I've had a really crazy week so I haven't posted much. Here's a little roundup as we head into the weekend.
* Polls: If you're a Kerry supporter, the polls over the last couple weeks might have you in a tizzy. Don't worry. This is Bush's bounce following the convention. It's doubtful his lead will get any higher. There are a variety of polls out; the ones that give Bush a five point lead or less are probably on target. Anway, national polls don't mean that much, not when the election will come down to what happens in fewer than 10 states. There's a great site called www.electoral-vote.com that updates where the race is electorally, according to the latest polls. Check it out.
* Bush's Guard service: I can't get too worked up about the Bush Guard revelations. Let's see: a rich, connected kid used his family's name to get him out of going to Vietnam? Shocking. Here's what's essential in this discussion. A professor of Bush's says the President supported the Vietnam War. At the same time, he did everything he could to avoid going. Kerry, on the other hand, was conflicted about the war, but volunteered to go. That's all you need to know. As for the Bush documents being forgeries, let's just agree on this: Dan Bartlett and the White House communications staff never questioned what was contained in the memos as being true. Their interviews were funny: they never disputed the facts; they just kept saying the whole thing was dirty politics.
* The media: Dreadful. Really abysmal. I want to throw up everytime I hear some media joker lament the lack of substance in the election. If you ass clowns in the media did any actual reporting, maybe that would change. Just imagine if the New York Times sent its fashion editor to cover a baseball game. The story might read, "The New York Yankess baseball team, dressed in smashing pinstripes, seemed to be sending a message to the rest of the league that baggy uniforms are in." You probably wouldn't learn until the 15th paragraph whether the Yanks won. It's the same thing with general political reporters. They invariably focus on the personalities or "he said-she said" conflicts that invariably rise during campaigns. Why don't they have reporters who are experts in health care or terrorism covering these issues? Laziness. That's all it is. And not so incidentally, this plays right into the Repugs' hands. Simply put: they don't want anyone to analyze their record which is quite possibly the worst in modern history.
* Cheney's comments: Fear. That's all they have to sell. Someone put it best by asking if FDR would have taken such delight in exploiting Pearl Harbor in a run for President. Of course not, but Bush doesn't care because he obviously sees the worst terror attack in US history, which took place under his watch, as the highlight of his first term.