Mehlman

Anyone catch Mehlman on Paula Zahn? Ah, panic. A beautiful thing.


There's one simple reason they're panicking. We're up to 4 polls now that show it roughly a dead heat, with one just out today showing Bush with a slight lead.


But, where Kerry has bounced back "big time," is in his favorability ratings. CBS has it tied and:

Before Thursday's debate, 32 percent of registered voters viewed Kerry favorably and 44 percent unfavorably. After the Miami meeting, his favorability mark improved by 8 points to 40 percent, and his unfavorable edged down to 41 percent.

...

While 44 percent of registered voters see Mr. Bush favorably, an equal number of voters see him unfavorably.

ABC has Kerry down by 5, but:

Some views followed. Forty-seven percent now express a favorable opinion of Kerry, up eight points from before the debate. For the first time since the Republican convention, more voters see him favorably than unfavorably, a critical tipping point.


Favorable Views of the Candidates
Date Bush Kerry
7/25/04 54% 49%
8/1/04 50 52
8/29/04 52 43
9/8/04 54 37
9/26/04 53 39
10/3/04 53 47



Bush's favorability rating was unchanged, at 53 percent. But in another measure, the number of "very enthusiastic" Bush supporters lost eight points, to 57 percent, while high-level enthusiasm for Kerry gained eight points, to 50 percent.

Still, Bush continues to lead, not only in favorability and enthusiasm but in the horse race overall: Fifty-one percent of likely voters in this poll support Bush, 46 percent Kerry and 1 percent Ralph Nader — essentially the same as before the debate. Among the broader group of all registered voters, it's 50 percent to 45 percent to 2 percent.

Dismissable Offense

TV Newser has the contents of a new Fox memo.

Some Journalist

So, a source tells Howie something which turns out to not be true. Howie doesn't make any effort to verify the claim. Shocking.

The Boom Years

If I did my quick math correctly, we had over 14% average annual growth rates during the Carter years. Now that's impressive! Shame things went downhill once that Reagan guy got into office.

Of course, the true golden age existed in 1920s Germany. I don't have nominal GDP figures, but with prices going up 854,000,000,000% in just over 4 months, everyone was getting rich!


50 million German mark note from 1923. Good times!

Where do they find these clowns?
(via Yglesias)

Shorter GOP

Haha, I'm laughing my ass off over this video.

...Oliver says the video's author is Brennan Houlihan.

Which is the Real Bush?

That's the question Froomkin asks in today's White House Briefing.

So who was that George Bush we saw Thursday night? The one who at times looked more peevish and bored than gregarious and resolute?

The notion that voters may come away from the debate thinking of Bush as someone who becomes upset when challenged is potentially devastating to the image of the president that the White House has fostered since Sept. 11, 2001

This is the real Bush:

Gas Taxes

Charles Kuffner has a post up dicussing proposals to replace gas taxes with mileage taxes using GPS systems. That is, instead of having people pay based on how much gas they buy, you tax them based on how many miles they actually drive. I'll leave aside the privacy issues which are serious for obvious reasons, and just discuss the economic ones.

Why do we have a gas tax at all? The first is the usual reason we have taxes - it's a revenue instrument for governments. But, why a "special" tax on gasoline? There are two basic reasons:

a) it acts as a very rough form of "user fee" for roads and highway. This has the general appeal that people who use this particular government service end up paying for it.

b) there are unpriced externalities of driving your car around. Obvious one is that you contribute to wear and tear on the roads (this one fits in with the 'user fee' aspect). Second one is that there are negative effects on the environment. Third one is the "congestion" externality - your presence on the road slows things down a little bit for everyone. Taxing gas raises its effective price - if done correctly bringing the cost of driving your car more in line with the actual cost to society - and reduces the amount which gets used, both by discouraging driving generally and by encouraging people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.

So, how could a per mile fee be superior to a gas tax? For wear and tear, roughly, it would be worse -- heavier cars, which cause more wear-and-tear on roads, would be taxed the same fee as lighter cars, while with a gas tax they're charged more per mile. Ditto for the environment.

A per mile fee could, in theory, be much better for dealing with congestion -- as the fees could vary across time and location. That is, congested roads at peak times could have higher per mile fees than other locations, encouraging drivers to adjust their time of travel and choice of route/mode. But, we can already do that by expanding existing easypass toll systems on primary commuting routes. There's no real advantage gained by making it a universal system - most roads, even at peak commuting times, aren't particularly congested.

On balance, even ignoring the privacy issues I really can't see how a per-mile fee is an improvement over the gas tax. I'm all for both increasing the gas tax (and, yes, offsetting it with a low income tax credit to offset the regressive nature of the tax) and increasing the number of sensible toll road schemes (as well as getting rid of a whole host of various implicit and explicit driving and parking subsidies), but a mile-based fee seems to offer few if any advantages and huge disadvantages. Gas taxes encourage people to buy more fuel efficient cars. A per mile fee wouldn't.

But, what do I care. I don't even own a car.

In Local News...

When the Mask Slips

"He grows worse and worse. Question enrages him." -- Lady MacBeth

For far too long the media has allowed the Bush administration and its spinners to get away with presenting a manufactured image of him, one which was seriously at odds with reality. Digby does a good job explaining how the public face of Bush bears little relationship to Bush the man. But, this has gone beyond being a successful public relations campaign about Bush the candidate. While Bush's people believe that they are able to shape public perception about their candidate, increasingly it seems that Bush himself believes that the spin has the ability to change reality itself. The Daily Show joked that the Bush administration believes "words speak louder than actions," which was probably the most perceptive thing I've seen the entire campaign season.

It's one thing to spin a public persona which doesn't much resemble the actual man behind the mask, and it's another to spin an entire alternative reality. The consequence of having to convey that fake reality day after day is that one begins to inhabit it. Bush has been living in his play universe for far too long.

We saw a little bit of what happens when that reality is challenged this past Thursday. By challenging Bush's reality, Kerry caused the mask which is Bush's public persona to slip and the petulant little child inside came storming out. Hiding the truth from yourself and everyone else is, as Bush says, "hard work." Too much work. And, the strain is showing.


(thanks to reader p for the quote)

Philadelphia Daily News Endorses Hoeffel

Good for them. Let's hope the Inky doesn't make a fool of itself by going with Snarlin' Arlen.

Freeway Free Speech Day

October 13.

Restore the Promise

The people at New Dem Network really do make slick ads.

...the DCCC has a new one too.

Howie

He really is unbelievable.

Your Republican Party

I tried to post about this late last night but Blogger ate the post. Anyway, here's the modern Republican party for you:

DeMint said after the debate that he would not require teachers to admit to being gay, but if they were “openly gay, I do not think that they should be teaching at public schools.”

Cheat Sheet

It's pretty obvious who really had the "cheat sheet" in the debate. Check out the notes in front of Bush.

Bush cheated, and still lost.

(via Hesiod)

Marty

For those of you who have WSJ subscriptions, here's a fascinating glimpse inside the wingnut mind of Marty Peretz, editor of "even the liberal" New Republic.

On a semi-related note, I was doing a little research earlier, reading over some old transcripts from the time leading up to the Iraq war. For some reason, a frequent panel discussion on Wolf Blitzer's show included from the "left," Peter "TNR" Beinart (pro-war), and from the "right," Jonah Goldberg.

CNN's been more "fair and balanced" than Fox for quite some time...

Reality

Bob Herbert gets pretty close to the real issue which faces us this election -- which face of Bush world do we want to accept?

The truth is awful. The rhetoric is sunny.

There undoubtedly were many reasons for Mr. Bush's lackluster effort. But I think there was one factor, above all, that undermined the president in last week's debate, and will continue to plague him throughout the campaign. And that was his problematic relationship with reality.

Mr. Bush is a man who will frequently tell you - and may even believe - that up is down, or square is round, when logic and all the available evidence say otherwise. During the debate, this was most clearly displayed when, in response to a question about the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush told the moderator, Jim Lehrer, "The enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us."

Moments later Senator Kerry clarified, for the audience and the president, just who had attacked the United States. "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us," said Mr. Kerry. "Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us."

Given a chance to respond, Mr. Bush flashed an unappreciative look at Senator Kerry and said, "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us - I know that."

With no weapons of mass destruction to exhibit, and no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, Mr. Bush has nevertheless tried to portray the war in Iraq as not only the right thing to do but as largely successful. The increasing violence and chaos suggest otherwise. Even as the presidential debate was being conducted, details were coming in about car bombings earlier in the day in Baghdad that killed dozens of Iraqis, including at least 34 children.

The children were not in school because the turmoil had prevented the opening of schools.

As for the last point, I actually think Herbert is mistaken (though I may be wrong). As I understand it, the kids were encouraged to arrive by soldiers with candy at the precise moment that the press was there to celebrate the repair of a portion of the sewage treatment system. From what I've read, it isn't 100% clear if the soldiers were there because of the opening of the sewage treatment plant.

In any case, I really hope those soldiers weren't given orders to get kids there for a photo op.

Cancel It

If only the Bush administration were a figment of Tommy Westphall's imagination...

(via august, who explains)

Debate Question

I normally don't agree with Amy Sullivan on very much (or, at least, very much that she writes about which is obviously not the same thing), and since the Washington Monthly is down and I therefore I can't find the link to her article on this subject, I won't even link to it (I will once I find it). But, she did bring up what I think is a long overdue question for Bush. Sure, as an evil angry partisan Democrat there are lots of nasty questions that I would love to see asked, but given the rhetoric and image of Bush, and the standards of debates questions passed, I think it's imperative that some version of this question is asked:

Mr. President, why don't you go to church more often?

...here's the article.

...to be clear, I personally see no incompatibility between being "devoutly religious" or even a "devoutly religious Christian" and not being a regular church-goer. I'm not particularly interested in people citing scripture to support or refute that particular requirement. Obviously, there are people who consider themselves to be "good Christians" who aren't regular churchgoers and people who think it's a requirement. But, I do think that given the emphasis that Bush, his people, and the media have put on his "faith," and the degree to which the media, at least, tends to equate "religious" with "churchgoing," it seems to be a fair question to ask. And, no, I don't think it's a "gotcha" question. It would be an opportunity for Bush to describe his personal religious beliefs, whether he feels a strong association with or that he's a member of any particular denomination, and to discuss this issue in more depth. After being treated to many weeks of the 'Associated Press Kerry Communion' watch, it's pretty reasonable to think that the details of Bush's religious beliefs, including his thoughts on the importance of any particular religious rite, are subjects which are long overdue for some attention.

Register to Vote

I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone here, but just in case... deadlines have passed in a couple of states and are fast approaching in many. Deadline's tomorrow here in PA. Was glad to see people out in force today registering people to vote, as well as a mini-impromptu pro-Kerry rally at 16th and Walnut...