I've been saying this for a long time

The act of voting is, statistically speaking, an irrational act. Amazingly, the problem of collective action that plagues so many other attempts to mobilize large numbers of people has not destroyed democracy, notwithstanding sub-50% turnout.

Scare tactics

So the Kerry campaign has decided to accuse the Bush team of "scaring people" with the war on terror.

Note to Kerry: the war on terror--and the jihad that has been declared against us--IS scary, and IS real.

Meanwhile, Cameron Diaz appears on Oprah to encourage mind-controlled, shrieking, loser, fat women with low self esteem to register to vote. Why, they ask, should we vote? "If you think rape should be legal," Diaz reasons, "then don't vote." Wha.....? (Obviously, of course, she wanted to talk about abortion, but that's not the point. I'm also embarrassed to say that I was watching when she said it (the Plaintiff made me) and we both just looked at each other with mouths agape. Surely, she helped Bush with that absurd comment.)

And meanwhile, Kerry surrogates suggest that Bush is considering bringing back the draft if re-elected. Once again--wha........? I mean, how can they get away with suggesting this kind of stuff, especially after Cheney got skewered for suggesting that a Kerry presidency would leave America more vulnerable to a terrorist attack (and when taken in context, Cheney's comments weren't nearly so controversial).

Reminds me of when I was teaching 7th grade, talking about the possible war in Iraq with the kids, and one of my black students asked, "Is it true that Bush wants to make us all slaves again?" And this is not to mention the "Medi-scare"/SS fear campaigns the Dems run every election to scare the elderly away from Republican candidates.

But Bush is the one scaring people about, you know, airplanes flying into buildings, trains blowing up, and schoolchildren being massacred. Because, you know, none of that stuff has actually happened.

Urine a lot of Trouble, Kerry

I thought twice about posting this, seeing as how we have one of the most widely-read and credible blogs on the internet, but I decided it was too funny to pass up.

The latest rumor on the Kerry front is that Hanoi Kerry peepeed on an American flag after returning from Vietnam--and the best part: there are pictures. Sure, the revelation of this act of treason will do considerable damage to Kerry's campaign, but even more devastating will be the confirmation of his undoubtedly small weiner.

Apparently, the charges were first made by a caller on Hannity's radio show last night.

Developing...

Autumn in Charlottesville

Ah, yes...the crisp autumn air...the vibrant orange and red leaves...and the privilege of hearing the Redskins radio broadcast every week.

These guys register in the solid 80s on the Unintentional Comedy Ratings.

Saw Barbara Bush...

at the bar tonight. She definitely looked at me a few times, as I contemplated approaching her. Still kicking myself for not talking to her. Didn't want to be that guy, but cool to see her out nonetheless.

Check out Football Fans for Truth

They've got some funny stuff up.

The mythical Nader effect

These polls reflect what I've suspected for a long time -- the Nader effect that is supposed to help the President is a myth.

Click the link above to see the table of polls, via RealClearPolitics.com. The bottom line: Bush leads by an average of 5.8% in the head-to-head polls, but only 5.4% in the three-way polls. The trend is reflected in each individual poll as well.

The conventional wisdom, of course, has been that 90% of Nader voters would instead cast their votes for the Democratic candidate if Nader weren't on the ballot. These polls suggest, however, that Nader voters, given a choice only between Rs and Ds, either: a) tend to split their votes fairly evenly between Bush and Nader, or b) do not vote at all.

Remember: a vote for Nader is either a protest vote, or it is a vote cast by the truly irrational person. Nader voters may feel that the Democrats have become too pragmatic and willing to sacrifice core principles for electability; therefore, given the choice between Bush and Kerry, the protest vote, for a Naderite, may be for Bush--in their view, better to vote for the wolf in wolf's clothing than the wolf dressed like a sheep. Nader voters may also realize that it is the Dems, not the Republicans, who have worked to keep their man off the ballot; they may not appreciate the Dems' tactics to try to corral their votes. Again, the protest vote is for Bush -- or to stay home on election day. And finally, Nader voters are overall just weird people whose politics can't make a whole lot of sense -- so who can predict what the hell they'll do?

CBS - DNC coordination?

Check out this timeline. (Via Instapundit.)

Cups in the NFL

It's a comfort thing and a macho thing, he says. The cups are too bulky and obtrusive for today's player. (As opposed to gonads swollen to the size of grapefruit, which must be a real treat to deal with.) According to Hatfield, no one wants to get teased by Hugh Douglas for, I guess, the outrageous concept of protecting their nards. The ironic jocularity behind that statement is almost unfathomable.

This article is HILARIOUS.

Now that we know, how many times has it happened?

Like the husband who catches his wife cheating, it's time to ask the next logical question: how long has this been going on?

Excerpt:

But they didn't. And I've said this before, but it bears repeating: don't fool yourself believing that this is the first time this has happened. Come on. If you have watched "60 Minutes" then you are familiar with that feeling you have at the end of a segment, when you think to yourself: "Wow, everything seems to point to one conclusion." You thought that was because everything really did point to one conclusion?

Brodie out for season

Cecil's thoughts here.

I couldn't disagree more with Cecil on this one. You can't treat a football player, no matter how "franchise" he is, like Cameron's dad treats his Ferrari in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Injury happened on the first offensive possession of the second half, after the offense had sputtered in the first half--the 31-0 score was misleading, resulting mainly from costly turnovers by WCU. In fact, at halftime, Bama had only outgained WCU by about 50 yards or so. (I'll check on this.) It made perfect sense, in my opinion, to give Brodie one more possession to feel sharp before Arkansas. As it turns out, the injury occurred on what would have been Brodie's last play of the night.

Thoughts?

Deconstructing the "Fox does it too" myth

Stuart Buck deflates the argument that Fox News has been just as guilty as CBS. (Thanks to Tom Maguire of JustOneMinute.)

NPR's swing voter?

One has to wonder: how often did this stuff get by before the blogosphere existed?

MR's Weekend Picks

Friday
Boston College -7.0 vs. UConn

Saturday
Kentucky -1.5 vs. Indiana
LSU pk @ Auburn
Clemson pk @ Texas A&M
Over 63 - TCU @ Texas Tech
Florida +3 @ Tennessee (sorry, PTH)

No line on the Bama game, but for the hell of it:

Bama 41
WCU 10

And the Hits Just Keep On Comin'

As if there were any doubt as to the legitimacy (or illegitimacy, as is the case) of the CBS Guard memos, General Staudt--the man who allegedly asked Killian to "sugarcoat" Bush's record--has given an interview to ABC in which he completely refutes the content of the memos. The guys at Power Line have more on this. I guess that doesn't do much for CBS & co.'s newest defense--that, even if the documents aren't original, the spirit of the memos is accurate and that's what we should be focused on. It's been nice knowin' you, Dan. On second thought...

Morris: Kerry plays checkers while Bush plays chess

B-b-b-b-b-b-ut....Bush is so dumb...?

Poll average

Overall average: Bush +5.5.

Bernie Goldberg in WSJ

What we've been saying all along: the source must be more embarrassing than standing by the obvious fakes.

UCR needed!

We need an Unintentional Comedy Rating for the following quote ASAP:

"Sen. Kerry is like Seabiscuit: He runs better from behind," says Donna Brazile, who was Gore's campaign manager.

Do you really want to compare your candidate Kerry, who by all indications could successfully eat an apple through a chain-linked fence, to a racehorse?

So, Sen. Kerry...why the long face? And now that I think about it, he kind of talks like Mr. Ed, with that put-on authoritative tone. Say, "Hello, I'm Mr. Ed," then say, "I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message." Hear it?

(From the USA Today article on the Gallup poll, showing Bush up 55-42.)

UCR: 90.

Iraq and WMD

Read the headline, then read the article...and then tell me there is not an obvious liberal media bias.

CNN just destroyed CBS

Absolutely took apart the CBS "experts" -- had contacted a real document expert who called what Matley does (graphology) as "what astrology is to astronomy. Noted that CBS' other two experts are unaccredited. Showed the other expert (Will or the other one) stating that the documents had real problems and were obviously faxed from Abilene. Then went into the Burkett angle, mentioning that he has been pissed at Bush since he was governor; stating that Burkett has no comment.

Kurtz is on now. I wish he were a little more rabid in his pursuit of this story. I'm afraid he's trying to play both sides a little too much, as he is a huge lefty.

Echoes of Bo in Hugh Hewitt's post

The money quote:

The left thinks that the issues around the TANG service are relevant – Bush was AWOL then, Bush lied about WMD, both instances involve acronyms, and can’t you SEE the cloven hooves? It’s the same sort of thing that gripped the feverish elements of the Right in the 90s: Clinton winked at drug-smuggling out of Mena, therefore he sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign donations. ISN’T IT CLEAR? But that sort of nonsense was confined the margins; the editor of the Clinton Chronicles wasn’t sitting in the presidential suite at the 2000 convention like Michael Moore sitteth at the left hand of Jimmy Carter in 2004.

Football Fans for Truth

New 527 to expose Kerry as the "sports poser" that he is.

FloraBama's gone

A sad day, indeed.

It's Burkett

Kerry Spot is reporting that, according to a reader, Burkett was in the Abilene Kinko's last week, and has a standing account there. And there's much, much more to implicate Burkett -- I'm just too lazy to summarize it here when you can read it over there.

Please remember that this guy has had an absolute obsession with Bush for many years; spent time in a mental health clinic for a while, I believe.

Unimpeachable, indeed.

Latest news on Rather!

UPDATE: Breaking news!

New CBS Blog

Flipped on MSNBC, and what do I see?

The ubiquitous and ambiguously gay...Ron Reagan in a North Face jacket, reporting from Panama City Beach.

Says something about the "profession" of news reporting, doesn't it?

So let me get this straight: law professors and lawyers are totally unqualified to comment on the news, but the ambiguously gay son of a president, who has absolutely nothing on his resume, is qualified to report on Ivan?

BTW, this just hit me: Dan Rather is a proud graduate of ....Sam Houston State College. Those crazy nuts at Powerline are Harvard Law grads.

Of course, Karl Rove didn't go to college, yet the lefties think he is omnipotent, so who knows?

Statement from CBS -- Andrew Heyward, president

"We established to our satisfaction that the memos were accurate or we would not have put them on television. There was a great deal of coroborating [sic] evidence from people in a position to know. Having said that, given all the questions about them, we believe we should redouble our efforts to answer those questions, so that's what we are doing."

Who knew what, when?

Several interesting leads...

Next RTJ course?

You've got to be kidding me--"replicas," not "forgeries"?

Read this.

Quickly -- post predictions

What will CBS say in its noon statement?

Schieffer speaks

How long before he gets really irritated, realizing that his spot as debate moderator could be in jeopardy?

"I think we have to find some way to show our viewers they are not forgeries," said Schieffer..."I don't know how we're going to do that without violating the confidentiality of sources."

When will Hurricane Dan make landfall?

Conspiracy Theory Central

See Jonathon Last's blog here.

Several interesting theories as to who is behind the CBS memos. Be sure to read the comments.

Britney's Mom

As Dave Chappelle would say, "You may not be a slut, but you got a slut's uniform on."

WWI of the Media Wars -- Goldberg

Loved these last three paragraphs:

Anyway, let me make one directly partisan point while I'm at it. Dan Rather considers it outrageous and offensive that anyone would question the judgment that led to this situation. He defends what appear to be very shoddy methods (reading letters over the phone to sources, asking sources not to talk to the press, etc.), as if only a "partisan" or a fool would question them.

Well, if you agree with Rather, maybe you should give just a smidgen more slack to George W. Bush about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush's sources were more solid by several orders of magnitude than Rather's, and yet it is "obvious" to so many that Bush lied while Rather deserves the benefit of the doubt. George W. Bush had the head of the CIA, the intelligence agencies of all our allies, the Clinton administration, the United Nations, and most of the establishment media generally backing his understanding of the threat from Iraq. Dan Rather had a couple shoddy Xeroxes — not all of which were examined thoroughly or at all. He interviewed a partisan — Ben Barnes — a huge backer of Kerry whose story has changed several times. But because many who hate Bush believe he lied, they are willing to believe any lies that confirm what they already know to be true.

You might say the same to me, since I'm one of those people who've seen Dan Rather as a joke for a very long time. Fair enough. The difference is that I have better evidence on my side.

Wizbang: "On the trail of the forger"

The Shape of Things -- comparing

memos typed on IBM Selectric with MSWord, using photoshop to overlay the two samples. Conclusive proof that the memos are FAKE. This is no longer debatable.

Click here.

Silent post -- September 11

Who is worse...

Chris Rix or Marcus Randall?

Discuss.

One other thing re: documents

If you want a detailed analysis of why these documents are obvious forgeries, just check around the blogosphere: Powerline, LGF, Hugh Hewitt, Instapundit, etc. have pretty much exposed them.

But here's my contribution. The memo linked below is titled "Subject: CYA." My question: was "CYA" a commonly used acronym in the 1973 American vernacular? I doubt it, but I wasn't alive. Thoughts?

CBS forgeries vs. MSWord

Check this out -- dude typed out the CBS fake memo from 1973 into MSWord, then did an overlay. He blended the images so you can see just how similar they really are. Cool.

"The populist revolution against the so-called mainstream media continues."

John Podhoretz in the New York Post. Behold the power of the internet.

Thanks

to Six Meat Buffet for adding us to his blogroll. Now, if/when our tech monkey (Mitch) finishes manipulating his new fantasy football team, we can return the favor.

Noticed that my rambling letter

was printed in the DI today. I should have left out the line about "imminent threat," as this is just semantics, but otherwise, I thought I got in a few good cheap shots.

They edited out my Al Sharpton line, BTW.

I wish I had spent more time on it (I wrote it in about three minutes), in retrospect, but I'm pleased nonetheless.

Update: Bush Memos

Check this out on Little Green Footballs . Apparently, someone typed out the text of the memos using Times New Roman 12 point font on MS Word, and the result was an exact replica (spacing and all) of the memos used by the Boston Globe and CBS.

I am unwilling at this point to say that this is definitive proof that the Bush memos in question were forged, but it certainly raises some serious questions.

yet another UPDATE:

Drudge is reporting on it now.

Extra! Extra!

I'm sorry, but if the fact that CH had to publicly rule out pregnancy as a cause for her hiatus doesn't help you understand why I find the WNBA laughable, then I give up.

I can just see the scene playing out in my mind...

Holdsclaw: "Great news, Coach! My Clearblue Easy came up pink--Looks like I'll be playing this year, after all!"

Terrible.

Interesting Developments re: Bush Guard Memos

Powerline has been blowing up this morning with updates from readers about what now seems to be the very real possibility that the internal memos serving as the basis for the Boston Globe's big Bush National Guard story are forgeries. Pretty interesting stuff. Scroll down to the post "The Sixty-First Minute."

On a side note, why the hell isn't the MSM pointing out that Kerry has refused to sign the form authorizing the release of his own military records--something that Bush did months ago? Who's the one with something to hide?

Also, where's the outcry over the fact that Kerry has refused to take questions from the press for the past month?

Finally--and maybe the best question yet--why do I bother to ask these questions when we already know the answer?

Six Meat on Russia

I know I've been active today, but really, you must read this post from Six Meat Buffet today about the Russian school murders. This guy gets it.

Must-read: Hitchens on Russia's wake-up call

In Slate also.

"Department of Wellness"?

Ok, I'm back. Let's lighten the mood a little.

Mickey Kaus, ambivalent Kerry supporter, in Slate.com today:

Department of Wellness"! Spirit-crushing foolishness from my candidate, John Kerry. The nation is trying to figure out how to fight global terrorism and he's talking about having "not just a Department of Health and Human Services, but a Department of Wellness." How about a Department of F***ing Perspective? If Bush is smart he'll be ridiculing Kerry about this for the rest of the month. ...Thanks, Iowa!

I love it.

Now for the CBS News/AP article

This is an actual paragraph from this so-called straight news article:

"Thirty-one years later, supporters of now-President Bush have been critical of opponent John Kerry's Vietnam record. Now it's the president's turn to answer tough questions about his own service."

***blank stare***

Are you freaking kidding me?

(taking deep breath)

Clearly, this is written to imply that the Vietnam issue was brought up "thirty-one years later" by "supporters of now-President Bush."

Who are these "supporters"? Does that include Bush himself? Bush family members? Bush campaign staff? Or are "supporters" merely people who despise Kerry for their own reasons and will vote for Bush to keep JK out of office? AP lets our imaginations run wild. No mention, of course, of the FACT that John Kerry has asked the American people to judge him not on his Senate record, but on his record as a soldier in Vietnam, ahem, some thirty-one years ago -- while Bush has made no such issue of Vietnam.

"now-President Bush." Um, yes, we know he's now president. You see, AP, I live in the good ol' US of A, and I have been conscious the last four years. This is an obvious slap at the President's re-election bid.

"Now it's the president's turn to answer tough questions about his own service." Oh really? Wasn't it his turn four years ago? And six months ago? And, oh yeah, I must have missed Kerry's turn to answer those "tough questions" from the mainstream media about his Vietnam service, as the MSM has dismissed each of the Swift Boat Vets' claims out of hand and has failed to broadcast the message that, no, John Kerry could not have possibly been in Cambodia in Christmas 1968, as he himself has had to admit.

OK, I need to step away from the computer now.

The whole truth about Bush and the National Guard

Byron York tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

After seeing it in context, the National Guard story is obviously nothing but yet another desperate attempt to permeate the Teflon shield around this President. And like the other attacks, it will bounce right off.

Those racist Bama fans

Warren St. John in Slate today.

The article itself is fair, but the teaser on the Slate.com homepage reads, "Hanging with racist football fans" next to a photo of Brodie.

Shocking, I know. This gets old.

At what price?

As my seventh-grade students dutifully completed their daily warm-up assignments, I sneaked a peek at CNN.com to scan the morning’s headlines. The red “BREAKING NEWS” banner caught my eye. I beelined to the television in the corner of the room and turned on the power. A few students murmured as I began searching for a news channel, any news channel. And there it was: smoke billowed out of the two towers, and one of the girls blurted out, “What’s goin’ on, Mr. Ryan?” The towers would crumble a few minutes later as New Yorkers would frenetically try to outrun the tsunami of cement dust and smoke – as my students, and children around the nation, paid rapt attention.

Almost three years later, between law school classes, horrific images from an elementary school in Russia immediately take me back to those early days of my first year as a seventh-grade English teacher in rural North Carolina. Hundreds of children sit kneecap-to-kneecap on a gymnasium floor as their teachers roam among them, calming nerves and keeping order. I stare at the basketball goal, the cinder block walls, the skylight windows. And I remember -- my students, crammed into the bleachers, cheering for their classmates as they sing the latest R & B hit at the annual talent show; me, standing among them, looking stern, warning Thaddeus that I intend to call his grandma if he pops Dante in the back of the head one more time, cracking a grin every once in a while to remind them that I love them.

I stare at a photo of a man in black, a camouflaged helmet atop his head, inspecting his arsenal; a photo of a female militant in an Arab-style black headdress that exposes only her eyes, a pistol firmly in hand. And I remember – searching for the words to assuage both the legitimate concerns and the irrational fears of my students, for the answer to Jessica’s question: “Mr. Ryan, you think them folks are gonna bomb us? Are gonna bomb our school?”

I stare at a photo of a teacher, gripping the tiny hands of two of her students, escorting them—where?—as a heavily-armed terrorist watches threateningly. And I remember – sitting in the library at a faculty meeting, half-awake, as a video produced by the North Carolina Department of Education drones on about the appropriate emergency procedures in the event an armed intruder were to enter the school premises (immediately lock the door, gather the students in the corner of the room out of sight from the window in the door, place the green card in the window if no one is injured, a red card if someone is), and feeling confident that such procedures would never be necessary at my school.

I stare at the television as parents and grandparents sift through the charred remnants of their elementary school, searching for the physical leftovers of their reasons for living, their precious children; I listen to their howling, the excruciating agony and unfathomable pain so evident in every sob, whimper, and wail. And I remember – a young single mother, perhaps only a few years older than her child’s fresh-out-of-college English teacher, weeping during a parent-teacher conference because, after she has tried everything she knows to help her 13 year-old son learn to read, she has learned that Chris has passed his End of Grade Reading test for the first time.

Some have described the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan as chaotic. Perhaps this is true; I have personally visited neither place. But after experiencing September 11 -- watching the anxiety in the faces of twenty-eight 12 year-olds as they struggled to make sense of what they were seeing, trying to maintain a confident adult posture even as my then-22 year-old stomach grew nervous – I much prefer the somewhat controlled chaos of Afghanistan, administered by men and women much braver than I who freely volunteered to keep us safe. And even as the one thousandth American hero falls in the frenzied streets of Iraq, I much prefer his willing sacrifice to the sacrifices of thousands of unwitting New Yorkers, United Airlines passengers, and Pentagon workers.

As some politicians insist that the war in Iraq is the “wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time”— that the price, in dollars and in soldiers, is too high — I wonder: what price would the Russians pay today if they could erase the events of the last few days? Perhaps Al-Qaeda would never have struck again on American soil had we not toppled the Taliban; perhaps Saddam Hussein would never have threatened us with the devastating arsenal the entire world believed he had. Perhaps we could have avoided the awful price of war.

Perhaps. The question, though, haunts us: how much are we willing to gamble on that “perhaps”? For the alternative manifests itself in the contorted and anxiety-ridden visages of our children as they come to terms with an utterly terrifying future; in the death plunges of doomed Trade Center workers who choose free-fall over flame; in the gut-wrenching, tortured screams of a mother who immediately recognizes the lifeless hand of her beloved daughter above the rubble of a school gymnasium.

As Mr. McCain explained last week, “Our choice wasn’t between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat.”

Given that choice, I sadly – but firmly – choose war.

Gore speaks

The New Yorker.

Note that this is the man that Chris Matthews--Chris Matthews!--referred to as "the Pander Bear" during the 2000 election because he was so obviously concerned with placating the various special interests of the Democratic Party.

Bo, your question re: "Titanic"

I asked the Plaintiff last night why the movie Titanic makes girls cry, as I've always wondered myself. I mean, Rose is a total slut, from what I can tell, and Leonardo a sneaky little SOB sipping on dude's Kool-Aid.

Her response is that it may have had something to do with the 1500 people who drowned/froze to death in the frosty waters of the North Atlantic.

Point taken.

Raising Toby

A fascinating essay by a black mother raising biracial children.

Definitely worth the read, and a nice change of pace.

The world's worst candidate

Read this post from Powerline about Kerry's tin ear.

Six Meat Buffet

Highly recommend this blog, especially for Mitch. Good times.

Some things you just don't question

The Plaintiff was just flipping the channels on the TV when she came across WWE Smackdown. She stopped, gazed at the TV with a puzzled look, and asked, "Why is there a cage? Why? Why is there a cage?"

***blank stare****
Bingo that's a goodie

You know it's killing them

As I'm sure y'all know, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll came out today, substantiating the fact that Bush got a bounce out of his convention.

TIME: Bush 52, Kerry 41
Newsweek: Bush 53, Kerry 42
CNN: Bush 52, Kerry 45

Now, note the headline of this CNN article. Also note that CNN.com did not report at all on the TIME poll results, even though CNN.com has a partnership with TIME magazine.

Unbelievable.

(NOTE: the headline reads: "Poll: Bush apparently gets modest bounce.")

Whatever happened to the post-bounce era?

"A day or two later, the numbers came in and showed that Kerry's "triumph" had mysteriously not prompted the traditional post-convention bounce in the polls. Even Michael Dukakis got a bounce. But not Kerry. Indeed, according to Gallup, he had the first recorded instance of negative bounce. Fortunately, the Dems and their chums in the press were able to reassure themselves that this lack of bounce didn't mean anything.

"'Just before the convention, polls showed that many more Americans than usual had already made up their minds about whom to support, leaving a small number of undecided voters to woo,' explained Bill Straub of the Scripps-Howard news service. As for the Republican convention, 'Bush is similarly unlikely to see his poll numbers flourish.'

"Ingenious! It was the instant conventional wisdom. There are no swing voters left to bounce. The post-convention bounce is no longer relevant. It's a thing of the past. It belongs to the age of buggy whips and whalebone corsets. Forget about it. We're living in the post-bounce era of American politics. Only a chump not up to speed on this new political reality would be dumb enough to suggest that the absence of bounce is because Kerry's Vietnam-retro acceptance speech was a flop."

Read the rest of Mark Steyn's column here. Trust me, you need to read the whole thing.

Here we go...

Bush and cocaine

I say it bounces off Bush like allegations of NCAA violations bounce off UT.

Football talk

West:
Fortunes rising:
Auburn -- preseason favorite LSU stumbles, looks much less formidable than last year, opening the door wide for AU to go to ATL; but 31 points against ULM may be a little worrisome. Can't tell until they open up the offense against an SEC opponent.
Alabama -- looked considerably more polished than last year -- few penalties and vastly improved special teams -- significant upgrades at skill positions -- and Brodie is looking healthy and stronger than ever; but defensive line looked suspect against a poor Utah State team.
Arkansas -- after losing 18 starters, took care of business against non-conference opponent.
MSU -- any win is a good win.

Fortunes falling:
LSU -- quarterback is going to be a serious problem. Randall is just as bad as he was two years ago, and Russell isn't ready (but shows some promise). Will not repeat as NC, and will have a fight on its hands for the SECW.
OM -- back to reality for Ole Miss -- defensive line was dominated (from what I'm told) -- and QB is in a different league (like Pee Wee) than Manning.

East:
UT -- freshman QBs looked surprisingly polished, but didn't UNLV look terrible on D?
SC -- will be a much tougher team than most have predicted, IMO.
Vandy -- remains Vandy. Bottom line: you cannot compete in the SEC unless your school is willing to go all-out for football success.
UK -- what probation is supposed to do to a program.

Picks

LSU 27 OSU 7
Ole Miss 20 Memphis 17
South Carolina 24 Vandy 7
UVa 45 Temple 13
Tennessee 38 UNLV 10

and

Bama 38 Utah State 3

NRO on Matthews v. Miller

Click here.

The "wrong track" numbers lead Dems down the wrong track

Until now--as Democrats have officially entered full panic mode, evidenced by last night's hystrionics--the Kerry campaign has taken solace in the fact that polls show that slightly more than half of Americans feel the country is "on the wrong track" or "going in the wrong direction." The conventional wisdom is that an incumbent president cannot win under such circumstances.

This assumes, of course, that those polled understand the code -- that a "wrong track" answer is code for dissatisfaction with the President. However, when I ask myself the question of whether the country is on the "wrong track" or the "right track," I have to pause. Depends, I say. If I've just flipped through the cable TV channels and seen a few rap videos, reality TV shows, and gays pretending to get married, well -- hard to say the country is on the right track, from my perspective. Doesn't mean I'm not 100% behind the reelection of this president; just means I understand that a president is not a dictator or monarch. I would imagine that many social conservatives, when asked the "wrong track" question, are likely to answer "of course!"

Thoughts?

"Personal" attacks?

You have to read this post by Althouse.

Kerry last night

Lopez at NRO mentions that someone told her that Kerry appeared drunk last night, or at least under the influence of a few cocktails, during his post-convention rally.

I said the exact same thing to the Plaintiff last night as soon as Kerry began his speech. He had the wild look in his eye; I know the look very well.

As I strive to make this blog a hotbed of unsubstantiated rumor-mongering, comments?

Dick Morris: "A level few presidents have ever reached"

High praise.

Bo, you should have seen the speech

If you only heard the speech on the radio, you certainly didn't get the full effect. As Bush came down the homestretch, talking about the strength shown by the families who have lost loved ones in 9/11 and in the War on Terror, his eyes clearly welled up and his voice softened. I'll be damned if I wasn't on the verge of sobbing like a girlie-man, right there. I knew it was effective when 'lil Ron-Ron himself praised the speech.

The message: screw these people who call me a war-monger, who accuse me of misleading us into war for some inexplicable and nonexistent political gain. Screw these people, because they have no idea what it is like to wake up every day with the weight of the world literally on their shoulders, what it is like to relive 9/11 every day.

As Kondracke said last night, Kerry looks "incredibly petty" in contrast.

Nuff said

Hammer, meet nail. Nail, meet coffin. You know you love it.

A couple of notes re: RR, Jr. & Matthews

I was surprised to visit the blog this morning and find that Bo had already discussed the question that has been driving me absolutely nuts this week: what in the hell did Ron Reagan, Jr. do to make him qualified to offer "analysis" of the RNC on one of the most prominent cable news networks? If that guy weren't Dutch's son, he'd be lucky to get on the air on WOWL-TV 15 in Florence, AL. Not only is he unpleasant to look at (looks like a malnourished baby bird--I keep waiting on Matthews to spit chewed up worm in his mouth...I know that I'm cruel) with an abrasive personality, but his analytical skills are piss-poor. I have yet to hear him make one single coherent point, much less an astute observation, during MSNBC's RNC coverage.

Although I never gave him much credit to begin with, his exchange with Matthews and Ed Rollins last night was astonishing. After Rollins had rightly pointed out that Dubya was, politically, more like Reagan than his own father, Chris asked RR2 if it bothered him when people compared GWB to President Reagan (referencing a piece that referred to W as "Reagan's son"). Reagan, Jr. proceeded to offer some borderline-unintelligible response in which he conceded the ideological consistencies between the two, but pointed out that his father "didn't have a mean bone in his body," and that he heard "a lot of anger coming" from the stage last night, particularly from Zell Miller. When Rollins and others pointed out that A) Miller was a Democrat, and B) Miller isn't Bush, RR2 offered yet another ambiguous response, first explaining that he didn't mean GWB specifically and that he was simply comparing the current party to his father (again, Ron: see item "A)"), and then maintaining that the comparison of Bush to Reagan on a personal level was not valid and (at least as anyone could tell) implicitly suggesting that Bush was a mean or angry person. At this point, the whole panel (undoubtedly as confused as I was at RR2's "yes, no, maybe bowl of mush") acknowledged that, love him or hate him, it is hard to construe GWB as "mean" or "angry." Matthews then, having seen his ally look foolish enough, mercifully (for all of us) changed the subject. Unfortunately, MSNBC has yet to post the transcript from this portion of their coverage, but I'll link it once they do so you can observe Ron Reagan's idiocy for yourselves.

Sorry to go on and on, but this exchange was just unbelievable. I mean, "I wasn't talking about GWB specifically...I was comparing the party." Well, shitfire Ron! I could've sworn Matthews asked solely and explicitly about the comparison many make of W to Reagan. Was it that difficult to understand? Bottom line is that Reagan, Jr. is a tool and, accordingly, is being used by the media to help achieve their agenda. Let's be very clear: Reagan, Jr. isn't on MSNBC covering the RNC because he's Reagan's son; he's on the air because he's Reagan's son and he isn't voting for Bush.

With regard to the Matthews-Zell Miller altercation, I did happen to see the replay of it, and I just wanted to make one quick observation about CM that I have no tolerance for. The series of questions that, understandably, frustrated Miller went something like this: "Do you really believe that John Kerry doesn't want to defend this country?" 3 times in a row, with virtually no opportunity for Zell to respond, followed by "Do you really think Kerry wants to defend this country with spitballs?" Matthews actually asked that last question multiple times and with a straight face. I've never heard a more disingenuous series of questions in my entire life. Maybe someone should let Chris know that Zell's reference to spitballs was a rhetorical device, not meant to be taken literally, but--strangely--something tells me he already knew that. People can say what they want about O'Reilly, but he's got nothing on Chris Matthews in the gotcha journalism department.

The Georgia Bulldog

I should have waited to quote Larry Munson until after Zell's speech.

"We just stepped on their face with a hobnailed boot and broke their nose! We just crushed their faces!"

Listen here.

Roll Tide, but last night I was a Dawg.

Matthews v. Miller

Did anyone see the dust-up last night? I missed it.

Transcript here (scroll down) and Matthews' response here.

"That woman" Miller refers to is, presumably, Michelle Malkin, who was abused by Matthews on Hardball several nights ago. Read the account of her experience here.

Red Sox fans

Could they be more annoying? Why do these people always have to refer to "my beloved Red Sox"? OK, that's all.

Zell giving them hell!

Listen to the emotion in this man's voice! I can just see the Hickster punching the couch, fired up as hell.

I believe that Zell is tapping into a widely-held sentiment among the majority of Americans: we are SICK of being told that we should apologize for being Americans! This world would look very, very different had America not pulled its ass out of the fire time after time after time, and Zell is reminding the world of this FACT.

The Bush electoral strategy

is being employed once again, and it looks like it's working. That is, find your voice, find your message, and pound that message, over and over again. This time, it's national security, the ultimate issue. The Bush team understands the absolute importance of setting the terms of the debate.

God I love this post

from Polipundit. Nails it.

A different take on the twins

Soxblog says he's "pissed off" by their performance.

GMNC vs. RNC

The contrast between the Girlie-Men National Convention and the first two nights of the Republican National Convention could hardly be more striking.

• First, I just watched, for the first time, the very beginning of Kerry's acceptance speech (I had originally tuned about two minutes late). His "reporting for duty" salute was, amazingly, even more lame than I had imagined. Puts the Bush twins to shame.
• The first two nights of the Republican National Convention have featured three absolute stallions: McCain (who offered an eloquent and convincing defense of the Bush Doctrine from a man who has had his differences with Bush in the past), Giuliani (who delivered perhaps the most engaging political speech I have ever witnessed), and the Governator himself. All three men exude strength and leadership; one is hard-pressed to name three American politicians who better personify these characteristics. Democrats must feel like they've taken a steel-toed boot in the ass (or that the Republicans have "stepped on their nosewith a hob-nailed boot and crushed their faces in," to paraphrase Larry Munson).
• The Girlie-Men, on the other hand, gave us Billary on the first night, in all of his/her pain-feeling glory. Yes, Billary, who relentlessly pushed such lofty policy initiatives as school uniforms and porked fat interns while Al-Qaeda went about its business of killing innocent Americans and planning 9/11. Strong indeed. Tuesday, we were treated to Barack Obama--whose speech was fine--and my personal favorite, that symbol of masculinity, toughness, and intellectual seriousness, Ron Reagan, who accepted the invitation to speak only after Graham Norton turned it down. Seriously, Ron Reagan! I'm convinced that the Democrats gave us lil' Ron-Ron for two reasons totally unrelated to the subject of his speech, stem cell research: 1) to bite their thumbs at the Republicans, who still (rightfully) glorify the Reagan presidency, in the year of Reagan's death; and 2) to cater to the gay wing of the party. Yes, I realize Ron-Ron isn't openly gay, but...
• Anyway, the contrast is striking. There are the girlie-men, and then there is the party that truly understands the toughness and seriousness with which times like these must be faced. And the trend continues tonight and tomorrow: Cheney v. John "aren't I pretty" Edwards? Bush v. John "reporting for dorky" Kerry? If this election is about strength, it's over already.

For those fretting over the performance of the twins...

If speeches given by the candidates' children actually move votes in an election as critically important as this one, it may be time to seriously reconsider the concept of democratic self-rule, or at least the requirement of an IQ test when registering to vote.