Hitch did his thing tonight on The Daily Show.  He shows up, moderately disheveled with bloodshot eyes, and drops some casual blasphemy to freak out the squares (tonight, Gandhi was a radical extremist and Mother Teresa tried to spank him.  Hitchens, not Gandhi.).  Hitch pees on some sacred cow just to mark the territory, to establish to the mainstream that we're truly, truly in a No-Spin Zone.  Cocksure college professors do this all the time, like the Nam Vet Criminology professor who talks ejaculating while firing a machine gun, or the law professor who declares that Antonin Scalia is "dest roying democracy democratically."  You do this to establish that you're in charge intellectually, to elevate yourself above the plebian audience while making it seem like a given fact.  They're not stupid, you're just superhuman.  It's an effective strategy:  You destroy their received wisdom argument before they even run it. 

Whenever Hitchens goes on a mainstream show like Hardball or Bill Mahr, this is how Hitchens sets up his argument.  He destroys your status-quo, middle-brow conceptions before you even try to impose them on him, which frees you and Hitchens up for his real points.  This is where I admire Hitchens:  He uses this opportunity to advocate for, say, the Kurds (as he does tonight, with a Kurdish flag pin on his lapel--the Hitchens version of a Support the Troops magnetic ribbon your SUV).  But Hitch does more than just say "Support the Kurds" and drive off.  The anti-war Stewart crowd is always ready to jeer whatever hawks he tosses them, but here Hitchens makes them swallow the boos before their leave their collective lips.  "The Kurds support the Coalition forces fighting to bring peace to their country.  We should be very proud of that."

Even for those of us who hated, hated, hated this war as a tactical measure in the war on terror, we have to remember that that argument is over.  We have to hope for, and support, progress toward a civilized society there--no matter how remote the possibility.  We can't let our anti-Bush venom cloud the fact that people like the Kurds are counting on us--for better or worse.  We can't root for Bush's failure just because we thought John Kerry would have been a better man for the job.  As Democrats, we have to be ready for when we're called back to duty, for when we're drafted to service in case the Republicans fail.  Which they probably will, but we can't root for it.  Entire nations are counting on us.

And that's one thing about Hitchens that I admire.  He will absolutely call out hypocrisy and moral duplicity, no matter how sacred the cow or mainstream the idea.  He's right about the Kurds--that is something for us to be proud of.  We can disagree about whether this little crusade was ever remotely possible, but we shouldn't disagree about whether the Kurds deserve our support.  Hitchens throws this at the Daily Show audience, and it sticks.

After the commercial break, Stewart engages Hitchens on Sudan.  Here's where something fascinating and frustrating happens.  Stewart rattles off an argument about how difficult it is for the West to intervene because we don't understand the issues at stake.  Hitchens expands the point, explaining that we think it's a war against Islam, when what's really happening is that there's a war within Islam.  Stewart takes that idea and seemlessly flows into a salient observation about the specific warring factions in the Sudan--this is not your average talk show banter, and this is where Stewart, again, shows that he does in fact have some chops. 

Hitchens shoots him a look and says, "That's a very good point..." but then Stewart does what he always does:  Cuts the guest off to make the joke that yes, the basic cable comedy chimp actually knows some things about stuff.  And he drags out the joke for thirty seconds, while Hitchens--now completely engaged in the conversation--strains&nbs p;to get at his deeper point that we now know there's genocide and we're obligated to do something about it.

It was a great and terrible moment.  Here are two of my favorite guys engaged in a decent conversation, making some serious contrarian points and confronting the audience without provoking them.  And Stewart, again, frustratingly, resorts to using comedy as a shield--as if he's scared that we'll get bored if he doesn't do his little monkey dance.  John, when you've got a talent like Hitchens on your show, don't worry about us flipping the channel--Hitchens al ready engaged us.  We watch your show because we are already informed.  We get the jokes; that's why we think they're so damn funny.  So when you bring Hitchens on, in all his sweaty, greasy-haired glory, just let him go.  You've got enough game--as you showed with the Sudan thing--to put up a formidable defense and/or advance the conservation substantively.  That's what keeps things interesting.  You told Tucker Carlson you weren't going to be his monkey, and we loved you for it.  But don't monkey around when you've got the Hitch on a roll.  Let him tell the story about getting spanked by Mother Teresa.  Hitchens did name that book "The Missionary Position," after all.  Hitch doesn't need your help to be funny and informative at the same time. 

I blow at least two hours everyday checking and double checking every poll and every electoral college map I can find.  And this is what I've come up with.  There are only eight states that are legitimately in play:  New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Mexico.  From this premise, I've developed the Kerry Victory Matrix, a handy chronological outline that will help you follow the night's events with certainty.  And I spent a little too much time at http://www.november2004.com" title="http://www.november2004.com" target="_blank"http://www.november2004.com

Ok, here we go:

First Round of Results:  Eastern Time Zone States (results at 7:0 0 CST)

1.  Kerry must win New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.  If he loses any of those, it's probably over.

2.  If he accomplishes this, look to Florida.  Florida is Bush's only real threshold state.  If Bush loses Florida, it's probably over.  If Bush somehow loses Virginia or any Southern state, it's going to be a Kerry blowout.

3.  Next, look to Ohio.  If Kerry loses Ohio and Florida, it's over.

Second Round of Results:  Central Time Zone States (results at 8:0 0 CST)

1.  Look to Minnesota and Wisconsin.  Kerry must win both of these.  Minnesota looks pretty solid for Kerry, but Wisconsin is going to be much closer.  In fact, this whole election probably rides on Wisconsin.  If Kerry wins Wisconsin, he'll be at 264 (including Washington, Oregon, and California), needing only six votes to take the election.

2.  Look to Iowa.  If Kerry wins Iowa and sweeps the Old Northwest, it's over.

Third Round of Results:  Mountain Time Zone States (results at 9:00 CST)

1.  If the polls hold up and Minnesota and Wisconsin go to Kerry, and Iowa goes to Bush, then look back to New Hampshire.  If Kerry won New Hampshire, he needs just New Mexico to win.  If Kerry lost New Hampshire, he needs: (only Iowa), or he needs (New Mexico plus four more votes).  Kerry should win New Hampshire, so we'll probably just need two more votes.

Fourth Round of Results:  Pacific Time Zone States (results at 10:00 CST)

1.  If Washington, Oregon, and California all break for Kerry, you may think it's over.  But it's not:  Assuming Kerry wins New Hampshire but loses New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa, he still needs another state. 

Aha, there's still Alaska and Hawaii!  Gore won Hawaii by 18 points in 2000!  Party time!

But hold on.  I said there were *eight* states still in play.  A poll last month had Kerry up ten in Hawaii.  But two recent polls have Bush up one---in Hawaii!

This is The Aloha Nightmare. 

Kerry needs just two more electoral votes, and Hawaii is a Democratic stronghold.  But there we'll be, on the cusp of felling the Republican Beast Elephant...and then have to wait another two hours on what should have been, in the words of George Tenet, a slam dunk.  When I first developed the Kerry Victory Matrix a couple weeks ago, I thought that this two hour period would be the Hawaii Dream, where I was going to hand out a bunch of leis, order some mixed drinks with little umbrellas, and just enjoy the moment--let the agony of the last four years melt away in a soft, warm, gentle buzz of rum and fruit juice.

But if the polls stay true, we're going to have to sit there until:

Fifth Round of Results:  The Aloha Nightmare at Midnight

Two hours of tears, pain, hope, fear, apprehension, and above all else, heavy drinking.  I already know I'm not going to be able to take it.  I'm just going to pace and drink for two hours.  Every Democrat in America is going to pace and drink (except for our hippie friends, who will already be high). 

The campaigns are already aware of The Aloha Nightmare.  Dick Cheney rallied in Hawaii last Friday--that's an exceptional trip, but that's how important this state is going to be. 

Not to be outdone, the Democrats are on the case.  And this is where it gets interesting.  Al Gore and Alexandra Kerry are headed to Hawaii to shore up support.  Imagine this scene:  Kerry 268, Bush 266, with Hawaii left to go.  Russert's hands are blue and red with dry erase marker from all the crossing out and erasing.  The clock strikes midnight.  We wait for another hour or so.  Russert's eyes bug out of his head.  Cut from commercial, and Russert has his hands around Brokaw's neck, threatening to kill him for leaving him with Brian Williams for the next six elections. 

Then, everything stops:  Cut to graphic, and Hawaii turns blue, Kerry wins the election.  NBC cuts live to Hawaii, with Gore sitting in a hammock chair, sweaty, chest hair coming up out of a partially buttoned Hawaiian shirt.  He's got one arm around Alexandra, another holding a drink with a little umbrella.  Al's eyes are bloodshot--he's high on primo Hawaiian jungle weed.  Al gets this dopey grin on his face, and just looks right at the camara and says, "I got you, you phony redneck cowboy son of a bitch!  I finally got you!" 

Gore tips his drink to the camara, sticks his tongue in Alexandra's ear, and Bon Jovi enters the back of the screen, having made the trip to support Al, their buddy from the VP moving out party in 2001.  They strike up an acoustic version of "Wanted Dead or Alive," and the camara fades back to Russert and Brokaw.

Or Bush wins Hawaii, and I pass out on the bar floor until 2008.

Last night, I drove two and a half hours out to Fort Riley, somewhere between Manhattan and Salina, Kansas—an empty expanse of prairie grass and gentle hills; Dorothy’s farm, if you will.  Kansas is psychological territory—when you drive across it at night, it gives you nightmares.  You can scream and not be heard; then the mind starts to scream out. Drive across Kansas and you begin to imagine Oz.  The “Portal to Hell” is just a few miles outside of Kansas, a haunted church so notorious the Pope asked not to fly over Kansas on his visit ten years ago.  This was the place of the Clutter murders of In Cold Blood.  Dodge City.  You tread carefully in Kansas.

I went because a guy I know had just been called to Iraq from the Kansas National Guard.  He's 42 years old, been in training for three whole weeks, and they're just shipping him off to Iraq.  He signed up for the Guard in his middle thirties, like many of his unit-mates did, to do the things the National Guard usually do—disaster relief, etc.  He felt he could handle one weekend a month, two weeks out of the year.  He signed up because he needed money to go back to school as a non-traditional student.  Now he's headed to Iraq for two years, held past his term of service, which was supposed to expire two days ago.  And he's about the median age of the men and women in his unit.  This is the backdoor draft John Kerry talks about.  I saw it firsthand.

At the rally, I listened to the Commander in Chief of the Kansas Guard, Governor Kathleen Sebelius, give a great speech about the old story in which three men are asked what they're doing:  The first says "laying bricks," the second says, "building a wall," the third says "building a castle."  Governor Sebelius is a Democrat, believe it or not, in one of the five most Republican states in the Nation.  She never had to take a position on the war, and Kansas' lone Democratic congressman, Dennis Moore, voted for it.  No matter what you say about that vote one way or the other, they both sure as hell have fought to improve conditions for the families at home and for benefits for Kansas troops abroad.  Sebelius has increased funding for families at home, and Dennis Moore sponsored a bill to pay for troops’ travel expenses home.  That’s what matters most now.    

Some on both sides might call this flip-floppery, but Saturday night convinced me of one thing beyond all else:  It's possible to love the soldiers but hate Bush's decision to take us to war.  It’s our responsibility to see this thing through to the end, to win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to take care of the people called to this war in whatever ways we can.  And for nobodys like us, you just do what you can in the small ways that make a difference.  Governor Sebelius and Congressman Moore will do all they can, just as their Republican colleagues will—and that means being fiscally responsible in how we distribute funds, too.  Fighting Halliburton is not hating America.  Voting against porked-up military spending bills is not depriving soldiers of body armor.  Just like the soldiers, America only has so many resources, and we have to take care of what we have.  And that means not spending more money on missile defense and nuclear bombs while the Kansas National Guard is underpaid and underequipped.     

As I stood there in the cavernous hanger of Fort Riley, watching the middle aged men and women of the Kansas National Guard stand at attention, preparing to leave for Iraq for two years, I became greatly conflicted.  Rarely have I ever felt more allegiance to that flag that hung behind those men and women, and yet, I felt angrier about this war than I ever had before.  I can’t believe Bush is virtually conscripting the National Guard into this war they didn’t sign up for and aren’t equipped for.  As Governor Sebelius told us, the cliché is true:  We have to support those building that cathedral of a democratic Iraq.  The argument has to be about how we get that done, because there’s no coming home now.  At least, for the last regiment of the Kansas National Guard, for another two years.  For now, I’m voting for John Kerry and just trying to help out the troops I know who have left families and homes behind.  That’s the difference between us and them, by which I mean Democrats and Republicans.  They are about ideals, and we’re about people.  The Republicans committed us to this ideal, and now it’s the Democrats’ turn to worry about the people getting it done. 

Last week, Justice Clarence Thomas spent a couple days at the University of Kansas law school.  Our dean was one of his first clerks, so Thomas comes back every year or so, and when he does, he often teaches classes and holds forums with students.  On Thursday, the Honorable Justice took over our 1L Lawyering class.

Thomas is ultra-conservative; we all know that.  He went with Bush in Bush v. Gore. He gets accused of being Scalia's puppet, which I think is a little unfair.  They are brothers in ideology, but political ideology simply doesn't enter into a lot of Supreme Court decisions.  Still, for the Lefties among us, many of Thomas' decisions are quite bewildering.  For the more screeching of my liberal friends, Clarence Thomas is THE ENEMY.

I don't like a lot of Thomas' stances, but I have to admit that I like Clarence Thomas the man.  He commands the room with a giant, almost cartoonishly round gut and a deep, booming voice--like Chef from South Park, but more thundering.  He has large, bulging eyes that lock onto you--when the Justice is talking to you, you listen.  Thomas laughs like a fairy tale villian, this giant "WHA HA HA HA!" bellow that seems mocks people's perceptions of him--if you think he's evil, Clarence Thomas is more than willing to let you think it.  Hell, he *encourages* it.  When you ask him a question, he wanders over to you with this stilted, straight-legged waddle, thrusts his gut out, locks on with those eyes, and answers in this thunderous boom that definitely comes from upon high.

Thomas spoke for a half hour about writing legal briefs ("concise and clear!"  "the first draft is a lump of clay"--that kind of thing).  Then the good Justice opened the floor for questions.  Of course, the liberals all wanted to take their shots at him, and I know some of my friends talked a lot of shit before class--but the fact is that you're completely outmatched by the Justice.  Not only is he the smartest person you've ever encountered, he's damn scary.  Clarence Thomas would rip your arms off, beat you with them, and then eat them.  And then do that thunderous gut laugh.

Of course, they're not allowed to talk about pending or possible cases, but that didn't stop somebody (not me) from asking about Colorado Amendment 36--the amendment to divvy Colorado's electoral votes proportionally, giving Kerry four extra votes when he loses CO on election day.  I think it's a shady deal, but it could turn the election to Kerry if he loses Hawaii or New Hampshire.  Anyway, here's a preview of the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Kerry over the Colorado amendment, if it passes:

Whiny Liberal KU Law Student (again, not me): "How does the Court determine electoral issues?"  (Subtext:  "How are you going to vote on Bush v. Kerry?"

Justice Clarence Thomas:  "It's really hard to say unless we're faced with a specific case."  ("You know I can't talk about that, jackass.")

WLKULS:  "What sorts of instruments does the Court use--are these entirely Constitutional questions?"  ("C'mon Clarence, we know how you're going to vote, we just want to hear you say it.")

Justice Clarence Thomas:  "Well, look, all I know is that the state legislature is the only body that can determine how electoral voters are elected."  ("Alright, jackass--I'm going to vote to overturn the referendum on the grounds that it's unconstitutional, ok?")

If it makes you feel better, use this article about Justice Thomas' opinion in United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, in which the Justice voted to invalidate a congressional statute that required cable stations to scramble "adult entertainment" programs except late at night.  Insert your own Anita Hill-related jokes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment052300 a.html" title="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment052300 a.html" target="_blank"http://www.nationalreview.com...

Initial reactions:

First off, who the f*@# are the "Moo-lahs"?!?

Second, Bush did worse than Gore on all those "style" things.

Third, substance clearly went to Kerry, even on North Korea.  We have to be more aggressive in our dealings with Kim Jong Il, especially after Team America: World Police comes out.  If played consistently to the internationalist theme, Kerry's can draw the Chinese and the South Koreans into joining the negotiations more aggressively, rather than just stall, as BushCo has done.

I haven't felt good about this campaign in some time.  I felt like I was justifying a distant, passive-aggressive girlfriend when I defended Kerry. 
Now, I feel really good about it.  I want to take her out, show her off a little.  Dress up and hit the town with this campaign, you know?

-----shimes

Every single political pundit today said the same thing everyone's been saying for the last six months:  The election is all going to come down to the debates.  Well no shit, Sherlocks.  If Kerry knocks it out of the park on Thursday, watch the polls turn.  If he doesn't, then, as Dandy Don might have sung to us on Monday Night Football, turn out the lights, the party's over. 

Now, I know that there's been some contention in the Kerry camp, and the Cahill/Shrum crowd is gving way to the Clinton folks.  That's a good start.  But all the Carville/Begala magic running through Clinton's clogged arteries won't pull Kerry out of this quagmire if he screws up Thursday night.

Unless, he does this:

Hold on, just hear me out.  Rappin' Kerry just might be the answer.  Think about it:  The beef with Kerry is that he's longwinded and unclear in his answers.  If he just starts rapping, no more Kerryisms.  And to the minorities who don't trust Kerry, well, he's not Clinton, but goddammit he's trying to identify with the Black Community, and that's a hell of a lot more than Gore can say.  Plus, this is the only way the winner of the VH-1 Bling-Off can credibly cast himself as populist--which Gore could never do. 

I mean, the more I think about this, the more I think it's the only way Kerry can pull this thing out.  Imagine it, Kerry just snaps, goes into Florida neighborhoods where black people were prevented from voting, like when Bulworth went to the South Central LA church.  "Senator Kerry, are you telling us that the Democratic Party doesn't care about whether black people get to vote or not?"  "Well, isn't it obvious?!  Only one senator had to sign that resolution, and you didn't see me jumping on board."

Kerry walks out from behind the podium:  "Damn that felt good," while Shrum and Cahill start snorting White-Out.  Kerry's buys The Straight Talk Express from John McCain.  Debate #2, Kerry shows up with flask:  "Republicans, Democrats...it's all a club, so...let's have a drink!"  Kerry steps across the stage to offer W. a swig, sees the smirk, and says, "Oh c'mon George, you've had more snow on your face than when I bit it last month snowboarding at Teresa's Aspen lodge."  And then Kerry offers W. the Skull and Bones handshake in clear view of the camera:  "C'mon George, give me some of that Yale love.  Nobody really buys this Marlboro Man bullshit anymore.  C'mon...or I'll start telling 'George was a cheeleader' stories."

And for the rest of the campaign, Kerry does nothing but rap about power and politics.  He goes the full Bulworth.  About Halliburton, Insurance Companies, Pharmecuetical Manufacturers, Race Exploitation, Tax Cuts for the Wealthy...the whole bit.  He wins the Democratic base back.  He wins the Nader vote.  Libertarian and Moderate Republicans.  All but the hardcore Christian vote goes to Kerry.  The polls show him down only in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi.  Kerry dumps Teresa for Halle Berry.  Kerry sw eeps the South. 

John F. Kerry?  I say Jay Billington Kerry.  If he screws up Thursday night, it's the only rational decision the campaign can make.

-----shimes  

The first national vote I ever cast was in 1994, when I voted for Ike Skelton. He is the congressman representing my old hometown, Clinton, MO. He represented a Democratic Party that was tough, that didn't take one ounce of shit from those fear-mongerers from the other side because he actually worked to support our military...in the right way. New, workable technology, not science fiction. Investment in the human capital of the military. We've got two major bases in the 4th District. Lots of my friends and family joined the military coming out of high school because it was honorable, yes, but it was also a road to a better life if you were willing to make the sacrifice. Ike was one of the guys who helped make it that way after Vietnam. Thanks to Bush's exploitation of the military, he's going to tear all that down in the space of one presidency.

Now, Ike still represents that Democratic Party. The problem is that he's a dinosaur. He doesn't quite fit. These people Ike talks to in the article are my friends and family. Back in the day, there weren't even Republicans *on the ballot* in Henry County, where I'm from. I don't think that's a good thing (some political opposition would have helped hold some things in check, competition is good, right?), but it was a time when Democrats could stand proud and tall in rural Missouri. They fought for farmers, for Civil Rights, for the idea that people should be judged on their merits, not their pocketbook or their birthright. They were strong enough to acknowledge the wrongs of our past, and that we obliged to make good on them. Rural Democrats were *tough*--they kicked ass. The Republicans were the elitists! They were self-interested and greedy!

And now, we've let the Republican Party convince the rural voters that Democrats are a bunch of pussies. It's no more, and no less. Let's look at Ike's district as an example, since I know it intimately. People here are very unhappy with the war. They'll even say "I support the war" and have serious misgivings about it. (That's part of the reason those polls come out the way they do.) They think it's a mistake. But look at why they support the President: "Saddam's a Hitler," they say.

The Republican propaganda machine worked. The He's a Hitler argument was ridiculous before the war (did we not box him in during the Gulf War?), and it's even more ridiculous in hindsight. But remember that memo where Karl Rove urged Republicans to "Run on the War"? They wagged the dog. They convinced the country that Clinton was wagging the dog (even though, as it turns out, he authorized the use of military force to fight a war that even al-Qaeda was involved in), and now they flipped it around. They have succeeded in convincing rural Missouri, and rural America, that Democrats who choose not to go to war are big, fat pussies. No more, no less. The evidence is in Ike Skelton's 4th district.

I know this has been said other places, but it bears repeating. This election is about Vietnam. Not Bush and Kerry, but the hippies versus the fifties. The war America has never really gotten over is the culture war, not the military one (thanks to men like Ike Skelton, Democrat from rural Missouri, who fought to rebuild America's military after the Vietnam debacle). The unwashed, bra-burning hippies versus the conservative values wrought by White Flight and the suburban explosion. Men of privilege like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton (who at that point was out of Arkansas), opposed the war, but chose to evade it. They evaded it, and I don't blame them for it. I'm not sure I would have done anything different.

But then there's John Kerry, who voluteered to fight in that war (true, he signed up for swift boat duty *before* they were put in harm's way), came back, protested it, and joined the chorus of voices that helped end it. Say what you will about Cambodia or Swift Boat Veterans or whatever, but this is a guy who saw the shit, came back, and built a career as a tough-leftist Democrat in Washington.

John Kerry doesn't talk much about his Senate record, but he should. He voted with Clinton during the nineties (remember those good times?). He was a lead prosecutor of Iran Contra. He was a lead prosecutor against BCCI, the international financial conglomerate that funneled money from Saudi Wahabbis to Afghan-Arabs. He helped close the diplomatic wound between the US and Vietnam. John Kerry is a tough Democrat.

It's not that Bush and Cheney, or even Dean or Clinton, didn't fight in the war--they didn't fight at all. Vietnam is one of those rare wars ended not with victory or defeat, but under popular pressure for the government to relent. There was a fight abroad *and* at home, and those fighters at home eventually helped convince the government that it was time to pull out. No less than Robert McNamara acknowledges that in The Fog of War.

But those men chose no sides. They didn't believe in the war, and yet they did nothing to try to end it. Silence is compliance, my friends, and Dick Cheney's "other priorities" may have rightfully kept him out of Vietnam, but did he have the courage of those who marched and protested against this folly? Did they not have the courage to engage the fight? No, they did not. But what of say, Howard Dean, who vigorously opposed the folly of Iraq II at a time when Democrats were afraid to? He fought in the way he could, and for that, he's earned my respect.

But now, by wagging the dog, by weaving the fringe culture and the mainstream Democratic Party together in the mind of the rural voter, the Bush-Cheney machine has managed to convince once proud rural Democrats that the party they once believed in, the one they once fought for, is the party of Dirty Hippies. And in so doing, they've managed to crucify John Kerry--a man who fought that war twice when other elite wouldn't fight it at all.

What's worse is that once this sale was made, that opened the floodgates. Now Republicans have convinced rural voters that trickle-down economics is good for them, that health care savings accounts make sense for people who can barely make their house payments, that opposing the assault weapons ban is the same thing has confiscating your hunting rifle, and that gay people are the cause of America's downward cultural spiral.

I say congratulations to them. You've won. I hope you're proud of yourselves. You've dismantled the once proud Democratic tradition in the rural Midwest. All those things rural Democrats fought for, torn down in the space of Ralph Reed's construction of the Christian Coalition. Well, I hope you're proud of the exploitation, and to be honest, we haven't really fought hard enough, explained things well enough, to really make the case to them. Clinton could because he was one of them. But Kerry has little chance. You would think that they would judge the man on his merits, but not when he's such a Big Pussy Democrat!

I wish I could vote for Ike Skelton in this election. I kept my voter registration in Springfield, which means I can only get to vote against Roy Blunt. But I'm tired of voting *against* people. I want to vote for somebody. I'm voting for John Kerry, but there aren't enough of me in rural Missouri. And when I think of when I was younger, when Democrats fought hard for rural values, for social justice, for a prouder, stronger America in the aftermath of Vietnam, when we kicked ass in rural Missouri, I think of Ike Skelton. I want to vote *for* not just Ike, but the idea of Ike. The only reason the Republicans haven't pussified Ike is because Ike has built decades of trust here. I don't just like Ike, I want to feel proud of throwing my money and energy behind what Ike Skelton represents. We Midwestern Democrats have to figure out how to convince our friends and neighbors to like Ike all over again.

-----shimes

People don't really know a lot about Roy Blunt, my Representative back home in Springfield.  He's one of the most powerful people in Washington, the House Majority Whip, as a matter of fact--putting him right behind Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay, and Dick Armey in the House hierarchy.  But Roy works mostly, as Donald Rumsfeld my say, in the shadows and dark alleys.  Here's an example of Roy at work:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17271-200 4Aug19?language=printer" title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17271-200 4Aug19?language=printer" target="_blank"http://www.washingtonpost.com... 

Basically, the Senate has slipped a rider into a corporate tax bill that would give the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco (that's good, according to many major public health groups).  But the House has removed that provision....AND would fund tobacco quota buyouts with tax payer, NOT industry dollars.  So, according to the House, it's good policy for the Food and *DRUG* Administration not to regulate a drug, and tax payers should have to pay subsidies to those who grow the drug.  Now, I'm not against tobacco farmer making on honest living, and neither is the Senate, who rightfully want those farmers to be paid for their losses, presumably so those lands can be converted to non-tobacco use or otherwise compensate them for their hardship.  But the House says that Tax Payers ought to save tobacco companies $10 billion on the deal. 

Hmph.  I wonder who might be behind the House version of that deal?  I don't know for sure, but I'll bet it's Republican House Whip Roy Blunt!  It turns out that this provision of the bill is endorsed by Altria Group, Inc., parent company of none other than Phillip Morris, which employs the new Mrs. Blunt (Roy "Southwest Missouri Values" Blunt recently divorced his wife and remarried a Big Tobacco lobbyist) and Andrew Blunt, one of his sons not running for Missouri governor and trying to use the Secretary of State's office to rig the election for Bush (which we've already covered this week in an earlier blog.)

FYI:

http://agpolicy.org/tobacco/2004/BuyoutCo mparisonJuly04-FINAL.pdf" title="http://agpolicy.org/tobacco/2004/BuyoutCo mparisonJuly04-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank"http://agpolicy.org/tobacco/2...

So, wanna help the guy who's threatening to unseat this tobacco pusher?  Click here to meet Southwest Missouri Democrat Jim Newberry.

http://www.newberryforcongress.com" title="http://www.newberryforcongress.com" target="_blank"http://www.newberryforcongres...

-----shimes

Being a lifelong Chiefs fan, this is very hard for me to do.  I remember sitting through some dismal, cold grey Sundays in the 1980's, me and 30,000 other fans watching Bill Kenny wobble some wounded ducks downfield to Carlos Carson.  Now that the Chiefs have the second best stadium atmosphere and one of the better teams in the league, this is all the harder.  I take my Kansas City sports pretty seriously--as anyone who actually made it through my obnoxiously long (and ill-conceived and ill-fated) Royals preview can attest to.  But here goes:

I am considering an official denouncement of my support for the Kansas City Chiefs.  I stand on principle here.  Dick Vermeil and Carl Peterson engineered and administered a visit by George W. Bush to Chiefs training camp as a blatant pander to try to coerce the ravenous Chiefs Nation into supporting the President.  At training camp in Wisconsin, no less, which is another crucial swing state.  This is faux-macho Nascar dad bullshit.  I cannot support an organization which trades on its fan loyalty for support of this President.  There is nothing more important than defeating this President, and if my support of the Chiefs in turn supports the President (via its management and public faces' endorsement of him), then I am left with one option:

Fuck the Chiefs.

To be clear, Dick Vermeil also said that it was "unlikely" that he would not have given John Kerry or John Edwards equal time at Chiefs training camp, so there's no mutual exploitation.  Again:

Fuck the Chiefs.

This isn't about the Chiefs having or not having the right to support whomever they want for President, or using their positions for political purposes.  That's the great thing about America--they're free to voice their opinion.  And I'm free to tell Dick Vermeil and Carl Peterson that if they support the President, then they can kiss my Boulevard Beer drinking ass.

This is not an official Filmsnobs position yet.  James is still trying to talk me out of this.  He says that the Chiefs' support of the President is incidental to my support of the Chiefs.  Also, he wants one of my really kick-ass seats to the Raiders game, if I end up getting them.  This is a vexing dilemma. 

However, this is the most important election of our lifetime.  Nothing is more important than defeating President Bush, even--and I say this in the hope that it displays the import upon which I place this regard--getting rockin'ly shitfaced and smearing rib sauce on my face in the Arrowhead parking lot.  If my support of the Chiefs is tacit support of Vermeil and Peterson's support of the President, I cannot in good conscience wave the banner of the red and gold.

If the Chiefs support George W. Bush, then I do not support the Chiefs.

Someone please talk me out of this.  I can get playoff tickets.  The defense is going to be much better, and Priest Holmes might break the single-season touchdown record again.

-----shimes

p.s.  Please tell me that Andy Reid is voting Democrat in this election.  I don't want to have to do this again. 

Please read this.  I know it's the LIBERAL MEDIA, but just read the article.

The Pentagon's Troubling Role

I am not above saying that I think the Republicans are trying to rig this election.  I'm not.  All pretense is off.  You've got the president of Diebold saying, publically, mind you, that they're going to "come through" in Ohio.  Few of the Florida problems have been remedied.  I think the Republicans rigged the elections in Georgia and Minnesota last time with voting machines.  Look at the swing in the actual vote count and polling done days before the election.  Notice that exit polling data system....just happened to not work during the 2002 election.  What, you're going to tell me they *wouldn't* do that?  The science of electronic voting is in dispute to the point that many scientists in the field are outraged that electronic voting is going to be such a wide part of this election.  Republican-donor companies DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE THE VOTING MACHINES.  And it goes on and on.  The son of the House's fourth ranking Republican just happens to count the votes in Missouri, one of the most key swing states, and he just so happens to be running for governor.  Do you realize what sort of shit-fit the Republican machine would stir in the public consciousness if the scenario were reversed?  Are we a damn banana republic or are we the Show-Me State?  SHOW ME THE CERTIFIED PAPER BALLOTS, MATT!

I'm sick of trying to be impartial.  I'm sick of trying to be "fair."  These people are corrupt to the core.  They will do anything for power, anything to win, and that's why they do.  I feel like the Manchurian Candidate.  But you know what?  McCarthy *was* a corrupt messiah, and I think these people are too.  And they can get away with it because there's no public outrage.  And whatever "outrage" there is, is simply passed off as "liberal elitist anger" or whatever.  I've tried to hold in check because I think that moveon.org and their manipulation of facts and quotes are part of the problem, not the solution.  It's still not, and I don't like listening to whining either.  But I've had enough of this.  It was wrong when Democratic machines rigged elections in Chicago and Kansas City, and it's wrong now that the Republicans are doing it.

I am outraged.  I'm outraged to the point I'm about ready to type right through my keyboard.  I'm convinced that this election is about far more than whether John Kerry or George W. Bush is more qualified to lead a war on terror.  Allowing the Republicans to win this time will threaten the Democracy.  Don't tell me that's too melodramatic.  Will you just look at what has happened in just the four years since these guys took control?  I can't even start or I won't stop.  Democracy is not about winning; it's about seeking justice and truth.  They don't want to be fair and let the best man win.  They want to gerrymander all but the most Kucinichian Democrats out of office and create a Republican caliphate.  Yes, I know, Democrats are guilty too.  But weigh Democratic crimes in this regard in the last decade, and then compare that to Tom Delay carving five honestly elected Democrats out of office in Texas.  My fear is that Missouri may become the next Texas. 

These guys are classic literary figures, drunk on their own power, messianic in their conviction beyond all reason.  At this point, it's beyond the mechanics of health care policy, education policy, foreign policy, and any other kind of policy you can think of.  It's hard for me to think of living in a world dominated by George W. Bush for another four years.  They have to lose this time.  Just one time, they have to lose, for the good of the country.  He hangs in my mind like a fog, where you read that that it's obvious they're trying to rig the election, and yet, you look out the window at the American people and the sun is still shining.  To borrow from Pope, as seems the custom these days, it's the eternal sunshine of spotless minds.

----shimes

After watching Sen. John Kerry on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night, I breathed a huge sigh of relief. His first person-to-person since the DNC, Kerry seemed loose and willing to make fun of himself. Since the advant of Presidential candidates going on comedy shows to play the dancing monkey for the masses, Kerry ranked a five. He didn't match the ten hit by Richard Nixon's "Sock it to me"? on Laugh-In or Bill Clinton playing the sax on The Arsenio Hall Show. But it wasn't close to the one suffered by...John Kerry when he drove his motorcycle onto the Tonight Show set at the low-point of his primary race. But this morning, everyone from Slate to The Washington Post to CNN lambasted Kerry for being "stiff" to "humorless". For a second, I thought they were talking about Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn that directly followed. But no, they cited Stewart's "powder-puff" questions that Kerry "failed to even make an attempt to be humorous in response." They cited the moment when Stewart asked if Kerry made a nickel everytime someone used katsup. "Would that if it were", in that flat Bostonian sort of a way. But, in order to make Kerry look "stiff" and "humorless", they fail to mention the follow-up when Kerry grabs Stewart's arm and says, "Seriously, use as much as that stuff as you can." As to say, "I mortgaged my house for this damn campaign. Keep eating katsup"! When they cited  his ho-hum response to the Swift Boat Veterans claims, he also said, "I'm trying to figure out if I were in Vietnam, too."

These critics also failed to cite the funniest moment, when Kerry marveled at people who wanted to shake his hand in the men's room. Or after Stewart lobbed an accusation about his voting record, Kerry leans in with a Three Stooges-type sound effect. What's the deal, liberal media? Stewart fed him "puff ball" questions? Yes, but he's on Comedy Central. His show is supposed to be a joke. It shows how far Stewart has wandered into the political conscience when he not only lands the Democratic nominee, but gets accused of being soft on him. Certainly The Daily Show is in the tank for Kerry and the Dems. Their show has become a funny version of www.spinsanity.com; where Stewart rolls out a Bush clip and then proceeds with another Bush clip that totally contridicts the recent statement. He's got an agenda, but he's funny and self-effacing enough where no one really takes it too seriously. But outfits like The Post and CNN have already established their story line that Kerry is a bore who can't relate to the general electorate. These cherry-picked lines not placed Kerry back in that fuddy-duddy mode, but he was a fuddy-duddy on Comedy Central. It's like any moment where Bush says something goofy or when Howard Dean got too excited at that rally. It's fits with the media's preconceived notion and makes their half-assed job all the easier.  It's also possible the mainstream wanted  Stewart's interview to be a dud. The Daily Show finds it easier and easier to score important guests. Even Ted Koppel stated he was "concerned and disturbed" by the rising popularity of Stewart's format.  Bill Clinton was on just last week. Ed Gillespie appeared tonight. Kerry even reminded Stewart that John Edwards formally announced his candidacy back in January. "But he lost," Stewart retorted. "No", beamed Kerry. "He's about to win big time."

And, more significantly, they failed to notice Kerry bringing out his A-material. In response to being called a flip-flopper, Kerry went into a long diatribe about this President who "makes a wrong decision yet stubbornly refuses to accept it." He repeated the word "stubborn" over and over again. It's a good term that's the perfect response to the Bush campaign's assertions. And Kerry finally talked about his environmental record. A record he seems to dodge in the mainstream. "Instead of invading our way out of the oil crisis, we need to invent our way of  the oil crisis." Good line. It should be on a bumper sticker or something. Kerry's not a bad candidate, he's just been poorly handled. And the media has bought it. Could it be fatal. Jon Stewart doesn't seem to think so. In these tense and terse times, perhaps this little comedy show turns out to be the light at the end of the tunnel.

---Jimmy O

It's been an unusually cool August in Southwest Missouri, but that cannot be the only explanation for the flurry of political activity that has occurred in the region home to John Ashcroft, Brad Pitt, and bastardized Chinese Cashew Chicken. You see, President Bush has visited the area three times in the past six months. Vice-President Cheney has been here twice, 
yet he visited both regional "hubs" (I use quotations for the term since Springfield's 160,000 and Joplin's 35,000 population may not qualify as a hub per se) With an electorate that generally votes 55 - 45 Republican in close races, why is the Bush re-election campaign giving so much lip service to this seemingly solidified portion of a key battleground state? The answer seems to be found in looking at Bush's last visit to Springfield on July 30th and Democratic Veep John Edward's two-day stop earlier 
this week. The events suggest an awakened and angry donkey 
in a thinning pachyderm herd.

When President Bush came to Springfield right after the Democratic National Convention ended, he was greeted by over 9,000 people at the newly constructed Hammons Field in Jordan Valley Park. A good turnout, until you factor Hammons Field's capacity of 11,000 seats. Add that 
then to over 200 protestors outside the facility who could audibly be heard over the President's speech and one paints a picture rarely seen in these here parts. The Republican President of the United States not only failed to fill a venue in a stronghold territory but was faced with nasty yet peaceful 
and law-abiding opposition. Now, compare this to Senator John Edward's visit. On Sunday night, I drove over the Southwest Missouri State University for a chance to see the guy I hoped would be the next Vice-President. I assumed the Quad-rangle portion of campus -where the speech was to take place - would be mildly filled and buzzing with anticipation. This was hardly the case. The area was completely filled and hesitant evaluations of the crowd estimated 8,500 people. More liberal - ho ho- estimates hovered over 10,000. And these people stirred and hollered like teenaged girls waiting for an Usher concert to start. I had never really seen anything like this, either. 

 And I had never really seen anything like Edwards. Arms stretched out with two thumbs jutting in the air, he played the crowd like a pro. His speech is the same one you've heard everywhere- "We live in two America", "Hope is on the way", "This country deserves better" - but his style and attitude were the attributes to watch. He had a command and presence that did not suggest the condescension of Kerry or the blatant pandering of Bush. When he talked about people joining the National Guard in order to get through college, you know he knew these people at North Carolina State. When he talks about a neighbor needing to mortgage her house again to get by, you know he's probably lived by this woman at some point. He was good. He was very good. I had to see this guy up close. I rushed the area where he shook hands nearly getting crushed by women twice my age. Senator Edwards looked at me, I jutted out my hands, and as he shook my sweaty palms all I could muster to say was, "Rock and roll, Senator!" Rock and roll, Senator. That's it. Faced with the guy who could be a heartbeat away from the Presidency in a matter of months, I totally choked and could only muster a response worthy of a Ted Nugent concert. He smiled and shook his head as to say, "Who is this crazy, inbred bastard? But hey, you're kinda funny so vote for me anyway." Worse than 
Shimes' call for General Wesley Clark to "give 'em hell", I may be the biggest jack-ass (figuratively and literally) in SW Missouri. I did get to shake hands with him properly later thanks to some political wrangling, but that's rather 
un-important to my point. My point is this: Edwards is a political rock star, only close is competing with the Elvis aura of Bill Clinton.

And there were protestors. About a dozen of them. I was a little underwhelmed by their presence. They began a chant for "Four More Years" but Edwards quickly deflected them by giving them a chance to yell since "they'll be awful quiet after November." With the media being the media in Springfield, this Baker's twelve got the bulk of the coverage. But who 
can blame them when the ringleader of the political opponents 
was dressed like a big waffle. I mean this guy was wearing a waffle suit. I don't know where you can rent a waffle suit so I have to assume he designed this himself. I was honestly impressed. But I was more amused by the fact the guy didn't stitch out a place for his face. So, as he explained that he was protesting a Catholic Kerry's pro-choice stance, all the listener could hear was this voice coming out of a waffle suit. But the waffle suit was the most visible and forceful aspect of the Republican's response to the Democratic VP candidate's presence in Springfield. What was going on here?

Well, it's not good news for the reining Administration. Both sides of 
the political fray shows that Bush-Cheney only has a fifty-fifty approval rating in Springfield. Their Golden Boy from the area - Congressional Majority Whip Roy Blunt - has made some missteps in the past two years and now faces the most formidable oppositio n he's ever seen in local lawyer Jim Newberry. Talk to moderates or even staunch Republicans in the area and they voice concern about Iraq, investments in the stock market, and "crookedness" perceived in dealings with oil companies and defense contractors. All of the political capital Bush-Cheney gained from 9-11 has ceased and now looks to be damaging the core of their base. The Republicans know they must win Missouri to win the Presidency. And they can't win St. Louis or Kansas City where most of the voters reside. So they have to gamble BIG on the Springfield-Branson region. And they've got the 
numbers to show that the bet may not pay off the way they need it to. And people are certainly dissatisfied with Bush. But a Republican district won't sway unless voters have a real, legitimate choice. And I don't think moderates and conservatives flock to Kerry's legislative career and East coast roots as the alternative. But there's something comforting to these 
voters about Edwards that resonates. The charisma, the stature, the well-versed oratory. But more importantly, the sincerity. This guy knows and this guy cares. When Democrats are at their best, this sincerity is on display and people respond with votes. At their worst, they look like snake-oil salesman and people generally stay home. Sincerity is a lost virtue in 
politics. The guy in the waffle suit has sincerity to a point and I grudgingly yet whole-heartedly respect him. But so does Edwards. Unlike the waffle guy, Edwards is willing to show his sincere face somewhere that's not perceived as friendly to his message. And that's the difference. In a race between  the pro-Bush waffle suit guy and VP candidate John Edwards, 
I know how my vote will be cast.

---Jimmy O