The latest NY Times/CBS poll has President Bush up by 48-45. The "internals" of the poll provide even worse news for John Kerry. For example,

John Kerry has a 41% favorable, 47% unfavorable rating. This is his worst rating ever.

President Bush has a 48% favorable, 41% unfavorable rating. That is his best rating since last December.

Undecided voters lean to President Bush 50%-47%, validating the Pew finding and calling the Gallup number into question.

66% of Bush voters strongly favor their candidate.

50% of Kerry voters strongly favor their candidate.

By a 49%-34% margin, voters expect President Bush to win.

53% of voters do not think that Kerry agrees with their priorities, his worst number ever. 42% believe he has the same.

48% of voters do not think that Bush agrees with their priorities. 49% believe he does share their priorities.

52% of voters think Kerry has leadership qualities, his lowest number ever.

62% of voters think President Bush has leadership qualities.

57% of voters are uneasy with Kerry’s ability to handle a crisis.

If Kerry wins with numbers like these, voters will have a serious and instantaneous case of buyer's remorse.

Via PoliPundit.

UPDATE: Crush Kerry points out that, in the CBS/New York Times poll, 35 percent of those sampled were Democrats and 30 percent were Republicans. The last two polls from this organization used the same sample weights and showed the race tied. So it's not like the enemy wants to provide us with good news.

Last month our reader Sharon J. was contacted by the notoriously leftist CBS/60 Minutes producer Leslie Cockburn with respect to the segment that aired tonight. Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters previewed the message that Sharon received in his post "Sixty Minutes trolling for left-wing political groups." Here is the email message that Sharon received from Cockburn:

As per our conversation, I am producing a 60 Minutes piece (with Kroft) which addresses the following:

In light of our recently passed 416 billion dollar defense appropriations bill, I am disturbed to hear stories of lack of the most basic supplies among the troops in Iraq.

These include out of date weapons, lack of radios, inadequate water supplies, problems with vests, humvees, troops forced to purchase their own equipment etc. I would like to hear from any family who knows of such problems. I am particularly interested in shortages within the last few months.

I am also interested in maintenance problems...backlogs of repairs on vehicles and helicopters that may put troops in danger.

In looking at the stories from the field, I am trying to determine whether the Guard is experiencing more difficulties than other forces and also whether these problems continue regardless of promises to fix them.

If any of the families have documentary evidence of problems, photos from the field , home videos and letters etc, I am of course interested.

My email is [email address and phone number omitted]; I am based in Washington DC.

Many thanks,

Leslie

Sharon responded to Cockburn's email on September 14. Today she comments:

If you're wondering about the timing of the 60 Minutes story on troop equipment, here is an email I sent to Leslie Cockburn...on September 14. That would be approximately one and a half months ago. You would have thought that with such big news as under-equipped troops, they would have rushed the story to the air. Surely, the sooner the public would know about it, the better.

Here is Sharon's September 14 message to Cockburn:

I read with interest your solicitation to Guard families to offer instances of under-equipping our family members serving in the Guard overseas.

Well, I will say, yes, there have been problems in the field for my son. One of the things that stood out for me is that I had to send him sheets for his bed.

However, what concerns me is the attempt by CBS to somehow make victims out of these (in your minds) hapless Guardsmen who somehow just ended up in a war into which President Bush sent them.

There are difficulties for the troops, certainly. And yet, they overcome them.

My son was trained in personnel records management in the Minnesota and New Hampshire National Guard. In December 2003, he received notification of his activation. In January 2004, he left for training in New Jersey. His unit received military police training. However, because of his computer skills, his training focused on administrative tasks. In February 2004 he was sent to Iraq. When he arrived in Iraq, he was at first assigned office duties. Then he was moved to more common military police duties including convoy security and guarding the prisoners at Camp Bucca.

About three weeks ago he was involved in a prisoner transfer between Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca. You may recall that Abu Ghraib is still a dangerous place and was attacked by a car bomb this weekend. Two weeks ago, he was on patrol, and received permission to enter a home in Southern Iraq. Here is what he found in the home:

[Photo of captured weapons removed at Sharon's request.]

It's quite clear to me that they were not intending to play patty-cake with these [weapons].

Last week, my son was hit in the face with shrapnel from a grenade. He went to Kuwait to have it taken out and returned to work the next day.

The Guard members who are serving in Iraq are not victims of a bumbling President and military commanders. The Guard members are serving proudly and bravely, despite the complete lack of effort on CBS's part to support the troops. Making victims of the brave men and women is not supporting them. Your efforts disgust me and I am delighted to watch the demise of CBS in this scandal of the forged documents. You reap what you sow.

As I've mentioned before, I will be part of NBC's election night broadcast team. They will have a group of three bloggers--Ana Marie Cox, Joe Trippi (Is he a blogger? Not that I know of), and me. They will refer to us periodically for our comments on the races, and for information about what is being said and reported in the blogosphere.

The blogosphere has been referred to as "open source journalism," and I think that's a pretty good description. I'd love to use this opportunity to demonstrate that we bloggers are a powerful source of real-time information, not a curiosity. So: if you have anything interesting to report, or any analyses of the election returns that you think are worthwhile, send them to our Power Line mailbox, linked on the left side of the page. I hope I'm deluged with interesting material from all over the country--especially the swing states, of course. And I'll try to get as much of the best stuff as I can on the air. I'll also be live-blogging.

I'm guessing that the resources of NBC News are dwarfed by the information-gathering and information-analyzing capacity of the hundreds of thousands of smart people who read this site. Help prove me right on Tuesday.

Many readers have written us, expressing outrage that when NBC's Dateline rebroadcast Tom Brokaw's interview with John Kerry, which was previously shown on MSNBC, Kerry's admission that not all of his military records have been released was edited out. Other bloggers are accusing NBC of covering up Kerry's admission that he has repeatedly lied about making all of his records public.

There is no question that a key line got edited out. Here is the original exchange as it appeared on MSNBC:

Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.

Kerry: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from.

And here is how the exchange was shown on the much more heavily-watched Dateline:

"Someone has analyzed the president's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do."

Kerry: "That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it."

Superficially, this is rather damning. But if you read the complete transcripts of the two versions of the interview, you will see that they are quite different. The Dateline version included some exchanges that were not played on MSNBC, and MSNBC included others that were cut from the Dateline version.

Power Line readers are news junkies who are tuned in to the issues surrounding Kerry's military service that have been raised by the Swift Boat Vets and others. Realistically, however, the number of non-junkie listeners who would have understood the significance of the sentence that Dateline cut from Kerry's answer is close to zero. My guess is that whoever edited the video footage for Dateline had no idea that the omitted material was significant.

There is no question that the mainstream media covered up for John Kerry with respect to his military service. But they didn't do it by this minor bit of editing. They did it by never--ever--asking him the basic question: "Why won't you make all of your military records public?"

It's true that the Kerry campaign has falsely claimed that all of his records are publicly available, but they can't seriously maintain that position if it is subjected to any scrutiny. The Navy has said that it has around 100 pages that have not been released because Kerry has not signed the necessary form. That is an indisputable fact. So if a reporter asked Kerry the question, he would have to come up with some kind of an answer. And it is hard to see what answer he could give that would not lead no additional, more penetrating, questions.

But the mainstream media, while constantly slandering the Swift Boat Vets as disseminators of "discredited" information, have slammed the door on "legitimate" discussion of Kerry's military record by refusing to ask him the most basic of questions: what is in your records, and why won't you let the voters see them?

That's the real cover-up. And because that cover-up has been so successful, NBC could have played the full version of the IQ exchange, and hardly any viewers would have been the wiser.

UPDATE: Beldar has some very interesting comments along similar lines, but with a little pulchritude thrown in.

Earlier today, former Cincinnati Reds catcher Johnny Bench introduced President Bush at a rally at the Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati:

In Cincinnati, I have to think Bench's endorsement is worth some votes. President Bush has gotten some striking athletic endorsements--Bench, John Elway, Curt Schilling, and quite a few others--while, as far as I know, Kerry has gotten none. Maybe that's why Kerry is so obsessive about throwing balls around at airports.

Now, if only the Bush campaign could land Brett Favre...

UPDATE: Hah! It's true what they say about Karl Rove. Dusty Tryggestad writes:

Actually, my mom recieved a recorded message from Brett Favre supporting Bush.  Reference was made to today's win vs the Redskins.  I would imagine this is playing all over Wisconsin.

I think this could make the difference in Wisconsin. I mean, really.

FURTHER UPDATE: Another reader doubts whether this is correct; there are phone messages recorded by Bart Starr--almost as good, but we already knew this--but this reader says he's not aware of anything by Favre.

During his anti-war days (I'm referring to the Vietnam war, not the subsequent ones he has opposed to one extent or another) John Kerry was fond of asking how our government could ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake. The Currency Lad hopes that this week the American people will ask John Kerry to be the last man to "die" for a mistake. The mistake in question is the 1960s or, more specifically, "the fraudulent hybrid of moral relativism and civilisational self-loathing ignited in that era."

Please read the whole thing.

A reader alerted us to this Middle East Media Research Institute article on Osama bin Laden's videotape. MEMRI says that a significant part of Osama's threat against the U. S. has not been accurately translated:

The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to "each U.S. state," designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state") to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn't treat all American people as if they're the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections."

Interesting. If that is correct, the speech was a much more direct attempt to influence the election than has been reported.

MEMRI agrees with the interpretation of the speech as an implicit admission of failure or defeat:

Another conspicuous aspect of the tape is the absence of common Islamist themes that are relevant to the month of Ramadan, which for fundamentalists like bin Laden is the month of Jihad and martyrdom. Noticeably absent from the Al-Jazeera tape was his usual appearance with a weapon, and more importantly the absence of references to Jihad, martyrdom, the Koran, the Hadith (Islamic tradition), Crusaders, Jews, and the legacy of the Prophet Muhammad on the duty to wage Jihad against the infidels. For the followers of the Al-Qa'ida ideology, this speech sends a regressive and defeatist message of surrender, as seen in the move from solely using Jihad warfare to a mixed strategy of threats combined with truce offers and election deals.

It is striking how little intelligent commentary on bin Laden's tape there has been in the mainstream media.

If you have calmed down after checking out the Horserace Blog, you may or may not want to challenge your anger management skills by reading the column by Stephen Morris that NRO posted this afternoon: "John Kerry's other Vietnam war." Tonight I join in John Kerry's exhortation: Wake up, America!

...Robert Frost urged us to "choose something like a star." If, like me, you're fretting in a way that is unconducive to celestial thoughts, visit Jay Cost's thoughtful Horserace Blog, full of up-to-the-minute good stuff helping to sort the wheat from the chaff, and providing guidance on how to interpret the available data. Among other things, Cost has an excellent two-part analysis of the race in Minnesota. (Courtesy of Cliff May and The Corner.)

Foiled in their plan to broadcast the Al Qaqaa non-story tonight, 60 Minutes fell back on an old standby: an "expose" of troops not having proper equipment in Iraq, unarmored Humvees, etc. I turned it off after a few minutes, so I don't know whether they worked the bake sale hoax into the story or not. And I didn't find out whether they mentioned that 75% or 80% of the supposedly ill-equipped troops are voting for President Bush. Somehow, though, I doubt it.

I don't think this broadcast will change more than five or ten votes. After twenty-five years or so of relentlessly liberal propaganda, I'd guess that 60 Minutes doesn't have a lot of viewers who aren't already voting for Kerry. And the story is such old news that I doubt it will generate much follow-up publicity in the papers tomorrow.

Reader Larry Rosenshein alerted us to this CBS News poll which has President Bush with a three-point lead. It is interesting that 20% of those polled say they have already voted; of those 20%, 51% said they voted for President Bush, 43% for John Kerry.

But don't get too excited. It appears that we're only talking about approximately 130 people.

More meaningful, possibly, is that by 49% to 33%, respondents expect Bush to win.

A Pew survey released today also showed President Bush with a three-point lead.

The other day, I discussed baffled bloggers -- the disproportionately large group of our fellow hobbyists who find the decision between Bush and Kerry nearly impossible to make. It seems that some readers prefer their bloggers "baffled." Glenn Reynolds (who does not appear ever to have been particularly baffled by this year's choice) reports that one of his readers says he's disappointed to see him "abandoning ambiguity to support Bush." My hope is that those who find our present situation this perplexing embrace the ambiguity of it all and stay home on Tuesday.

There were reports that Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling had backed off his endorsement of President Bush, but that turns out not to be true. Schilling has recorded a phone message that says: "These past couple of weeks, Sox fans ... trusted me when it was my turn on the mound. Now you can trust me on this: President Bush is the right leader for our country." The message will be played to voters in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Maine.

What makes this story worthwhile is the reaction of the Kerry camp:

Kerry spokesman David Wade reminded baseball-crazed voters that when George W. Bush was owner of the Texas Rangers he voted against creation of the wild card. The Red Sox, of course, qualified for the playoffs through the wild card.

''When legions of Sox fans go to the polls on Tuesday, they'll remember that if George Bush had his way the Red Sox wouldn't have ever won the World Series,'' Wade said in a statement.

For good measure, Wade also reminds that Bush ''traded Sammy Sosa.''

I can't tell whether Wade is kidding. His response is really pretty funny, but no one associated with the Kerry campaign has been known to have a sense of humor. If he's not joking, Wade just made the worst argument in the history of American politics.

UPDATE: Reader Michael Grant points out that the Sammy Sosa deal shows that when President Bush actually does make a mistake, he admits it.

A Bloomberg News survey of economists shows a median forecast of 175,000 payroll jobs in October, with unemployment holding at a low 5.4%. If that prediction is correct, it's a very healthy total. The Labor Department's numbers won't come out until a few days after the election.

No one is going to hear about these numbers unless Kerry wins, in which case, the Kerry Boom is already underway--has been, in fact, for some time.

The New York Daily News has broken with its recent pattern of endorsing Democrats for president, and has come out in favor of George Bush. The paper is "dismayed" by Bush's record on domestic policy, but supports him nonetheless because of the overriding importance of the war on terrorism. The News finds that

Kerry has promised to be tough on terror. His words are resolute — he will hunt down and kill terrorists — but they betray a skittishness about the exercise of American military power, conjuring up endless diplomacy before action while reducing the fight against Al Qaeda and cohorts to cell-by-cell skirmishing.

Forged in Vietnam, where he was both valorous and appalled by U.S. policy, Kerry has long been uncomfortable with the use of American might. Witness his senatorial votes against defense and intelligence spending proposals. And witness his vote in 1991 against giving the first President Bush authority to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, a step that was compellingly necessary to prevent Saddam from becoming a dominant force over the Mideast and its oil.

There's no doubt that Kerry has become more realistic since then, but his votes for and against the war and his shifting campaign rhetoric raise grave doubts about what, exactly, a President Kerry would do in Iraq. He emphasizes persuading countries like France and Germany to join the war effort, but they have said no and never. He promises to prosecute the war better than Bush, but he has not gone beyond pointing out every setback in the conflict.

Most seriously, Candidate Kerry's clearest position on the war undercuts the cause a President Kerry would be obligated to fight. As Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland put it: "Kerry's repeated denunciations of Iraq as the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time weaken the moral and perhaps even the legal base for ordering Americans to continue to fight there if he becomes President." World leaders — those Kerry intends to rally and those already committed — could not responsibly risk their citizens in a misbegotten fight.

At this critical juncture, America cannot afford such a lack of clarity — or even a hint that a President would revert to playing defense rather than staying on the offensive. Nor would it be wise to change commanders midbattle in Iraq and around the globe, replacing a tested leader with a man who would have to learn on the job under the most difficult circumstances. With so much at stake, that's a transition not to be wished for.

My view is that newspaper endorsements usually don't mean much in presidential elections. But perhaps this editorial will help Bush in New Jersey, if that state is truly in play.

Readers who follow football have probably heard that when the Washington Redskins lose the final home game before a presidential election, the party in power invariably fails to hold the White House, or some such thing. If today's loss at home to the Green Bay Packers is any indication, the Democrats will win this year's presidential race in court. With about two minutes left, the Redskins scored a touchdown that (with the extra point) would have put them ahead. However, the play was called back on a bogus penalty call, and the Packers went on to win.

We noted last night that the Minneapolis Star Tribune had performed its biennial service to the Democratic Party, via its notoriously inaccurate Minnesota Poll: the poll, reported in this morning's paper, shows Kerry with an eight-point lead, 49% to 41%. This poll is worth further comment, in view of the Minnesota Poll's sorry history.

The Strib is sensitive about the fact that its poll is always wrong, and always in the same direction: it favors Democratic candidates. So the Strib makes a hilarious effort to blame its own apparent bias on those shifty Minnesota voters:

Bush also could be helped by the fact that the Minnesota Poll has, since 1996, consistently found that starting the Friday night before the election, the electorate becomes more conservative and ends up voting more Republican.

Amazing how that keeps happening, isn't it?

The Strib also tries to shore up its poll by quoting Larry Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project at the University of Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey Institute:

"The poll is very consistent with a whole lot of other results, so no one can disagree with it."... Jacobs said the key number in the poll is Bush's 41 percent, because it closely mirrors virtually all of the statewide polls conducted in recent weeks. "All the polls show him having a hard time breaking out of the mid-40s...."

Usually it's the Trunk who deconstructs the Minnesota poll, but today we'll let reader A. Hawkins do the honors:

Do people who are age 47 to 49 fairly describe themselves as "mid-40s"?

Compare ("having a hard time breaking out of the mid-40s") to the data:

Bush
0.41    10/29/04        Star-Tribune
0.42    10/26/04        St. Cloud State University
0.47    10/17/04        Rasmussen
0.47    10/18/04        Mason-Dixon
0.47    10/26/04        Center for Survey Research and Analysis
0.48    10/21/04        Strategic Vision (R)
0.48    10/29/04        Mason-Dixon
0.49    10/26/04        Strategic Vision (R)

Recap:
Bush
1@41
1@42
3@47
2@48
1@49

Grouped:
Bush
6@47-49
2@41-42

Also, a Zogby tracking poll shows:
Bush
10/24/04        0.45
10/25/04        0.43
10/26/04        0.44
10/27/04        0.44
10/28/04        0.46
10/29/04        0.43
10/30/04        0.46

So how exactly does Bush's 41% "closely mirror virtually all of the statewide polls conducted in recent weeks"? The Strib has obviously done it again, and no doubt those pesky Minnesotans will take an unexpected turn to the right between now and Tuesday.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press poll, also released yesterday, has President Bush with a one-point lead.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported yesterday that the Swift Boat Vets have placed a $500,000 television ad buy in Minnesota. A Swiftee spokesman said: "We had some extra donations and figured that Minnesota would be a good place to put the money." Until now, Swift Boat Vets' ads have been seen in Minnesota only on cable television.

The Strib is impressed: "The ad buy is huge by Minnesota standards. Political campaigns in the state typically spend no more than $250,000 for a full week's advertising."

A Kerry spokesman responded with the usual denigration of the Swiftees:

[A] Kerry spokesman said the Swift Boat Vets have "been discredited time and time again, but it's not surprising that they would bring this garbage up again close to Election Day."

He said the Navy, sailors who served directly with Kerry and the families of those "who died beside John Kerry have all verified John Kerry's brave service to his country."

No word on what exactly has been discredited. And, for what it's worth, no one "died beside John Kerry" while he was in Vietnam. But the Kerry campaign's standard is, if it sounds good, say it.

IRS regulations bit the dust again today, as they have every Sunday throughout the campaign. John Kerry works the crowd at a service at Shiloh Baptist Church in Dayton, Ohio:

Am I the only one who thinks this conduct is racist? Can you imagine President Bush turning a religious service into a campaign event in a predominantly white congregation? Is there anything other than the fact that these parishioners are black that makes anyone think this behavior is either legal or in any way appropriate?

Even in the closing days of the campaign, Kerry cultivates his image as a sportsman. On the way to church, he took time out to throw a football. Note how he plants his back foot:

No wonder Mike Tice endorsed President Bush.

If you haven't already seen it via InstaPundit, don't miss American Digest's photo essay: 50 reasons to vote for President Bush.

This is from ABC's The Note:

This from the Des Moines Register Poll is potentially really key for Iowa and perhaps beyond:

"Twenty-seven percent of Iowa adults surveyed said they had already voted. Kerry leads Bush, 52 percent to 41 percent, among that group of early-bird voters. Among the 73 percent who said they definitely would vote on Tuesday, Kerry and Bush are tied."

Iowa is the Upper Midwest state I've felt most confident about, but if this survey is anywhere near accurate, it's bad news. With twenty-seven percent of the votes cast, anything like an 11-point lead will be hard to make up.

UPDATE: Reader James Sherk comments:

You noted that Bush is 11 points behind among early voters in the Des Moines register poll.  This is true, but ignores the much larger sampling error for the subsample of early voters than for the sample as a whole.  So Bush might not be as far behind as this survey puts him.

Here is the article with most of the polls internals: http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041030/NEWS09/41030008/1001

Consider: We have an overall sample size of 806 likely voters.  27 percent of them have already voted.  So this means the sample size of early voters is 218 respondents.  The formula for determining the margin of error for a poll is plus or minus 1 / (square root of n). Plugging n=218 into this equation gives us a margin of error for this sample gives a margin of error of plus or minus 6.7 percent.

Also, this poll is an outlier.  Every other poll from Iowa has had Bush up, or Kerry up by less than this poll does.  So it is likely to already oversample Democratic voters.

This isn't to say that Kerry isn't leading Bush among early voters. In 2000, Gore beat Bush by 10,000 votes among early and absentee voters.  But given that this poll is the one most favorable to Kerry, and the much higher margin of error for the early voter subsample, it is probably a safe bet that Kerry isn't beating Bush by 11 points among early voters.

OH, NEVER MIND: Reader John Wixted is even less impressed:

Reader James Sherk got the margin of error story half right. The margin of error of 6.7% applies to a particular value, not to the difference between 2 particular values. First, let's consider a particular value. If I said that the president's approval rating was 50% with a margin of error of 6.7%, then you could be reasonably confident that his approval rating was somewhere between 43.3% and 56.7% (i.e., 50% plus of minus 6.7%). The approval rating is a particular value, not a difference between two values.

But (and this is the critical point) if that same poll shows Kerry with a lead of 11%, then we are suddenly talking about a difference score (i.e., the difference between the particular poll value for Bush and the particular poll value for Kerry). But the margin of error applies to specific poll values only, not to the difference between them. The margin of error for the difference between two values (which is what we really want to know) is approximately double the margin of error for a specific poll value. To see why (without going through the calculations), imagine that a poll shows Bush and Kerry tied at 50% each with a margin of error of 3.1%. This means that Bush might have 53% support and Kerry might have 47% support, a difference (53% - 47% = 6%) that is double the margin of error (even though both specific values are within the margin).

In any case, the Des Moines Register Poll shows that among those who have voted already, Kerry has an 11-point lead plus or minus about 12 points!

A number of readers what to know what happened to the missing 7% who have already voted. I assume they wouldn't say whom they voted for; but in that case, why were they included in the poll?

As I said, never mind.

During the Democratic national convention, John Edwards asked America to judge John Kerry by the statements of those who served with him in Vietnam. The only problem was that the MSM was doing its best to hide most of these statements from the American public. Once that problem was overcome, the Democrats lost interest in the views Kerry's "brothers" and, in fact, chose to slander many of these brave men.

President Bush asks to be judged by his record as president. However, the views of his military brothers are available here at at WingmenForBush. The Wingmen have issued a press release expressing their outrage at John Kerry's claim, on the Today show, that George Bush did not put his life on the line for his country. Consider, for example, the statement of Silver Star recipient Col. Tom Lockhart (Ret.). Col. Lockhart spent 24 months serving in the Vietnam War as a fighter pilot. In 1969, he trained then-Lt. Bush to fly jet aircraft at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Georgia. He says:

John Kerry, your statement on national television, which implied that George W. Bush did not put his life on the line indicated that you simply don't know what it means to fly fighter aircraft. This has historically been the most dangerous assignment that any military officer could choose, and that danger exists in training for combat as well as in combat. Mr. Kerry, your comments disparage the National Guard and are a disgrace, especially in light of the current commitment of Guard troops to Iraqi Freedom. I flew with George W. Bush, and I can attest to his skill as a fighter pilot. All fighter pilots put our lives on the line every time we strap on a jet fighter. Bush stepped up and volunteered for this very risky service to his country in a time of crises.

The Wingmen also note that they are not alone in their support for Bush and their disapproval of Kerry. They cite an Army Times poll showing that at least 75% of the military is voting for Bush. The Wingmen have also posted a letter from the famed Easy Company "Band of Brothers" WW II paratroopers that condemns Kerry's use of the title "Band of Brothers" in his 1971 Senate testimony which accused his "brothers" of commiting war crimes.

It is truly astounding to think that the U.S. may be on the verge of electing as its president a man who aided the enemy during a time of war. And it is shameful that this same man denigrates the contribution of millions of men and women who loyally served this country during the Vietnam era.

Hat tip: Laura Armstrong.

George Will sets out his case for re-electing President Bush. For Will, who has been quite critical of the president, it boils down to the case for defeating John Kerry:

Reasonable people can question the feasibility of Bush's nation-building and democracy-spreading ambitions. But, having taken up that burden, America cannot prudently, or decently, put it down. The question is: Which candidate will most tenaciously and single-mindedly pursue victory? The answer is: Not John Kerry, who is multiple-minded about most matters.

This statement, captures the reason why I believe President Bush will win. That, and the fact that, as of now, there has been no terrorist attack on the homeland since 9/11.

The lack of coverage by the mainstream media of the issues related to John Kerry's military record and his behavior as an antiwar leader is an almost unbelievable scandal. Of course it goes hand in hand with the fabricated and fraudulent stories to which the mainstream media have devoted their resources. The mainstream media's combination of nonfeasance and malfeasance will travel far with us along our road after election day.

We have previously expressed our admiration for the efforts of the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth and of the Vietnam veterans, many aged, some infirm, answering the call of duty one last time, to draw attention to these issues and to defend their honor and that of their fallen comrades.

Today former Vietnam POW Paul Galanti, a man who spent 2,432 days in captivity, returns with a column in the the Richmond Times-Dispatch that amounts to a closing statement: "Kerry's Legacy: No one who has aided the enemy deserves to become president." (Courtesy of Lucianne.)

Under the heading "Zip that lip," the New York Post reports:

This campaign is ending just in time before someone gets hurt. John Kerry's stepson, Chris Heinz, 31, displayed his mother Teresa's famous lack of rhetorical restraint at a recent campaign event with a group of Wharton students. Philadelphia magazine reports: "Heinz accused Kerry's opponents - 'our enemies' - of making the race dirty. 'We didn't start out with negative ads calling George Bush a cokehead,' he said, before adding, 'I'll do it now.' Asked later about it, Heinz said, 'I have no evidence. He never sold me anything.'" Heinz also reminded writer Sasha Issenberg of Pat Buchanan by saying, "One of the things I've noticed is the Israel lobby - the treatment of Israel as the 51st state, sort of a swing state." Buchanan was blasted as an anti-Semite years ago when he cited Israel's "amen corner" in Congress.

(Courtesy of reader Paul B.)

The New York Post reports:

Osama bin Laden doesn't seem nearly so cocky in the unedited version of a videotape aired on al-Jazeera, complaining that the manhunt against him has hampered al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden's newest tape may have thrust him to the forefront of the presidential election, but what was not seen was the cave-dwelling terror lord talking about the setbacks al Qaeda has faced in recent months.

Officials said that in the 18-minute long tape — of which only six minutes were aired on the al-Jazeera Arab television network in the Middle East on Friday — bin Laden bemoans the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan and the lack of violence involved with it.

On the tape, bin Laden also says his terror organization has been hurt by the U.S. military's unrelenting manhunt for him and his cohorts on the Afghan-Pakistani border.

A portion of the left-out footage includes a tirade aimed at President Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush, claiming the war in Iraq is purely over oil.

The Post story is "Full tape an Osama a woe show." (Courtesy of The Truth Laid Bear.)

HINDROCKET adds: This is really very interesting. It sounds as though the full Osama video would have been much more a campaign commercial for President Bush. Which suggests that it may be Al Jazeera, more than bin Laden, that wants to help Kerry win.

Newt Gingrich brings a historian's eye and a politician's discernment to his elaboration of the unifying theme in President Bush's leadership: "When you vote for the president's re-election, you're voting for courage..." (Courtesy of reader Vince Haley.)

Paul Johnson also brings a historian's eye to his development of the thesis that President Bush must be reelected and John Kerry must be stopped: "Campaign 2004: High stakes." As Gingrich elaborates on his admiration for President Bush, Johnson elaborates on his disdain for Kerry. The drawing above accompanies Johnson's column on the Hispanic American Research Center site to which reader Gary Thomas directed us.

Is there anybody out there who's trying to avoid political news until election day? I feel like the the character Luke in one of my favorite songs, The Band's "The Weight." The tired narrator of the song's story tells Miss Moses that there's nothing she can say to Luke -- that old Luke is "just waiting on the judgment day." Come to think of it, I'm feeling a lot like that tired narrator too. (Click here for more on "The Weight.") Let's take a musical break with the piece I posted below over the new year's weekend earlier this year.

One of my favorite CDs of the past ten years is Shawn Colvin's "Cover Girl." Colvin established herself commercially with "Steady On" and "Fat City," discs full of beautiful, flawlessly performed material that she had mostly written herself or with John Leventhal. Then she released "Cover Girl," a set of her covers of obscure pop material that displayed her brilliant interpretive skills.

The disc is imperfect, to say the least. Some of the songs were recorded live in intimate settings, others were studio productions, and the disk accordingly lacks a unifying feel. One or two of the studio cuts are dead weight. It was as though she couldn't quite find her groove, or as though her label lacked confidence in the commercial potential of the live cuts, which are breathtaking.

Among the songs that Colvin memorably brings to life on "Cover Girl" is Jimmy Webb's "If These Walls Could Speak." Webb is a winner of numerous Grammy awards, is a member of the National Songwriters Hall of Fame and a member of the Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame. He first achieved fame as a songwriter in the '60s as the composer of the shlock epic "MacArthur Park" as well as of several hits for the Fifth Dimension and, perhaps most notably, Glen Campbell.

"By the Time I Get to Phoenix" and "Wichita Lineman" were of course the songs that launched Webb's partnership with Campbell. It was a partnership that remained productive in the '70s and '80s as Campbell and Webb continued to work together (work documented on the wonderful Raven compilation "Reunited with Jimmy Webb: 1974-1988"), although without the chart success of their earlier hits. Among the peaks of their later work is Webb's haunting "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress," also covered by Joe Cocker, Judy Collins, Linda Ronstadt and Nanci Griffith.

In any event, one of the revelations of "Cover Girl" for those of us who had forgotten about Webb was "If These Walls Could Speak," which Colvin picked up from Webb's work with Campbell. The lyrics seem to flow directly from the incredibly poignant melody: "If these old walls, if these old walls could speak/What a tale they have to tell, hard headed people raisin' hell/A couple in love livin' week to week/Rooms full of laughter, if these old walls could speak."

One of the best book reviews the Wall Street Journal has ever run is a review by Webb of a compendium of song lyrics. In the review, Webb notes the difficulty of placing words to music. In a well-written song, the words seem magically to flow right out of the melody. Webb powerfully testifies to the difficulty involved in creating this magic. Below is an excerpt of the review, which ran in the Journal in February 2001 under the heading "Singing the praises of song."

Despite the controversy over the Grammy nomination of "The Marshall Mathers LP," a recording that has outraged gay- and women's-rights groups because of its sociopathic bent, many influential critics continue to praise Eminem's skills as a rhymer and songwriter. Along comes Reading Lyrics (Pantheon, 706 pages, $39.50), an anthology of songs, to give the lie to the emperor's new groove.

Don't expect to find Lennon and McCartney here. The editors cut this enormous field down to a manageable size by focusing on lyrics written between 1900 and 1975, especially those created for the theater and cinema. "Though a collection of lyrics that excludes, say, Bob Dylan or Hank Williams is obviously one that is far from complete," the editors explain, "their stories are not the stories we can tell here." Rock 'n' roll, folk and contemporary pop lyrics are passed over without prejudice.

Not unexpectedly, the titans are well-represented: Berlin, Porter, Hart, Gershwin, Hammerstein II, as well as Noel Coward and Frank Loesser. In the second echelon are Gus Kahn, E.Y. Harburg, Dorothy Fields, Johnny Mercer, Sammy Cahn, Alan Jay Lerner and Stephen Sondheim, among others. There are also lesser heroes whose names are virtually unknown to the general public.

Many of these lyricists are Jewish. Some are black. A few are gay. Eight are women. All share a certain meticulous touch, a finesse in their choice of what is right or wrong, moving or mawkish, ill-tempered or bittersweet, that sets their work apart, placing it high in the rarefied firmament of true art.

From the gemstone biographical details that introduce each songwriter we learn that Cecil Mack's "That's Why They Call Me Shine" (1924), an anti-prejudice benchmark, was a hit four times with the California Ramblers, Bing Crosby, Louis Armstrong and, surprisingly, Frankie Laine; Jack Lawrence wrote "Linda," the well-known standard, to celebrate the birth of Linda Eastman McCartney; Haven Gillespie wrote "the most recorded song in American history," "Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town"; and Noble Sissle, who wrote "I'm Just Wild About Harry," was also the first black DJ.

We also discover the identities of the authors of some of our most enduring examples of Amerimusicana. Lyricist Marilyn Bergman has written eloquently about "the invisible songwriter," and here a lyric's fame is often disproportionate to the dismal obscurity of the writer. "Without a Song" was written by Edward Eliscu, a "jack of all trades around the Broadway theatre." Eric Maschwitz, a longtime executive with the BBC, wrote "These Foolish Things." Irving Kahal, who died before the age of 40, did not live to see the success of his "I'll Be Seeing You" in 1944...

The anonymity of so many of these authors may be due in part to an attitude pervasive among laymen. Gene Lees, who wrote "Quiet Nights of Quiet Stars" (included here), described it this way: "The tone of voice conveys unmistakably that melody writing is a strange and wonderful gift while just about anybody can toss off a lyric. After all it's only words." As a writer of both, I find that improvising a tune is a joyful, natural and even enthralling experience compared with the trench warfare of painstakingly constructing an original, useful lyric. It's even harder to come up with lyrics for a melody that is already in existence (as most of these were), especially if it has been written by a composer like Jerome Kern, who reportedly disdained to have a single note changed. Each successful lyric of this kind is nothing less than a small miracle, and here are more than 1,000 of them between two covers!

My own personal favorites are the funny ones: Cole Porter's oh-so-naughty "Brush Up Your Shakespeare" ("If she says your behavior is heinous, Kick her right in the Coriolanus"); Mort Dixon's wacky, if politically askew, "Nagasaki" ("Where the men chew tobaccy and the women wicky wacky woo"); and Stephen Sondheim's jauntily perverse "I Never Do Anything Twice" ("As I said to the abbot, 'I'll get in the habit, but not in the habit. You've my highest regard. And I know that it's hard. Still, no matter the vice, I never do anything twice'"). All are reminders that sex is sexier when it's sophisticated, piquant and cheerful.

This is not a book to be read quickly. The wise reader will want to savor lines like Yip Harburg's "when I can't fondle the hand I'm fond of I fondle the hand at hand" ("When I'm Not Near the Girl I Love," 1946). In a more poignant vein, "Lost in the Stars" (Maxwell Anderson, 1944), "The Ballad of the Sad Young Men" (Fran Landesman, 1959) and "Lush Life" (Billy Strayhorn, 1938) deserve special attention for their depiction of the stoic cynicism that accompanies disillusionment...

Scholars and trivia hounds will no doubt find this volume to be an invaluable reference. For younger readers, it will serve as an introduction to a world of fascinating imagery and emotion, much of which existed long before they were born but still throbs with rhythm and passion. For others of us, Reading Lyrics will be a companion, like an old friend often consulted for inspiration and solace.

There are good lyrics here from the '60s and '70s, including "The Way We Were" (Alan and Marilyn Bergman, 1973), "What Kind of Fool Am I?" (Lesley Bricusse, 1961), "People" (Bob Merrill, 1963) and "Misty" (Johnny Burke, 1962). But as this year's Grammy nominations demonstrate, we have regressed at light speed through the Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze Ages of lyric writing and are well on our way back to the Primeval.

Yet we can still find a reminder of the grace, charm and warmth of which talented men and women of good will are capable in Reading Lyrics. This wondrous and magical concoction is hatred-free and highly recommended.

Who could ask for anything more?

UPDATE: Fans of The Band know that "The Weight" begins in Nazareth, Pennsylvania, with the tired narrator looking for a place to lay his head. Helping me to make this post relevant to current events, a reader writes:

In case you missed it, Nazareth makes the election news today. Reuters reports: "Vice President Dick Cheney, campaigning in Nazareth, Pennsylvania, directly addressed the bin Laden tape and said it was 'no ordinary time for America.

'We've all seen in the last day or two the tape of Osama bin Laden now. It's a reminder that we are engaged in a global war on terror,' he said." (P.S. Most of us never heard of Nazareth, Pennsylvania except in that Band classic.)

The reader forwards the link to the quoted Reuters story from today's news: "Deadlocked Bush and Kerry hit swing states hard."

Reader John Richardson sent us a number of great photos from President Bush's Target Center appearance today. This one I especially like, for some reason. President Bush is a good man; if he is re-elected, he may go down in history as a great man. Somehow this photo conveys that, for me, anyway. Click to enlarge:

Yesterday, in "For whom the Minnesota Poll tolls," I anticipated that the Minneapolis Star Tribune would release a poll on Sunday that would show John Kerry pulling away from President Bush in Minnesota. Whatever its other defects, the Star Tribune cannot be faulted for unreliability.

Exactly as anticipated, Sunday's Star Tribune reports that John Kerry has opened a 49-41 lead over President Bush in the results of the latest Star Tribune Minnesota Poll: "Minnesota Poll: Kerry opens a lead." The Star Tribune story also reports that the (far more reliable) St. Paul Pioneer Press/MPR Mason-Dixon Poll released today shows the race essentially tied, with Bush leading 48-47: "Bush, Kerry in dead heat."

As has become the tradition, the Star Tribune attributes the discrepancy to the "volatility" of the voters. I, on the other hand, attribute the discrepancy to the "inaccuracy" of the Minnesota Poll. Sickening.

I spent today at a debate tournament at my daughter's high school (she won first place in her event). One of the other parents there is a distinguished law professor who has just published a book, and was going to speak later in the day at a local book store. He noted that most of his friends would not be present because they are out of town, campaigning for John Kerry in the battle ground states.

Battalions of D.C. lawyers in Iowa, Ohio, and Florida, going house-to-house during the day and preparing to file court papers day night. Al Gore's legacy indeed.

Repubublicans Dave Durenberger and Rudy Boschwitz were elected to the Senate from Minnesota in 1978, the year of the "Minnesota massacre" of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Republican Al Quie was elected governor as well, knocking off incumbent Rudy Perpich.

As senators, Durenberger and Boschwitz were a study in contrasts. Boschwitz was a party-builder and gregarious battler for Republican causes. With the election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980, Boschwitz was perfectly positioned to contribute his personal background as a refugee and his business background as a successful entrepreneur to the advancement of the Reagan revolution.

Durenberger, on the other hand, established himself as a quirky maverick who loved making himself a thorn in the side of the Reagan administration. Despite his independence from the party, the Minneapolis Star Tribune (and its predecessors) frquently dogged Durenberger and made a special contribution to the revelation of the ethical tribulations that resulted in his censure by the Senate in 1990. Durenberger stood down for reelection at the conclusion of his third term in 1995.

This week the Star Tribune hauled Durenberger out of mothballs to publish his endorsement of John Kerry for president: "For health care security, Kerry has the better plan." Durenberger addresses the subject of health care in this column as America's primary national security issue; the column rings more than a little hollow the day after the airing of Osama bin Laden's nauseating video. Moreover, although Durenberger is genuinely knowledgeable on the subject of health care, virtually everything he says on the subject is tripe.

I served as Rudy Boschwitz's treasurer when he ran against then-Senator Paul Wellstone in 1996. He's a friend and the person I admire most in public life in Minnesota. Yesterday Rudy emailed me the response to Durenberger's column that he had submitted to the Star Tribune, but that the Star Tribune declined to run in the form submitted. The Strib demanded that Rudy revise the column to confine the subject to health care; the revised column runs in Sunday's Star Tribune. Here's the unexpurgated Boschwitz:

Senator Dave Durenberger may prefer John Kerry's health plan to the President's, but I do not. Nor in my mind is health-care the defining issue of the 2004 campaign.

First, a word about health care. If 45 million Americans are uninsured, that means 246 million or 85% of Americans are insured. While it is important to find a way to cover the uninsured, it is equally or more important to not jeopardize the status of the overwhelming majority that are insured. Furthermore, a significant number of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid, particularly children. Also, I understand that 60% of the uninsured work for small businesses. I know from experience that small groups are very expensive to insure. The President's plan to allow many small businesses to get together and pool their numbers is an excellent approach in my opinion. It will surely meaningfully decrease the number of uninsured Americans.

So I prefer President Bush's plan of building on the private sector system that has been so successful for the vast majority of Americans. It has given us the world's finest health care -- particularly here in Minnesota. The Kerry idea of expensively expanding the government's role is not nearly as appealing.

Incidentally, I never joined the Senators' Health Plan. Our company plan was better and cheaper as well.

The world looked far different when Dave Durenberger and I arrived in Washington together as Senators in the winter of 1978. The Soviet Union was ascendant. From 1974-78 ten countries had joined the Communist bloc. Brezhnev had announced his Doctrine that a nation once Communist would always remain so. 750,000 American service men and women and their dependents qualified for food stamps. Iran fell under the control of the Ayatollah who was to capture and hold our embassy staff in Teheran for a year. The Soviet Union, with thousands of nuclear tipped missiles aimed our way, was poised to invade Afghanistan.

Then in 1980 Ronald Reagan challenged the status quo, rearmed America -- a path I endorsed and voted for -- declared the Soviet Union an "evil empire"
and stated early on that the days of the Soviet Union were numbered and that its epitaph was even then being written. Frankly I did not see things as clearly as he (nor did other Senators). I expected to live my lifetime with the Soviet Communism in opposition to Western democracy and freedom.

Since 1980 not a single country has turned from democracy to tyranny, but dozens have turned from tyranny to become open societies and that trend continues. The election in Afghanistan -- the first ever in that country -- was a truly remarkable event. If it can happen in Afghanistan, it will surely happen in Iraq and taken together, a profound change will occur in the Middle East that will change the course of events there.

Tyranny has been commonplace throughout my life. I was born in Germany two years before the advent of Adolph Hitler as Reich Chancellor on January 30,
1933. On that day my Dad came home and told my Mom we would leave Germany forever. Six months later we were gone. Of my family that remained on the continent of Europe, only one survived Nazism.

During my lifetime, few leaders or so called statesmen looked tyranny and evil in the eye and said: you can't do that and if you persist we're going to act and take you out. Most sought to negotiate, appease, buy off or not confront the evil-doer. But there were exceptions and those leaders made the world a better and safer place. Included among them were Churchill, Harry Truman, John Kennedy who appeared on that path based on both his inaugural address and subsequent actions, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and now George W. Bush.

If George Bush is granted another term, there is little doubt in my mind that we will win the war on terrorism, change the face of the Middle East in a very positive way and head that area of the world toward peace. That is why I am so strongly supportive of President Bush. The world will become a better place.

Terrorism has to be put in some perspective. It is not the enormous threat to the world that we faced in the 40's with Nazism combined with Japanese militarism. Nor is terrorism the same scope of threat that the Soviet Empire posed with its thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at us.

That is not to underestimate terrorism and its fanaticism particularly in a day of weapons of mass destruction that include not only nuclear, but chemical and biological weapons as well. But these are people who must operate out of caves, without the legitimacy and security of a government, a capital as a base of operations, a consistent cash flow or the ability to easily move money about. They have to constantly be hiding and on the run. As I know and understand our government, how it works and functions, I believe in our ability to find the terrorists and root them out.

I very much believe in President George Bush's capabilities in leading this nation and the world in this fight, whether in concert with the full array of nations or without them -- and leadership by definition is sometimes a
lonely project.

In his message to me Rudy adds an optimistic personal note: "If MN & Hawaii are in play, we will surely watch George W. Bush get re-elected Tuesday evening."

President Bush spoke at the Target Center in Minneapolis today. He drew a crowd of 23,000; I didn't think the building could hold that many. Mike Tice, the coach of the Minnesota Vikings, introduced Bush, giving him both a Vikings jersey and a ringing endorsement: "When it's the fourth quarter and the game is on the line, you want somebody with a cool head calling the plays."

The Associated Press admits the crowd was enthusiastic, but does what it can to diminish the story's impact, devoting three paragraphs to "several dozen" Kerry supporters who protested across the street--a pathetic turnout--and noting that John Kerry drew an alleged 30,000 partisans to a rally in Minneapolis a week ago. We wrote about the Kerry rally here; it was a dispirited affair which several thousand Kerry supporters left before he had finished speaking.

We'll await word from our readers to get a fairer assessment of the afternoon. In the meantime, here is a picture of the Target Center rally; the enthusiasm is apparent:

UPDATE: Yahoo News Photos has some more pictures of the Target Center rally; I liked this one of Miss Minnesota 2004, Jessica Dereschuk: a typical Republican woman.

ONE MORE: Mike Tice presenting President Bush with a Minnesota Vikings jersey:

Take whatever comfort you want from today's Newsweek poll, which shows President Bush with a six-point lead among likely voters. But I still think the Newsweek poll isn't worth much, one way or the other. The poll's internals aren't disclosed, but here is the key fact:

Independents seem to be moving toward Bush. Last week Kerry captured independents’ support 52 to 38 percent. This week, for the first time since the debates, Bush has retaken the lead among independents, 47 to 38. The margin of error is plus or minus 6 points for independents’ support....

Give me a break. I'd love to believe that independents are moving toward the President, but a twenty-three point swing in a week? Ridiculous.

Don't miss this superb piece by Joseph Perkins, a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Richard Nixon would have captured the 1960 presidential election but for five states he lost by 5,000 votes or fewer – Missouri, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico and Hawaii.

Gerald Ford would have retained the presidency in 1976 but for two states he lost by no more than 5,600 votes – Ohio and Hawaii.

Though the 1960 and 1976 elections were close, though they turned on a few thousand votes in a handful of states, the outcomes were faithfully accepted by the American people, by Republicans and Democrats alike.

That's because neither Nixon or Ford demanded that the votes be recounted in the states in which they lost by narrow margins. And neither Nixon or Ford insisted they were denied election because of voting irregularities in some state or another.

Then there was the 2000 election.

[Al] Gore refused to accept that he lost Florida, that he lost the presidency, by so small a margin. He refused to put the national interest before his own selfish interest.

He dispatched his lawyers to the Sunshine State to contest the election. And his lawyers used every legal maneuver in their arsenal to overturn Gore's defeat – challenging the manner in which Florida conducted its balloting, claiming that certain voter blocs were disenfranchised.

The result is that a portion of the populace refuses to this day to accept the outcome of the 2000 election (despite a post-election ballot review by a consortium of media organizations that concluded, unequivocally, that Bush won Florida no matter how the votes were counted or recounted).

It is because of the Gore precedent, because he tried to win the 2000 election in the courts after losing at the ballot box, that this nation remains so bitterly divided between Republicans and Democrats.

And the nation is likely to remain bitterly divided following this year's presidential election. Because John Kerry is already gearing up to contest the outcome of the election even before voters go to the polls on Election Day.

In fact, lawyers for the Democrats already have filed some 35 lawsuits in some 17 states. And if Kerry goes down to defeat on Election Day, there almost certainly will be an avalanche of lawsuits claiming that the Democrat somehow was cheated out of the presidency.

[T]he reality is that the rash of election-related litigation precipitated by Kerry and the Democrats is doing lasting, perhaps irreparable, damage to the democratic process in this country.

Indeed, Doug Lewis, executive director of the Election Center, a nonprofit organization, told the Associated Press this week that all the legal wrangling is "disastrous for fundamental faith in the system" by which presidents have been elected since this nation's founding.

"Pretty soon," he said, "You get people saying, 'Shoot, then why bother to vote?' There has been such a concerted effort to beat up on the system itself that people need to step back and understand that if you destroy the very process by which your candidate gets elected, then what have you gained?"

This is a warning that the Democrats show no sign of heeding.

Courtesy of our friends at Real Clear Politics.

Wretchard has an interesting take on Osama's video: he's like the kid on the playground who tries to call "time out" when he's about to get clobbered:

It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.

The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender.

Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer.

The Washington Post reports on how Tom Daschle is responding to finding himself behind in the polls:

Is Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) getting panicky in his reelection bid against former representative John Thune? Republicans gleefully note that after a newspaper poll showed Thune in the lead this week, Daschle's long-standing ban on third-party ads abruptly ended, and a chartered planeload of Democratic lawyers, lobbyists and loyalists is scheduled to fly from Washington to Sioux Falls today.

"There's almost a panic [among Democrats] around the nation about Daschle being able to cling to his seat," Thune campaign manager Dick Wadhams said.

Bringing in the planeload of lawyers and other volunteers from Washington is simply prudent in the post-2000 election world, Daschle spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said.

Translation: in the "post-2000 election world," if a powerful and well-financed Democrat loses an election, he'll bring in squadrons of lawyers and try to steal it. Let's all hope that Thune wins big enough to make theft impossible.

Which is possible, I think. The Post article notes that the Zogby poll that recently showed Thune in the lead actually had Thune so far ahead that the pollsters didn't believe it. So they adjusted their assumptions and reduced Thune's lead to three points. Which tells you something about the "science" of polling.

During the last two weeks of the Presidential campaign, we expected a virtual blackout on good news of all kinds, as the mainstream media try to drag John Kerry across the finish line. And we haven't been surprised, as the press has been hysterical over one bogus story after another.

So let's take a moment to shine a little light into the darkness. Haider Ajina sends us the results of a poll taken in Baghdad, Mosul and Dehok and published in Iraq on October 25. The poll probably over-sampled Sunnis, which makes its results even more striking. Haider writes:

63% of Iraqis say that the withdrawal of American and allied forces will not be in the best interest of Iraq, it will undermine the work towards security and control of the country. 27% say that it would be in the best interest of Iraq. 9% had no opinion.

58% say that terrorists do the kidnappings and assassination of police and soldiers. 9% say that patriots fighting for Iraq carry them out. 32% say ignorant Iraqis who have been brain washed & misled carry them out.

89% said that the terrorism, kidnapping, beheadings and assassination of police and security forces do not help the freeing of Iraq and the building of a stable country. 6% said that it would help free Iraq and build stability. 4% had no opinion.

Michael Moore, the intellectual leader of the Democratic Party, may believe that the terrorists are patriots and freedom fighters, but the Iraqi people clearly do not agree.

Haider also tells us that positive developments in Egypt, the most populous Arab country, are not being reported in America. The liberation of Iraq has had a profound effect on Egyptians, who are starting to campaign for freedom and democracy. By way of example, Haider sends us this translation of pat of a front-page article in the Egyptian newspaper, “Al Wafed," on October 27, titled: "The people of Egypt are screaming at the top of their lungs for a free government":

Soon after, the Egyptian government announced a realignment of the cabinet. The dream of a democratic Egypt returned to the masses. The cabinet of Dr. Adif Aubeid has introduced nothing new. The people lost hope in any progressive improvements in government. Nothing was left except to pray to god to rid them of this government. The people have suffered higher taxes, unemployment, and inflation. People are feeling like sheep, not citizens. Egyptians have rights, which need to be respected, have needs that need to be considered and have expectation of a more representative government.

"We have had enough of the old faces; we want a government: young, strong, and free, which represents the hopes of the people of Egypt, before the people explode in a volcano of anger."

There are many positive developments in Iraq, the Middle East and throughout the Arab world. Maybe we'll start hearing about them after the election.

Reader and fellow blogger Andy T. has discovered the cover that accompanied the Osama bin Laden video played on Al Jazeera yesterday:

Michael Moore must be feeling proud of himself today.

UPDATE: Reader Jerry Cornwell points out that the Kerry camp is getting sensitive about the similarity between Osama's diatribe and their own talking points:

KERRY CAMPAIGN BLOWS UP AT FOX, THREATENS TO THROW FOX OFF THE PLANE, BACKS OFF:

KERRY CAMP OBJECTS TO 4:00pm FOX NEWS SEGMENT: ALAN COLMES: "It's not like he [Osama bin Laden] had a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker in his cave." NEIL CAVUTO: "But he's all but doing that, isn't he? I thought I saw a button."

KERRY CAMP ASKS FOR RETRACTION, DOES NOT GET ONE… JOHN SASSO BLOWS UP AT FOX PRODUCER ON PLANE: "Is that the one? Is that her? I want her off the plane tomorrow. I'm not kidding."

COMM. DIR. STEPHANIE CUTTER BACKTRACKS: "He [Sasso] was wrong to say that. We jumped all over him for it."

Maybe it's the stress of a long, tight campaign, or maybe the Dems know they're losing and are getting desperate.

The Associated Press has a roundup of international reaction to yesterday's bin Laden tape, which apparently was genuine:

[I]nternational experts said the message was a clear attempt to influence the U.S. presidential election.

Around the world, observers debated what impact the dramatically timed message would have on the U.S. election, just days away.

Many saw the tape - in which the al-Qaida leader warned Americans not to "mess" with the security of Muslims - as an attempt to influence Tuesday's presidential vote.

On Web sites devoted to extremist Muslim comment, contributors reacted with glee to the tape, saying it was proof bin Laden was alive and was a "slap" at America.

Paul Wilkinson, chairman of the Cent