Politics

Latest two conservative publications to endorse Kerry: The New Republic and The Financial Times.

I’m not sure what to make of this. It’s apparently old-news, though new to me, but after the Madrid attack the terrorists who claimed credit for the Madrid bombing actually endorsed Bush:

A week after the Madrid attack, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which claims to act on behalf of al-Qaida, claimed responsibility for the bombing and declared a truce in Spain to see if the new government would withdraw its troops from Iraq, but warned that it was gearing up for new attacks.

This part of the declaration was widely reported. However, very few mentioned the more ominous part of that declaration, short of excerpts which were reported by the BBC and Reuters.

The declaration turned its attention to President Bush, saying:

“A word for the foolish Bush. We are very keen that you do not lose in the forthcoming elections as we know very well that any big attack can bring down your government and this is what we do not want.

“We cannot get anyone who is more foolish than you, who deals with matters with force instead of wisdom and diplomacy.

“Your stupidity and religious extremism is what we want as our people will not awaken from their deep sleep except when there is an enemy.

“Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilisation.

“Because of this we desire you [Bush] to be elected.”

The logic makes sense to me, though I’m skeptical about their assessment of Democrat cunning. Bush supporters will no doubt claim it’s a double-bluff, and that “The Terrorists” really fear Bush. I think the scarier question is whether “The Terrorists” realize that a terrorist attack would mean a landslide for Bush? Could that be why there’s no evidence of an attack being planned before Nov. 2nd? [edit: what I mean is, if they do want Bush, will they lie low thinking an attack will have a Madrid-style effect, or try something thinking that will shore up Bush’s support? Ditto for if they’d like Bush out. This is why I was never good at poker…]

IAEA: Tons of Iraq explosives missing:

The explosives — considered powerful enough to demolish buildings or detonate nuclear warheads — were under IAEA control until the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. IAEA workers left the country before the fighting began.

So we went in ostensibly looking for weapons of mass distruction, then didn’t even secure the sites we knew about? Why do people feel safe under this administration? For all the bickering about what mistakes they’ve made so far, what scares me is what mistake they’ll make next…

My new favorite PAC — Wolfpacks For Truth

They told us we were shooting a Greenpeace commercial! … We are a peaceful pack of wolves.

Take the Votergasm Pledge:

• Citizen level: I pledge to withhold sex from non-voters for the week following the election.
• Patriot level: I pledge to have sex with a voter on election night and withhold sex from non-voters for the week following the election.
• American Hero level: I pledge to have sex with a voter on election night and withhold sex from non-voters for the next four years.

And would you believe, I heard about it on BBC radio?

One of the best news features I’ve heard for cutting through all the political rhetoric and BS is Marketplace‘s five-minute Ballot Buck$ segments. Each one talks about where Bush & Kerry stand on a particular issue, but rather than leave it as a he-says, she-says thing they then actually talk to economists and other experts to evaluate each proposal, explain what neither side is mentioning and really but through the fog, all in a non-partisan way.

Take a look especially at the last few entries on healthcare, the deficit, and social security.

Last two strips from the Doonesbury Honest Voices Reading List® (previous ones here):

Kerry Will Restore American Dignity: 2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement by the publishers of The Lone Star Iconoclast (The Lone Star Iconoclast, 29 September 2004)

A Questionable Kind Of Conservatism George F. Will (Washington Post, 24 July 2003)

DocBug Exclusive — For months now, Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis and other conservative Catholics have been emphasizing to their flocks that when it comes to politics, you can’t vote for a pro-choice candidate and still be a good Catholic. While not mentioning either presidential candidate by name (which might put the church’s tax-exempt status into question), Burke’s message is clear: vote Bush in this election, or your soul is at risk. He might be surprised to know a similar message is being preached across town, from a very different source.

Reverend Bob “The Impailer” Simmons is pastor and High Lieutenant Destroyer at the First Temple of Ultimate Evil, which formed in 1983 after a merger between Anton Levey Satanists, the Campus Crusade for Cthulu and the Church of Universal Damnation. The church is dedicated to the promotion of death, destruction, and “all that is evil, corrupt, and immoral in the hearts of men,” according to their website and flyers. Rev. Simmons says he was somewhat embarrassed when he discovered he and Archbishop Burke were supporting the same candidate in their sermons. “At first I thought it was a joke,” he said in a recent interview for Evil Monthly. “I mean, [Archbishop] Ray [Burke] and I rarely see eye-to-eye on religious matters.”

Rev. Simmons, who claims he can’t set foot on holy ground due to “the vibrations,” had to wait several days before a transcript of Archbishop Burke’s statement was faxed to his office. “Our first mass after the news broke was tense, to say the least. The Leveyists were especially up in arms,” he recalls. “It just sticks in their craw to have anything in common with the Catholic Church.” There were also reports that some of the Old Ones threatened to eat Simmons’ head, though he claims this is normal.

After going over the transcript, most in the congregation were mollified if not comforted. “It was just a big misunderstanding,” explains Simmons. “We were looking at completely different issues. Ray is something of a one-issue do-gooder; if it’s not about abortion, he doesn’t care. We UEs look more at the big picture — you need a broad brush to paint the world black. For example, our congregation is very excited about the Federal death penalty and the message it sends about the sanctity of death, and this administration’s stance on the use of torture and ignoring the Geneva conventions are right in line with our core doctrine.” Simmons admits he shares Burke’s support for Bush’s anti-gay-marriage amendment, but is quick to point out his position is a natural outgrowth from his broader opposition to equal rights for all Americans. “That and gays give me the willies,” he told reporters. As for abortion, he says the UE favors neither candidate’s position, as UE church teachings say that life begins at 40.

In spite of these differences, some of the faithless are still concerned. “I was a big Bush supporter in 2000,” says Monica “Queen of the Night” Townsend, a long-time Republican and UE member, who still sports a Bush-Cheney 2004 button painted black and red to go with her eye shadow and long razor-like fingernails. “I’ll probably still vote for them, ’cause of their hate-based initiatives and the war in Iraq and Kerry being Catholic and all, but this Burke thing really took all the fun out of being a Bush supporter, y’know?” John Templeton, her companion with matching black eye shadow and long red fingernails, flashes a toothy grimace as he nods in agreement. “I think it’s great great the way he antagonizes the rest of the world with his Us vs. Them attitude, and I love the opaqueness he’s put back in the way our government runs. But now… I donno, come November 2nd I might just vote for Nader.”

Doonesbury has been running what it calls the Honest Voices Reading List®, described as “roundup of indispensable writing from conservative sources” (translation: the conservative case against George Bush, as written by conservatives). Since URLs aren’t well-suited for typing from the funny papers to the browser (oh where, oh where has my Que-Cat gone?) I figured as a public service I’d link them here:

John Eisenhower: Why I will vote for John Kerry for President by John Eisenhower, son of Dwight D. Eisenhower and life-long Republican (The Union Leader / New Hampshire Sunday News, 9 September 2004)

WSJ reporter Fassihi’s e-mail to friends Farnaz Fassihi, Wall-Street Journal reporter (Poynter Online, 29 September 2004)

Why conservatives must not vote for Bush by Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute (Salon, 10 September 2004)

Local View: Going to war in Iraq was a mistake by Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-NB, retiring), outgoing Vice Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (Lincoln Journal Star, 18 August 2004)

Kevin Drum at Political Animal has written a great little scorecard for who fudged, obfuscated and out-right lied the most in the second presidential debate based on post-debate fact-checking articles. The overall numbers look pretty bad for Bush (surprise, surprise), but the real value is his handy compilation of all the misstatements and links to the fact-checkers that found them. Take a look for yourself and see if you agree with Drum about which lies are important and which ones are trivial exageration.