Gail Collins wrote in her NYTimes column before the hanging chad fiasco had really even gotten going:

 "Tell me one last positive thing about this election.

It's close, it's exciting. Both of the candidates appear to be in their right minds. Neither is an accused war criminal. Many countries have done worse."

 Then six months later she got promoted to editorial page editor.

I remember reading these words and feeling sick to my stomach. Yes, ha ha, nobody at the Times liked Al Gore in his earthtones. Ha ha ha. I thought--these words will come back to haunt her.

I don't know if Gail Collins lies awake at night feeling haunted by her words. Probably not.

But I do.

On his site he posts an e-mail suggesting that the Democrats should support Miers in order to hasten the impending Republican implosion. Whatever. Such a tactic has been, I believe, suggested on this site by Kos himself. But then Mr. Original Media Whore Sullivan can't help but smear this foul-smelling crap all over the good and earnest people of The Daily Kos:

"That, of course, would drive the Kossers up the wall. But the Kossers are a central reason for Republican dominance of the polity. The Miers nomination is therefore a golden opportunity for a potential Democratic presidential candidate to take on the far-left base."

Crazy Andy. Still crazy after all these years. And wrong. But like Bush does he ever pay a price? Doesn't the fact that he's been wrong, wrong, wrong on issue after issue ever make him doubt his own credibility? No. Why? Like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, Sully is a latter day P.T. Barnum--selling political hatred as entertainment and laughing all the way to the bank.

I got a letter from a friend today that I found very moving.  My friend is an episcopalian living in the Chicago area. She gave me her permission to post her letter on Daily Kos.

An open letter to my friends on the Christian left (with a few fellow travellers)--

        It occurs to me that here in Illinois, a beautiful sapphire-blue state, we saw one surprising outcome that may have something to teach us.  John Kerry got about 55% of the vote, but Barack Obama got nearly 75%--which means that 1 out of 5 voters in Illinois supported a totally incoherent ticket of Bush and Obama.  

and their bags are packed to go to wherever they can find some reason to litigate an election outcome.

I had brunch with somebody who is close to the Bush legal team (though he is voting for Kerry). He says that the Republicans have no qualms about litigating and will try to overturn enough state electoral results to give them an EV majority.

So get ready. Even if Kerry wins big, Bush might not concede for a while.

See latest hit piece at http://www.nytimes.com

On the OBL tape:

"Even Democrats described it as somewhat welcome news for President Bush after a difficult stretch for the White House.

Yes, as some Democrats said, voters were reminded that Mr. bin Laden was healthy and alive, three years after Mr. Bush declared he wanted him "dead or alive," and in the midst of a campaign in which Mr. Kerry had systematically assailed Mr. Bush as allowing his Iraq war to distract from the more lethal threat of Mr. bin Laden.

But there were signs of concern in Mr. Kerry's circles as this campaign took yet another sharp turn in response to events far from Washington."

I guess this really wasn't a big deal. But it shook me up.

I went to Mexico last weekend for a wedding. It was lovely. If you want to get married, do it in Mexico (unless you are gay: do it in Canada).

I had to fly back through George Fucking Bush International Airport in Houston.

At passport control I told the woman that I had been in Mexico for a wedding. I guess that was a stupid thing to say because I was immediately sent into the customs line so they could check my luggage for booze and pills. My connecting flight left in 45 minutes and it was rather late at night, but I decided not to get too antsy--yet. I certainly didn't want to spend the night in anything named George Bush.

I know this is a stupid question, but that is precisely why I am asking it. Why does the right believe that attacking and demeaning Kerry's and Edwards's masculinity over and over again will work? (see current Drudge front page picture for example).  Breck Girl. Shiny Pony. etc. etc. Why do these tactics appeal to people? Or do they?  

I'm putting this in a diary form because I've been puzzling about it all weekend--in fact for months--and I'd like to hear what people have to say about it. I am a straight guy. I am married with kids. It is absolutely true that my very best friends are gay (well except for my wife). Oh and I'm much femmier than most of my gay friends. I work out at a mostly gay gym. I have never been moved by appeals to my supposed hyper-masculinity. In fact I find testosterone-laden environments (yes, even gay ones) mostly poisonous and uninteresting. I know that the homophobic appeal must be visceral, or threatening, or something, but I find it puzzling precisely because I do not share it. Does it make the right feel beter to turn big handsome John into a wimp? How can women find these tactics appealing when the message is masculinity is good, femininity bad?

This is a Maureen Dowd cliche, but the more I look at 43's administration, the more I realize he is running his play as the exact reverse of his father's plays, and he is weak enough to let a small cabal of people appeal to his narcissism in order to exploit their own agendas. Anyway, sorry to ramble, but you Kossacks are a smart bunch. I'd like to hear what you think.

And I'm not proud of myself. I guess I'm writing because I need some perspective from level-headed Kossacks.

I have a sports acquaintance who works for her father's large hedge fund. The family is Lutheran, and very religious, devout, good people. I haven't seen my acquaintance in about a year, so I asked a mutual friend of ours tonight over drinks how she was doing. She's doing great. The hedge fund is doing great. All's good. My acquaintance voted for Bush in 2000 because of taxes. Okay, fine, nobody really knew then how bad things were going to be. But I've been thinking about her lately because before the war, we had several long conversations about what a terrible idea it was to invade Iraq. So now that things have gotten really out of control, I was curious to know what she thought. I asked our mutual friend if he knew. It turns out she is horrified by the war. Okay. So then I asked the mutual friend if he knew how she was planning to vote this year. For Bush. Why? Taxes. Even though she hates him, she hates Kerry too, maybe worse. So taxes win. And that was when I lost it. I mean really lost it. All the rage and grief I have been feeling about the actions of the Bush Junta just came pouring out in a stream of curses and yes, yelling. In the bar. I had to be quieted down. I had to be asked to leave. I HAD TO BE ESCORTED OUT. I was screaming. Taxes. 30,000 dead Iraqis, and rich people are thinking about their taxes. And these are church-going people, good people, "moral" people. I am an atheist. But to me, the most inviolable moral principle is that all human lives are equally valuable--not because humans are made in God's image but because we have all evolved in the same way and are all made of the same stuff--the same genes, the same proteins,the same carbon. Because of the way our brains work, we have a tremendous gift (though tonight it seemed like a burden) of consciousness. To deny that gift to anybody, to deprive her of it, is the deepest evil a human can do.  Does any Iraqi value his life less than I value mine? Does any Iraqi love his wife and children less than I love my wife and children? Does any Iraqi feel less committed than I do to the stream of thoughts that runs through his mind, to the memories of his early life, to the feelings that are uniquely his? He was assigned a body and a place on this earth just as much as I was. I had the good fortune to be born in a pretty nice part of the world. He, alas, did not. What we have done is extinguish 30,000 separate, vibrant, meaningful streams of consciousness. For what? WHY HAVE WE DONE THIS? There is no military, or legal, or moral justification for what we have done in Iraq. Any illegal war is bad enough, but the massive scale on which we have slaughtered people staggers the imagination. Why aren't we mourning them? The excess of the evil is unbearable.

And some babe whose daddy runs a hedge fund is going to vote for Bush because of taxes.

I am home now, and calmer--sort of. Actually I'm still shaken up. And surprised by my reaction--I'm usually quite mild-mannered. But I guess tonight I was like a raisin in the sun. Thanks for letting me vent a little more.

Together 12 years. Own a business together. Nice Jewish girls, from Conservative backgrounds. One has a father who sat shiva when she came out, but has now relented. He loves his daughter and his daughter in law very much. Huge wedding in San Francisco in the spring. Both families came from east coast for it. Huppa. Rabbi. Reception. 200 people. Dancing. Drinking. Toasts to Mayor Newsom. Joy. Love. Delight.

Voided.

All this will change, it will change slowly, but it will change. It will change because nobody at that wedding can quite believe the injustice of it. 80% of the wedding guests were straight. They come from small towns and big cities, all across the country. They are very angry today. They know what their marriages mean to them.

Gays and Lesbians are everywhere, in your family and in mine. They are our teachers, lawyers, doctors, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles.

President Bush cannot even say the words gay and lesbian.

John Kerry may very well appoint the first openly gay white house spokesperson--a long-time aide.

Those of you who have already gotten your fill of this little bit of internet detritus, forgive me. I just thought it was too good to delete from my inbox without giving it a last airing in the world. Plus it is 100% true, unfortunately.

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

1. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

2. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

3. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

4. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

5. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

5. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

6. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

7. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

8. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

9. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

10. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

11. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands  die is solid defense policy.

12. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

13. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but  George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

15. You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

16. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

setting:  yuppie corporate gym, downtown Chicago. Lots of traders and lawyers and insurance execs, relaxing on a Friday evening.

Me (casually):  

Bush said today in a speech we didn't need "intern camps."

Clueless callow guy:  

I haven't decided how I'm going to vote. I mean I support Bush on the tax cuts and Israel. And what does Kerry really stand for?

Big white alpha male swinging corporate Dick (turning and speaking to clueless guy):  

Lissen, Bill, Bush is a VERY VERY BAD GUY. All of his policies are designed to enrich himself and his family. Even if you are in a high tax bracket and think that you would come out ahead on the tax cuts, you have to realize that the damage he has done to the economy long-term, and to America's standing in the world, and to the credibility of our government is worse than any other President in history, and the damage will far outweigh the short term gain to you from the tax cuts. Whatever you do, Bill, you cannot vote for Bush, got that?

Clueless Callow Guy (looking stunned):

Oh.

Here is a list of NY stock exchange stocks making new 52 week highs as of yesterday. Unfortunately I don't own shares in any of them and so can't offer monetary prizes to people who spot the underlying pattern. But I can offer you the assurance of my preznit that the people of the Middle East want freedom, value freedom, need freedom, deserve freedom, want cable channels that are all freedom all the time etc. and that the invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with securing the world's second largest oil reserve...

says Drudge (won't link). Yep, eliminate the IRS and replace it with a sales tax or VAT.

Lots of quotes from that fat ex-wrestling coach Speaker of the House crowing over how we'll double the economy

Oh  my   God

I am completely, utterly

speechless

I've been thinking about this question because my wife said to me last night as I was reading Daily Kos "I'm really glad there isn't an election every year because you are just way too obsessed with this." She's right. I have been obsessed with Bush ever since the summer of 2000. I remember going to the gym on election night 2000 and seeing on the TV that Florida had been called for Gore. I was ecstatic. I ran out to get my car to go home to celebrate and bumped into an old work buddy and told him that "we had just avoided a horrible catastrophe." He looked at me blankly. How could Bush be a horrible catastrophe he asked? Subtext: he's one of us. I just smiled and gave him a big handshake and left.

George Bush has deeply offended every moral fiber in my being--everything that cares about justice and fair play and truth telling. But it is true that his hollow man administration has not affected my life for good or ill in any directly personal way. I have a good job, a wonderful marriage, a wonderful family. None of that will change if Bush is re-elected. I am a relatively well-off straight white male. In fact my hatred of him is indirect. It comes from what he has done to the Truth, to other people (the vileness directed towards my many gay and lesbian friends especially--I have a gay uncle who has been "married" to his partner for 37 years--they have been surrogate parents to me), to the Iraqi people--all of whom have wives and husbands and friends and children just like I do--and to the English language. So I'm wondering, if you care to say, whether anybody on this site has any directly personal experiences of having been roughed up by the Bush administration? Or where your feelings about Bush and his policies come from? Just curious.

Crazy Andy is wrong. He's very very very wrong. I can't believe he was seeing the same speech that I saw. I thought Kerry was magnificent, and I wouldn't have cared if he stood up there and drooled. I would vote for my pet goat over Bush.
But Crazy Andy saw something different.

" I really don't know what the impact of this speech will be. I doubt it will help him much. I definitely liked Kerry less at the end of it than at the beginning. To me at least, he is a deeply unlikable guy: arrogant, dull, pompous, mannered, self-righteous. I suspect that the more he is front and center the more this will count against him. But I'm just one person and others may react differently. And politics shouldn't just be about likability. He certainly seems sane, and prudent and presidential. There will be time to judge his proposals against Bush's and to observe the progress of the war in the next few months. At some point both he and Bush will surely be asked what they will do about Iran. Their responses will be revealing (and probably indistinguishable). Until then, I think this convention has been a huge success, tempered by a bad candidate. They have found the right stance in general, but they may not have found the right general for the stance. Bush, in other words, may remain the luckiest man alive."

link

Bush is going to get his butt kicked all the way back to Waco.

William Weld has always been my favorite Republican politician. Clinton wanted to appoint him ambassador to Mexico after his term as Massachusetts Governor ran out, but his pro marijuana legalization stance sunk him. He has also said that he would perform the marriage ceremony for any gay couple in Mass who asked him. Yes, he did lose a tight senate race to Kerry in 1996, but what on earth is up with this? (current Newsweek; link) I'm quite puzzled:  surely the "Chimpy is the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with meme" has not survived four years of people's actual experience of his administration???  

"With this said, in my view, President Bush will prevail. While Senator Kerry is highly articulate, his appeal is intellectual, not emotional. I remember the late congressman Joe Moakley telling me, after the 1996 election, that he became so frustrated in trying to line up blue-collar union support for Kerry against me that he once blurted out, "Chrissakes, Charlie, I'm not asking you to have a beer with the guy!"

"I do not mean to suggest that Senator Kerry lacks charm. I personally find him to be immediately engaging."

"However, there is such a thing as personal warmth, and it is all-important in politics. It is what Robert Caro meant when he wrote that Lyndon Johnson "greeted voters easily." Johnson had it. Bill Clinton had it. And George W. Bush has it. It is one reason why people such as Rudy Giuliani and John McCain and I—who are apart from the president on some issues—are proud to support him."

"At the end of the day, I believe that substance matters, and America is not, happily, Michael Moore-ville. The president can and should run proudly on his record: sound achievements in peace and prosperity at home. He does not need sloganeering. He needs simply to present himself to the electorate as vividly as possible. When the people see him as he is—likable and tough-minded—no TV one-liner will prevent him from being elected to a second term."

Here's just part of his recent column.

link

There's more, much more, some of it deliciously snarky about Mary Cheney. But his response to the first letter is pure genius.

(Warning: graphic sex talk)

"Gay Marriage

The term gay "marriage" is a semantic smokescreen for unwarranted discrimination. Committed couples should be able to form a union with binding rights and responsibilities including inheritance, healthcare coverage, property ownership and medical decisions for each other. Whatever the name, the ability to form this union must not be withheld.

When a man and a woman go to the county courthouse to take out a "marriage" license they’re requesting that the State recognize their up coming civil union. Choosing to marry before a justice of the peace or at the courthouse, this couple is, in fact , entering into a "civil" union recognized by the State. If this same couple goes to a religious congregation to "marry", they are then not only engaging in a civil union recognized by the State but having a religious "marriage" recognized by their church, synagogue or mosque. These are two totally separate forms of recognition.

For inheritance, healthcare coverage, property ownership or for medical decisions, the couple is protected by State law governing civil unions. As to their religious beliefs, couples follow the teaching of their religious community. In fact, the couple’s rights and responsibilities as pertains to their religion may not be the same as the civil contract. Conversely, in case of a civil divorce, the religious organization may or may not recognize the dissolution of the union.

Today, gay and lesbian couples are asking for the same consideration, as heterosexual couples; recognition by the State of a legal union. Whether their particular religious community will conduct a "marriage" ceremony is a decision made by the religious organization and does not involve government. As to the civil contract, committed couples deserve to have the rights and responsibilities to form a civil union regardless of sexual orientation."

link

This is an incredible, perfect statement. So clear eyed it is astonishing. Wow.