He didn’t say it directly, but he did use all the code words:

BUSH: I really don’t have — haven’t picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn’t pick. I wouldn’t pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn’t be said in a school because it had the words “under God” in it. I think that’s an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That’s a personal opinion. That’s not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we’re all — you know, it doesn’t say that. It doesn’t speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We’ve got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year — the next four years. And that’s the kind of judge I’m going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

The first code word is “strict constructionists,” whose basic ideology is that the Constitution only applies to matters that it directly and specifically addresses, and that any interpretation beyond that is not within the court’s power; to these people, there is no such thing as “intent of the founders,” and they would judge no new law from the original intent or principles derived from the constitution. Any new law is acceptable so long as it is not directly addressed in the constitution.

As such, Bush’s remark that he wants “strict constructionists” and that the “judges interpret the Constitution” are not exactly consistent.

The right wing found strict constructionism as their legal philosophy while trying to find a way to fight Roe v. Wade; traditionally, it has been a Libertarian point of view. If one applies strict constructionism, Roe. v. Wade would be struck down, as would many other issues concerning civil rights and probably separation of church and state. This goes along with the current Republican agenda to remove power from the judicial so that conservatives in the legislative branch can pass whatever laws they wish with no challenge on their constitutionality.

Another code word from Bush’s rhetoric was the Dred Scott decision, which, for those of you who forgot about it since high school, was a rather infamous Supreme Court decision which ruled that blacks were not citizens and were constitutionally the property of the slaveholders. Dred Scott is a famously popular case held up by pro-life groups as an example of how an entire class of people can be regarded as property to be dealt with without concern for their rights. The argument is that fetuses today are like blacks at the time of Dred Scott.

Bush’s reference, therefore (as first pointed out by Paperweight), is little more than a code word meaning that he will have Roe stricken just as Dred Scott was.

Other comments on Bush’s remarks: his joke about how he would “want them [Supreme Court justices] all voting for me” was borderline at best; few have forgotten how the politically partisan 5-4 vote on Bush v. Gore–considered by many as an illegal decision at least, and a coup d’état at most–handed Bush the presidency in 2000. It’s a ballsy thing to joke about.

He also called the courts’ ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance a “personal opinion,” which is fiction, of course, but then on these matters, such fiction is standard fare for Republican politicians. The core issue of the pledge, of course, is the First Amendment and its protection that prevents the state–in this case public schools–from requiring any American citizen–in this case, schoolchildren–to make a religious pledge, and to prevent that government agency from endorsing any one belief system. It is a core constitutional matter on civil rights with very little real ambiguity (the only lack of clarity is in the GOP fiction), which is why the GOP is trying so hard to pass a law that would prevent the courts from ruling on “Pledge protection” laws without having to amend the Constitution to achieve that.

Finally, on the litmus test, Bush says that he would have “no litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.” However, since what he defines as “interpreting the Constitution” covers almost every major issue before the courts, he is essentially saying that he will choose a judge based upon a wide range of litmus tests, especially Roe v. Wade.

BUSH: Non-homeland, non-defense discretionary spending was raising at 15 percent a year when I got into office. And today it’s less than 1 percent, because we’re working together to try to bring this deficit under control.

Like you, I’m concerned about the deficit. But I am not going to shortchange our troops in harm’s way. And I’m not going to run up taxes, which will cost this economy jobs.

I caught it in the live coverage of the debate, but did not follow up on it–so many lies to deal with. Kevin Drum reported on this one:

Outside of the personal fantasyland Bush seems to inhabit, the truth is simple: spending of all kinds has skyrocketed under his administration — with help from a Republican Congress, of course. Non-defense discretionary spending in particular has increased twice as fast as under Bush 1, three times as fast as Clinton, and four times as fast as Carter. And remember: this doesn’t include defense spending, entitlement spending, or homeland security. 9/11 and Medicare have nothing to do with it.

It’s laughable for Bush to pretend to be a frugal spender, working his tail off to bring an out-of-control Clinton budget down to earth. He’s spending our children’s money as fast as he can print it, and debate fact checkers shouldn’t let him get away with pretending otherwise.

The proof? Drum prints the following data from the Boston.com News showing the non-defense discretionary spending that Bush mentioned:

• Nixon/Ford: 6.8% per year
• Carter: 2.0% per year
• Reagan: -1.3% per year
• H. W. Bush 1: 4.0% per year
• Clinton: 2.5% per year
• W. Bush: 8.2% per year

In chart form:

Sooooo, Bush’s claim that Clinton was raising this spending at 15% and Bush cut it down to 1% is not exactly true. In fact, it is so outrageously untrue that one can only wonder what statistical gymnastics Bush could have performed to get his numbers–or if he was just plain making shit up. Usually, politicians “massage” the numbers to get what they want so they can still claim they were telling some version of the truth, but it is hard to see how Bush could have even done that. Maybe took the absolute worst month from Clinton and best month from his term and then claimed that each represented all from both? Whatever his statistical contortions were, it would be impossible for him to claim that he was not trying to make people believe an outright lie here.

Let’s see how that works. Note the chart above, which shows the real spending rates. Now look at what a chart would have to appear like if the numbers were what Bush claimed:

Doesn’t exactly match up, does it? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

That’s Bush for you.

This surprised me–I thought Kerry had flubbed his line about Bush earning $84 from a timber company; Bush scored his biggest laughs of the night by acting like Kerry had gone nuts, claiming Bush owned a timber company.

But it turns out, he does, and Kerry was right–Bush earned $84 from it:

President Bush himself would have qualified as a ‘small business owner’ under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise.

Other weak debate utterances by Bush: when Kerry pointed out that Bush had broken a promise to have enough forces to get the job done, Bush countered:

I remember sitting in the White House looking at those generals, saying, “Do you have what you need in this war? Do you have what it takes?”

I remember going down to the basement of the White House the day we committed our troops as last resort, looking at Tommy Franks and the generals on the ground, asking them, “Do we have the right plan with the right troop level?”

And they looked me in the eye and said, “Yes, sir, Mr. President.” Of course, I listen to our generals. That’s what a president does. A president sets the strategy and relies upon good military people to execute that strategy.

First, “as a last resort”? Right. The inspectors were telling him that they were getting access and were not finding WMD; instead of letting them continue (and they were finding the truth), Bush yanked them out and invaded instead of waiting for real results.

But the main point here? First, Bush is essentially laying the onus on the generals–they decided the troop levels, and if you think it was wrong, Bush leaves you no choice but to blame the generals. But, second, as Kerry pointed out, the generals only got what they wanted for the original invasion, and not for the occupation afterwards. If Bush is trying to claim that he always delivered the troops his people were asking for, then he will not be believed except by his core supporters.

Another misstatement:

I vowed to our countrymen that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. That’s why we’re bringing Al Qaida to justice. Seventy five percent of them have been brought to justice.

Actually, that’s only 75% of a few dozen known leaders. That is not all of al Qaeda, and does not count all the leaders, even those we do know about.

Then there’s Bush’s insistence that votes on reproductive rights are black and white, yes or no, no in-betweens:

KERRY: Well, again, the president just said, categorically, my opponent is against this, my opponent is against that. You know, it’s just not that simple. No, I’m not. I’m against the partial-birth abortion, but you’ve got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother.

Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I’m not going to require a 16-or 17-year-old kid who’s been raped by her father and who’s pregnant to have to notify her father. So you got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn’t have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help, I voted against it. It’s never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.

GIBSON: And 30 seconds, Mr. President.

BUSH: Well, it’s pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no? And he was given a chance to vote, and he voted no. And that’s just the way it is. That’s a vote. It came right up. It’s clear for everybody to see. And as I said: You can run but you can’t hide the reality.

So, we can assume that Bush would ban an abortion of a non-viable fetus necessary to save the life of the moth, and would force a 16-year-old girl to get her father’s permission for an abortion after her father raped her and made her pregnant. After all, it’s yes or no, right? This was one of Bush’s most outrageous assertions of the evening; Kerry, on the other hand, did an excellent job of pointing out the complexities that real life presents us.

Then finally, in one of Bush’s biggest failures in the debate, he failed to answer a legitimate question of a woman in the audience about his errors: name his three biggest mistakes and what he did to correct them. When I heard the question, I was certain that Bush would have a pat answer ready, with some weak semi-errors that would not hurt him but make him appear humble. I thought he’d have made such an answer ready soon after he took body blows from not answering it before. To my surprise, he was as unprepared for that question today as he was before:

QUESTION: President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.

BUSH: I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them little, like appointments to boards you never heard of, and some of them big. And in a war, there’s a lot of — there’s a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say: He shouldn’t have done that. He shouldn’t have made that decision. And I’ll take responsibility for them. I’m human.

But on the big questions, about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I’ll stand by those decisions, because I think they’re right. That’s really what you’re — when they ask about the mistakes, that’s what they’re talking about. They’re trying to say, “Did you make a mistake going into Iraq?” And the answer is, “Absolutely not.” It was the right decision.

The Duelfer report confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program. And the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. We knew he hated us. We knew he’d been — invaded other countries. We knew he tortured his own people.

On the tax cut, it’s a big decision. I did the right decision. Our recession was one of the shallowest in modern history.

Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I’m not going to name them. I don’t want to hurt their feelings on national TV.

(LAUGHTER)

Essentially, he dodged the question, answering it only in joke form (though it was crystal clear that, if he was serious about the appointments, everyone is precisely aware of the appointments he spoke of, those being the people who left his administration and criticized him later.

But the overall impression from the answer was that he didn’t believe that he had made any mistakes. And that arrogance may cost him some on election day.

Kerry had a few very good presentations in this debate. The first was on importing drugs from Canada:

John, you heard the president just say that he thought he might try to be for it.

Four years ago, right here in this forum, he was asked the same question: Can’t people be able to import drugs from Canada? You know what he said? “I think that makes sense. I think that’s a good idea” — four years ago.

Now, the president said, “I’m not blocking that.” Ladies and gentlemen, the president just didn’t level with you right now again. … The president also took Medicare, which belongs to you. And he could have lowered the cost of Medicare and lowered your taxes and lowered the costs to seniors.

You know what he did? He made it illegal, illegal for Medicare to do what the V.A. does, which is bulk purchase drugs so that you can lower the price and get them out to you lower.

He put $139 billion of windfall profit into the pockets of the drug companies right out of your pockets. That’s the difference between us. The president sides with the power companies, the oil companies, the drug companies. And I’m fighting to let you get those drugs from Canada, and I’m fighting to let Medicare survive.

I’m fighting for the middle class. That is the difference.

The next point Kerry scored was on his vow about taxes:

QUESTION: Senator Kerry, would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?

KERRY: Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera. Yes. I am not going to raise taxes.

This was strong, convincing and bolstering–but it could also be held against him whether he breaks the vow or not, just like “read my lips” was used against Bush I. For example, let’s say that Kerry wins, and the Republicans throw out a small tax cut for the middle class loaded with pork or something else unacceptable, and Kerry vetoes it–by their standards, voting against a tax cut is equal to a tax hike, and upon a Kerry veto Republicans would start throwing the “Right into the camera” line back at him.

Finally, Kerry gave a great answer about abortion funding to the woman who was clearly pro-life, explaining about separating faith from governance, about respecting the beliefs of everyone:

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that.

But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society. But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.

Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don’t deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can’t afford it otherwise.

That’s why I think it’s important. That’s why I think it’s important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.

I think this will be acceptable to people leaning pro-life but not ardently so, and it will be a strong point in favor of Kerry for people in the pro-choice majority as well as those who are on the fence on the issue.

Not everything went so smoothly for Kerry. He flubbed a line explaining how small businesses are defined and accidental said that Bush owned a lumber firm. (He meant to say that anyone earning even a small amount from partial ownership in a firm is counted as a “small business” by Republicans when making up their figures on the issue.) Kerry also decided to give the 1.6 million job loss figure, factoring out government-sector jobs, instead of using the more standard, though lower figure of 821,000, and still made just as strong an impression about the jobless recovery. Kerry also failed to cite specifics from the new jobs report, which mystified me. But Kerry did do a good job explaining the basics of long-term job creation:

I want to fully fund education, No Child Left Behind, special-needs education. And that’s how we’re going to be more competitive, by making sure our kids are graduating from school and college.

China and India are graduating more graduates in technology and science than we are.

We’ve got to create the products of the future. That’s why I have a plan for energy independence within 10 years.

And we’re going to put our laboratories and our colleges and our universities to work. And we’re going to get the great entrepreneurial spirit of this country, and we’re going to free ourselves from this dependency on Mideast oil.

That’s how you create jobs and become competitive.

It’s refreshing to hear a candidate who looks at the long term, who plans ahead and has the core values and principles down.

This was a closer debate than before, but I think that in the end, Kerry came out on top. Not by as much as before, he had a lot more stumbling at first, but he came out well and finished strongly. Bush came out too much as shrill and overly aggressive, taking pot shots and making some claims that just didn’t work and clashed too strongly with what most people know is the truth. Bush had some smooth talking and got many talking points off, but lost points for his bluster. Kerry had the facts down better and made much stronger points toward the end of the debate, but stumbled too much at the start and didn’t hit Bush as squarely as he could have.

Now to see what everyone else things and feels.

On abortion: Kerry’s right on. It’s an article of faith, and I can’t legislate that faith; as president, I have to represent everyone, and afford people their constitutional rights, and let them know all the options. Very well delivered. Bush: “I’m trying to decipher that.” Got a laugh, but that’ll chafe others. Bush is speaking directly to his base here–“Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” “partial birth abortion ban.” His answer is smooth, but partisan. Kerry’s reply: great. It’s not that simple, and he gave clear examples of exceptions. Bush’s reply is vapid: you can only say yes or no, black or white. I think that’s a mistake.

Last question: give three errors you’ve made, and what you did to correct them. Oh boy! Is Bush ready for this one? So far, he hasn’t answered it. He’s saying that the woman is really asking about Iraq, and now he’s building his case on that. In other words, he’s not answering the question! He’s saying he “did the right decision.” Ah–now he’s saying his mistakes were some appointments, but he wants to spare their feelings. Lame. Absolutely lame. Kerry: he didn’t live up to his own standards, keep his promise about the prosecution of the Iraq war, not the war itself, which Bush defended. “Beyond pitiful.” Stolen ammo. Unarmored humvees. Kids with missing limbs. Good replies. Bush: brings up the $87 billion vote and Kerry’s response to that. Kerry reiterated: I made a mistake talking about it, he made a mistake invading, which is worse? Kerry wins on this one, hands down. Good close.

Closing statements: Kerry is using a lot of it on the defensive–not giving a foreign veto on our security–and then positive on building alliances, hunting down terrorists, getting the job done in Iraq, building good education, protecting the environment, and ending on a note of optimism. Bush: we’ve come through recession, corporate scandals, war, but “we’re on the move” (read: we’re turning the corner). Don’t increase the scope of the government (Bush has presided over the massive buildup of government after Clinton cut it down). Stay the course, fight the terrorists (then where is Osama and why did we drop the ball there?). Afghanistan will vote for president, there is a “free” Iraq (which is what all Americans wanted more than anything else, I suppose).

Gibson closes the same he ran the debate–clumsily and not in control. I hope they don’t bring him back again, he really didn’t run it well at all.

Okay, Bush is losing it now, and Kerry’s back on track. He’s sounding desperate in insisting Kerry’s not credible, and his attempts at humor are not working so well. Now, answering a question on the environment, he’s stumbling a bit, and rattling off a list of environmental ‘successes’ that sound too memorized. He’s not as smooth on this one. Kerry has a chance to smear him on this; will he?

Kerry answers more on the credibility issue first, and then goes on the environment. His answer is fairly strong, and then mentions going with the science. A strong single, maybe a double, but hardly a home run.

Now the questions turn to jobs; up to now, Kerry has pulled ahead, winning the second half hour.

Kerry is now sounding more focused and speaking in a way that people can connect to. He laid out clear plans and principles. Bush’s reply on jobs is sounding more and more muddled, trivia laced with pot shots.

Something just happened with a timber company–I missed it, but if Bush is not hallucinating or distorting, then maybe Kerry just made an error.

Kerry is answering the stem cell question fairly well, but I think he was thrown by the claim made by the questioner about how ineffective embryonic stem cell research as opposed to adult stem cell research–wasn’t sure about the facts there, so he spoke around it until he could get back around to the point about fertility clinics. Bush came out sounding much more certain, and quieter than before. Kerry’s rebuttal was better, pointing out the dearth of resources Bush has made available.

Bush answered the Supreme Court question strangely: I’m not gonna tell you, besides I want them all voting for me. People are going to interpret that one badly, I think. Both we jokes, but the audience laughed at the first part, fell silent on the second.

Bush said he would get strict constructionists, but would not have a litmus test on how they would interpret the constitution. Come again? A bit of a contradiction there. Kerry’s response was much better. He’s making the point about what issues are at stake with the next court appointment.

So now the national security part of the debate is over. Bush wins on points so far.

Now the question is on drug importation from Canada. His answer: we have to make sure they’re safer. A load of bullcrap, of course–there’s more danger in buying drugs off the Internet. Kerry’s answer is great: the drugs are safe, American-made, Bush blocked it–and he pointed out that Bush promised not to block it in 2000. Zing. The president denies Medicare from negotiating, the president sides with the companies. Bush jumps up and out on the 1-minute rebuttal without even waiting for the moderator to approve. The moderator is being wimpy–he should be calling Bush on this crap. But Kerry is doing a good job on doing that.

But Kerry’s still stumbling on his delivery and not making his points as clearly as he could.

Bush comes off with the “most liberal senator” line (that’s been blasted to pieces, but Bush doesn’t care). Unfortunately, as I noted before, Bush is short of truth, but he’s getting the zingers out, and his delivery is still smoother.

The overspending question came up. Bush’s answer? Clinton ruined the economy, it’s his fault, and then there’s a war. But the fact remains that Bush and the GOP in control of Congress have been doing massive pork spending. Bush ends by excusing his overspending by saying that he’s spending it all on the troops, and darn it, he won’t short-change the troops! Well, George, how about buying them flak jackets and not making them pay for meals in the hospital when their limbs have been blown off?

Kerry just got the tax cut question: will you make a promise not to raise taxes on those making under $200,000. Kerry: Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera. Yes, I promise. And then he laid out his plan, and on this question he sharp and strong. Kerry ends well with a josh at the moderator. Bush comes out with a “He’s just not credible! Of course he’s gonna raise your taxes!” He’s sounding shrill now. And he just made a reference to “battering green eye shades?” Did I misunderstand? What was that? I think Bush just lost his cool.

Bush just got the draft question, and he was obviously primed for it. He started off by script, with the new GOP strategy of defining it as an “Internet rumor” or “Internet hoax.” His answer is muddled and not very convincing–we’re bringing people home (yeah, from Europe, not from Iraq, and so they can replace people in the U.S. who could then be shipped off to Iraq) and we’re getting new technology. Woo hoo.

Kerry is responding with a litany of generals and military people who support him because his policies are better, and then faced Bush directly and told him that we can’t go it alone; that set Bush off, and he actually blustered through and past the moderator and started his answer. That could be good for him or bad, depending on how people perceive it.

Ouch, Kerry just stumbled on the why-there’s-been-no-attack-since-9/11 question, forgetting how long it was between the WTC attacks (he said 5 or 7 years, I believe it was 8). Kerry’s got to stop this stumbling, and focus his answers better. Kerry could be ahead right now, but Bush is coming off better. He’s getting his talking points off in a smoother patter.

Kerry’s getting some good shots in there, but he’s not calling Bush directly enough on the facts. He should be noting every misstatement or wrong/misleading fact by Bush and trying to work them into every reply, bringing in the line, “and the president is wrong on that, too.” Well, there’s still time, and maybe I don’t fully understand the subtle touch.

On the question of why people overseas dislike us now, Kerry is responding with an account of how Bush bungled the job in Iraq, and mentioned what Bush said in the 2000 debate. If you ask me, he should have quoted Bush’s “we have to be a humble nation” instead of his promise not to go to war without and exit strategy. It would have been sharper and more to the point of the question.

Bush is now blaming the war on the generals–do we have the right plan, the right troop levels, and the generals told him so. That may have been true for the invasion–but not for the occupation, when generals asked for more troops, and Bush didn’t deliver. Kerry is getting on surer footing, and Bush is stumbling a bit more. We’ve got another hour and more, there’s a lot of game left. But so far, it seems like a draw.

Wow. Kerry starts off immediately negative. Not so sure that’s a good idea. Well, at least it’s not wishy-washy. Bush comes out immediately on the offensive as well, with his favorite flip-flop attack. I notice also that Bush said that Hussein was a “grave” threat–but that’s not what he said before, he said “grave and gathering threat.” He drops the “gathering” now because his own people (Duelfer) say that it was a diminishing threat.

However, however weak Bush is on the facts, so far he is winning on delivery. Kerry’s start was a bit muddled and stumbling, Bush has had a smooth delivery so far. Kerry’s also worrying me because of his stage presence–he doesn’t walk around casually, he tends to shuffle.

I’m not sure that I like the moderator’s style–he refused a follow-up for Kerry but gave one readily to Bush. At least right at the start, he should be more even-handed.

But, wow–Kerry just shot back a great response to Bush: he quoted the Duelfer report, what I was waiting for, and faced Bush directly and told him squarely that the sanctions and inspections were to keep WMD out of Iraq, and that’s what they did, and Bush went to was unnecessarily. Bush just laughed at him–and that could be a mistake. Did we get a good shot of that on video? It would make a great campaign commercial for Kerry.

Well, the storm has abated well enough for now so my satellite signal to come through strong, let’s hope that holds; I’ve got radio and streaming audio standing by just in case.

And it’s not good for Bush. What he’ll tout as the Greatest Thing Since Buttered Bread will be the unemployment rate, which held stead at 5.4% for the second straight month. While that’s far from stellar (Clinton had a 3.9% rate in the late 90’s), it is better than almost any other time in Bush’s term. However, it does not really mean that fewer people are unemployed, it just means that fewer people are counted as unemployed, which is why the rate is deceptive. It leaves out people who have been unemployed longer than their benefits run and are not currently reported as seeking a job. Which means that millions of unemployed Americans are not even on that list.

But the big news is the number of jobs gained: 96,000, well below expectations, well below the 150,000 jobs needed each month just to tread water, to provide for population growth. In other words, there’s a net loss of about fifty thousand jobs there. “Anemic” would be about right as far as describing it. This number plays up the fallacy of believing everything is OK because of the illusory unemployment numbers. And while July’s numbers were adjusted upwards by a small 12,000 (August was revised down by a tiny 1,600), it is nowhere close to the upward revisions the Bush people were claiming would be seen.

It will be Kerry’s challenge to make sure that he can best Bush at establishing which number is more indicative of the present economy. A few numbers that will help him do this is that in September, 18,000 manufacturing jobs were lost, while government bureaucracies swelled by 37,000 workers–Bush’s version of “smaller government,” apparently.

A funny little video, kind of a 527 campaign commercial, from a group calling themselves “George the Menace,” claiming to have been spurred on by the Swift Boast liars. The video is self-explanatory, available in Quicktime and Real Media. I don’t know how professional these people are, but they did a very slick job in the one special effect in the video–it looks quite realistic, and all the more wry. It would be even funnier if you didn’t believe it to be all too true, generally speaking.

Telling it like it is. This is through Paradox at DailyKos. Rep. Ryan of Ohio gave an impassioned speech on the floor of the House recently, telling why young people in this country believe that, if Bush is re-elected, that the draft will be brought back and those young kids will be sent unwillingly to war. From Ryan’s speech, it is apparent that a Republican called it a “big Internet hoax.” Here is the text of the speech (best as I could transcribe myself, it hasn’t hit the news yet):

I rise in opposition of this bill, but I would like to clarify something. We’re not trying to scare kids, this president’s foreign policy is what’s scaring the kids of this country. And if people had said today, why are people believing this? Why are people believing this ‘big Internet hoax’?

Well, [these are the same people that] told us Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, same people that told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, same people that told us we were going to be able to use the oil for reconstruction money, same people that told us that we’d be greeted as liberators, not occupiers, same people, same president that told us the Taliban is gone, same president that told us that Poland is our ally two days before they pull out, same president that tells us Iraq is going just great, same president that tells us the economy is going just great, same people that told us the tax cut was going to create millions of jobs. Same people that told us that the Medicare program only cost $400 billion, when it really cost $540 billion. So please forgive us for not believing what you’re saying! Please forgive the students of this country for not believing what you’re saying. Not one thing, not one thing about this war that has been told to the American people, that’s been told to these college students has been true. Not one thing. Bremer says we need more troops, the Pentagon says we need more troops, and this president can’t get them from the international community. There’s only one option left [the draft]. Let’s be honest with the American people.

If you’d like to see the video–he really delivers it well–you can view it here (Quicktime, 2.2 MB), or using a PC here or a Mac here (Windows Media, streaming), or listen to an audio MP3 version here.

We’re getting slammed this typhoon season. We’ve been hit by several big storms recently–okay, not so much as Florida, but still, we get hit. For me, this is bad timing because typhoons usually make my satellite TV reception crap out, and tomorrow morning–practically zero-hour for the typhoon–is when the second debate gets broadcast. I may have to listen to it on the radio, or deal with webcasts or something. Damn. Hope the typhoon heads out to sea instead of hitting here… and, oh yeah, it would be nice for those people whose homes get destroyed in these storms, too.

Here’s a great testimonial by Kevin Drum, one of the top political bloggers, on switching from Internet Explorer to Firefox. He hits on several of the major reasons to use Firefox: tabbed browsing, far greater security, long-standing pop-up blocking support (not just-added), greater speed, and ease of installation.

He notes cons as being that not all web pages work well with Firefox–but this is something that will change over time as more and more people make the switch he just did.

A small note: PC users who now use Firefox now understand, to a small degree, what it’s like to have a Mac–being more cutting-edge, and having better quality and features–but having to deal with people designing things for the other guys more than for you because everyone else is going for the herd-mentality me-too option. Everyone should be using Firefox because IE is such a drastically inferior product–but most people don’t want to take the two minutes it takes to download Mozilla or Firefox, and would rather use IE just because Microsoft put it on their desktop.

Wake up, IE users. Download Firefox, or Mozilla for the full suite (email, newsgroups, address book, chat, web page construction in addition to browsing). It’s free, it’s better, it’s safer, and it makes a hell of a lot more sense. So why are you still using the POS you have? Go on, do it!

Michael J. Fox has made a new ad supporting John Kerry, citing his support for stem-cell research. In the video, available on Kerry’s site, Fox states, “I say lives are at stake and it’s time for leadership. That’s why I support John Kerry for president.” Right to the point–though those saved by stem cell research will only be a few whose lives would be saved by a Kerry presidency.

The economic figures are coming out very soon, and it’s anybody’s guess as to what they’ll say. But there’s little chance that they’ll be anywhere near good enough to wipe out the past four years of mismanagement by Bush and the GOP, whose massive overspending has disgusted many even in the Republican party. In case you’re not aware of it–and you should be before the next debate–you can find Kerry’s plan for the economy here. The bullet points:

• Strengthen the Middle Class
• Stand Up for Workers Rights
• Create Good-Paying Jobs
• Restoring Fiscal Responsibility
• Opportunity for Small Business
• Free & Fair Trade
• Balance Work & Family

Kerry would keep tax cuts for the middle class and add targeted cuts (like those Gore proposed four years ago), while getting rid of tax cuts for those earning over $200,000; he would work to stop the overspending, and if he gets even one house of Congress controlled by Democrats, he’ll have a far easier time of accomplishing that. He’ll focus on creating jobs that pay well through direct incentives, not just throwing cash at rich people and hoping that it somehow makes its way into middle-class pockets; and he’ll really invest in energy-independency, an effort which will lead to many good jobs in and of itself. That and a lot more, including detailed plans; read the page on his site.

And going in to the debate, Kerry has scored a 4-point lead in an AP/Ipsos poll, leading Bush 50-46.

Meanwhile, Bush is beginning to sound desperate–and that’s not my headline, it’s Howard FIneman’s, not exactly a flaming liberal. FIneman describes how Iraq could be Bush’s undoing. Some have opined, however, that Fineman is just trying to lower expectations for Bush for the debate Friday night.

He’s certainly looking desperate to many: he suddenly announced a “significant speech” that he planned to make, stirring up all kinds of expectations, and it turns out that he had nothing new, he just wanted to trick the networks into carrying his stump speech live on TV. That is desperate, when you risk pissing off the networks so close to an election.

Other things not going well for Bush: oil prices hit $53 a barrel, an unprecedented high. Watch the gas prices continue to soar, while the man who said he’d be able to control those prices sits by and does nothing.

And to top it off, a new report came out from Charles Duelfer. Duelfer was hired by Bush when David Kay came out with a report that said Saddam had no WMD and was not a threat to us. This is rather typical Bush fashion: you don’t like the facts, try to find someone who will give you different ones. Well, now Duelfer’s report is due out, and the results are: Saddam had no WMD and was not a threat to us. In fact, Duelfer’s report said that Hussein was a diminishing threat, not a “grave and gathering” one.

Cheney’s reaction: the report justifies the administration’s case to go to war. I kid you not. He’s in full reality-denial mode now, folks. He’s now resorted to using Iraqi abuses of the fuel-for-food program as justification for going to war.

That doesn’t sound desperate, does it?

From the Debate, with lies noted in red, misleading in green:

CHENEY: (1)Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you “Senator Gone.” (2) You’ve got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.

(3) Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I’m up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they’re in session.

(4) The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

Here’s the breakdown: (1) the paper that used the pejorative about Edwards was not his hometown paper, but a paper in a town some distance away. It’s a weekly paper, no less. And oh yeah: they don’t agree with Cheney on this. It was an editorial written 15 months ago and was in the greater context of criticizing Helms and mentioning that Edwards’ record was not as bad as other Senators’ records.

(2) Edwards has a bad attendance only during the recent campaign, which is SOP for any politician who is running for office. Bush was not in attendance as Governor of Texas much at all during his entire campaign four years ago.

(3) Cheney implies in his statement about presiding over the Senate that he’s doing his job there more than Edwards. Note the careful wording that gives the definite impression that Cheney presides over the Senate every Tuesday, without actually saying it. It is true that it is his capacity to be the presiding officer of the Senate, but in fact, he rarely does so. In fact, he only presided over the Senate three times in 2003, for tie-breaking votes–in other words, only when he is absolutely forced to attend.

His statement about being there “most Tuesdays” is the most misleading statement here of all, and is absolutely a lie in context: he suggests that he presides over the Senate, or at least is at the Senate in a way that he could meet Edwards, every Tuesday. That’s a lie: Cheney is only there on Tuesdays to attend Republican strategy meetings, to which Edwards is of course not invited. But Cheney is not there to preside on Tuesdays. In fact, during his entire tenure as vice president, Cheney presided over the Senate only twice–the same number of times Edwards has presided over the Senate during that same time! As far as Tuesdays are concerned, Edwards was doing Cheney’s job just as often as Cheney was!

(4) And then there’s the final statement, that he never met Edwards before the debate. In fact, they met on at least three different occasions, once at a prayer breakfast where Cheney even thanked Edwards for coming, and another time when Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole to the podium of the Senate to be sworn in. Furthermore, Edwards did attend the Senate before he hit the campaign trail, and if Cheney had been doing his job as President of the Senate, he would have seen Edwards a lot more–in other words, Cheney didn’t miss Edwards because Edwards was absent, but rather because Cheney himself was absent! More later if I find out that Edwards was present at any or all of the times Cheney presided over tie-breaking votes in the past.

The quake we just felt was a 5.8 on the Richter scale, depending on who’s saying, but it felt big
–the biggest one I’ve been in so far (again–they seem to be getting bigger as time goes by, or maybe just closer), this one almost up to get-the-hell-under-a-door-frame-now big. That one shook the whole apartment visibly–not quite enough to throw things off tables or out of cabinets, but it was close. So far, no reports of serious damage.

The quake was close, in southwestern Ibaraki, right close to where Tokyo, Saitama and Chiba are in proximity to Ibaraki. As far as I can figure, it was just 50 km (30 mi.) from central Tokyo, about 75 km from where I am.

Yikes.