Why do Republicans win so many damn elections? Because they know better than to air their dirty laundry in public (especially during an election year). Reverse that and you see why the Democrats are always playing catch-up. The only thing Democrats love more than bashing Republicans is bashing each other.

Now there’s a good argument to be made for playing the expectations game and trying to make people underestimate Kerry in the run-up to the debates, but there’s a fine line between that and “emboldening” our political enemies. The Bush team are some of the most gifted political mud-slingers in the world. If you’re a fair-weather friend to our candidate, then you’re doing half of Karl Rove’s job for him.

As Digby said recently, our side could really use some discipline :

I enjoy backseat campaign managing as much as the next person. And I admit that the press and our inability to manage it profoundly depresses me. But, I NEVER say we are going to lose. I love to analyze the race and offer my ideas, but it is never done in the spirit that the Kerry campaign are a bunch of losers.
. . .
I just wish that Dems could put on their game faces and try to sell the guy a little bit instead of constantly writing his epitaph. He’s really a good man, you know. He’s spent his life in public service, trying to do the right thing, working hard and carrying our agenda. He’s our most liberal nominee in decades. He’s smart and energetic and he’s never been tainted by corruption or scandal. Is it so hard for Democrats to get behind a man like this or are we just as shallow as everybody else? Would we too be happier with a brand name in a suit?

No matter how annoyed you may get at John Kerry or his campaign, don’t forget that your vote isn’t a gift for him. It’s a gift for yourself and your country.

I’ll be the first to admit that my vote is for completely selfish reasons. I personally don’t want to live through another four years of George W. Bush. Yeah, I care deeply about our soldiers stuck in a quagmire, the people living in deperate poverty, and those who live in terrorist targets that aren’t being adequately protected, but mostly I just don’t wanna see that fucking smirk every day until 2008. Two years ago I made the decision that I’d vote for just about anybody to get rid of him and I’m sticking to it.

As Jonathan Chait wrote a week or two ago, if getting rid of Bush means helping prop up a weak campaign, then so be it :

If John Kerry loses the election, and quite possibly even if he wins, the main thing people will remember about his campaign is how utterly bizarre it was that a major party nomination could have been captured by a man so staggeringly devoid of political talent.

The first job of a candidate is to win the election, a task to which Kerry seems spectacularly ill suited. This is not to say he won’t beat President Bush, only that Kerry’s contribution to a potential Kerry victory would be similar to the anchor’s contribution to an America’s Cup championship. Lest you think I’m exaggerating, some of Kerry’s strongest supporters have explicitly likened him to ballast.

“I don’t care if John Kerry is a sack of cement,” former Texas Agricultural Commissioner Jim Hightower said in June. “We’re going to carry him to victory.”
. . .
If Kerry does not stage a comeback (and he well might ? I lend great credence to the cement sack strategy), the natural next step is for people to rationalize his failure. If he can’t run a campaign, the argument goes, he would never have been able to run the White House.

That sounds reasonable enough unless you consider the fact that George W. Bush is a highly competent campaigner but a flaming disaster of a president. And it is exactly those things that make him so ruthlessly effective on the stump ? centralized authority, Comintern-like party discipline, total disregard for the truth ? that have created a hermetically sealed petri dish in which bad policies come to life and are carried out unchallenged.

I’ve heard so many wishy-washy liberals lately say “If he won’t defend himself, can he defend us against terrorists?”. Well, if being a ruthless campaigner is the most important criteria for you, go vote for Bush. But before you do, let me remind you that the guy who’s doing such a great job against his political opponent has done a pretty shitty job against al Qaeda.

I think there’s a serious problem with the way we choose our leaders if there’s a significant difference in the skills needed to get the job versus the skills needed to do the job, but that’s a post for another day. For now, I must say that I’m extremely disappointed that so many people on our side are willing to lose their resolve because they’re displeased with the way John Kerry has run his campaign. This election is about a lot more than John
Kerry and George Bush, it’s about the direction our country is going to take. Even if Kerry doesn’t want to defend himself, if you want him to be the next President, then you should fight for him every chance you get.

Could you imagine a Bush supporter conceeding in a debate that he’s flip-flopped on anything? Of course not, yet that’s what I hear all the time from liberals who are “defending” Kerry. He’s our candidate and we should be fighting for him every step of the way. Until November 2nd, the phrase “Well, yeah, but…” shouldn’t be part of your vocabulary. If somebody accuses Kerry of being inconsistent, say “bullshit” and explain why. If somebody mentions the $87 billion, read Kerry’s comments from the senate floor and explain why he voted against it. In short : Regardless of how good or bad Kerry’s campaign is doing, you should fight back, stay on message, and don’t budge an inch until after the election.

(I should also mention that I think people have been vastly underestimating the Kerry campaign anyways. We’re more than a month away, have four debates to look forward to, and most Americans don’t like Bush or know anything about Kerry. Once people see that Kerry’s a serious and trustworthy guy who’s got a good plan for America, I’m convinced he’ll take the lead.)

Oh. My. God. If you thought Kerry’s Iraq speech on Monday was badass, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet :

President Bush was right to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. I supported that decision. So did our country and our allies. So did the world.

But since then, again and again, the President has made the wrong choices in the war on terror? around the world and here at home.

Instead of using U.S. forces to capture Osama bin Laden? the President outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who let bin Laden slip away. That was the wrong choice.

Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan? the President rushed to a new war in Iraq. That was the wrong choice.

Instead of listening to the uniformed military, his own State Department, senate and Republican leaders in Congress, and outside experts about how to win the peace in Iraq? the President hitched his wagon to the ideologues who told him our troops would be welcomed as liberators. That was the wrong choice.

Instead of responding to the greatest intelligence failure in our history with a rapid overhaul of our intelligence system ? the President dragged his feet and actually resisted reform. After opposing the 9/11 Commission, after trying to block its extension, after finally agreeing to testify, but only with Vice President Cheney at his side, he still refuses to fully implement the Commission?s recommendations. Those were the wrong choices.

Instead of proposing a Department of Homeland Security ? the President actually opposed it ? and then exploited it for political purposes. That was the wrong choice.
. . .
At our seaports we?re physically inspecting only 5% of the cargo coming into America. The Bush Administration is spending more in Iraq in four days than they?ve spent protecting our ports for all of the last three years.

At our airports, there has been some progress, but there is far more to do. According to news accounts, the terrorist aviation list only includes those who are a danger to aviation. This is ridiculous. It should include every suspected terrorist who is a danger to anything, anywhere in our country.

Terrorists used explosives to bring down two planes in Russia. Yet here in America, the system for detecting explosives carried by passengers fails to pass our own government?s tests. And here?s something that makes no sense at all: your luggage is x-rayed when it?s put on the plane, but the cargo on the hold underneath seldom is.

This has to change. In a Kerry-Edwards Administration, we?ll give inspectors at our borders access to the terrorist watch lists. At our ports, we will provide a 600 percent increase in support for the most promising cargo inspection programs. In our airports, we?ll install the equipment to check passengers for explosives to screen cargo just like we screen baggage. And across the country, we will make sure our police, firefighters, and ambulance drivers have the latest radios, hazmat suits, decontamination facilities, and emergency operation centers they need to respond effectively in a crisis.

This is all common sense; but none of it is a priority for the Bush Administration. Here?s what?s on their agenda. Costly new nuclear weapons we don?t need that risk fueling a new arms race. And committing to a missile defense system that could eventually cost $100 billion doesn?t yet work and won?t stop likely threats to our security.

Near here, in the Philadelphia region, there are eight chemical plants where a terrorist attack could endanger a million people. But this President allowed the chemical industry to derail commonsense measures for chemical plant security. As president, I will protect them.

At a time when police officers are more critical than ever to our homeland security, this President gutted the program to put 100,000 new police on our streets. I will restore that funding and make sure the money reaches our first responders.

This President has failed to provide even a nickel in his budget to safeguard our railroads and subways ? leaving millions of people every day more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. We will invest more than $2 billion in new funding to protect our transit systems, so that what happened in Madrid doesn?t happen here.
. . .
For al Qaeda, this war is a struggle for the heart and soul of the Muslim world. We will win this war only if the terrorists lose that struggle. We will win when ordinary people from Nigeria to Egypt to Pakistan to Indonesia know they have more to live for than to die for. We will win when they once again see America as the champion, not the enemy, of their legitimate yearning to live in just and peaceful societies. We will win when we stop isolating ourselves and start isolating our enemies. The world knows the difference between empty promises and genuine commitment.

So we will win when we show that America uses its economic power for the common good, doing our share to defeat the abject poverty, hunger, and disease that destroy lives and create failed states in every part of the world. The world?s poorest countries, suffering under crushing debt burdens, need particular attention. As president, I will lead the international community to cancel the debt of the most vulnerable nations in return for them living up to goals of social and economic progress.

Every sentence of today’s speech is awesome, so I strongly suggest watching or reading the whole thing.

Combined with Monday’s speech, Kerry has outlined strong strategies for the wars in Iraq and against terrorism. Not only are his attacks difficult to refute, but they stand in stark contrast to the misinformation and incompetence that characterize Bush’s record. There’s a major disconnect between Bush’s actions and his words. Next Thursday night, John Kerry will let the rest of the world know why we’ve been so pissed for the last few years.

The GOP have admitted that they’re trying to scare religious folks away from voting for Kerry :

The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that “liberals” seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush.

The mailings include images of the Bible labeled “banned” and of a gay marriage proposal labeled “allowed.” A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: “This will be Arkansas if you don’t vote.” A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.

A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. “What they are doing is despicable,” said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. “They are playing on people’s fears and emotions.”

In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings.

“When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue,” Ms. Iverson said. “These same activist judges also want to remove the words ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance.”

The mailing is the latest evidence of the emphasis Republicans are putting on motivating conservative Christian voters to vote this fall. But as the appeals become public, they also risk alienating moderate and swing voters.

There aren’t enough expletives to properly describe this sort of filth.

Since Republicans think the jump from gay marriage to “Democrats want to ban the Bible” is perfectly acceptable, I’m sure they wouldn’t mind Democrats using the Bush administration’s budget cuts for rape crisis hotlines as a justification to run ads declaring “George W. Bush wants to rape your wives and daughters!!!”

Then again, unlike the GOP, we don’t have to lie about our opponent to make him look bad.

Gotta live the Kerry campaign’s next-day service. Go watch their awesome new ad. Here’s a screengrab of Bush’s jokey smirk from the ad which clues you in to how little his rhetoric matches reality :

He’s out of touch on the economy, terrorism, and Iraq. I guess he hit the trifecta again.

When we live in serious times, we need serious leadership…

(via Josh Marshall)

I’ve been meaning to write about this story anyways, but this exchange from Crossfire really says it all :

BEGALA: Well, there are some good things in the tax bill being voted on in the senate today, specifically tax cuts for the middle class. But one provision of that bill shows the true heart of the Republican Party in the age of Bush, and it’s not a pretty sight.

The bill takes away the child tax credit from 9.2 million of the very poorest children in America, while giving $13 billion in tax breaks to corporations. That’s right. The rich get billions. The middle class gets a little something. It is, after all, an election year. But the poor, and I mean the poor, families making less than $10,750 a year, will actually lose some or all of their child tax credit. Sorry, you’re out of the game, but thanks for playing.

The savagery, selfishness, really sinfulness of the Republicans hurting the most impoverished children in our country while helping huge corporations is just stunning. Friends, if this is compassionate conservatism, I guess Dick Cheney is Mr. Rogers.

CARLSON: OK, well, the sinfulness, huh? Well, thank you, Father Begala, for your — you’re a holy man and I appreciate you spreading a little of your holiness to the rest of us.

BEGALA: It is sinful.

CARLSON: And I must say, Paul, when you get done with this gig, maybe you can apply for a job in the propaganda bureau of the North Korean government…Because this is so stupid, that it’s sinful. It’s a tax bill, man. Lighten up. It’s not sinful.

BEGALA: No, they are screwing the poorest children in America while giving money to corporations.

CARLSON: Lighten up, Paul. Lighten up, man.

BEGALA: No.

CARLSON: You’re going to have an aneurysm. Settle down, Paul.

BEGALA: That’s the kind of stuff that gets you in hell.

CARLSON: You’re making me worried. They’re going to hell now? Going to hell now.

BEGALA: Yes, they are, for that stuff.

CARLSON: Ladies and gentlemen, the Republicans are going to hell, says Paul Begala.

BEGALA: Yes, they are. They can, as far as I’m concerned.

CARLSON: Woo! Buckle your salvation belts, baby. You’re going to hell. OK.

BEGALA: Absolutely.

But that ain’t the end of it. A minute later, when Paul was responding to a piece about the Dan Rather investigation being handled by a Republican, Tucker couldn’t resist the urge to keep being an asshole :

BEGALA: I praised — I praised Dan Rather when he took responsibility and apologized. But he’s wrong about this. And you’re right. Dick Thornburgh — I ran the campaign against him for Harris Wofford and beat him. But he is a fair-minded person.

CARLSON: Is he going to hell, like other Republicans?

BEGALA: If you make a mistake like this…

CARLSON: Is he going to hell, though? You can tell me. Is he going to hell?

BEGALA: If he supports screwing little poor children, Tucker, you bet.

CARLSON: He’s going to hell. He’s going to hell. Holy smokes, Father Begala.

BEGALA: Yes.

CARLSON: Will you heal me after this show? Will you heal me after this show? Will you touch me and heal me, anoint me with oil?

BEGALA: You can mock it.

CARLSON: I am mocking it.

BEGALA: But there’s no moral justification for hurting those children.

CARLSON: As long as you anoint me with oil, Paul, I’m all better. Going to hell.

BEGALA: You know what? You can mock my religion if you want, Tucker.

CARLSON: I am. I’m mocking you’re religion. If your religion is based on tax cuts, I’m mocking it. Going to hell, baby.

BEGALA: Jesus said suffer the children who come unto me, not suffer children, which seem to be the Republicans’s point.

CARLSON: We’re going to pass the plate later in the show.

Keep this exchange in mind the next time you hear some conservative bitch about liberals being intolerant of Christianity.

As far as the reason those Republicans are going to Hell, here’s a little more background on the tax raise :

The dust-up centers on an obscure provision in the 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut that Congress passed in 2001. That tax cut expanded the $500-per-child tax credit to $1,000, but it also made another child credit available as a tax refund to some poor families who pay little or no federal income taxes.

Such families were allowed to claim a child credit worth as much as 10 percent of their earnings over $10,000. But the 2001 law stipulated that the $10,000 threshold would rise with inflation, effectively slicing into or eliminating refunds for families whose income does not keep up with inflation. The threshold now stands at $10,750.

Because incomes at the bottom end of the workforce have largely stagnated, the rising threshold has had a significant impact, said Leonard E. Burman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. Of the 11 million families claiming the child tax refund, more than 4 million — with 9.2 million children — will see their credit shrink or disappear in 2005, Burman estimated.

And since the members of “God’s Own Party” love to wear their religion on their sleeves, here’s a quote from Bush’s favorite philosopher to end things :

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Well….there’s a message you’ll never hear from a Republican…

This part is old news, but the Bush campaign has temporarily put their hatred of trial lawyers aside in their efforts to stop “shadowy 527 groups” :

Bush’s campaign complained in the suit that at least five senate-leaning fundraising organizations, including MoveOn.org, Media Fund and America Coming Together, are violating the law by coordinating their efforts with Kerry’s campaign and by raising unlimited funds from labor union, corporate and individual donors while expressly working to defeat Bush.
. . .
The complaint charges that the groups — known as 527 organizations for the section of the tax code that governs them — have “conspired to circumvent the law” and are “working in complicity with other long established special interest groups and wealthy individuals to illegally raise and spend soft money while illegally coordinating their efforts . . . all for the express purpose of defeating President Bush.”
. . .
The independent groups grew in importance after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill became a law, which barred labor unions, corporations and wealthy individuals from giving unlimited contributions to political parties. As long as they do not coordinate with candidates, the groups can legally accept unlimited contributions and spend as much as they want to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. Much of the money is spent on television ads.

Of course, the big irony here is that the newest ad from the Bush campaign is oddly similar to one by the Progress for America Voter Fund. Take a look at these screenshots and see if you can guess who made each ad :

The shots on the left are from the Bush ad “Windsurfing” and the ones on the right are from the PFA ad “Surfer Dude”. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the campaign and a 527 group are releasing ads that are nearly identical, because if it isn’t, then the Bush campaign has violated federal campaign finance laws.

Okay, I can’t find a transcript, but this morning’s press Q&A with Bush and the Iraqi Prime Minister contained this hilarious boast :

BUSH : …not only did we hand over sovereignty to the Iraqi people, but we did it two days early.

It looks like Mr. Bush forgot that the reason the handover was moved up was because they weren’t able to provide the security necessary for the big ceremony - cum -campaign commercial that they had planned. In order to avoid getting bombed, the handover was conducted secretly. Is that really something he wants to brag about?

UPDATE : Okay, I found a transcript and it looks like my memory is really bad :

BUSH : The first step was achieved on June 28th, not only on time, but ahead of schedule, when the coalition transferred full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens.

…but I was right about Bush’s bragging. So there.

Juan Cole has the best post about the current state of Iraq I’ve seen anywhere :

President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.

What would America look like if it were in Iraq’s current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.
. . .
What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?
. . .
There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?

What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?
. . .
What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target “safe houses” of “criminal gangs”, but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?
. . .
What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?

What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a tough guy in these times of crisis?
. . .
What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?

I’m starting to think the Bush campaign should change their slogan to “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Oh man, this is some good stuff. Go check out George Bush’s latest ad “Windsurfing” and then check out John Kerry’s newest ad. I won’t spoil it for you, but lemme just say this is one of the best examples I’ve seen of politically staying above the fray while slapping your opponent in the face. It not quite as devastating an attack as Kerry’s speech on Monday was, but Bush is definitely being called on his slime. Keep it up John, you’re gonna win.