This is what it sounds like when you give up on the festivities, throw in the towel, and declare the party over:

Short of a miracle (a terrorist attack would give Bush a landslide), why can't Kerry win? Because when he was asked whether he would still vote to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq if he knew then what he knows now, he said yes. He lost the election at that moment...

Bush knows he'll be re-elected because he knows the American people as a whole are, like him, inwardly dead. So the question is: do we, as world citizens, waste our energy and faith in humanity on the false hope that John Kerry will 'restore American leadership,' or do we bring about the psychological and social transformations necessary to build a true world order?

Four more years of Bush-Cheney will indeed mean 'four more years of hell,' as Theresa Kerry said. There will probably be a nuclear and/or massive chemical or biological attacks, and not just on the American homeland/fatherland. And that will be the end of the international order....

The international order is now held together with spit and string by the hollow 'sole remaining superpower.' Bush's re-election can and must energize the world to end the domination of American power, and coercive power itself, as the basis of the nation-state system.

You know what I think? I think maybe the Democratic party would have been well advised to take literally the advice given by the folks over at National Review back in December. They would have been better off with Mr. Furious than with Mr. Two-Step; they would have had a consistent message and would have mobilized the base like nothing you've ever seen.

Protests? Heck, there might have been a million people in the streets of New York and Howard would have been right there at the front of the march.

They'd have lost the election in a landslide, but they'd have gone down fighting rather than whimpering.

Posted by hemmingway at 06:04 | Permalink

[My first reaction - perhaps too hopeful: Are the glowing references to Dick Cheney a set up for a big bow-out announcement later? Initial reports pointed to McCain, but boy howdy is that Rudy fellow looking like a winner or what?!]

Possibly the only two true Republican lions of the Left stood up tonight and dashed the foolish hopes of the weak sisters of American politics. They love McCain, the Leftists do, and they sure love Rudy. If either of these men had joined with the Democrats at any level during the turmoil of the past few months they would have been welcomed as conquering heros by everyone from the Washington Monthly to the Sierra Club. Alas, it was not to be:

John McCain simply by virtue of being John McCain brings much to the table. He diminished the Galoot, built up the president, and painted the picture of national security in a way that we all could recognize. Most importantly, he justified the battle of Iraq without any apology whatsoever. At the conclusion, you had to think, "This is not starting well for the progressives."

Rudy, however, may have made the most important speech of the week. Key points made - astringent ideas which will cut through the conventional wisdom, and which have been utterly obscured heretofore by the mainstream media:

* Thank God George W. Bush is our president.

* President George W. Bush has already earned a place in history as a great American president.

* Since 1972, terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community, and their acts would become a ticket to the international bargaining table.

* President George W. Bush decided we could no longer be on defense against terrorism.

* They ridiculed Winston Churchill...some call it stubbornness; I call it principled leadership.

* John Kerry has no such clear, precise and consistent vision.

* John Edwards' "two Americas" are the perfect description of the world that will allow John Kerry to take both sides of every difficult issue.

* Regarding the nations that have opposed America's initiatives in the current War: George W. Bush is not going to let them set the agenda...American will lead, not follow.

* Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction.

* We are going to combat terrorism at the source, beyond our shores.

* We are going to build a world of real peace and true freedom.

* The Republican Party will be an agent of freedom and democracy throughout the world.

Here's what Rudy and John have accomplished: They have set the stage for a three-night festival of conservative ideas. They have made the world safe again for unapologetic hard-line foreign policy regarding the Islamic extremists. They were the trojan horses that will now force the mainstream media to broach ideas that otherwise would have been totally buried or passed off as "extremist."

Most importantly, they have brought the September 11, 2001, focus to the fore. If not for these two keynotes, the mainstream media and the Leftists might have tried to excoriate the GOP for even mentioning 9-11. As it turns out, 9-11 was the dominant theme of the evening without apology or nuance. Got a problem with the Republicans referring to the terrorist attacks? Then you really do have a problem, because that's exactly what we're saying. Love it or lump it.

You're either with us, or with Michael Moore. Choose a side.

Posted by hemmingway at 12:44 | Permalink

A few of the posts here have been in the vein of "the election is John Kerry's to lose." I think I'll backtrack on that sentiment for now. Optimism really has never been my strong point but the combination of Kerry-incompetence and Bush-rope-a-dope has me thinking this could turn out well.

The Swift Boat affair has been devastating to Kerry, and has not blown back on the White House one iota - despite whimpers about "coordination" it turns out the primary Swiftee considers President Bush an "empty suit" and is going ahead with his campaign to keep Kerry out of the office come hell or high water. This gives the president the perfect win-win position: He can condemn all third party ads or even this ad in particular...and the Swift Boat Veterans' ads will just keep running.

The RNC has not started, and polling data is extraordinarily promising:

As his nominating convention kicks off, an ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Bush has erased most of John Kerry's gains on issues and attributes alike, retaking a sizable lead in trust to handle terrorism, moving ahead on Iraq and battling the Democratic presidential nominee to parity on the economy � the three top issues of the 2004 campaign.

Bush also has reclaimed an advantage in being seen as more honest and trustworthy, bolstered his rating for strong leadership and moved to a 10-point lead as better qualified to serve as commander in chief, erasing Kerry's edge in the latter after his convention late last month...

Bush also has a 13-point advantage as the candidate who'll make the country safer and more secure, up from just +3 on Aug. 1. And he's turned a six-point deficit as more "honest and trustworthy" into a six-point advantage...

There may be more potential downside for Kerry in a separate issue, his prominent opposition to the Vietnam War after leaving the military. Twenty-one percent say they're more likely to vote for him because of this activity, but 26 percent are less likely to support him. Specifically among veterans, moreover, it's 20 percent "more likely," but 38 percent less so.

August is a long way from November. But if the company you keep says anything....

...all President Bush has to do is tell his story, and let the other side tell theirs, and let the public decide.

I'm not ready to declare victory just yet, although if that wacky McCain-for-Cheney rumor turned out to have any substance to it, well wouldn't that be a twist?

Posted by joe at 07:39 | Permalink

If David Brock is the Left's "escaped nun," John McCain is their Great White Hope - tough on defense, moderate enough on social issues to not be scary. As a follow up to the previous "Anybody But Kerry" post, this just came across my screen and it seems quite relevant. When McCain starts stompin' on your boy, that is not a good thing:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called advertisements run against John Kerry by pro-Republican Vietnam War veterans "dishonest and dishonorable" but said Monday it's legitimate to question the Democratic presidential candidate's anti-war efforts following his service.

Yes, that question is being asked. Possibly, that part of the story has not even yet begun to be told:

Communist Vietnamese honor John Kerry, the war protestor, as a hero in their victory over the United States in the Vietnam War.

In the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum (formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum") in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), a photograph of John Kerry hangs in a room dedicated to the anti-war activists who helped the Vietnamese Communists win the Vietnam War. The photograph shows Senator Kerry being greeted by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Comrade Do Muoi.

It gives you the impression the GOP still has five shots left in the barrel, and may not even need to use them all.

Posted by hemmingway at 06:32 | Permalink

First let me say I am pleased to have been granted another chance here and I promise henceforth only to sling that which will stick to its target. It's not "anger" when you are in the right.

Now, not to pile on, but the Kerry train may have jumped the track. Oh, it's early, I will grant you, and there is plenty of time for the Bush people to muck it up. This little tidbit from the Washington Times, however, seems indicative of what a dreadful mistake the Democratic candidate made by cloaking himself in the bloody shirt from Vietnam:

According to military experts and historians, the combat "V" is never awarded with a Silver Star....

Over at JohnKerry.com, the Navy citation for Mr. Kerry's Silver Star does not mention the combat "V". It appears, then, that the Navy didn't mistakingly grant a "V" with Mr. Kerry's Silver Star. So, how did it get into Mr. Kerry's DD 214?

This is more serious than one would think. In Title 19, U.S. Code, Section 1001, the law states: "Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States, knowingly and willfully ... makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both."

Here are the crucial pieces of evidence. First, Box 24 on the DD 214:

Now, the relevant section from the Bronze Star Citation:

And here, the relevant section from the Silver Star Citation - notice what's missing?

Please do not get me wrong: I have no beef with Mr. Kerry's awards. Along with the president, I think Mr. Kerry deserves praise for serving overseas during a time of war. But Kerry himself jumped headfirst into the muck of scrutinizing the other side's military records, even saying "Bring it on!" (It's right there on his Web site).

Mark Steyn, scourge of the progressives, explains it bluntly:

...the President sat back, as John Kerry's consultants, the Iowa caucus voters, the Democratic Party at large, and the media convinced themselves that the one card that trumps Bush's leadership in the war on terror was Kerry's four months in Vietnam, and bet everything on it. They have just lost that hand...

Meanwhile, "Bush hatred" - another losing hand the Democrats put too many chips on - has peaked, and any saggy nudists or trust-fund anarchists who succeed in pulling off some camera-worthy stunt in Manhattan this week will only be boosting the President....

So unlike the touchy Kerry - threatening lawsuits, calling for bans and smearing his fellow vets as "Republican liars" - just by staying cool the President has let his many detractors exhaust the political capital of their obsessions.

Want to bet the challenger is rethinking his strategy right now? Not the one about getting into a treacherous game of "Let's dig into the records," but the one about making this whole campaign a referendum on one's Vietnam experience. As we opined last week, if he loses, it will be this decision that sunk him.

On top of that, the presumed Kerry base is anything but stoked for their man:

Danny Glover was angry. Along with the Rev. Jesse Jackson and radical filmmaker Michael Moore, Glover had just finished leading the "No to the Bush Agenda!" march through the streets of New York. Cooling off in Union Square, the actor was asked why, amid the thousands of expressions of outrage at George W. Bush seen and heard during the march, there were very, very few mentions of John Kerry.

"That's a surprise," Glover agreed. "John Kerry should have been here. There should have been people with John Kerry leaflets and John Kerry buttons and everything all along this march line, and there weren't."

At that, a fellow marcher interrupted Glover. The protest was against the war, she pointed out, so how could Kerry come to New York, since he voted for the war in late 2002? "What I'm saying is that the fact that he is not here says something," Glover answered, "about where he was, and where he is now."

The whole situation - Bush's continued political viability, Kerry's abysmal candidacy, the dramatic surge of conservative opinion in the alternative media - is making the Left go stark raving silly. If not for the impressive level of vitriol they continue to broadcast, one might be tempted to feel sorry for them. As things stand, thank goodness, that will not be necessary.

Posted by hemmingway at 05:49 | Permalink

One of the very few regular readers of this site for the past 9 months has offered some advice regarding the recent decision to conflate/reduce the stable of authors on the admittedly whimsical rationale that their existential status is murky.

The gist of the suggestion was, "The interplay of differering points of view is really the only saving grace of this Web log, so why dump it? You apparently have no interesting political connections, a rather uneventful personal life, and little in the way of original ideas that might cause me to want to return. The recent posts by this "joe" are singularly unpromising. Is that all you propose to have from now on? From one who would like to see you at least continue to gasp for air at the surface, I recommend you try to get better at what you've been doing. Not much else happenin' here, bro'."

Never one to duck the unvarnished truth, I hereby accept the challenge. The downside is, having brought in another author, we now have the task of trying to juggle yet another half-inflated ball. Ok, let's just step back for a moment and review the respective personalities of our crack team of bloggers.

We'll evaluate according to the following polarities:

"Stable" - INSTABILITY/STABILITY: Scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being the most consistent of mind and overall outlook.

"Political" - APOLITICAL/POLITICAL: Scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being the most emotionally committed to political concerns.

"Ideological" - NON-IDEOLOGICAL/IDEOLOGICAL: Scale of 1 -10, with 10 having the most predictable commitment to a particular philosophy or definition of reality.

"Cranky" - MELLOW/ANGRY: Scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being the most generally ornery at any given time.

"Sober" - UNSOBER/SOBER: Scale of 1- 10, with 10 being least likely to commit a PUI (Posting Under the Influence).

John Climacus:

Stable = 3

Political = 4 (down from 10, on doctor's orders)

Ideological = 8 (ditto)

Cranky = 8 (ditto)

Sober = 7 (up from 2, on doctor's orders)

Angus Hemmingway:

Stable = 10 (but he doesn't wear his sanity on his sleeve)

Political = 10 (frequent bemusement might mask this fact)

Ideological = 10 (ditto)

Cranky = 7 (but really, in this case, it's just a function of his age)

Sober = 4 (ditto)

Dr. Winston Turner:

Stable = 10

Political = 1

Ideological = 2 (meaningless to the casual observer)

Cranky = 2 (and tortured, tortured over every instance)

Sober = 10 (the occasional nip nowadays just puts him to sleep)

Joe:

Stable = 7

Political = 10

Ideological = 10 (don't get me started)

Cranky = 4 (but it's a focused anger, and well-meaning)

Sober = 9 (A PUI every few months, maybe)

I hope this clears things up, and sets us on a manageable course for the future.

Posted by joe at 01:41 | Permalink

That's what I'm saying, in spite of the fact that even the Boston Globe has been revealed as another cog in the right wing noise machine:

Kerry has never taken back his terrible slur against his fellow soldiers -- men he now calls his "band of brothers." The most he has been willing to say is that his words "were a little bit over the top" and that he could perhaps "have phrased things more artfully." He certainly doesn't regret the propaganda coup he handed the Viet Cong: "I'm proud that I stood up," Kerry told NBC in April. "I don't want anybody to think twice about it."

And therein lies the fundamental hypocrisy of the Kerry candidacy.

He came to prominence as a radical opponent of the war in Vietnam, yet now he runs for president on the strength of his service in that war. He portrayed the men who fought there as unspeakable savages, yet now he surrounds himself with Vietnam vets at every turn. He lent respectability to those who demanded that America cut and run, that it abandon a beleaguered ally, that it drop "the mystical war against communism." Yet now he insists that he would be a tough and vigilant commander-in-chief, one who would never disrespect allies, one in whose hands the security of the United States would be safe.

Even after 33 years, Kerry's 1971 testimony, and his refusal to either repudiate or corroborate it, remains unsettling -- and relevant. For the Swift Boat vets, this fight may be personal. But all of us have a stake in its outcome.

Here's why the Republican camp would do best to realize there is still a mountain of work to be done:

John Kerry could be revealed to have earned all his Purple Hearts from self-inflicted injuries gotten in the process of drowning Vietnamese puppies; he could claim to have been munching pistachios in the next room while Reagan's henchmen traded with the mullahs; he could be revealed as the man who talked Gallagher into a career in show business - and Mr. Kerry could still win the presidency in November.

Why? Because dishonesty is not enough to disqualify a person from the job. Not by a long shot.

As my blue collar, dyed-in-the-wool Democrat grandfather used to tell me: "Of course they're all crooked. You can't run the government unless you know how to deal with crooks."

President Bush's challenge is to recognize that this Swift Boat affair is only going to get the job half done. Maybe it will even the scales in terms of whatever questions Fahrenheit 9-11 raised among the "undecideds" regarding the president's honesty. But proving that Kerry is dishonest or less-than-beloved among his band of brothers only deals with half the equation. The other half is, "Is the Bush administration reckless and incompetent?"

The primary problem is the drumbeat of "we told you so" about the war in Iraq coming from the liberal intelligentsia and mainstream media. One thousand Americans dead because of a mistake gets you booted out of the White House. The criticisms of deficit spending, erosion of liberties, oil prices and such are relevant, but really just as background music. The president has to convince the American people that he is pursuing the correct foreign policy and the situation in Iraq is not an unmitigated disaster.

One place to start is with the big picture. More important, in my view, is to communicate actual good news from Iraq.

Watching John Kerry dig himself into one hole after another is fine entertainment, but it is best not to be deluded into thinking this will make the difference on November 2. Americans tend to feel pretty secure that the massive U.S. ship of state is pretty solid, and a fibber/narcissist at the helm is not considered such a bad thing. The question will be: Who would be less dangerous in the office? President Bush has a track record, and explaining it must become the central emphasis of his campaign message pretty soon.

Posted by joe at 12:19 | Permalink

Despite his name being that abomination of a bill, I tend to respect John McCain most of the time. That being said, he's sort of getting on the wrong side of the hero/anti-hero brouhaha.

Blogs of War reprints a letter from a vet to McCain:

That you are able to forgive a man even though he had denounced you and your fellow aviators as you languished in North Vietnamese prisons, with your captors using his testimony to try to break your will, is truly commendable. I admire you for your ability to turn the other cheek. However, I must point out that your forgiveness of John Kerry is purely personal and imposes not one iota of obligation to forgive him on those of us who still consider him contemptible.

It is truly reprehensible how the Kerry campaign and the mainstream media are hiding so cynically behind your condemnation of the Swiftvets, using your statement as an excuse to dismiss their claims as baseless, smear politics. Honestly, Senator, did you really intend to provide this kind of cover for those who are so desperate to prevent the truth from coming out?

Maybe McCain will see fit to allude to the issue at an upcoming campaign appearance.

Posted by joe at 03:18 | Permalink

If you were going to send an emmissary to try and negotiate some type of benefit from your foe, why would you send someone who had recently committed blood libel against said foe?

"Now why did Bush go to war in Iraq? Because he concluded that his daddy was a failed president and one of the ways he failed was that he did not take out Saddam Hussein," Cleland said.

I'll tell you why: For the photo op. He's hoping Bush will sic the hounds on him.

Posted by joe at 10:55 | Permalink

The topic in the Team Leader chat just turned to immigration, with some heated and fairly unfriendly sentiments being bandied about. I guess if I lived in a border state I'd have a more firm opinion on this, but the "let's keep these people out" argument somehow makes me uncomfortable. Actually, if I lived in a border state I'd probably have a much different opinion. My wavering on the issue probably stems from the fact that my "people" on both sides of the family arrived in the U.S. no earlier than about 1900, so if I want to trace my family tree back beyond people I've actually met, I have to go to Europe to do it.

But regarding Bush's overture to Hispanics earlier this year, which had me really perturbed at the time, I understand the calculation. Prior to 9-11 it probably would have made sense to give it a try. Hispanics are culturally akin to the typical GOP voter in many ways (and please allow some latitude for gross generalization with that last statement). So if they could be enticed to switch sides and become a solid voting block, it would be "good night, good bye, forever" for the Dems. Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population and that statistic is probably going to accelerate. America easily could be 40% Hispanic by 2050. And it's not solely because of immigration, either - it's because Anglos are raising cats and dogs instead of children.

But this year, Bush's idea to grant amnesty appeared to be plain old pandering and has hurt his standing with conservatives. I know personally several people for whom it nearly had a "last straw" effect after the increases in non-military spending. (But, we must hope, such folks should come to their senses in the next couple months.)

Posted by joe at 08:58 | Permalink

Any other Team Leaders out there? Ari is doing a chat at 10:15 am EST. Here's the question I posted for him:

Is it my imagination or has the White House communications team been doused with ether every morning for the past couple years? How has the President managed to get himself portrayed as a monster thoughout the world? Despite the caricature he's a decent speaker off the cuff (see Debates - Gore, Al). But one gets the impression someone is trying to keep him insulated from the media. That April press conference was atrocious. He should be working the media, making appearances on Leno and the Daily Show, and challenging Michael Moore to a debate (first remark: "Before we get started I'd like to ask my counterpart, who I'm told is extremely intelligent, if he has ever considered exercise, because he has a wonderful sense of humor and I'd like to see him stick around for a few more years.") Why can't they let W be W?

Posted by joe at 08:33 | Permalink

"I'm not running for president on what I did 35 years ago."

Posted by joe at 08:10 | Permalink

This post will be somewhat self-referential, uneventful and sorely lacking in either depth or rant-worthiness, so if you're looking for insight, please visit someone who does that better than me, and if you're looking for edge-of-the-seat excitement, see someone who does that better than me.

If you have spent any time reading the variety of posts here, your first impression may have been the disjointed, uneven nature of the project. Well, strike that: Your first thought probably would be "Who is the IDIOT who is writing this stuff?!" and then the observation of disjointedness would have come to mind.

In fact, the whole site got off to a weird start, and the quality level sort of followed from that. I got the server space, domain name, and a few conceptual notions together, and started working on the php stuff about a year and a half ago. Literally a few days after reaching that point, something occurred that changed my leisure time situation substantially, to the tune of about negative 10-25 hours a week. In addition, some new stress factors were introduced and the server ended up sitting dormant with just a "coming soon" welcome page for over 7 months.

Prior to this I had a number of things in mind that I wanted to do, which was the reason for starting this in the first place. Finally, in November 2003, I managed to carve out enough time to start building everything. But I had lost some of the initial vision and most of the creative energy, and was still pretty limited in terms of free time.

Going with the various authors has served the purposes of:

1) not having to make up my mind about what I really wanted to do, with at least three avenues to change my mind along the way and reflecting different possible temperments. Kierkegaard said that "purity of heart is to will one thing" and this was precisely NOT my situation, so consequently my thoughts were all over the place and often rather colored by conflicting emotions.

2) providing myself a source of semi-amusement at times so if nothing else there would be that aspect to keep my interest.

But it was a slow start, to say the least, and about the only time I had to put into it was late at night, after everyone else had gone to bed, and I'd be working off the stresses of the the day often with liquid accompaniment. Little time was put into reflection and I was operating from a pretty shallow pool of ideas.

Thankfully, the situation has improved. I'm going to redo much of the main site, replacing some of the old pages, adding some better ones, and probably giving more than a few the deep six. Here in the Forum, I'm just going to leave all the old posts up so in the event I start to get too high an opinion of myself I can be quickly reminded of what boring nonsense I am capable of producing.

Angus, John and the Dr. may return periodically for specific purposes, but it'll be a relief to let some of those story lines die.

So what's the plan? Climacus has hinted at much of it but, again, without deep reflection. It's interesting to me that the opposing "tribes" in the current political conflict operate from different sets of facts, almost living in separate realities. There are a few who attempt to do apples-to-apples comparisons on different issues, but it often doesn't go very far. I spent quite a bit of time acclimating myself to the truth claims and ideology of those on the left and my appraisal is that the situation is not very encouraging - and I don't mean "for accommodation", I mean just for dialogue on the issues.

There are eruptions of level-headedness, and these are worth savoring, but the overall impression I get is that the liberal/progressive idea factory is churning out a set of facts that constitute an impenetrable bubble of insulation from reality. A major component of this consists of a war of identity politics over sources of information: There is a widespread tendency to completely filter out disagreeable information by denigrating the sources. Anything that emanates from "conservative" news sources - which mean any that don't toe the liberal line - is totally disregarded. Fox News (GOP mouthpiece), Washington Times (moonie paper), New York Post (see Fox News), neocons (enough said), Christopher Hitchens (drunk) and so on are ignored. The majority on the other side rarely address any ideas or facts from these types of sources.

This was surprising to me: Rank and file progressives seem much less well-informed than conservatives. That's not to say you can learn everything you need to know from Fox News. There are plenty of great sources of information and perspective. It seems, though, that in "our" discussions in the various forums and the blogosphere, reference to mainstream and leftist media are pretty constant. On the other side, reference to anything that touts itself as conservative or "balanced" is practically nonexistent. About as far as the progressive camp will wander from the hard left is to clobber the conservative tilt of the mainstream media. I think this is nuts, and it's a major handicap for them.

Another topical note for the future: I want Bush to win, obviously, but I am now much more bemused than angry about the entire process as it unfolds. Anger has, frankly, been one of my biggest handicaps on the Forum, and I think I've put it behind me. I can think much more clearly when I'm not totally pissed off, and I hope that will result in better contributions in the future.

Well, that's what's happening at the Forum. It's getting late and I am not drinking, so I guess it's time to call it a night or I'll have no excuse for writing something stupid. Night, all.

Posted by joe at 12:42 | Permalink

Well, this whole story is playing out about as badly as you might try to script it, if your aim was to make the White House look stupid. Not hard to do, I grant you.

...the Iraqi soccer players, the supposed focus of this surprise visit, have been outspoken in calling on president Bush to stop using them as election-related fodder. Said one Iraqi mid fielder, "Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign. He can find another way to advertise himself."

Without getting into all the shadowy stuff detailed in the links from yesterday's post, I'll just say that a president who cannot communicate effectively is flawed from a managerial standpoint. President Bush has allowed himself to be painted as a horror throughout the world.

Maybe it's a case of over-coaching, some communications genius not willing to "let Bush be Bush." But that incredibly bad press conference this past April was one sign that the man needs to be able to explain himself in a more personable and believable manner.

The Bush-haters will respond that allowing him to be himself is precisely NOT what his handlers want to happen, being as how the president is dumb. But he is not dumb - he proved that in three debates against the purported "wonk," Al Gore. He proved that when he debated Ann Richards in Texas, as noted in the fascinating review by James Fallows. The guy misspeaks, but he definitely can be quick on his feet.

He has not done as well as might have been hoped when faced with a very complicated situation: A battle was won, but the consequent developments were unexpected and "winning the peace" turned out to be problematic. No big surprise there, as wars are not waged to win the peace. But by allowing the failure to accurately read the collective psyche of the Iraqi people to be painted as an unmitigated disaster, Bush gave his political opponents an opening.

The president's inability to say "We won this battle, and the situation on the ground is a problem because our management immediately afterwards made some assumptions that did not turn out to be accurate," is a major, major handicap. You launched a large military operation and cannot say that you were wrong about ANYTHING that happened in the aftermath? That is a tough position to have to defend. It's a crazy position to have to defend.

One of Bush's strong points is his ability to convey what he believes and who he is. When he has done that in the past, he has succeeded politically. In the current situation, with something like 80 books on display in the bookstores and innumerable other messages in popular culture saying essentially that he is the epitome of evil, he had better be able to emphasize his strong points. He had better start speaking out more, and more frankly.

When Steve Spurrier got bounced out from the position of head coach of the Washington Redskins last year, it was not because he could not succeed at the professional level. He had established his chops as a football strategist. He got canned because he came into the job with an entourage of youthful young bucks comprising his coaching staff, and THEY WERE NOT GOOD ENOUGH to train a team to compete against the others in the NFL whose coaches were seasoned, grizzled, pot-bellied veterans. Spurrier did not have it in him to fire his friends, so he forfeited 2 years and $10 million and resigned.

The president may be on the verge of forfeiting 4 years and the opportunity to do some good in the world, simply because of a failure to make the decisions a leader has to make.

Posted by John Climacus at 08:56 | Permalink

In preparation for the conspiracy I have been dutifully studying the conspiracy theories on the other side to get an idea of how to live up to their expectations. Classic behavior for conspiracy theorists is to engage in rhetoric and form organizations resembling those which they are intended to oppose, and I'd like ours to fit like a glove.

[Don't bother thinking too hard about that last sentence as the logic may be found wanting and it could be deleted after further review.]

Anyway, the point is I've taken a leave of absence from the echo chamber and I may not return. I have found it about 50 million times more interesting to read stuff by people I totally disagree with.

When I first returned to the Northern Virginia area from Florida about 15 years ago, it was an immense relief to be able to read the Washington Times and the New York Post each day instead of the mainstream stuff which was all I could get down there. Then, getting satellite and Fox News was an additional helping of manna. I no longer had to sit and fume at the bias and shout at the television.

For the past four or five years I've subsisted largely on sources of information that I did not feel were completely full of crap.

But in the process, I guess I lost sight of the big picture: I'm really not interested in finding a group of like-minded individuals and only talking to them for the rest of my life. I'm much more interested in working, in whatever small way, to change the views of the misguided or "undecided."

To do that, you've got to know both sides of an argument. In college, I subscribed to The Nation, The New Republic and National Review for most of my time there, and eventually I realized the ideas expressed in the latter were closest to my own set of beliefs. I became a conservative. But I threw the baby out with the bathwater: With the effusive passion of youth, I got so annoyed with the grandstanding and overwhelming prominence of those on the liberal side that I decided life was too short to even listen to them.

After reading P.J. O'Rourke's excellent little article in The Atlantic last month I realized he hit on exactly why I was becoming tired of spending all my time imbibing viewpoints I agreed with while becoming unbelievably frustrated when polls showed so many are wallowing in the darkness of ignorance.

Another spur for me to get out more was the fact that a couple friends I care deeply about are committed liberals, and conversations with them have become increasingly unproductive. We no longer get to the roots of disagreement on issues, but just end up trying to one-up each other with competing (and contradictory) portfolios of facts.

I decided I needed to understand where they are coming from, so I have gone to the ideological source materials. What an eye-opener: Getting to the bottom of actual differences of opinion is really exhilarating in this age of shouting contest "debates."

This is all going to be spelled out in more detail when the conspiracy is officially launched, which hopefully will be in the next week. But for now, I'll just note that I have been delving back into The Nation, Washington Monthly, along with The American Prospect and The Progressive, and a variety of Web resources, and boy oh boy are there some competing definitions of reality out there.

When my liberal friends have told me how much they HATE Dubya, I've been pretty much perplexed by their explanations. Well, I'm perplexed no longer. Call me naive (seriously, I mean this, say "John Climacus, you are depressingly naive," because I really have dropped the ball on learning both sides), but I've had blinders on. I did not know the extent of the Bush-is-evil theorizing. The following links give a taste:

Bush conspiracy to create riots in FL

Conspiracy to get re-elected through increased layoffs

Bush authorizes torture

Bush knew of terrorist plot

Bush bin Laden connection conspiracy revealed

Bush behind O'Neil's death

U.S. government foreknowledge of 9-11

Michael Moore: Bush, the CIA and the Roots of Terrorism

Full collection of "Bush Knew" articles

Top 10 conspiracy theories of 2003-2004

Bush Knew

David Blomstrom: Jail 4 Bush

What GWB knew before 9-11

Halliburton Watch

Bush-Nazi Links

New research on Bush-Hitler links

24 Ways President Bush is like Adolph Hitler

Gore Vidal: Bush allowed it to happen, for oil

Conspiracy Planet

Just like Nazi Germany: They thought they were free

Descendent of Hitler victims compares with Bush

Patriot Saints (ultra-Right Wing?): Bush's Complicit Role in 911 Attack

My appraisal so far: A LOT of the anti-Bush data presented as an indictment of the current president specifically is disingenuous. The frustration is with the U.S. government, and Bush happens to head it up right now. As James Bovard tellingly notes in The Bush Betrayal (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2004, pg 7), "The Bush presidency is continuing and accelerating many of the noxious trends of the Clinton era, most of which started long before William Jefferson Clinton became president. Many of the abuses of the last few years would likely have occurred regardless of who was elected president in 2000."

A good portion of the "evidence" against Bush results from a difference of opinion on policy with one side framed as incontrovertible fact. This is by Robert Reich in the August 2004 issue of American Prospect (pg. 72): "...'smoking out,' imprisoning, or killing terrorists, based on information supplied by our intelligence agencies, cannot be the prime means of preventing future terrorist attacks on the United States. More important is dealing with the anger and the hate. This means, among other things, restarting the Middle East peace process...It requires shoring up the economies of the Middle East. And it means strengthening the legitimacy of moderate Muslim leaders, instead of encouraging extremism."

And, of course, the overriding piece of evidence against Bush in most of this literature is the failure to find WMDs in Iraq: The president, knowing there were no such weapons, started a war on the stated rationale that the weapons were there, apparently not having anticipated the fact that the absence of weapons would thus be proven.

Oh yes, this leads to another overriding theme of the Bush conspiracy material, which is that, if he is not an evil genius, he is a complete dunce. But then, so am I, and maybe so are you, because liberals are, by definition, smarter. We'll dissect this argument further at a later date.

Posted by John Climacus at 02:32 | Permalink

The topic was going to be something completely different but I was glancing at Drudge and saw his scoop on the proposed Bush trip to the Olympics:

PRESIDENT BUSH PLANS TRIP TO OLYMPICS, SOURCES TELL DRUDGE. MAY ATTEND IRAQI SOCCER GAME. 'TRIP BEING PLANNED IN SECRET'... SECURITY CONCERNS AND 'DISRUPTION' OF GAMES AT ISSUE... 'THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT GO, IF IT BECOMES TOO MUCH OF A DISTRACTION,' TOP SOURCE REVEALED LATE SATURDAY AFTERNOON... TOP BUSH SOURCE CAUTIONS PLANNING FOR TRIP IS BEING RESEARCHED AND IS IN PRELIMINARY STAGE. TRIP WOULD BE FOR FINALS AUG 28 [SATURDAY]... DEVELOPING...

Obviously we are all for freedom of the press but this sort of bugs me for two reasons. One, the security issue. Two, it would be a cool thing if he did it and now he likely will not, thanks to the inevitable cacaphony of criticism he's going to get from the loyal opposition and all of the other odd birds who see every single thing the president does as a ploy.

C'mon Matt, you get enough traffic. You feed this stuff to the monkeys and they are just going to throw it all over the place.

Posted by John Climacus at 12:58 | Permalink

This, apparently, is going to get uglier before it gets better.

Uglier, for Jacques, I mean:

The Democratic Party launched a costly round of ads Friday to buttress John Kerry's credentials to be commander in chief as the White House accused the Massachusetts senator of "losing his cool" over attacks on his war record.

"John Kerry is a fighter and he doesn't tolerate lies from others," shot back spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter.

The unusual late-August maneuvering highlighted the closeness of the race for the White House and came as polls offered the first hint that the questioning of Kerry's medal-winning service in the Vietnam War � allegations that he strongly condemned this week as lies � were taking a political toll.

One poll found that more than half the voters questioned had seen or heard of an ad by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth that accuses Kerry of lying about events that earned him five medals in Vietnam a generation ago. The University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey also found that 44 percent of self-described independent voters found the ad very or somewhat believable.

Separately, a CBS poll found a sharp drop in Kerry's support among both veterans and a smaller erosion among independents since the end of the Democratic Convention.

Because the 'V' is authorized for only the ten awards cited above, but not for the Silver Star, Kerry's Silver Star citation (the 'explanation' of why the award was made) does not even mention the 'V' for valor (see www.johnkerry.com).

The presence of the combat 'V' with Kerry's Silver Star on his DD 214 raises two extremely disquieting questions. How did the unauthorized 'V' get there, and why has Kerry allowed it to remain?

The first question should not be taken lightly because we are talking about possible federal crimes. We are talking about the possibility of a forged official document. We are talking, as well, about Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, which states: '[W]hoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States, knowingly and willfully . . . makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.'

Was the combat 'V' added by a sloppy clerk or a yeoman's typo thirty years ago? Was someone pressured or persuaded to add it? If Kerry had nothing to do with the gratuitously added combat 'V,' why didn't he have his DD 214 corrected when he was separated from the Navy?

Which gives rise to the second disturbing question: If Kerry was not a party to the unauthorized 'V,' why, for all these years, has he allowed his DD 214 to remain uncorrected and to repose on his website?

In light of the recent Swift Boat revelations and the cloud they have cast over Kerry's awards, one plausible answer is that this is yet another example of Kerry's multiple, and increasingly transparent, lies about his alleged heroics in Vietnam.

But it was what appeared on Ferris's television that really pained him. John F. Kerry, a decorated fellow Swift boat driver, was testifying before Congress about atrocities in Vietnam, throwing his medals away, speaking at antiwar rallies. Ferris, who was trying to rehabilitate himself back to active duty, felt betrayed.

"I was livid," Ferris, 57, of Long Island, N.Y., said yesterday, recalling how his dislike for the presidential candidate began in the early 1970s. "I said to myself at the time, this is someone who is using his experience for his own purposes, and this was long before he ever ran for office. I thought he was using, actually manipulating, what he had done in Vietnam. Just like he's doing now."

Ferris is one of 250 Swift boat veterans who in May signed an open letter to the Massachusetts senator asking for full disclosure of his military records, specifically focusing on events during a four-month tour in Vietnam for which Kerry was awarded medals for bravery in combat. The veterans group -- Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- has criticized Kerry for using his military experience as a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, arguing that the Democrat has exaggerated his experiences at war for political gain.

Vietnam.

If John Kerry could have done one thing differently, I'm betting it would have been to characterize himself as a fighter in the Senate for various liberal causes. It would have been an honest argument, and heaven knows it would have been a clean and defensible argument. He could have argued about principled positions he has taken over the past 20 years, and he could have energized the base without pissing any of them off.

The course he has taken has introduced an element of moral conflict that was totally unnecessary, and that he falls on the wrong side of in so many ways. Vietnam was not a positive experience for the people who Kerry wants to carry him into office. There's an abstruce, semi-blind, jigged-by-emotion aspect to the very notion of conjuring Vietnam service as one's primary credential for a Democratic candidate for public office. He should have let the winter soldier stuff sit there in the background, and he should have highlighted his public service since then.

This sets up a particularly interesting election. On the one hand you have a sitting President who is painted as Anti-Christ. [Also see here, here, and here].

On the other hand is a challenger who has got to have even his most ardent followers smacking their foreheads in despair.

And we once again return to Kerry. He'll do less damage than Bush, especially when it comes to appointing judges, but he's really nothing more than "someone else," rather than a solid alternative. And now that Kerry has said he believes life begins at conception? Well, he's different from Bush in that he doesn't allow his personal, private opinions to determine policy, but the men really look at the world from the same place. What, for example, would happen to the presidential candidate who said he was pro-abortion and didn't give a hoot in hell when life began?

The truth is, John Kerry is all over the place in terms of policy and on the national security front this could be devastating if properly spelled out by the Bush team. If he wasn't running against the anti-Christ, I'd have to say Kerry was toast.

Posted by hemmingway at 02:14 | Permalink

It's actually very simple. Here's how it happens:

President Bush explains that the Iraq situation is under control, and getting better. Current events buttress the argument. Those who insist on dredging up old, ugly interpretations are revealed to be nut jobs. If Iraq is not seen as a mistake, the arguments against Bush disappear. (This being a case of the anti-Bush crowd putting all the eggs in one basket. Pity, considering how clever they are.) End of story.

Posted by hemmingway at 01:05 | Permalink

Oh my goodness, this was one of the better moments in sports history. Down to 12th place with 2 rotations to go, and he comes back to capture the gold medal.

Hamm became the first U.S. man to win an Olympic all-around title and joined 1984 silver medalist Peter Vidmar as the only U.S. men ever to win Olympic all-around medals.

He became only the second male gymnast in history to win both world and Olympic all-around gold medals; the other is Alexander Dityatin of the Soviet Union, who won the 1979 world and 1980 Olympic golds. Last summer Hamm became the first U.S. man to win a world all-around title with a victory at the World Championships in Anaheim, Calif.

An hour after the event was over, Hamm was still trying to fathom what had just happened.

"After I missed the vault, I thought there was no chance for gold," Hamm said. "I thought maybe a bronze. I was very upset and depressed, because I knew that all-around was my best chance for winning the gold. When the score came up and Miles yelled, 'Olympic champion,' I was still shocked, because I just didn't think it was possible. How could it be possible?"

But if Hamm couldn't quite get his arms around the moment, others sure could.

"Paul will go down as the greatest male U.S. gymnast we've ever had," said Vidmar, 43, who was in the arena for Hamm's performance, as a radio commentator.

Posted by hemmingway at 12:18 | Permalink

Well well, don't great minds think alike. The true paper of record hangs out some of the dirty laundry that the overwhelming majority of the American media are doing their best to cover up:

Kerry's injuries are a subject of ridicule among fellow Swiftees.

"Many took exception to the Purple Hearts awarded to Kerry," Swift Boat veteran William E. Franke, a Silver Star recipient, wrote to the authors in March. "His 'wounds' were suspect, so insignificant as to not be worthy of the award of such a medal."

Franke and about 200 others, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, came forth in May to question Kerry's deception. These veterans from Kerry's unit signed a petition calling on him to execute Standard Form 180 and allow the public complete access to his service record.

Swiftees have remarked that if Kerry faked even one of these awards, he owed the Navy 243 additional days in Vietnam before running for anything.

In a unit where terribly wounded personnel like Shelton White (now an undersea film producer for National Geographic) chose to return to duty after three wounds on the same day, Kerry's actions were disgraceful.

Indeed, many share the feelings of Adm. Roy F. Hoffmann, to whom all Swiftees reported when he was commander of Coastal Surveillance Force Vietnam in 1968-69: Kerry simply "bugged out" when the heat was on.

Since you can literally count on one hand the number of outlets willing to cover this story, we're going to take the opportunity to highlight them here. From the gentle folk of the north country:

Last week, after the falsity of Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia account became public, the Kerry campaign issued a statement "correcting" the story. According to the Kerry campaign, the mission referred to took place in January 1969, when Kerry "inadvertently or responsibly" crossed the border into Cambodia. However, three of Kerry's Swift boat crewmates have denied entering Cambodia at any time, and no one has corroborated Kerry's claim.

The suggestion that Kerry may have "inadvertently" strayed into Cambodia -- leaving aside whether that was even possible -- constitutes a complete retreat from the point of Kerry's original story: that he lost his faith in government because the president lied about having sent American troops into Cambodia. And, of course, it contradicts his story about ferrying a CIA man to Cambodia.

Given the attention lavished on President Bush's service in the Air National Guard earlier this year, we thought that newspapers such as the Washington Post and the New York Times would want to devote comparable attention to John Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story. We also thought they would want to consider what the falsity of Kerry's story might have to tell us about the uses to which Kerry is putting his Vietnam service in the current presidential campaign.

To date, however, we have been wrong. Neither the influential mainstream newspapers nor the broadcast television networks have reported the meltdown of Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story. Only readers of Internet blogs such as ours have kept current on the exposure of Kerry's tall tale. Or on the Kerry campaign's lame efforts to resurrect a version of the story that contradicts what Kerry has said for the past 25 years, but allows Kerry to continue using his Vietnam experiences, real and imagined, for his own political purposes.

And on a related note, you have to believe that somehow, somewhere, Howard Dean is saying to himself, "It serves you right, you cold-hearted bastards.

They cannot fathom why their man, John Kerry, cannot seem to fathom how easy it should be to put President Bush away, seize the high ground and take command of the issues of the war on Iraq and the war on terror.

They see polls showing that Americans disapprove of the president's handling of Iraq and the war on terror. They see that three years after 9/11, and two years after Bush turned away from al Qaeda and focused on Iraq, al Qaeda has been allowed to get stronger again. So strong that Bush's Department of Homeland Security had to declare that the United States is again under a high state of alert � because al Qaeda is determined and able to strike us again.

Democrats despair because, given all of that, a majority of America's voters still tell pollsters they believe that Bush, not Kerry, can better command the war on terror. And mainly, the Democrats privately despair because they know why the people feel that way. They know it is because Kerry has been pathetically unable to answer, clearly and forthrightly, the simplest questions about the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Kerry cannot explain just what he would have done and what he will do now to better command and win the unwon war on terror.

Democrats say privately they don't know what is wrong with Kerry. Here is what's wrong: The Democratic presidential nominee has no clearly defined conceptual framework that is the basis of what he thinks about the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

Posted by hemmingway at 10:34 | Permalink

We are watching the Olympics with interest because that is what we do every couple years. On this night, the Americans have won silver to the Romanians' gold in the team gymnastics.

They are all just too darn cute, and we have to wonder if there is a potential overdose of cuteness lingering here. In two days the all-arounds begin. Can we, as a civilization, handle it?

Stay tuned for further analysis.

Posted by hemmingway at 02:07 | Permalink

Up till now we have tried to refrain from the name-calling and generally unsociable activities so prevalent in the current political "debate." I think the various candidates deserve a basic level of respect just because they are willing to step up to the plate and lay their personal histories out for public examination.

We're going to bend the rules, however, for the Democratic candidate for president. As much as we have tried to retain a modicum of respect for the man, his campaign has continually managed to push the envelope in terms of rational discussion. In sum, they are talking a lot of nonsense.

Therefore, here, we submit some points that we think should raise questions among the Kerry supporters.

Despite the head-kick administered by his hometown media to Mssr. Kerry about his bogus raison d'etre, he is resolutely the the only asshound still attempting to sketch a positive picture about 4 months of questionable experience in VIETNAM and absolutely nothing else since.

We don't normally get too worked up about an elected official's attendance record at congressional committee meetings. The real work of legislating often gets done elsewhere. But given the weight Kerry himself has given his congressional experience with intelligence oversight and his stated desire to "reform the intelligence system,'' his record of missing 76 percent of public Senate Intelligence Committee hearings - and every one in the year after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center - is surely fair game.

Kerry's campaign protests that Bush is distorting his record by not accounting for the senator's attendance at the committee's closed-door sessions. Well, if so, there's an easy way to clear up any misperception. Kerry can authorize the committee to release his attendance records at those private meetings, as Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), chair of the committee, suggested Sunday on "Meet the Press.''

Less attention has been focused on the ad's other charge - that Kerry proposed cutting intelligence spending by $6 billion after the first Trade Center attack, a position criticized at the time even by some leading Democrats. That position can harm Kerry's candidacy far more than any absenteeism charge.

The "committed" - i.e. deranged - faction of the liberal electorate will not be influenced by facts such as the above. Many others will, however, as long as we can get the message out.

Spread the word.

Posted by hemmingway at 12:44 | Permalink

Ok, that title is a little ahead of its time because technically the conspiracy does not yet exist, but it's on the way and I'm going to keep everyone apprised of its progress here at the Forum, until its official introduction at the main site. And by "everyone," of course, I mean our 2 other contributors, 1 occasional commenter, 6 regular visitors, and 784 irrepressible weekly hackers, whose wacky hijinks include trying to trick our server with browser entries like

/cgi-bin/contact.cgi

/cgi-bin/mailform.pl

/cgi-bin/formmail.pl

/backend.php

/MSOffice/cltreq.asp?UL=1&ACT=4&BUILD=2614&STRMVER=4&CAPREQ=0

/sumthin

/%3Ca%20href=

and of course that old favorite,

/default.ida?XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX%u9090%u6858%ucbd3%u7801

%u9090%u6858%ucbd3%u7801%u9090%u6858

%ucbd3%u7801%u9090%u9090%u8190%u00c3

%u03%u8b00%u531b%u53ff%u0078%u00%u00=a

(I've changed several crucial characters in the above, so if you're feeling devilish today don't even bother trying it out.)

Anyway, thanks to Angus for broaching the subject the other night. In reality, while one of the goals is to further the very good work of these guys and these guys and others like them who are tirelessly debunking the mainstream media, that's not exactly the point. I think the point will be more along the lines of disseminating information to encourage the public to view popular culture itself with more rigorous skepticism.

I have always liked the old Firesign Theatre line that "Everything you know is wrong" and I think it can be updated to say "Everything everyone else is saying can be wrong." This obviously includes the news media, but it includes the worlds of entertainment, education, advertising and even casual conversation among the citizenry. Well, maybe that last point goes too far...but maybe not.

But that's not the only rationale to start a conspiracy, or even the main one. At this point, the larger mission includes the following goals:

1). To further conservative principles by providing a more direct flow of honest information from the really-well-informed people to the regular folks.

I read Jonah Goldberg, you read Jonah Goldberg, but does your barber read Jonah Goldberg? Probably not. In a nutshell, this is the problem with modern American society.

2). To promote healthy skepticism about popular culture.

Everybody knows that television commercials are STOOPID and claims made therein need to be taken with a grain a salt. Not everyone realizes that the Associated Press headlines delivered by the radio announcer, the spiel of the network news anchor, the "expertise" of the professor on PBS and pretty much everything else that gets broadcast into our minds is similarly suspect.

3). To create a foundation for action beyond the 2004 elections.

The good guys at Free Republic and TownHall.com are on the corrrect path, and we need to change the perception that these are "Right Wing" organizations. They and others like them are simply the right organizations. Everyone should belong.

Another aspect of this principle is to note that, for liberals, it all begins and ends with political power. For us, it doesn't. If Kerry loses in November, progressive heads will explode from coast to coast. If Bush loses, our activity won't even skip a beat, because we do not frame the issue within the limitations of temporal political conditions. The National Review, Weekly Standard, Rush Limbaugh and so many other pipelines of truth saw dramatic growth during the Clinton administration. No matter what happens with the election, we're going to be just fine.

This fact, by the way, will drive liberals absolutely friggin' nuts.

4). And to fight liberalism with optimism.

To continue the preceding point: Ultimately, we have nothing to fear. They do. When your whole value system is predicated on the perfectability of the human condition, through comprehensive government oversight or more education or chanting in the proper key or getting all the enlightened folks into a single conference room, you're setting yourself up for big time disappointment.

Progressives will always be fretting. They will rationalize it as "concern" and a quest for "justice," but in reality it is because they do not grasp the fact that humanity on the whole is a sorry lot, which will only be improved through definitive recognition of this fact. People are not, basically, good. Once you accept this, you are on the right track for eventually attaining happiness. If you do not accept this, but instead attempt to create conditions whereby we humans can achieve perfection, through education or - more likely - sheeplike submission to the properly educated, you are involved in a losing proposition.

Conservative are right; liberals are wrong. Thanks to Angus for the "Pittering Pooh-Bahs of Progressivism" label: That is going to come in handy.

On what grounds do I presume to launch this conspiracy? Well, admittedly, they are flimsy. I have no connections and little money. But there is a need, and I think most of us, deep down inside, are conspirators. Besides, I was raised Catholic, have a number of Jewish friends, and even have had some acquaintances among the Masons, so I feel that gives me something of a running start.

It was disappointing for me, as I'm sure it was for many of you, to learn that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was a chimera, vaporware, nothing more than an inside joke among conservatives. Of course, anyone with a brain could have deduced that any conspiracy worth its salt would never have allowed the failure of the Bob Dole candidacy or the closeness of the 2000 presidential election, and certainly would have nipped that Jeffords affair in the bud.

So this effort will be modest, but hopefully, more effective: A conspiracy that can get things done. We're not just going to rally the faithful. We're going to rally the barbers.

Posted by John Climacus at 08:27 | Permalink

To follow up on Saturday's post, this wonderfully revealing little tidbit comes from yesterday's New York Times. The paper of record has sent one of its finest to harangue a social science professor who has the audacity to publish the results of a statistical model predicting a Bush victory in November. (Thanks to the research staff of the grim reaper of the progressives for the reference).

Q: As a professor of economics at Yale, you are known for creating an econometric equation that has predicted presidential elections with relative accuracy.

A. My latest prediction shows that Bush will receive 57.5 percent of the two-party votes.

Q: The polls are suggesting a much closer race.

A: Polls are notoriously flaky this far ahead of the election, and there is a limit to how much you want to trust polls.

Q: Why should we trust your equation, which seems unusually reductive?

A: It has done well historically. The average mistake of the equation is about 2.5 percentage points.

Q: In your book ''Predicting Presidential Elections and Other Things,'' you claim that economic growth and inflation are the only variables that matter in a presidential race. Are you saying that the war in Iraq will have no influence on the election?

A: Historically, issues like war haven't swamped the economics. If the equation is correctly specified, then the chances that Bush loses are very small.

Q: It saddens me that you teach this to students at Yale, who could be thinking about society in complex and meaningful ways.

A: I will be teaching econometrics next year to undergraduates. Econometrics is a huge deal, because it is applied to all kinds of things.

Q: I believe you entirely, although I'm a little surprised, because your predictions implicitly lend support to Bush.

A: I am not attempting to be an advocate for one party or another. I am attempting to be a social scientist trying to explain voting behavior.

Q: But in the process you are shaping opinion. Predictions can be self-confirming, because wishy-washy voters might go with the candidate who is perceived to be more successful.

I'm going to introduce a theme that I suspect will be developed further when the Conspiracy is finally unveiled: The Progressive Camp are by no means a bunch of dummies, nor are they evil people, but they are so blinded by emotion that they are no longer aware of what they are saying. They don't even know what they sound like.

The most blatantly, surreally dishonest type of argument is offered up without hesitation or, apparently, self-reflection. The New York Times publishes a piece in which the scientist is admonished because the results of his study - which are not disputed - could, if publicized, upset the political aims of the New York Times.

And conservatives are supposed to be the irrational dopes.

I think the bunny photo of Mssr. Kerry might have been one of the most telling images of this campaign. We need a similarly effective caricature for the Pittering Pooh-Bah's of Progressivism. They are not bad people, but they are silly people, and they need to be widely recognized as such.

Posted by hemmingway at 09:12 | Permalink

We're back, a little dusty and rusty from the hiatus but raring to go nonetheless. I've been cleaning up the Whaler under the bleak weather, the Dr. has been dutifully serving the public and John has been reflecting ruefully upon the terrible ironies of existence which leave some of us reflecting in sorrow and others planted six feet under.

These several days away from the computer have provided your humble narrator with an opportunity to take a few steps back from the arguments of the moment and give it a go from a fresh angle.

I recently spent an evening with John after his Seattle excursion for a mutually enlightening conversation. We discussed the war, the world, politics and the sorry state of humanity at so many levels. But the Climacus standpoint was not one of surrender; it was, I must say, encouraging. The boy is planning to start a "conspiracy", and I have to say I think he may be on to something.

Now he needs encouragement, because I perceive a tendency toward fatalism in his observations. But I'm going to do my part to push this project along. You can count me in as the #2 conspirator.

An initial assumption of this proposed conspiracy, if you will excuse a semi-truism, is that the "Main Stream Media" is full of crap.

Oh yes, I know many of you are saying this is no big revelation, but in reality the majority of the voting public probably are not aware of this fact. Step One of John's proposed strategy is simply to educate the voting public about the absurdity of the respect accorded to the mainline media outlets. "The New York Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, the AP and your local news outlets who pick stories up from these sources are frequently lamebrain news, so take them with a grain of salt."

Besides discrediting the mainstream media, this conspiracy has a few other modest goals, which will be outlined in the near future. The overriding goal is to get the appropriate information out to the common folks. I am proud to be a part of this movement. Long live the conspiracy: May all men and women of pure heart join with us.

Posted by hemmingway at 02:02 | Permalink

Just another brilliant day in Seattle...

Apparently the sun was unseasonably visible during my brief visit to the Pacific Northwest, which is certainly how I prefer it. The crisp air, cool breeze and quirky inhabitants were a refreshing change from 'Summer in the Swamp' back home in the D.C metropolitan area.

Attending a funeral is never an experience to be longed for, but this one was special in that the deceased, though he died unexpectedly, had accomplished a great deal and the ceremony conveyed his life magnificently. There was an uplifting element within the sadness. The typical funeral today may not carry as much ritual significance as in the past; this one showed that when prepared thoughfully, it can be a seriously meaningful experience.

This one began with "Time Warp" from The Rocky Horror Picture Show and concluded with a standing ovation, then a wonderful two-hour repast with barbecue, vintage refreshments native to Washington State, and a nice social get-together.

It was a stellar tribute to Dave's life, with a video retrospective and numerous displays of memorabilia - little vignettes providing a window on his interests and personal history. You left feeling you knew the man better and appreciated him more. The cemetery and funeral home he ran, Evergreen-Washelli, is itself the spectacular evidence of a life's work.

On that note, I'd like to add that if you have any plans of cashing it in any time soon, or at least planning a final disposition, you could do a lot worse than to book a reservation at Evergreen-Washelli Cemetery and Funeral Home in Seattle. Dave was one of the leading lights in the cemetery/funeral business, and the property reflects his ingenuity and avante-gar