Cold clear evening, dark, driving  north through New York along the border of New England, the AM radio can reach out forever on a night like this, out of Sweeney-Gillibrand country, to Kentucky, Pittsburg, West Virginia, Detoit, Arizona.  We listen to America.

Louisville, Kentucky, analyst Al (Cross?) says KY-2, 3, 4 all up for grabs, and heaven forbid, even KY-1, maybe.  That part of the state they're old, go back to Roosevelt and Truman, may go back to them again.  

[More]

Maybe Vito Fossella, incumbent Republican in NY-13 (Staten Island-Brooklyn), should tell his Mom it's a good idea to cooperate with police, when she's got evidence about a crime.

As reported in the Daily News, a car registered to Mom was speeding in Staten Island when it almost ran down two Asian couples carrying flowers they had just purchased from a florist.  The car stopped, and a man got out and chased the couples with a baseball bat until he realized

[Continued]

UPDATE: OK, as noted in my own comments below, the Presidential junk is not the real point here (an afterthough turned into attention getter, unfortunately more attention than I wanted). The real point is, Murtha needs support and is not getting much (see exchange with Kagro below), and it would be nice if people actually showed their support. You know Democratic politicians; they just need a little encouragement sometimes to do the right thing. Please read on.

As orthogonal notes in his(her) diary below (see "Murtha, storm the beach! We'll wait here."), the Democrats are scurrying away from John Murtha's brave plan for withdrawing our troops.  I think it's crucial that they perceive that there is strong grassroots support for patriotic criticism of the Administration like his, and, more importantly, for a prompt withdrawal from Iraq.  

So I wrote the following to my Senators in the hopes others might follow suit:
 

The current CNN internet poll -- Is the U.S. government doing enough to reduce the nation's dependence on oil? -- has the widest margin I've ever seen: No - 96%,  Yes - 4%.
That's a total of 121,000 votes against 5,000 votes.

Now, I know those polls are unscientific.  But that's one heck of a margin!  Might Democrats take a hint from this?  It seems to me that there is resounding criticism of both President and (Republican) Congress implicit in this result.  Now that we've got a slogan, Together Whatever, it might be nice to propose some policies, some indication what Democrats would do to reduce the nation's dependence on oil.  Seems to me that people are hungering for it.  Has our side said anything yet?  There is probably a perception that Democrats would be better on this issue, but some policies need to be added to that perception to get us a Democratic Congress next year.

Well, the stories being told in the Post and my diner in Upstate Republican Country couldn't have been more different.  The Post was in full bore blame-it-on-the-victims mode.  Gunfire from those ingrates waitng to be rescued turns out to have been the only reason they weren't saved.  (And they had an inside front big color picture of people being picked up by buses in daylight yesterday at the "Convention Center."  Was that genuine?  I was away from TV, but it isn't consistent with what I was hearing.  A lie or am I mistaken?)

On the other hand, the guys at the counter told two quite different stories.  See below for what they took away from the day:

A truly terrible new sentencing provision is going before the full House Judiciary Committee, and then, unless we are lucky, to the full house.  Its main thrust is to make virtually all federal drug distribution crimes (distribute means sell or give or transfer in any way) subject to mandatory minimum penalties.  That is, small street sales (or dorm room transfers) will subject people to a mandatory five years in federal prison, no exceptions.

Its even broader provisions will apply the federal sentencing guidelines as mandatory minimum penalties to all crimes, removing the power of judges to impose lower sentences when appropriate, but not similarly restricting the imposition of higher sentences.    

         Chuckthefacts.org, an arm of the well-endowed Assenberg Center, has provided (without prompting) its evaluation of a televison advertisment by People for the American Way in support of democracy.  The evaluation follows:

A new TV ad campaign by People for the American Way portrays the democratic process as a noble tool of American freedom.  Real-life democracy is another matter, however. It can be used for good or evil. In fact, segregationist Southern legislatures used democracy for years to enact the poll tax and opressive Jim Crow laws, including laws that required strict segregation of the races in transportation, public facilities, entertainment venues, hotels, sporting events, on sports teams, in schools, in restaurants, and the like.  Among the real-life practitioners of democracy were the late segregationist Senators Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi.

I don't really want to think about it, but what if Florida happens all over (and it could be there or Iowa or Michigan or Minnesota or New Mexico or Ohio or Pennsylvania or Wisonsin)?  Who would be the new Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush?

Well, to start on the bright side, four of these states are firmly in Democratic hands, with both governor and secretary of state positions held by Democrats -- IA, NM, PA and WI.  One has a Democratic governor and a Republican Sec'y of State -- MI.  And a big three have Republicans in both positions -- FL, MN and OH.

If one of these has to make a Secretary of State famous, I'd like it to be Wisconsin, for old time's sake.  The Secretary of State of Wisconsin is named Douglas La Follette.    

I propose a new interim rule for the posting of diaries and comments through and including November 2, 2004.  That rule is that before posting a diary or comment, a Kos member must say what he or she is doing today, November 1, or tomorrow, November 2, to get out or protect the vote.  And those who cannot truthfully add such a line shall merely be content readers until the election is over.

Example:  My own first line would be "I have signed up with ACT to get out the vote in Pennsylvania (exact location TBD) on Election Day, and was there with them yesterday."

This rule is intended to assist the election of John F. Kerry and cut down on the number of anxiety-ridden diaries and comments.

I am David in NY, and I approve this message.

     I love voting on the old mechanical, lever operated machines they still use in New York, but that are an endangered species.  I realized this as I cast my absentee ballot at the Brooklyn Board of Elections Office yesterday.  Somehow having to bubble in the oval for the candidates (they must be using optical scan) was not the same.

 (... More below the fold.)  

According to Donkey Rising, http://tinyurl.com/44h9g, Rove thinks Bush has to have a 4-point lead going into the last week-end to win.  That conclusion is based on the premise the undecided will break against the incumbent.

This has been my intuition, althoug I've based it on other grounds.  I think that this election is a lot like Bush v. Gore, with Bush's strong points being negative attacks on his opponent's character as someone untrustworthy.  Gore surely suffered from that, but, it seems to me, in the last days before the election, the undecided think more about real issues, and less about who invented the internet or who has "flip-flopped" or probably what anyone did in 1970.

In short, my analysis is that such flimsy character-based attacks win early or don't win at all, and that the target of them is apt to rebound at the end.  

Whichever analysis you choose, the polls putting Kerry within two points of Bush are wins for us.  

It is, of course, close enough that turnout could change everything, so GOTV.

Josh Marshall and Steve Clemons are covering a new fuss in Tennessee in which Republicans are blaming Democrats for a distasteful flyer showing Bush as a "Special Olympics" runner and using the word "retarded."  
See http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com

Funny thing.  That same flyer was included as a comment on an open thread here on October 5, to the general disgust of the community. See http://tinyurl.com/4hho4.  The commenter was one "Liberal Conservative" who was only around from September 30 to October 5, and who has vanished since then.

So, Liberal Conservative, please tell us, where did you get that flyer?

We are waiting for your response.

 

I have been wondering (since I don't see the stump speeches on TV), but does Kerry ever identify himself or his policies as belonging to the Democratic party?  If not (which is my impression), is this deliberate, and is it time to change?

I get the sense that campaigns (at least Democratic campaigns) do not emphasize party identification.  I guess they hope to win South Dakota if people mistakenly think they are Republicans, or something.  Or maybe they think there is still an automatic equation:  Democrat = high-taxing, free-spending, weak-kneed commie pinko liberal.  I don't think that in this cycle, and after Clinton, either is true anymore.

And I particularly think that if Kerry is surging, making people more favorably disposed to Democrats (this seems to be a pattern in the polls), that he ought to describe his plans as being consistent with (big-D) Democratic values.  Everyone knows Republicans are against taxes and for wars -- it's a chance to define what Democrats are for.

Finally, if he is surging, and party identification is following in this cycle, he might add a point or two to the Democrats in some close Congressional races.  If he's going to be President, the more Democrats in Congress, the better.

And let me know if I'm wrong that he doesn't talk about Democrats or if there is some really good reason not to do this: I'd genuinely be interested.

Well, both sites have up all the "misleading" statements made by the candidate of the other party.  Here is the DNC's: http://tinyurl.com/4bovm.  You're on your own to find the dark side's list, which is pretty laughable and may be in another diary or open thread.

What disturbs me is that the DNC's does not claim that Bush was wrong in saying that 100,000 Iraqi police had been trained.  Why aren't they hitting on this?  Pentagon statistics show that only a little more than 8,000 have been fully trined.  http://tinyurl.com/6mjyc.  I heard Caspar Weinberger on On Point admit that the 100,000 figure is based on how many rations they claim to hand out: but just because they're eating doesn't mean they're trained policemen.

Has the DNC missed the boat on this one?

I worry particularly because Bush is trying to float the flip flop theme again, and Kerry is just out being Presidential.  He better attack or it's Gore all over again.

Bush was wrong and misleading about 100,000 Iraqi Police having been trained.  On Tuesday, I think, Caspar Weinberger admitted on the On Point radio show that this was simply the number of rations we hand out.  No proof they go to police, much less trained police.  Reliable estimates (try Google) are only 20,000 trained.  Biden on TV tonight said not even that many.

Hammer this or they'll smear Kerry.

Bush admits it.  After telling us for weeks we were "turning the corner," he's quit. See CNN's account:  http://tinyurl.com/7ytap.  He won't be saying that anymore.  

This would be a flip-flop if anyone else did it, of course, but it isn't here.  George doesn't flip flop.  And he doesn't listen to polls.  So there's only one conclusion we can draw.  Since George only tells the truth, and he's decided we're not turning the corner, well, we aren't.  

I'm really glad we all agree now.

How to deal with the millions Bush can put into  attack ads later in the season (puppy-kicking, etc.); that's the question, I think.  And I think the best way is to define Bush early on as untrustworthy.  MoveOn can do this; Kerry probably can't yet.  (CW seems to be to accentuate the positive first, and only then go negative.)  If people are convinced what Bush says is not trustworthy, the attack ads may lose their force and even boomerang.  How to do this?  Bush said it was urgent to invade Iraq because they had WMD's -- not so.  Bush said tax breaks for the rich would produce millions of jobs for the middle class --  not even close. You choose the third one.  What would it be?