning from ear to ear.

Saw douchebag Novak on CNN today and he is still saying, with his hundred watt grin, that Bush will withdraw troops from Iraq immediately after "elections", even if elections are bogus, even if country is in chaos. He says we will continue to throw money into the sinkhole for reconstruction but won't risk any more American lives.

Why would Novak be out repeating this line if Bushco didn't want it to be said? I know Bush is completely amoral and would have no problem removing troops, leaving Iraq to fester. I know JMM says Bush wants both lines out there - 1. Bush telling the Gods&Guns wing of the party that  we are principled fighters for liberty and 2. Surrogates telling the amoral power freaks in the party that we'll cut our losses and use the resulting chaos to our advantage.

If that's their game, how can the Dems play this? Novak says Kerry's camp is also planning to withdraw, but also can't be honest about it. I tend to think this is true. A civil war in the region would be to our advantage -speaking from a completely cynical, amoral perspective -as it would occupy the neighboring countries in their own self defense, deprive the terrorists of an easy target (no more US troops to blow up) and save the admin any more angst from US citizens who don't care who dies as long as it isn't our kids.

Just wondering - does this mean the neocons have admitted defeat? Whatever civil war will bring, it won't bring Mideast peace, Western style democracy or any benefits to the American oil based economy, at least not for quite a few generations.  

It will be interesting to see if Bush's shameful performance at the UN impacts the electorate (via the all important polls, of course). My guess is it will be a minimal impact, because it has become ingrained in so much of the numbed out public that the UN is irrelevant.

This is one of the incredible illogics being lodged in the American consciousness, and one of the most dangerous.  Since we are dealing with a GLOBAL plague of terrorism, international communication and cooperation have never been more vital to our national security. The effects of deep rooted, passionate anti Americanism are going to haunt us for generations, if it isn't turned around immediately. We have become more of a liability than an asset, even to our former friends, and our usefulness to them as a "protector"  has been gravely diminished.  It is we who needs their cooperation now, especially in the area of intelligence gathering. It is they who now stand to benefit from distancing themselves from us.

One of the strangest aspects of the illogical Bush presidency is the idea that we have become silmultaneously ISOLATIONIST and IMPERIALIST. We don't care what the rest of the world thinks, but we reserve the right to insert ourselves aggressively when and where we choose. It is almost as if Americans are considering the rest of the world as Martians and ourselves as the only worthwhile Earthly lifeform.

The unsustainability of this philosophy is evident to those here, I'm sure, but I'm equally sure you've all encountered numerous fellow citizens who are very calmly supportive of thumbing our nose at the UN. To them it is evidence of strength on the part of Bush.

Can Kerry make the case, as I think he can and should, that since terrorism is a GLOBAL PLAGUE, we cannot innoculate ourselves by isolating ourselves diplomatically the way the Bushies have? Is this a dangerous case to try and make? Or should he, as he has with the Iraq war, go for broke and make the case forcefully, no looking back? I think bold actions always pay off for Kerry. I'd like to see him make a speech soon, in the next few days, advocating international respect and coooperation and drawing the contrast with Bush's sneering disregard for the international community, and the grave dangers so created.

"A decent respect for the opinion of mankind" = a fundamental American value.

Please read: Poisoned Patrotism by Christopher Dickey

 I think of all the many articles I've read recently, this one expresses my personal sadness best. I'm a Coast Guard veteran, participate in Books for Soldiers, help to register voters, enjoy reading American history, wood carve in the American folk art style and love this country with all my heart...but I'm becoming overwhelmed with shame at what it now stands for in the world. I fear, even if we can someday recover from the scorched earth policy of the neocons upon our ideals, we will be forever tarnished and diminished, the way Germany still is because of Naziism.

 A sample:
"Most disturbing of all, I've come across a lot of men and women who've grown afraid of their fellow Americans. It's as if their patriotism has been poisoned. They say they feel their flag has been appropriated by narrow-minded zealots. Their hopes are being crushed by cynical politicians. Their sons and daughters are being sent to die in wars that seem to have no end, and anyone who questions those politicians or those wars is being branded a traitor. "I can't bear to look at all these flags," a woman told me who has worked for the United States government for several decades. "It's like they all belong to [Attorney General John] Ashcroft." It would be sad if  those stickers on cars were put on by some people scared not to show the flag."

I have a little flag sticker on my car and a Veterans for Kerry bumper sticker, a bigger flag in my yard with my Uncle Sam tree carving and my Kerry Edwards sign, but this is how I feel: afraid of these beasts for whom the flag stands only for asskicking and American chauvinism.

I feel sick about it.

While I think the economy is foremost in people's minds on a daily basis, and WOULD win the election for Kerry if that was what they voted on, I realized last night watching the news shows that the Repub message of fear is probably going to dominate as the election nears.

There is a belief, incomprehensible to me, but undeniable, that Bush  is the one to trust on terrorism. The only actual factual reason for this is that we haven't had an attack at home since 9/11. All the rest of the evidence indicates otherwise: the growth of terrorist numbers and locations, the number of attacks in other parts of the world, the growing understandting that the Huge Blunder that is Iraq has cost us both money and manpower in the true fight against real terrorism.

However, the American people, as we have sadly had to understand, vote their emotional perceptions, not their intellectual analysis. And the Repubs have done something fiendishly clever with this terrorist debate:

1. 9/11 has been blamed on  Clinton, tacitly and explicitly. The Bush apathy that led to the actual runup has been forgotten entirely, and all attacks on it deemed unpatriotic.

2. Kerry has been painted as a flip flopping mess who doesn't know which way is up. They seem to be successfully bamboozling the public with the idea that cherry picking his Senate voting record is the correct way to analyze his leadership skills. They have also sandbagged him into making a number of extremely unfortunate public remarks that reinforce this perception.

3. The war in Iraq has been equated with the "war" on terror, despite the fact that it is in effect the biggest contributor to terrorism's growth, both as an inspiration to nationalist terrorists and as a diversion of our own scarce resources. The Bush administration has covered itself in the images of tanks and jets, a quick emotional image of protection that Americans seem very susceptible to.

I'm not sure how Kerry CAN handle this, or IF he will. My belief in electing Kerry is that he will  begin the process of world cooperation that will be essential to solving this longterm problem, whereas Bush will only exacerbate the alienation they feel for us. Bush's policy of America Alone and  Almighty is another feel good for the American public, but dangerously, insanely wrong. However, by painting Kerry as an appeaser, they have also outflanked this true strength of his.

I've seen far too many commentators end this discussion about terrorism by opining that all voters should have it paramount in their minds when they enter the voting booth. If people buy this, Kerry had better start planting some ideas in their minds as to why HE is the one  who can keep them safe.

I believe he needs to state outright that he will NEVER try to establish permanent US  military bases in Iraq. This puts Bush in the position of explaining whether or not he would, an important distinction. Promising outright to the Iraqis that they don't have to fear this from us will go a long way to softening the nationalism currently feeding the insurgency wildfire. Bush's apparent plan to do this is an inevitable catastrophe, and makes the Iraqi situation into Vietnam.

I think he also needs to somehow highlight the absolute INCOMPETENCE that is at the root of our current Mideast dilemma. I think he should use the word INCOMPETENCE. Over and over. (Sorry, this "w is for wrong" thing ain't working for  me.) And he needs to call into question the INTEGRITY of the  Bush administration, that has Israel acting as a branch of our Defense  Dept. and which protects the Saudis even as they contribute to terrorism here. (Bob Graham needs more support.)

It also needs to be drummed home that the Repubs have been in ABSOLUTE CONTROL of our government these past four years, and carry ALL the weight of this catastrophe on their shoulders. Someone needs to find a way to pound this message home: The Republicans brought us to this place. How can we trust them to lead us out?

Last, I think someone needs to spotlight the way the Repubs have actually manipulated our fears for political advantage. What in hell were the terror alerts all about? Why their convenient timing? Where are they now that Bush is doing better?

But I admit the Republicans have framed this debate beautifully to their advantage. They suck at leadership and governance, but, true to their capitalist killer instincts, they are the clear masters of the art of campaigning.

Any ideas on this? Especially hopeful ones? I'd like to think this blog gets read, and maybe some good minds here can help our candidate sort a path through this atrocious situation.

I have been screaming at my TVset and computer screen for some weeks now that Kerry should give a Press Conference. Timed on short enough notice to keep the worst of the Newsmaxies from turning it into a circus, but with enough notice to draw the mainstream press.

He should open the floor to any and all questions regarding his campaign, his past, and most importantly, his agenda. It would show guts. The kind of guts people think he doesn't have. It would also draw a contrast to the secretive nature of the White House and allow him to promise a more accountable, transparent administration.

I can't understand why he doesn't do this. It would be free press on a national level, and wouldn't take but an hour of his day.

I know there are risks, but taking on risks shows courage - the quality we're told Kerry has, and that the  RNC called so heinously into question.

Is there something here I'm missing, some reason this isn't happening? Or better yet, has anyone heard any rumblings that just such an event is coming soon?

I live in NY. I know my state is going blue. It makes me proud to live in an enlightened state BUT....it also makes me feel pretty irrelevant.

What can people like me do?

Is there any program to have us travel to battleground states, take a hotel for the weekend, and do work? Is there work to be done?

Is there work to be done from home? Phone calls? Letters?

Should we be donating our paltry sums to local battleground Kerry offices rather than to the central DNC?

Any input would be appreciated. I want to help. I just don't know how. The vast majority of my friends and acquantances are voting absolutely for Kerry, and the anomolous few who aren't really don't matter.

So how can we be helpful? I've sent emails to DNC and to ACT. No response.