The debate starts in less than two hours. When it’s over, regardless of what actually happens, every Republican near a phone, computer, or camera is gonna start spinning it into a Bush victory. Here’s what we need to do to help spin it in the right (and by “right” I mean “correct”) direction :

1) Vote in every online poll you can find - Despite the fact that these polls are prefaced with the word “unscientific”, these polls are sure to be trumpeted as the definitive account of the public’s reaction in the first few hours after the debates. Go to the following sites and look around on their homepages for polls :

ABC News

CBS News

CNN

Fox News

MSNBC

USA Today

You also might want to try restarting your browser and deleting your cookies after you vote. If you do that, many poorly-designed polls will allow you to vote multiple times.

2) Write a letter to the editor - Talk about John Kerry’s brillant performance, chastize the media for not reporting Bush’s flip-flops, whatever. You can get contact your local paper(s) at the DNC’s “Take Action” page, or send it to the email addresses found here or here.

3) Call a radio show - The Democrats have a media search page you can use. They also recommend the following shows (times in EST) :

Air America (all day): 646-274-2346

Alan Colmes (10 a.m. to 1 p.m.): 212-301-5900

Ed Shultz (3 p.m. to 6 p.m.): 701-232-1525

Bev Smith (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.): 412-325-4197

Doug Stephen (5 a.m. 10 a.m.): 1-800-510-8255

I suggest listening to your local AM station tomorrow and trying to crash every rightwing hack you can think of (Limbaugh, Liddy, etc.)

4) Stay on top of the rapid response - Oliver Willis has set up Rapid Reblogger to stay on top of all this stuff. Also worth checking out are the DNC’s debate page, Kerry’s Rapid Response, and FactCheck.org. Secondary to creating positive spin and debunking Bush’s performance, you should also keep on top of the right wing spin.

No matter how well John Kerry does, we’ve got a lot of work to do.

Andrew Sullivan sees through the rose-tinted fog of war :

The reason I believe things are dire in Iraq is pretty simple. The evidence is accumulating that the insurgency - fostered by Baathist thugs, al Qaeda murderers, and other Jihadists - is gaining traction. That would be a manageable problem if the population despised them and saw a way through to a better society. But the disorder and mayhem continues to delegitimize the Iraqi government and, by inference, the coalition occupation. And the inability or unwillingness of the U.S. to seal the borders or effectively counter the terror contributes to the general view that the insurgents are going to win, and therefore the notion that the U.S.-led liberation may make matters even worse than they were before. And this is a vicious cycle. In other words, one reason the insurgency is spreading is because it has tacit support or merely passive acceptance among the general population. And once the general population turns against an occupying power, then things get really … Algerian. The key moment was probably when George W. Bush blinked in Fallujah. That was when the general population inferred that we were not prepared to win. It’s amazing, really. This president has a reputation for toughness and resolution. Yet at arguably the most critical moment in this war, he gave in. He was for taking Fallujah before he was against it. I cannot believe the situation is beyond rescue. But this president’s policies have made it much much more difficult than it might have been. Elections are now more vital than ever - because they are the sole means of gaining the advantage in the legitimacy stakes. With those must come a relentless guerrilla war against the enemy, a massive increase in troop levels (whether Iraqi or America), and a huge effort for reconstruction. But we have thrown away a year’s worth of opportunity. By incompetence and lack of will.

I still think that the best case against Bush’s performance in Iraq was John Kerry’s speech from a week and a half ago. If even half of the charges from that speech make it into tonight’s debate, Bush will (or at least should) be in trouble.

Our short “Brother Can You Spare A Job?” will be playing as part of “Animate The Vote” tomorrow night. Here’s the details :

Animate the Vote

Friday, Oct. 1st 8 PM
@Rififi 332 E. 11th St.
NYC

On Friday October 1st, Animators, Ink. is presenting an evening of
political animated films followed by a “close to the deadline”
registration party. The screening is meant to inspire and excite people
about the upcoming election. The party is our vehicle to get people
into a positive and energized mood, further enhancing the experience of
watching the films.

Our goal is to get young adults and college students (especially from
out of state) excited about the election, getting them to register and
encouraging them to use absentee ballots. It is extremely important for
people to become aware of the ramifications of this election, and we
feel that there should be as many venues and opportunities for people
who have yet to be involved to get information and encouragement.

We hope that by giving people some interesting and funny cartoons to
watch, and providing them with an upbeat, positive atmosphere, we will
reinforce the value that voting should have!

The screening from 8- 10 will include animated shorts by local artists
of all ages. Some of the filmmakers include Ward Sutton w/ Bob Lyons
(www.bootbush.info), Xeth Feinberg, Candy Kugel/Buzzco, & Ray Kosarin.

Admission is free with a one drink minimum. Screening begins promptly
at 8:00. General audiences (under 21) allowed. All guests for screening
are welcome to stay for the after party Trash NYC. Must be 21+ with
valid ID for admittance after 9:30, as the screening portion will be
over.

That’s all the info I have about it. If you end up going, let us know how it went.

“Flip, Flop, Flip, Flop, Flip, Flop, Flip, Flop….”

That’s the only thing people know about Kerry’s position on Iraq. Here’s a sampling of what Kerry’s had to say over the last two years for you to compare with what he says tonight :

“It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to — not because we want to. For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation’s security interests have been exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to war.
. . .
For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise.”

- New York Times, September 6, 2002

“As the President made clear earlier this week, “Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” It means “America speaks with one voice.”

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days–to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent–and I emphasize “imminent”–threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.”

- senate Floor, October 9, 2002

“Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don’t have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
. . .
And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation’s participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution’s decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition.”

- Georgetown University, January 23, 2003

?I am gratified the Administration finally came to the United Nations and made its case to the world. I’ve said that the hard diplomatic work and the work of educating America and the world were too long in coming. The road could have been easier had we chosen a multilateral strategy from the beginning, but nonetheless I am glad we’ve reached this moment in our diplomacy.
. . .
It is…incumbent on the Bush Administration to maximize international support so as many countries as possible share in the burden and costs of actions to come, and that the Administration makes clear its plans to deal with the aftermath of a post-Saddam Iraq and for continued efforts in the war against terrorism.?

- Press Release, February 6, 2003

“The Administration’s indifference to diplomacy and the manner in which it has treated friend and foe alike over the past several months have left this country with vastly reduced influence throughout the world, made impossible the assembly of a broad, multinational effort against Saddam Hussein, and dramatically increased the costs of fulfilling our legitimate security obligations at home and around the world.
. . .
In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building - a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world’s powers excluded — would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. ”

- March 17, 2003

“I think that $87 billion should not be granted as just a rubber check to this president without several things. Number one, we need to know that this president is going to do what is necessary to truly protect our troops and to truly advance our ability to be successful, which means internationalizing our effort. It means properly going to the United Nations and ceding a measure of authority for two of the three parts of this mission. There is a humanitarian component, there is the governance- infrastructure component, both of which could be put within the U.N. as we did in East Timor, in Kosovo and Bosnia. And then there’s the security component, where we can keep American command over the critical pieces, but shared with the United Nations. Unless we do that, this president runs the risk of turning this into a quagmire potential of Vietnam.”

- senate Debate, September 9, 2003

“The power entrusted to the President gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: ?If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.? He said that military action wasn?t ?unavoidable.?

Instead, the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.”

- New York University, September 20, 2004

There’s a reason the Bush Campaign’s only hope of beating Kerry is to smear him as a flip-flopper : Kerry’s clear and consistent message is devastating for George Bush.

We’re 8 hours away from the confrontation that will likely decide the presidency. Will Bush “aw shucks” his way to another victory or will John Kerry defy expectations and show people that he’s got a good plan for cleaning up Bush’s mess? Unfortunately for everyone who cares more about issues than spin, the post-debate story will be more important than anything we see tonight.

That’s where we come in. Tomorrow morning, we need to hit the ground running to make sure the GOP’s bullshit doesn’t become conventional wisdom. That means letters to the editor of your local paper, calling into talk radio shows, emailing your conservative relatives and friends etc.

If Kerry does well, my guess is the big conservative talking point will be something like “his newest position is his best yet”? If conservatives try the damned with faint praise approach, hammer home the point about Kerry’s consistency (I’ll post more about this later) and the fact that Bush is the one who has been inconsistent (more about this later too). Don’t budge an inch.

I’ve been saying for a while that Kerry needs to lighten up a bit, so I was glad to see an article about Kerry’s use of humor on the stump. Unfortunately, this excerpt was the funniest part :

But there are signs that Kerry is improving in the crucial closing weeks of the campaign. Like on Monday, when he predicted the president would continue to paint a rosy picture of the ailing economy, Kerry used an idiom likely to be heard among teenagers in a shopping mall, but not on the senate floor.

“You’re going to hear all this talk, ‘Oh, we’ve turned the corner, we’re doing better, blah, blah,”‘ he said, running on the phrase as his Wisconsin audience erupted in laughter. “You know, blah and blah and blah.”

Kerry isn’t just using the lingo of the younger generation. He’s thrown in a couple of old-fashioned folksy phrases, too….

“The younger generation”??? Was the person who wrote this article a hundred years old? I’m surprised it didn’t chastise him for using vulgarities like “swell” and “bee’s knees”.

Kidding aside, there was one really good quip that I’d love to see used tomorrow night :

Kerry was cracking up his partisan crowd by telling Wisconsin voters they shouldn’t be wary of changing horses midstream when the horse is drowning. He tied the metaphor to reports that the Bush campaign insisted that podiums in Thursday’s debate be set relatively far apart to obscure Kerry’s five-inch height advantage.

“May I also suggest that we need a taller horse?” he said. “You can get through deeper waters that way.”

On the same subject, Liberal Oasis has a great post with some joke-telling advice for Kerry. The real gem is this reader-submitted one-liner :

Congress, myself included, voted to give the president permission to put the bullet in the gun.

We did not give him permission to shoot us in the foot.

Liberal Oasis is also calling for people to send in their best jokes for Kerry to use. Mine would be something like this :

“It’s obvious to experts, intelligence officials, and the general public that Iraq is getting worse and worse every day, yet the President still insists that things are going well. I guess George has gotten so good at misleading the American people, he’s even managed to mislead himself.”

Wow. No wonder Bush is so popular, his supporters don’t know what the hell he stands for (via Kos):

As the nation prepares to watch the presidential candidates debate foreign policy issues, a new PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll finds that Americans who plan to vote for President Bush have many incorrect assumptions about his foreign policy positions. Kerry supporters, on the other hand, are largely accurate in their assessments. The uncommitted also tend to misperceive Bush?s positions, though to a smaller extent than Bush supporters, and to perceive Kerry?s positions correctly. Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments: ?What is striking is that even after nearly four years President Bush?s foreign policy positions are so widely misread, while Senator Kerry, who is relatively new to the public and reputed to be unclear about his positions, is read correctly.?

Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the International Criminal Court (66%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming (51%). They were divided between those who knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now (44%) and those who incorrectly believe he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven (41%). However, majorities were correct that Bush favors increased defense spending (57%) and wants the US, not the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq?s new government (70%).
. . .
Many of the uncommitted (those who say they are not very sure which candidate they will vote for) also misread Bush?s position on most issues, though in most cases this was a plurality, not a majority. The uncommitted incorrectly believed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (69%), the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (51%), the International Criminal Court (47% to 31%), the land mines treaty (50%), and the Kyoto treaty on global warming (45% to 37%). Only 35% knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now, while 36% incorrectly believed he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven, and 22% did not give an answer. Only 41% knew that Bush favors increased defense spending, while 49% incorrectly assumed he wants to keep it the same (29%) or cut it (20%). A plurality of 46% was correct that Bush wants the US, rather than the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq?s new government (37% assumed the UN).

Taken with the Annenberg Survey that shows people agree with Kerry much more than they realize on issues ranging from stem cells to labor rights to importing Canadian drugs, it’s pretty clear that Bush’s best chance of winning is to keep voters as dumb as possible.

One of the things I’ve been noticing over the last year or so is the increasing number of referrals I see in my logs from message boards that are devoted to non-political topics. In the last month I’ve seen people directed to my site from sites dedicated to Christianity, weight-lifting, parenting, and music. And the message is usually something like “OT : Bush must be stopped!!”. As scan of the usenet reveals a similar trend, with links coming from alt.education, rec.music.artists.springsteen, and alt.html. Now, I understand the increased attention as we approach the election, but I’m impressed that so many people are motivated to broach the subject in a politically secular forum. I hope this is a good indicator of senate voter turnout.

No cheating. How many of these questions can you correctly answer?

Who favors allowing workers to invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market ? George W.Bush, John Kerry, both or neither?

Who favors eliminating tax breaks for overseas profits of American corporations and using the money to cut taxes for businesses that create jobs in the United States ? George W. Bush, John Kerry, both or neither?

Who favors completely eliminating the estate tax, that is the tax on property left by people who die ? George W. Bush,John Kerry, both or neither?

Who favors changing the recently passed Medicare prescription drug law to allow re-importing drugs from Canada ?George W. Bush, John Kerry, both or neither?

Who favors making the recent tax cuts permanent ? George W. Bush, John Kerry, both or neither?

Who wants to make it easier for labor unions to organize ? George W. Bush, John Kerry, both or neither?

Who favors federal funding of research on diseases like Parkinsons using stem cells taken from human embryos ?George W. Bush, John Kerry, both or neither?

Who favors laws making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion ? George W. Bush, John Kerry, both or neither?

If you don’t automatically know the answer to these questions, you’re not alone :

Many adults in the U.S. misjudge where the presidential candidates stand on important public policy issues, according to recent data collected by the University of Pennsylvania?s National Annenberg Election Survey. A majority of adults still do not know which presidential candidate favors allowing workers to invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market, which candidate favors eliminating tax breaks for overseas profits of American corporations, or which candidate favors completely eliminating the estate tax.
. . .
?Many American voters have not learned the candidates? issue positions because the candidates have not stressed them and journalists have focused on the horse race. In the absence of good information, voters guess and often guess incorrectly,? said Kate Kenski, a senior research analyst at the Annenberg Public Policy Center. ?The presidential debates may fix that.?

Respondents in the survey were asked whether they personally favored or opposed several issue positions. They were then asked whether ?Bush, Kerry, both, or neither? favored those same issues. For this report, eight issue positions were analyzed ranging from making the recent tax cuts permanent to federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research.

Because many respondents did not know the candidates? issue positions, they often did not know when they actually agreed with the presidential candidates on issue positions. Out of eight policy positions, respondents actually agreed with Bush more than they thought they did on three issues. They actually agreed with Kerry more than they realized on five issues.

If you didn’t ace this quiz, then you’ve got some studying to do. Going here and here is a good place to start.

Bushisms, the common term for “the president’s accidental wit and wisdom”, are a common response to queries the President is unable to answer. Whether caused by ignorance, awkwardness, or fear, the Bushism is an ample opportunity to highlight the dumbassery of the most powerful man in the world. With the first of three crucial debates tomorrow night, here’s a guide to Bush’s responses to even the mildest of questioning.

Stage 1 - Pretending to listen to the question

Stage 2 - Trying to understand the question

Stage 3 - Stalling for time

Stage 4 - Giving a pre-scripted answer unrelated to the question asked

Stage 5 - Acting like a badass motherfucker

To be fair, however, there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for Bush’s apparent weakness when it comes to answering simple questions :

Y’see, when Bush went “AWOL”, he was actually enrolled in a top-secret government program to create super-soldiers by replacing their brains with computers. Since this was the early-70’s, Bush’s computer brain runs on punchcards and reel-to-reel magnetic tape. While this computer excells at short answers (seriously, he could kick any of your asses on a “true/false” test), it’s not particularly well-suited for stringing together words into sentences. To get around this limitation, Bush is programmed with 20-30 rotating answers which he loads into memory while playing the “Ummm… ahhhh… wellll….” loop (Stage 3). Although some may see our cybernetic president as a liability, it’s important to remember that Bush represents the most advanced technology 1972 had to offer.