We know that one of the ways the Right has advanced its cause and attacked opponents is by a skillful use of language, coming up with words and phrases that vilify the opposition. One of these was Dowdification, attacking Maureen Dowd for some things she took out of context in one of her columns, using it as synonimous with purposefully misquoting people.

We now have the opportunity of creating a new word ourselves, thanks to Brit Hume's lies about FDR. Should it be Humeify, whcih is when a hack lies about others to support his political agenda? I'm sure others can come up with a better word that includes Hume the Liar's name in it.

Ideas?

(Apologies in advance if something like this has been posted. I couldn't find it.)

If Ford had won back then (it was a close election after all) Reagan would have never been president. In 1980 Ford would have run as an incumbent and by 1984 Reagan would have been much too old for a first time candidate. The Reagan Revolution, as we know it, could have never come to pass. In all likelihood the same issues that killed Carter (lousy economy) would have killed Ford for the second term. Who knows, maybe Ted Kennedy could have won.

They had B50 K46 yesterday.

The close presidential race nudged even closer in the latest ABC News tracking poll, with 49 percent of likely voters favoring George W. Bush and 48 percent for John Kerry — a bare point between them with less than a week and a half of campaigning to go.

Most recent polls from IA had shown Bush ahead, even if by little. This is good news.

Iowans are split on Iraq and whether to elect Sen. John Kerry or President Bush come Nov. 2, according to a survey released Friday by the Iowa Newspaper Association.

The survey found Kerry with a one-point lead over Bush, 46 percent to 45 percent, with 9 percent undecided or voting for others.

Central Surveys Inc., of Shenandoah, conducted the telephone poll of 502 likely voters Oct. 14-19 for the Iowa Newspaper Association. The margin of error is 4 percentage points.

The survey found that, of those who agree with the decision to invade Iraq, 79 percent plan to vote for Bush. Of those who disagree, 84 percent expect to cast their vote for Kerry. Half of those surveyed agreed with sending troops to Iraq, while 46 percent disagreed and 4 percent were undecided.

Those in favor or opposed split along party lines. Rural areas favored Bush, while urban areas supported Kerry.

http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041023/NEWS01/410230320/1079

The race remains tied. But Bush's job approval is only 44%. And Kerry beats Bush 52-38 among newly registered voters.

Turnout is key!

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6553668

What else is there to say?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6527717

The good news is that the spread has tightened to just 2 points.

The even better news, if you believe that an incumbent's poll numbers act as a ceiling for the actual results, is that Bush dropped 2 points.

That means the number of undecideds has increased. And we know who they tend to vote for.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6520756

The Gallup instapoll has been commented on on several diaries but I don't think anyone has linked to the internal analysis.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13549

Also notice the big Kerry advantage among women. The 'angry' meme will help.

My short answer is yes. No, not right now since it would only confuse things. But during his first administration? Absolutely.

And for all those worried, this is a perfectly progressive position. Let me explain.

I think something has been lost in all of this debate.

According to the Washington Post CBS found a real live witness to what Killian actually thought back then, retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges. Hodges was Killian's superior and currently a Bush supporter. Here's what the WP says: