1. Kevin didn't "finally" come around, he was doubtful from the get-go.

2. His comments have always really sucked, yikes.

"If Bush wins in November, and I think he will, then there will be recriminations and fury [on the left] of the like we have not seen since the Right imploded after 1964."

That's a mighty big IF. Also, if Kerry wins November - and I do think he will - there will be a major civil war between all the different factions of the Republican Party: social conservatives, "South Park Republicans", conservative Chrisitans, libertarians, conservative isolationist, neoconservatives, etc.

The Republican Party cannot take a defeat; it is too fractured to withstand defeat. If the Democrats/Left lose, they will lose as a united front. Their collapse will force a deep reexamination of its poor management of an election that should be Kerry's for the taking. A Bush defeat will force Republicans to examine what they stand for and who really controls the party.

So dont talk about the impending death of the Kerry Campaign and the Democrats just yet. We have a long 5-6 weeks to go.

Yeah, what SAO said about Kevin -- he never really bought it. Furthermore, (though not here) his position has been mischaracterized as "The documents are forged, but it doesn't matter because their contents are true," which is, er, a bit different from his actual position of "The documents are probably not accurate, but evidence of known provenance exists to much the same effect."

Er, "genuine", not "accurate." The existence of a faked UFO picture doesn't prove that mankind is alone in the universe.

Please don't blog this like it was a victory unless or until Dan Rather and his whole crew are fired. Right now it is a hot fight - and by default the good guys will lose and the army of lies, slander and forgery will win.

The only way for the good guys to win is to fight smart and keep on keeping on long, long after thus will have become ancient history in blog time - and I don't know if the good guys can do either.

I very much want right to win this one. Fraud and slander are not election chaff, they are morally important issues. And it's the right time to fight on this battleground. And it would just absolutely suck to lose this one, against clear-cut proven forgery, fraud and malice. It's not right that those who have acted and are still acting in clear-cut morally evil ways should just stonewall, watch the watchdogs bark themselves hoarse and then go quiet, and then the bad guys get away with it.

Everybody, please at least consider doing something (from this article full of intelligent suggestions) to help win this, especially if you live in America. At least read it and see what you think. Because I think Jim Geraghty is spot on.

David Blue (banging that war drum)

Now, as a rule I don't believe conspiracy theories. They are too neat, and always refuse to accept the importance of chance, incompetence and unintended consequences.

But just for fun, here's my Conspiracy Theory for the 2004 Presidential Election -- feel free to spread it if you want to:

John Kerry was supposed to lose. The Democratic Party leadership calculated, wisely, that they were likely to lose against an incumbent during an economic upturn and in the War On Terror climate. Their strongest potential runner was, and is , Hillary Clinton. But they won't risk losing her...

...so they pick a sacrificial lamb, a blowhard Northern senator who couldn't possibly win any presidential election, and let him run. The trick is to pretend that he can win, and then make sure the campaign sinks.

How's THAT for a conspiracy theory? Everything fits! (Of course, I'm only kidding. What do I know about U.S. politics? I'm Swedish. ;-P)

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

Yeah, I know my appeal looks damned uncool - no suavity, no irony, no cool or reserve. But . . .

(shrug) There are things you don't fudge. I don't know a better way to express it.

(not in any way autobiographical, but just hoping the eloquent words of professional may be more persuasive than mine) . . .

Jack Vincennes : Why in the world do you wanna go digging any deeper into the Nite Owl killings, Lieutenant?
Ed Exley : Rollo Tomasi.
Jack Vincennes : Is there more to that or am I supposed to guess?
Ed Exley : Rolo was a purse snatcher. My father ran into him off duty, and he shot my father six times and got away clean. No one even knew who he was. I just made the name up to give him some personality.
Jack Vincennes : What's your point?
Ed Exley : Rolo Tomasi is the reason I became a cop. I wanted to catch the guys who thought they could get away with it. It's supposed to be about justice.
- L.A. Confidential (1997)

David Blue (banging that war drum)

No, the conspiracy theory doesn't make sense for the Democrats, because there's too much damage that can be done by having a weak Presidential candidate in Senate and House races. Now, it may well be Hillary's conspiracy theory, but the Clintons were pretty clearly backing Wes Clark in the primaries. Kerry got nominated, because - oh heck, I still don't understand how Kerry got nominated. Supposedly, he was the most electable, but to quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

By the way, as a Democrat who wants to have someone run a competent campaign that doesn't let the Republican set the terms of the debate, I'll state right now that I'm supporting Hillary in 2008. (I do reserve the right to change my opinion in the slim chance that Obama runs.)

David Blue

As I posted before.

Now here’s my take on CBS and their stand concerning the documents which they are now playing off saying they aren’t important but what is important is the story they tell.

Here’s why it’s bad.
1 ) 60 Minutes II was modeled after 60 Minutes. The show when it first aired presented a view and substantiated facts to go with it. Yes the views were meant to be controversial but they were not fabrications.
2 ) Due to the nature of the facts surrounding the supposedly substantiated material aired by 60 Minutes II the show has now lost all credibility it may have once enjoyed.
3 ) CBS so far has shown no intentions of correcting the erroneous reporting or slip shod work done on the story.

How to fix it.
1 ) Fess up to the errors. (IE swallow your pride we all do some times and it’s nothing to be ashamed of)
2 ) State the show is nothing more than another super market scandal magazine thereby alerting everyone this is nothing more than Jerry Springer entertainment on TV.

Take your pick either one works for me.

I for one don’t agree that some grass roots movement needs to be initiated to stuff some one’s head on my wall. Nor do I believe the CBS enterprise should be completely gutted simply because of this bit of stupidity. I wouldn’t ask for it unless there was some absolute proof of intent by CBS to willingly and fraudulently mislead the public I’m sure Dan has already lost a lot of credibility with his peers. If in fact it is Dan that is standing in the way of his peers and their work I’m sure they’ll chew him up and spit him out. You see Dan stands alone in this matter and I doubt very seriously he’ll be invited to anything other than talk shows in the near future if he continues down this path.

Not only Kevin, but most of the liberal sites (maybe except Atrios) were skeptical about the genuineness of the memos. Heck, even I was.

Most of Drum's comments are nothing like the excerpts here, and except for "Zizka", they may be trolls and cranks.

My pet theory that the forgeries originated in Rove's office to immunize Bush from legitimate inquiry into the last two years of Guard duty doesn't have any evidence, either. I think I'll have to acknowledge that some other Bush-hater was so phenomenally stupid as to pass these memos off as genuine and original (I think it's very possible that they are paraphrasures of memos that once existed) and the net result is probably a boomerang-plus for Bush. Why CBS published the story so uncritically, given no sign to date of a rock-solid source, is beyond stupid into the inexplicable. And I agree with Drum that hunting around for a typewriter that might have produced the memos is a waste of time; if they are somehow rehabilitated it will have to come from the other end, by establishing some reasonable chain of custody.

What's happening in Drum's comments doesn't, I think, prefigure much of a bloodletting inside the Democratic Party. Zizka, if I recall correctly, is a Naderite supporting Kerry as the lesser of evils. Zell and VDH want the Dems to fall apart, as best as I can tell for their sin of opposing George Bush at a time that they found meaning in their lives behind ultra-aggressive and now-failed policies that should have stayed as video games. I don't see it.

And the other thing that's driving the commenters nuts: where was this chorus of skepticism, not to mention the ability to leapfrog into the mainstream media, over the Swift Boat liars? Has any mainstream medium mentioned that Adm. Schachte's self-presentation as a political independent was a falsehood? (Irrespective of his formal identification, his web-accessible contributions history is overwhelmingly Republican.) And I just can't help myself, I must mention that our latest WMD-searcher in Iraq, who still held out hope he'd find those elusive nukes even after David Kay had given up. has likewise thrown in the towel. Where was the skepticism then?

"If Bush wins in November, and I think he will, then there will be recriminations and fury [on the left] of the like we have not seen since the Right imploded after 1964."

What recriminations and fury are we talking about? Can some one clarify that? Some how or another I keep getting these vivid images from Wild in the Streets 1968. Yes I know I’m showing my age again but maybe this would be a very good movie for the younger generations to watch and learn from.

A.R.Yngve
As to conspiracy theories concerning why Kerry was elected to run against Bush. I don’t buy any of it. The only reason Kerry was elected was because out of all the candidates that wanted the job he’s the one they picked. They didn’t pick Hillary. Why? She didn’t throw her hat in the ring. I wont argue the point that Hillary in 2008 isn’t a possibility but a lot of things can happen between now and then.

I know this is off topic but we can play the what if game.
Does anyone here believe Dan and CBS committed this atrocity to undermine Kerry’s campaign with forethought and malice?

Does anyone here of the Democratic persuasion believe Hillary will run against Kerry if Kerry wins 2004? If not why not? We all know Hillary has very high political ambitions but waiting for eight years versus four puts her in a very weak position in my opinion.

Does anyone here believe Kerry wont run in 2008 if Bush wins 2004? Kerry certainly hasn’t given up his senate seat now has he?

Does anyone here of the Democratic persuasion believe Hillary will run against Kerry if Kerry wins 2004? If not why not? We all know Hillary has very high political ambitions but waiting for eight years versus four puts her in a very weak position in my opinion.

Depending, obviously, on how good a president Kerry is, I'd still say "Very Unlikely". The largest daylight between them is HRC has been talking as more of a hawk, and I think after we finally get ourselves out of the qWagmire, American anti-terorist strategy won't look that much like anything on the board just now.

I don't think Kerry would run in 2008 if he loses, because Dems will blame him personally and his chosen campaign issues and personnel. This goes double if the Dems maintain or improve in Congress, which looks like the way to bet now.

OTOH, should Bush win, I think Al Gore will run in 2008 (and also HRC).

Sorry, but Kevin is in bed with Rather on this one. The fingerprints of the DNC and the Kerry campaign are all over the nightstand and the bedside lamp. The recriminations over this debacle will tear the democratic party to shreds.

Just a little realism here about Democrats, from someone who is one. Ideologicaly the party is far closer together--thanks to GWB and his attempt to rule like a King rather than govern like a President--than I have ever seen them before. I don't think that will change, even if GWB wins.

In that event, the primary struggle among us will be tactical--trying to come to terms with the possibility, that a positive campaign--based on real needs, real results, and real issues--is no longer an option, and that we must lengthen and sharpen our knives and be ready to gut any of our opponents unmercifully, from day one, and for the duration, in 2008.

The possiblity of having to create as good a smear machine as our opponents have personally sickens me. But we'll have plenty of time to put one together if GWB wins and its already fairly clear who the top five on the bench are if he does.

I repeat my personal theory that neither campaign was involved in this (though it is just a theory, and we shall see as this develops).

Ihe thing is, the forgeries were so poor that introducing them from a political campaign into the media has (a) very low odds of success if the media does any checking at all - I mean, this thing completely came apart at just about every seam imaginable; and (b) high blowback risk if it does fail.

My bet is that it will turn out to be one or a few disgruntled people, who shopped it around, and that CBS' famously biased crew were the only ones who bit.

I hope the democratic party pursues the Joseph Marshall plan when they lose this November. It will guarantee their continued loss in election after election, for as long as it is used. For, you see, it is exactly the approach taken this year. The mother Teresa facade taken on by the DNC may be convincing to the true believers, but anyone on the outside has to be laughing his guts out at the absurdity.

Sorry, but Kevin is in bed with Rather on this one. The fingerprints of the DNC and the Kerry campaign are all over the nightstand and the bedside lamp.

A rather curious question coming from someone who swore the memos were genuine.

When your heroes are Michael Moore and Dan Rather, asking the other side for evidence is rather lame.

If Marshall is correct, and the Democrats are ideologically closer together than ever before, it can only be because the oft-discussed partisan re-alignment has already taken place; formerly Democratic adults have walked away in deep disgust, leaving the party's skeleton to the Petulant Left.

If this be so, then it will be seen in November in an overwhelming Bush victory in an election with very low turnout, as the Democratic right stays home with a "plague on both your houses" attitude.

This, incidentally, is why I find theories that either or both Clintons are deliberately sabotaging Kerry's campaign to be unconvincing. A substantial loss by Kerry will fracture the Democratic Party along tranzie/Jacksonian lines; I would then expect the Republicans to rack up impressive electoral victories in the 2006-2014 period, not because people are in love with their ideas or their standard-bearers, but simply because they have no worthwhile opposition. The Clintons could not pull the factions back together. Even with the rise of the Jacksonians as a potent political force in the 2016 election (and I expect that they will pull the "Reagan Democrats" and the Republican left; the Republican candidate's vote will probably be 20-30% less than it was four years previously), the Jacksonians would never nominate Hillary for President. The tranzie wing of the party might do so, but, whilst I expect them to be a non-negligible political force for decades to come, I do not expect them to win the Presidency whilst elections are still meaningful.

Joseph Marshall

In that event, the primary struggle among us will be tactical--trying to come to terms with the possibility, that a positive campaign--based on real needs, real results, and real issues--is no longer an option, and that we must lengthen and sharpen our knives and be ready to gut any of our opponents unmercifully, from day one, and for the duration, in 2008.”

(emphasis mine)
Am I to take it that these are the recriminations and fury you are speaking of? If that is the tact taken then you will have lost before you even begin. People will quickly realize that the party will turn on itself if chaos is allowed to reign. People will quickly come to the conclusion that there is no end game in the Democratic philosophy and that it is only means justifying an end. So where’s the substance? I need only point to the demonstrators at both conventions. It certainly didn’t seem to me that they were demonstrating in favor of party goals they were demonstrating against people of like mind to gather and provide there given right of input to a system that governs them.

”The possiblity of having to create as good a smear machine as our opponents have personally sickens me.”

Who created the smear machines?

Beltran, you're a damned liar.

I was skeptical of the physical appearance of the memos from the minute I saw the LGF superposition. September 9 comment.

I did suspect that the memos were OCRs or transcriptions, but since CBS makes no such claim, I certainly can't on their behalf.

Now you have two challenges: find me swearing to the authenticity of the memos, and produce some evidence that the DNC or Kerry campaigns are responsible. Until then, why don't you just crawl back into your hole?

Who created the smear machines?

The Federalists, running against Jefferson? I think they accused him of fathering bastards on his slaves, and lo and behold, much later the smear looks true.

Well, turnabout is fair play, Andrew.

You accused the whole memo thing on Karl Rove with no evidence other than your know that Karl Rove is the source of all evil in the universe.

You certianly can't turn around and ask for proof after making that same ridiculous claim yourself.

;)

I have never claimed that Rove's fingerprints have been found on the memo, or anything else so strong. Fingerprints implies evidence of possession and dissemination.

Lazarus, you're a blathering idiot as well as a damned liar. Your dishonest postings follow you around the internet like flies following a shit wagon. You still have a few weeks until the election, to straighten yourself out, and improve your reputation just a bit. I hope you avail yourself of this grace period.
:-)

Beltran, have you found any posting where I defend the authenticity of the Killian memos? (You could try the thread at Atrios, where it was suggested I "bend over for brownshirts" because I said the preponderance of the evidence indicates forgery.)

The smiley doesn't make your repeated accusation of dishonesty any less vulgar, nor any more truthful. You've made a statement about my beliefs that is not true, and that I suspect you now realize is not true.

The Democrat Party is a marriage of convenience between several totally disparate single-issue groups. They don't realize (care?) that there are threats facing the country that dwarf their pet peeves into insignificance. The old ones who care (Lieberman, maybe Biden) are too old to get attention. Any young ones who care have left the party (Sullivan's "eagles"). (Incidentally, they will fracture the Rep party in 10 years; supporting the WoT isn't enough to paper over the social-policy differences.)

The only thing holding them together as a party is "Anybody but Bush" and that has a very short shelf life.

Lay off of Andrew. He may have a few screws loose, but that comes from his supporting insupportable causes. He tries to be honest, be sure of that.

You know, that's a good note on which to close this thread. Doesn't look like it's going anywhere useful.

Tina, your comment is prescient - we have a piece running tomorrow that addresses exactly these issues. See you all in that debate.