So many blunders by the President tonight, it's difficult to know where to start.

It's helpful to get the facts of Dred Scott right if one is going to use it in a debate. Likewise, he was either lying or uninformed about his own finances when he waxed snarky about his timber holdings--and ended up proving the point Kerry was making.

His temper was something to behold. Given the hay that the media and blogosphere made out of Dean's Primal Yawp, I'll be surprised if the new meme isn't the President's inability to control his temper. The whining tone was back, and for most of the debate he sounded like he was hectoring the audience--on more than one occasion he managed to talk down to and insult the questioner.

And speaking of insulting your constituents, what's with the "liberal" demonizing? "That's what liberals do"? Way to insult half of the country that you want to re-elect you. A divider, not a uniter, indeed.

My fiancee couldn't stomach listening to Bush talk much, but I spent most of the debate laughing out loud, and came away from it with a warm feeling of confidence. If that's the best Bush can do, then the slogan his supporters should be chanting is not "Four More Years", it's "Four More Weeks".

Heh, perhaps the President needs to read Ann Coulter's "How to Talk to a Liberal (If you Must)" as advertised on the page.

Hehehe...

Kerry 2, Bush 0!

'Dred Scott'?!?! Well, that's an up to the moment controversy. Glad to hear we're not going back to 1857.

I think the whole thing had a very "American" feel to it.

There were times when we had that WWF smackdown atmosphere thing going.

Where else in the world would you find the socioeconomic incongruity of a windsurfing, multi-mansioned, blueblood "marry the money" guy assuring the poor slobs ("..only three of us in this room...") who will never make $200k that he will be fighting for them, and the guy who married the schoolteacher being accused of "leaving children behind"?

That good old US of A "hustling for a buck" sideshow was on display, too ... "wanna buy some lumber?".

The blatant attempt to pin the label on a guy, and the equally blatant to dodge it; yet, one just knows that a Google search will find bunch of times when that guy said (with thunder in his voice) "I am PROUD to be called a liberal."

The National Enquirer speculation surrounding the whole shebang ... "He's wearing a radio, he's on drugs, he STILL won't sign the Form 180, he's using that new Botox from the folks at Orange-Glo, he's trying to outdo Daddy, he's doing a lame Kennedy impression, etc.

And that bold riverboat gambler style of hopscotching of positions that we're so known for: the government should let you do what you want with your money --- except buy those dangerous meds coming in from Canada; I'd bring those precious allies along with us, no matter they're saying "hell no, we won't go" after they've been lining their pockets with money from the status quo in Iraq. And, who needs multinational approaches --- certainly not us, in the instances where my opponent happens to have been using THAT stupid strategy (that I would use everywhere else in the world if I could).

And then there is that American "oversimplification" thing --- where we have the two choices: sort of like the whole country needs to pick either (A) black coffee, or (B) the latte thing with cinnamon sprinkles and a dash of amaretto. The sad thing is I'd just like a small splash of cream. But that's not on the menu any more. We market tested in Iowa, and that didn't make the cut. "So, what'll it be buddy?"

The whole thing makes for great comedy. But while that roomful of folks from St. Louis is smart enough to know there are some stark differences on display, they might not be so convinced this morning that they have any good choice.

All in all, sometimes I wonder how we manage to muddle along given our foibles. But we do, and we will. Somehow. In spite of this whacko election.

There were some good tough questions last night. Kudos to the audience for daring to ask the kind of questions that the professional press corps is afraid to ask for fear of losing "access" or souring the "relationship".

It's obvious that the president has trouble controlling his temper. No one has had the temerity to ask a tough question or bring up an inconvient fact in his presence for the last three years, and last night he showed that he's just not used to hearing criticism. He was shouting at the audience, and seemed generally frustrated that they weren't buying it. Which only made him angrier.

d) If Kerry gets elected, you just know that his to-the-camera pledge not to raise taxes for households under $200,000 is going to bite him in the ass,

Mickey Kaus makes the same point.

But you're both wrong. The chances of getting a tax rise through a Republican House are zero. (Yes, that includes a rise for the $200,000 plus crowd--especially them, the Republicans' best buddies.)
In general, unless he picks up the Senate this year or in 2006, Kerry isn't going to get much accomplished legislatively. Unless it's something in the Republican platform or favored by large popular majorities.

Agree Kerry came out ahead, though not as strong as last time as Bush was better. Bush was allowed to unchain his ire, though it didn't make him more effective in the content & accuracy of his answers he was more animated and seemed in control. What doesn't work well for Bush is the cut-aways while Kerry talks. No scowls and ticks - just vacant. It almost totally undermines his dynamic responses . It was like watching a speed freak crash then go catatonic until someone pokes him with a stick and unleashes the frenzy again.

Both parties have to be disapponinted because there were so many opportunities for brilliant retorts. I still can't believe Kerry let Bush slide out of the "3 mistakes" or let him get away with spinning the Duelfer report - Bush had been doing it for a day and the media was full of criticism and rebuttal, Kerry just needed to pick one and respond.

Neither of these guys are good on their feet. Bush can't think past his sound bytes, excuse me "message clarities". You can see Kerry thinks but he's just too timid and easy going. I just think the guy fundamentally does not like going negative (this is not a bad thing, expect when you're against a Rove / Cheney candidate). He can be programmed with the right leads, but when it comes time to go for the jugular he just doesn't see that route (unlike Edwards with his trial background not only see it but can persuade). Final point - the summary statement. After almost an hour and a half of direct & forward Kerry talk, how does he end? No real criticism of what just said, no relevant concluding arguements, no wind-up to provoke Bush into a rambling closure. Just more Kerry quite simple "here's what I am". Whether or not I support that is not the issue - in the context of this debate it was the wrong statement, the wrong tactic at the wrong time

I must have been watching a different debate. Bush won. Showed himself in command. There was no temper: he was feisty and, again, in command of the situation as well as of the facts. Four more years.

I'm curious about something. Since I'm not American, many of the names Bush referenced (ie. Dred Scott and some Rubin guy) simply whooshed right by me and so I wasn't able to understand the point he was trying to make.

My question is, how big of a factor would this have been with the average American watching the debate?

The Three Faces of Bush: Out to Lunch in the first debate, Road Rage in the second debate; what's in store for the third?

Bush is seriously unhinged. No wonder his Administration keeps him sheltered from all but ardent supporters. The man goes off like a bottle rocket at the slightest criticism, imagined or real: there were times I thought he was going to dive into the audience and go after a couple of the questioners.

Bush's thin skin makes me wonder more about those infamous 7 minutes after the 9/11 attacks. Maybe he stayed in his seat with that blank look because it was that or have a complete meltdown.

Robert,

Good question. Until we hear some numbers about HOW MANY Americans actually watched the show (and who knows how many paid attention for more than five minutes) it is impossible to say. My Kerry-leaning brother and I are on speed dial because we HAVE to discuss the latest bone-headed play in Fenway every five minutes--but he broke our unspoken truce by calling during the debate to say "my guy" was losing badly. The point is, we all see what we want to see.

Prop I'd like to see eliminated: the flashing pens with which all those diligent swots are taking notes. What I'd love to see for fun: the notes these bozos are writing ("John Kerry is a doodoohead" "Bush's mama wears army boots" "loser" "whatEVER"). MY question after two debates: can John Kerry friggin answer a QUESTION? Christ, Bush at least acknowledged there WAS one, Kerry pulled out a keyword and ran off with a six-bullet point regurgitated memo.

Who won last night? The Red Sox and the Yankees. Everyone else was treading water.

Well, looked a little closer to draw from this angle: Bush was certainly better, Kerry not as good as the first debate. Kerry on demeanor, looked and acted more presidential, but flubbed several times and failed to make effective attacks; Bush better on attack, better one-liners, but not able to control temper ( joy, this is the guy whose finger hovers above the "button"). To bad Caravelle is "sleeping with the enemy"; since he came on board with the Kerry camp, I had high hopes Kerry would smoke W in this debate.

I believe the debate is more or less a tie. However, Bush did well by not destroying the momentum that Cheney started.
Also, Kerry didn't really answer several questions. On taxpayer-funded abortion, he actually flip-flopped in his answer. At first, he said he respected the questioner's beliefs (stalling for time), and rambled a bit. Then, he stated that a woman should not be unable to have an abortion because she can't afford it.
To me, that's a big transition in a very short amount of time. Bush probably didn't want to go after it because he probably had answers planned ahead of the debate (as all candidates do, to prevent those campaign-killingly stupid comments). I think Bush should have attacked Kerry's answer, or go after it well in the next debate.

However, Bush made one more improvement than Kerry: excessive blinking. Both Bush and Kerry had the problem in the first debate, then Edwards amplified it into a strobe light while Cheney had no problem with blinking five times per second. Bush blinked at a normal rate, while Kerry still had a problem, as was evident when he looked directly into the camera to say 'read my lips, no new taxes' (not in those words, but to a similar effect).

What bugged me most was the moderator. He talked over Bush several times, which curtailed Bush's ability to command the debate. The moderator should have known better than to talk over the president.

I thought Bush did better than last time. I saw his attitude as serious not angry.

I also thought Kerry looked better with lighter makeup, less heavy on the lipstick. You could tell the liberal label really got under his skin. and you know what? Kerry didn't deny it either.

I agree that R control of even one chamber means that his promise not to raise taxes is the one promise Kerry will surely keep. Kerry panders on "outsourcing" which is distasteful but not scary. Notice how he never talks about imposing tariffs or rolling back free trade. Significantly, he never mentions China, even though China-bashing might be a vote-winner. On defense, pre-9/11 votes mean nothing. Post-9/11 Kerry would no more weaken the military than Cheney would vote for plastic guns. All in all, Bush gives us no solid reason to vote against Kerry, and plenty of reasons not to give himself another term. Even if he does command the presense of mind to condemn Dred Scott.

"If Kerry gets elected, you just know that his to-the-camera pledge not to raise taxes for households under $200,000 is going to bite him in the ass"

Quite possible.

But Bush has set up *so many* problems that could bite Kerry in the ass over the next four years, that this is probably the *least* of his concerns.

And, actually, if he does have to raise taxes on the under-$200k folks, he could always follow the lead of the GOP, and blame it on his predecessor.

Road Rage? I guess in some circles if you dont speak with the standard NPR 'delicious dish' whispering low talk you are screaming. Kerry has that down. Bush, sadly, talks like real people. I thought he engaged the audience while Kerry talked at them. Both men did well, but just as KErry had more to gain in debate 1, Bush had more to gain in debate 2 so he will walk away in relatively better shape than he walked in.
Im amazed the importance of the Afghan elections is being overshadowed. Kerrys fixation and apoloxy at the opium growing notwithstanding, this is a remarkable victory for the policy of democratic expansionism. Bush should be ringing that bell for the next month. If I were Bush, my angle would be that a year ago everyone was claiming Afghanistan was a disaster and the Taliban was back in de facto control and elections would never happen. Iraq will be no different. In 6 months we will be wondering what all the fuss was about. Were a panicky, impatient sort of people.

on the not raising taxes pledge:

I disagree - If Kerry wins and raises taxes, I doubt the left will pull their support from him (I'm included in this group). I don't have a problem with higher taxes and I would guess liberals voting for Kerry wouldn't either. Maybe he'd lose the support of moderates or conservatives who voted for him, but not liberals.

Bush 41 lost conservatives when he broke his promise and thereby lost the election and that's what everyone is thinking of when Kerry made his promise. But I don't think raising taxes is the same anathema to liberals as it is to conservatives.

Off the top of my head, the closest parallel I can think of would be if Kerry promised to protect abortion rights and then didn't. Or maybe if he caved on the FMA after campainging against it. If one of those things were to happen, I could imagine liberals pulling their support for Kerry's reelection in the future. But if he raises taxes, I'd expect him to be forgiven.

This, Dr. Drezner, is an example of why I like you and your blog. That was such an evenhanded assessment.

As for his pledge not to raise taxes on certain groups, I, too, thought after he said that the same thing that you thought. The thing is, I'm not sure that it matters. He's serious about deficit reduction, and even if it costs him a little bit of political capital, it may not make a difference. And not that my opinion will make a difference, but I'm not sure that I care that much, either, if raising taxes on everyone means that, you know, we don't default on our debt.

Robert McClelland,

Robert Rubin was first head of the NEC and then Sec. of the Treasury Department (after Llyod Bentsen) during the Clinton administration.

I have a feeling that Bush pulled that story about Bob Rubin right out of his ass.

"But Bush has set up *so many* problems that could bite Kerry in the ass over the next four years, that this is probably the *least* of his concerns."

That's quite accurate.

Sure Afghan elections are important, but misleading; person elected(surely Karzai, whose got the money and our backing)will be "mayor of Kabul" in fact, and only President in name. Place is a friggin' mess, only one major road has been partially completed in three years because of constant attacks and lawlessness in countryside.

CNN vs. C-Span:

watched debate on CNN first, and was impressed at how little Bush blinked, and how much Kerry did; however, later watched again on C-Span, and was suprised at how much Bush blinked whenever Kerry attacked on vulnerable Bush issue. More cut-away shots and split screen on C-Span made all the difference. Probably seems like shallow take on all important debate- but consider, does anyone really think either one of these guys will not say or promise anything to get elected? Or that what they have to say has not been carefully "tested" by their staffs? Only real thing in these debates is body langauge and demeanor, the most problematic areas to disguise, and the only real clue to relative characters of the two men.

Please quite writing about "style" and facial expressions: listen to the answers and review the candidates' histories. Christ, who cares if Kerry used tanning spray and Botox. The man has not done much in the past 20 years to garner any ciriticism. His attendance record in the Senate would get him fired if he worked at Heinz Ketchup Company.

Please quite writing about "style" and facial expressions: listen to the answers and review the candidates' histories. Christ, who cares if Kerry used tanning spray and Botox. The man has not done much in the past 20 years to garner any ciriticism. His attendance record in the Senate would get him fired if he worked at Heinz Ketchup Company.

(d) Agreed. I was appalled that Kerry did "read my lips". I would have rather seen a pledge of no trade protection.

(e) Funny. I was hoping Kerry would come back with a pledge not to appoint pro-slavery judges.

Marginal victory for Kerry, Bush definitely did better than the first debate, but would have been hard to do worse. Definitely needs some anger management help.
Kerry botched some gigantic lobs to really kill Bush -- especially the last question on what are "three mistakes you've made". If I were Kerry, instead of going back to Iraq, I would have just said "I know many American's feel that this country is heading in hte wrong direction. Everyone makes mistakes, even the president, but you have to recognize your mistakes and learn fromt hem. President Bush doesn't believe he has made any mistakes in the past four years. I know the American people think otherwise. This president is disconnected from reality and can't get this country back in hte right direction" etc. etc.

Slight win to Kerry. Kerry somewhat indicted Bush on his failures, but he needs to go further and list as many of them as possible in the time allotted.

The questions were extremely weak. I want adversarial questions that can't be answered with stock spiels.

Kerry needs to talk about Bush's incredible failures regarding border security. Making that point over and over, giving all the data points that are available, would swing many voters Kerry's way. There are even Democratic congressmen in Texas making the same points, yet Kerry is not taking advantage of that.

How many "security moms" would trade cheap lettuce for the possibility that terrorists are infiltrating the U.S.?

The other thing Kerry could use is Bush's guest worker program. It would drive millions of wages down to near minimum wage. There's even a video available with a Bush assistant talking about how the program would involve "teachers, nurses, high-tech workers." And, it's from the Cato Institute, which is now anti-Bush.

So many of Bush's failures are huge gifts just waiting to be opened. Whether Kerry will dare to open them remains to be seen.

Bob,
Hmmm, perhaps you are correct- review their histories. Well you already started with Kerry, so about Bush: failed at managing every company or enterprise he ever touched (perhaps that huge deficit suddenly makes sense), and has spent more time on vacation while acting as prez then anyone in recent history. But hey, now we are not discussing the debate, and if I continue to look at the back-history of either of these dudes, I'll end up voting for Nader(might as well stay home on Nov.2 then, eh?).

"Did you want some wood?"

Angry? Lost control of his temper? Perhaps. At first. But this was the same guy, that deliverd the best rejoinder of the night:

"I own a timber company?"

Dramatic pause... "That's news to me."

C'mon, Dan (and Catsy, CLem, Jon & Jon) you sourpusses - even your boy laughed at that one.

I agree that Kerry missed a lot of chances to make Bush look foolish. But I wonder if that is not a deliberate decision. He is probably better off treating Bush as the President and appearing respectful.. If he treated Bush like a fool it could backfire among the undecided he is trying to win over.

Spencer might be right, polls looking just at undecideds or independants show a 10-20 point kerry margin in favor of kerry winning the debate. So perhaps Kerry is striking the right balance.

"If he treated Bush like a fool it could backfire among the undecided he is trying to win over."

He should have attacked Bush more in some areas, particularly over his gross mischaracterization of the ISG report, his health care plans, and the amount of spending that has occured, but if he pounces him for everything, it probably wouldn't come off right. Or perhaps he's just waiting to carve him up during the third debate and leave his remains for the birds to peck at afterwords.

In any event, we still have the momentum. Bush didn't break that. He helped himself, sure - of course, as Ann Richards would say, it wasn't a high hill to climb - but Kerry didn't hurt himself.

"Did you want some wood?"

Correct quote: "Need some wood?"

Explained here: A Bush-Cheney '04 ad claims Kerry would raise taxes on 900,000 small businesses and "hurt jobs." But it counts every high-salaried person who has even $1 of outside business income as a "small business owner" -- a definition so broad that even Bush and Cheney have qualified while in office. In fact, hundreds of thousands of those "small businesses" have no jobs to offer.

Bush won. Kerry tied himself into so many knots, especially on Iraq. He says Saddam was a threat and we had to get rid of him. Then he says since there wer no WMDs that Saddam wasnt a threat. Then he says Saddam was a threat again. So confusing.

Bush won. Go here to read why I think so if you care that much

http://datroy.blogspot.com

Rhetoric aside I have a real problem with "I have a plan Kerry" and the pundits who don't call him on these plans.

Why is it that Kerry has waited more than 20years to unveil all these plans that will cure all that ails America? Is anyone else just a little bit upset that he has waited all this time to save America? Couldn't he have done some of this work in his 20 years as a senator?

The reality is that each plan doesn't work. They are all rehashing of previous policy failures.

Kerry attacked Bush most ofthe night and then promised a plan to solve the problem. Recanting the problem is neither interesting at this time or revealing (other than Kerry is a gloom and doomer).

re: Dred Scott... it wasn't some random outburst.
Do a Google search of "Dred Scott" and "Abortion", and what do you find?
That in pro-life circles, the Dred Scott decision is talked about as an example of bad law precisely like Roe v. Wade.
So by invoking Dred Scott, Bush is sending a coded message to the base: "When it comes time to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, I will absolutely appoint someone who will overturn Roe." And he does it in code words so that he doesn't scare off the security moms that he's trying to woo.

Well done Jeremy.

Jeremy,
I believe you're right on Dred Scott, but wrong if (as seems to me) you assume that "security moms" would be scared off by the threat of overturning Roe v. Wade. The thing about security moms is that we put national security ahead of all other issues (for now), knowing full well what it might mean. No one is pulling one over on us. Well, no moreso than on anyone else, at any rate.

Why has Kerry waited all this time to unleash all these plans to save America? Is anyone else upset that Kerry has been hiding all these plans for more than 20 years from the American people? Can anyone really believe that all that ills the world can be cured by Kerry's plans? I for one "I have a plan" Kerry is a joke.

Angry? Lost control of his temper? Perhaps. At first. But this was the same guy, that deliverd the best rejoinder of the night:

"I own a timber company?"

Dramatic pause... "That's news to me."

Right. Except that Bush had his facts wrong and didn't even remember his own tax returns. Kerry was making a salient point about Bush's definition of "small business" and Bush's response only reinforced how out of touch he is once the fact-checkers went over it and realized that Kerry was right.

Kelli puts national security ahead of everything else "for now."

When does "for now" end?

How does giving up abortion rights make you safer? What other rights are you willing to give up in order to feel safer? (You are, I'm sure, familiar with Benjamin Franklin's views on trading off liberty for security.)

How do you plan to get back the rights you're now willing to lose?

And: in view of the state of the military, the war in Iraq, the fivefold increase in active Al Qaeda operatives, neglect of anti-proliferation programs, underfunding of cargo inspections, and N. Korea's nuclear weapons development... how's that trade-off working for you so far?

The Dred Scott thing does make a lot more sense, put in the Roe v. Wade context, and I felt that Kerry dropped the ball on the abortion question, as currently our federal tax dollars do not go to abortions in this country and never have (although the issue with foreign aid going to organizations that offer that service is one for a president to consider, as George W. did.)

I felt George Bush definitely did better this time around, but I felt that the "three mistakes" question flub could be a killer, provided it gets the coverage that frankly it deserves. I'm not a fan of this president or his policies, but I would have felt infinitely better about his possible second term, had he taken that moment and answered her question, and certainly not with the contempt he showed in saying that there was no way he could know the mistakes he made without historians far in the future telling him.

If Dred Scott was a surrogate for Roe v. Wade, and a covert signal to Bush's base that he intends to see Roe overturned, I don't see how that's a major factor in the election.

One: People who would get the wink-wink-nudge-nudge reference were going to vote for Bush anyway, weren't they?

Two: Was there really any doubt that, given the opportunity, Bush will appoint SCOTUS justices who intend to overturn Roe? He's already said his favorite Justices are Scalia and Thomas.

So I don't see the point.

The perhaps inadvertent points Bush made were that 1) he doesn't understand the Dred Scott decision - because if he did he'd realize 2) it was just the kind of "strict constructionist" interpretation he approves of, and if he doesn't understand why that is, then 3) he doesn't know or understand the Constitution.

Dan,

am curious if you would blog about how it feels to be a Republican booster, and (former?) supporter of the whole Bush thing, and slowly waking up that in these past years, you've been very much wrong and a real ass.

That might be very enlightening for us all.

Best wishes,

The Dred Scott decision only counts as a "strict construction" of the Constitution if the Constitution is detached from the Declaration of Independence, and from the known beliefs of those documents' authors. Indeed, Justice Taney's reasoning in the decision began with just that detachment. To the modern "strict constructionists" that detachment is a cardinal error -- so they would not decide Dred Scott as Taney did.

Between Miami and St. Louis, Bush seems to have focused very hard on fixing what got him negative reviews in the first debate, especially his facial expressions when Kerry was speaking.

Kerry by contrast appeared intent on repeating what worked for him in the first debate, at one point repeating verbatim a prepared one-liner about his having erred in talking about a vote while Bush erred in invading Iraq. However, alert to crticism that he had talked to the monitor instead of the camera during the first debate, Kerry made it a point to stare at the red light whenever he made major points.

I thought Bush succeeded in stemming the spread of discouragement among his own supporters that started after Miami. He was able to get Kerry to sound defensive, especially about domestic policy. Kerry's remarks about the meaningless of labels (like liberal) were something straight out of the early 1980s. Someone must have told Bush that his repetition of the phrase "mixed messages" in Miami had been poorly received, because he didn't use it once in St. Louis.

Kerry, with many opportunities to irritate Bush and provoke the visible defensiveness that plays so badly on television, stuck to talking points he has used before that Bush has also responded to before. Given openings by Bush (some of which have been noted by commentators here and elsewhere), Kerry almost always scurried back to the security of his scripted remarks. Personally I think this was precisely the opposite of what he should have done, but his campaign consultants must be very pleased with him.

Talking to people involved in politics here in Georgia I hear much concern expressed about issues that the debates haven't touched on yet, particularly immigration. But the thing that really astonishes me is that no one has mentioned the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. Here is a huge news story, which the media should be alive to: the single biggest cause of the lost respect for America abroad that John Kerry is always going on about. And no one has said a word about it.

Now a consultant-run candidate like Kerry might reason thusly: "I accused soldiers in Vietnam of routinely committing atrocities over thirty years ago -- that did not go over well and I hope people will forget about it -- mentioning Abu Ghraib would remind them -- so I won't mention it." Maybe he has another reason for silence on this point; since he seems as frightened of answering unscripted questions as Bush is it's hard to tell.

But surely if you are complaining about Bush's having not done planning for postwar Iraq, and about his having lost America the respect of the world, and of his having placed our military personnel in an impossible situation, Abu Ghraib supports each part of your message. Granted that of the many other examples of bungled planning the only one Kerry could think of was the failure to secure what he called "ammo dumps," and even then it wasn't completely clear what time period he was referring to. Perhaps he is just so used to speaking only to people who agree with him on Iraq that he thinks his criticism of Bush is self-evident.

I guess what I'm looking for is some evidence that John Kerry is something more than just an ordinary politician trying to climb to the top of the greasy pole. I haven't found it yet and don't expect to, but if he had addressed Abu Ghraib as the powerful blow to American interests and the moral outrage it was I would have been impressed. He wouldn't have looked quite as much like the kind of politician whose only real principle is absolute dedication to making it through the next election, the very kind of politician who is in the White House now.

Jerry,

It isn't going to happen. Dan can't even commit to voting for Kerry -- he still seems to be on this p-value system. It doesn't matter that basically most business school deans (i know, pinko commies), scientists, diplomats, nobel lauretes, generals (many), CIA, State Department, economists (most) have come out extremely vocally against this adminsitration. As long as InstaHack supports the president, Dan will continue to hodl a signifcant p-value for voting for Bush. Even Andrew Frickin Sullivan has seen the light.

DAN ITS TIME FOR A P-VALUE UPDATE. And if you have any integrity, IT ought to be (Bush, p=0).

I agree with Senator Kerry that it doesn't make sense to cut taxes in the middle of a war.

So why, why, why did Senator Kerry make a solemn promise "right into the camera" to cut taxes in the middle of a war? (Yes, I know, he'll cut taxes on the "middle class". But my household income is not even close to $200,000, and I'm a practicing physician. Are you telling me that after four years of college, four years of medical school, and three years of residency, I'm "middle class"?)

Also, for households earning more that $200,000 per year, why does Senator Kerry proclaim that the Clinton-era tax rates are a ceiling? Can't the wealthiest Americans pay a higher rate than they did during the Clinton Administration, given the necessarily huge costs of fighting the war on terrorism? (Please don't tell me the wealthiest Americans were overburdened with taxation during the Clinton Administration. Some of the wealthiest Americans did pretty well for themselves in those days.)

If the wealthiest Americans received only $89 billion in Bush "tax relief" last year, then rescinding the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will only generate $89 billion in extra tax revenue annually. How can that possibly be enough money to fight and win the war?

I would have thought it would be more fun to *stay up* til 3:00 in Milan, that to *get up* at 'O' dark thirty -ish hour. But then, I am not a family man.

Excuse me, but there is likely a simpler reason for Bush's foray in the realm of judicial history. Put simply, his handler's are desperate to present Bush as being at least close to as knowledgeable as Kerry is on matters of law & governance, perhaps because they have ascertained that some swing voters will decide based on such factors as knowledge and intelligence.

I'd better vote for Mr. Kerry, whether I want to or not, because if I don't, no one in my family will ever speak to me again.

Still, can anyone reassure me about the fact that Mr. Kerry has promised to cut taxes for the "middle class", to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans only to 1990's levels (which according to Mr. Kerry's own statement, would generate only $89 billion in extra revenue per year), to oppose any slowdown in the rate of growth of spending on Medicare and Social Security, and to cut the federal budget deficit in half in four years?

My question for Mr. Kerry's supporters is this: given these 4 promises (each of which is utterly unnecessary) where, where, where is President Kerry going to find enough money to increase spending on the U.S. military?

(A couple days ago I saw a car with three bumper stickers: 1. Kerry/Edwards'04, 2. Support the Troops. Fire the Commander in Chief, and 3. Arts, not Arms. Look, I might actually agree with number 1 and number 2. As for number 3, though, how the hell do you "Support the Troops" if they can't have "Arms"???)

Arjun,

The problem is if you raise taxes through the roof, you hurt job creation, investment, productivity growth, etc. and in a couple years your tax hikes are costing you revenue over the low-tax approach.

A reality that the Democrats never seem to appreciate.

Arjun, the answer to your question is that Kerry would get the money for his promises by borrowing it from the Chinese central bank. This is the same place Bush is getting the money for his tax cuts.

They share in the public consensus in favor of much more government than Americans are prepared to pay for in taxes, a consensus that can be dressed up with economic theory, or rhetoric about economic theory, about scaring off investment and productivity growth in the same way a Douglas fir can be dressed up with ornaments around Christmastime. Just as the tree cannot sustain itself indefinitely no matter how it is ornamented, the consensus for more spending than we are willing to pay for will sooner or later make the American economy unsustainable.

Politicians, preoccupied with the next election, are betting on later. You don't win votes by challenging a consensus.

Arjun: Kerry has also said he'd be closing a lot of the loopholes which have enabled corporations to pay zero - that's zero - taxes.

And maybe he can overhaul that disastrous "prescription drug benefit" - if he institutes real competitive bargaining (currently forbidden) and alllows re-importation, that would at least help with the Medicare budget.

And how much are we spending on the fricking useless SDI program? And on developing next-generation nuclear weapons?

Maybe Kerry will also be able to start fixing the no-bid Iraq reconstruction contracts, which have enabled Halliburton et al. to "lose" $8 billion so far.

One thing's for sure: Kerry won't treat our tax dollars like a private piggy bank for his business cronies. One thing I look forward to in a Kerry Administration is an accounting of how much money made its way into Republican patrons' pockets.

Like Everett Dirksen said, a billion here and a billion there, and soon you're talking about real money.

PS: It strikes me as a weird idea to base your vote decision on other peoples' bumper stickers.

I hope Professor Drezner can read and comment on Matt Bai's analysis of Mr. Kerry's foreign policy framework in today's New York Times magazine.

That was a depressing read for me. (The deliberately weird photos of Mr. Kerry were also depressing. Is the New York Times trying to make Mr. Kerry look bad?)

It all comes back to the dilemma Professor Drezer described several weeks ago.

Senator Kerry doesn't believe in democracy-promotion as a strategy in the war on terror. (No, I didn't say he doesn't believe in democracy; I said he doesn't believe in democracy-promotion as a strategy in the war on terror.) Instead, Senator Kerry is his father's son. He believes in diplomacy, with the narrow, uninspiring goal of enhancing security by reducing terrorism through international cooperation on law enforcement.

Meanwhile, President Bush believes in democracy promotion, but his relative lack of interest and skill in diplomacy translates into an impaired ability to promote democracy.

I'm obligated to vote for Mr. Kerry, and that depresses me, because he is "realistic" enough to see the war on al Qaeda terrorism as a law enforcement issue, rather than a long-term ideological struggle between democracy and despotism.

Isn't there a "third way"? Can't the U.S. use skillful diplomacy and economic power to promote democracy, and thereby prevail in the war on al Qaeda terrorism?

Look, I'm willing to believe that the Bush Administration is wasting money by deploying missile defense before it is ready to be deployed.

But I'm not willing to believe that missile defense is "fricking useless". Why do you think it is useless?

Yes, I know that the September 11 hijackers were armed with box cutters, not ICBM's. But what if others with similarly suicidal inclinations win power in a country that already has both missiles and nuclear weapons?

The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction worked against the Soviet Union, because the Communists were rational people who believed in self-preservation. But how do you deter suicidal fanatics?

Given the real possibility I've described, isn't spending billions of dollars on missile defense the prudent thing to do?

I'm not recommending rationing, or meatless Wednesdays, or Victory Gardens. Still, the best Americans, the men and women of our armed forces, have made and will continue to make enormous sacrifices, while those of us who benefit the most from living in the best country in the world are not required to sacrifice anything at all.

I feel offended by Mr. Kerry's beliefs that I am "middle class" (I'm a doctor, damn it!) and that I can't afford to pay higher taxes.

We're at war right now. Draft me, or at the very least, raise my taxes. It's only fair.

I score this one a win for Bush.

Kerry is running out of room to "have a plan" without specifics ... many many such plans ...

Bur my biggest problem with Kerry is his assumption that diplomacy solves all. He ignores the very real fact that sometimes countries have interests which are so divergent that they collide in serious ways.

A good look at the Kyoto treaty, the pending merger-in-practice of the UN and the International Court of Justice that is contemplated by Anan, and similar international moves makes it clear that these are not due to dislike of Bush and his policies -- the conflict of interests goes much deeper than that.

For all his inarticulateness, Bush gets that and Kerry doesn't.

Arjun, dear: For god's sake, why don't you just join the military and volunteer for Iraq? I'm sure they'd be delighted to sign on a doctor. You wouldn't have to worry about whether you're middle class or not; all you'd have to worry about is matching up the right body parts with their original owner.

Nahhhh! The preponderance of Kerryites here (relation to Karaites?) would profit from a brief encounter with the APA's diagnostic primer so that, in future, they might recognize a sociopath when he is working them over.

Blue Iris,

As you correctly point out, I haven't volunteered to serve in our military. Presumably, you have. Does that make you a better person than I am? Yes, it does. Thank you for your service. I wish the government would increase my taxes and give you a well-deserved raise.

Matthew Yglesias noticed the Matt Bai article, and I hope Professor Drezner will notice it as well.

Mr. Yglesias's commenters hate the idea of democracy promotion because they think that promoting democracy equals "war and more war". No, it doesn't. The U.S. can and should use its "economic power and the power of our ideals" (remember those from Mr. Kerry's acceptance speech?) to promote democracy. Since I agree with Fareed Zakaria and Sebastian Mallaby on the competence issue, I think that Mr. Kerry could promote democracy more effectively than President Bush.

If only Mr. Kerry were interested.

I was wondering why no important person had noticed the contradiction that I pointed out above: that in Friday's debate, Mr. Kerry argued against cutting taxes in the middle of a war, then solemnly promised, "right into the camera", to cut taxes in the middle of a war.

Fortunately, I was wrong. At least one important person did notice this contradiction: Joe Klein, writing in Time Magazine.

Kerry has a plan for everything. His problem is, his plans resemble Steve Martin's plan for becoming a millionaire, "First, get a million dollars".

Arjun: A fully functional missile defense system would indeed be a nice thing to have. However, a nuclear missile capable of hitting the US from, say, the middle east, is much more difficult and expensive to develop/acquire than a suitcase bomb, and the suitcase bomb has the added advantage of not being immediately traceable. With the current state of US border security, sneaking a portable nuclear weapon into the country would not be at all difficult. So there are excellent reasons to believe that those billions being spent on a not-yet-functional missile defense system would be more productively spent elsewhere.

Oops, Catsy - Annenberg qualifies on you:

"We should clarify: the $84 in Schedule C income was from Bush's Lone Star Trust, which is actually described on the 2001 income-tax returns as an "oil and gas production" business. The Lone Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn't get into that business until two years after the $84 in question. So we should have described the $84 as coming from an "oil and gas" business in 2001, and will amend that in our earlier article."

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html

Factual *and* now even more funny - Lighten up, Francis.

Since when is national defense funding allocation a zero-sum game, crane?

crane,

I get your point, which is a very good, very sensible point. I think you're right, actually. My emphasis was a little bit wrong, I admit. Thanks for the correction.

On the other hand (in my defense, sort of) R&D into missile defense need not be abandoned. In fact, I'm glad that Mr. Kerry has indicated his approval for continuing R&D into missile defense. 10 or 15 years from now, we may need missile defense. Right now, I agree with you, border security is a more urgent priority.

What people like Matthew Cromer never realize is that there comes a point where the government's deficit makes it harder for business to obtain capital to expand.

I view he and his ilk as a bunch of clowns, whose arguments imply that we would be best off with a tax rate of zero. Since that isn't true (as he would probably concede), the question of the optimal tax rate for job creation (etc.) can not be answered with a simple "lower is better".

If lower taxes are so good for job creation, why does Bush's record in this matter suck? Don't bother with recession and 9/11 excuses; we are right now over one million jobs behind the Administration's projections from February 2004!

Remember ..."you're no Jack Kennedy" How about-"Bold policy is a function of a president who has a mandate. Mr. President, do you remember you did not have a mandate."

Arjun (4:09) "Mr. Yglesias's commenters hate the idea of democracy promotion because they think that promoting democracy equals "war and more war". No, it doesn't. The U.S. can and should use its "economic power and the power of our ideals"

Your comment is hard to understand. Most of Matt's commentors are democrats and many are very liberal democrats. My take is that they don't think the bungling, schizophrenic Bush admin is capable of promoting democracy.

Keep in mind that for the last 60 years, the democratic party has been the party of democracy promotion, while the republicans advocated anyone who wasn't a communist. You can read quotes from all the big wigs in the republican party from the last 60 years about how the dems are idealist nutcases for democracy promotion. Read about the nasty time Carter was given. You may not appreciate some things about his term, but you cannot deny that no other president, post WW2, has been a bigger democracy promoter.And certainly, he was the most sincere and bravest about it, because he was willing to take the risk and accept the outcome of a country's vote when it wasn't clear thatit would be favorable to US strategic interests.

dana,

I think you're right about these things, and I'm a Democrat in favor of liberal democracy myself. Last week I re-registered as a Democrat. My comment about MY's commenters was careless, dana, and I apologize for offending you.

(By way of explanation, I guess I was annoyed with a few attacks on Oxblog's Josh Chafetz, who said that he was leaning towards voting for Mr. Kerry. Some of MY's commenters actually attacked Mr. Chafetz for this statement, because, they said, any reasonable person would already have decided long ago to vote for Mr. Kerry, without any hesitation whatsoever. MY's commenters also derided Mr. Chafetz's stated support for democracy promotion as "candy and ponies" or something like this.)

The remaining issue in the 2004 Presidential
is the actual margin of the President's win.

My analysis is that President Bush will
receive 55% of the popular vote and around
350 Electoral Votes.

Any others?

I think Mr. Kerry will win every state won by Al Gore in 2000 (except Florida, if you think that Al Gore won Florida) plus Ohio and New Hampshire. If I've calculated correctly, that gives a total of 271 electoral votes, just *barely* enough to win the U.S. Presidency.

I hope Mr. Kerry wins the U.S. Presidency while losing the popular vote (for reasons of poetic justice, and also to cruelly rob self-righteous partisan Democrats of their sense of victimhood), and I think he might.

(late, as always)

Both Kerry on Friday and Edwards on Sunday missed a score on the Afghan elections. Edwards even exposed the pitch on "Meet the Press" - that the Afghan elections have been postphoned twice due to security problems, and that those problems still haven't been resolved, yet the Bush Admin. insisted they go ahead with them before the U.S. elections occur - yet Edwards failed to drive home the completely political intent here by the Bushies.

The incorrect impression that Kerry values diplomacy above all else comes from the fact that he's the only one including it in the debate. Kerry merely suggests that diplomacy should at least be in the toolbox, whereas the President has largely abandoned it. The one-sidedness of the terms use this campaign apparently leads some to believe it's Kerry's sole option.

Arjun,

You haven't calculated correctly, if Kerry takes all the Gore States plus Ohio and NH he'll win by 30 electoral votes (284 to 254).

In a nutshell, if all the states go the same way they did last time, it's Bush over Kerry by 18 electoral votes (a bigger margin than last time due to redistricting).

To win, Kerry needs to hold all the Gore states, plus take away 10 points from Bush. Any one of Ohio, Florida, Tennesee, Arizona or Missouri would be enough. Another winning combo is Arkansas or Colorado plus any one of Nevada, New Hampshire, West Virginia.

"that the Afghan elections have been postphoned twice due to security problems, and that those problems still haven't been resolved, yet the Bush Admin. insisted they go ahead with them before the U.S. elections occur - yet Edwards failed to drive home the completely political intent here by the Bushies."

Um, kinda hard to sell that complaint considering that the security problems demonstrably _have_ been resolved, at least enough for internationally recognized elections. Actually makes Edwards look like he's trying to score political points at the expense of the Afghans, doesnt it?

Interesting that a poster here should have brought up Jimmy Carter (though he got one thing wrong -- Carter mostly promoted human rights in undemocratic countries during his Presidency, and only became seriously identified with democracy promotion some years afterwards through his work with the Carter Center. The two aren't inconsistent, but they are different).

When I was reading yesterdays NYT Magazine piece on Kerry's foreign policy outlook all I could think of was, "this sounds like Jimmy Carter all over again." Remarkably poor timing for a major profile of this kind.

*..kinda hard to sell that complaint considering that the security problems demonstrably _have_ been resolved, at least enough for internationally recognized elections. Actually makes Edwards look like he's trying to score political points at the expense of the Afghans, doesnt it?*

Disagree. The security problems were not resolved, just avoided by a lot of luck and the withdrawl of most of the other candidates due to suspicions of election fraud. This election was targeted for acceptance by American voters --since when did this Admin care about international recognition?

Didn't make Edwards look like he was trying to do anything - my point was that he missed the chance to slam the Bush Admin on this completely politically-driven election plan.

"Disagree. The security problems were not resolved, just avoided by a lot of luck and the withdrawl of most of the other candidates due to suspicions of election fraud."

How did the other candidates withdrawal _post-election_ affect the security situation one way or the other? And why do you assume it was luck? Isnt it just as easy to say that the time was right? We could make assumptions all day and night, but the one peice of data we do have is that there was _very_ little violence. Now I could claim it was because Mars was in Sagitarious or whatever, but the bottom line is that the timing worked. Right? I mean I could say the Australian elections occuring w/o an attack were just luck too, how do you disprove something like that?

"This election was targeted for acceptance by American voters --since when did this Admin care about international recognition?"

That is your assumption. If the administration was so concerned about the timing and appearance, why allow it to be pushed back twice? If it was pure luck it got pulled off, why in god's name risk it now when a failure would mean a major political coup for Kerry? You honestly think Karl Rove masterminded this thing and relied on 'luck'? That doesnt make any sense. Thats a ridiculous risk. If it really was so unlikely to be successful, a smart politico would push it until after the election. Like supposedly the assault on Fallujah is being pushed back (we'll see).

"Didn't make Edwards look like he was trying to do anything - my point was that he missed the chance to slam the Bush Admin on this completely politically-driven election plan."

He missed the chance to make a fool of himself by being definitvely disproved by what _did_ happen, not what _could_ have happened. Reality tends to trump theory.

Technically (and in the strictest sense), yes - these would have to be assumptions. Common sense assumptions based on statements, events and indications from reports out of Afghanistan, but still assumptions.

Everyone anticipated major troubles because many of the Afghan candidates were known warlords; some had even openly threatened trouble. So proof? I guess not. Enough to be very concerned? I would think so. When they withdrew, it's seems common sense that the trouble they threatened never materialized either.

I understand the kind of argument I'm apt to face here - most of the support I've heard, and still hear, for Bush policies depends on incredibly strict identification of the specific meanings of the actual words he really used, or more often, carefully chose not to use. I'm not as good at this as others, but willing to play the game.

"So proof? I guess not. Enough to be very concerned? I would think so. When they withdrew, it's seems common sense that the trouble they threatened never materialized either."

I dont think I follow. I suppose I'm looking for evidence that this was a particularly dangerous time for elections. How would the fundamentals change in say, a year, or 6 months, or 50 years. Wouldnt conditions be potentially more dangerous by delaying the elections if Afghans lose faith in the process? I think Occams Razor suggests that this was a good time for the election, considering it did go off stunningly well. The contortions of chance and conspiracy you have to go through to suggest otherwise just seem too unlikely. Honestly they smack of 'everything Bush does is wrong'itis. I think to be intellectually honest about Afghanistan, at worst you would have to say even a stopped clock is right twice a day.