Oh Yeah

I was right about the hurricane thing. Told you. Also, I think Kerry worked it in fairly deftly.

And Yet More

Most cringe-worthy moment of the debate: When they talked about their daughters. Especially when Bush said he was trying to "put a leash" on his and Kerry said he's found that that isn't a good idea. Weird.

Also, Bush is doing a good job of repeating the theme that Kerry sends "mixed messages." But Kerry had a great response when he said you can be resolute and wrong at the same time. And he was mighty skillful in the way he managed to accuse the President of ignoring the science of stem cell research during a debate about foreign policy.

Also, I think one of Bush's best moments was his throwaway comment that he doesn't want to guess how Kerry will pay for all his foreign policy programs. I'm surprised that Kerry didn't fire back with some observation about the national debt under Bush.

All in all, I think Kerry came off as the far better debater. But I think Bush scored several small victories by explaining why Kerry's supposed flip-flopping and mixed messages make him unqualified to lead.

The question is whether Bush lost too many points by looking so fidgety, small, and stutter-prone.

Whoa

Did anyone notice Bush giving Kerry an Italian hand gesture meaning "Fuck you"? Where you scrape your fingers under your chin with your palm facing inward, then open your palm in the direction of the person you're trying to insult?

I'm sure it was unintentional, but I can't wait to see what the Daily Show does with the replay.

Still More

People have to be noticing how often Bush pauses or "ums" at key moments. He's a Toastmasters' nightmare.

Kerry speaks so much more effectively he runs the risk of looking arrogant.

Bush's interruptions don't look very presidential. "Adolescent" comes to mind.

More

Kerry needs to lay off all the talk of "summits." He's mentioned them as much as Al Gore mentioned the "lock box."

Bush needs to stop denying that Great Britain is our only major ally in Iraq by pointing out that we also have Poland. I don't think anyone watching at home considers Poland a major military power.

Bush is also doing a good job of arguing that Kerry can't get other countries to join us in Iraq after insisting that we're making a mistake by being there. The only problem with that argument is that most other countries already think we're making a mistake there. So Kerry's chances of persuading them to help us are, at worst, only as good as Bush's.

Finally, I love Kerry's strategy of nodding vigorously whenever Bush makes a good point. It's a great lawyer trick. He's negating the impact of Bush's words by agreeing with them immediately.

Debate Play by Play

Kerry won the flip and got to be the first to pass on good wishes to Florida. Good move. He also quickly managed to put Bush on the defensive by asking if capturing Saddam Hussein was really more important than capturing Osama bin Laden. And he managed to accuse Bush of "outsourcing" responsibility for capturing bin Laden to Afghan guerillas.

Bush looks fidgety.

Breaking the Law

Here is a great argument for throwing out all the stupid rules in tomorrow's debate. The only problem is that Bush might refuse to hold other debates if Kerry breaks the rules in the first. So I think he should start out by saying he's more than willing to throw out the rules if Bush is.

If Bush really wants to throw Kerry off his game, he should start out by asking to throw out the rules.

Breaking News: Americans Are Dumb

Wow, turns out most Americans have no fucking clue about where politicians stand. Maybe that's why we keep deciding elections based on TV ads. I guess we in the cultural elite should keep in mind how dumb our countrymen are next time we go on a tirade about putting apostrophes in the right place or the subtle nuances of... well, anything.

My point is, again, that the dumber guy wins. We're in the homestretch and it's time for both candidates to get as simple-minded as possible. Won't this be fun.

Arguing is Fun

I really like debates. So I'm excited about the one tomorrow night between Bush and Kerry on foreign policy. Here's how I think it will go down.

-It's in Florida, so the coin flip for who talks first will be very important. If it's Bush, he'll start off by offering a prayer or something for the hurricane victims, or at least say they are in all of our hearts. Or something. I think people will buy it. Kerry, if he's smart, will say something like, "Amen to that," and not get mad that Bush thought of it first.

Basically, I think whoever mentions the hurricanes first will get the upper hand. Then, when they get to the actual debate:

-Kerry will focus on mistakes and missteps in Iraq. If he's smart, he'll revive his question about Vietnam: how do you ask a soldier to be the last man to die for a mistake? It's a powerful argument, and nicely plays up Kerry's Vietnam background without ramming it down our throats, which proved to be a mistake.

-Bush will argue that Kerry is flip-flopping, but would be smart not to dwell on that theme for too long since it's already familiar to voters. My guess is that he'll branch out from there and say what his spokesmen have been saying recently: Kerry has a lot of complaints, but he's short on new suggestions and optimism.

If each side starts with those solid arguments, this will be great. Bush can ask Kerry if he really thinks Iraq is worse off than it was before the war. Kerry can note that our optimism before September 11 was a big mistake, and that we need to prepare for the worst.

The best thing Kerry can do is knock Bush off script, which is nearly impossible because Bush is so good at sticking to the message. Kerry is terrible at sticking to the message, but is slightly better at talking extemporaneously -- as long as he can avoid all the long, sonorous Senate-talk. So the best strategy for Bush is to play it safe and hope Kerry buries himself with too much speechifying.

No Go

Iraq Prime Minister Ayad Allawi came to America today to say that elections will be held in his country in January, right on schedule. He noted that about 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces are completely safe, which I guess is a good start.

Lots of President Bush's critics have argued, however, that in order to have a national election it has to actually be national -- as in, held all over the nation. The problem, as John Kerry explains it, is that "There are no-go zones in Iraq today. You can't hold an election in a no-go zone."

But not so fast. Donald Rumsfeld has figured out a way to go ahead with the election even if there's chaos in much of the country: just exclude the regions where the fighting is still going on.

Isn't this the kind of thing that starts civil wars?

Jimmy Swaggart Advocates Lying to God

And he also supports killing gays.

Dear Someone

So I don't know the names or any personal information about the people who visit this page, but I can see information like their cities and Internet servers. That's how I know that I've been getting some hits lately from the office of an attorney named Larry H. Parker.

That name sounded familiar, so I Googled Mr. Parker's name and realized he was once mentioned in an Ice Cube song. This kind of discovery more than makes up for anything bad about the Internet.

So. Could the person or people from Mr. Parker's office let me know if they like me, or if they're planning to sue me? I don't want to mess with a guy who just got Ice Cube $2 million. My e-mail is lasercub@yahoo.com, or you can even respond anonymously in the comments area.

P.S. The Spanish movie poster is for my lone reader in Madrid. Gracias!

Chutzpah

I'm thinking this is wrong. First, it's on the Drudge Report, where weird and unconfirmed reports appear and dissipate with regularity. (As often as he's wrong, Drudge has a lot of nerve rubbing CBS's errors in their face. Remember his scoop about John Kerry's supposed affair with an intern who turned out not to have been an intern, and more importantly not to have had an affair with him?)

Also, it's absurd to think that Burkett would sue CBS for not authenticating the documents he gave them. I'd have an easier time believing CBS would sue him.

The Spin Doctor Is In

Hi again. I figure everyone else is gonna go for the obvious "I Love Lucy" jokes, so I thought I'd focus on the second-most-famous Lucy. Thanks for your support.

I'm talking of course about Bill Burkett, who apparently gave CBS the phony documents, now saying he got them from someone named Lucy Ramirez. He hasn't explained who "Lucy Ramirez" is, or why he believed the crappy fakes she provided.

All I know is that this all could still be the work of Karl Rove. Have you noticed that when you re-arrange the letters in Mr. Rove's name they spell "Ramirez"? No? Okay, but still. Mr. Rove may have given them to Ms. Ramirez. She's allegedly from Houston, and we all know that President Bush has lots of friends in Houston. And of course we also know that you can never trust someone named Lucy to forge documents or hold a football.

Whatever happens next, I'm glad this is all sort of coming together. I'd still like to know how Republican bloggers with no knowledge of typography were able to blow the lid off the 60 Minutes report less than four hours after it aired. They're smart, but they aren't that smart.

Bruuuuuuuuuuuce

Okay, so I'm not a huge Michael Moore fan. He keeps undercutting his good points by following them with shaky ones. But a point he made in his latest column totally got me.

Moore said, as a joke, that Bruce Springsteen would be a great candidate. And, well, he's right. The Boss is as American as apple pie made by mom after the baseball game. He hasn't had a great album since Tunnel of Love, and he's every bit as qualified as Arnold Schwarzenegger. A new career is definitely in order, and it so happens that New Jersey needs a Democratic candidate for the next governor's race.

So why not? Just imagine Bruce's speeches -- as long as he was allowed to sing them.

Pittsburgh vs. New York

It's nice to see some Pittsburghers take the bigshots from The New Yorker down a notch. Yinz New Yorkers should be ashamed.

Argghh

CNN is still talking about the memos. This will be the number two story in most papers tomorrow. I'm sure the next week will be filled with self-important media soul-searching -- and rants about Kerry's campaign being somehow involved.

Just think how much better Kerry would look right now if he had said what I suggested he say last weekend. (With or without the sidenote about the Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.)

There's only one way for Democrats to keep this from hurting Kerry now, and that's by learning and repeating the phrase that has been my mantra since Sept. 9: Somehow, Karl Rove is behind this.

P.S. Never, ever doubt me again.

I Don't Want to Say I Told You So

But I told you so. CBS admits it can't prove the fake documents are real (because they aren't), and that they made a mistake. And so we begin the inevitable finger-pointing at the Kerry campaign -- which could have done pre-emptive damage control by condemning the fake documents a week ago, but didn't. Now they're vulnerable to Republican news releases like this one, which is readily available via Google:

To: National Desk and Political Reporter

Contact: Christine Iverson of the Republican National Committee, 202-863-8614

WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- RNC Communications Director Jim Dyke made the following statement today:

"Bill Burkett, Democrat activist and Kerry campaign supporter, passes information to the DNC; Kerry campaign surrogate Max Cleland discusses "valuable" information with Bill Burkett; Bill Burkett talks to "senior" Kerry campaign officials; an apparently unsuspecting news organization uses faked forged memos and an interview with Ben Barnes at the same time the Democratic National Committee launched Operation Fortunate Son; and Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill was among the first to call Ben Barnes and congratulate him after his interview. The trail of connections is becoming increasingly clear."

There's some good news for Kerry in CBS' admission. The network admitted that Burkett, a retired Texas National Guard official, provided it with the documents -- and the New York Times had a report Saturday that suggests Democrats didn't seem very interested in the information Burkett was peddling.

Burkett complained on Aug. 21 "in an e-mail letter circulated to a list of about 600 Texas Democrats" that when he called the campaign, he had to "get through seven layers of bureaucratic kids trying to get a job after the election." Finally he got to talk to Max Cleland, the veteran and ex-Georgia senator. And, as the Times explains:

Alluding to advertisements by a veterans group that deprecates Mr. Kerry's Vietnam service, Mr. Burkett continued, "I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. He said counterattack."

"So I gave them the information to do it with," Mr. Burkett wrote. "But none of them have called me back."

There's one other scrap of good news for Democrats: Burkett says he got the documents from still another source. So maybe that source got them from another source, too, and maybe somewhere up the source ladder is Karl Rove. Democrats can't escape a serious burn from this without somehow showing Republicans orchestrated the whole thing.

Just The Way It Is

It's gone largely unnoticed that President Bush has been saying lately that rich people will always cheat on their taxes. (He's stopped just short of adding, "and there's nothing we can do about it.") Here are his exact words, courtesy of the White House press office:

Be careful of these folks who travel around the country making all these big promises, and say, oh, don't worry, we'll pay for it by taxing the rich. You know how that goes. The rich hires (sic) accountants and lawyers and you get stuck with the bill. But we're not going to let him raise your taxes. For the sake of economic growth, for the sake of job creation, we will keep America's taxes low.

Darn straight, Mr. President. Taking on those lawyers and accountants is so hard, we might as well just let the rich do whatever they want. It's not like there's some kind of, I don't know, internal revenue service or something that could actually go after people who steal. That might take time and government money, which is in mighty short supply what with all these millionaires ripping the rest of us off.

So stay the course, Mr. President. If something's hard, it's best to just let it go -- just like you did with Osama bin Laden.

Out of Bounds

I've taken a lot of pride in the fact that even though John Kerry has repeatedly been called a murderer in this election, neither he nor any of his supporters have lowered ourselves to making the same claim about President Bush. In fact, none of us have even compared the president to a murderer.

Until now.

There are many good things to be found on Daily Kos, the most extensive pro-Kerry blog around. But occasionally the anti-Bush energy makes Kos-goers get a little crazy. I'm talking specifically about all the people who recently posted about the alleged physical similarity between President Bush and serial killer Ted Bundy. (To read the posts just click here and scroll down.)

It wasn't enough for these posters to note a supposed physical resemblance, which by the way I don't see. (Bear in mind, many Kos posters are still holding out hope that the fake CBS memos are real.) No, they had to go on to argue that Bush, like Bundy, had the childhood traits of a future serial killer.

This is just wrong. You can't say that because someone supposedly looks like someone else, they share the same capacity for evil. And besides, Bundy held much more palpatable political views than Bush does.

The president has always leaned conservative, while Bundy was a dependable Rockefeller Republican. As Richard Larsen noted in The Deliberate Stranger, he even served as the manager of the downtown Seattle Draft Rockefeller headquarters in 1968. People familiar with Bundy always marveled that he might have had a bright political future -- likely as a Republican moderate -- if only he hadn't killed all those people.

So stop the Bush-Bundy comparisons. As absurdly unfair as they are to Bush, they're a little unfair to Bundy, too.

And finally, Democrats don't want to open the "looks-like-must-be-like" floodgates. Especially when the young John Kerry bears such a strong resemblance to Bugsy Siegel.

Newer News

Wow, I was just talking about this, and right after that I found
an article where Kerry talks about it too. I swear we didn't work this out in advance or anything:

"With all due respect to the president, has he turned on the evening news lately? Does he read the newspapers?" Kerry said. "Does he really know what's happening? Is he talking about the same war that the rest of us are talking about?"

These are all rhetorical questions, right?

Also, I'm amused and disappointed that Kerry has started to just make things up, like his theory about more military call-ups if Bush wins. It makes sense, but where's the actual evidence? I'm one of those holdouts who still cares about credibility.

Bad Gnus

John Kerry has been working off the news too much. He rolls into town, touts the latest reports of bad economic data or terrifying developments in Iraq, and bitches and moans about President Bush and the awful job he's doing.

Staying on top of current events can be a good idea for a presidential candidate -- as long as most of the news is bad for his opponent. Kerry's strategy is somewhat risky, because once in a while, a story is bound to sort of break in Bush's favor.

So I'm recommending that Kerry handle the news the same way the president does: by ignoring it. There's really no need to read newspapers, or even internal documents. Just let advisers filter you the things you need, and don't lose sleep sweating the small stuff.

Just think about it. Wasn't your life better before Gary Gnu started doing his cute little schtick and introduced you to the concept of "news"? Until then you lived in a happy fantasy world with good guys, bad guys, and no one in-between. Everyone told you how special you were, and when you made a mistake, no one held you accountable, because you didn't know any better.

It was almost like being president.

Pulling Me Back In

Alright, I apologize.

I'm back, and so are the posts I took down Monday when I announced my early retirement. What happened was, I got tired of the narrow-mindedness of people of both major parties, and began a series of posts that would have ended with me faking my own death -- hence all the hokey foreshadowing in yesterday's post.

But I couldn't go through with it. The fact is, I'm too good to waste my skills on a hoax. (Insert tired CBS joke here.) And I'm too egotistical to stand by while people like Maureen Dowd shock America by writing about things I addressed a whole week ago -- even if she does call them preposterous and paranoid:

There's no evidence - it's just a preposterous, paranoid fantasy at this point. But it speaks to the jitters of the Democrats that they're consumed with speculation about whether Karl Rove, the master of dirty tricks and surrogate sleaze, could have set up CBS in a diabolical pre-emptive strike to undermine damaging revelations about Bush 43's privileged status and vanishing act in the National Guard...

In this vast left-wing conspiracy theory, Mr. Rove takes real evidence on W.'s shirking and transfers it to documents doomed to be exposed as phony (thereby undermining the real goods), then funnels it through third parties to Dan Rather, Bush 41's nemesis on Iran-contra. A perfect bank shot.

So anyway, I'm not quitting. Maybe I was subconsciously tipping people off when I mistakenly said I was leaving my home in the Allegheny National Forest of northeastern Pennsylvania. It's actually in northwestern Pennsylvania, and I've never been there.

West Virginia

Okay, it's been a long night but I've made it to West Virginia. At least I think I'm in West Virginia. Sorry to cut out early on my last post. I had a very close call at a Kinko's in Meadville, Pa.

So far I love West Virginia. Never been here before. First thing this morning, I went through a campground and saw some guys rappeling down a rock. Off in the distance the leaves were changing to amazing yellows and oranges. I felt very peaceful and safe.

That didn't last very long before my head was hurting. I found a cave because I was afraid of blasting something. The only thing that seems to block the lasers is quartzite, and it isn't easy to come by. Anyway, my head is still bothering me. Also my eyes. Tired kind of, and it's getting very dark, it's gettimh brtu fstl dp gsdy sdfsdagggggggggdag

Pennsylvania

As my journey began, I noticed something about my home state. The people here are old. And not just the old ones, either. Also, there are a lot of beautiful roads, and an equal number of creaky, dilapidated towns.

I have to go now. Right now.

Thank You

Dear Friends,

I have to tell you something important, and I want you to listen to the music on this site as I say it.

For personal reasons involving strange, shooting pains deep within my ocular cavities, I am embarking on a journey to examine my origins, the roots of my laser powers, and this beautiful land called America.

I have shared as many insights as I could gather from the perspective of a cave. And now it can be revealed that this cave is located in the Allegheny National Forest in far northeastern Pennsylvania. By the time you read this my former home will have been long abandoned, and the Internet disconnected. I still have to call about the cable.

I hope you will still stop in at this site, from time to time, so I can tell you about my travels in the world, and on the Internet.

Because many cybercafes across this great country do not admit baby wolves, I may be posting less often. This in no way takes away from the love and affection I have for the 11 people and fellow wolves who have checked this blog more or less daily since its inception, which remains as intense as the laser beams I hope to one day understand.

Yours,



Laser Cub

P.S. I've taken down all of my previous posts, though some are still floating around online. If you want a copy of anything, write to me at lasercub@yahoo.com.

Both Sides Now

I'm realizing that blogging is more about maintaining a written record of the fact that you were right before anyone else than it is about changing minds. In fact, as people seek out their own personal news outlets, that's pretty much becoming the state of all forms of communication.

If you only get your news from Fox or Air America or the Daily Show or Drudge or any equally slanted source, stop being so sheltered. There's a word for people who try to avoid any news that could be perceived as bad, and that word is "cowards."

What happened to seeking out objective sources that would provide all the facts, good and bad, without a smirk or a nudge? Those news sources still exist, but they're losing ground. Did I really see someone on Daily Kos refer to the Washington Post's even-handed media critic as Howard KKKurtz? Are you kidding me?

People are abandoning entire newspapers and networks for fear that they'll see something that won't fit perfectly into their existing worldview. Others greet every piece of bad news by questioning the credibility of the messenger. This is a good idea, but not when you're only skeptical of stories you disagree with.

The kind of tunnel vision I'm talking about -- you're either with me or you're a liar -- is what got Democrats into Memogate. They were so eager to tear down Bush that they lost any sense of objectivity, and even the ability to vet memos that clearly needed vetting. Many left-leaners seemed as incapable of fairness as those lunatics who used to claim that Bill Clinton went around murdering people.

So take a minute today to take in a perspective that's different from your own. If nothing else, it might make you better at trying to persuade people who disagree with you. Have we given up on persuading people?

Run Away

The Boston Globe has a front page story today saying the documents are real, but the Los Angeles Times has a front page story meticulously picking apart CBS's report defending the memos. (See? Told you this wasn't going away. And tomorrow it will be all over the Sunday shows, which will propel it into next week.)

Among the Times' findings:

-CBS's handwriting expert, Marcel B. Matley, only verified that one of the four documents was real, and CBS won't reveal the names of their other document experts. (If such experts really exist -- and I don't think they do.)

-Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, who was Killian's immediate supervisor and one of the CBS sources who provided insights into Killian's thinking, now says he doesn't think the documents are real.

-Killian's son, Gary, told the repugnant Sean Hannity that CBS had "ignored his warnings that the memos were not real." (Thanks for giving Sean Hannity 10 seconds of credibility, CBS. You should be ashamed.)

-Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe has joined me in suggesting that Karl Rove may have given the documents to CBS. (Yet for some reason hasn't told Kerry or his campaign to run far away, far away, from the memos.)

Why are Democrats still clinging to the possibility that these might be real? It's a terrible gamble. Even if Killian comes back from the dead to vouch for them, they won't make much difference -- the records only confirm that Bush got special treatment, which we already knew.

But if the records turn out to be fake, all of these Democrats who have foolishly stapled themselves to them -- arguing about Selectric typewriters and fonts and how Dan Rather probably knows Killian's intentions better than his own family -- are going to look like they were somehow involved in the hoax. And voters are going to blame Kerry.

Get away from these memos. Run.

Urgent Memo to John Kerry

Hey,

I know, you don't even want to hear the word "memo" after the last few days. But I know what you're thinking right now, and it's not going to work.

Even as I type this, you're prevaricating -- feeling things out. Hoping people will believe CBS and that this will blow over, maybe even end up helping you.

Get a grip.

The wait-and-see strategy didn't work with the Swift Boat liars and it won't work now. Even if these documents are proven to be real (which will never happen), you'll only get a tiny lift in the polls. Most people, even Bush's supporters, already believe he got special treatment in the Air National Guard. This is only a big deal to people who were against him already.

Now consider what happens if the memos turn out to be fake. Or if the debate just drags on. It won't be long before more fingers start pointing at your cautious, slow-to-respond, above-the-fray campaign. By then it will be too late.

So get out there right now, Senator Kerry. Innoculate yourself against Memogate as fast as you can. Later today, when someone asks what you think about the memos, say this:

"Well, only President Bush and his Air National Guard superiors can say what really happened. But I'll tell you what I think. I've seen a lot of military documents in my day, as a sailor and senator, and if you want my opinion, these don't ring true. They look about as real as the blood in Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, the lackluster sequel to Tobe Hooper's horror masterpiece.

"I don't know if they came from some badly misguided attempt to help me, or some rogue on the other side trying to throw dirt on the clean campaign we've run. But I will say this: no one in my campaign will ever resort to that kind of cheap, despicable tactic.

"We'll campaign as hard as we can, but we aren't going to lie. Not about my Navy record, and not about the president's service in the Air National Guard. That's not what I want to talk about on this day, of all days. September 11 is when we learned once and for all that we're Americans first. So let's put the partisan garbage behind us. Let's do what our enemies fear the most, which is have the kind of clean, free elections we've always had in America."

Oh, by the way. If your campaign is in any way involved with fake memos -- even if Karl Rove tricked you into finding them -- you deserve to lose. Just as much as the other guy deserves to lose.

Lights Out: Update

Morning, folks. If you're just checking in, you should start by reading the post right below this one entitled "Lights Out." Then this one will make more sense.

The Washington Post has written a well-researched, balanced article that provides yet more evidence that the documents are fake. More importantly, it quotes a "senior CBS official" saying one of the anonymous sources who helped CBS verify the documents was "retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, the immediate superior of the documents' alleged author, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian."

The article notes that Hodges is "a Republican who acknowledged that he did not want to hurt Bush." CBS thought that made him more credible. But if you agree with me that this whole story is a Karl Rove-orchestrated setup, Hodges' Republican credentials makes him seem less credible, don't they?

I'm not saying Hodges mislead CBS. In the past, he's come off as a straight shooter about Bush's military record, answering questions whether or not his answers helped the president.

But CBS' reliance on Hodges gives us an interesting insight into how they made decisions about a given source's believability. You have to wonder who else they relied on. Did the network get its phony documents from another "Republican who acknowledged that he did not want to hurt Bush"?

And is it possible that this trusted Republican was someone with an agenda? Someone who had a boss, who had a boss, who had another boss, whose name was Karl? A boss named Karl who was thinking a few moves ahead of everybody else?

Lights Out

So I think the "newly discovered" records suggesting President Bush did bad things in the Air National Guard are fake. Why do I think that?

Well, first there's the denial from the son of their supposed author. Then there's the learned examinations of the records by various experts consulted by conservative journalists. And then there's the fact that when you actually examine the documents they appear to be totally fucking fake.

This is about to become a huge story. It will not be good for John Kerry.

Who, you might wonder, would orchestrate a hoax that could be so quickly identified as a hoax? Wouldn't any Kerry supporter realize that they would be caught, and that their candidate would suffer the backlash? Of course they would. And that's why I don't think a Kerry supporter is involved.



This is the work of Karl Rove, a guy who once bugged his own office to frame an opponent for dirty tricks. No other Republican is smart enough to put this together -- and no Democrat is dumb enough. Rove says this is his last campaign, and what could be a better last hurrah?

How did he do it? Easy. First he saw to it that the fake documents reached CBS News -- the same hungry, allegedly left-leaning outfit that broke that pesky Abu Ghraib story. Take that, CBS.

Coveniently, the records are from the "private files" of a dead man who can't be questioned. So White House officials dutifully give other news organizations copies of the CBS documents, saying it doesn't know enough about them to dispute their accuracy. That gives the records a sense of authenticity, and pack journalists go wild.

Finally, some of Rove's underlings tip off one or two neo-con suck-ups to the fact that the mainstream media has swallowed a bad story. Rove sits back and watches the blogosphere go crazy -- and a few days later enjoys all the mainstream media soul-searching about what went wrong.

In the end, Rove gets everything he could ever want:

-The mainstream media looks really bad. (CBS said in its original story last night that it "consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic." But by midafternoon today they claimed to have checked with numerous "independent experts." Riiiiiight.)

-The conservative media looks good. (Way to get spoon-fed, conservative media. You'll be working for the regular media before you know it.)

-Bush looks like the victim of a vicious lie, much worse than any of the Swift Boat lies. All criticisms of Bush's military record are now tarnished, and viewed with new suspicion.

-Kerry looks like a sleaze, and loses.

So seriously, Mr. Rove, well-played! I sure am glad that with this being your last campaign and all, you know, at least it's the last one you'll win. At least, I'm assuming you'll win.

If no one else figures you out.

White Lies

Fun stuff in today's New York Times. Gossip maven Kitty Kelley -- who strikes me as rather disreputable -- has a book coming out that quotes Sharon Bush, the former wife of the president's brother Neil, saying the president used cocaine when his dad was in office. If that's true, Bush lied when he said he hadn't used an illegal drug in 25 years.
Sharon Bush issued a denial in the form of an "unsworn statement," according to the Times. That would be good enough for me, except that there's apparently a third person who was present when Sharon Bush allegedly made the cocaine allegation. And it isn't some Kelley assistant, either. It's Sharon Bush's former publicist. To quote the Times:

Doubleday, the book's publisher and part of the Random House division of Bertelsmann, said it stood by Ms. Kelley's reporting. The publisher said in a statement that Ms. Kelly met with Ms. Bush for a four-hour lunch on April 1, 2003, where an unnamed third party heard the conversation, and that Ms. Kelley's editor, Peter Gethers, discussed the same material with Ms. Bush over the phone.

Lou Colasuonno, a former publicist for Ms. Bush, confirmed that he was the third party at the lunch and contradicted her denial. "I have not seen the book, I have only seen news reports," Mr. Colasuonno said. "According to what I have seen, what has been reported, I would not dispute that."

So what's going on? First, I don't care if Bush did cocaine. And like I said, Kelley doesn't strike me as honest, and I don't like her. And it's possible that Lou Colasuonno is one of those "disgruntled former employees" we hear so much about.

Of course, the president doesn't strike me as very honest either. I'm sure many voters would be disturbed if he was proven to be a liar about cocaine, and his campaign is denouncing the allegations.

Is there anything better than watching a fight between two people you don't like?