HUBRIS WATCH
Rich Galen, former executive director of GOPAC, at mullings.com: "I believe the calculus changed at some point late this summer. The question is no longer who Republicans think they have a better chance of defeating for President -- Numb or Numb-er -- but rather whether the Democrats are going to be able to beat George W, no matter which is their nominee."

MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE
There are two oddities about the Gore-Bradley position on gay marriage. First, both of them oppose it on religious grounds. Huh? These guys don't believe in "imposing their religions" on other people, right? Way back when, both of them used to oppose abortion. As far as we know, they still claim to "personally oppose" it on religious grounds. So why doesn't that translate into public policy?

Second, both candidates oppose a California initiative to codify the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman. In explaining their positions, they fell back on one of the more irritating dodges in American politics: The initiative, they said, was "divisive." One could object to this cliched terminology on the grounds that outside of North Korea, all elections are "divisive"--they divide those who vote for candidate A from those who vote for candidate B, those who vote yes from those who vote no. But concede the argument that while marriage is properly restricted to heterosexual couples, raising the issue unnecessarily will inflame passions, stigmatize homosexuals, etc. This is an argument against putting the initiative on the ballot, not against voting for it once it's there.

J. C. Watts used a similar dodge in voting to continue racial preferences last year. The political timing, he said, was wrong, would send the wrong message, etc. The correct response then was: That argument is over. You're not voting on timing; you're voting on preferences. If Bradley and Gore take the position that they will do nothing to defend the legal definition of marriage as a heterosexual institution from an assault by the courts, voters are entitled to conclude that their position is pro-gay-marriage, and duplicitous.