A three-point lead, 48-45%, among likely voters, which was also the Rasmussen finding.

Looks like the Beltway Boys are going to have to take Wisconsin out of Kerry's column on next Saturday's show, eh?

But there's more.

He's also now tied in Pennsylvania, 47-47 (also among likelies).

“It's hard to do the Electoral College calculation and not figure that if Kerry can't win Pennsylvania, he can't win the presidency,” says G. Terry Madonna, a professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., and director of the statewide Keystone Poll.

Dat's why they calls it the Keystone State. Kerry can't win without either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, and he needs both to have a realistic chance of winning.

(Bush is narrowly behind among registered voters in both states, but who cares?)

Thumb's Up, Buddy!

Update: Another poll shows Bush narrowly ahead in must-win Florida, 48-46.

Posted by: Ace at 10:39 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

So says the rumor mill, according to William Kristol, according to Soxblog, according to Instapundit.

A month ago I would have dismissed this as hooey. But at this point I don't rule anything out.

I guess one thing we know about Bush is that he is determined to 1) not be Clinton and especially to 2) not be his dad.

Well, his dad stuck with an unpopular Vice President and lost, right?

If you read this site on Bloglines, you might have noticed a deleted post that went missing from this site but showed up on Bloglines. I deleted the post because I thought it was silly (that's what I renamed it in draft form). But heck, maybe it wasn't:

Dick Cheney Outs Out-Daughter Before Dropping Out?

Cheney's heartfelt break from Bush on gay "marriage"-- the ultimate "Leaving for Family Reasons" pretext before a veep swap?

See, right before the Vice Presidential address, Dick Cheney announces he's departing, and John McCain/Rudy Guiliani/Tom Ridge/Gary Busey joins the ticket.

Bush loves suprises, right?

Now, I've always shot down these silly speculations. But this one is different. I thought of it.

See? Completely different.

...

(Back to today.)

One more bit of evidence: Karl Rove is promising that Bush will be "bold" at the convention. Why is he heightening expectations? Especially because, let's face it, there seems to be very definite limits to how bold he can possibly be, policy-wise. His foreign policy is bold, but we already know that; he certainly can't announce he'll be even bolder (i.e., the airstrikes on NK and Iran begin in five minutes). And it's not "bold" to promise "more of the same."

Domestic-policy-wise, Republicans have a limited ability to be "bold," since the very foundation of the Republican party is (generally) against additional spending or government programs. Sure, Bush could be "bold" by cancelling or cutting back programs, but that's not the sort of thing you do to reach out to mushy moderates. There's just no money available in the budget, so what on earth could he be "bold" about? John Forbes Kerry is "boldly" promising to bankrupt the country by pouring $1 billion of money we don't have into insuring the uninsured; surely Bush won't (can't) match him dollar-for-dollar in terms of such boldness.

So why is Karl Rove increasing expectations when he really ought to be managing them?

I don't know. Maybe he's just trying to attract viewers (especially conservative viewers), and he figures that it's more important to get people to watch than to actual deliver on his promise of "boldness."

Or maybe he's planning a truly "bold" stroke that won't cost the American taxpayer a dime (at least not directly).

Democratic Rumor? But of course this could all be a Democrat-driven rumor, designed to increase expectations and thereby lead, inevitably, to disappointment.

Democrats know full well how disappointing it is, in political terms, to not land McCain as a vice presidential candidate, having failed to do so themselves.

Update-- Jhaaaannnnnn! Aaron Burr predicts the Democratic response, should John McCain join the Bush ticket.

John Soonian McCain?

Posted by: Ace at 10:20 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.

He's threatened to call for multinational discussions if his ultimatum is not honored.

But seriously, he promises to do "everything" to win their release:

"Backed up by this national unity, I solemnly call for the release of Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot. Everything is being done and everything will be done in the coming hours and days to achieve this."

It's probably not a very good or human thing to examine the political fallout from the kidnapping (and possible future murders) of two innocent Frenchmen.

But if Jacques Chirac actually appeases the terrorists in order to win the release of the hostages, well: John Forbes Kerry's already naive and childish talk of "our important allies" will become that much more absurd.

This could be an unwelcome September Surprise for our Highborn Hamlet.

Posted by: Ace at 12:49 PM | Comments (19)
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

Hard to believe, but the intrepid reporters at Knight-Ridder make a compelling case:

WASHINGTON - There are only about 2.6 million of them, but they could hold the future of the nation in their hands. They are the undecideds, voters who haven't firmly made up their minds between George W. Bush and John Kerry. If this year's election is as close as expected, they are likely to decide it.

Who knew?

You know what else this election may turn on? Whoever gets more votes.

The above article requires registration-- you have to prove that you have a sub-70 IQ to access it. (Actually, I found a registration-free link on FreeRepublic; you can freely access the article now.)

Update: Turns out there's some fresh news -- and bad news -- in the article:

Nationally, a large Zogby/Williams poll of 20,900 voters found Kerry leads Bush by 50.8 percent to 46.7 percent among likely voters, with only 2.4 percent undecided or so soft in their support of either candidate that they could easily change. That survey had an error margin of plus or minus less than 1 percentage point.

Of course, that's Zogby.

Posted by: Ace at 12:27 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

(Brett Favre siren)

It's not just the LAT poll now. Rasmussen puts Bush up 48%-45% in this virtual must-win state for Kerry.

Wisconsin is Kerry's Ohio. Except with cheese.

Some call it irony. Others call it fate. I call it the Hubris of High-Falutin' Cheeses.

Also... Rasmussen shows Bush ahead in the Electoral College count for the first time this year.

Posted by: Ace at 12:23 PM | Comments (5)
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

...to protest France's ban on Islamic headscarves in school.

Okay, let me get this straight: Terrorists hate us because we're arrogant, we're pro-Israel, and we're too gung-ho to fight terrorists.

So... um, why go after the French? All right, I'll give you the arrogance, but no one can accuse this nation of je ne se qua Jew-hatin' of being pro-Israel, nor can they accuse any Frenchman of having an insufficient regard for his own personal safety.

Maybe our "Chimpresident" is sorta on to something when he says they just plain hate us, and fill their maniac minds with all sorts of toxic lunacies that justify any violent, evil acts they perpetrate against non-Muslims (or non-lunatic Muslims, for that matter).

Posted by: Ace at 10:38 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

Different verse, same as the first. When the leak damages conservatives, talk about the damaging information revealed by the leak; when the leak damages liberals, talk about the leak itself, and how improper and partisan it was.

Just One Minute tries heroically to "question the timing," but finds such childish distractions beneath him.

Via Instapundit.

Related by "Shadowy Connections:" Hyperpartisan hack Josh Marshall -- just last week telling us that the official records should be taken as authoritative, and whining that we're dredging up 35 year old allegations from embittered partisans -- apparently sees no hypocrisy in once again peddling the stale and unsubstantiated allegations of a former Democratic Texas Lt. Governor against a young George W. Bush.

If the SwiftVets are suspect simply because they donated to and voted for Republicans over the years, what the hell do we make of an actual Democratic politician?

Let me guess-- his allegations are self-substantiating, right?

Incidentally... I think spying for Israel is a bad thing and ought to be punished pretty severely. Obviously, spying for an ally isn't as bad as spying for an enemy, but it's still a very serious crime. Junior-level staffers don't get to execute their own foreign policy just because they've got some level of official clearance.

My point isn't that this is some trifle that ought to be minimized. My point is simply that liberals never seem to "question the timing" of leaks that aid their cause.

I think all of this "question the timing"/"distract us from the real issues" crap is childishly partisan. Problems should be dealt with when they are learned of. If a leak brings a problem to the public attention earlier than it otherwise might have been brought, bully for the leak. Thanks for giving us an early head's up.

That's precisely the position that hyperpartisan hack Josh Marshall takes on any leak that helps liberals and hurts conservatives. If only he would take that position in a politically-neutral way as regards all leaks.

Posted by: Ace at 10:08 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 356 words, total size 3 kb.

Plan A -- suppress the story and hope that no one hears about it -- didn't work.

Plan B -- "discredit" the SwiftVets using selective evidence and tendentious conclusions -- isn't cutting the mustard.

Plan C is now being put into effect. Remember when Clinton's own Plan A and Plan B stopped working, and the media began instructing us that lying was perfectly normal, natural, and excusable?

Plan C for defending Kerry is chalking up these starkly-different accounts to innocent and unresolvable differences in memories.

Who can say for sure what really happened? It's once again time to MoveOn (TM).

Posted by: Ace at 10:36 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

How did that dubious post-1981 citation get added to John Forbes Kerry's already-dubious Silver Star? The man whose signature appears at the end of the citation ostensibly granting it (post 1981, it should be noted), says he hasn't a clue who "awarded" Kerry this additional tribute. But he says it wasn't himself:

Former Navy Secretary John Lehman has no idea where a Silver Star citation displayed on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's campaign Web site came from, he said Friday. The citation appears over Lehman's signature.

"It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me," he said.

The additional language varied from the two previous citations, signed first by Adm. Elmo Zumwalt and then Adm. John Hyland, which themselves differ. The new material added in the Lehman citation reads in part: "By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (jg) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself...."

A tiny bit more at the link.

Posted by: Ace at 10:31 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm trying to do some genuine reportial work. If anyone can help, I'd appreciate it.

Basically, I'd like to speak with anyone who has direct, first-hand knowlege about how after-action reports are written-- my first preference is for those who've actually written them; my second preference is for those who haven't written them, but have been interviewed/debriefed by the person who ended up writing them.

Specifically, I'd like to know if (as I assume) the person writing the report canvasses the whole unit for what each man saw, and then writes that up, or if the writer can only report what he personally, first-hand, witnessed.

If you know, and you'd like to help out, email me at aceofspadeshq@yahoo.com. I don't necessarily have to use your name or otherwise identify you; if you want to just fill me in on background, that's cool. But I'd like to have at least a couple of people willing to report for attribution.

If you know someone who might know, and you think that person wouldn't mind answering a few brief questions, please let me know you have a possible contact.

I should warn that this of course concerns the SwiftVets story, so anyone stepping forward is actually opening himself to attack by Kerry supporters (i.e., the entirety of the mainstream media).

Oh, and I also have to say that I need some way of checking your bona fides. I don't want to be spoofed by "someone willing to help" who turns out to be a Kerry supporter spinning fables in order to discredit me.

Posted by: Ace at 10:09 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.