Allah's got all the updates on LAX and the Russian school bombing.

Make sure you read the latter. The son of a bitches wouldn't give water to the children, and their parents had to ask them to urinate so they could drink their own urine.

I suppose that might be a little disinformation put out there by SVR to justify something nasty Putin has planned. It sounds almost too lurid to be true.

But unlike the great American patriots on the left, I'm not terribly eager to give terrorists the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks to See-Dubya for the tip.

Update: Son of Nixon wonders where the protests were during the school standoff.

Not really related, but he also seems to have some sort of a problem with Chris Matthews. Personally, I can't imagine why. But he does make a good case with his point about Matthews being "the epitome of a fucking cocksucker." I just need a little more evidence to flesh this thesis out.

Posted by: Ace at 12:53 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Read this, especially the updates.

They are so emotionally involved with Bush -- in a negative way; a kind of political codependency -- that they're being irrational.

Bush is up; Kerry is down. Not good news, but not a catastrophe for them, either.

I hate to give good advice to my political opponents, but this manic-depressive rollercoaster -- this Bipolar Moment, as it were -- is what's going to kill you guys.
Professional soldiers stay calm even in dire situations. Disorganized tribal raiders scream and hoot when they think they're winning, then break and flee the moment they're confronted with a competent enemy.

This may be a dumb point on the level of vapid vamp Maureen Dowd, but it seems to me there's one major political star at the moment, and it's not Kerry. Liberals hate Bush, but he's still a star to them: a villain like Darth Vader, to be sure, but a star nonetheless.

There is no opposing star in this drama. Kerry is, at best, Paris to Bush's Achilles.

I remember with some amount of chagrin the nineties, when the Democrats had a star -- either The Man From Hope or The Rogue Operator, depending on your inclination -- and we just couldn't beat him. Hero, villain, or rogue, his name was always above the title.

Can a bit player beat a star? It happens, but it's tough. It's just not the way the viewers expect it to work out.

Posted by: Ace at 12:44 PM | Comments (9)
Post contains 247 words, total size 1 kb.

That's what my "sources" (people on my television screen) seem to think. The explosion seems to have involved corroded flashlight batteries.

Posted by: Ace at 11:22 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

I think that the convention was just about as successful as one of these things can be. It accomplished three key goals:

* It apparently succeeded in persuading some undecided voters, at least for the moment.

* It re-convinced many of what they had at one time believed. A lot of people who once strongly supported the War in Iraq and Bush's handling of same were, to some extent, reminded of why they'd once felt that way.

* It energized religious conservatives, who had soured on the Bush presidency. Karl Rove thinks that if he can get the votes of four million evangelicals who had sat on their hands in 2000, Bush is a lock for re-election. That's a lot of votes. But the base does seem to be much more enthusiastic now than it was two weeks ago. A lot of this was accomplished not by promising them the moon (although Bush did of course state we needed to "make a place for unborn children" and that marriage was between a man and a woman), but by persuading them that a John Forbes Kerry presidency would be flat-out intolerable to them.

All of these are very important.

But Bush's newfound electoral strength is likely to be short-lived. Voters favor Bush when 9/11 is the issue; but we also know their memories quickly fade. The RNC did a superb job of reminding everyone Why We Fight, but, if the public largely forgot about 9/11 three years after the actual tragedy, it's not likely to remain in their minds for very long after a mere reminiscence.

Of course we're coming upon the anniversary of 9/11, and that will extend memories for a time, but by the end of September, the public will forget again.

And Bush still faces major potential setbacks. We have not yet dealt with al-Sadr because we fear that when we do deal with him (and by "deal," I mean "kill"), the country may explode in civil war. We are attempting, I think, to put off this inevitable confrontation as long as possible, but I don't think we can dely for much longer. I don't think the public will gladly accept another month of intense fighting and high casualties.

Al Qaeda will, of course, attempt a major terrorist attack before 9/11. I don't believe that such an attack "helps Bush." I think it hurts Bush just as it hurts the country. And while we may be better at thwarting terrorist attacks now than I'd previously thought, it's impossible to stop many kinds of terrorist attacks, and especially when the Bush Administration is still somewhat unserious about doing what is necessary to protect us.

All that said, there is still the potential for good news as well as bad news. One big month of job production in September will seal the deal.

So would a major Al Qaeda capture.

A bit of pressure can crack John Forbes Kerry's confidence and shatter the fragile loyalty of Dean-lovin' Democrats.

And, of course, it's better to have a temporary lead than a temporary deficit. Bush seems to have more potential voters than Kerry, too; the numbers suggest that, on his best day, Bush can garner 50-52% of the vote, while Kerry can only garner 48-50%. Bush on a good day will beat Kerry on a good day, but November 2 won't necessarily be a good day for Bush.

There's a lot of things that yet have to happen, or not happen, for Bush to win this election.

Electoral Watch: As expected, Bush advances in electors.

And Terezzzza Will Be a Continuing Source of Good News, Too: The "candid, refreshing" idle-rich billionaire gold-digger delights in a 1994 speech by explaining that the Christian right "broadcasts its hatred" and appeals "to the dark corners of the human soul."

I had been a doubter, but I will concede it right now: She really is refreshing.

I feel very refreshed. Keep the refreshments coming, Terezzzza.

Skewed Sample in Newsweek poll?: So says this poster on Free Republic, pointing out that the poll sampled 374 Republicans, 303 Democrats, and 300 Independents.

Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are roughly at parity in this country, but this poll sampled about 25% more GOPers than Dems.

This is always a problem in polling. If you get a lot of people identifying as Republican, does that mean there's been some big shift of people to the party (in which case your numbers are accurate, more or less) or does it mean you just got a non-representative sample (in which case your numbers are worthless)? Do you attempt to correct/adjust for this imbalance, or do you report the raw figures?

I actually think that the convention might have minted a few more people identifying as Republican -- Guiliani and Schwarzenegger did a great job, and so did Bush, it turns it out -- but 25% more? Seems very high.

Good Point: Fred Barnes notes:

Kerry won't have an easy time making up ground he lost since the Democratic convention in late July. It's clear now his theory of the campaign was wrong. A majority of Americans haven't basically decided against giving Bush a second term. Thus it's not enough for Kerry to demonstrate simply that he's competent to be president. The bar isn't that low. Kerry will have to be far more appealing than he's ever been to scoot past Bush. Or the president will have to screw up badly. Both are possible, especially the latter.

Posted by: Ace at 10:50 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 919 words, total size 6 kb.

Newsweek (a liberal skewing poll) has Bush up 54-43.

But Rasmussen still has it as about 49-45.

I have to say that it's nice to see a Newsweek poll showing the same lead as the Time poll, but I never believe Newsweek polls when they show Bush down, and I'm not too sure about this one, either.

Update: As mentioned in the next post (above), it turns out that the Newsweek poll, which often oversamples Democrats, now seems to have oversampled Republicans.

Posted by: Ace at 09:05 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

I think Bush is now up but not by 11 points. I'd guess he's really up about 4-5 points, and that could quickly change. It sure changed quickly on John Forbes Kerry.

But however much he's up, there's not much doubt that he has all the momentum at the moment.

SurveyUSA has been tracking not "who will you vote for" but "who do you expect to win."

They do this to capture shifts in political momentum-- or at least perceived political momentum, which is of course just a redundancy. In the big liberal cities, Bush has jumped 15-20 points so that about 58-60% of the citizens there now expect him to win.

In Las Vegas, only 55% expect him to win. But in Oklahoma City, 78% expect him to win, which is pretty goshdarn high.

I don't know what this means, but it must mean something: Bush's big speech garnered 28 million television viewers, while the Kerrey's only managed 25. The entire RNC also pulled in more eyeballs than the entire DNC.

The New York Post quotes a
"veteran Democratic operative" as saying "The smell of panic is in the air."

Kerry has two problems.

His first problem is his liberal Democratic base. My current pet theory is that both sides of the political aisle have become somewhat radicalized by the twin political shocks of impeachment and the Florida recount, and that partisans in both camps have overly personalized politics. Many of us (myself included) are now cheering on political parties as if they were sports franchises, and we live and fall with each victory and each defeat, just like a dedicated football fanatic might (myself, again, included).

And we're not just cheering to cheer; we all of us now have some personal stake in all of this nonsense. We're not just looking to win elections, but to win arguments, arguments this nation has been having now for ten years. The arguments never get settled, but we're always hoping the next victory will finally give us the personal vindication we're looking for.

At any rate: Kerry's supporters don't just want him to win. They now have an emotional need for him to win, and furthermore, they don't just have an emotional need for him to win the election-- they have an emotional need for him to vindicate them by humiliating Bush and finally proving they were right on Iraq/Impeachment all along.

The problem is that these people are misprioritizing, especially from Kerry's viewpoint. They want validation; he just wants to win a freaking election. They are demanding that he do certain things -- like call Bush AWOL and Cheney a draft-dodger, and, you know, actually announce a clear and coherent position on Iraq -- that help their cause but not necessarily Kerry's.

And furthermore, since there is emotion riding on the outcome, Kerry could easily be turned on by his supporters the moment he seems to falter. They picked him as their candidate not because they liked Kerry or his policies (whatever they are) but because they hated Bush and wanted Bush humiliated before the world as the AWOLiarThiefWarCriminalFascist he is. They picked Kerry because they thought he'd make a good champion; whether or not he'd make a good ruler is something of an afterthought.

The only thing holding them to Kerry's side is the belief that he can win. When that belief fails, so does their loyalty.

And if it looks like Kerry can't deliver them the delicious vindication they crave, they will turn on him. We won't have recriminations; there won't be time for that. We'll have precriminations, starting in October.

The other problem Kerry has is simpler: Kerry does not perform well when challenged. He can perform adequately, if unremarkably, so long as he's ahead/winning; when he's losing, he acts, talks, and looks like a punch-drunk corpse dripping with sweaty desperation. Some men can portray a winning optimism whatever the circumstances; Kerry isn't one of them.

It's way to early to say "it's over" or any of that. But a big key to Kerry's strategy was to get ahead and stay ahead. Once behind, he becomes a bad candidate with supporters whose anger at him is only surpassed by their anger at the Bushcreature.

The Big Mo is especially big this election, and it just turned like a bitch.

Stuff I Should Have Said The First Time Around Update: There weren't "twin shocks." There were triple shocks. 9/11 was the last and worst blow. When the towers came crashing down, so did the uneasy compromise that superficially united the left and the right. We've always had very different ideas about how the world works and America's place in that world; for years we remained in our shotgun marriage by ignoring our irreconcilable differences.

9/11 was like catching the the other party in bed with someone else, and worse yet, that someone else was Osama bin Ladin. I don't mean to necessarily say that the left was in bed with bin Ladin. I mean that, from the point of view of both the left and the right, the opposing camp had either caused or negligently allowed 9/11 to occur.

I'm tired of the marriage analogy by this point even worse than you are, but I can't resist finishing it off: We agreed to try to "work things out" for a spell after 9/11, but by 2002, the marriage was officially dissolved.

The liberals ultimately decided they needed to be "free to explore themselves."

The other thing I meant to mention is that Chris Matthews, who provided the perfect thesis-proving quote last time 'round, also gave me a good quote this go. While blathering on about the convention and Iraq this week, Chris concluded a segment by saying (close paraphrase):

I just wish we could put a second question on the ballot asking the American people if the war in Iraq was a mistake and settle this once and for all, by referendum.

Chris is obviously in the tank for Kerry, but I think this quote demonstrates that, once again, the issue isn't Kerry per se; Chris just wants a certification, signed in triplicate by the American people, telling him "You were right all along. God, you're so smart." He can't have that referendum question on the ballot, of course, so he's madly advocating for the election of John Forbes Kerry as a good proxy for what he really wants.

Posted by: Ace at 12:36 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 1091 words, total size 7 kb.

Chechen women refused passage on airplane. Gee, wonder why.

Chechen school-terrorist lynched by mob. Send more rope.

Update: As Allah says: It gets worse.

They forced mothers to choose which of their children would die.

More at Allah. The pictures (the link he warns you about) are godawful.

I wish I could say how shocked and stunned I am.

But I'm not.

This happens every month. Every month.

These people have turned themselves into monsters. They could not achieve their goals as men and so they became monsters. Having little weapons and less courage, they decided they would fight a poor man's war by arming themselves with horror and viciousness not even seen among animals.

It is only self-restraint that keeps men from fighting horror and demonic viciousness with horror and demonic viciousness.

They only have their "advantage," such as it is, so long as we are inclined to yield it to them.

And what happens when we are no longer so inclined? What happens when we too decide that terror can be our weapon?

People can be pushed only so far before abstract notions about morality and the "rules of war" are pushed aside as absurd. Can there be any doubt that right now Vladimir Putin is at least considering a murderous bombing campaign that would shock the world almost as badly as this horror?

And would any Americans blame him?

They haven't considered the inevitable end result of their actions. They cannot win with terrorism. They can only cause us to become animals ourselves, but in becoming animals, we become far deadlier than they could ever be.

They really ought to stop and ponder that.

Posted by: Ace at 01:05 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

They're howling like wounded animals. But wounded animals are the most dangerous.

Susan Estrich, a "reasonable liberal":

Never again, we said then.

Not again, Democrats are saying now.

What do you do, Democrats keep asking each other.

The answer is not pretty, but everyone knows what it is.

...

You can't just answer the charges. You can't just say it ain't so.

You have to fight fire with fire, mud with mud, dirt with dirt.

The trouble with Democrats, traditionally, is that we're not mean enough. Dukakis wasn't. I wasn't. I don't particularly like destroying people. I got into politics because of issues, not anger. But too much is at stake to play by Dukakis rules, and lose again.

That is the conclusion Democrats have reached. So watch out. Millions of dollars will be on the table. And there are plenty of choices for what to spend it on.

I'm not promising pretty.

What will it be?

Will it be the three, or is it four or five, drunken driving arrests that Bush and Cheney, the two most powerful men in the world, managed to rack up? (Bush's Texas record has been sealed. Now why would that be? Who seals a perfect driving record?)

After Vietnam, nothing is ancient history, and Cheney is still drinking. What their records suggest is not only a serious problem with alcoholism, which Bush but not Cheney has acknowledged, but also an even more serious problem of judgment. Could Dick Cheney get a license to drive a school bus with his record of drunken driving? (I can see the ad now.) A job at a nuclear power plant? Is any alcoholic ever really cured? So why put him in the most stressful job in the world, with a war going south, a thousand Americans already dead and control of weapons capable of destroying the world at his fingertips.

It has been said that in the worst of times, Kissinger gave orders to the military not to obey Nixon if he ordered a first strike. What if Bush were to fall off the wagon? Then what? Has America really faced the fact that we have an alcoholic as our president?

Or how about Dead Texans for Truth, highlighting those who served in Vietnam instead of the privileged draft-dodging president, and ended up as names on the wall instead of members of the Air National Guard. I'm sure there are some mothers out there who are still mourning their sons, and never made that connection. It wouldn't be so hard to find them.

Or maybe it will be Texas National Guardsmen for Truth, who can explain exactly what George W. Bush was doing while John Kerry was putting his life on the line. So far, all W. can do is come up with dental records to prove that he met his obligations. Perhaps with money on the table, or investigators on their trail, we will learn just what kind of wild and crazy things the president was doing while Kerry was saving a man's life, facing enemy fire and serving his country.

Or could it be George Bush's Former Female Friends for Truth. A forthcoming book by Kitty Kelly raises questions about whether the president has practiced what he preaches on the issue of abortion. As Larry Flynt discovered, a million dollars loosens lips. Are there others to be loosened?

Are you shocked? Not fair? Who said anything about fair? Remember President Dukakis? He was very fair. Now he teaches at Northeastern University. John Kerry has been very fair in dealing with the Swift Boat charges. That's why so many of my Democrat friends have decided to stop talking to the campaign, and start putting money together independently.

The arrogant little Republican boys who have been strutting around New York this week, claiming that they have this one won, would do well to take a step back. It could be a long and ugly road to November.

What happened to bring it on, Susan?

I think it's about time everyone knocked it off with the "let's be civil" shit. This election is very nearly a civil war. This is where it's going, so there's no use whining about it.

They will not accept being out of political power under any circumstances. And they will stop at very little to get that power back.

Thanks to Nick Kronos, posting at The Perfect World.

Posted by: Ace at 12:59 PM | Comments (42)
Post contains 749 words, total size 4 kb.

Time Magazine has it 52-41 for the good guys, according to this post. (I didn't hear it myself, but I assume the poster isn't just making crap up about what he saw on TV.)

Update: Instapundit got a release from Time, and he's posted everything they sent him.

11 points.

Here's the Time poll, but why give them traffic? Instapundit has all the good stuff.

And... I don't know if the whole convention could be reflected in this poll. I doubt there's more than one or two days of convention in the poll at all.

I don't know if the convention's full impact will move further votes, but it may harden the opinions of those who defected from Kerry right before the convention.

"I'M GIVING UP:" So one Democratic operative says to Rich Lowry.

Allah has a day-after roundup of reactions, reconsiderations, and polls.

Posted by: Ace at 11:42 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

Let's all pray for the best. If nothing else, the man keeps it interesting.

Booing Bullshit? Right now, Filet-O-Fish is pimping a story that thousands "booed" when Bush wished Clinton a speedy recovery. This article says differently, and notes that claim has been excised from the article.

Thanks to Nick.

Drudge Confirms: Story retracted; audiotape reveals cheers, not boos.

This reporter needs to explain himself very persuasively or else be fired.

Posted by: Ace at 10:09 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.