In case you hadn’t heard: No way it’ll be as focused-on as the CBS documents about Bush, but FOX News, after the debates, posted a story by a correspondent named Carl Cameron that contained completely fabricated quotes by Kerry. The text included:

Rallying supporters in Tampa Friday, Kerry played up his performance in Thursday night’s debate, in which many observers agreed the Massachusetts senator outperformed the president.

“Didn’t my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!” Kerry said Friday.

With the foreign-policy debate in the history books, Kerry hopes to keep the pressure on and the sense of traction going.

Aides say he will step up attacks on the president in the next few days, and pivot somewhat to the domestic agenda, with a focus on women and abortion rights.

“It’s about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures,” Kerry said.

Kerry still trails in actual horse-race polls, but aides say his performance was strong enough to rally his base and further appeal to voters ready for a change.

“I’m metrosexual — he’s a cowboy,” the Democratic candidate said of himself and his opponent.

A “metrosexual” is defined as an urbane male with a strong aesthetic sense who spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle.

Presently the FOX story has been edited so the made-up stuff is no longer a part of the story, and FOX added the disclaimer:

Editor’s Note

Earlier Friday, FOXNews.com posted an item purporting to contain quotations from Kerry. The item was based on a reporter’s partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice.

The thing is, the report had to go through an editor first. Maybe it’s just that their editing is as slipshod as much of their reporting is. And how could “fatigue” factor into a reporter actively writing a fake news story and uploading it to the web site? Even if the reporter wrote this in his spare time, it calls into question his integrity and bias concerning the topic that he covers for the network. Josh Marshall is on top of the story at Talking Points Memo.

I am very happy for Ichiro and his accomplishment; he seems like a nice guy, a great sportsman and is destined to be a major Hall-of-Famer.

As for the reaction of sports fans and the baseball establishment here in Japan, my enthusiasm is a bit more muted. The reason for that is the lack of reciprocity. Japan loves few things as much as a Japanese who travels to America and is a success, especially in breaking records or winning at a popular game. And I would be absolutely fine with that–if the reverse were just as sportingly accepted. But the fact of the matter is, much of Japan despises the foreigner who intrudes and threatens to break a native record. It is not openly spoken of, but it is acted out, by both sportsmen and by the fans.

When I first came to Japan in 1985, I remember the American slugger Randy Bass had come within one home run of breaking the record in Japan. The record holder was Sadaharu Oh, Japan’s Babe Ruth, who got 55 homers in 1964. Bass came within one home run of that record in the last few games of the season, and the last opponent his team played was the Yomiuri Giants–managed by Sadaharu Oh. A standing order was given to the pitchers: walk Bass. For two games, he was intentionally walked, and not allowed to try for the record. And it was generally understood that if it had been a Japanese player, he would have been pitched to. And the Giants were not in contention for the Japan Series, as I recall, so it was not strategic in that sense.

Can you imagine an American baseball manager in the same position? Imagine an American player, turned manager, telling his pitchers to walk out someone who challenges his record. The manager would be booed out of the stadium, even by the home crowds. But add to that a racial element, that he’s denying the challenger the record because of his race… there would be riots. It would be considered the nadir of sportsmanship.

But maybe that’s just Sadaharu Oh. In 1985, a lot of Japanese were behind him, but in 2001, when American Tuffy Rhodes had tied Oh’s record and was threatening to break it, other teams gave him shots, were fair to him. But the last two games of the season were against the Fukuoka Daiei Hawks–managed by Sadaharu Oh. And again, the American player was shut out. Oh claimed that he was “out of the loop” on the decision to pitch around Rhodes, just as he claimed in ’85, but there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that the orders came directly from him. To his credit, Japanese baseball commissioner Hiromori Kawashima stated publicly that Oh’s actions were “completely divorced from the essence of baseball, which values the supremacy of fair play.” But no disciplinary action was taken against Oh, who still manages the Hawks today. If you ask me, he should have been fired and removed from any halls of fame he has been inducted into.

But it was not only the home-run record being denied, it was an entire system of treatment towards non-Japanese players. Umpires called strikes according to a much-expanded foreigners-only strike zone. Pitchers beaned foreign players far more than they did other Japanese. Fans would often shout racial epithets. And sports newspapers would alter the word 外人–gaijin (“foreigner,” or “outside person”)–to read 害人 (also pronounced gaijin, but meaning, literally, “harmful-person”) to the extent that the word itself had to be banned in the sport.

It was not just in baseball, either; sumo also reacted this way to successful Americans. When Akebono, Musashimaru and Konishiki, all Americans, made the top ranks of sumo, there was a great deal of resistance. Every time one of them won a match, the reaction by the fans were muted. Whenever a Japanese wrestler won against one of them, the crowds went wild, throwing their seat cushions around the arena in abandon, even when the winning wrestler was not all that popular. It kind of turned me off of the sport.

As always, please understand that I am not one of those moan-and-whine Americans who just hates everything about Japan–quite the contrary, I love Japan and I love the people here. But I won’t turn a blind eye to any flaw in the nation’s character here, any more than I would to national flaws in America. These things can only be changed by talking about them openly.

Maybe the game and the fans here have changed in the past 20 years, regardless of what Oh did a few years ago–but frankly, I don’t think it has changed all that much (ask Alex Cabrera, who ran into the same wall in 2002). When I see a foreign player in baseball or sumo (soccer doesn’t count–it’s not long-standing here, so there are few native records of note to break) do well and not only not be hindered, but to have as strong a following and as deep an acceptance as Ichiro has in the U.S., I will be impressed and encouraged.

Well, it’s been an interesting few days since the debate. Everyone, outside of the Republican spin doctors, is saying that Kerry won. There is division on exactly where it happened–I thought it was in the first half of the debate, but many saw him come out strong in the second half. Wherever it was that he did best, it is pretty unanimous that he beat Bush. My own analysis seems pretty tame compared to the opinions out there saying that he wiped the floor with Bush, but I was basing my evaluation not on what Kerry did for me, but what I figured he do for the average American, taking into account the counterweight Bush would provide.

But one other thing that I didn’t consider also affected my assessment: I was blogging throughout the debate. And I am not a touch typist. Which means that I was looking at my keyboard a lot of the time, so to a large degree, I was listening to the debate rather than watching it. One of the things I missed was Bush’s mugging on the split screen while Kerry was talking–blinking, smirking, rolling his eyes, and very often looking peeved and annoyed. The DNC has kindly edited together a one-minute best-of reel of Bush’s mugs (Real Player or Windows Media).

People also speak about how Bush seemed at a loss for words, stumbled in his answered, and looked lost at times. I am pleased that people are talking about these things, but I’m also a bit surprised–I thought that everyone knew about and expected these things, and that many Americans accepted them as part of his down-home everyman charm. Glad to know that I was wrong on that one.

So, as I mentioned before, it’s time for me to watch the debate again, this time with a pause button and some fact-checking.

First of all, I find it interesting to see my observation about the height difference between the two candidates come up later: Fox News posted a photo of the two candidates shaking hands which seemed to show Bush almost as tall as Kerry; for a while, it was thought that Fox had photoshopped it, but it turns out that they had simply chosen the one photo from the one angle that gave the illusion of similar height.

Kerry’s opening, as many have observed, was a bit weak; he used the word “left them [our alliances] in shatters” rather than “left them in tatters,” and he seemed to lose his place for a moment once or twice, but he quickly regained his footing; still, the initial shakiness caused a few of his supporters to worry–concern which was quickly relieved soon enough. Bush, in his first reply, had the same amount of shakiness to him–but his pauses and lost moments only increased through the evening.

Bush’s first rebuttal to the question to Kerry on national security was very indicative of how Bush dissembles so easily and, to many Americans, so convincingly. He said that we have “pursued al Qaeda wherever al Qaeda tries to hide,” for example. Really? How about Afghanistan? “75% of known al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice.” First of all, 19 of the top 22 al Qaeda leaders are still at large. And second, is he really so simple as to believe that they could run out of leaders, that they are not a replenishable resource? And what about this “bin Laden” guy, the only one most Americans care about? “We’ve upheld the doctrine that said, if you harbor a terrorist, you’re equally as guilty as the terrorist,” except that Pakistan was in league with al Qaeda, still gives them shelter, and their chief nuclear scientist was spreading secrets on how to make nukes all through the region and Bush let him go with a slap on the wrist. “And the Taliban, no longer in power,” but someone better tell that to the BBC, not to mention the Army. Bush added, “10 million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan in the upcoming presidential election.” Actually, the number is now 10.3 million. A very interesting figure, considering that the U.N. estimated that only 9.8 million were eligible to vote, and nearly a million women have not registered yet.

Bush went on with his accomplishments: “In Iraq, we saw a threat and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell; America and the world are safer for it.” Here is Bush’s first allusion to the idea that Saddam Hussein was a threat to us, or even was in on the 9/11 attack. Bush will make a stronger allusion to it later on, and Kerry will call him on it. “We continue to pursue our policy of disrupting those who proliferate weapons of mass destruction. Libya has disarmed.” Which, of course, Bush has little or nothing to do with. The process started under Clinton, and is a result of Gadhafi wanting to get out from under sanctions, like the sanctions said were not working in Iraq. Bush, however, is trying to give people the impression that Gadhafi was building nukes, but when he saw Bush invade Iraq, he wet his pants and rushed to surrender. But if Gadhafi had been doing that, he would have easily seen that the American military is stretched far too thin to be any threat to him. Bush, in short, is claiming victory for something that has nothing to do with his policies.

But the next claim is what raised a lot of eyebrows: “The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice.” Really? “Justice”? Khan was immediately pardoned by Musharraf–a pardon which was blessed by Bush–and is both a free man and a hero in Pakistan today.

I am spending much time and putting much detail into this list that Bush mentioned quickly in his first words in the debate to make a point: the strategy of the Bush administration is to make outrageous claims, from outright false to simply misleading, knowing that most people will believe them, and it will be too hard for their opponents to make all Americans aware of all the facts in all their detail. Bush’s list of reasons as to why are more secure was almost completely a package of misleading and false impressions, but no doubt millions of Americans bought the whole thing. This is one of their greatest advantages.

Bush sidestepped a question by Jim Lehrer about his and Cheney’s past claims that Kerry being elected would bring on terrorist attacks. Not only did Bush not take the opportunity to take back the allegation or deny that he’d made it, Bush in fact restated the belief using different words: “I don’t believe it’s going to happen. I believe I’m going to win,” in other words, if he didn’t win, then an attack would happen. Very, very slick–he gives the impression that he’s not so mean-spirited to make such a claim, while at the exact same time he repeats that very claim.

By his first rebuttal, Kerry was already strongly back on track, taking to a tactic that he would hold to for the entire debate: first stating his own ability to do the job and do it well, and then cutting into Bush, reciting a litany of facts about how Bush has bungled the job. And here’s where seeing the debate was a big influence: you could see Kerry was poised and resolute while speaking, and on the split-screen, Bush was looking almost lost, blinking far more than normal, with his famous deer-in-the-headlights expression appearing on and off. In his second rebuttal to Kerry, on what Bush’s “colossal blunders” were, Bush came across as annoyed and peevish–and was off to a half-hour of being on the defensive.

He also continued to make false claims: “Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he?” Well, the problem with that statement is that Saddam was not being asked to disarm conventional weapons, but rather weapons of mass destruction. That was the demand. Get rid of your chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. And here is Bush telling everyone that Saddam did not disarm–after it has become painfully clear that he had disarmed! Maybe not intentionally, probably because of Clinton’s sanctions and other actions, but there were no weapons of mass destruction. So what is Bush saying that Saddam refused to do?

Bush added that the Saddam “was systematically deceiving the inspectors.” How? By hiding nonexistent WMD? Again, Bush is trying to be slick here, implying, claiming in a roundabout fashion that Saddam did have WMD when the inspectors were sent in. The fact is, Saddam was actually telling the truth when he said he didn’t have them–much to everyone’s surprise. Bush could get away with saying, well we thought he had them, but instead goes whole hog and implies that Iraq did indeed have WMD at that time.

A little later, Bush even confused Hussein with bin Laden: “Of course, we’re after Saddam Hussein — I mean, bin Laden.”

Kerry, in his rebuttal, made a statement that struck me as being strange; about Iraq, he said, “And we’ve got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they’re blowing people up.” I noted this in my live coverage, and it remains a bit strange to me now. Charitably, one can presume that Kerry meant that conventional weapons are pouring into Iraq but that the effect they have is equal to mass destruction in their harm to our soldiers. But it’s still strange, and I’m kind of surprised that more wasn’t made of it, especially by Republicans, later on.

Bush, naturally, ignored what had been clearly stated in criticizing Kerry: “I don’t think we want to get to how he’s going to pay for all these promises. It’s like a huge tax gap — anyway, that’s for another debate.” Aside from sounding flustered, he also seemed deaf; Kerry had just stated that “long before President Bush and I get a tax cut — and that’s who gets it — long before we do, I’m going to invest in homeland security, and I’m going to make sure we’re not cutting COPS programs in America, and we’re fully staffed in our firehouses, and that we protect the nuclear and chemical plants.” What part of that was not clear? Kerry would take the tax cuts away from the millionaires and billionaires to pay for it, while keeping middle-class tax cuts in place. Does anyone really have a problem with that?

Meanwhile, Bush’s claims that he’s spent a lot of money on security were flawed; he claimed, for example, that “We spent $3.1 billion for fire and police.” However, precious little of that amount has actually reached fire and police services–the states have intercepted the money and are using it to pay for any number of other programs mandated by Washington D.C. but not paid for, i.e. “unfunded mandates.”

And then Bush claimed that he was also funding Iraq security: “Let me first tell you that the best way for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job. And that’s what we’re doing. We got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, over 200,000 by the end of next year.” Except, of course, that it’s not true.

I noted this in my live coverage, and indeed Bush’s claims do not check out. Out of the 90,000 police on the streets, only about 10% have training, and few in the military are trained :

The Pentagon documents show that of the nearly 90,000 people now in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. Another 46,176 are listed as “untrained,” and it will be July 2006 before the administration reaches its goal of a 135,000-strong, fully trained police force.

Six Army battalions have had “initial training,” while 57 National Guard battalions, 896 soldiers in each, are still being recruited or “awaiting equipment.” Just eight Guard battalions have reached “initial (operating) capability,” according to the documents.

Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee estimated that 22,700 Iraqi personnel have received enough training to make them “minimally effective at their tasks.”

Another example of the glib falsehoods that Bush hopes will go unnoticed.

That’s about all I can handle tonight. I’ll try to get back to more of this later–it’s just that there is so much of this to go over. Check out Media Matters for commentary on media fact-checking, and the DNC has a list of the top 20 “misleading statements” made by Bush in the debate.

A little later I’ll have a recap of the debate, and at some point (maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow) I’ll re-watch the recording of the debate and make a more detailed analysis. But for right now, I just wanted to note that there is a consensus on who won: Kerry, hands down. It’s pretty much as I concluded myself (see my then-live running blog entries on the debate), that Kerry didn’t win by a knockout, but he sure won on points. Most polls have Kerry winning by a good 20% of the people surveyed.

One point that I wanted to mention now, since I don’t see anyone else talking about it: this was the debate that was supposed to be easiest for Bush. This was foreign policy, which Bush is supposed to be strongest on. The second debate, on October 8, will be open-topic, town-hall style, and the third on October 13 will be on domestic issues.

If Kerry can run with today’s success and trump it up, he could get something started that could lead up through the next debates and up to election day. And it seems like he might be off to a good start–I noticed that most of the news web sites, right after the debates, featured Kerry ads; hopefully that’s part of a post-debate ad blitz, a perfect time for Kerry to spend a big chunk of that $75 million he’s allotted.

More later.

Okay, they’re in their final statements now. Since Kerry had the first answer, Bush has the last statement. Kerry’s statement had a few stumbles, but mainly hit his main points. Bush comes across as reassuring here, looking at the cameras, not the audience. “We will stay the course,” more or less. He also hits his main points. He stumbles a bit as well, but I think comes across as more personable. Ah, and now he’s using landscape metaphors.

So, how did the debate go?

On points, Kerry won, most definitely from the first half hour, where Kerry pounded Bush and Bush was weak and on the defensive. However, a lot of people will focus more on the ending, and Bush had recovered by that time. But one of the main goals for this debate for Kerry was getting exposure, letting the people see who he is, and he did an admirable job here. Anyone who watched this one saw a good representation of Kerry. Kerry was more poised and definitely came across as presidential. This is critical for Kerry, for undecideds, and even Democrats and Republicans, to see him as presidential material, capable of doing the job, and holding his own on a stage with Bush–and that’s what he did. He managed to state his case well, and stayed on the offensive against Bush, never letting up.

Bush’s goal was more to hold his own, and while he succeeded later in the debate, he fumbled it in the first half hour. Any analysis on this debate will depend on whether or not that is counted. Bush did have a warm, reassuring style, but he was weak on the facts, not to mention the mention of “the enemy attacked us,” obviously implying that Hussein attacked us. Kerry did very well to call him on that immediately, and Bush will lose points on that one. Overall, Bush could have done a lot better.

Kerry did not get a knockout here, but he definitely won on points (even the pundits on CNN are pretty much in agreement on that one).

It’ll be interesting to see the broader response in the media, from the public, and in the polls. But for now, I gotta run to work. More later.

What is the biggest threat to the US: Kerry came out very quickly and confident: nuclear proliferation. This answer is representative of Kerry tonight: confident, knows his stuff, and then as quickly as he can, hits Bush hard. Kerry: “we’re serious about containing nuclear proliferation.” I almost feel like Kerry is saying the world “nuclear” a lot to contrast with bush’s pronunciation.

Whoa! Bush said “nuclear,” not “nucular”! But Bush’s response is on proliferation, with shades towards terrorism. Bush actually just brought up Khan in Pakistan, how he stopped them–but look at what happened to Khan, immediately pardoned, and now very little is different there. He also brought up Libya.

Kerry hit again on how Bush let North Korea and Iran slip, Bush hit back on multilateral talks, of course ignoring that Kerry wants both multi- and bilateral talks.

Now the question is on Russia and Putin, but this debate is mostly over, it looks like there will be no big developments from here on.

Update: Kerry hit Bush, Lehrer handed Bush a present, allowed Bush to say how much of a “calm guy” he is in a conversation setting. A few last punches to the face.

A lot may depend on which parts of the debate people remember: if people remember the whole debate, Kerry will have won. If Bush can hold on to the even fight right now, and if people only focus on the last part of the debate, then it might be called a draw or even a Bush win, if the spinmeisters can spin it that way.

But wait–Kerry is really getting it out here on Korea! Hitting Bush hard, and a point made by Lehrer allowed Kerry to make his point more solidly before Bush could get in his 30-second interruption. For the even fight, Bush still seems less comfortable than Kerry. Bush is more down-home, Kerry is more solid and confident.

Kerry: Bush has overextended the military, stretched out tours by soldiers; Kerry will build them back up and reconstitute our ability to fight a war if necessary. Both he and Bush somewhat sidestepped the Sudan question, using it more to sell their policies.

Lehrer: does Kerry have the character to be president. Bush: “Whew! That’s a loaded question.” Here’s where Bush gets to be noble and “admire” Kerry, but you know there will be a “but” in there. He’s just laid a few–doesn’t agree with Kerry’s record, he went to Yale… Hits Kerry on his “mixed messages” (read: flip-flops). Bush: “I just know how this world works!” Oh really?

Kerry: acknowledges Bush on family. Bush and Kerry exchange compliments, laugh at the same point. Kerry goes on the defensive about certainty, but also hits Bush: “it’s one thing to be certain, it’s another to be certain and be wrong.”

The debate feels like it’s winding down, like it won’t end with a knock-out (we’ll see). They’re pounding home their points, beginning to repeat themselves.

Kerry lays out a good, clear plan for getting out of Iraq, while getting his hits in against Bush.

Bush: 100,000 Iraqi troops trained. Excuse me? That’s wrong. Only a small fraction of that number are trained, 100,000 is the goal. And now Bush is hitting Kerry again on Kerry hitting on “our allies.” Bush appears to be defending Alawi, but he is more using him as a bludgeon. Kerry might have to respond to this. Bush is much more on the offensive now, he’s come back from his initial defensiveness. Damn.

Bush: declarative, “We’re going to win this war in Iraq.”

Question to Bush: Will you take us into a preemptive war again? Bush: I hope not, but maybe I’ll have to. He tried to make the point that he was reluctant to go into Iraq. That’s an interesting stretch. “We used diplomacy every chance we get.” The big lie–he did nothing of the sort. And now he’s trotting out Libya, as if that’s a response to the Iraq war.

Kerry pointed out that “the enemy attacked us,” but Iraq, Hussein did not. I’ll have to check the transcript on that, that would be a big gaffe by Bush. Kerry points out how it was al Qaeda that attacked us, and Bush let Osama go; also, Bush was “factually incorrect” (them’s fightin’ words!) on the threat from Iraq–they weren’t a threat. And meanwhile, North Korea and Iran have gone nuclear.

Kerry: the president always has had the right for a preemptive strike. Hmmm… I don’t like that, and I’m not sure that I agree. I did not think that this was official policy–I’ll have to look that one up too. Kerry’s using the de Gaulle story, hitting Bush on leadership.

Both candidates are hitting hard, it’s more or less an even fight now.

Bush is coming across a bit better now, having hit Kerry on consistency, and gotten a softball from Lehrer about the war in Iraq being worth it. Bush is totally on script now, his footing surer, telling a heartwarming story and so on. This is his chance to get back on track.

Kerry response was just as warm, just as reassuring–but he finishes by laying out his plans about Iraq and hitting Bush, and Kerry gets the next question–he could pick this up again. Ended with saying Bush has four words, “more of the same.” Ah–Bush asked for a 30-second spot, he obviously knew he had to jump in here. And he’s using it to smash at Kerry, calling him more or less unfit to lead. Kerry hits back with the “Pottery Barn” rule. Kerry” I’m going to get it right–I have a plan, he doesn’t. Good play by Bush there, but Kerry held his ground.

Bush is again trying to say that the coalition is broad–but after England, he mentioned Poland. Not exactly a major power. Bush is acting exasperated, a bit upset, with an accusatory tone. I think he knows that things are not going well.

Kerry once again is making his points: the U.N. did not come in fully, no grand coalition.

Bush: What about Poland? Amazing. He’s now acting upset about “denigrating the coalition.” I’ll be amazed if people buy that. Poland makes the coalition grand? Bush’s speech now has a lot of “uh”s and “um”s and pauses. He’s not coming off well. He’s literally pounding the podium at times, seemingly signaling which of his points are practiced so he has to hammer them in.

Kerry is hitting back hard on the coalition: just America, Great Britain, and a few others. And Bush ignored North Korea.

On Lehrer’s question, Kerry is now laying out Bush’s lies: Iraq tried to get uranium from Niger; Bush would go to the UN; Bush would get a real coalition; Bush would plan carefully; we would go as a last resort–Bush “misled” the people on all those points. Kerry wrapped up with building alliances, and how he would be better on that.

Bush responds with feigned incredulity about how Kerry said Osama used Iraq to spread hatred about America, again hitting the concept that somehow the war in Iraq was defensive for the US, closing by almost directly calling Kerry a flip-flopper. At one point he said, “let me finish” when there was no interruption. Kerry hit back: I have been consistent, one view. Bush: he’s consistent only in that he’s inconsistent. That’s a point for Bush: though devoid of structure, it sounds like a hard hit.

Kerry is really hitting Bush on every point, and while he is busy taking notes behind the podium while Bush speaks, Bush just sits there looking around while Kerry speaks.

Bush quotes figures in his rebuttal about how much he’s spent on homeland security, and many will buy it–but very little analysis should show that these are not as significant as Bush is making them look. You can talk about how much money we spend, but the real point is how much new money is coming through, and is it enough?

Bush just declared: “You better have a president who chases these terrorists down and bring them to justice,” while pounding the podium. What a setup–he cut and ran from Afghanistan!

Bush is absolutely on the defensive here, Kerry is getting his shots off against him. Bush just spent a few minutes trying to convince the audience how vital Iraq is for our freedom (really?).

Kerry is coming back with support for the troops, telling a personal story. Now Kerry seems a lot more relaxed, making his points more clearly than Bush; and Bush is sounding more tense and stumbling.

OK, now Bush just came out with a scripted reply: giving the wrong message to the troops by saying “help is on the way,” hitting Kerry for supporting the war.

Kerry just hit a home run: I spoke wrongly about my vote, but Bush invaded wrongly: which is worse? Bingo! Followed up with how Bush promised to plan and proceed cautiously, consult allies, and so forth, but then did not. He’s really doing well here, he’s hitting his stride. If he can keep this up, then he’ll definitely win this debate!

Kerry is coming out swinging in his first rebuttal to Bush, making the point very, very strongly about Bush failing to follow up in Afghanistan and went to Iraq when it was not necessary.

And now Lehrer just gave Kerry a real softball right over the plate: what failures is Bush guilty of? Kerry’s trouble here is that he doesn’t have enough time–he started a bit weak, but he’s now focusing on how Bush did not go to war as a “last resort,” and made points about the cost in lives and money, and bringing the point back to Afghanistan.

Bush’s response: misquoting Kerry and misrepresenting his opinion, now he’s going for the flip-flop spin. Then Bush tried to explain his reasons on going into Iraq; maybe others would buy it, it’s not very convincing to me. And now, on the next question, he’s trying to say that (a) our forces are not stretched, and (b) we have a real world-wide coalition. Bush is now stumbling a bit on his words, and sounding less organized, but he’s getting his points in there–though he’s not attacking Kerry as much as I’d expected. Kerry’s obviously preparing well on his rebuttal, taking notes behind his podium.

Kerry’s shooting back about how Iraq was not the center, or even part of the war on terrorism. A very good, straightforward point here; he’s hitting Bush hard on how badly things are going in Iraq. Bush responds again claiming that Kerry supported the war. Kerry declined to answer that, but made the point that he has the legitimacy to bring other nations to the table.

Did Kerry say “Weapons of Mass Destruction” coming into Iraq in there? Maybe I misheard…

The two candidates just came up on stage–I noticed that Kerry came as close to Bush as he could, undoubtedly to demonstrate the difference in height!

On the first question: on preventing another 9/11. Kerry comes out strongly, answering strongly and confidently, with a good thank-you and nod to Floridians. Kerry’s longer answer on the topic does contain a few small stumbles, but his sentences are shorter, more terse, to the point–he’s really getting his points out well, and he’s laying out his argument.

Bush started out very quickly with a religious reference. He sounds more relaxed, almost bored, but it gives perhaps a more confident impression. His answers are less substantial, but better-sounding. That will probably be his main style in this debate–he’ll be remarkably short on substance, and will just use comforting words and an easy, slow style to win the night, while Kerry will be coming out with facts and plans. That would be a challenge for Kerry, whose style is less personally endearing.

Well, the pundits, of course, are already spinning. On CNN, in the half hour before the debate, the pundits are already putting the onus on Kerry, as if all Bush has to do is stay the course and he’ll win, while Kerry will have to hit a home run in order to get anywhere. And, of course, because it’s CNN, the poll numbers they’re quoting are Gallup’s, which are by far the most favorable to Bush.

I plan to watch the U.S. presidential debates tomorrow morning (10:00 am Japan time), and I hope that I will be able to comment–at least briefly–on the ongoing debate in real time. I’ll be limited by my ability to listen and type meaningfully at the same time, so the comments may be short–and since my job requires me to scoot just after the debates end, more in-depth commentary may have to wait until late evening Japan time (early morning U.S. time).If you want to drop comments in real time, please feel free–I’d like to hear your thoughts before the spinmeisters get to everyone.

Foreign universities based in Japan are soon to be accepted by Monbusho, the Japanese Ministry of Education. This is a big thing, as up until now, foreign university campuses based in Japan–even those with full U.S. accreditation–were not considered real colleges by the Japanese government. Students at these schools were not given privileges enjoyed by most Japanese students, particularly student discounts on train and bus passes and other student prices. Additionally, credit earned by these schools would usually not be transferable to Japanese colleges.

In order to be recognized by Monbusho in the past, one’s curriculum had to be at least partly in Japanese, and a good many other labyrinthine requirements had to be met.

With the new rules, foreign colleges in Japan can now have roughly the same privileges while not being bound to strict Japanese-style regulations, so long as the country of origin has their embassy representatives visit the schools and vouch that their curriculum is identical to the home campus’.

Branch campuses of foreign schools in Japan exploded in the late 1980’s before the economic bubble had collapsed; about three dozen U.S. colleges and universities had accredited campuses here. That soon changed as the economy went south, Japanese financial backers backed out, and standards plummeted. Schools started shutting down without warning, leaving students stranded in mid-semester. This snowballed into a nationwide distrust of the schools, which led to further recruitment losses and closures, until there were only a handful remaining. With the closure of Minnesota State in Akita last year and the closing of the University of Illinois at Carbondale in Niigata soon, there will be only two accredited American colleges remaining in Japan, both in Tokyo: Temple University, and Lakeland College (Japanese site)–the school where I myself work as an assistant professor.

Our school has been doing very well; our student body tripled in just four years after I started working here (not cause and effect, alas), although some of that gain was lost after 9/11 hit right as our 2002 recruitment drive was starting, and then the very next year, Bush started pushing for war in Iraq. Those incidents made many Japanese students and their parents nervous about safety issues. Since then, however, things have stabilized and numbers are again rising. The new expected Monbusho acceptance should go a very long way to helping us boost those number higher than before.

Additionally, Lakeland College has begun a new Study Abroad Program (Japanese page), in which American students come to live in Japan for four to eight months, while still earning credits from a U.S.-accredited college.

At least the store in Shinjuku on Shokuan Dori , which runs parallel to and north of Yasukuni Dori. They’ve cleaned up the image somewhat. For those of you unfamiliar with the chain, Don Quixote (Don Kihote in Japanese) is a chain of retail outlets that specializes in having tons of stuff of all kinds for cheap prices. Sort of like Walmart in the U.S., but with narrower aisles and less fascism.

Part of Don Quixote’s image is the cramped, closed aisles stuffed with all variety of merchandise, laid out in an almost maze-like fashion so that one never knows what one will run into next, and every shopping experience tends to be different from the last. Imagine a

The new makeover has cleaned up that image while still embracing the fundamental principal. The store is now much cleaner and feels less cluttered, with major aisles now much wider–though the meandering nooks and crannies are still there. Their food section is now much expanded, included a wider variety of foreign imports than before. Still not National Azabu or even Kinokuniya Supermarket, but if you haven’t been there for a while, you might want to check–though I don’t know if the makeover is limited to that one store…

CBS News had no problem outlining ten major flip-flops by Bush (although they didn’t have room for a few of the big ones, like wanting bin Laden “dead or alive,” and then three months later not caring where he was), but their list of Kerry’s “flip-flops” fell drastically short of being true. Look at the “top three” from that list:

Senate’s Role In Wars With Iraq

Following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in January 1991, Kerry … said on the Senate floor, “It is a vote about war because whether or not the president exercises his power, we will have no further say after this vote.” … In October 2002, he supported the current war in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq took no aggressive action against its neighbors.

In announcing his candidacy for president, in September 2003, he said his October 2002 vote was simply “to threaten” the use of force, apparently backtracking from his belief in 1991 that such a vote would grant the president an open-ended ticket to wage war.

This analysis disregards the fact that Kerry also stated on the Senate floor in 2002 that he voted to grant powers on the promise Bush made to first send inspectors and then garner a true international coalition, and it was only necessary to grant open-ended powers so that Bush would have the clout to carry out his promise. Bush had been the one to say it would be used “to threaten” Hussein. Kerry did not flip-flop on this one, Bush did.

If I Knew Then What I Know Now…

“We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today,” Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That’s plain and simple.”

But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: “[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.”

The Kerry campaign says voting to authorize the war in Iraq is different from deciding diplomacy has failed and waging war. But Kerry’s nuanced position has contradicted itself on whether it was right or wrong to wage the war.

This is a bizarre analysis–it only seems contradictory if you try hard to misinterpret, or only pay attention to the first few words of sentences. Kerry’s stand was consistent: he would have voted to give the authority to the president as a way to force inspections, and believes now just as he did then that it was right to do that. He has also remained consistent in saying that going to war without letting diplomacy do its work is the wrong thing. Where’s the contradiction? There’s just no flip-flop here, just an apparent flip-flop generated by spin, not reality.

The $87 Billion Vote

In September 2003, Kerry implied that voting against wartime funding bills was equivalent to abandoning the troops. … Then, in October 2003, a year after voting to support the use of force in Iraq, Kerry voted against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support an alternative bill that funded the $87 billion by cutting some of President Bush’s tax cuts.

But when it was apparent the alternative bill would not pass, he decided to go on record as not supporting the legislation to fund soldiers.

That’s a flip-flop? By not switching sides when the vote count looks bad? CBS is claiming that Kerry flip-flopped here … because he didn’t flip-flop! On this one, Kerry stood by his convictions; that his favored bill didn’t pass did not mean that he voted against funding. By the words of the CBS analysis, Kerry knew that the soldiers would receive funding anyway–so how was he abandoning the troops? Incredible.

Really, the list reflects more the spin put out by the Bush administration than the actual truth of the matter. I can only surmise that the writer, finding no significant flip-flops from Kerry, had no choice but to use the GOP spin in lieu of actual flip-flops in order to seem balanced, producing top-ten lists for both candidates.

Once again, I’m staying up way beyond the time I should. But I looked out the window and saw the typhoon moving away. It swept over us this evening, dropping heavy sheets of rainfall for hours, sometime even splashing against my dining room windows so i couldn’t see outside. (And took out satellite TV reception several times….)

And now we have post-typhoon clarity outside, starry skies and a receding swarm of clouds lit by the occasional flash of lightning within.

Should be good weather tomorrow.

What is needed at this time is a portable yet comprehensive list detailing why Bush should not be re-elected. Here’s my shot at it:

Taxes: Gave trillion-dollar tax cut to the wealthy while giving token sum to middle class; in so doing, shifted the tax burden from wealthier Americans onto the middle class. What little the middle class got out of it was quickly nullified by higher oil prices, slashed public services, and a greater burden put on states, leading to higher property and other state & local taxes.

Jobs: Presided over the greatest loss of jobs since Herbert Hoover. What few jobs have been gained pay far less than before, with a hemorrhage of manufacturing jobs going overseas with Bush trying to give them tax breaks for doing so. The Bush administration’s solution to the loss of valuable jobs: try to get burger flippers reclassified as manufacturers.

Deficit and Debt: Inherited a historic, rare budget surplus. Immediately handed a gigantic tax cut to wealthy people as the economy was floundering, and allowed a Republican-controlled Congress to massively overspend on pork, while spending hundreds of billions on a war in Iraq that did not need to be fought. The result: massive, record-breaking deficits. The damage: the interest on the national debt alone is now costing us $375 billion per year, and more than $4 trillion over the next ten years. A Democrat would have stayed Clinton’s course and would have been paying down the debt right now instead of massively adding to it. Bush’s budgets have grown twice as fast as Bill Clinton’s.

Medicare: Lied to Congress about how much his Medicare plan would cost. Locked seniors into plans that healthcare providers could change at any time. Forbade the government from negotiating for lower prices from pharmaceutical corporations, and blocked state plans to import drugs from other countries like Canada. Illegally used government funds to create fake news reports which were little more than Bush campaign commercials.

Social Security: after doing little to nothing on the issue, Bush still wants to privatize social security, which could have catastrophic effects on seniors while handing a trillion-dollar windfall to financial service industries. It would also strand millions of seniors whenever the economy goes south just as they retire, and we will be forced to pay benefits to them anyway or let them starve.

Education: Failed miserably in reforming Texas educational system, instead corrupting the system and encouraging fraud and the abandonment of lower-performing students. Backs standardized testing which leads to a disastrous test-centered educational system. Massively underfunded education, most of all the “No Child Left Behind” system. Wants vouchers for private schools which cannot possibly work at the large scale; instead it will only limit quality education for wealthier families who already access private schools, while huge numbers of poorer children will see their own educational system crumble.

Foreign Policy: Alienated most of the world, after almost all countries felt an incredible level of sympathy for us. Abrogated several treaties, ridiculed and condescended to some of our strongest allies. Lied to the international community about Iraq intelligence, and met unheard-of opposition from other countries in his single-minded drive into Iraq. Has made the United States an international pariah.

National Security: Underfunded border and import control, local police, fire and emergency services. The invasion of Iraq has stretched our military forces to the breaking point, rendering us unnecessarily unable to fight any war that may need to be fought. Bungled the intelligence before 9/11, ignoring intelligence that pointed to the attack because it would have been inconvenient to focus on terrorism while pushing for a missile defense system. Admits that al Qaeda operates within the United States while having no clue as to who or where they are or what they may be doing. Abandoned any serious hunt for bin Laden or al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Military: Cut pay and benefits for soldiers, slashed veterans’ benefits, and chintzed on supplies for soldiers while handing billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to big firms, most of all Vice President Cheney’s firm, Halliburton. Created havoc in the military with the invasion of Iraq, a quagmire that is sapping our military strength. Is lengthening soldiers’ (including guardsmen and reservists) tours ridiculously long while draining forces from military bases around the world, discouraging re-enlistment and recruitment. America is now unable to take on any additional military tasks, and can barely handle what Bush is pushing on it.

Environment: Cut clean-air and -water regulations, cut funding for environmental protection, pushed for oil drilling in wildlife sanctuaries, allowed corporations to avoid clean-up costs, opened up public lands to logging, among countless other environmental failings. Subverted and distorted science to fit his policies, appointed pro-business and anti-environmental officials to key posts. Opposes the Kyoto treaty.

Energy: Among the main points of the very long list of malfeasance: allowed big oil, coal and nuclear industries to secretly write the nation’s energy policy, and refuses to this day to let you know the details. Mouths support for clean energy but does not fund them anywhere close to the point where they could actually produce anything. Oil prices under Bush have shot up to record levels, making Americans even more dependent on foreign oil, not less.

A Divider, Not a Uniter: Has polarized the American public to an unheard-of degree. Has played extreme partisan politics since day one.

Character: The only president in history with a criminal record. Arrested for drunk driving. Well-known for belittling people, putting them down. Once cruelly mocked a woman on death row who had become a born-again Christian and was doing good works. There is so much more… see here, here and here for a fuller accounting of the depth of this man’s petty character.

Lies: Lied about his criminal record. Lied about his relationship to Ken Lay. Lied about his intentions upon becoming president. Lied about the state of Iraq’s weapons programs, and our reasons for going into Iraq. Lied about who kept inspectors from doing their job in Iraq. Lied about the state of affairs in Iraq. Lied about wanting to find out about intelligence failures that led to 9/11, opposed the 9/11 commission. Lied about his tax cuts. Lied about the size and permanence of budget deficit. Lied about his Medicare program. Lied about countless other issues, large and small.

Corruption and Lawbreaking: As governor of Texas, lied under oath in a criminal case. Had Ken Lay as his biggest contributor, then denied knowing him. Had long-term relations with Saudis and other oil interests in the Middle East, then covered for them by censoring a report that identified them as supporting terrorists. Allowed energy corporations to write national energy policy. Subverted antiterrorism policy in favor of pushing pet policies like missile defense, leading to the open door the terrorists walked through on 9/11 and before. Fought tooth and nail to prevent the 9/11 commission from being formed, fought against it when it needed time and resources, and has failed to implement its recommendations. Lied to Congress about his Medicare plan costs, then illegally used public funds to make fake news reports which were thinly veiled campaign commercials. People in his administration committed a felony when they revealed the identity of a CIA operative as payback for her husband’s exposing Bush’s lie on Iraq’s nuclear program. Republican operatives for Bush purged mostly-Democratic and legally eligible voters from voter rolls in Florida (in 2000 and 2004), and then in 2000 led a massive campaign of fraud in Florida to stop recounts, aided by election fraud consisting of tampering with absentee ballots in two counties and suppressing the minority vote; without even one of these illegal actions, Bush would not have won. And the list goes on and on, from the man who claimed to bring “honor and dignity back to the White House. More here, here, and here (just recent stuff), and here and here and on countless other sites on the net, just do a Google and see the huge numbers pop up.

And remember: all of the above is the short list.