I've taken more than an hour to try to talk myself out of concluding that John Kerry won tonight's debate. I haven't succeeded. Senator Kerry, I think, edged President Bush on substance and, surprisingly, looked better throughout. Bush didn't do badly. He committed no gaffes and spoke compellingly at times. He also landed some great shots, especially when he wondered how Kerry was going to get allies to join "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." But Kerry was usually the aggressor without being too offensive, and he had more to say. Bush tended to repeat himself but, oddly, didn't repeat some of his best material, such as Kerry's vote against the $87 million.

I understand that the Bush campaign wanted to debate foreign policy first on the theory that this was the candidate's strength, and that people would watch only this debate. I don't think it worked out that way. Kerry gained ground in his weakest area and I think people will want to see at least one more debate. However, the sequencing may still help Bush. Tonight Kerry may have taken a real step towards convincing people that he can lead the war on terror and, possibly, even the war in Iraq. However, the Bush campaign has plenty of time to remind voters of Kerry's record and especially of his flip-flops. Once the glow of this debate fades, I think people will return to their core conviction that Bush is the stronger leader and, as I will discuss shortly, there was much just below the surface of what Kerry said that supports that conviction. However, Bush must hold his own in the next two debates, and the domestic policy debate, in particular, could be a challenge for him.

The key for Kerry tonight was to hide his long history of opposition to a strong, proactive defense. I think he did a pretty good job of this. However, there were tell-tale signs. His basic theme was that we should not have attacked Iraq without more allies. He couched this in terms of working longer and waiting longer to enlist allies. At best, however, he was walking a fine line, and one that didn't make him look like a decisive leader. Worse, Kerry referred a few times to the need to enlist more Arab help and to convince Arabs that we don't have designs on Iraq. I question how this will "play in Peoria."

Usually, candidates tend to reveal their true colors towards the end of a long debate. Tonight, Kerry did so at least three times. First, when asked to identify the most serious threat we face, he said it was nuclear proliferation, not terrorism. And he mentioned that he wrote a book about the subject, pre-9/11. This illustrates how, deep down, Kerry filters the war against terrorism through his lifelong "no nukes" leftist prism. Unfortunately, Bush didn't do much better in his response to the same question, broadening Kerry's answer to include all WMD in the hands of terrorists but not mentioning Islamofascism or Jihad. Kerry, who probably sensed his error, quickly endorsed Bush's view, with an assist from Jim Lehrer (who tossed Kerry more softballs than a batter practice pitcher at a church picnic). But soon thereafter, Kerry committed a more acute version of the same error when he argued that we were sending "mixed messages" by developing new nuclear weapons of our own, while talking about how to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. This was leftist "moral equivalence" at its worse, but again the president didn't call him on it. Finally, let's not forget Kerry's insistence on passing the global test, and his claim that in order to regain the world's respect we have "a lot of earning back to do." If the debate had lasted another half hour, Kerry might have been speaking French. There, I've almost talked myself into thinking that Kerry didn't win.

So what bounce, if any, does Kerry get? I have to think he'll get some. Whether he gets a lot may depend on how much credibility he had left going into the debate. Kerry's basic pitch was that he'll do better on every front -- kill more bad guys, win us more friends, win in Iraq through more effective training, etc. He sounded good saying this, but will swing voters believe these promises? To persuade them that they should, he referred several times to his service in Vietnam. But how much credibility does this give him, in light of the Swiftvet campaign? He kept saying he had only one position on Iraq, and Bush wasn't terribly effective in showing otherwise. But has the prior work of the Bush campaign already established this conclusively?

We'll have a good idea what the answers are after a few nerve-wracking days. My sense is that we have a horse race again.

I'm at a blogger party hosted by David Strom of the Taxpayers' League. It's a fairly rowdy event, with not only the entire Northern Alliance (less the Trunk), but a number of other bloggers as well. We have a nice wireless connection and plenty of outlets--also plenty of beer--so we're ready to go.

The GOP is putting out an instantaneous, real-time critique of factual assertions by John Kerry. If you look at the very bottom of our page, right down by the hit counters, you'll see it. I'll check it out from time to time, too.

I got a bit of a late start getting logged in, as I did Hugh Hewitt's show a few minutes ago, talking about the CBS News draft story.

7:53 -- By the way, does anyone understand what Kerry was thinking when he got a manicure this afternoon? After the orange spray-on tan fiasco, after the "Windsurfing" commercial, how exactly did he come to the decision that what he needed to do on the afternoon of the debate was to get a manicure? I don't know, maybe he gets a manicure every afternoon. But Kerry gives tin ears a bad name.

7:55 -- Contrary to popular perception, bloggers are a pretty wild group. I can foresee that the biggest challenge tonight will be to hear what the candidates are saying over the uproar of the blogger crowd.

7:57 -- The lights stayed on the podiums. The idea here is that Democrats tend not to be rule-followers, and Kerry, like Al Gore, will run overtime with his speeches. If he does, I take it the red light will go on so the viewers can see it.

8:00 -- OK, it's starting. Jim Lehrer is on. Did I mention that I don't trust Lehrer as far as I can throw him?

8:02 -- Bush and Kerry take the stage. The audience is going to be silent for 90 minutes? I doubt it.

8:05 -- Kerry starts very strong with a good answer to the first question. He says he can prevent another 9/11 better than Bush. Excellent start in response to a softball question. Kerry looks a little orange, but not too bad.

8:09 -- Bush's rebuttal. Not bad. If I'm scoring this like a boxing match, it's 10-9 Kerry.

8:12 -- Question to Bush -- he's giving the answer he wants to give, paying scant attention to the question--is there a greater risk of terrorist attack if Kerry is elected? It's a good answer. As the evening goes on, we'll presumably get somewhat away from the prepared speeches. Good discussion of Iraq.

8:13 -- Kerry is now attacking the rationale for the Iraq war -- a colossal error of judgment. He's citing endorsements from generals; not a bad idea. Bin Laden's escape -- Bush "outsourced that job too." Kerry, 10-9.

8:14 -- Kerry itemizes Bush's misjudgments. We had Saddam "trapped," we could have continued those inspections. "As somebody who's been in combat"-- he hasn't given up on Vietnam yet. We "pushed our allies aside." I don't think the allies he's talking about took much pushing.

8:15 -- Bush: Kerry said Saddam was a great threat. Kerry nods and gets out his pen. They're showing a split screen on Fox, and Kerry is nodding along with Bush, which looks pretty stupid. Bush talks about the UN--this is good stuff. Bush, 10-9.

8:17 -- We'll succeed because the Iraqis want to be free--now Bush is talking about Prime Minister Allawi. Treacherous ground for Kerry, but Bush doesn't drive the point home. Kerry -- the Iraq war was a diversion. Most people, however, don't believe this. Kerry says nothing that will persuade people. "Body armor for birthday presents"? Get the Yale Diva on the line.

It's getting worse by the day. Casualties rising every month. Not enough troops there, WMDs crossing the border every day.

Bush -- Kerry voted to authorize the use of force. If you say "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place," how can you lead? What message to terrorists, allies, etc?

This round a tie -- 10-10.

8:21 -- Homeland security; Kerry leads off and does well. Tax cut vs. homeland security. Kerry hits it, if not out of the park, certainly for extra bases.

8:23 -- Bush's response: not bad, but this is a weakness and everyone knows it, I think. Now he's sounding the right theme -- the only defense in this war is offense. Still, Kerry wins this round, 10-9.

Check out the real-time rebuttal at the bottom of the page.

8:26 -- When do the troops come home? When the Iraqis have taken over and the troops say it's OK. Artificial deadlines a bad idea. Bush needs to hit the flip-flop message harder. He did it once, but hasn't come back to it.

Kerry: "Help is on the way." An unwelcome reminder of the Democratic convention. Good use of the elder Pres. Bush's rationale for not going into Baghdad after the first Gulf War. He's coming back to Vietnam and holding summits, bringing credibility with allies.

This round a draw, 10-10. No, Bush's 30-second rebuttal hits home. Now we get the "voted before it before he voted against it." Kerry's rejoinder is pretty lame. Kerry comes back to Vietnam. Bush, 10-9.

8:31 -- Kerry is tied up in knots over whether Iraq is like Vietnam, asking someone to be the last man to die for a mistake. Now he's recovering, doing quite well. Kerry is more coherent tonight than he often is on the stump. Kerry's calls for more "summits" won't get him a lot of votes, however.

Halliburton! Everyone take a shot.

8:35 -- Now Bush hits home. That's completely absurd. Kerry is denigrating our allies. Please join us for the wrong war at the wrong war at the wrong time. Bush is doing very well here.

Bush strikes again after Kerry's rebuttal -- attacks the "coerced and the bribed."

Bush, 10-9.

8:37 -- Bush: we can be optimistic and realistic at the same time, but we can't succeed if we send mixed signals. Again, back to our allies and how much they're doing. Some people don't know this. Progress in Iraq, but it's hard work. Kerry's rebuttal: even knowing there were no WMDs, no al Qaeda connection, Bush would do things the same way. I would not. Good policy is based on truth. Kerry expresses respect for the British, but the allies aren't sending enough troops--not a "genuine coalition."

Bush doesn't look very good when Kerry is talking, kind of like Al Gore.

Another tied round, 10-10.

8:41 -- Kerry tries to explain why Bush is a liar. He misled the American people. Kerry will try to follow in Ronald Reagan's footsteps.

Bush: Iraq wasn't a mistake. Kerry said Iraq was a grave threat, not misleading. Bush quotes Kerry supporting the war, Kerry wasn't misleading. But what is misleading is to think you can lead by changing your positions. Kerry saw the same intelligence, and Kerry supported authorization of force.

Kerry: I've had one consistent position--Saddam Hussein was a threat, but there was a right way and a wrong way to deal with him. Bush isn't as effective in response as he could have been.

Tie, 10-10.

8:46 -- Have the casualties in Iraq been "worth it"? Bush really hits his stride for the first time, getting a little emotional. And finishing with an endorsement of liberty. Bush hits a home run. A free Afghanistan and Iraq will help change the world.

Kerry goes back to Vietnam. He's dangerously close to suggesting that Iraq is Vietnam. Kerry makes an incoherent comment about how you can't have an election in Iraq because there's only 25% of the people. Huh?

Bush's 30-second rebuttal--how can the troops follow a guy who says it's the wrong war? Can't lead if you keep changing your mind.

Kerry invokes Colin Powell, if you break it you fix it. There's no inconsistency; I'm going to get it right. He mentions Israel.

Bush had the round won, but it slipped away in the rebuttal. Tie, 10-10.

8:50 -- Kerry criticizes backing off in Falluja! I agree with that, but can you imagine what Kerry would have said if we'd gone in decisively and things had gone imperfectly?

Bush comes back to Kerry's criticism of Allawi. "Like a puppet," no way to treat someone who is brave, trying to lead his country forward. Kerry's "right way" mantra is getting old.

Bush, 10-9.

8:57 -- Will Bush use force again? Good answer, good reference to Libya. By acting firmly and decisively, less likely to have to use force.

Kerry: Saddam didn't attack us, al Qaeda did. We let Osama get away at Tora Bora. Does this kind of second-guessing ("outsourcing," give me a break) convince anyone? Hard to say. Now he's arguing against the war, containment was fine, inspections were fine--so why did he vote for the war?

Bush: Another round of resolutions wouldn't have caused Saddam to disarm--"ludicrous."

Bush, 10-9.

9:00 -- Visually, Kerry is dominating. I'm surprised at Bush's expression when Kerry is talking. He seems irritated, flustered, not in command.

Kerry continue to attack the Iraq war effectively. Was the Bush campaign mistaken in thinking that they wanted the first debate to be on foreign policy?

Kerry talks too much about other countries. That's a fundamental problem. Why bring up the global warming treaty? Bush jumps on "passing the global test." This is the first real mistake so far. You act to make the American people safer. The International Criminal Court--trying to be popular makes no sense if it's not in our interest.

Bush, 10-9.

9:05 -- The inevitable Iran and North Korea discussion. Few people can follow the details, but Kerry clearly makes a more impressive presentation.

Kerry wants it both ways--multilateral talks but bilateral talks too. Bush: if we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. Bush acts like he knows what he's talking about, makes a comeback.

Bush pulls it out at the end, tie: 10-10.

9:19 -- Darfur. Sadly, I supppose, there are no votes in play here. Again, Kerry is clearly more commanding. "Back door draft"?? He argues for expanding the Army. Double special forces, too. His base will love that.

Bush: We're doing a lot to help Darfur. But neither candidate will send troops.

Another tie: 10-10.

9:17 -- Kerry says nuclear proliferation is the biggest security threat. Kerry wrote a book about it! Kerry's hectoring tone is getting a little annoying. He's going to shut down the nuclear bunker-busting program so the world will like us.

Bush: Challenges Kerry on the facts, funding for nuclear proliferation has increased. Bush mentions breaking up the Khan network, does a decent but not great job of defending his achievements on proliferation. Missile defense -- always a good issue for Republicans.

Bush is getting tired, Kerry still seems to be going strong.

9:23 -- Bush is talking about Russia; he doesn't pontificate the way Kerry does, which is good. A person could get tired of Kerry pretty quickly. Maybe they need to make the next debate longer.

Tie: 10-10.

Bush scores, Kerry said Saddam was a threat; Bush isn't calling him a liar. Kerry's "last resort" theory doesn't cut much ice.

The ref changes his scoring: 10-9 Bush.

9:30 -- Closing statements. Kerry defended this country as a young man...but we're strongest when we build strong alliances. I have a plan for Iraq. Not talking about leaving, talking about winning. The "I have a plan" theme doesn't strike me as strong. An odd transition to a rather lame ending. Kerry lost his way for a moment there.

Bush: No draft. Fight terrorists around the world, don't have to do it here. Don't turn our security over to others; we believe in the "transformational power of liberty." Free Afghanistan and Iraq, an example for the Middle East. We've climbed the mountain, the valley below is the valley of peace. He pulled it off pretty well.

He asks for our votes. Good idea.

SCORING THE FIGHT: I have Bush by 107-103, with no knockdowns. But, candidly, I don't think it went that well for the President. I think Kerry helped himself tonight. He came across as a credible candidate, and he was usually on the offensive. Bush's demeanor while Kerry was talking wasn't good; anything but commanding. Kerry's was better, in an odd reversal of what happened four years ago. I think Kerry made headway, and there is plenty of material there for the mainstream media to proclaim the beginning of Kerry's comeback. An unknown is how Kerry's pompous style will strike people who haven't had to listen to him for more than a few seconds at a time, until now.

On the whole, though, I think Kerry helped himself tonight.

A FOLLOW-UP THOUGHT: As noted above, there were no knockdowns tonight. But Bush clearly didn't make any mistakes. (A lot of people misunderstand his speaking style. He is exceptionally careful in what he says, like a cautious chess player. Except that substantively, he is consistently audacious.) If there was a land mine planted that might come back to haunt either candidate, it was Kerry's reference to "passing the global test." We may hear more about that in the days to come.

A PERSONAL NOTE: We had 70,000 hits during the debate. Thanks to our readers!

Reader Steve Beck writes: "I haven't read you guys for a little while. Any comment from Big Trunk re [Brian Wilson's] Smile [recording, released Tuesday]?"

Funny you should ask, Steve. While Rocket Man is live blogging the debate tonight, I'll be attending the premiere live performance of the reconstructed version of the legendary lost album in downtown Minneapolis tonight. I'll be back later with something on the show.

Political historian and analyst extraordinaire Michael Barone has kindly written to add a footnote to our post on Kerry's fictional explanation for his $87 billion mistake:

One more thing should be noted about John Kerry's
statement on Good Morning America that he made his inarticulate (actually quite articulate) "I did actually vote for . . . " statement late at night in the primary season. You correctly pointed out that he spoke at a noontime appearance and that the statement was made a little after 1pm. But it wasn't during the heat of the primaries. Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination March 2; Bush called and congratulated him on, I believe, the next day. Kerry made the statement in question on March 16. His St. Patrick's Eve gift to the Bush campaign.

The esteemed editors of the New Criterion magazine have sent us the featured article by John O'Sullivan in the forthcoming October issue: "Gulliver's Travails."

You may have seen reports that some alleged "expert" has given the opinion that the forged CBS documents on President Bush's National Guard service are authentic. We haven't followed this closely, since this story is as dead as a door nail, and an "expert" can be found to say absolutely anything. When Bill Burkett says the documents were handed to him by some guy he never saw before at a livestock show, and unfortunately he burned the originals, I don't think we need to spend a lot more time on the story. It's time to move on, as a certain 527 used to say.

But our friends at Wizbang have done a great job of nipping this latest fraud in the bud. The "expert" in question is one Professor David Hailey, a Kerry contributor--what a surprise. The Wizbang guys took the evidence that Hailey had committed forgery off Hailey's web server:

Here is a hint for the good Professor-- If you are going to forge documents DON'T LEAVE THE EVIDENCE on your webserver.

And if you don't think that TH nailed him, feel free to download the PHOTOSHOP DOCUMENT he was working on when he created the forgery.

Not only did he forge the document but he left the work in progress in an open web folder.

And Professor, if you are reading this- and I know someone will mail it to you, I have downloaded your entire website as evidence and I saved screen caps of it, so don't bother delete it. I also had an interesting phone call with the head of your department. You might give him a call.

Did you think we were stupid?

Latest word from Wizbang is that the Boston GLobe, which had been hot to run with the story, is backing off.

I can't judge what the Wizbang guys are saying from a technical standpoint, but they supply links if you want to see the materials they pulled off Prof. Hailey's server.

In this Washington Post op-ed, Peter Beinart of The New Republic argues that President Bush is really the candidate of "retreat and defeat" with respect to Iraq. Beinart reasons that Bush is committed to honoring the wishes of the leaders elected by Iraqis and that, since Iraqis will certainly elect a candidates who wants the U.S. out, we will be more or less ordered to leave.

Beinart's piece starts out as if he is describing a possible scenario ("quick elections could produce an abrupt change of American course"). By the end, though, Beinart seems certain that Bush will retreat ("it is Bush, not Kerry, who is laying the groundwork for America's withdrawal from Iraq" and "so much for Bush's pledge to Allewi"). Somewhere along the way, Beinart managed to convince himself that Bush is deceiving the American people and his Iraqi ally. I doubt it was a hard sell.

The rest of us should be more skeptical. First, it was Colin Powell, not George Bush, who said "we would leave" if a sovereign Iraqi government requested it. Beinart also quotes Donald Rumsfeld, but Rumsfeld said only that "any implication that [Iraq] has to be peaceful and perfect before we can reduce coalition and U.S. forces I think would obviously be unwise." That's hardly a promise to abandon Iraq any time soon. Second, Beinart is assuming that an elected interim Iraqi government will "order" the U.S. out before we have put down the insurgency. That's not a very good career move. The winning candidates may campaign on a "U.S. out" platform, but we haven't yet transformed Iraq to the point that its politicians can be expected to keep campaign promises that aren't in their interests.

GDP grew at a 3.3% rate in the second quarter, revised upward from the 2.8% initially reported, Reuters reports:

"It looks like the economy wasn't all that soft in the second quarter," said economist Gary Thayer of A.G. Edwards and Sons Inc. in St. Louis, Missouri. "Generally, it shows the economy healthy and seeing growth in most categories."

UPDATE: Reader Steve Reavis pointed us to this Associated Press story on the same second quarter data, titled "Economy Grows at Weakest Rate in Over Year."

Still, if you read to the end of the AP story, you find this:

The 3.3 percent overall growth rate in the second quarter followed four quarters of extraordinary growth as the economy expanded at rates of 4.1 percent in the spring of 2003 and then 7.4 percent in the summer, the largest surge in 20 years. The rate was 4.2 percent in the fourth quarter last year and 4.5 percent in the first three months of this year.

Which makes this statement by John Kerry's spokeswoman seem rather silly:

"Though George Bush keeps telling American families that things are getting better, the reality is a much different story," Kerry spokeswoman Allison Dobson said.

If you're a horse racing fan of a certain age, you might enjoy this bit of election handicapping by my conservative cousin from New York:

"Your Power Line post suggests that the MSM will seek to hype a comeback kid scenario for Kerry. Remember how, after Iowa, MSM compared Kerry to Seabiscuit, the legendary underdog and likened Bush to War Admiral, the horse with all the advantages. Actually, in equestrian terms Kerry is more like Silky Sullivan the famous race horse of the late fifties. Early in his career Silky, who like Kerry invoked an Irish persona to many of his fans, came from behind to win races out West but proved disappointing on the grand stage at the 1958 Kentucky Derby. Bush is more like Seattle Slew an unheralded late bloomer who blew away highly touted competition in race after race to become a Triple Crown winner."

and perhaps some wisdom in this George Will piece about tonight's debate. Here's my favorite bit: "By late this evening we may know whether, beyond wishful thinking, Kerry's real answer to the Iraq conundrum amounts to telling Americans to face defeat gracefully. In which case, he will have to do just that."

Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post offers Kerry this advice for tonight's debate -- cheat.

UPDATE: Apparently, the Kerry campaign has decided to take this advice. AP reports that the campaign demanded that lights signaling when a debater's time has expired (lights agreed to by Kerry's representative) be removed from the lecterns. When the debate commission refused, Kerry's folks threatened to remove the lights with a screwdriver.

Hoping to bridge the "enthusiasm gap" referred to below by Rocket Man, and seeking to prevent President Bush from "stealing the debate," DNC head Terry McAuliffe has sent the following message to his troops:

Tonight, don't let George Bush's henchmen steal another victory. We need your online help immediately after the debate, so save this email, print it out, and have it ready with you as you watch the first Presidential debate tonight.

We all know what happened in 2000. Al Gore won the first debate on the issues, but Republicans stole the post-debate spin. We are not going to let that happen again, and you will play a big role.

Immediately after the debate, we need you to do three things: vote in online polls, write a letter to the editor, and call in to talk radio programs. Your 10 minutes of activism following the debate can make the difference.

Vote

National and local news organizations will be conducting online polls during and after the debate asking for readers' opinions. Look for online polls at these national news websites, and make sure to vote in every one of them:

ABC News: http://www.abcnews.com/
CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/
Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.com/
USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/

And be sure to check the websites of your local newspapers and TV stations for online polls. It is crucial that you do this in the minutes immediately following the debate.

Write

Immediately after the debate, go online and write a letter to the editor of your local paper. If you feel John Kerry commanded the debate and had a clear plan for fixing the mess in Iraq, put it in your letter. If you feel George Bush dodged tough questions on Iraq and didn't level with voters, put it in your letter.

With just a few clicks, you can write your letter at our online media
center:

http://www.democrats.org/media/

Call

Do you listen to national or local call-in shows on the radio? How about on TV? Call them and let them know what you thought of John Kerry's plan to keep America secure and George Bush's continuing refusal to admit the truth about his record.

Here are some national shows to get you started. (All times are Eastern.)

Air America (all day): 646-274-2346
Alan Colmes (10 a.m. to 1 p.m.): 212-301-5900
Ed Shultz (3 p.m. to 6 p.m.): 701-232-1525
Bev Smith (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.): 412-325-4197
Doug Stephen (5 a.m. 10 a.m.): 1-800-510-8255
Find shows in your area on our media website:

http://www.democrats.org/media/find.html

Your actions immediately after the debate tonight can help John Kerry win on November 2. Make your voice heard!

Don't forget to visit our 2004 Debate Center before, during, and after the debate for important information, including questions Bush must answer, a Bush/Kerry contrast on keeping America safe, and Bush Debate Bingo, a game you can play with friends during the debate.

http://www.democrats.org/debates/

And after the debate, check your email for a very special message.

Thank you,

Terry McAuliffe
Chairman

PS: Make sure to forward this email to at least 10 other people who will be watching the debate. Also, give printed out copies to your friends, family members, coworkers and neighbors and get them involved.

The Washington Post notes that 65% of President Bush's supporters say they are "very enthusiastic" about their candidate, while only 42% of John Kerry's supporters describe themselves as "very enthusiastic":

That's a 23-point difference in relative excitement. Although the polling record is incomplete for earlier elections, the available data suggest that the enthusiasm gap in the 2000 presidential campaign was negligible, at best.

In an election in which turnout is key, keeping the faithful energized is one of the most critical challenges facing Kerry as he approaches the first presidential debate tonight.

Michelle Malkin has a good roundup on attempted voter fraud in Tennessee, Ohio, Michigan, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

A few days ago, we noted attempted voter fraud in Wisconsin by a liberal group called the "New Voter Project." Michelle reports that a criminal investigation of the liberal group is about to be undertaken:

A group that says it has registered 30,000 voters in southeastern Wisconsin could face a criminal investigation because of voter registration applications that may have been filed fraudulently.

Acting Racine City Clerk Carolyn Moskonas said Tuesday she will ask the district attorney's office to investigate at least six voter registration applications filed by Project Vote.

That non-profit organization, which also has filed scores of Racine applications that contain bogus addresses, has fired its Racine-area coordinator because of problems with the filings.

The Presidential election had better not be close. Because if it is close, the Democrats will steal it.

Nine points, to be exact, among likely voters. Do you suppose some Floridians might be annoyed at being treated as a third-world country by Jimmy Carter?

The trend of Gallup reporting results favorable to President Bush continues. I'm not a polling expert, but my understanding is that Gallup does not correct for a possible "over-sample" of either party. So if a lot of people are describing themselves as Republicans, Gallup assumes that's a trend rather than a sampling error.

UPDATE: The Rasmussen tracking survey, which does correct for "over-sampling," and has generally shown the race tighter than most other polls in both directions, now has Bush with a four-point lead nationally.

to tie John Kerry in knots over Iraq if even Diane Sawyer can do it? Consider this exchange, as reproduced by PoliPundit:

DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

DS: So it was not worth it.

JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.

DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?

JK: No.

DS: But right now it wasn’t [ … ? … ]–

JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

DS: But no way to get rid of him.

JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.

DS: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .

JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don’t twist here.

There's little need to analyze this exchange-- the real story is Kerry's inability, after all this time, to sound coherent on Iraq, and his testiness when a relatively friendly journalist asks for straight answers. But there is another story. Kerry is now claiming that there "absolutely" were ways to "get rid" of Saddam without the U.S. going to war with him. And it is through this claim, apparently, that Kerry intends to argue that it was not worth it to go war, while avoiding a concession that he prefers having Saddam in power to the present situation.

Sawyer did not ask Kerry how we could have toppled Saddam without taking him on militarily (why should she have; she was already trouncing him?). If she had asked, Kerry might have responded that eventually the U.S. could have taken him on with a broader coalition, as if (a) France would ever have joined us and (b) having a few Frenchmen on the ground would make the present situation materially different. In any event should Kerry's statement to Sawyer become his latest position on Iraq, he might as well throw in the towel. In the current environment, I can't conceive of Americans electing a president that prone to ducking hard choices through wishful, if not delusional, thinking.

From this morning's Corrections section of the New York Times:

An article on Thursday about political advertising in the presidential campaign, including a commercial that accused John Kerry of having "secretly met with the enemy'' in Paris in the 1970's, misidentified the parties with whom Mr. Kerry said he had met at the Vietnam peace talks. (The error was repeated in articles on Friday and Saturday.) The parties were the two Communist delegations - North Vietnam and the Vietcong's Provisional Revolutionary Government - with whom he discussed the status of war prisoners. He did not say he had met with "both sides." (Go to Sept. 23 Article), (Go to Sept. 24 Article), (Go to Sept. 25 Article)

Herein lies a tale. In 1970, John Kerry traveled to Paris and met with both of the two Communist delegations to the peace talks that were then going on in that city: the North Vietnamese delegation and the Viet Cong delegation. Many observers believed at the time that Kerry's back-door "diplomacy" on behalf of the far-left Vietnam Veterans Against the War helped undermine Henry Kissinger's bargaining position in his negotiations with the Communists.

Fast forward to 2004. John Kerry is now running for President as a war hero. The Swift Boat Vets ran a television ad that attacked Kerry's meetings with the Communists. The New York Times immediately sprang to Kerry's defense, purporting to supply context for the Vets' "unsubstantiated" allegations.

On September 23, the Times wrote:

In another broadside against Mr. Kerry, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose past accusations have frequently been unsubstantiated, says in a new commercial that Mr. Kerry went to Paris in the 1970's and "secretly met with the enemy.'' (Mr. Kerry testified shortly thereafter that he had met with both sides at the Vietnam peace talks to discuss the status of prisoners of war.)

The Times repeated this claim the very next day, September 24:

Mr. Kerry's nemesis, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is spending $1.3 million in five swing states with a spot accusing him of meeting with the enemy in Paris - a reference to his trip to the Paris peace talks, where he met with both sides.

And again, the following day:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which drew national attention with advertisements making unsubstantiated attacks against Mr. Kerry's military service, has less money and uses several strategies to stretch its dollars, said one of its leaders, John O'Neill.

Many of the group's advertisements have drawn attacks from the Kerry campaign and others, attracting attention to the commercials, Mr. O'Neill said. Its latest advertisement claims Mr. Kerry traveled to Paris in the 1970's and "secretly met with enemy leaders." Mr. Kerry has said he visited the Vietnam peace talks and discussed the status of prisoners of war with both sides.

Notice that when the Times mentions the Swift Boat Vets, it usually makes a point of saying that their claims are "unsubstantiated." In the three instances cited above, the Times used the claim that Kerry had met with "both sides" in Paris to imply that the Vets' ad was false or unfair.

Only it wasn't. What the Vets said was true. Kerry didn't meet with "both sides," as the Times has now admitted; he met with both of the two Communist delegations. The Times misinformed its readers in order to defuse the impact of the Vets' ad and to promote Kerry's candidacy.

Why, exactly, does the Times (along with virtually every other mainstream media source) persist in repeating the mantra that the Vets' ads are "unsubstantiated"? What is "unsubstantiated" about footage of Kerry testifying before a Senate committee? What is "unsubstantiated" about the meetings with Communists in Paris, about which Kerry boasted in 1971? What is "unsubstantiated" about the ad in which Stephen Gardner says that Kerry's boat was never in Cambodia?

Given today's correction, do you suppose the Times will start referring to Kerry's responses to the Swift Boat Vets' ads as "unsubstantiated"?

Political and media consultant Michael Murphy thinks that the MSM is about to "write a big October comeback story for John Kerry." Murphy predicts that President Bush will do well in Thursday's debate, but that the "expectations game and the comback narrative will combine, through the media's funhouse mirror, to put Kerry back in the race, even though it may ultimately be simply an optical illusion."

I don't necessarily discount this scenario. However, Kerry will be in a tough position on Thursday night. As far as I can tell, he has two options on Iraq -- some sort of "yes but" approach or a strident, pessimistic approach. The former approach will reinforce his image as indecisive and provide voters with a less than compelling reason to change leaders. The second approach will cast Kerry as a negative, unlikeable whiner. An attempt to combine the approaches -- which is what the always nuanced Kerry will want to do -- is probably the worst thing he could do.

Debate audiences tend to perceive what they want to perceive and believe what they want to believe. Right now, there are two plausible narratives with respect to Iraq. One is that we're facing tough times, but making progress and have a good chance of succeeding. The other is that we're in a quaqmire, with little hope of success, and that we're less safe as a result. Most voters want to believe the first narrative and, other things being even close to equal, will think that the candidate who offers that narrative has won the debate. A candidate who offers the equivalent of the soldier sinking in quicksand image used in that pro-Kerry ad will likely find himself sinking in quicksand.

In this scenario, the media nonetheless can write a "big Kerry comeback" story, but it's doubtful that such a story would put Kerry back in the race.

Washington's Senator Patty Murray is notoriously one of the dimmest bulbs in that body, but she outdid herself when she tried to explain that Osama bin Laden's popularity in the Arab world was the natural result of his financing the construction of hospitals and day care centers, something America has failed to do. This year, Congressman George Nethercutt is challenging Murray. He saved the heavy artillery until now: this morning he released a new ad, which consists almost entirely of video footage of Murray praising bin Laden.

If this isn't enough to turn the election in Nethercutt's direction, the people of Washington must be unconscious. See the ad, titled "Different," here.

Ratherbiased.com (whose site is down now) and Little Green Footballs detail how CBS News last night used discredited documents to attack President Bush:

In a story that was a textbook example of slipshod reporting, CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger used debunked internet hoax emails and an unlabeled interest group member to scare viewers into believing that the U.S. government is poised to resume the draft. At the center of Schlesinger’s piece was a woman named Beverly Cocco, a Philadelphia woman who is 'sick to my stomach' that her two sons might be drafted. In his report, Schlesinger claimed that Cocco was a Republican and portrayed her as an apolitical (even Republican) mom worried about the future. Schlesinger did not disclose that Cocco is a chapter president of an advocacy group called People Against the Draft (PAD) which, in addition to opposing any federal conscription, seeks to establish a 'peaceful, rational foreign policy' by bringing all U.S. troops out of Iraq. Like Schlesinger’s Cocco, the group portrays itself as 'nonpartisan' although its leadership seems to be entirely bereft of any Republicans. The group’s domain is registered to a man named Jacob Levich, a left-wing activist who in a 2001 essay compared the Bush Administration to the totalitarian government portrayed in George Orwell’s 1984. CBS News also reported that there are two bills in Congress to reinstate the draft, but failed to mention that they were both introduced by Democrats.

HINDROCKET adds: The Selective Service System has added this statement to its website:

Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.

UPDATE: Here is a "mirror" of the original piece by Ratherbiased.

Patrick Ruffini, the Bush campaign's webmaster, passes this item along:

Appearing on ABC's Good Morning America today, John Kerry offered yet another explanation for his trademark line "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it": it was late at night, and he was tired:

"It was a very inarticulate way of saying something and I had one of those moments late in the evening when I was tired in the primaries and didn't say something clearly. But it reflects the truth of the position, which is, I thought, to have the wealthiest people in America share the burden of paying for that war. It was a protest. Sometimes you have to stand up and be counted."

Just one problem: Kerry made the statement at noon. Maybe his watch was set on Paris time.

Yesterday we sent out the call to Michelle Malkin to comment on the Washington Times story regarding the possible union of Muslim terrorists and Central American gangsters. Michelle has answered the call with "The head-choppers meet the hand-choppers."

I'll be live-blogging the Presidential debate tomorrow night; Deacon and the Trunk may be as well. Some time during the evening, President Bush will be asked about his plan, or maybe his exit strategy, in regard to Iraq. Bush doesn't talk like Winston Churchill, of course, but in my view, he needs to echo Churchill's words in the first speech he gave to the House of Commons after assuming office as Prime Minister in 1940:

You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.

A clear majority of Americans understands that we are in a war for our survival, and will follow a leader whose commitment to victory in that war is unwavering and tireless. Bush's task tomorrow is to make clear that he is that leader, and John Kerry is not.

We haven't returned to the subject of John Kerry's September 24 speech at Temple University. The speech is Kerry's most sustained effort to articulate his view of the broader war in which we are engaged. He formulates his view of the broader war as follows:

I begin with this belief: The war on terror is as monumental a struggle as the Cold War. Its outcome will determine whether we and our children live in freedom or in fear. It is not, as some people think, a clash of civilizations. Radical Islamic fundamentalism is not the true face of Islam. This is a clash between civilization and the enemies of civilization; between humanity’s best hopes and most primitive fears. The danger we face today will become even greater if the terrorists acquire what we know they are seeking – weapons of mass destruction, which they would use to commit mass murder. We are confronting an enemy and an ideology that must be destroyed. We are in a war that must be won.

After taking liberties with the statements of President Bush and other officials regarding the progress of the war, Kerry states:

I will wage this war relentlessly with a single-minded determination: to capture or kill the terrorists, crush their movement and free the world from fear. To destroy our enemy, we have to know our enemy. We have to understand that we are facing a radical fundamentalist movement with global reach and a very specific plan. They are not just out to kill us for the sake of killing us. They want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region’s governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area from Europe to Africa, from the Middle East to Central Asia.

Kerry of course vows to wage a stronger, smarter version of the war; he somehow omits his previous vow to wage it more sensitively as well. In its particulars -- by emphasizing the need for border control and a larger Army, by asserting that he, unlike President Bush, "would hold the Saudis accountable" -- Kerry attempts to position himself to President Bush's right. Certain aspects of Kerry's "plan," such as legal action to block terrorist financing, have been made possible by the USA PATRIOT Act and have been pursued aggressively by the Bush administration. Other aspects result in calls for pure pork sausage that put one in mind of Jimmy Dean.

In his critique of the war in Iraq, however, Kerry sounds like Howard Dean (remember, children, "W" stands for wrong):

Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan…the President rushed to a new war in Iraq. That was the wrong choice.

Instead of listening to the uniformed military, his own State Department, Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress, and outside experts about how to win the peace in Iraq… the President hitched his wagon to the ideologues who told him our troops would be welcomed as liberators. That was the wrong choice.

Kerry thus positions himself both to the president's left and to his right. Call it the Kerry straddle.

I am struck by how little discussion Kerry's speech has occasioned. Kerry's critique of the broader war seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Is there any voter who can square Kerry's vote in favor of the war in Iraq with Kerry's current critique, or any voter seeking a more vigorous prosecution of the war who would choose John Kerry to lead the charge?

Perhaps Kerry's left-right one-two punch is his Whitmanesque effort to embrace the contradictions among his own supporters regarding the war. Kerry's left-right one-two punch seems to leave President Bush in the triangulated middle of Kerry's debate with himself.

HINDROCKET adds: I wrote nearly a year ago that there was plenty of room on the President's right on the war, and if the Democrats were smart they would go there, but I predicted that, being Democrats, they would never be able to bring themselves to do it. Three-quarters of Kerry's Temple speech represents the kind of tough talk the Democrats should have engaged in all along, and in places it's very good. The problem is that the main theater of the war right now is Iraq, and what to do in that country is the urgent question of the moment. Given Kerry's dovish position on Iraq, he has no credibility when he says that in all other aspects of the war, he would be a hawk. I think that's the basic reason why the Temple speech has gotten so little attention. It seems reasonable to assume that everything he says other than the part on Iraq is window-dressing.

When we started this site two and a half years ago, the Trunk said: "The idea that we could ever have any readers for this thing is a pathetic fantasy." This was after a decade or so of punditry, in which we had published articles in dozens of newspapers and magazines. Fortunately, the Trunk was wrong, and our traffic has grown steadily--in fact, exponentially. The latest surge is due, obviously, to Rathergate, but it continues a trend of ever-increasing traffic that goes back to the site's inception. And we can't help noting that if we hadn't already had tens of thousands of readers who responded to the Trunk's appeal for information about CBS's forged documents, the Rather bump never would have happened.

Still, we have had to make adjustments to the ever-increasing traffic. Currently, we are getting around 100,000 hits per day, which places us fourth in the Truth Laid Bear traffic rankings, either first or second among conservative sites, depending on whether you think InstaPundit is conservative.

Because of the constantly growing traffic, we were suffering from slow downloads for a while. A few days ago, our excellent host, Hosting Matters, moved us to a new, dedicated server, which seems to have solved those problems.

Along with increasing traffic has come an ever-growing volume of emails. Currently, we are receiving around one email, on the average, every two minutes. We're not complaining; we love to hear from our readers, and we get lots of our best stuff from readers via email. But if you do some quick math, you can appreciate that it is hard for us to read all of our email, let alone answer it or follow up on it. We do the best we can, but while we try to read all the emails we receive, we can only respond to a small percentage.

What bothers me is that we get a lot of emails that we really, really want to answer: from college students, from new bloggers trying to follow in our footsteps, from people trying to learn about the internet, from readers who have a great idea they want us to publicize. We try to answer as many of these emails as we can, and follow up on as many as possible, but inevitably some fall between the cracks. So if you have sent us an email that you really wanted an answer to, but haven't heard from us, please forgive us: we're doing the best we can. But don't stop writing us, as we need input from our readers and hopefully next time we'll be able to get back to you.

With our increasing traffic, sales at the Power Line store have been booming. You may want to check it out; after all, if you're going to wear a t-shirt anyway, it may as well say Power Line. Lots of pretty girls are wearing them. Generally speaking, the Cafe Press merchandise is nice. The only questionable item is the baseball caps; the caps themselves are good quality, but the reproduction of the PL logo is a little muddy. Anyway, check out the store. If there are any Cafe Press items we aren't carrying that you'd like to see, let us know and we'll add them.

Also, take a look at the Blogad advertisers on the left side of the page. They're all politically compatible, except for one mystery ad by the DNC which we can't figure out--the link doesn't seem to go anywhere--so we figured we might as well take their $100. I would especially note the Kona "Blogger Coffee" ad. The owners of the plantation are solid conservatives and denizens of the blogosphere, and they make a phenomenally good--albeit expensive--coffee. It's even kosher. I was in Hawaii for the first time a few months ago, en route to Japan on business, and was struck by how good the coffee was. It's an American product, and it has all of the flavor you want without the scorched aftertaste typical of contemporary coffees. If you can afford it, you should try it.

So -- thanks again to our readers, and keep those emails coming.

That was the party line when I was an extreme leftist many years ago, and nothing made me more uncomfortable with being an extreme leftist than that mindset. Christopher Hitchens believes the same mindset infects the Kerry campaign. He writes:

"If you calculate that only a disaster of some kind can save your candidate, then you are in danger of harboring a subliminal need for bad news. And it will show. What else explains the amazingly crude and philistine remarks of that campaign genius Joe Lockhart, commenting on the visit of the new Iraqi prime minister and calling him a 'puppet'? Here is the only regional leader who is even trying to hold an election, and he is greeted with an ungenerous sneer. The unfortunately necessary corollary of this—that bad news for the American cause in wartime would be good for Kerry—is that good news would be bad for him. Thus, in Mrs. Kerry's brainless and witless offhand yet pregnant remark [that she wouldn't be surprised to hear soon that Osama bin Laden has been captured], we hear the sick thud of the other shoe dropping. How can the Democrats possibly have gotten themselves into a position where they even suspect that a victory for the Zarqawi or Bin Laden forces would in some way be welcome to them? Or that the capture or killing of Bin Laden would not be something to celebrate with a whole heart?"

Perhaps the answer is that the Democrats in questions are extremists ("wingnuts," if you will), not necessarily in the positions they publicly advocate, but in their mindset and in their hearts.

Last night, Dick Morris was on television claiming that John Kerry's Clintonista advisers committed a major blunder by making the war in Iraq the focal point of the Senator's campaign in the home stretch of the election. Morris' analysis is always interesting and sometimes correct. When the race was deadlocked early in the year, he predicted that President Bush would pull away in the spring. It didn't happen then, but appears to have happened in late summer, and that's good enough for us.

I think Morris is wrong in his critique of the "Clinton" strategy, though -- so wrong that I wonder whether Morris is just looking for a chance to slam his former colleagues (Morris routinely opines that this crew may want Kerry to lose because that's in Hillary Clinton's interest). Keep in mind that, since Kerry seems unlikely to win, there's little risk of looking bad by attacking the current strategy even if it's the best one available.

The reason why Kerry is correct, from a purely political standpoint, to focus on Iraq is that he has no other issue that holds any glimmer of hope. The economy is in good enough shape that people don't regard it as the primary issue or an unambiguously pro-Kerry one. Terrorism is the primary issue, but Kerry has no tangible evidence that Bush isn't succeeding in the war on terror. Iraq is the only issue perceived as vital for which Kerry has tangible evidence that Bush's policies have failed. Without attacking Bush on Iraq, Kerry has no potentially compelling basis for asking the country to change its leadership.

In addition, Iraq is the area where events could turn most dramatically against the president. The state of the economy isn't going to change significantly in the next five weeks. A terrorist attack on the homeland could occur, but it's far from clear that this would help Kerry. In any event, Kerry would want to be in a position to say he warned the country that our effort in Iraq had detracted from our focus on terrorists who can attack the U.S. In Iraq itself, the situation could turn far more bloody at any point, and such a turn would work unambiguously in Kerry's favor.

None of this is to suggest that Iraq is a great issue for Kerry. Arguing that the U.S. is failing when the evidence seems ambiguous does not cast him in an attractive light. And his flip-flops on the subject make his position (any position) nearly untenable. As things have played out, however, Iraq is Kerry's only meaningful issue, and the Clintonistas know it.

Long-time Power Line readers are aware of Deacon's irrational attachment to soccer in general, and Everton in particular. Everton is a once-glorious franchise in the English premier league which fell on hard times ten or twenty years ago, and has been trying to avoid "relegation"--demotion to a non-premier league--ever since.

Over the last year or two, Everton's hopes have been buoyed by the fact that teenage sensation Wayne Rooney, the best young soccer player in the world, has been on its team. Unfortunately, after Rooney starred for England in this year's World Cup tournament, it became clear that Everton could no longer afford him. Everton sold Rooney to perennial power Manchester United for something like $50 million, thereby breaking the hearts of soccer fans and prostitutes (inside joke) all over Liverpool.

Today Wayne Rooney made his much-anticipated Man United debut, and he scored three goals. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is about three month's production for a typical soccer team.

Hey, as a fan of the middle-market Minnesota Twins, I can sympathize. Although the Twins recently clinched their division title for the third year in a row. If you're an Evertonian, like Deacon, things are not so bright.

DEACON responds: Rocket Man hasn't been paying attention. I haven't been happier about soccer in years. First, when the Boy Wonder left Everton I wished him all the best. I'm delighted that he put three in today. Second, to my amazement, Everton is doing brilliantly without him. We're in third place, ahead of Rooney's Manchester United side, actually. Finally, I'm thrilled that Rocket Man is now scooping me on English soccer stories.

You won't be reading about this in the New York Times, which is officially committed to a policy of nothing but bad news from now to November 2. But the Commerce Department released some good news tonight:

U.S. personal incomes rose 1.5 percent in the second quarter of 2004, the fastest pace of growth in more than three years, as income gains sped up in 33 states, the Commerce Department said on Tuesday.

All 50 U.S. states reported increases in personal income, and real earnings for all eight U.S. regions climbed above the level set in the first quarter of 2001, the previous peak in the national business cycle, the government reported.

"We do see an improving picture here," said Mark Vitner, an economist at Wachovia Securities. "I think the recovery has strengthened and broadened."

This will be a closely guarded secret unless John Kerry wins the election, in which case he, like Bill Clinton, will get credit for the rapidly improving economy that preceded his administration.

David Rivkin and Lee Casey argue, in the Washington Times, that the Iraqi war is "the right war at the right time." Their main contention is that the war was necessary "to prove beyond doubt that an international outlaw could not defy American power, and get away with it." In this regard, they believe that "humbling Saddam was critical to the recovery of American prestige and credibility in a region where such things matter and this, in turn, is a necessary pre-condition to victory in the war on terror."

I agree with this justification for the war, and I espoused it on a number of occasion prior to the commencement of our action. But whether the war can ultimately be justified on this basis depends on whether it results in enhanced prestige. And that turns on whether we are successful in Iraq. If, instead of Saddam, terrorists and insurgents successfully deny our power, then we will (at least in terms of Rivkin/Casey justification) be worse off for having gone into Iraq. Thus, one can argue that it is too early to say whether the Iraqi war was the right war at the right time.

Of all the contemptible things the Dems have done during this election cycle, the "reinstate the draft" rumor is the most vile. A reader forwarded to us the following email, which is being sent to a countless number of young Americans by the "Rock the Vote" people, an ostensibly non-partisan group:

YOU HAVE BEEN DRAFTED!

http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&l=4476

This is not a real draft, but a real one may happen soon if the current situation doesn't improve.

As it is, our military is stretched almost to the breaking point trying to maintain troop levels in Iraq and around the world. If Pakistan, North Korea or other nations begin to pose new military threats, how would we expect to meet the demand for troops?

Did you know that:

* It would only take two to three days for Congress and the President to authorize a draft and set the Selective Service System's plans in motion?

* Twenty-year-olds would be the first to be inducted?

* Women are very likely to be included in the next draft?

It's up to us to educate ourselves. In the event of a draft, we won't have much time to form an opinion. And with just 34 days left until the election and only a few days left before many state registration deadlines, we need to take a stand now by registering to vote:

http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&l=4476

Copy this URL into your web browser to get the facts about a potential draft, and to find out what you can do:

http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&l=4476

Sincerely,
Rock The Vote
and
Alliance For Security

This is a time when serious issues need to be debated. But the Democrats are incapable of anything but the lowest form of demagoguery.

On Sunday, we noted that Professor Larry Tribe, the Democratic Party's top scholar, had been charged with plagiarism by Joseph Bottum of the Weekly Standard, in connection with Tribe's 1985 book God Save This Honorable Court, which provided the intellectual justification for the Borking of Judge Robert Bork.

Professor Tribe lost no time in acknowledging the accuracy of Bottum's charge, as reported by the Harvard Crimson:

Tribe could not be reached directly for comment yesterday, but issued a statement to The Crimson via e-mail.

He said he recognized his “failure to attribute some of the material The Weekly Standard identified.”

“I personally take full responsibility for that failure,” Tribe said.

The reaction among Tribe's Harvard colleagues was disquieting, however. Alan Dershowitz suggested that different standards of plagiarism may apply to lawyers:

But Dershowitz said guidelines in the legal profession are murkier.

He said that judges frequently rely on lawyers’ briefs and clerks’ memoranda in drafting opinions. This results in a “cultural difference” between sourcing in the legal profession and other academic disciplines, Dershowitz said.

This is eerily reminiscent of the reaction of some liberals when it was revealed that Martin Luther King had plagiarized his doctoral dissertation; they argued that plagiarism is a cultural tradition among black people. (Why is it that more blacks don't realize that liberals are constantly insulting them?)

Beyond that, the principal reaction at Harvard seems to have been to attack Bottum for pointing out Tribe's plagiarism:

Dershowitz said yesterday that The Standard’s charges against Tribe were politically motivated.

"Show me the man, and I’ll find you the crime," Dershowitz said—a quotation he attributed to Soviet spymaster Lavrenti Beria. "Clearly someone was looking to pin something on the most prominent liberal constitutional scholar in the country."

Professor Charles J. Ogletree, who himself recently acknowledged committing plagiarism, also denounced the Weekly Standard, characterizing the magazine's charge against Tribe as "nonsense."

And Tribe's former colleague (and fellow Democrat) Kathleen Sullivan, now Dean of Stanford's law school, said:

Tribe’s towering contributions to the field of constitutional law over four decades should not be overshadowed by this episode.

Well, perhaps not. However, given that this is the fourth plagiarism scandal to strike Harvard in recent months, one might have expected a bit more concern and a bit less eagerness to denounce Joseph Bottum. Harvard, like the New York Times, the Associated Press, and CBS News, has a problem that it does not choose to acknowledge, let alone try to correct.

The Washington Times reports on al Qaeda's efforts to exploit our porous border with Mexico: "Al Qaeda seeks ties to local gangs." We'll be checking Michelle Malkin for her comments later today.

At RealClearPolitics Tom Bevan has circled back to examine John Kerry's support for unilateral military action to remove Saddam Hussein as expressed in a November 1997 Senate speech prompted by the removal of UN weapons inspectors: "The 1997 Senate speech that damns John Kerry."

In the speech Kerry states: "This is not a matter about which there should be any debate in the Security Council or, certainly, in this Nation." In his conclusion Kerry asserts the desirability of multilateral military action, but asserts his support for unilateral miliarty action "if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation and our entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully[.]"

Bevan asks: "So is it plausible for John Kerry to have believed in 1997 that Saddam was a grave threat requiring the use of significant, preemptive, and unilateral military force but to now - more than five years later and in a post-9/11 world - stand before us and argue the opposite?" And answers: "It is not."

In the International Herald Tribune, John Vinocur cruelly strips away the illusion that Kerry would somehow be capable of expanding the multilateral coalition President Bush has assembled in Iraq: "European honeymoon won't happen for Kerry." Vinocur reports:

[L]ast week, just after Kerry's major speech on the war in which he insisted that the United States "must make Iraq the world's responsibility" and that others "should share the burden," [German Chancellor Gerhard] Schröder's sense of courtesy collided with reality and he drove a spike into the notion. He told reporters, "We won't send any German soldiers to Iraq, and that's where it's going to remain."

Clear? A faint irony slips in at this point. For many Europeans, the problem in making sense of Kerry's speech was not Schröder's rather predictable reply, but how much delusion or candor there was in the Democrat's campaign promise to enlist countries opposed to the war to bail out the United States militarily. Add to that the candidate's linked idea of leveraging a notional European military presence into a pullout by some American troops as early as next summer. It seemed enough to make Kerry's continental friends cringe.

To the same effect, though with less bite, is the Financial Times article: "No French or German turn on Iraq."

UPDATE: Thanks to the many readers who wrote to point out a typographical error that I have now corrected.

Our readers tell us that President Bush's appearances in Ohio today were greeted by unexpectedly huge and rapturous crowds. Even Reuters was impressed, as they published this photo of a lovely young Republican:

Babes for Bush is actually a movement, with a web site and a store, and lots of fine representatives, like Garrette and Brooke. Feel free to join in!

This ties in, I think, with our post earlier today about how young Americans are flocking to George W. Bush. It's noteworthy, I think, that there is not even the hint of a grass roots "Babes for Kerry" movement. Indeed, such a thing is almost unthinkable. I can imagine "Ladies for Lurch," "Heiresses for the Airhead," and so on--but "Babes for Kerry"? No way.

Just another sign that we're cruising to victory.

ONE MORE THING: The young lady in the photo is wearing a very profound "Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Democrat" button. If every Republican persuaded a single misguided, undecided voter to either stay home or vote for the President, the election would be a landslide. "Each one teach one," as the Commies used to say, many years ago.

I finally got around to reading the The New York Times Magazine piece on left-wing bloggers. I must say that, unlike Rocket Man, I rather enjoyed the story. It didn't bother me that the focus was on lefty bloggers. First, any half-way decent story on blogging in a major publication is good for all bloggers. Second, there likely will be similar stories about conservative bloggers soon enough. Third, as Evagelical Outposts argues, the piece is not particularly kind to the liberals it profiled.

I guess I liked the story mainly because it provided me with a glimpse into a related but different world than the one we occupy -- the world of bloggers who are (1) liberal and (2) relatively young. Excluding the part about Wonkette, the Times has profiled the blogger I might have been, and if the profile is even roughly accurate, the blogger I'm glad I never was.

Of the many reasons why we care who is President, the fact that he will appoint federal judges is somewhere in the middle: below national security, and above the remote possibility that he might veto the latest Medicare boondoggle. Today Anne Gearan of the Associated Press attempted a short summary of the issue. There is nothing worth reading in her piece except this:

In an AP-Ipsos poll taken last week, 56 percent of those surveyed said they wanted the president to nominate a Supreme Court justice with conservative political views if a vacancy occurs; 37 percent said they preferred a justice with liberal views.

So this is what is commonly referred to as a "wedge issue;" that is, one where the majority of voters favor the conservative position. So, W, drive the wedge.

...so what does he do? Pathetically, he announces another Bush "secret plan" to somehow damage dairy farmers:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told voters in America's Dairyland on Monday that President Bush had a secret plan that would hurt milk producers after the election.

Kerry tried to convince voters in this rural community, where he is practicing for Thursday's debate, that he would look out for dairy farms here even though he hadn't always in the past.

In the 1990s, Kerry supported the Northeast Dairy Compact, a regional pricing program that propped up prices for Northeastern dairy farmers over objections from their Midwestern counterparts.

"We've had a difference between the Midwest and the Northeast," Kerry said. "I'm going to be very upfront with you about it. As a senator representing Massachusetts, I fought for the dairy compact and fought to have our dairy farmers get help," the four-term lawmaker said. "I'm running for president of the United States now and I intend to represent all the farmers of America."

Kerry said Bush is opposing an effort to extend the Milk Income Loss Contract that helps dairy farmers when milk prices drop and is set to expire in October 2005. He said the Bush administration would wait until after the election to act so voters in swing dairy states wouldn't turn against him. The Bush campaign issued a statement that said accounts of White House opposition to the milk program are false.

John Kerry has finally made a pledge that voters can believe: if elected, he promises to flip-flop, abandoning the position he has held through his nineteen-year Senate career!

I'm not sure this is the lowest moment of Kerry's pathetic campaign, but it's a contender.

Steven Den Beste, one of the best bloggers ever, wrote to point out this article in the International Herald Tribune, on a proposed international conference on Iraq:

France said Monday that it would take part in a proposed international conference on Iraq only if the agenda included a possible U.S. troop withdrawal, thus complicating the planning for a meeting that has drawn mixed reactions.

Paris also wants representatives of Iraq's insurgent groups to be invited to a conference in October or November, a call that would seem difficult for the Bush administration to accept.

Well, yes, that could be a little difficult. Would we want Colin Powell to be sitting down with Zarqawi to discuss the withdrawal of American troops? I don't think so.

The Herald Tribune continues:

The proposed conference aims partly to enlist the help of neighboring countries like Iran and Syria to block any cross-border attempts at destabilizing Iraq or interfering with elections.

But given the difficult conditions in Iraq, Foreign Minister Michel Barnier of France said Monday that a U.S. withdrawal "is a quest