Debate Thread I

Chat away.

Pre-Debate Thread

I'm out for a bit. Monitor the pre-debate spin atrocities. Be back for the debate...

Republican Family Values

Salon:

LaTourette's affair with a Washington lobbyist was exposed by the Hill newspaper in 2003. The father of four and husband of 21 years voted for President Clinton's impeachment, but he has also joined moderate Republicans on a number of issues, including support for hate crimes legislation. He was blending into the woodwork as a Republican Party regular -- not as extreme as some of his more partisan colleagues but acceptably conservative (the Christian Coalition recently rated his voting record 84 percent favorable) -- when the revelation of his affair made him a poster boy for Republican "family values" hypocrisy.

The Washington lobbyist and her background have gone unmentioned in previous published accounts of the affair. But two sources close to Susan LaTourette, the congressman's wife, have told Salon that the lobbyist is Steven LaTourette's former chief of staff, Jennifer Laptook, whose work as a vice president for the firm Van Scoyoc Associates consists of pushing the interests of various Ohio-based clients before the staff of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, on which LaTourette sits. He is also chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.

...

Laptook is able to do business as she does because of a loophole in the law. Because she lobbies only the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and not her former boss's congressional office directly, she was able to evade the ban on "direct lobbying" for one year after leaving LaTourette's employ.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of the nonpartisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government, says such a transparent ploy remains unethical: "You don't get to lobby your former boss just because he happened to get a certain committee assignment. You are still lobbying your former boss. This is yet another unethical situation where members of Congress let close political allies make money off of connections." Neither LaTourette nor Laptook responded to calls from Salon seeking their comment.

As it happens, Rep. LaTourette is also a member of the House ethics committee. He recently sat in judgment on Majority Leader Tom DeLay when he was investigated for offering financial support to the political campaign of a retiring representative's son in exchange for his vote on the Republican Medicare bill. Although LaTourette has received $16,000 in campaign contributions from DeLay since 1994, he said before the committee's report was issued that he would not be influenced by any such relationship. "This is typical of the ethics committee, which is a joke," says Sloan. "It exists only to give cover to those acting unethically." On Sept. 30, the ethics committee voted to admonish DeLay, but not to levy any penalties.

Wimblehack!

A long overdue competition.

Republicans - Too Stupid to Breathe

According to the most recent Gallup poll, 62% of Republicans think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.

...the numbers were on a CNN report from Gallup and they *were* at the E&P link at one point. Will post transcript when it arrives, and all the trolls can cry.


...ah, here we are:

Well, Americans are focused on their own upcoming election. And tonight, Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards take center stage at their one and only debate. So, how does the public view the vice presidential candidates? For that answer and more, we go to Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport, live from Princeton, New Jersey -- Frank?

FRANK NEWPORT, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, GALLUP: Hello, Kyra.

Indeed, Dick Cheney, not surprisingly, has more negative baggage than John Edwards going into the debate tonight. That's how I would summarize it.

Here's our latest September favorable/unfavorable ratings on the two VP candidates. Dick Cheney over here, 48 favorable, 44 unfavorable -- so, roughly balanced. John Edwards relatively untouched by a lot of negativity, so far -- 56 favorable, 30 unfavorable. So, he goes in with a more positive image. We'll see how he comes out of the debate tonight.

Who's going to win? It's the expectations game, of course, for all these debates. Bush was favored going into the first one; our data show he didn't win. Who's favored tonight? The public splits, Kyra, right down the middle: 40 percent say Cheney, 42 John Edwards. So, no favorite going into tonight's proceedings there in Cleveland.

PHILLIPS: All right. Where do Americans stand on Iraq?

NEWPORT: Well, that's an important question that's clearly been the focus of the first debate. It may come up tonight, of course.

We've seen it change. The question that we've been asking about wars here at Gallup since the Korean War: Was it a mistake to get involved? And the percentage say yes -- it's this bottom line -- right after the Republican convention, it had dropped. Only 38 percent of Americans right here said it was a mistake. In other words, that was more positive about the Iraqi war. Only 38 saying it was a mistake.

But the percent saying it was a mistake has gone up. We're now -- we're at split half and half: 48 say it was a mistake, and 51 percent say not. So, we're kind of back where we were -- America split right down the middle in terms of perceptions of the Iraq war at this point, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: So, do Americans agree with Kerry's statement during his debate that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks and not Saddam Hussein?

NEWPORT: Well, that's the key issue. You know, all these comments by Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense, have come into the fore even yesterday and today. It's very political.

This is fascinating. Look carefully. If you're a Republican, 62 percent say, yes, Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. Almost two thirds say yes. But Democrats and Republicans, exactly as many, two thirds say, no, there was no connection.

Phillips, also, is apparently too stupid to breathe.

LIIIIIIIAAAAARS

God, these people just never stop. Just repeating the post below, with link to CNN article.

A senior Defense Department official said that Bremer never asked for more troops and expressed annoyance the ambassador appeared to be second-guessing the advice of military officials. Bremer stepped down after the June 28 handover to an interim Iraqi government.

On CNN TV just now:

[rough transcript]

Officials here again say that during the time frame Paul Bremer served in Iraq he was in constant contact with the Penatgon, with the White House, he visited here several times and spokesman for Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld says the Secretary doesn't recall any point that Paul Bremer brought up with him at least the need for more troops. If it had come up, the Secretary would have paid a great deal of attention to that.

From July 1, 2003:

WASHINGTON - The top American administrator in Iraq, confronting growing anti-U.S. anger and guerrilla-style attacks, is asking for more American troops and dozens of U.S. officials to help speed up the restoration of order and public services.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld was reviewing the request from L. Paul Bremer, U.S. officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Bremer's request underscores how difficult it has been for his small civilian staff and some 158,000 U.S.-led troops to meet the demands of Iraqis for security and other basic needs. It also conflicts with upbeat public statements from President Bush, Rumsfeld and Bremer himself on the progress made on Iraq's political and economic reconstruction.

Jerry

(Watching CNN) Apparently Viceroy Jerry released a statement this morning saying that when he stated that they needed more troops in Iraq, he only meant in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad in order to prevent the looting. CNN dug up a statement he made at DePauw University where he said:

Earlier, at a student forum this afternoon in Meharry Hall, the ambassador admitted, "The single most important change -- the one thing that would have improved the situation -- would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout... Although I raised this issue a number of times with our government, I should have been even more insistent."

And, now all the Bushies are calling him a liar, saying he never asked for more troops. I'm sure Wolf Blitzer will start talking about "weird aspects in his life" any minute now.


...From July 1, 2003:

WASHINGTON - The top American administrator in Iraq, confronting growing anti-U.S. anger and guerrilla-style attacks, is asking for more American troops and dozens of U.S. officials to help speed up the restoration of order and public services.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld was reviewing the request from L. Paul Bremer, U.S. officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Bremer's request underscores how difficult it has been for his small civilian staff and some 158,000 U.S.-led troops to meet the demands of Iraqis for security and other basic needs. It also conflicts with upbeat public statements from President Bush, Rumsfeld and Bremer himself on the progress made on Iraq's political and economic reconstruction.

LIAAAAARRRSS

grrr

okay, I've tried to hold my tongue about this, but there's a special place in hell reserved for whoever (DNC?) put me on a media bulk email list after the last debate...

Handing Things Over to the Crazies

It's interesting (replace with more insulting word if you wish) how the media coverage of this election has been entirely on "what would President Kerry do?" without anyone really bothering to ask "what would a 2nd term President Bush do?"

He hasn't laid out any significant domestic agenda. He hasn't made an serious proposals to deal with the deficit, etc... etc...

But, the big elephant in the living is, of course, which foreign policy camp will triumph? As this anonymous author in Salon points out, all signs point to handing the keys to the state department over to the lunatics who took us to Iraq. Porter Goss will completely politicize the CIA. Defense has already been taken over.

Four more years of that and we'll have a foreign policy and intelligence appartus which will effectively be a wing of the craziest parts of the GOP.

What Edwards Should Say

It's probably for the best that the Rude Pundit isn't John Edwards' debate coach, but I have to admit his suggestion does have some merit...

Do Over

So, Bush is scheduling a last minute speech for Thursday night Wednesday. Any outlet that covers it should give equal time to Kerry the night before their last debate encounter.

Drafty

Hackworth says the draft is coming. I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, I really cannot comprehend how a draft could be imposed on today's society. I think the country would explode.


But, on the other hand, with 140,000 troops sitting in Iraq indefinitely, I don't see how it's avoidable. Aside from everything else, Bush has put is in a position where we are unable to respond with appropriate force if the need arises.

Maybe if more of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders would sign up...

PA's Ours

I've never been too worried, but these voter registration numbers are great. Democrats leading 9-1 on new registrations in Philadelphia. And, since the city generally gets 150% or more turnout... (a joke, my Republican friends).

Drinking Liberally And Other Exciting Local Events

Drinking Liberally takes place at its usual time and place - 6pm, Ten Stone, corner of 21st and South. There will be a TV available for watching the debate, too.

Paul Krugman's speaking tomorrow night at Friends Select school.

Joe Trippi will be speaking at the National Constitution Center on Thursday.

Shame on Viceroy Jerry

Courageous Jerry Bremer now says there weren't enough troops. How many have suffered the consequences of his failing to speak up at the time?

Four More Weeks

Please consider making a couple last donations to the candidates and organizations of your choice. The links above provide some suggestions, but don't feel obligated to click through them. The election is almost here, and the date by which donations can really make a difference is even closer.

I gather people have serious donor fatigue at this point, which I understand. I bet a lot of you have given way more to political causes than you ever imagined or can reasonably afford. But, for those of you who haven't yet -- it isn't too late, but it will be soon.

Kids

Howard Dean was on Letterman tonight, and while overall it was a good performance I think it's important to take issue with his characterization of the soldiers in Iraq as "kids." He definitely didn't mean it in a condescending fashion, but instead to highlight the fact that very young people were sacrificing their lives. But, it isn't entirely true.


About 25% of soldiers who have died in Iraq are over 30, and about 80% are over 21. They aren't all "kids."

Ha Ha

Olbermann just covered Fox's fake news scandal with a big "Faux News" logo.

Spitting on Vets

Appears to be a part of the standard Republican playbook now.

NORFOLK, Va. -- A state Republican Party mailing accuses Democratic congressional candidate David Ashe--a Marine Corps veteran who served in Iraq--of "weakening the war on terror" by supporting John Kerry.

A flier sent on behalf of his Republican opponent, Thelma Drake, says Ashe and the Democratic presidential candidate are "two peas in a pod" on "issues like higher taxes, abortion on demand and the war on terror."

The New Journalism

Dare to tell someone the truth and you get suspended.