The Daily Anvil

JoshBritton.com

2005-10-03T01:45:00.000-05:00

Again, I've more or less abandoned this blog and moved over to JoshBritton.com. Thanks for reading!

2005-08-28T19:08:00.000-05:00

Before...

2005-08-28T19:07:00.000-05:00

and After.

The first photo was taken at about 4:30 p.m. central time on Sunday. The second was taken about 6:00, after the first rains from Katrina abruptly descended on Baton Rouge.

2005-08-28T16:34:00.000-05:00

A National Guardsman directs traffic on Airline Highway in Baton Rouge on Sunday afternoon. Several intersections were closed to aid the traffic flow.

2005-08-28T16:32:00.000-05:00

Looking south at the intersection of Bluebonnet and Jefferson in Baton Rouge early Sunday afternoon, the outer reaches of Hurricane Katrina are visible.

My new home

2005-07-19T16:26:00.000-05:00

I've returned to the blogosphere, and I have a new home. See you there!

2004-12-17T21:22:00.000-06:00

Will someone please explain to me what kind of parents still allow their children to go anywhere near Michael Jackson? I seriously think there is no greater mystery confronting our society. Good heavens- what is wrong with you people?

2004-12-13T09:24:00.000-06:00

Members of LSU student government received an e-mail this morning from the LSU student body president, who is one of about 20 members on the chancellor search committee and is the lone student representative. It said, in part (it's considered an open record so I'm not "leaking" anything):

To briefly address questions regarding the process 
of this selection and its unfortunate timing, I'll 
start off by saying that no one on the selection 
committee anticipated a move this quickly on any 
individual candidate.  A great deal of effort has 
been devoted all semester toward the recruitment 
of strong candidates for the chancellor position 
and, as a result, we have roughly 20 formal 
applications.  Various individuals have been in 
touch with Mr. O'Keefe over the past several weeks, 
hoping to convince him to become a candidate.  He 
applied for the position on Friday of this past 
week and, in an effort to indicate our strong 
interest in his candidacy, the decision was made 
to immediately invite him to campus for an 
interview.   As you may have realized by the level 
of national media coverage of LSU and Mr. O'Keefe 
that occurred over the weekend, it is not in his 
or the university's best interest to delay this 
process.

The "unfortunate timing" reference alludes to the fact that final exams ended Saturday and most students have gone home for the Christmas break. And it looks like the O'Keefe-to-LSU deal is anything but done.

Speaking of finals, I think I did OK. I still have a shot at a 4.0 for the semester, but I also have a "shot" at about a 3.2. My Media and Politics grade was posted this morning; I somehow swung an A, which is a relief because that's one class I was most concerned about (it was challenging and anything less than an A wouldn't look too good on a political communication major's transcript).

2004-12-13T02:30:00.000-06:00

I recently discovered an error in a previous post.

David Duke was never elected to Congress from Louisiana (thank God), but he was elected to the state legislature in the late 1980s. Although I recall finding more than one Internet source that said he was elected to Congress, common sense should have told me to check that out (you really shouldn't take at face value anything you read online - including on The Daily Anvil, apparently).

I sit - at my keyboard - corrected.

2004-12-13T01:06:00.000-06:00

As some of you may have heard, NASA chief Sean O'Keefe is in the running to be the next chancellor at LSU.

Although CNN cites "sources inside NASA" who say O'Keefe will accept an offer from LSU, the official line from the University is that he will visit the campus on Wednesday and Thursday of this week. The fact that he is the only candidate scheduled for an interview, though, may indicate that this is a formality or a last step in the process.

The Baton Rouge Advocate reports that O'Keefe is the first of about 20 applicants to be granted an interview, but that no offer of the approximately $500,000-a-year job has been made.

Note that most of the information seems to be coming from NASA and non-LSU sources. Just a few hours ago, the University sent a press release to its community announcing O'Keefe's visit and a public forum on Wednesday. It provided a link to O'Keefe's resume and said that the committee will accept feedback from those who get to meet O'Keefe. It's not clear whether all this is just a formality or if the national buzz is getting ahead of itself, but it looks almost certain that O'Keefe will resign from NASA (with *apparently* no guarantee from LSU yet).

At first blush, O'Keefe seems to be a good choice. He's got a solid resume and is a Louisiana native, and has the kind of clout that would seem to fit well with LSU's current goals. Prior to the emergence of O'Keefe's name, I was really hoping we could land someone prominent, both to increase exposure for the school and to have a chancellor with some political clout (retiring Sen. John Breaux's name was bandied around months ago, but my secret wish was for Condi Rice if she were to retire).

Previous chancellor Mark Emmert began implementing the controversial Flagship Agenda before his departure last May for the University of Washington. The Agenda aims to raise LSU's national profile and solidify the University's status as a premier research school. An important step is breaking out of the third tier in the U.S. News and World Report college rankings. Granted, they're just rankings, but many students use them as a basis for selecting a college. The plan requires some questionable steps such as cutting the number of English and math instructors to hire more professors (which can result in larger class sizes).

I hope to meet O'Keefe at the forum Wednesday, and I'll report back on whatever I observe there. I'll also try to keep tabs on local reaction, and thanks to my job at LSU University Relations I can usually hear pretty quickly when big news breaks regarding the University. I have to keep my mouth shut until news is released to the public, but as soon as any info is cleared and sent out I'll pass it along.

A word of advice to O'Keefe or whoever gets the job -- take notes from Emmert's first few months here. When Emmert came to LSU in 1999, he had done his homework and knew the importance of football in Tigertown. Thus, a few months after his hiring he took a very public role in the search for a new football coach following Gerry DiNardo's firing in his 5th season. Emmert made clear that the school would pay what was necessary to get a top-shelf coach. The result? The much-adored Nick Saban and, four seasons later, a national championship.

In my opinion, Emmert earned a great deal of political capital from that move because LSU football fans/University supporters associated him with a winner. That eased the implementation of the Flagship Agenda and made his substantial salary more palatable.

So perhaps Emmert's successor could push for some much-needed changes to the BCS to which BCS officials claim University presidents/chancellors are so resistant...

2004-11-29T11:03:00.000-06:00

The front page of the New York Times contains another would-be-highly-amusing-if-it-weren't-so-darned-serious opinion piece masquerading as journalism - and doing a bad job of it.

This time, John F. Burns doesn't even try to be subtle with the Vietnam comparisons, offering a tale replete with swift boats, marshes and paddies, and troops "who privately admit to fears that this war could be lost."

There's not too much this reveals about the Times that hasn't already been said, but the piece really is a howler. It plays as black comedy, a parody of real reporting.

Of course, as a CYA measure, Burns mentions in passing in the 21st paragraph of the story that "[r]ecent American sweeps in the area have uncovered some of the largest weapons caches found in post-Hussein Iraq." And in the final two paragraphs, Burns finally gets around to mentioning that the troops featured in his story survived a roadside bombing later that day and managed to capture two men responsible.

But that information might take away from the breathless comparisons to Vietnam, so let's bury it at the end of the story, shall we?

The LSU student government pays for hundreds of free copies of the Times and the Baton Rouge Advocate to be distributed at locations across campus each day. I normally pick up the Times just to do the crossword (seriously), but I can't help but glance at the front page each day (while wincing, of course).

Glad Burns had the journalistic courage to tell it like it is (cough, cough).

2004-11-24T18:41:00.000-06:00

What am I thankful for? The lives these names on the LSU War Memorial represent, along with the millions of others who have so honorably served and sacrificed.

2004-11-21T09:48:00.000-06:00

The NBA is shocked - shocked, I tell you - that its model-citizen players would be involved in such a brutal melee.

Show of hands: who didn't see this coming?

When you've got pampered multimillonaires who never gained the maturity and perspective of four years of college and who expect the world to bow at their feet playing a fast-paced, high intensity game in the charged environment of a heated rivalry where class and sportsmanship have no apparent value and while the refs and the league look the other way regarding a host of various transgressions, well, my friend, it's only a matter of time before a few loudmouth fans who, in all fairness, feel like they ought to be part of the game considering what they paid for their tickets and who've had a few too many to drink and whom security allows to get away with all sorts of foul trash-talking of the players get frustrated, too, and prepare join in any developing brouhaha.

Now look at the mess you've got.

Another toast to cluelessness...

2004-11-21T09:27:00.000-06:00

2004-11-21T09:26:00.000-06:00

What a contrast...

2004-11-21T03:29:00.000-06:00

That's my president!

I couldn't help but realize the stark contrast when I remembered a certain anecdote about John Kerry's treatment of his Secret Service detail.

The list of reasons to be thankful grows longer by the day...

2004-11-20T13:23:00.000-06:00

Some players will be charged with crimes, docked pay, and suspended.

But, boy oh boy, those fans were asking for it, and I was happy to see those guys that ran on the court get what they deserved.

Off to campus for LSU-Ole Miss. This used to be the most high-profile rivalry in the country...

2004-11-19T02:31:00.000-06:00

I guess y'all thought I had died or something. I mean, almost a whole week without a posting? What am I thinking?

Part of me feels like I should offer an apology, but to whom? I'm just doing this for fun anyway. So thanks for checking back here every day, but I haven't had anything to say this week. Really.

OK, so I'm a little defensive about this. I probably could have posted, but I've been sufficiently busy this week that blogging hasn't been near the top of my list.

And I'm fine with that. As Hugh says, "If you don't post, you're toast," but hey, this is just a hobby, and I felt like taking a break.

Anyway...

I have been reading here and there and the blogosphere during my hiatus (though not as frequently as usual). A few thoughts:

Specter? For the love of all that is good, please let it be dropped.

Marines? America's finest. Kevin Sites should be ashamed.

Clinton? Fine, whatever. Yeah, the library looks like a double-wide trailer, but who cares what he says about impeachment? It's his own library, and we remember what happened.

So, for me, it's back into my cocoon of stress until the end of the semester. Curse these papers and looming exams!

I wish I could promise more than a smattering of irregular postings over the next few weeks, but I really can't. I'll do my best, though- thanks for reading.

2004-11-13T02:20:00.000-06:00

My template appears to have fixed itself by returning the sidebar to its rightful place. Weird.

2004-11-13T02:11:00.000-06:00

"CBS News has fired the producer responsible for interrupting the last five minutes of a hit crime drama with a special report on the death of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, a network source said on Friday." (HT: Drudge...I've been slacking on my hat tips lately)

And Mary Mapes is still on the payroll.

The hypocrisy is so blatant and commonplace that it is no longer a shock, but a farce, as we watch CBS and the rest of the MSM descend further into the depths of irrelevance.

Here's a toast to cluelessness.

2004-11-12T15:47:00.000-06:00

It's hard to believe I've been around for a fifth of a century as of today. Cool. That really flew by.

Got a nice link yesterday from a fellow Louisiana blogger. He referred to me as "something of a right-wing college student who may or may not spend a little too much time reading Hugh Hewitt and beating on The Daily Anvil." Yup, guess that about sums me up.

He may not have meant it as a compliment, but hey, I'll take it. Our opinions on things appear to be a little different, but I'm interested in seeing what he's got to say.

The Reveille didn't publish my letter today. I guess there's a chance they may run it Monday, but it's no big loss because most of my points were already made by other letter writers. Anyway, that's life. I just wish I hadn't spent 3+ hours researching, writing and editing the thing.

Here's the much-trimmed final cut:

Dear Editor:

I disagree with some of Andrew Midgett’s bold assumptions in his Wednesday column.

First, he asserted that people “voting their personal morality instead of the nation’s domestic and international interests” won the election for President Bush.

The exit polling asked voters to name the issue they considered most important. If voters backed Bush because of “moral values”, we shouldn’t assume that those voters didn’t also seriously consider his stances on “domestic and international interests.”

According to CNN’s Web site (and assuming exit polls are reliable indicators of voters’ motivations), in 2000, “moral values” was not one of the top seven issues voters considered. But neither was terrorism.

In the only foreign-policy related category – “world affairs” – George W. Bush beat Al Gore 54 to 40 percent or, by my math, by a margin of about 1.7 million votes among those who considered it the top issue.

In 2004, “terrorism” and “Iraq” were the third and fourth most important issues (behind “moral values” and “economy/jobs”). President Bush won the categories of moral values and terrorism by about 16 million votes each.

Even when the votes cast based on the issues of terrorism and Iraq, respectively, are combined, the President still got about 23.5 million votes to less than 16 million for Sen. Kerry.

It is clear that many more voters in this election considered terrorism a top issue, and perhaps some of these who went for Bush wouldn’t have chosen him had other issues topped their list. The results of this election cannot be so clearly attributed to “moral values” alone.

I also object to Mr. Midgett’s insistence on demeaning Bush voters as ignorant bigots. Under the guise of political analysis, Mr. Midgett unleashed a bilious and condescending attack on the millions of American voters who named “moral values” as their key issue.

Mr. Midgett managed, in the course of his column, to suggest that those voters were gullible, homophobic, ignorant, bigoted, hypocritical, misogynistic rubes who are not out to improve our nation, and he called their concerns silly and irrelevant.

This is unfair and unsubstantiated, yet sadly, we’ve heard this sort of thing from many Democrats in the days since the election.

The party of inclusion, indeed.

Other than that, all's quiet on the southern front. LSU-Bama tomorrow - I might not post till Sunday.

2004-11-11T13:22:00.000-06:00

Check out this link which details some "milestones" in the life of Yasser Arafat.

Other takes:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008583.php

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=11&x_article=795

Pay attention, if you can, to how the major media outlets are covering the death of Arafat, and see how much of the truth is reported.

Compare the above timelines to this one from CNN. And this one from the AP.

The reaction from world leaders has been telling.

Israeli Justice Minister Yosef Lapid said: "Arafat missed the opportunity to have peace in the Middle East and a Palestinian state and chose terror as a weapon, not only against Israel but against Western civilization.

"He was the godfather of al Qaeda and of bin Laden. And perhaps we now have a new opportunity to start talks with Palestinians who genuinely want to have peace."

French President Jacques Chirac called Arafat "a man of courage and conviction."

South African President Thabo Mbeki: "History will record that President Arafat epitomized that rare breed of leaders whose lives were defined by the unflinching sacrifices they made in the noble and just cause of the struggle of their peoples."

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi called Arafat "a pioneer who had laid out the foundation for the establishment of a Palestinian state."

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called Arafat "a hero to us all."

Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said Arafat "had long been a beacon of hope for Palestinians in their struggle to live with dignity."

2004-11-11T01:09:00.000-06:00

From CNN:

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has issued a statement saying he was "deeply moved" after learning of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's death.

He said Arafat would always be remembered for having led the Palestinians in 1988 to accept the principle of peaceful coexistence between Israel and a future Palestinian state.

"By signing the Oslo accords in 1993 he took a giant step towards the realization of this vision. It is tragic that he did not live to see it fulfilled," Annan said in a statement late Wednesday.

"President Arafat was one of those few leaders who could be instantly recognized by people in any walk of life all around the world," he said.

"For nearly four decades, he expressed and symbolized in his person the national aspirations of the Palestinian people. "

To do what? Sanction the wholesale murder of Israeli children?

Hmm. And Chirac praises him as a man of courage and conviction.

We're "allied" with these folks?

2004-11-11T00:41:00.000-06:00

I was starting to question my position in the Specter debate, but Hugh's latest Weekly Standard column brought me back. It is a solid, concise and compelling argument.

And if you're just entering the Specter conversation, check out Rick Brady's post compiling much of the relevant information and discussion to date.

Kudos to Rick for appearing on Hugh's radio show. I'm anxious to read his thoughts.

2004-11-10T23:53:00.000-06:00

Below is the text of a letter I submitted tonight to the Reveille, LSU's campus newspaper, in response to this column, which ran Wednesday. My letter was probably too late for Thursday's paper, but hopefully they'll choose to print it Friday.

Dear Editor:

Does the Reveille have any requirements for accuracy and basis in fact from its columnists? If it does, I’m surprised that Andrew Midgett’s Wednesday column, “Voting on personal morals bad for America”, was printed.

I object to several of the assumptions Mr. Midgett made in his piece, but in the interest of brevity I’ll focus on two.

First, he asserts that people “voting their personal morality instead of the nation’s domestic and international interests” won the election for President Bush. This is a faulty assumption for several reasons.

The exit polling merely asked voters to name the most important issue in deciding how to vote. If voters backed Bush because of “moral values”, we shouldn’t assume that those voters don’t also seriously consider his stances on “domestic and international interests.”

According to CNN’s Web site (and assuming exit polls are reliable indicators of voters’ motivations), in the 2000 exit polling, “moral values” was not among the top seven reasons voters gave when asked to name their most important issue. But neither was terrorism.

In the only category directly related to foreign policy issues – “world affairs” – George W. Bush beat Al Gore 54 to 40 percent, or by a margin of about 1.7 million votes.

In 2004, “terrorism” and “Iraq” were the third and fourth most important issues to voters (behind “moral values” and “economy/jobs”). Around 19 million voters who said terrorism was their most important issue voted for President Bush. Only about 3 million voted for Senator Kerry. President Bush won by practically identical margins (about 16 million votes each) among voters voting primarily on the issue of terrorism and those voting on moral values.

It can be argued that Bush voters were more likely to consider Iraq part of the war on terror than Kerry voters, thus giving Kerry an overwhelming share of the votes from those who said Iraq was their top issue. Yet even accounting for this dichotomy by combining the total votes received based on these two issues, the President still got about 23.5 million votes to less than 16 million for Sen. Kerry. That’s a difference of nearly 8 million votes.

Many of those who voted for Bush based on the issue of terrorism may have voted for him for a different reason in 2000; the same assumption can be made about “moral values” voters, though we can’t be sure as to how many. It is clear that many more voters considered terrorism a top issue, and perhaps some of these who went for Bush wouldn’t have chosen him had other issues topped their list. It is evident that the results of this election cannot be so clearly attributed to “moral values” alone.

Which brings me to my second objection: why does Mr. Midgett insist on demeaning Bush voters as ignorant bigots?

In the course of his column, Mr. Midgett asserts that the abortion and homosexual marriage issues are used by the Republicans to attain loyalty from their base of largely evangelical voters, whom Mr. Midgett apparently sees as dumb, easily led masses incapable of rational thought.

Since when did voters become morons simply because they embraced moral values? I’ll admit it’s arguable, but at least consider the possibility that a large number of Americans evaluated Sen. Kerry’s positions on “moral issues” and chose to reject them. Perhaps many Americans consider "moral issues" not as wedge issues but as vital domestic interests. Calling these voters stupid does not make them so.

Under the guise of political analysis, Mr. Midgett unleashed a bilious and condescending attack on the millions of American voters who named “moral values” as the key issue driving their vote. This is unfair and unsubstantiated. Sadly, we’ve heard this sort of thing from many Democrats in the days since the election.

Mr. Midgett managed, in the course of his column, to state or strongly imply that “moral values” voters were gullible, homophobic, ignorant, bigoted, hypocritical, misogynistic rubes who are not out to improve our nation, and he called their concerns silly and irrelevant.

The party of inclusion, indeed.

2004-11-10T02:30:00.000-06:00

So what's the blogosphere's post-election role going to be? Well, Hugh Hewitt doesn't really have to wonder about such things, because he's been blogging for a long time already and will be blogging through many more election cycles, I suspect.

But I'll forego a long-term philosophy for right now to focus on what I think center-right bloggers ought to be doing for at least the next four years: preventing a catastrophic split in the Republican party.

There is evidence that this is possible (and common sense tells us so). Though it's conventional wisdom that power oscillates between the two major parties, we can't ignore the fact that Republicans have won 7 of the last 10 presidential elections (with no true liberal winning any of them). So it's a reasonable assumption that the balance of power is, right now, aligned toward conservatives, or at least the center-right.

And already, people have their hands out expecting political payback. Wonder why many evangelical leaders have been so quick to claim they played a major role in the president's re-election? In these crucial post-election weeks, when the story of this election is written and typeset for history, every interested party is trying to frame it every which way. And Dr. James Dobson and others are no exception.

Does anyone else see trouble brewing? Already, many are pushing to derail Sen. Arlen Specter's ascent to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I won't delve into the specifics here, but instead refer you to others who have commented rather intelligently and insightfully thus far on the situation. There seems to be a robust and, I suppose, healthy debate in the center-right about whether Specter should be denied the chairmanship.

After reading about this for a few days now I, without reservation, agree with Hugh's take. Perhaps it's because In, But Not Of has so shaped my view of the political process that I feel this is a time for pragmatism. Those that demand ideological purity within our party are short-sighted.

Surely everyone agrees that the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee is a key role. But to insist that a strong conservative be installed there at a cost of much political capital is not a wise move. Hugh is right- they're fighting the wrong battle.

The purpose of parties is to win elections. Our political system inherently favors just two parties, so it is practical and inevitable that to win elections we must compromise on some points. Hugh says:

Evangelicals have to give the majority coalition in which they are dominant part the opportunity to deliver political accomplishments over a period of time, and they must accept less than perfection on the part of the coalition --because it is a coalition, not a pure majority. This is why I wrote my book this past year, and why it remains necessary to keep reminding people that there are not enough conservatives in this country to gain a governing majority. It is easy to lose sight of that undeniable fact just after a sweeping win. But if the center-right does forget, it will be back in the minority in two short years.

I think he's right on. This is something I've thought about a lot over the past few years as I've tried to understand what my role as a Christian should be if I do, in fact, work somewhere in politics. There seems to be a lot of pressure (often from evangelical groups) to not cave or compromise on any points. Indeed, I hear conservatives all the time criticize the president for this or that "compromise" - e.g., "settling" for a partial-birth abortion ban when they think we should seek to end all abortions.

I won't open that can of worms now except to say that, were the abortion debate a football game, Roe v. Wade was a punt downed inside our five yard line. The PBA ban was a first down. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was another. But we're still in no position to fire at the end zone, and there's no reason we should be resorting to Hail Marys (I mean the passes, not the prayers- bear with the metaphor). Think field position.

This all has a point, I promise (go back and read my first paragraph if you're wondering where I'm going with this). So there's this pressure on conservative pols, often from evangelical groups, to push for an absolute agenda. Is it worth it to try to win every battle at the expense of winning the proverbial war? If we lose elections, we don't get to make any decisions. Each politician, and especially each Christian in politics, needs to decide in his heart what lines he won't cross and what compromises he won't make.

That aside aside (and it really is in line with my point, I promise), I think a crucial role for bloggers right now is to build bridges within our party. There is little binding social and fiscal conservatives but the desire to win elections; then again, that desire is the glue of every political party. But we must remember why we support a party in the first place: not because we foolishly believe it will give us everything we want, but because we see it as the most effective vehicle for advancing our basic, common agenda and enabling us to fight for our particular passions.

So the evangelical flap over Specter is but one example- a very important example- of the caution with which we must tread. Yes, evangelical voters were important to the president's victory, and they should be proud of themselves. But so should 9/11 Democrats, "security moms", national security wonks, fiscal conservatives, and libertarians, moderates and liberals who all voted for the president because they saw him as the better choice.

This is the Republican party, not the Dobson-Falwell-Robertson Coalition (sorry, James, for linking you with those other two, but I had to make my point). Democrats would love nothing more than to effectively paint Jerry Falwell as the face of our party, and indeed they are still trying to do this.

The requisite disclaimer: I am not, of course, discounting the obvious importance of the president's evangelical base. These are just cautionary words.

So what are center-right bloggers to do? For starters, let's keep the discourse civil, as most of it has been thus far. My political communication professor makes the point that Democrats are more likely to "eat their own" when it comes to intra-party politics. But Republicans are not immune from this; see Pat Buchanan's "culture war" in 1992, along with at least one rough-and-tumble primary in recent memory. Let's remember that we're working toward a common goal.

I always wondered who those "opinion leaders" were I learned about in my Intro to Mass Communication class my freshman year. I now know that today's opinion leaders are bloggers. As opinion leaders in our party (even those of us low-traffic bloggers), we can help determine the dominant memes and push key issues to the forefront.

Let's continue the bridge-building by making a habit of reading and sharing blogs not exactly like our own. For me, for example, that would include FroggyRuminations for a military perspective and, say, Glenn Reynolds for a libertarian point of view. There are others, too- blogs by "conservatives" of all stripes. And hey, don't forget about those left-of-center blogs (the ones that aren't too hysterical). DailyKos and TalkingPointsMemo are popular and influential examples, though even they have suffered some of the rampant post-election malaise.

And, you know, we can talk about other things, too. Like federalism and analyzing the pollsters: not exactly hot topics in themselves but perfectly suited for discussion in the blogosphere.

Hugh is confident that cooler heads will prevail in the Specter situation. I think, with Sen. Santorum's support, this is a reasonable assumption. The president campaigned to help Specter win the primary (perhaps on the assumption the more conservative challenger couldn't win the crucial race); I don't foresee him leading any charge to oust the Senator.

Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and others need to take a step back and think long-term here. The decisive election victory conceals what is, in truth, a fragile majority coalition. This is nowhere more apparent than in the Senate, where the GOP holds a solid 55 seats, but some of those seats are occupied by rather "moderate" Senators (e.g. Specter and Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee). Hugh urges us to remember Jim Jeffords. We ought to guard and treasure this coalition. Who knows what will happen over the next four years, and what the winning coalition will look like in 2006 and 2008?

So bloggers, continue to get the word out. Flesh out these ideas. Channel these memes. Hone our arguments and scatter them to whichever opinion leaders will listen. Let's start now by supporting Specter's chairmanship.

2004-11-08T03:08:00.002-06:00

I was sad to hear Friday of the passing of Pat Taylor, Louisiana oilman and a member of the Forbes 400 list (#234 with an estimated net worth of at least $1.2 billion). He was the only Louisianian on the list and one of LSU's greatest success stories.

According to some articles turned up by a quick search, Taylor, a native of Beaumont, Texas, hitchhiked to Baton Rouge in 1955 when he learned LSU had free tuition (I didn't know that was ever the case). He graduated in petroleum engineering and eventually formed Taylor Energy Co., from which he made much of his wealth. It's a true rags-to-riches story, and Taylor never forgot his roots.

Perhaps his greatest contribution was the Taylor Plan, which started with a promise to some New Orleans students in 1988 that, if they made good grades, he'd pay their way through college. He kept his promise and the program was eventually adopted by the state legislature to pay the college tuition of all Louisiana students who attend public in-state colleges (the program pays a portion of private school tuition). The requirements are not terribly difficult- maintain at least a 2.5 GPA (and meet a few other requirements) in high school and keep decent grades in college. It's known as the Tuition Opportunity Program for Students, or TOPS.

It's a great program. I and thousands of other students across the state benefit from Mr. Taylor's generosity. I think I've heard that as many as 20 other states now have such programs. I'm pretty sure Louisiana was one of the first, and that's something our state can be proud of.

Over and over in articles about him, those who knew him spoke of his sense of humor and generosity. They said his three passions were education, law enforcement and the military. He not only spoke of these things, he put actions behind his words.

According to the Baton Rouge Advocate:

Young people, he said, should be able to "look at me and say, 'By golly, if he can do it, so can I.'"

...

In the September interview, Taylor said, "What I want most, and I've said this hundreds and hundreds of times in speeches across the country, is for every child born in this country to know that they have the opportunity ... to be whatever they want to be."

...

Close friend of Taylor and former LSU chancellor James Wharton said: "He was a patriot: a great, great, great American who knew what this country runs on. It runs on educated people and it runs on laws."

It also runs on people like Pat Taylor.

2004-11-04T10:43:00.000-06:00

Looks like Darth Visor won't be returning to coach at Florida. Whew.

But it is a little disappointing: He did make things more interesting- one of those guys everybody loves to hate.

2004-11-04T09:33:00.000-06:00

Powerline has a few excellent posts of late.

Edwards' speech? Bad. It was the first campaign speech of 2008 - "too long and with little grace," as Powerline put it. Someone else pointed out- and I can't remember who- that Edwards didn't even bother to congratulate the president, but continued with his Two Americas, "the battle has just begun" rhetoric. He's not doing much to advance the cause of unity.

Kerry's speech? I thought it was great, but Powerline and Captain's Quarters had a few reservations. From Powerline:

In many ways, it was an excellent speech and the Senator expressed some fine sentiments. However, it seems to me that in the past, the losing candidate always had some kind words for the victor and would also express his support and future cooperation. Kerry didn't really do either of these things. But, hey, we're a deeply divided country now.

Fair enough. I still thought he said all I was hoping he would say about closing up our divisions. But let's make something clear. Someone else I read earlier- again, I can't recall whom (I guess my brain has taken a vacation)- noted that, yes, the country is divided, but it is divided in Republicans' favor. I'm trying to say this as graciously as possible- Democrats need to accept that the American electorate has rejected some of their ideas, despite the party's best efforts to win folks over.

We have sent the message that our interests will not take a back seat to Europe's, that we approve of the President's social conservatism, that we disapprove of Dean-style radicalism, that we favor decisiveness, and that we are resolutely determined to win the War on Terror (to the extent that it is winnable) and bring the effort in Iraq to a swift and stable conclusion. We're not for turning and we're not for global tests.

I'm hopeful, but doubtful, that Democrats will do some serious soul-searching and realize that they need to reconsider some positions or stop expecting to win elections. It's not mature, productive or wise to imply or outright state that the majority of voters are idiots because they disagree with the Democratic platform.

Dems need to accept responsibility for much of the bitterness and divisiveness we saw in the campaign just past. Let's start with getting rid of Michael Moore and the Soros wing, please? For everyone's sake. By and large those people and their notions scare most Americans. When you have the same talking points as Osama bin Laden and British tabloids, you ought to know you have a problem.

It was often claimed that the GOP was trying to divide America with issues such as gay marriage. Yet Americans are more united in their opposition to gay marriage than on most other issues.

But I'll be realistic. My warm fuzzies are fading. Do I really think a spirit of unity can last? Sadly, no. 9/11 didn't even bring us together for very long. As CNN said today, just wait till the battle over a Supreme Court nomination starts to heat up.

I read Ann Coulter mainly for entertainment, but she has a really good column today. I agree with Ann that it seems odd that while Bush's campaign focused on shoring up its base and apparently succeeded by doing so, it chose not to employ more vigorously moral issues that are widely supported. She notes that moral values rated as a more crucial issue than the War on Terror, yet the war was the focus of the campaign.

But I don't think I can honestly agree with Ann's implication that the election was close because Bush wasn't conservative enough (as much as I'd like to). Where else would conservative voters go? And it's not as though they weren't about as energized as they could be.

There are so many possible arguments and explanations here, and I'll point out that the foreign and domestic issues are not mutually exclusive. That is, Rove and the Bush team often found ways to use the war and social issues, just not always in overt ways. Who am I to second-guess a winning strategy, anyway, and what on earth do I know about running campaigns?

But back to the speeches. Cheney's? Good. He called the results a clear mandate (and Bush said it was a broad victory). Bold move, but I figure the Bush team figures they have to say that because the Dems aren't about to play nice. If voters aren't reminded they've given the president a mandate, Democrats will surely try to water down Bush's momentum.

Bush's speech? Excellent. It was the same kind of soaring rhetoric we've come to expect from speechwriter Mike Gerson. Beautiful, beautiful stuff that has inspired me for four years and seriously caused me to consider speechwriting as a career. I thought the direct address to Kerry's supporters - "I will need your support, and I will work to earn it" - was well done, and I liked the unexpected closing remarks about Texas. Good touch.

As far as a couple of other things I've been thinking about, Powerline is absolutely right in saying the networks had a double-standard in calling states. It seemed Tuesday night that some states (Nevada, New Mexico, perhaps even Iowa, vote counting problems notwithstanding) could have been called more quickly but the networks were unwilling to apply a uniform standard because of the effects those projections would have.

A friend of mine noted that PA was called with 10-15% of the vote in, yet as actual results came in it got closer and closer, eventually ending up with Kerry capturing 51%. Far less risky calls could have been made- e.g. Mississippi (even California, Fox) and, yes, NV, NM and IA- but were delayed. Did they really believe those exit polls that showed a tight race in Mississippi, a state that passed its marriage amendment with 88% of the vote?

After Fox and NBC called Ohio for Bush, the White House said (as I noted earlier) they were waiting for just one more state to be called. The networks all refused to do it, knowing it would effectively force them to call the election for Bush.

Tom Brokaw on Letterman Wednesday night even admitted as much. His justification made no sense, though- "We don't declare winners," he said, claiming NBC was just out to report what happened. They didn't want to declare anything with Kerry apparently intending to contest the results in Ohio.

NBC had no trouble reporting "what happened" all throughout the night, except when it became obvious that it was time to project Bush the winner in states that would put him over 270.

Indeed, *even* Fox (with Bush at 269 after its call of Ohio) seemed quite hesitant to call another state for the president and thus push him over the top. (I think) Fox refused to call Nevada until after Kerry had phoned Bush to concede (even after all the other nets had called Nevada for Bush). Ostensibly, the networks were trying not to politicize the process, but their paranoia drove them to some bizarre and inconsistent behavior.

Even now, CNN and NBC haven't called New Mexico. Come on, folks. And Iowa, get the dang votes counted.

And one last thing. I was watching CBS Tuesday night/Wednesday morning when Rather issued his now-famous (in the blogosphere) criticism of bloggers. I reacted viscerally but, perhaps because I was so tired, didn't blog about it. I'm glad others did. Here's what he said, via Powerline, via Ace of Spades:

DAN RATHER: One would expect that the blogging machine which the White House and the Bush-Cheney campaign has used for any number of purposes over their four years will start now, if it hasn't started already, to say, listen, Kerry-Edwards, for the good of the country, need to concede.

ED BRADLEY: I'm sure it's started already. If we could tune into the Internet ummm.. can't they? -- Ace] we'd see that people are already saying that now. That's certainly the drum the White House is beating.

I'm waiting on my check from Karl Rove for allowing him to use me. Any day now, Karl, any day.

The McAuliffe and Pelosi bunch need to go.

And this, from Captain's Quarters, is just kind of sad.

Let's all go watch the two JibJab cartoons again and put this thing behind us, shall we?

2004-11-03T22:52:00.000-06:00

Another Louisiana anecdote, but this one's pretty sad (or maybe not):

My state is home to perhaps the most conservative Congressional district in the nation- District 1, much of which consists of the area directly north of Lake Pontchartrain across from New Orleans. This happens to be one of the fastest growing areas in the state.

Voters in CD 1 yesterday backed solid conservative Bobby Jindal, who last fall narrowly lost a race for governor, with 78% of the vote. Some allege that Jindal's Indian-American heritage may have been a factor in his 2003 defeat in a state where some residents, perhaps, are still trying to shed outdated attitudes on race.

The next highest vote-getter against Jindal in the race yesterday? White supremacist, former national secretary of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization and long-time David Duke aide Roy Armstrong.

Duke won a term in Congress (Correction: in the state Legislature, not Congress) from the district in the late 1980s, and garnered 39% of the statewide vote in losing a gubernatorial runoff to Edwin Edwards (currently in prison) in 1991. Duke got 43% in a losing bid for the Senate the previous year, and finished 4th with 12% in a Senate primary in 1996.

The state party fully backed Jindal's move from Baton Rouge (in CD 6) to Metairie (in CD 1) so he could run for David Vitter's open seat. There was some grumbling about the Hillary-style carpetbagging that effectively took GOP state rep Steve Scalise out of the race, but clearly Jindal won over voters.

Interestingly, Jindal won approval in his district with the same percentage as did the Louisiana Marriage Amendment statewide in September. The amendment was struck down by a lower court and is awaiting review by the state Supreme Court in December, and I hope to post on it very soon (now that the election is past).

So what does this mean? Perhaps the district is moving away from the extreme "conservatism" that elected Duke to Congress (Correction: to the state Legislature, not to Congress) and has become a beacon of conservative progress with the election of a man of Indian-American heritage.

UPDATE: I recently discovered an error in this post. David Duke was not elected to Congress, but to the state Legislature in the late 1980s...my apologies!

2004-11-03T22:44:00.000-06:00

As you can see, I'm having a bit of trouble with my blogger template. I figure there must be a problem with HTML, but I don't know HTML. I haven't touched the template; the sidebar column just automatically put itself after all of my postings in this column. Does anyone know what might be wrong?

2004-11-03T11:01:00.000-06:00

Thank you, Senator Kerry. You have earned much respect in my eyes today, and please do not interpret this as condescension. I was hoping for a conciliatory attitude no matter the outcome of the race.

I urge the Senator today to call on his supporters to put aside the bitter divisiveness of the past four years. It's unlikely they will, though, as most of them were not voting for Kerry so much as they were voting against the President.

Says AP:

Kerry told Bush the country was too divided, the source said, and Bush agreed. "We really have to do something about it," Kerry said according to the Democratic official.

Amen to that. Thank you, Lord, that we appear to have avoided another nightmare recount scenario. I am so proud of the Bush team for waiting to declare victory- an earlier claim would have been unnecessary and only added to the tension.

And I am so very grateful and respectful of the Senator for accepting defeat graciously. May we please put this campaign behind us?

There are early signs of soul-searching in the Democratic party. This is a good thing. A stronger, more moderate Democratic party would benefit us all.

Can we at least all agree that Michael Moore is a destructive force upon our republic?

I call on all Democrats to repudiate that wing of their party. It benefits no one.

I can't honestly say that the interests of the GOP are as beholden to extremist views as the Democratic party appears to be, but many would argue differently. I hope President Bush takes pains to begin to reconcile the deep division in our nation by first remembering that he is the president of all Americans, not just those in red states and counties.

My take on the election is short, and I'll leave it to folks smarter than me to tell us what really happened in the coming months:

Some have argued that the President succeeded in making this race a referendum on his opponent, whereas re-election campaigns are usually a referendum on the incumbent. Yet I believe this race was very much a referendum on the president. As evidenced by his clear win in the popular vote and the strong turnout, Americans have measured these men and more of them have found the President worthy. They have found his leadership in war reassuring, his vision at home acceptable, and his character as a man deserving of four more years.

But "mandate" or not, let's all remember that there were 55 million people who disagreed with us. That's a lot. Gloating will help no one. Let's please be gracious and reach out in humility to our fellow Americans.

2004-11-03T03:06:00.000-06:00

I wish most of America hadn't already gone to bed and was instead watching CBS News.

There is a fantastic chess match being waged now between the White House and the networks. The Bush team at first apparently said that as soon as another state was called for the President (giving him 270+ assuming Ohio is in his column), they would go to the Reagan building in D.C. to speak to supporters and essentially declare victory. Now the line is that Sen. Pete Domenici will declare victory in N.M. so the speech can happen. It doesn't look like the networks will make any more calls anytime soon.

Hold on...as I'm typing this CBS has called Nevada for the president. It's done, on the likely assumption that Ohio holds up. A quick flip through the channels shows that, bizarrely, CBS is the only one now to have called Nevada.

Dan Rather is at his finest now. He is doing everything in his power to keep hope alive for Kerry. After Ed Bradley explained the near impossibility, mathematically, of Kerry taking Ohio, Rather repeatedly made comments such as "if you believe those numbers" in an effort to undercut the near certainty of the situation.

If you're wondering why I'm watching CBS, you must be unfamiliar with schadenfreude. I was until a year or so ago.

I'm glad I'm taping this...

Finally, CBS called it for Thune!

Rather is now saying a Kerry win would be like the Red Sox comeback. Come on, Dan.

Rather just said in reference to the late hour, with unintended irony, "This is the graveyard shift at CBS News." Oh, the truths we tell...

Also, AP reports that Bush will give a victory speech shortly. I hope they do this cautiously. We don't need to engender any more hatred or come across as cocky. Kerry's use of Edwards to say "We will fight for every vote" earlier was shrewd and well-executed- and who can blame him for not conceding?

But, as CBS notes, the WH is also acting shrewdly. A declaration of victory will put heat on Kerry/Edwards to concede. Still, my gut tells me that people agree with what Edwards said- "We can wait one more night." Will the White House come across as pushy or bullying? I hope not. I trust their judgment here.

I don't fault the networks' caution, though they should have called NM by now.

I think Kerry has handled this well so far and...dare I say it?...this whole thing might be resolved decisively and with minimal rancor.

Bush now up by 147,000 in Ohio with 99% reporting, and still no call by CBS. They finally decided to be conservative...

2004-11-02T23:38:00.000-06:00

Fox just called a Vitter win in LA!

2004-11-02T22:40:00.000-06:00

So much for my idea of liveblogging. The lack of battleground calls so far has made the coverage, well, a bit boring.

The nets appear to be very cautious in calling states. Smart move, I guess, but it's made things a little dull.

But things look good in Florida. And, according to Drudge, in Ohio (but take that memo with a grain of salt).

I might post pictures later, or tomorrow. Or I might not. They're nothing groundbreaking- just people standing in line.

Anyway, the friends I'm watching the returns with are wondering why FoxNews hasn't called CA yet for Kerry. Do they know something- is his lead not wide enough by their standards?

The gap in PA continues to narrow. Why was it called so early?

Vitter is doing very well in LA. He may have been helped by heavy rains that doused the New Orleans area today.

So nervous. But we must not be anxious. Thank you Rick for the reminder.

2004-11-02T13:21:00.000-06:00

Less than two hours ago, I proudly cast my vote to re-elect President Bush.

I arrived at my precinct in our solidly Republican area at 10:50 with my parents. I'm still registered at their home address because I split time between there and my apartment in Baton Rouge, 25 miles west.

We waited for about 50 minutes before we reached the booths. I'm encouraged by the strong turnout (strongest any of us could remember) in an area that will go solidly for Bush. I think this may bode well for the President's support across the nation.

I'll post a few pictures later.

Meanwhile, story of the day: My mom kept commenting on the length of the line and how provisions should be made to allow the elderly to vote quickly. Sure enough, as we got close to the poll commissioners' table, Mom noticed an older man shuffling away from the line back to the parking lot. Assuming (correctly) that he had been unable to wait in such a long line, she alerted one of the officials and asked if any provisions could be made. Apparently the regulations allowed it, as the commissioner raced out to the parking lot to the man's car (about 100 yards away) as we watched through the open doors. She convinced him to come back inside and he joined the head of the line. Not sure who he was voting for, but I'm glad he was able to vote.

These days on which our national consciousness is so fixated on one thing are rare and should be treasured.

KerrySpot has good coverage today.

Drudge says the first wave of exit polls show Kerry competitive in key states. It will be a long and ugly day.

Keep praying.

2004-11-02T03:30:00.000-06:00

My last night before the election was fairly uneventful.

-As I mentioned previously, tomorrow is the first chance I'll ever have to cast a vote for president. I'm thrilled and honored to be able to support George W. Bush.

I stayed up late tonight following the bizarre happenings in South Dakota. In case you haven't heard, late Monday Tom Daschle filed suit against John Thune in an effort to ban Republican poll watchers from polling places today. His evidence was weak and his arguments weaker, and in the end all the judge said was that the poll watchers could no longer record license plate numbers of voters.

Can he do that? Aren't license plate numbers public information? It's quite a stretch to say that constitutes voter intimidation.

Daschle v. Thune has all the details. Scroll down and read the blow-by-blow description of the hearing last night- it was highly entertaining.

By the way, the judge was a friend of Daschle's - nominated by Daschle to the federal bench - and served as Daschle's lawyer when Daschle successfully defended his narrow win in a 1978 congressional race. How is that not a conflict of interest?

Line of the night, via Irreconcilable Musings: "My God, Tom. Even George McGovern lost with more dignity."

The consensus is that such tactics indicate the Daschle campaign is in panic mode.

-I also watched a replay on CSPAN of the president's late-night rally at SMU in Dallas last night. Good stuff. He seemed to linger at the lectern, just for a bit, after finishing his remarks. Savoring the moment as he wrapped up his last campaign, I suppose.

As he worked the crowd before leaving, the loudspeakers blared George Strait's Heartland:

"Sing a song about the heartland,
The only place I feel at home.
Sing about the way a good man
Works until the daylight's gone.
Sing the rain on the roof on a summer night
Where they still know wrong from right.
Sing a song about the heartland.
Sing a song about my life."

Great stuff, followed by a recent favorite of mine- Pat Green's Wave on Wave. I'm glad a friend introduced me to Pat's music- I now consider myself a big fan.
-And I pulled out the tape of the president's convention speech from two months ago. So moving, so earnest. I just watched the last 10 minutes because I think that was one of his finest moments as president. He was visibly moved, nearly to the point of tears, as he told of the courage and sacrifice of those military families. What a moment.

-I'll be bloghopping and liveblogging as the returns roll in tonight. Check back here and share any insights, and I'll share anything interesting I come across.

-My prediction? A solid Bush win, but both campaigns will declare victory tonight. It would make for some great theater if the consequences weren't so dang grave.

-By the way, this is worth remembering.

A letter to Senator Kerry

2004-11-02T03:05:00.000-06:00

Dear Sen. Kerry,

I'll keep this brief, honest, and to the point.

First, let me thank you for your brave service to our nation in Vietnam.

I do not believe you are an evil man, and I believe you want what is best for America. I think, however, that our worldviews are very different and that we disagree on what exactly our country needs.

You're not my favorite person. I disagree with many of your policy ideas and find a few aspects of your character unappealing.

Having said that, I don't hate you.

If you win the presidential election, I will support you. Whether or not I share your beliefs, I am grateful for the gift of our nation and would never wish to undermine its value.

I ask you to do the same, sir. Please, no matter what happens on Tuesday and the days that follow, remember that we are all Americans. Examine your heart and decide how far you are willing to go in challenging the results if, in fact, you do not win. Is it worth it if you destroy our faith in our system?

I urge you, Senator Kerry, to show leadership and choose the path of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford if you find yourself in a situation similar to theirs- on the short end of a close election. Please do not choose the path of Al Gore.

And if you win, sir, I pledge to support you, pray for you, and honor you as my president. We may rarely agree, but there are civil ways to disagree- ways that strengthen and do not weaken our system.

Please make us proud, Senator Kerry. Honor the legacy of those who died to preserve the American ideal. Remember that if you win, you are the president of all Americans, not just those who voted for you. Please do not allow your supporters to threaten the legitimacy of our frail yet resilient electoral system that relies so much on integrity.

God speed to you, and may the best man win fairly, clearly, and convincingly.

A letter to President Bush

2004-11-02T02:46:00.000-06:00

As I write this, I find myself in the early hours of Election Day 2004, the first presidential election in which I am eligible to vote. When I turned 18 nearly two years ago, I said I couldn't wait till the day I could cast my vote for George W. Bush's re-election. That day has arrived.

Every argument has been made, every clever turn of phrase has been coined, so I don't presume to break new ground here. I'm just expressing thoughts I've carried these last four years to a president who'll likely never read them, but to whom I am forever grateful.

Dear Mr. President,

Thanks. I mean it.

I've often thought about what I'd say to you if I ever met you in person. I haven't had that privilege yet, and it's a good thing because I still haven't figured out what I'd say to you.

Words are important to me (I'm a mass communication major). From what some people say about you, I ought to dislike you because you struggle to express yourself clearly.

I'd beg to differ with that. What you're trying to communicate is always clear, no matter how you say it. That's a far cry from most politicians.

I remember you saying four years ago that if we elected you, "I will restore honor and dignity to the office to which I am elected, so help me God." You said it with such conviction, and you did it.

Your predecessor was in office by the time I started to become interested in politics. Thank you, President Bush, for showing me the honor and dignity that belong in the Oval Office. You restored my troubled faith in that hallowed office.

I remember your convention speech from four years ago-how you delivered it with such vigor. "They have not led; we will" was your tagline. They hadn't, and you did.

I remember your inaugural remarks that came as our nation was still tender from strife and our faith in our system was shaken. You said this:

'After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson: ``We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?'''

How fitting.

I saw you in person a few months later, as you traversed the country building support for your tax cuts. What a memorable day that was.

Then, just a few months later, terrorists attacked us. And you responded. I remember the fear, the anxiety, that gripped me- that gripped all of us that day. You certainly never dreamed history would call your name this way.

But you rose to the challenge. I watched you so closely that week- watched for insight into your character, and watched for cues that I might follow your lead. I saw how trustworthy you were.

In you, in those days, I saw a man who was real. I so clearly recall seeing you informally addressing reporters at the White House just days after the attacks- you were choked up as you said:

"I am a loving guy, and I am also someone, however, who has got a job to do. This country will not relent until we have saved ourselves and others from the terrible tragedy that came upon America."

That meant so much for me to hear. And then, the next day, you had what I will always remember as your finest moment. Standing upon a shattered FDNY rig and addressing rescue workers through a bullhorn, you responded to one who yelled "We can't hear you." Without missing a beat, your voice rose and you said "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" Oh, how much those words meant to a scared 16-year-old sitting on his couch in Louisiana.

That same day, you comforted us all at the National Cathedral:

"Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the distance of history, but our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.
War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others; it will end in a way and at an hour of our choosing.
Our purpose as a nation is firm, yet our wounds as a people are recent and unhealed and lead us to pray. In many of our prayers this week, there's a searching and an honesty. At St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, on Tuesday, a woman said, "I pray to God to give us a sign that he's still here."
Others have prayed for the same, searching hospital to hospital, carrying pictures of those still missing.
God's signs are not always the ones we look for. We learn in tragedy that his purposes are not always our own, yet the prayers of private suffering, whether in our homes or in this great cathedral are known and heard and understood.
There are prayers that help us last through the day or endure the night. There are prayers of friends and strangers that give us strength for the journey, and there are prayers that yield our will to a will greater than our own.
This world He created is of moral design. Grief and tragedy and hatred are only for a time. Goodness, remembrance and love have no end, and the Lord of life holds all who die and all who mourn."

Then, less than a week later, you gave a speech that inspires me to this day. September 20, 2001- the date is forever etched in my memory. I've reread and listened to that speech time and time again. Each time, I am touched by the urgency and conviction in your voice- the urgency and conviction of a man who has found his purpose and knows the rightness of his cause.

"We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail." Oh, that those words would continue to inspire all of us every day.

Thank you for saying we'd smoke the terrorists out of their holes. Thank you for saying you wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." Thank you for knowing, instinctively, that was no time for nuance.

Thank you for calling evil by its name.

Thank you for throwing a strike at Yankee Stadium during the World Series. That was huge- and don't think for a second the Lord didn't make sure that pitch caught the outside corner. We needed that.

Thank you for showing me how to make tough decisions and stick to them. I believe history will vindicate you, but we needn't wait for history. Fifty million Iraqis and Afghans, and millions more of your fellow Americans, will tell you today that you've made the right decisions.

And more words have stuck with me. You said these while accepting your party's renomination for president:

"One thing I have learned about the presidency is that whatever shortcomings you have, people are going to notice them - and whatever strengths you have, you're going to need them. These four years have brought moments I could not foresee and will not forget. I have tried to comfort Americans who lost the most on September 11 - people who showed me a picture or told me a story, so I would know how much was taken from them. I have learned first-hand that ordering Americans into battle is the hardest decision, even when it is right. I have returned the salute of wounded soldiers, some with a very tough road ahead, who say they were just doing their job. I've held the children of the fallen, who are told their dad or mom is a hero, but would rather just have their dad or mom.
And I have met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers - to offer encouragement to me. Where does strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride? It is because they know their loved one was last seen doing good. Because they know that liberty was precious to the one they lost. And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation: decent, and idealistic, and strong.
The world saw that spirit three miles from here, when the people of this city faced peril together, and lifted a flag over the ruins, and defied the enemy with their courage. My fellow Americans, for as long as our country stands, people will look to the resurrection of New York City and they will say: Here buildings fell, and here a nation rose."

Thank you for showing me what it meant to be a leader of all people, not just those that voted for you. You've had to make some sacrifices that displeased your staunchest supporters, but I know you believe they were for the greater good.

Thank you, President Bush, for honoring your wife. What a beautiful picture of love and marriage as God intended it.

I'll admit, your informality has made me uncomfortable every now and then. I've cringed when you've mispronounced words and shaken my head when you've leaned on a lectern. But that's who you are, and I thank you for not apologizing for that.

It has been said of you, "This president is not for turning." Would that one day folks would say of me that I, too, am not for turning.

We share a common hero, President Bush. Ronald Reagan was more than a great president, he was a thoroughly great man. People have said that you're no Ronald Reagan. Well, they're right- but Ronald Reagan was not you, either. That doesn't mean you weren't both great men.

Thank you for reminding us all that this is not a time for unsteady leadership. Thank you for saying that whether or not we agree with you, at least we know where you stand. I wish that were true of more people.

I thank you also, President Bush, for your faith. The last thing we need is for our president to hide his faith under a bushel. I share your conviction that freedom is Almighty God's gift to mankind, and that spreading liberty is the noblest goal of a government.

No matter what happens Tuesday, I thank you Mr. President. Your service to our country has been exemplary, and I am humbly grateful for it.

I believe you will be re-elected, and I look forward to four more years of your leadership. I will continue to pray for you.

I'm sure it's hard to be in your shoes. Heck, it's not always fun to support you because those who oppose you are so bitter and spiteful. I cannot imagine being the target of such personal hatred- yet by God's grace, you persevere.

They've criticized you for talking so much about the events surrounding September 11. But sir, I can't think of anything more fitting to talk about, for it was in that refining crucible that your character was revealed. Indeed, the character of each of us was revealed.

You've said you'll never forget the words of one man you met in New York shortly after September 11: "Don't let me down."

I echo this to you today, Mr. President: Don't let me down. Don't let us down.

You have given me reason to believe in you, and for this, I will proudly cast my vote for you this Election Day. I pray that no matter what the results, you will hold fast to your character and act in a way that honors our republic. Please show leadership and discourage anyone in your party from threatening the legitimacy of this election.

I respect you and I love you, President Bush. May God continue to bless you, your family, and our great nation.

Keep the faith, sir.

2004-11-01T16:24:00.000-06:00

I'm very optimistic about Hawaii. Would the Bush team send the VP to the island state on a mere lark? I think they really believe they can win it.

Perhaps it was just a diversionary tactic and that's why the Kerry team felt a measured response was all that was required. But I think things will look very good for the President by the time the polls close in Hawaii, and that should be enough to give him the edge there.

2004-11-01T16:14:00.000-06:00

I think the Kerry discharge story is a non-factor. The blogosphere is once again asking all the right questions, but with polls beginning to open in just over 12 hours, the MSM doesn't even have to try to stifle this. Too many other things to talk about (that's not to say it stopped them from "breaking" DUI-gate in 2000, though).

Another excellent piece from MattCrash!, who once again writes movingly and convincingly in stating the case for re-election:

"This is not about the economy or health-care. It is about no Beslans in Birmingham. It is about no more 9/11s. It is about no more Bali bombings, no more Khobar towers, no more USS Coles. The choice is ours to make."

Please read the rest. More great stuff from a guy who dubbed Michael Moore "the venereal disease of the body politic." I'm still laughing about that, Matt.

So much information out there, so little time. Check out The Horserace Blog for an interesting (and esoteric) perspective, and Kerry Spot at NRO for rapid-fire analysis and some inside info.

2004-11-01T15:33:00.000-06:00

I figured out my career path: go to law school, sell my soul to the Democratic party, and make millions contesting elections and undermining our democracy. Beautiful.

2004-11-01T04:29:00.000-06:00

There are around 11,000 of us in the student section...down in our little corner, at least, the occasional chants of "Four More Years" on Saturday night were loud and fervent.

2004-11-01T03:47:00.000-06:00

Now that's what I call team spirit...

2004-11-01T02:11:00.000-06:00

I want to expound a little more on the previous post. Louisiana has never, in the modern era, elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate. Not once. That's not to say our laundry list of Democrats has been drab- not when it includes the likes of Huey P. Long and son Russell B. Sadly, my favorite Long boy, Huey's brother Earl K., never made it to the Senate. He was governor for two nonconsecutive terms, though, which included incidents like this:

"His behavior and rhetoric was at times so bizarre, that his wife, Blanche, eventually committed him to a mental institution during his second term. Confined to the state hospital in Mandeville, he demanded to be released, a demand that the hospital administrator refused. Earl then fired the administrator, and replaced him with someone who did release him. The courts later confirmed that insane or not, he had the authority.
"After his release, he continued to garner attention from the press by wild shopping sprees, and trips to Bourbon Street. He made no secret of his relationship with Bourbon Street striptease performer Blaze Starr, which led to yet another scandal."

That sort of thing is more or less the norm in Louisiana political history. What a great state.

Earl was also known for his ranting delivery while campaigning. My dad likes to tell about the time when he was a kid and Earl came to campaign in his town. Dad said after watching Earl for a few minutes as he stood in the back of a pickup truck and raved about this and that, he thought to himself, "That man must be crazy." Sure enough, a few years later Long was shipped off.

I wouldn't say most Louisianians are "proud" of our political heritage, but we sure as heck aren't ashamed of it. We just laugh it off and deal with it by telling the countless stories as we shake our heads. To be fair, our politics today do (slowly but surely) seem to be moving away from that colorful legacy.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed that little digression.

I'm not sure if there are any other states that can claim to be GOP-free in the Senate, but our claim to it may end this year.

We've come very close in two recent elections- in 2002 Mary Landrieu won re-election over Suzanne Haik Terrell 52-48%, and in 1996, when she was first elected to replace J. Bennett Johnston, Landrieu defeated Woody Jenkins by less than 6,000 votes out of 1.7 million cast. I won't comment on that except to say that New Orleans is not the first place you'd send an Iraqi delegation wanting to learn to run a clean election.

The state is a little behind the rest of the South in trending Republican, so I won't say this is the best chance a Republican will ever have to reach the Senate from Louisiana. But it is perhaps the GOP's best chance to this point, due to these three factors:

- It's an open seat. Vitter, John and Kennedy are vying for retiring Sen. John Breaux's seat. There's little chance anyone could have unseated the very popular Breaux, who won his third term in the primary by garnering 64% in 1998 against a field of 7 challengers, 6 of whom garnered less than 1.3% and 1 of whom, Republican Jim Donelon, picked up 31.6% of the vote.

- It's a presidential election year with a GOP incumbent. The conventional wisdom (borne out by the results) is that down-ticket candidates benefit if their guy wins the presidency. Also known as the "coattails" effect. Louisiana will go for Bush, but the margin could determine whether Vitter is able to avoid the runoff.

- Vitter is a viable candidate. He's not perfect, but he's no Woody Jenkins. Sorry Woody, I respect you, but Jenkins allowed Landrieu to paint you as a right-wing extremist in your 1996 race. Right-wing, yes, but was Jenkins an extremist? Who knows, but the strategy worked...barely.

Vitter has made some key strategic moves in his advertisements, including stating that he's "not interested in political parties" (or something to that effect), and highlighting a key difference with President Bush on prescription drugs. One commercial shows Vitter shivering in a blizzard, supposedly in Canada working to provide us with cheaper medicine.

In taking these steps, he's clearly trying to earn some crossover support. As the only Republican in the field, he doesn't need to earn much to get 50%.

I like Vitter's chances, runoff or no runoff. There's no way to know how it will shake out on Tuesday, but if Vitter fails to reach 50% our little state will be in the spotlight again for a month, as we were for the 2002 runoff- assuming the Presidential election actually is resolved on or around Nov. 2.

It was suggested that visits from the President and other GOP bigs in 2002 hurt Terrell, as they were viewed as outside meddling (this is the South, after all, and we're not so sure about those folks from Washington). I'm curious what strategy Vitter will employ if faced with a similar situation.

2004-10-31T17:23:00.000-06:00

Great day yesterday. Ate at TJ Ribs, home of Billy Cannon's 1959 Heisman Trophy, and saw my Tigers beat Vanderbilt.

LSU, as a college campus, isn't terribly conservative during the week, but on football weekends it's definitely Bush country. David Vitter was (smartly) out campaigning among the hordes of tailgaters yesterday afternoon.

In Louisiana, we have a blessedly unique open primary system that pits the top two vote-getters under 50% in a runoff and, love it or hate it, never fails to give us some interesting races. Perhaps the most famous was 1991's gubernatorial runoff between Edwin Edwards and David Duke - Grand Larceny vs. Grand Wizard - both of whom have recently spent time in prison. Thank God I wasn't old enough to vote.

Up until several weeks ago, the general sentiment seemed to be that Vitter would coast into a runoff against one of his two main Democratic opponents: Rep. Chris John or State Treasurer John Kennedy. But poll numbers of late have shown Vitter's numbers creeping toward the magic 50% number. Most recently, a poll by Verne Kennedy of Market Research Insight put Vitter at 47%, John at 21%, and Kennedy at 15%, with 14% undecided. I suspect that nearly all of the undecideds are Democrats, though, because Vitter is the only Republican in the race.

I heard speculation in one of my classes that if Bush reaches around 56% in Louisiana (very plausible), he could sweep Vitter into office without a runoff. The latest poll has Bush up in Louisiana 50-38. The runoff, if necessary, would be Dec. 4.

2004-10-31T17:07:00.000-06:00

My favorite place in the world.

2004-10-31T17:06:00.000-06:00

"Dubya" and a couple of my friends at the game yesterday managed to get a few "four more years" chants started...

2004-10-29T18:33:00.000-05:00

The weekend is here, and for me it couldn't have come soon enough.

This post won't be anything groundbreaking because my brain is fried from spending God-only-knows-how-long obsessing over my election forecast paper for my Campaigns and Elections class. I am officially sick of this campaign, and I don't think the paper turned out that well.

Just a few thoughts:

- I don't know if you caught any media coverage of the Kerry-Springsteen rally in Madison, Wisc., from yesterday. I had read Ann Althouse's blog coverage of it (also here) at Instapundit before I saw it on the news, and the two accounts contrasted starkly. This Yahoo account (from AFP) is laughter-inducing compared to Ann's, and I caught a few minutes of CNN this morning where the reporting was also rah-rah Kerry. Who knows- maybe it was hard for Ann to get a true sense of what the large rally was like, but I'd be more inclined to trust her than the MSM.

- I saw a few minutes of Hardball Wednesday night. Reminded me why I hardly watch TV news anymore. Some of the most biased stuff I've ever seen- glossed over blatant Kerry hypocrisy and tried to present Ron Reagan as some kind of objective correspondent.

Anyway, my election forecast: Bush 301, Kerry 237, with a 3-seat GOP Senate pickup. I got lost in the analysis under a crushing overload of data, so I came out with some bizarre picks. Ohio for Kerry? PA for Bush? What on earth was I thinking?

Like I said, my brain is fried right now.

I'm off to do dinner and a movie to try to forget about this week.

2004-10-27T22:31:00.000-05:00

Wow, so much going on- I don't know where to start. Again, here we go with the "best laid plans" thing. I'll just try to hit it all.

- Drudge is doing the siren thing again. Wow, twice in one day. This time he links to a Bill Gertz article set to run tomorrow in the (Good) Times with Pentagon deputy undersecretary Jack Shaw claiming the Russians moved weapons from Iraq, including HMX and RMX. Why wasn't this (then a Financial Times article) siren-worthy when Drudge linked to it earlier this afternoon? (HT Rick).

Looks like the October surprise may be backfiring on the DemSM. Shaw said it's "almost certain" the Russians were involved in this. Does "almost certain" still mean what it used to mean? And who is Jack Shaw? A quick Googling revealed this DoD release clearing the air about Shaw's rumored involvement in rigging telecom contracts in Iraq. And this site has more, but I'm not sure how trustworthy it is.

- Excellent post from MattCrash! today. Pay attention to the last few paragraphs on why he's voting for the president. This is good stuff:

"...politics has a lot in common with a middle-class Christmas list. Santa can only bring you so much, so you better pick the important stuff. Anything below that is something you fight for on your on."

It gets better. Read it.

- Also, this from Matthew Heidt at Froggy Ruminations (via Rick). Very interesting hypothesis, and it looks to be a very solid blog overall.

- Oh, and this via Hugh. Nice work by Dick McDonald- good perspective on some key numbers.

Maybe now I can post about the LA Senate race (before I get crackin' on a massive paper for my Campaigns and Elections class due Friday). And, I promise, the post is coming on the LA marriage amendment. I did get to talk to one of the lawyers today and got some more perspective.

2004-10-27T16:09:00.000-05:00

This is disconcerting. Keep praying. Or start now.

2004-10-27T12:08:00.000-05:00

"The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men, Gang aft agley." -- Robert Burns

It doesn't make much sense these days because of the Scottish dialect, but the Burns couplet from "To a Mouse" (which, paraphrased, ends "often go awry"), has been in evidence for me the past few days.

My last post expressed my initial impressions of what has now been dubbed Qaqaagate, and after I wrote it I checked out of the blogosphere for most of the next two days because of my schedule of classes and meetings. Add to that situation the fact that I found Blogger inaccessible for much of yesterday and this morning, and you'll see why I haven't posted in a while.

Basically, all that amounts to is an excuse, but I'd like to think of it as an explanation and apology to my few regular readers.

Imagine my surprise when, Monday afternoon, I stole a quick glance at Drudge, Hugh and Rick and noticed that the NYTimes' "bombshell" was well on its way to being debunked. It's another notch in the collective belt of the blogosphere but, more importantly, it exposes election week media chicanery for what it is: as Cosmo Kramer would say, "The worst fraud perpetrated on the American public since one-hour martinizing."

So the Qaqaa story, which you can read about all over the place (including here and here), has dominated the past few days, with the president effectively calling out today Sen. Kerry's tactless criticism of those he would seek to lead.

I had planned to make this "Louisiana Week" on the Daily Anvil, with big posts yesterday, today and Thursday on issues I've observed locally (that have some national import). Instead, I think I'll reduce it to three rapid-fire posts, with the exception of one I have planned for tomorrow detailing all I understand about the currently invalidated Louisiana Marriage Protection Amendment, which awaits a hearing before the LA Supreme Court. I hope to talk to today with one of the lawyers involved in arguing to sustain the amendment in order to round out my analysis. I'll post shortly today, though, on the Louisiana senate race.

And in case, for some reason, you checked here before you checked Drudge, a few minutes ago he cleared his news links and put up this:

"In the last week before the election, ABCNEWS is holding on a videotaped message from a purported al Qaeda terrorist warning of a new attack on America, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned... MORE..."

Here's the link. It's developing, and I'm sure he'll have more. They're apparently still trying to authenticate the tape, but it's interesting that Drudge would frame this as a case of ABC holding the tape's public release when, in fact, it appears that the tape is still in question.

How serious is the apparent threat? What is its context in the election?

2004-10-25T04:09:00.000-05:00

As badly as I want to, I just don't see what the big deal is.

Like a host of other bloggers, I kept skipping around yesterday afternoon to RedState, Powerline, FreeRepublic, Drudge and other websites hoping to get some inkling of the "surprise" story from the WashTimes. Turns out it's just another confirmation of what most of us already knew about John Kerry.

In essence, the story reports that, contrary to Kerry's oft-repeated claim that he met with "all" the members of the UN Security Council prior to the Senate's 2002 authorization of the use of force in Iraq, he only met with representatives of a few of the countries on the UNSC.

I wanted it to be a bombshell- to be some damning but fair indictment that would snap to attention those voters who aren't yet serious about this election and cause them to realize what a bad choice a vote for Kerry would be.

But I don't think the story has legs. Though you can find a mention of it on nearly every center-right blog, I don't think the general public will care that much. Lying about meeting a bunch of foreign leaders at the UN when, in fact, you apparently only met a few is indeed pathetic and strange, but will it repulse voters? Not if the use of Mary Cheney, the denigration of stay-at-home moms and spreading baseless rumors about a draft didn't already do the trick.

Yet the truth is still on our side. The story isn't by itself the best argument for the President, but it is a nice, fresh piece of supporting evidence to challenge Senator Kerry's false claims of superiority in matters of foreign policy.

I find it interesting that the NYTimes is fronting the explosives story today, given that there was buzz about the WashTimes article since Saturday (at the latest). Did the Gray Lady have this one in the hopper, ready to negate anything the other Times might be publishing?

It's mere speculation, but Hugh's breathless assessment aside, I think the two stories will effectively cancel each other out. Of course, Hugh's points are right, but most voters probably won't examine the facts that closely.

It would be nice to have a big story surface that would reaffirm all we already know about the man who makes Ted Kennedy look like William F. Buckley, but we oughtn't to rely on that to win this election. October Surprises have to be megastories to move the needle (even DWIgate didn't win it for Gore), and even more so coming from our side because they need enough momentum to clear the media sound barrier. We saw this with the painfully slow development (in the MSM) of Rathergate, which should have been a stop-the-presses moment.

By the way, I hope I'm wrong about all this. I hope the sheer will and reach of the blogosphere causes voters all over to take notice of this story. Maybe this will crystallize Kerry for them in a way they hadn't seen him before. I'll remain optimistic on that front.

But for now, as one "who spent the weekend dreaming up world-shattering scenarios" and is now nursing a consequent anticlimax, I'll just wait and see.

2004-10-23T12:49:00.000-05:00

I'm about to head off to campus to enjoy some great food and, later tonight, watch my Tigers take on Troy State. It's our first home game in nearly a month- I can't tell you how much I miss being in Tiger Stadium.

Happiest place on earth? You better believe it.

Geaux Tigers.

2004-10-22T04:49:00.000-05:00

I'm declaring this "Proud to be a Republican" day.

I have to have something to make me feel better after my Astros' valiant loss last night. Hats off to the Brady family and their beloved Cards. But my rally cry for the next week: Reverse the curse. Go Sox (sorry Rick). At least we don't have to listen to endless media attempts to draw some significance from a Texas-Massachusetts World Series matchup right before the election.

This gave me chills.
This gave me misty eyes. Bravo, Rick.
This gave me a good laugh.

Yet I'll admit that I'm ashamed I haven't made better use of the opportunity the Internet affords in providing access to ideas and insights I wouldn't otherwise know about. I'm talking specifically about Iraqi bloggers, some of whom were profiled in a telling Wall Street Journal piece by Bruce Chapman yesterday.

Think about how amazing this is! No longer do we have to rely on cynicism and common sense to tell us that our mainstream media isn't giving us the straight deal on Iraq. No, now we can read as real live Iraqis themselves tell us that.

I want to be a regular reader of Iraq the Model, and maybe some more Iraqi blogs that provide such unique insights we are blessed to have access to.

Is Senator Kerry really trying to make us think things are going disastrously? How sad.

2004-10-22T04:27:00.000-05:00

I find it mighty ironic that so many media types I've observed (my professors included) have adopted such a derisive attitude toward blogs lately. The mainstream media (That's what "MSM" means, if you didn't already know. It's OK- it was weeks before I figured that one out. Makes me wonder if I'm a little slow on the uptake...) could have learned a thing or two from blogs about ethics and responsible journalism this year- not to mention how not to accept everything politicians say at face value.

As much as any crusty, leather-patches-on-the-elbow-wearing curmudgeon would love to gasp "Aha!" as he points a finger gnarled from decades of pounding away on an ancient Underwood (not a 1970s IBM Selectric, mind you) at the impudent partisan hackery of pajama-wearing geeks, posts like the one linked above from Rick Brady render my completely-fabricated-but-not-altogether-unbelievable caricature speechless.

Indeed, it wasn't Hugh Hewitt (or any reputable blogs on the left, for that matter) who started bandying around contenders' children's sexual orientations as though they bore grave weight in the context of the campaign; it wasn't Glenn Reynolds who suggested that being a mother is something less than a full-time job; it wasn't Rick Brady who said voting for a particular candidate would quickly bring about as-yet unseen miracles in the field of embryonic stem cell research.

No, it wasn't any of them. Those statements (or, to borrow a phrase from my political communication professor, "asinine unsupported assertions"), were all recently made by the Democratic nominee for president, his wife and his running mate. But it's the blogs who are destroying civic discourse as we know it- right, Mr. Stodgy Media Curmudgeon? And it's the blogs who are reporting these baseless attacks unchallenged, am I correct?

It's unexpected positivity like Rick's that really stands out amid so much that's negative. That's why I expect Ashley's story, the largest ad buy of the campaign, to be successful.

So while stubborn managing editors huddle in musty offices to gripe about the blogosphere's lack of editors and disregard for objectivity and truth, Hugh will continue to encourage Mark Sides and countless others to write well-informed, positive posts making the case for our president, and the Powerline boys will keep sanding away to reach the unvarnished truth and buttressing their arguments with a keenness only lawyers could possess. And I will sit here and inform myself and then go out and try to convince people, for heaven's sake- for America's sake- to vote, and vote wisely.

In this brief and passing model, a nearly perfect model, of the marketplace of ideas, the market is speaking and it is choosing to reward those who do their homework, and those who think before speaking.

A refined code of ethics? A remarkable effectiveness in holding public figures accountable? A valuable forum for sharpening and evaluating ideas? How can all these things be? Surely they can't occur without some kind of government regulation?! These days, they let any old hack with a modem just say whatever he wants, don't they?

A tip of the hat to the blogosphere.

2004-10-20T01:38:00.000-05:00

Well, the jaunt to Houston was more successful than I could have hoped. We got to see some excellent baseball, including The Greatest Game Nobody Saw on Monday night.

Back to St. Louis for game(s) 6/7. I think the Astros are making a wise move in starting Pete Munro instead of Clemens Wednesday. Give the Rocket his rest, and if you need him, he'll be ready for game 7. We might get a Backe-like performance from Munro and have Roger on the mound for game 1 at Fenway or the Yank. What great theater that would be.

As much as I would otherwise want to see the Red Sox win, in a perverse and selfish way I'm pulling for the Yankees. I don't want to have to pull against the Red Sox if my Astros make it to the Series. If they face the Yankees, all of America (outside of the Bronx) would become Houston fans, but pity the poor team that takes on the sentimental favorite.

God bless the tangled emotions of the annual October soap opera that somehow manages to be so very meaningful and meaningless all at once. And Rick, we'll see who's on the wrong side of history tomorrow night. Geez, that's gonna come back and bite hard. I know better than to trash talk.

I had a good feeling last week about the three midterms and one paper I turned in. Results today: an A in PR case studies, a B+ on the paper and a very disappointing 83 in Mass Media Law, with my Political Communication exam still pending. It's encouraging but sickening to hear a professor say he "expected more from you, but I mean that in a good way." I'm really not sure what went wrong there. I had such a good feeling about that test.

But it's just one grade; law school's still very much in the picture if I so desire.

2004-10-18T00:58:00.000-05:00

HOUSTON- A few days ago, a friend who I haven't spent nearly enough time with lately suggested that we look into tickets for the National League Championship Series. A few minutes later, we had ordered "standing room only" tickets from eBay for what we thought was a good price, and we had decided to skip class Monday to make the trip.

Of course, why make the four hour trip to see just one game (or so his logic went)? We looked the next day and found even cheaper tickets for Sunday's game (we soon realized that we had paid way too much for the first set of tickets, but oh well). My friend's a Cubs fan, so he didn't have a dog in this fight between the Astros and Cardinals, but he's such a baseball fan that the experience of an NLCS itself is worth it. I've been an Astros fan all my life (though sadly, I haven't followed the team as closely this season), and I too was excited about the trip.

Ryne (named after the great Cubs second baseman Sandberg) also found his younger brother tickets for the games, and as they are two of the biggest baseball fans I know I was happy to make the trip with them.

So we're in Houston now- Ryne, Kirby and I- the three of us having seen the Astros defeat the Cardinals 6-5 in game 4 to tie the series and earn the chance to take a serious edge tomorrow night. I'll be back home early Tuesday morning, hopefully one win closer to being able to really care about the World Series for the first time in my life.

That's what's going on with me.

And here's what's going on in the horse race. Can't we see where this is going? Nowhere pretty, I suspect.
Here is why I think every vote counts.
And here are Hugh's thoughts on the reliability of polling data (somewhere in the middle of the rather lengthy post).

2004-10-15T15:29:00.000-05:00

For a while, I really wasn't sure whether I liked James Lileks' writing. Something about The Bleat sort of grated on my nerves (though is a talented writer). Maybe I was just envious of his ability to write so much and still remain clever. Or maybe I was a little weirded out by the Hummel fixation. But he finally won me over today. Great stuff.

2004-10-15T01:05:00.000-05:00

Something struck me the other day, something that I'm sure I'm not the first one to note. If you find a post that explains this concept more clearly, please leave a comment with the link.

If you live in a non-swing state, as I do, you've probably heard people griping that their votes don't count.

Wrong.

I don't care if the president's going to carry 65% in your state. Go vote. While your vote may not influence your state's outcome, it will impact the national popular vote tally.

Why is this important? Because results from several states in this election are destined for the courtroom. These legal battles will, more than anything, be waged in the court of public opinion. If Bush carries 52% or 53% nationwide to Kerry's 46%, the Democrats will be far more reluctant to challenge the results because it would create (or reinforce) a disastrous image for the party.

If, on the other hand, the results are within a percent or two (or if Kerry wins the popular vote), it'll be Florida times 20. There could be an all-out legal war, far nastier than what we saw in November and December 2000. You thought you were sick of hearing about chads? Just wait.

So if you or anyone you know isn't taking his or her vote seriously because "it doesn't matter" (or if, like 2 of my friends, they are considering casting a "protest" vote against the president because of a single issue like immigration or the minimum wage), kindly explain this scenario to them.

Remember: if it's not close, they can't cheat.

2004-10-15T00:48:00.000-05:00

I appreciate Rick Brady's encouraging post yesterday linking to my site. I think it's the first time anyone has said I write with "acumen." Too kind.

In the month or so since we each started our blogs, I've quickly come to respect Rick for his maturity and depth of insight. His grasp of such a wide variety of issues and his ability to find perspective are remarkable. More than anything, his humility in seeking to do far more than just generate traffic has been exemplary; indeed, I'm sure many of us low-traffic bloggers have found his posts regarding the roles of those in the blogosphere to be quite useful. And with all Rick has on his plate, I feel foolish complaining about not having enough time to blog.

I always feel a little awkward responding to compliments with more compliments because I'm afraid mine sound disingenuous, but please know that I write this sincerely.

Interesting post from Matt Crash yesterday. He hints at a forthcoming series, and I'm curious to see where this is going:

"The Church should not be an interest group. Yet when the civil war takes shape, we'll be caught in the middle. Who do we support? Rudy Guliani or Bill Frist? Rick Santorum or John McCain?"

I wish I had enough time to read all of the wise postings every day in the blogosphere, as there are surely many of them. There are a lot of good thoughts out there (and maybe a few not-so-good ones), and the value of this true marketplace of ideas is immeasurable.

Note the verse at in the heading of this site. I believe its concept applies to all manners of a genuine search for truth, and the blogosphere is a compelling illustration of this.

I submit that the blogosphere may never know a more exciting time than right now.

I'm not sure what shape the 'sphere will take over the coming years, and I'm not suggesting things are headed downhill. Over the past few years the blogging realm has boomed into something exciting and influential and, more surprising than anything, something amazingly well ordered.

It should be utter chaos, but genuine coherence and a remarkably refined code of ethics have emerged from the primordial soup of the Web.

I hate to be pessimistic, but I don't see how this can continue once people figure out how to make serious money off blogging. Thoughts?

2004-10-14T13:24:00.000-05:00

Last night, the President was punchy and fiesty, with a number of good lines. He seemed to have found the happy medium, stylewise, between his performances in the first two debates.

Line of the night? I liked "A plan is not a litany of complaints." But I think the one that will prove most effective came from the following exchange:

BUSH: ...My opponent, the senator, talks about foreign policy.

In our first debate he proposed America pass a global test. In order to defend ourselves, we'd have to get international approval. That's one of the major differences we have about defending our country.

I'll work with allies. I'll work with friends. We'll continue to build strong coalitions. But I will never turn over our national- security decisions to leaders of other countries.
We'll be resolute, we'll be strong, and we'll wage a comprehensive war against the terrorists.

SCHIEFFER: Senator?

KERRY: I have never suggested a test where we turn over our security to any nation. In fact, I've said the opposite: I will never turn the security of the United States over to any nation. No nation will ever have a veto over us.

But I think it makes sense, I think most Americans in their guts know, that we ought to pass a sort of truth standard. That's how you gain legitimacy with your own countrypeople, and that's how you gain legitimacy in the world.

But I'll never fail to protect the United States of America.

BUSH: In 1990, there was a vast coalition put together to run Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The international community, the international world said this is the right thing to do, but when it came time to authorize the use of force on the Senate floor, my opponent voted against the use of force.

Apparently you can't pass any test under his vision of the world.

As the president would say, I'm not sure where to start on this one.

The first thing I notice in this is that Kerry is still trying to explain the global test (No. 2 pencils only, please), only now it's morphed into a "truth standard." As Hugh points out, the fact that we're still talking about global tests tells us who committed the more serious gaffe in the first debate.

This also shows that the president understands, in a way the senator fails to or refuses to understand, what it means to work with friends and allies. What happens if, say, we have an even more convincing case for invading another country than we did for Iraq, yet our "allies" still refuse to believe our justification? A President Kerry (shudder) would either have to do proceed in spite of our failing the arbitrary test (which really doesn't depend on truth but on our "allies'" willingness to go to war), or would, in fact, have to cede the security decisions of our country to the will of another.

I do not, right now, consider France to be acting as an ally. Russia is a different situation, as they have a special set of problems, but France's opposition to the war was a tribute to its own vanity. What happened in the oil-for-escargot scandal was nothing short of betrayal.

Allies do not betray one another.

When the above exchange took place, Bush supporters everywhere breathed easier once the president finally made reference to Kerry's vote against the war in 1990.

This could not have worked more perfectly for the president. He was able to give the line without it sounding contrived and without having to go off-topic. The fact that everyone had noticed the president's previous omission of this fact in the debates meant that everyone was looking for it, assuring it would not go unnoticed. The president's delivery was serious, understated and devastating.

'Apparently you can't pass any test under his vision of the world' is a devastating line because it exposes Kerry's foreign policy for what it is: totally incoherent.

A few other quick notes: Kerry's handling of matters of faith is downright troubling. I can't believe he repeatedly calls attention to the fact that he's Catholic as he proceeds to embrace gay marriage and abortion on demand. Kerry looks uneasy when these topics come up; the president looks very comfortable. And the question of whether homosexuality is a choice does not belong in a presidential debate. I believe Bob Schieffer was trying to trap the president. Amazingly, though the question didn't require it, the candidates did try to address the real issue of gay marriage.

But try to make sense of Kerry's answer:

We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.
I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.

And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.

I think we have to respect that.

The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people.

You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth.

Now, with respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws. And they're proving today, every state, that they can manage them adequately.

What is his position on gay marriage? Can anyone distill it for me?

And this?

I respect their views. I completely respect their views. I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views. But I disagree with them, as do many.

I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.

I believe that choice is a woman's choice. It's between a woman, God and her doctor. And that's why I support that.

Now, I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade.

The president has never said whether or not he would do that. But we know from the people he's tried to appoint to the court he wants to.

I will not. I will defend the right of Roe v. Wade.

Now, with respect to religion, you know, as I said, I grew up a Catholic. I was an altar boy. I know that throughout my life this has made a difference to me.

And as President Kennedy said when he ran for president, he said, "I'm not running to be a Catholic president. I'm running to be a president who happens to be Catholic."

My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, "What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead."

And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by
your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.

That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth.

That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.

But I know this, that President Kennedy in his inaugural address told all of us that here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own. And that's what we have to — I think that's the test of public service.

The choice is simple. Bush speaks with moral clarity, Kerry with a jumbled pseudo-spirituality.

It angers me to hear politicians of either party abuse Scripture by misquoting it or taking it out of context. The senator, and Al Gore in 2000, both did this, and it portrays them in a most unflattering way. They won't win over any evangelical votes by manipulating the Bible. I suspect the Lord might not like it either.

Kerry has committed serious errors in each of the debates, but many voters might have missed them if they weren't paying close attention. That's why the blogosphere is so important. Not because everyone reads blogs, but because many opinion leaders blog, and the blogosphere helps us refine our arguments and sift out the truth. It's the power of the tail, which Hugh discussed a while back and Rick expounded upon as well: Information filters through exponentially to all of our social networks as we discuss and debate here in the blogosphere.

Breathing easier

2004-10-11T15:18:00.000-05:00

Many sighs of relief this weekend. After one of our nine chartered buses broke down (the one I was one, of course), we made it into The Swamp 5 minutes before kickoff. It didn't look promising for LSU early on, but much-maligned Marcus Randall coolly led a touchdown drive in the final two minutes to win the game. Say what you want about the kid, but he's got heart.

I've been fortunate enough to see LSU win twice at Florida, and it's a great atmosphere for football (but not as great as Death Valley). The Swamp is loud, the fans are close to the field and I don't think there's a bad seat in that stadium.

Sigh of relief 2: John Howard won re-election in Australia. I commented a bit on my perceptions of the Australian situation here. It's a big win for Aussies as they stated their support for the GWOT, rejecting opposition candidate Mark Latham who had proposed pulling Aussie troops from Iraq by Christmas. Tim Blair also has some good perspective (HT: Hugh).

An Australian political primer: The preferential voting system allows voters to list candidates in order of preference, thus allowing multiple parties to win seats. The current governing coalition is led by the Liberal party (thus Howard, the leader of the Libs, is prime minister). The Australian Liberal party's beliefs are more in line with American Republicans, with the Labor and Green parties more reflective of American liberal ideologies. Anyway, the system often has some peculiar results, such as this. If anyone understands the Australian system better or can explain it better, please comment.

I'm holding my breath on sigh #3: Can the Astros pull it off tonight?

More later on some situations in Louisiana, as well as my thoughts on Kerry's accidental honesty.

The no-net blues

2004-10-08T16:35:00.000-05:00

The Internet at my apartment is still down, but I haven't been around there enough the past few days to call and set up a time for Cox Communications to come take care of it. So I'm dashing this entry off before I leave work, and I'll probably have to forego Hugh's symposium (as much as I did want to make an entry).

I'm leaving on the LSU student government bus trip to the game at Florida in the wee hours of tomorrow morning. Should be a loooong drive (and geez, I hope we can win this time). Unless my Internet fixes itself, you might not see a new blog entry until Monday, at which time I hope to address the Louisiana Senate race and the results of the election in Australia, which is beginning as I type this.

Until then...geaux tigers!

Strong stuff

2004-10-06T16:48:00.000-05:00

I remember eagerly watching nearly every minute of the 2000 Republican National Convention, the first convention to occur after I fell in love with politics. For some reason (my naivete, I suppose), I was watching ABC's coverage on the Wednesday night that Dick Cheney gave his acceptance speech. And I remember George Stephanopoulos (I think) introducing me to a concept that, for me, defines Dick Cheney: gravitas (As in: "Cheney adds gravitas to the ticket").

I would hear about gravitas again two years later in Ancient Western Civilization my first semester in college. I didn't take that class seriously enough, but that at least caught my attention- the concept of seriousness, weightiness, importance.

That's what I saw again from Cheney last night. Hugh and the Powerline boys had high marks for Cheney. As for Edwards? One word: indistinguished, much like his career.

Hugh also had praise for the president's speech today, which I didn't get to see and haven't had a chance to read. I hope to do so tonight so I can post my analysis of it.

A quickie

2004-10-05T13:21:00.000-05:00

Just a few minutes to dash off a blog entry before I dash off to class. Tonight's the VP debate, and I hope you'll all be watching. Hugh Hewitt will be liveblogging it; I didn't keep up with his liveblogging during the first presidential debate, but I may try to follow along with Hugh tonight. It'll be good to get opinion unaffected by post-debate spin; liveblogging offers one of the only opportunities for that.

And Hugh also links to this commentary (via Tim Graham at The Corner ) from the Media Research Center regarding Gwen Ifill, tonight's debate moderator. Is she really the best the commission could come up with?

The blogosphere is making my head spin. So much valuable commentary, so little time to read and evaluate it all. Do I just skim over long posts and further my knowledge of subjects that already interest me? That would seem to defeat one of the main purposes of blogging, which is to call attention to issues not squarely in the public eye.

I'm doing my best to get the pulse of the blogosphere each day, but it ain't easy. Rick Brady suggests that I sleep less.

As to Rick's request for my input on Mark D. Roberts' series, look for it later in the week. I haven't gotten around to reading much of the blogs' input on this, but it's a subject in which I'm very interested.

Fall break's coming up, so only a day and a half of school left. Off to class till 8 p.m. Hopefully my Internet will be fully functional again tonight.

I post, therefore I am (not toast)

2004-10-04T16:35:00.000-05:00

Internet was down at the apartment last night, so this had to wait until I got in to work today.

It's not fun to drive 9 hours each way to see your favorite team embarrass themselves (and their fans), but that's what I did this weekend. LSU was bad...really bad.

Despite my objections, the nine of us left the game at the beginning of the fourth quarter. In our long walk across campus to where we had parked, my friends and I were more verbally abused than I've ever been before. I'm an SEC football fan, so I have thick skin, but the Georgia fans we encountered have no claim to classiness. Maybe LSU fans are just as bad (or worse), but that stuff is never called for.

And please pardon the brief digression, but the city of Athens should do something about the sewage treatment plant near the UGA campus. It does not make a good impression when the first thing visitors notice upon exiting the interstate is the smell of human waste. Needless to say, I don't intend to return to Athens any time soon.

But let's move on to things that really matter, right? Like the supposedly tightening presidential race. Who knows where these poll numbers come from? I still believe Bush is in good shape and that, in the long run (and barring other bizarre events in debates 2 and 3),the first debate will help the President because Kerry's gaffes have staying power.

But who am I kidding: "Barring other bizarre events"? What has this campaign been but a series of bizarre events and irresponsible coverage by the MSM? They're the only reason Kerry,with faux seriousness and a flawed grasp of the War on Terror, is even in the race.

It really is a shame more people won't watch the VP debate on Tuesday night. I believe the differences between Cheney and Edwards could not be starker and that Edwards will, in comparison, be found dreadfully lacking in seriousness. Cheney's no-nonsense approach should cutright through Edwards' plaintiff's attorney meanderings.

More later.

Reaction shot

2004-10-01T11:36:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm off to Athens, Georgia, very shortly for the LSU-Georgia game tomorrow at 2:30 on DNCBS. Big game- it seems like a lot of people are picking the Tigers, and we seem poised for a big win and Georgia for a stumble, but I know they're out for blood after losing twice to us last year. Should be a good one.

As for my debate reaction? I'd like to one day do an experiment where I'd watch a debate with some people, and then immediately turn off the TV (and Tivo the talking heads). Then, we'd discuss the debate, note our observations, then watch the media's take. I suspect it would be quite different.

Yes, I thought Bush looked a little tired, and at times got almost shrill and defensive. On the whole, though, he was straightforward and on-message. This is the same President Bush we've seen for four years. As for Kerry? He came across well, even almost non-overbearing. He was tolerable. This won't hurt the president, and I don't think it'll help Kerry that much. Kerry may have won on style, but he clearly loses on substance. Smart people disagree on things, and in this case Kerry was just wrong on many issues (not the least of which was his tragically flawed misperception of nature of the War on Terror - "Saddam didn't attack us").

Apparently, also, Kerry "looked presidential." I'm not sure what that means, though I suspect people look at him and instantly think of currency. Seriously, pull out a $20 and tell me he doesn't look like Jackson. Alas, I digress.

It appears that the Bush team is trying to make the "global test" line stick. I think that'll gain traction and could prove damaging in the days ahead. On the other hand, I don't think Bush gave Kerry any "bulletin board material", but I could be wrong.

I'll be gone until Sunday, so check Hugh and Matt for the latest. In the meantime, I might try to post an update or two from Athens if I can figure out how to e-mail a post from my phone.

OH NO! I'M GONNA GET DRAFTED!

2004-09-30T12:56:00.000-05:00

In about two hours, I'll take my first test of the semester. It's in my Campaigns and Elections class, but I'm kind of worried because I'm not sure I've prepared enough. I might be in for a rude awakening.

I've heard rumors that there's some kind of debate on for tonight. Nothing confirmed yet; I've been watching CBS News and all they've talked about is the President's plan to bring back the draft.

I jest, of course. I don't have long to put together a debate preview (after all, I've got some last-minute studying to do), but there are three things I think we need to watch for tonight:

1. Desperate stunts by Kerry. Kerry wants to strike gold tonight with a "You're no Jack Kennedy" or "There you go again" moment. My political communication professor suggested that Kerry might just violate the debate's ground rules and directly question the President on Iraq. I see it as unlikely, but maybe I'm just jaded by the predictability I've grown up observing in politics. It would certainly make for great theater, and would put Bush in a tough spot where he would have to answer a loaded question or complain to Lehrer about Kerry cheating. I wouldn't completely bank on Lehrer stepping in on his own. Maybe Bush could counter with, "Senator, you're no John McCain."

2. Disingenuous moderation. As Hugh Hewitt notes, we're going to keep a close eye on Jim Lehrer. If he tosses any slanted questions Bush's way, the blogosphere will be all over him.

3. Post-debate debate. This is where debates are framed, won and lost. Conservatives have perhaps their best chance ever to counter liberal spin after the debates. The reason? These debates, as Hewitt notes, are the first to be blogged. Bloggers will, more than anyone else, have the first crack at floating their observations and analysis (even as the debate is in progress). I'm not sure yet what changes the blogosphere will make as to how we declare our winners, but after what we've seen during this election season, should we expect anything less than dramatic?

Check back after tonight's debate for my thoughts.

I'm back

2004-09-29T14:19:00.000-05:00

Well, for those of you who check this site (and I know it's at least a few of you because I've still been getting hits even without posting), I apologize for being so long in posting again. I should have put in my previous post that I wouldn't be posting for at least a few days- or a week. Anyway, in addition to the fact that I've been busy, I haven't had too much to say this past week so I haven't had much of an impetus to post (or maybe I'm just lazy). As I'm learning, blogging requires a bit of discipline.

But as I said, I'm back, and I can't believe they're getting away with this. I find it particularly interesting that Drudge didn't give this story prominent placement. Obviously, Matt Drudge wields great power over the daily online political discourse, so why did he choose to slip the link into the middle of his page? He touched off TanScam on Tuesday with prominent placement of a photo of Technicolor John, and last January Drudge suggested that Kerry had gotten Botox treatments. So why the low-key treatment of what could be a final nail in CBS' coffin? Is Drudge signaling that it's a dead-end road and that CBS has sustained maximum damage already?

More thoughts on other subjects coming soon...and I hope to post a debate preview in time for tomorrow night.

A brief break

2004-09-23T01:06:00.000-05:00

I don't expect to blog too much today, as I have some schoolwork and sleep to catch up on. In the meantime, check out formidable SoCal bloggers Hugh, Rick and Shawna.

Quote of the month

2004-09-22T11:11:00.000-05:00

From the NY Daily News:

"Everything they said about Bush is true; they just haven't found the evidence yet." - Dale Channer, 34, florist, the Bronx.

I hear CBS is looking to hire this guy to replace Mary Mapes.

UN-successful?

2004-09-22T03:40:00.000-05:00

I didn't get to see the President's speech to the UN yesterday, but I just finished reading through it. It wasn't anything groundbreaking, but it reaffirmed to me that President Bush possesses a grand and comprehensive vision that so many leaders lack. It is a vision of "liberty's century", as liberty is the last best hope for stability in a broken world. He has held firm to the resolution offered to a stunned nation less than 12 hours after the carnage we all remember:

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

He still knows now what he knew that night. He, and many others, knew it then because the storm had gathered for years, even decades, and in one sharp moment it all crystallized. He knows it is the only option we have.

And that must frustrate him as he stands before a body founded on such high ideals and foundering in its pursuit of them.

My analysis of the President's remarks:

As I said, nothing groundbreaking. He offered a few familiar (though still valid) points that support Rick Brady's "Leg #3" in the case for war in Iraq. Leg #3 states:

(a successful war would) "create the conditions for long-term change in the middle east - a free and prosperous Arab nation in the middle east that will serve as a beacon of hope for millions"

The key lines in Bush's speech that support this "leg" are:

"We know that free peoples embrace progress and life, instead of becoming the recruits for murderous ideologies."

"In this young century, our world needs a new definition of security. Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind."

Nowhere is this security more critical or tenuous than the Middle East.

"We've witnessed the rise of democratic governments in predominantly Hindu and Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish and Christian cultures. Democratic institutions have taken root in modern societies, and in traditional societies. When it comes to the desire for liberty and justice, there is no clash of civilizations. People everywhere are capable of freedom, and worthy of freedom.

"Nor is there any -- only one form of representative government -- because democracies, by definition, take on the unique character of the peoples that create them. Yet this much we know with certainty: The desire for freedom resides in every human heart. And that desire cannot be contained forever by prison walls, or martial laws, or secret police. Over time, and across the Earth, freedom will find a way."

I like this rebuke of those who suggest that a form of democratic government cannot be established in the Middle East. No, democracy American-style isn't likely to work, but:

"In the words of the Burmese democracy advocate, Aung San Suu Kyi: 'We do not accept the notion that democracy is a Western value. To the contrary; democracy simply means good government rooted in responsibility, transparency, and accountability.'"

Of Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush said:

"These two nations will be a model for the broader Middle East, a region where millions have been denied basic human rights and simple justice. For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations."

Everything seems to have changed since the UN's founding- except for the mindset of the UN. When will a majority of the member states awaken to the reality that the approaches that have failed in the past will fail again? Bush has shown visionary leadership on this issue, and true leadership makes people uncomfortable.

Bush also said of the progress in Iraq:

"This commitment to democratic reform is essential to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict."

The above is a crucial point to bolster Leg #3. Though it seems obvious, it always ought to be part of the discussion.

"Our great purpose is to build a better world beyond the war on terror."

It's crucial that we realize that the stability of our world depends on more than just eliminating terrorist hotbeds. I think it is a fairly effective approach to suggest that the work continues on many fronts.

One area I found the speech lacking, though, was the continued vagueness with reference to the future of Iraq. The President made passing reference to terrorist opposition and the training of security forces in advance of Iraq's elections, but nothing in the way of a timetables for troop withdrawals and/or a shift in role for the UN. Maybe this wasn't the time to offer timetables.

Bush went on to renew several proposals, including debt relief for developing nations and a call for a comprehensive cloning ban. Most notably, he addressed the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan.

"At this hour, the world is witnessing terrible suffering and horrible crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan, crimes my government has concluded are genocide. The United States played a key role in efforts to broker a cease-fire, and we're providing humanitarian assistance to the Sudanese people. Rwanda and Nigeria have deployed forces in Sudan to help improve security so aid can be delivered. The Security Council adopted a new resolution that supports an expanded African Union force to help prevent further bloodshed, and urges the government of Sudan to stop flights by military aircraft in Darfur. We congratulate the members of the Council on this timely and necessary action. I call on the government of Sudan to honor the cease-fire it signed, and to stop the killing in Darfur."

The WaPo has an excellent editorial that serves as a good briefing on the situation in Darfur, especially for those seeking to enter the ongoing conversation.

It is situations like this one that expose absurdities inherent in the UN, namely that oppressive governments such as China's use their position on the Security Council to hinder humanitarian relief. Yet the UN allows the Chinese and Russians to jerk everyone else around while thousands perish. (HT: Rick Brady)

"Resolutions" don't seem to mean much to governments that are already behaving lawlessly, so there needs to be some arm-twisting. The UN needs to flex a little muscle, and swift action is required. How, then, can an organization have any legitimacy if its heavyweight members act in direct defiance of its stated ideals? It can't, and it doesn't.

Nothing illustrates that better than this:

"[Saddam Hussein] agreed in 1991, as a condition of a cease-fire, to fully comply with all Security Council resolutions -- then ignored more than a decade of those resolutions. Finally, the Security Council promised serious consequences for his defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say "serious consequences," for the sake of peace, there must be serious consequences. And so a coalition of nations enforced the just demands of the world."

Against the UN's wishes, yet justified by UN resolutions, the President took action to preserve some of the UN's credibility- action that Kofi Annan derided as "illegal."

Toward the end of the speech, Bush offered this:

"Because I believe the advance of liberty is the path to both a safer and better world, today I propose establishing a Democracy Fund within the United Nations. This is a great calling for this great organization. The fund would help countries lay the foundations of democracy by instituting the rule of law and independent courts, a free press, political parties and trade unions. Money from the fund would also help set up voter precincts and polling places, and support the work of election monitors."

This doesn't seem too radical, but I'm not sure how sound of a proposal it is. Obviously there are details involved that are over my head, but it sounds to me that we're attempting to peddle a sort of democracy-in-a-box. That doesn't seem to mesh well with Bush's earlier statements on the varied nature of democracy, but I suppose the basic building blocks (a free press, trade unions, etc.) he mentions instituting are not unique to American democracy. Is there anything significant, then, about this proposal?

The next move

2004-09-21T02:40:00.000-05:00

Because of the possible depths to which these accusations reach, I don't think we can afford to abandon the story. But we can't ignore Rick Brady's advice, either. What do we do, Rick? How do we effectively frame the coming Iraq questions while still shining the light on possible CBS-Kerry connections?

You're right in saying this:

"Kerry will rely on the MSM to frame the debate as follows: Bush misled us into an unnecessary quagmire in Iraq, which has ended up costing America dearly in terms of lives, money, and good will from the global community. The war on terrorism is a war and its necessary to fight, but Iraq is a distraction. He will say that he has a plan to get the war back on the right track."

But what can we do to combat this, to alter the framing? Is our only tack a personal one via contacts with friends and family?

The media bigs are ready to close the book on Rathergate. Yet how should the blogosphere invest its resources?

"I'm not saying ignore CBS - really, but we need to watch our flank on this one."

You've been very perceptive on this, Rick. Can you, and everyone else out there, help us flesh out a few more specific action points? I'm at a loss right now.

Lucy, you got a lotta 'splainin' to do...

2004-09-21T02:37:00.000-05:00

"I didn't even ask any questions," Burkett said. "Should I have? Yes. Maybe I was duped. I never really even considered that."

That's essentially a summary of Rather's statement from Monday.

I can't wait to read how the other blogs will assess the USA Today interview with Burkett. It would be easy (and technically correct) to write off Burkett as a certifiable loon, but there's something much larger in the works here. The whole story is just plain bizarre, a sort of cross between a bad episode of "The X-Files" and a John le Carre' novel.

But it's more than a bizarre conspiracy theory- it frighteningly and credibly hints at serious dirty tricks. I know I'm being horribly naive in hoping it's a bad dream, but I just don't want to believe that this kind of electoral manipulation could go on, and certainly not involving a major media outlet as a willing co-conspirator. If I ever held them at all, I long ago gave up any lofty notions of a noble and unbiased big media, but something inside this journalism student still recoils at the suggestion of such blatant betrayal by a powerful media organization.

If the boldest of accusations proves true- that CBS explicitly worked in concert with the Kerry campaign to subvert our political traditions- it will indeed be a tragedy. If any of the lesser accusations proves true, I fear the case for total cynicism will have been reinforced.

I surely have learned more about media ethics in the past two weeks than I could hope to learn in four years of journalism school.

"CBS would not discuss the propriety of the network serving as a conduit between Burkett and the Kerry campaign."

Thanks for the lesson, Dan.

And before I forget...

2004-09-20T01:56:00.000-05:00

Today is the third anniversary of perhaps the greatest political speech in modern times. Read it and remember.

Eesh

2004-09-20T01:53:00.000-05:00

It was a loss, and an ugly one at that, but the weekend was a blast. Gotta savor those road trips while I still can, and SEC football is definitely something worth savoring. I'd still rather lose with LSU than win with anyone else, though. But I digress...

-It looks to be a big news Monday, and this story (HT: Drudge) won't get much play, but it caught my eye. According to the article, Kerry's sister Diana "told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased."

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," Diana Kerry said.

I spent two months in Australia this summer, and most of the people I encountered did not blame the US for the threats to Australia. If anything, I got the impression that most Australians were very world-conscious and even the liberal ones well understood the threat of Islamic terrorism (not least of all because of the proximity of Indonesia and the Philippines). I certainly never heard the US blamed for the October 2002 Bali bombings, a stern reminder that, whether or not they join us in the War on Terror, Australia is still targeted because it is a Western society.

"I can't understand how anybody could argue that you can respond adequately, in the name of the scores of Australians who were killed in Bali, without being part of the worldwide war against terror," Prime Minister John Howard said after the Bali bombings.

The disagreements I heard with the Iraq war were philosophical or "moral" arguments (mostly criticizing Howard for "sucking up" to the Bush administration). Never once did I hear it said that Australia would be safer if it stayed out of the business of fighting terror. Despite an inherent national cynicism, Australians know better.

Australians are aware that the danger to them has increased, and many realize that a confrontation with terrorism is inevitable. Like most Americans, they'd rather not confront al-Qaeda on their streets.

And, as a side note, Australia's parliamentary elections are in less than three weeks. President Bush's endorsement of Howard and criticism of opposition leader Mark Latham's vow to pull troops from Iraq did not go over particularly well a few months ago (because, I presume, most Australians don't like outsiders meddling in their politics). How will Ms. Kerry's comments (which implicitly criticize Howard) play?

-So Dennis Hastert said what most other sensible people have been saying for months. And I love McAuliffe's response: that there's "no room for this in our political discourse."

No room for what, Terry? Warning the American people of the danger of making the wrong choice in a month and a half? He's right, apparently. There is no room for a discussion of substantive issues in this campaign, but there's just enough room to rehash wars two generations old.

-Drudge links to the Gray Lady's story on the latest inevitable turn of events in Rathergate. There was no way for CBS to save face on this one, and certainly not by proffering a Clintonesque explanation for what happened. Heads should roll and the network should deliver a soul-searching mea culpa, but don't count on either.

Hittin' the road...

2004-09-17T18:09:00.000-05:00

I'm sure it's not a good idea to take a hiatus from blogging this soon after starting, but three friends and I just found someone who was giving away 4 tickets to the LSU-Auburn game at Auburn this weekend. We're about to hit the road, so don't expect another post until Sunday. And be sure to watch the game tomorrow at 2:30 central on...uh-oh...THAT network. OK, break the boycott just this once to watch the Tigers (the real Tigers - the ones in purple and gold). Please?

Geaux Tigers!

One for the history books

2004-09-17T00:32:00.000-05:00

The textbook for my political communication class starts with a great illustration that describes how many of us relate to politics. We often feel like people arriving late to a cocktail party, with no idea what the conversations are and where they've been. One of my purposes in keeping this blog is to break down current issues so that anyone can "enter the ongoing argument", as the book puts it.

With that said, I had planned to write about the CBS News "Rathergate" saga, though I'm fully aware that it's now ancient news in the blogosphere (I might as well run around, a la Jim Carrey, screaming "We landed on the moon!"). But the Wall Street Journal on Thursday hit a homerun with "A Media Watershed", which belongs in every journalism textbook. The key graphs:

The current CBS "60 Minutes" imbroglio splendidly illustrates how the old political and media order has eroded. Democrats nominated Mr. Kerry in part because they thought his status as a Vietnam War hero would make him a formidable challenger--an assumption the liberal media echoed.

When that proved a miscalculation, Democrats talked about reviving the story about the President's National Guard service. Mr. Rather, a longtime Bush family antagonist and scourge of the political right, then broadcast the alleged memos from Mr. Bush's former commanding officer, and at least some of the old Rockettes (such as the Boston Globe) kicked in unison. Democrats released their own video on the subject, "Fortunate Son," not too long thereafter.

But then came the challenge to the memos' authenticity from the blogging world, which was quickly picked up by some mainstream media reporters (most aggressively ABC and the Washington Post). Soon enough the big story became not what Mr. Bush did during the war, but was Mr. Rather selling us more bull than a Texas ranch, as the CBS anchor might have put it on one of his newscasts.

Mr. Rather and his CBS bosses are sticking to their story, despite the growing evidence on the other side, leaving unanswered the biggest question of all: Who perpetrated this apparent fraud on CBS and the American voters? As journalists who sometimes go out on a limb ourselves, we'd have thought Mr. Rather's first recourse would not be to get mad but instead to double- and triple-check his sources.

That Mr. Rather isn't disclosing those sources, despite the damage to his reputation, raises the possibility that they are connected to the Democratic Party or the Kerry campaign. If that is true, then Mr. Rather would be revealed not just as a dupe, but also as the willing vehicle for a political dirty trick.

Read the whole thing. It's a near-perfect take on the state of the media, and it sums up well my own thoughts as I've sat through my journalism classes the last few weeks.

I'm so glad I've watched the blogs closely during this campaign, because I've learned far more by observing them than I could ever learn in my mass comm lectures. It's frustrating to sit in "Media and Politics" for an hour and a half as Rathergate rages, with only a passing mention of the story during class. The curtain has been pulled to expose the "old media", but is anybody watching?

Coming soon: Why does all this matter?

And so it starts (The manifesto)

2004-09-16T17:42:00.000-05:00

However you found your way here, congrats on being a part of my first (okay, second) foray into the most potent new medium around -- blogging.

Back up for a second, you say. What on earth am I talking about? "Blogs", or web logs, are usually web sites that feature a person's unique observations and commentary. Anyone can have blog- you, me...anyone. After faithfully reading blogs for nearly a year now, I've decided to jump headlong into the blogosphere.

A few days ago, Hugh Hewitt explained "the power of the tail." The "tail" is essentially the countless blogs, such as this one, who feed off high-traffic blogs and other sites and expand the flow of information exponentially.

I am convinced that blogs are already changing our society, particularly media and politics. Because of this, I've decided that I ought to enter the fray.

And it is to you that I hope to extend the info flow. I want you to think about what I write here. Read it and respond if you think it's absolute crap (or absolutely wonderful).

I'll comment on a variety of things, but I'll try not to waste your time by making this a glorified diary. I'd rather generate discussion on the pressing issues of the day -- news, politics and LSU sports.

I don't pretend to know it all, but I'll attempt to get a handle on some of what's going on in the world and offer my analysis in a clear and simple way. I'll also need your feedback, because thoughtful and spirited discussion keeps us all sharp.