Ok, there hasn't been an open thread in a while and I didn't see anyone else post this, but CNN's web poll right now is:

Do you believe the Democrats' 'wuss factor' is real?
Yes or No

Currently at 53% No to 47% Yes.

http://www.cnn.com/

Lame, I know, but let's crush this thing.  Freep away!

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

-

An open letter to George W. Bush

Dear Mr. President,

I'm really trying to understand what's going on inside your head.  I desperately need you to try and explain something to me.

Now, I admit I can be reflexively cynical when it comes to politics, so for the moment, I'm putting aside that attitude and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.  Starting with your motivations for striving to become the President in the first place.  I'm assuming you felt you were the man for the job because you care, you have a vision for our nation, and that you feel deeply that you have the understanding and the wisdom to lead the country in the direction it needs to go.  That's right, isn't it?

[continued below...]

Steven Levy has a column in this week's issue raising many important points about e-voting without paper-trails...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6595385/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/

A few key paragraphs:

Almost a month after the presidential election, I'm still getting missives from people who insist that things don't smell right. They draw on a litany of irregularities that are well-circulated in the blogosphere, the Blue States and maybe even subterranean corners of the Red nation...

More below the fold...

An industrious poster provided this spreadsheet link of Fl counties by voting method that includes party ID percentages etc.  

http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm

This just doesn't look possible.  Look at the optical scan precincts and the ridiculously high over-performance of Reps and dismal under-performance of Dems.

I did the aggregate math and show that of the optical scan precincts, the total number of votes over/under that would be expected by party ID is

Rep  +521,993 (36% over expected)
Dem  -57,729  (-3.8% under expected)

Maybe this is real demographic shift, and true party switching but it sure doesn't make sense to me. Anyone from these FL counties think this makes sense?

According to CNN 11/3 10:30am Pacific time)
Bush+Kerry+Nader total votes with 99% precincts counted is 114,260,960

According to this Washington Post graphic of the exit polls by gender:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/graphics/exitPolls.html

54% of voters were female and 46% were male.  
54% of 114,260,960 is 61,700,918
46% of 114,260,960 is 52,560,042

According to the exit polls Kerry won the female vote 54/45 and lost the male vote 47/52.

Kerry's totals:
54% of 61,700,918 is 33,318,496
47% of 52,560,042 is 24,703,220
Total: 58,021,715

Bush's totals:
45% of 61,700,918 is 27,765,413
52% of 52,560,042 is 27,331,222
Total: 55,096,635

Kerry wins popular vote by 2,925,081 or 2.6%

The Wash Post site says "Sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 1 percentage point"

Am I missing something?  Something looks very wrong here!

If you look at the MSNBC exit polls, Kerry won both females and males in Ohio.

He also won the national popular vote in the exit polls.  

Am I the only one feeling like something is very wrong here??

I've watch repeatedly how the Bush camp were dejected when they saw the exit polls and were relieved when the actual vote was tabulated.

Are we to believe that people lied to the pollsters, or were the exit polls that pathetically off?

I hope the Kerry camp is loaded for bear right now.  I'm pissed off!!!!

I normally wouldn't use the diaries for a humor link, but the open thread is a little stale and this is pretty funny stuff. After the pressure of the debate, it seems a chuckle's in order.

A friend just sent me this link.  These are the notes Bush was scribbling during the debate.

http://www.thatsuncalledfor.com/debate_notes/

Apologies if this has been covered in the diaries, but I didn't see it.  

This is a fantastic piece of work in my opinion.

Once you're in the comic, clicking on the image brings you to the next page.

http://www.whatareyouvotingfor.com/comicindex.html

Apologies if someone else has pushed this, but James Fallows has an exceptional essay in the Oct Atlantic Monthly on "Bush's Lost Year."

This has nothing to do with the TANG fiasco, it's a devistating chronicle of how the war in Iraq has undermined the war on terror.  I highly recommend seeking it out.

The summation grafs are below the fold.  I feel like he's articulated beautifully exactly what I've been screaming to anyone within earshot about what a catastrophe this administration has been for our nation's security.

A local Daily paper in my area (normally a pretty conservative paper) published a very good editorial on the Swift Boat ads last week.  They denounced the ads and showed how Kerry's words were deliberately taken out of context.

They also quoted the passage below, which I understand is Kerry's closing statement before the Senate in 1971.  I had never seen this before and found it eloquent and moving.  

I just thought I'd pass it along...

JOHN KERRY:
"We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done, and all that they can do by this denial, is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission: To search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war; to pacify our own hearts; to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last 10 years and more. And more. And so, when, 30 years from now, our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say 'Vietnam' and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned, and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning."

I purchased and watched the "outfoxed" video last night.  it was quite good, I thought, but also pretty damn depressing about the state of our news media in America.  

Well after watching that last night, I read the following letter to the editor in my local daily paper:

My mom got this email from a relative and wants to know if there's truth in it.  I'm not very knowledgeable on the history of Social Security and wondered if someone could help refute this because my guess is it's almost completely b.s.

Anyone?

-------------

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right!  Immigrants moved into this country, and at 65, got SSI Social Security! The Democratic Party gave that to them, although they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security.

And the worst part about it is, people believe it!

2004 Election Issue
This must be an issue in "04." Please! Keep it going.  Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Congress men &women do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it.  After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.

For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.  This is calculated on an average life span for each.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $00.00. Nada. Zilch. This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them.. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds-our tax dollars at work!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) --we can expect to get an average $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000. monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to and help spread the word?
-------------------------------------

We all know it's coming.  The papers are trumpeting the Bush Administrations grandiose preparations for launching their official campaign.  We've known all along that once the Dem primary furvor dies down, we're going to get slammed hard with everything the GOP has at their disposal.

How can the Dem candidates use the doctrine of pre-emptive political warfare against Bush?  While we're still at the podium, I would like to see us get out ahead of the barrage and neutralize as much of it as we can.  Kerry, Edwards and the DNC should be getting a strong message out to the American public basically saying:

"Here it comes... watch for it... Bush and GOP have unlimited money and you're going to be seeing an onslaught of slick, expensive ads that will attempt to convince you that __ is true, when in reality, __ is true.   They're going to attack us/me saying that we/I __, when in actuality, we/I really __.  

They've got unprecedented resources to try and make their case, but the American people are too smart to be duped by sheer production values.  All the slick advertising in the world can't erase Bush's growing credibility gap.  Money can't turn lies into truth."

I just seems to me that if we can figure out the Bush campaign's main fronts of attack and pre-debunk them before they even launch, we can nullify some of the GOPs money advantage.  Any thoughts?  Am I being naïve?

I'm one of those that believe there are a group within the modern conservative movement who have ulterior motives in pushing for the massive tax cuts and resulting deficits we've seen under Bush.  I subscribe to the theory that for people like Grover Norquist, it's all about starving the Federal Government to the point where we are forced to dismantle/restructure Social Security and Medicare.

I believe Paul Krugmann has talked about this.  I'm reading(slogging thru) his book and I think the introduction painted this picture of a revolutionary political force etc.   He asks the question, why is it so difficult to believe that the Bush Administration has these unstated goals when the think-tanks and foundations that drive the conservative movement are open about their disdain for the New Deal and Great Society?

I was debating my GOP-voting Dad last night about this and he asked for sources and references.  He simply can't fathom why anyone would want to kill Social Security or Medicare.  I think he's extremely naïve and trusting.  Any help out there?  I've checked out Heritage Foundation, Club for Growth, Americans for Tax Reform and haven't found any smoking guns, so to speak.  Thanks in advance.  -Roadie