Smoking is indeed a dangerous habit, but anti-smoking activism these days has little to do with health or the public good. Driven by their peculiar mix of self-righteousness, hysteria and rage, the health mullahs have long since abandoned any attempt at accuracy, honesty or good faith as they make their arguments. A case in point was the ban on smoking in bars introduced earlier this year by Ireland’s health minister, oddball busybody Micheal Martin. Amongst the usual – and bogus – claims of the dangers of ‘passive smoking’, Eire’s maddest mullah also threw in the assertion that the ban would have no impact on pubs’ business.

Oh really?

Here’s a paragraph from Friday’s Financial Times:

“In Ireland, a slowdown in drinking generally has been compounded by the ban on smoking in pubs. It has reinforced a steady shift from drinking in the pub to drinking at home and that has hit Guinness sales particularly hard…”

Catching up with today’s hard copy version of the London Times (link outside the UK requires subscription), takes a little of the pleasure out of a return to the old country, thanks to the typically irritating efforts of the prominent columnist Simon Jenkins, a writer as reliably condescending as he is reliably wrong.

It’s a little unfair to extract a sentence or two from a long article (which basically is concerned with the need for, uh, a more sensitive approach in the fight against Islamic extremism), but these words are worth repeating just for what they reveal about the extent of anti-Americanism among a significant contingent of Britain’s chattering classes:

“American liberal democracy scarcely knows itself. Habeas corpus is suspended. A presidential election is held under the aura of war. As Jan Morris wrote in the Times, America has returned to being “an organically militarist nation, proud of its power…and comfortable with its allegories.” The American soldier abroad is no more a figure of jocular affection but rather a Tolkein Orc, an armoured monster spewing indiscriminate death.”

John Kerry has said that he wants to improve America’s image abroad. Quite how he proposes to deal with such irrationality escapes me.

From today’s London Times:

“The hostage-takers inside the school opened fire on the fleeing children, apparently with every intention to kill.”

Words fail me.

If Muslim religious leaders around the world will not publicly condemn the taking of children as hostages and their subsequent slaughter — if those "men of faith" will not issue a condemnation without reservations or caveats — then no one need pretend any longer that all religions are equally sound and moral.

Overheard: Conservative author Ann Coulter to actor Ron Silver, who spoke at the convention.

Coulter: "Your speech was spectacular! Spectacular!"

Silver: "So, please remember when you hear me on West Wing, those are Aaron Sorkin's words, not mine. I'm an actor."

An email: "You recently wrote: 'And Kerry finds himself in a trap. If he talks about
domestic issues, he leaves the charges about his war record and his antiwar
record unanswered - and disappoints his base. If he responds to those
charges, he is stuck in the past - and more negative than the president's
acceptance speech was.' You've missed two points in this analysis, both of
which benefit the president:

"1) If Kerry emphasizes domestic issues in his campaign that echo his Senate
voting record he will be exposed for the tax-and-spend liberal from
Massachusetts that he is. For whatever reason, conservatives tend to win at
the presidential level when emphasizing their conservative domestic agenda,
but liberals do not.

"2) If Kerry emphasizes domestic issues in his campaign that DO NOT SOUND
liberal and cannot be criticized for being overtly liberal -- which was
Clinton's tactic in 1992 -- then Bush will expose Kerry for flip-flopping,
building an negative image about Kerry that already exists but hasn't yet
been firmed-up in the public's mind. Some pundits say, 'Don't hit Kerry for
being a flip-flopper -- voters aren't afraid of flip-floppers, they're
afraid of liberals.' True, but its incredibly EASY to meld these two themes
together and, quite frankly, I'm not sure why more politicians don't (though
some do). The rough outline of the bifurcated message would become: 'He
flips, he flops, he flips -- all to hide his 20-year liberal voting record
that earned him the title of The Most Liberal Senator in America' (you
asterisk that last phrase and in small type at the bottom of the TV add you
include your citation (the National Journal, if I recall correctly).

"Either way, Kerry is screwed."

As Ramesh reported, the economy added 144,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in August with the unemployment rate falling to 5.4 percent, its lowest level since October 2001.

Some more jobs details: The latest payroll jump is the most since May, is the first acceleration in hiring in 5 months, and marks the 12th straight month that payroll jobs have climbed. July payroll numbers were also revised upward from 32,000 to 73,000.

Election-year trivia: The unemployment rate at the same time in 1996 while Clinton was running for his second term was 5.1 percent -- 0.3 percent lower than it is today (although by the end of that year the rate had climbed to 5.4 percent, just where it is today).

Assessment of the latest jobs numbers: Fine. Bush should talk the rate (which is historically low); the media will talk the payroll numbers (overlooking the Labor Department’s household survey, which according to our David Malpass is “more representative of the economy than the [payroll] survey”); and the Kerry camp will continue to call all job increases “unacceptable,” will discuss jobs lost since Bush took office (and weathered the Clinton recession, 9/11, corporate scandals, and the war on terror), and will never mention the unemployment rate. (NRO Financial’s Jerry Bowyer has pointed out that “the nation has historically focused on the unemployment rate when it comes to measuring the health of the jobs market.”)

Early jobs buzz: The financial press is having trouble spinning this one negative. Their best thumbs-down talking point is that the payroll figure is lower than the consensus estimate (which was only a few jobs away at 150,000). Some are even saying that the latest Labor Department figures are a sign that the economy is pulling out of its summer slump.

Final overall assessment: Bush can ride this.

Decent, not spectacular. "The U.S. job market brightened in August as employers added 144,000 workers to their payrolls and hiring totals for the two prior months were revised up, the Labor Department reported on Friday.

"With the economy growing in importance as an issue in November presidential elections, the department said the August unemployment rate dropped to 5.4 percent from 5.5 percent in July. It was the lowest rate since a matching 5.4 percent in October 2001 and was certain to be cited by President George W. Bush as a sign that his tax cuts have helped stimulate economic activity.

"The August new-job gain came in slightly below Wall Street analysts' forecasts for a 150,000-job gain but the department also revised up its totals for June and July job creation by 59,000. That created a moderately more favorable picture for summer job growth, but is likely to leave unresolved for now whether the economy was successfully shaking off a June soft patch as Federal Reserve policymakers expect it to do.

From a reader:

Why does Mr. Hardball keep reiterating how "peaceful" the democratic protesters are acting - like they should be rewarded? I don't recall him praising the republicans for their good behavior in Boston - oh, that's right, republicans weren't interrupting their convention - even "peacefully."

One thing I have learned about the presidency is that whatever shortcomings you have, people are going to notice them -- and whatever strengths you have, you're going to need them. These four years have brought moments I could not foresee and will not forget. I have tried to comfort Americans who lost the most on September 11th -- people who showed me a picture or told me a story, so I would know how much was taken from them. I have learned first-hand that ordering Americans into battle is the hardest decision, even when it is right. I have returned the salute of wounded soldiers, some with a very tough road ahead, who say they were just doing their job. I've held the children of the fallen, who are told their dad or mom is a hero, but would rather just have their dad or mom.

And I have met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers ? to offer encouragement to me. Where does strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride? It is because they know their loved one was last seen doing good. Because they know that liberty was precious to the one they lost. And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation: decent, and idealistic, and strong.

The world saw that spirit three miles from here, when the people of this city faced peril together, and lifted a flag over the ruins, and defied the enemy with their courage. My fellow Americans, for as long as our country stands, people will look to the resurrection of New York City and they will say: Here buildings fell, and here a nation rose.

This election will also determine how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism ? and you know where I stand. Three days after September 11th, I stood where Americans died, in the ruins of the Twin Towers. Workers in hard hats were shouting to me, \"Whatever it takes.\" A fellow grabbed me by the arm and he said, \"Do not let me down.\" Since that day, I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. I will never relent in defending America ? whatever it takes.

So we have fought the terrorists across the earth ? not for pride, not for power, but because the lives of our citizens are at stake. Our strategy is clear. We have tripled funding for homeland security and trained half a million first responders, because we are determined to protect our homeland. We are transforming our military and reforming and strengthening our intelligence services. We are staying on the offensive ? striking terrorists abroad ? so we do not have to face them here at home. And we are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East, because freedom will bring a future of hope, and the peace we all want. And we will prevail.

Our strategy is succeeding. Four years ago, Afghanistan was the home base of al-Qaida, Pakistan was a transit point for terrorist groups, Saudi Arabia was fertile ground for terrorist fundraising, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, Iraq was a gathering threat, and al-Qaida was largely unchallenged as it planned attacks. Today, the government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror, Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders, Saudi Arabia is making raids and arrests, Libya is dismantling its weapons programs, the army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, and more than three-quarters of al-Qaida\'s key members and associates have been detained or killed. We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer.

This progress involved careful diplomacy, clear moral purpose, and some tough decisions. And the toughest came on Iraq. We knew Saddam Hussein\'s record of aggression and support for terror. We knew his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction. And we know that September 11th requires our country to think differently: We must, and we will, confront threats to America before it is too late.

In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. Members of both political parties, including my opponent and his running mate, saw the threat, and voted to authorize the use of force. We went to the United Nations Security Council, which passed a unanimous resolution demanding the dictator disarm, or face serious consequences. Leaders in the Middle East urged him to comply. After more than a decade of diplomacy, we gave Saddam Hussein another chance, a final chance, to meet his responsibilities to the civilized world. He again refused, and I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office ? a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make. Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.

Because we acted to defend our country, the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are history, more than 50 million people have been liberated, and democracy is coming to the broader Middle East. In Afghanistan, terrorists have done everything they can to intimidate people ? yet more than 10 million citizens have registered to vote in the October presidential election ? a resounding endorsement of democracy. Despite ongoing acts of violence, Iraq now has a strong Prime Minister, a national council, and national elections are scheduled for January. Our Nation is standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, because when America gives its word, America must keep its word. As importantly, we are serving a vital and historic cause that will make our country safer. Free societies in the Middle East will be hopeful societies, which no longer feed resentments and breed violence for export. Free governments in the Middle East will fight terrorists instead
of harboring them, and that helps us keep the peace. So our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq is clear: We will help new leaders to train their armies, and move toward elections, and get on the path of stability and democracy as quickly as possible. And then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.

Our troops know the historic importance of our work. One Army Specialist wrote home: \"We are transforming a once sick society into a hopeful place ? The various terrorist enemies we are facing in Iraq,\" he continued, \"are really aiming at you back in the United States. This is a test of will for our country. We soldiers of yours are doing great and scoring victories in confronting the evil terrorists.\"

That young man is right ? our men and women in uniform are doing a superb job for America. Tonight I want to speak to all of them ? and to their families: You are involved in a struggle of historic proportion. Because of your service and sacrifice, we are defeating the terrorists where they live and plan, and making America safer. Because of you, women in Afghanistan are no longer shot in a sports stadium. Because of you, the people of Iraq no longer fear being executed and left in mass graves. Because of you, the world is more just and will be more peaceful. We owe you our thanks, and we owe you something more. We will give you all the resources, all the tools, and all the support you need for victory.

Again, my opponent and I have different approaches. I proposed, and the Congress overwhelmingly passed, 87 billion dollars in funding needed by our troops doing battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor. When asked to explain his vote, the Senator said, \"I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.\" Then he said he was \"proud\" of that vote. Then, when pressed, he said it was a \"complicated\" matter. There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.

Our allies also know the historic importance of our work. About 40 nations stand beside us in Afghanistan, and some 30 in Iraq. And I deeply appreciate the courage and wise counsel of leaders like Prime Minister Howard, and President Kwasniewski, and Prime Minister Berlusconi ? and, of course, Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Again, my opponent takes a different approach. In the midst of war, he has called America\'s allies, quote, a \"coalition of the coerced and the bribed.\" That would be nations like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador, Australia, and others ? allies that deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician. I respect every soldier, from every country,who serves beside us in the hard work of history. America is grateful, and America will not forget.

The people we have freed won\'t forget either. Not long ago, seven Iraqi men came to see me in the Oval Office. They had \"X\"s branded into their foreheads, and their right hands had been cut off, by Saddam Hussein\'s secret police, the sadistic punishment for imaginary crimes. During our emotional visit one of the Iraqi men used his new prosthetic hand to slowly write out, in Arabic, a prayer for God to bless America. I am proud that our country remains the hope of the oppressed, and the greatest force for good on this earth.

Others understand the historic importance of our work. The terrorists know. They know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate. They know that men and women with hope, and purpose, and dignity do not strap bombs on their bodies and kill the innocent. The terrorists are fighting freedom with all their cunning and cruelty because freedom is their greatest fear ? and they should be afraid, because freedom is on the march.

I believe in the transformational power of liberty: The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom. As the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq seize the moment, their example will send a message of hope throughout a vital region. Palestinians will hear the message that democracy and reform are within their reach, and so is peace with our good friend Israel. Young women across the Middle East will hear the message that their day of equality and justice is coming. Young men will hear the message that national progress and dignity are found in liberty, not tyranny and terror. Reformers, and political prisoners, and exiles will hear the message that their dream of freedom cannot be denied forever. And as freedom advances ? heart by heart, and nation by nation ? America will be more secure and the world more peaceful.

America has done this kind of work before ? and there have always been doubters. In 1946, 18 months after the fall of Berlin to allied forces, a journalist wrote in the New York Times, \"Germany is ? a land in an acute stage of economic, political and moral crisis. [European] capitals are frightened. In every [military] headquarters, one meets alarmed officials doing their utmost to deal with the consequences of the occupation policy that they admit has failed.\" End quote. Maybe that same person\'s still around, writing editorials. Fortunately, we had a resolute president named Truman, who with the American people persevered, knowing that a new democracy at the center of Europe would lead to stability and peace. And because that generation of Americans held firm in the cause of liberty, we live in a better and safer world today.

The progress we and our friends and allies seek in the broader Middle East will not come easily, or all at once. Yet Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of liberty to transform lives and nations. That power brought settlers on perilous journeys, inspired colonies to rebellion, ended the sin of slavery, and set our Nation against the tyrannies of the 20th century. We were honored to aid the rise of democracy in Germany and Japan and Nicaragua and Central Europe and the Baltics ? and that noble story goes on. I believe that America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century. I believe that millions in the Middle East plead in silence for their liberty. I believe that given the chance, they will embrace the most honorable form of government ever devised by man. I believe all these things because freedom is not America\'s gift to the world, it is the Almighty God\'s gift to every man and woman in this world.

This moment in the life of our country will be remembered. Generations will know if we kept our faith and kept our word. Generations will know if we seized this moment, and used it to build a future of safety and peace. The freedom of many, and the future security of our Nation, now depend on us. And tonight, my fellow Americans, I ask you to stand with me.

In the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don\'t agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand. You may have noticed I have a few flaws, too. People sometimes have to correct my English ? I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger started doing it. Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called \"walking.\" Now and then I come across as a little too blunt ? and for that we can all thank the white-haired lady sitting right up there.

One thing I have learned about the presidency is that whatever shortcomings you have, people are going to notice them ? and whatever strengths you have, you\'re going to need them. These four years have brought moments I could not foresee and will not forget. I have tried to comfort Americans who lost the most on September 11th ? people who showed me a picture or told me a story, so I would know how much was taken from them. I have learned first-hand that ordering Americans into battle is the hardest decision, even when it is right. I have returned the salute of wounded soldiers, some with a very tough road ahead, who say they were just doing their job. I\'ve held the children of the fallen, who are told their dad or mom is a hero, but would rather just have their dad or mom.

And I have met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers ? to offer encouragement to me. Where does strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride? It is because they know their loved one was last seen doing good. Because they know that liberty was precious to the one they lost. And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation: decent, and idealistic, and strong.

The world saw that spirit three miles from here, when the people of this city faced peril together, and lifted a flag over the ruins, and defied the enemy with their courage. My fellow Americans, for as long as our country stands, people will look to the resurrection of New York City and they will say: Here buildings fell, and here a nation rose.

We see America\'s character in our military, which finds a way or makes one. We see it in our veterans, who are supporting military families in their days of worry. We see it in our young people, who have found heroes once again. We see that character in workers and entrepreneurs, who are renewing our economy with their effort and optimism. And all of this has confirmed one belief beyond doubt: Having come this far, our tested and confident Nation can achieve anything.

To everything we know there is a season ? a time for sadness, a time for struggle, a time for rebuilding. And now we have reached a time for hope. This young century will be liberty\'s century. By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world. By encouraging liberty at home, we will build a more hopeful America. Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom. This is the everlasting dream of America ? and tonight, in this place, that dream is renewed. Now we go forward ? grateful for our freedom, faithful to our cause, and confident in the future of the greatest nation on earth.

God bless you, and may God continue to bless America.

Noam Scheiber disagrees with me when I wrote:

I think the Miller speech was fantastic, as I said. But I do think that if it had been delivered by a Republican it would be seen as a major liability for Bush--largely because the press would buy [the Miller=Buchanan] spin. I think the Bush campaign believes that the counter-spin that Miller's a Democrat will defuse that sort of thing; "the Republicans weren't mean. Zell Miller's a Democrat."

I think the gamble will pay off. But expect a blizzard of spin from those who want to Buchananify the speech.

He then writes in response to me -- and others who make a similar point:

Forgive me if I'm not persuaded. The idea that swing voter-types watching the speech (or listening to soundbites of it) will be reassured by Miller's partisan affiliation rests on the assumption that swing voters care about partisan affiliation. But, of course, by definition being a swing voter means you don't.

Scheiber may be right that the Miller speech didn't do the job I suspect it did. But I think this argument here is more word game than anything else. Swing-voters or independents care very much about partisan affiliation -- when the affiliated partisans aren't loyal to their own side. Who are the popular politicians in the world of moderates, swing-voters, independents, centrists etc? McCain, Giuliani, Specter, Jeffords, Lieberman etc. Scheiber might think these guys are all popular because of their policies but I think that's contradicted pretty obviously by reality. The swing-types like "mavericks" and other types who don't toe the party line. I don't think I need to get too deep in the details for most people to realize their popularity is not based solely on substance but also on their "independent" style.

Says no man named Pataki will ever be President of the United States. I see no reason to doubt the validity of that ancient prediction.

His speechwriter though, is very good.

Man, does he look and sound like he's reading a speech.

From the Kerry campaign press release:

Tonight, John Kerry and John Edwards will hold a midnight rally in Springfield Ohio to begin the final fight towards election day. Just minutes after we hear the President bring to a close one of the nastiest, most divisive conventions in history, John Kerry and John Edwards will lay out their plans for the future to strengthen this country and reverse the last four years.

The Kerry Campaign is going to seize on Bush’s embrace of his record and use it against him by arguing that Americans should stick with this President if they are satisfied with the way his policies have resulted in the loss of almost two million jobs, health insurance for five million people, and a go-it-alone foreign policy that has cost the nation $200 billion and way too many lives.

If America wants a new direction with a President who will provide middle class tax cuts, create jobs, make health care accessible, fight a more effective war on terror, restore respect for America in the world, and reduce America’s dependence on Middle East oil, vote for John Kerry.

And here are the excerpts as prepared for delivery:

The election comes down to this. If you believe this country is heading in the right direction, you should support George Bush. But if you believe America needs to move in a new direction, join with us. John and I offer a better plan that will make us stronger at home and more respected in the world. And we need your help to do that.

For three days in New York, instead of talking about jobs and the economy, we heard anger and insults from the Republicans. And I’ll tell you why. It’s because they can’t talk about the real issues facing Americans. They can’t talk about their record because it’s a record of failure.

We all saw the anger and distortion of the Republican Convention. For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as Commander-in-chief. We’ll, here’s my answer. I’m not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.

The Vice President even called me unfit for office last night. I'm guess I'll leave it up to the voters whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of combat duty.

Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without healthcare makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi Royal Family control our energy costs makes you unfit. Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit. That's the record of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it's not going to change. I believe it's time to move America in a new direction; I believe it's time to set a new course for America.

And we have a specific plan to do just that. So tomorrow morning, John and Elizabeth and Teresa and I are hitting the road across America’s heartland. From here, we’ll go out and talk with Americans in towns across Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan. And because a stronger America begins at home, we’ll talk about our plan to create jobs, cut taxes for the middle class, lower health care costs, and make America safer and more secure.

President George W. Bush Excerpts from Remarks to the 2004 Republican National Convention Tonight, President Bush will talk about where he wants to lead this country for the next four years and lay out a specific agenda to get there. "I am running for President with a clear and positive plan to build a safer world, and a more hopeful America. I am running with a compassionate conservative philosophy: that government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives. I believe this Nation wants steady, consistent, principled leadership - and that is why, with your help, we will win this election." To build a more hopeful America, the President will talk about the changing world we live in and the need for government to change with it so it is on the side of children, families and workers today. "The times in which we live and work are changing dramatically. The workers of our parents' generation typically had one job, one skill, one career - often with one company that provided health care and a pension. And most of those workers were men. Today, workers change jobs, even careers, many times during their lives, and in one of the most dramatic shifts our society has seen, two-thirds of all Moms also work outside the home. "This changed world can be a time of great opportunity for all Americans to earn a better living, support your family, and have a rewarding career. And government must take your side. Many of our most fundamental systems - the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, worker training - were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow. We will transform these systems so that all citizens are equipped, prepared - and thus truly free - to make your own choices and pursue your own dreams." *** "In all these proposals, we seek to provide not just a government program, but a path - a path to greater opportunity, more freedom, and more control over your own life." To build a safer world, he'll talk about his strategy of staying on the offensive against terrorists and the progress we are making in winning the War on Terror in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. He'll also talk about the power of liberty to transform countries and lives and bring a future of hope and peace. And that is his goal...to build a future where the world is safer and more at peace. "So we have fought the terrorists across the earth - not for pride, not for power, but because the lives of our citizens are at stake. Our strategy is clear. We have tripled funding for homeland security and trained half a million first responders, because we are determined to protect our homeland. We are transforming our military and reforming and strengthening our intelligence services. We are staying on the offensive - striking terrorists abroad - so we do not have to face them here at home. And we are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East, because freedom will bring a future of hope, and the peace we all want. And we will prevail." *** "This moment in the life of our country will be remembered. Generations will know if we kept our faith and kept our word. Generations will know if we seized this moment and used it to build a future of safety and peace. The freedom of many, and the future security of our Nation, now depend on us."

An email: "Last night he mentioned that his switch was triggered by his move to the Beltway; he didn't realize how Left-wing the national party was until he met the Democratic Senate Caucus. This awareness grew until 'the final straw': the Dems' response to 9/11.

"He discussed it on TV last night, but WaPo also notes it in a recent article."

Zell was being discussed as a possible Republican convert before 9/11--when Jeffords gave the Senate to the Democrats in the spring, some people talked about Miller's giving it back to the GOP. And the notion that he finally realized that the Democrats were a left-wing party in early 2001 is just not a great testament to his acuity.

I don't think we've ever really gotten an adequate explanation from the senator for the startling turn in his politics over the last four years. It would be one thing to leave the Democratic party because it's left you, and the South, in 1975 or 1985. But to (essentially) leave it in early 2001, years and years and years after McGovern, suggests a little slowness on the uptake.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there. I think that parts of Miller's speech are going to be hard for Republicans to defend. I know that Miller explicitly denied he was questioning the Democrats' patriotism. But he did pretty much say, in the passage about the 1940 election, that the Democrats were hurting the country by running a presidential campaign. And deliberately putting their own party's interests ahead of the nation. The occupier/liberator distinction he drew was also a stretch. We've plainly been both occupiers and liberators, and Democrats have not been especially keen to claim otherwise (even if they do not stress Bush's accomplishment in liberating Iraq).

How much of it is there, really, in his alleged heirs? Goldwater was a man who could go to Tennessee and pledge to abolish the Tennessee Valley Authority. Is Schwarzenegger that kind of government-cutter? Has any Republican since Goldwater been? (Reagan wasn't.) Is John McCain?

McCain's record on spending is forever being praised by people who have never looked up what percentage of the federal budget can be accounted for by pork. His anti-pork campaign has more to do with a kind of nationalism than with anti-statism. His genuinely solid anti-spending votes--for example, on Medicare--seem to be driven by pique at Bush. And he shows no restraint on regulation, seeking sweeping new regulations of the airline and health-care industries. (One of the ways he wants to save money on Medicare is by using the federal government's bargaining power to impose de facto price controls on the drug industry.) A revival of Goldwater Republicanism? When it comes to the size of government: I wish.

I knew I should have waited until after the convention to endorse the Philly proposal to make the whole city wireless. Lots of readers think it's a terrible idea that will put local ISPs out of business and deliver poor service.

Of the two, I think the first point is the better one and I'll ponder it more. Though will just say that private toll-road owners were hurt by public highways too, which is sort of the prism I'm looking through. But let's hold off on the emails and the discussion until next week, ok?

From an officer:

Jonah,

I'm sorry but it's about time someone with some credibility challenged yet
another whopping lie from McAulliffe. He stated tonight on Hannity and
Colmes that he received an email from a mom that claimed that she had to
send their son a kevlar helmet while he was in Iraq.

This is an out and out lie. I just returned from Iraq in March and I can
tell you without a doubt; No soldier would be allowed to leave a deployment
station without a kevlar helmet. If he lost it in country it would be
replaced immediately, because his chain of command would not let him leave
the wire without one.

This feeds into the democratic myth of bake sales for body armor. I'm
getting sick of this crap not being challenged. As leaders in the US Army
we would never let our troops operate without the proper protective gear.
This is not a smear on the administration, but rather on leadership in the
military and it can't go unchallenged.

Nobody will listen to a minion like me, but maybe you guys could provide a
decent answer to this repeated crap. Thanks for your time.

From a reader:

Jonah, Another thing, after watching both the Democratic and the to-date Republican convention, why do I get a sense that the Republicans are having fun while the Democrats seemed not to. It's just an observation - you were there so you have a better take, but I just sense, watching C-SPAN, that the delegates to the Republican Convention seem to be enjoying themselves, while watching the Democratic convention (again, on C-SPAN), the delegates always seemed to be in some kind of pain and forced to display their appreciation. Maybe it's 'cause I'm a conservative watching at home, but that's my take.

MEI think he's basically right, but it's not like I went to a lot of Democratic Parties. The few I went to the Dems did seem to be having a good time. But the mood here over all seems a bit happier. Though keep in mind that almost every Republican who recognizes me is likely to say hi or be nice (it's not that many). But pretty much every Democrat who recognized me looked at me like I was a pedophile. So that might skew my perceptions. What do other NRO-ers think?

From a reader (I wasn't watching NBC):

Jonah,

Don't know if you've seen TV coverage, but NBC had John McCain immediately after Miller's speech. McCain said something to the effect that it was wrong for Miller to question Kerry's patriotism (apparently missing the part where Miller said he didn't question Kerry's patriotism).

I think this need to be countered as quickly as possible.

--Andrew

I think the Miller speech was fantastic, as I said. But I do think that if it had been delivered by a Republican it would be seen as a major liability for Bush -- largely because the press would but that spin. I think the Bush campaign believes that the counter-spin that Miller's a Democrat will defuse that sort of thing; "the Republicans weren't mean. Zell Miller's a Democrat."

I think the gamble will pay off. But expect a blizzard of spin from those who want to Buchananify the speech.

I thought it was an fantastic speech. There are probably one or two statements of fact in it that I think the Dems can rightly quibble about. Kerry has said several times that he would not give the UN a veto etc etc.

But man-o-man-o-shevitz. Kerry must have smashed a bottle of chablis against the wall after hearing that.

Paraphrasing: "I like that [Bush] does not believe that God is indifferent to America."

Great line.

Spitballs!?"

Bam!

Everyone's saying that Zell's speech is going to be a barn-burner. (I haven't read it yet, I don't like pre-reading the speeches).

Should be fun.

Sorry to interrupt the convention stuff (not like anyone else is around), but I just saw this link on Drudge and I think it's fantastic and about time. Philly is considering making the entire city a wireless hotspot. Brilliant.

Yeah, there was plenty of good stuff and the concept was well-executed. But I really thought it was way too down and somber. The whole video was funereal. And they felt the need to invite a committee of pols to offer opinions most of which didn't add much.

Reagan was the cheeriest politician of the 20th century, with the exception of FDR who didn't have to cope with television. Reagan was the happy warrior and very little of that came through. I would bet the Gipper would have wanted something more upbeat. Not a dirge, but a New Orleans jazz funeral.

An email re the G-File:

I' ve been reading your columns for about three years now and I have never felt the need to write to you or any other columnist for that matter. I, however have never read a column that so perfectly sums up what I thought on a matter. You are a true genius, sir. The world should know your name and you deserve a raise. Thanks for doing that thing you do.
Have a good day,
[Name withheld]

And another:

Squish!

Dude, that column ended like the climactic battle that never was in "The Final Countdown" -- abrubtly and without any real conclusion, because suddenly being somewhere else loomed more important. One of your weakest G-Files, ever. Not because I thought you were wrong -- I didn't -- but because it looked like it was scribbled hastily on the back of the cup napkin at Starbuck's, and the Gettysburg Address it wasn't. You've had Corner posts longer and more scintillating. It this what we should come to expect from the cutting edge of generational conservative commentary? Bad show! Makes me want to go find my old fedora.

As a speechmaker she makes a great Secretary of Labor.

What a dull talk. Sorry, but I think it might be impossible for any Secretary of Labor to be exciting.

Even her life story -- which is impressive -- came across listless. Though when her husband introduced her with the story about how she came here by boat without knowing English at the age of 8, I couldn't help but think of the Simpson's when the Vietnamese kid (Trong Van Din) read his essay, "USA A-OK":

"When my family arrived in this country four months ago, we spoke no English and had no money in our pockets. Today, we own a nationwide chain of wheel-balancing centers. Where else but in America, or possibly Canada, could our family find such opportunity?..."

is up.

From a reader:

Dear Jonah,

Last night, the Bush daughters made me feel all growed up. Why am I all growed up at nineteen? That's hardly fair. But these girls terrified me, while fmr. Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senator McCain, Governor Schwarzeneggar, and the First Lady had me laughing repeatedly, sometimes loudly. What's a fellow to do? Am I now banned from shopping malls?

While I really disliked the Bush Twins performance -- and I am always willing to accept the sourpuss award, particularly from Derb -- I don't blame the Twins that much. They are what they are.

But who at the RNC sat there and let that speech/script through? The Sex and the City joke? The not-very-obscure reminder about Bush's "young and irresponsible" trangressions? Revealing that your parents call each other Bushie, or is Bushy?

Argh.

I was against the California recall (and I still am). I am against celebrity politics. But I really think Schwarzenegger's speech was brilliant. And for reasons that most pundits and reporters won't appreciate. In the past, moderates did their schtick about how the Right was too obsessed about abortion or how it was wrong about affirmative action. What Arnold did tonight was not only reach out to moderates but he reached out to conservatives and reminded them that we still have a lot in common with the moderates.

Um...

28th Amendment! 28th Amendment!

But you all knew what I meant, especially the reader who came up with the title to this post.

Many emails on this theme:

... they're just jealous because the twins want me. You know it. I know it. The American people know it. Sincerely, Not Bob Dole

Totally agree with your last post. It felt like bad MTV VMA filler, but I totally want to ask them both out.

From a reader:

Jonah, My wife and I thought they were great. Cute and showing their independence. Hey, they are just kids. I promise when your daughter is 18-22 and is just like them, you'll think she's the toast of the world (still!). It was light and breezy and funny. They aren't used to the spotlight like this and I thought they did just fine. My wife thought it was a hoot! Greg

Wow, I'm shocked, appalled, embarrassed, and just want to look away or hit the mute button... and oddly sort of turned on.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Justice Department has asked a judge to throw out the convictions of a suspected terror cell in Detroit because of prosecutorial misconduct, reversing course in a case the Bush administration once hailed as a major victory in the war on terrorism, legal sources said Tuesday.

The department told U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen that it supports the Detroit defendants' request for a new trial and would no longer pursue charges of material support of terrorism. That means the defendants at most would only face fraud charges at a new trial, the legal sources said.

I like the call-and-response thing, but Steele could have a lot more fun:

"Democrats and Republicans like kittens...!

But not John Kerry!

Americans don't like Frenchmen who fondle our daughters and spit on our Constutution...

But not John Kerry!

Most humans like candy for the sweet, sweet taste....!

but not John Kerry!"

(Scroll down to the "Can you feel the love" post).

Albert wrote me back whining and complaining that I posted his letter. He then saw that I didn't use his full name or address and wrote me back to say that he's glad I posted the letter but that he was grateful I concealed his identity.

Seems to me that a guy who uses the p-word that much would have the stones to put his name up there.

Regardless, the point is that I don't post anyone's name unless I'm confident the person wants it posted. And even then I usually don't use names. I would dearly, dearly love to post some folks' email addy (and/or picture) but it's just bad policy.

From a reader:

There was a lot to read today on the blogosphere and I hadn't gotten around to reading your piece. To be honest, I was little tired and didn't really plan on reading it. But after reading Albert's letter that you posted on the Corner I couldn't click the link fast enough. You must have said something outrageous to get such a response (since I am not a professional writer - well, I am, I'm an attorney, it's just that nobody reads what I write - I was probably more shocked by the letter than you). This is not meant as a backhanded compliment, but I didn't see anything controversial or groundbreaking in your opinion. Democrats have a passion about being Democrats. After all, they are the party of identity politics. But almost every Republican I know says, "I am a Republican but ..." Or, "I support Bush but ..." In my case, as in yours, the "but" precedes a complaint about creeping liberalism, but that is neither here nor there. As you say, this is politics and most of politics is negotiable. We are grownups and we realize that.

Mike (LA, CA)

An email from Tim Graham:

Jonah, this kind of slight mis-speaking would be utterly overlooked in most Kerry cases. (Some have compared it to Kerry saying "more sensitive," but that was a speech, this was in an interview with a liberal TV host.) Your transcript also doesn't quite note the emphasis, which should be on the last word....

LAUER: No, I'm just saying, can we win it? Do you say that?

Pres. BUSH: I don't--I don't think we can win it.

If this is all they can grasp at right now, this week is going very well....

From a reader:

What a retarded analysis that was! But maybe I was more retarded for expecting something intelligent from an NRO column.

If this were a perfect world, you'd be fixing faucets or something--not writing asinine articles for a living.

Stop trying to pass off something stupid as something smart. Sophistry went out of style thousands of years ago.

Conservative a-holes like yourself always try to group dems together as one hyperactive glob of over-sensitive drones. You try to emasculate us and portray us as uncourageous. The fact of the matter is conservatives are the pussies. The conservative answer to any epidemic is a fire bomb. From pot plants to inner city crime to international poverty to… terrorism. You just want to drop firebombs all over the place because you're too afraid and too lazy to solve
things the right way. I'll firebomb a terrorist any day of the week—but firebombing "terrorism" is a whole new gag, my weak-minded friend.

And your megalomaniacal "leaders" from Giuliani to Schwarzenegger to Bush—all taking pains to assume Athenian statuesque poses… give me a break! It's all a big farce. Or a big fart. Heroes, schmeroes. Anyone trying to be a hero is really just a pussy. Bush is a pussy. Arnold is a pussy. Hannity is the creamiest pussy. You are a pussy.

Go read your romance novels and spend the rest of your life trying to imitate every fictional protagonist you've ever heard about. Meanwhile, real Americans will try to solve real problems while gritting their teeth in the face of the over-romantic pussies attempting to elevate themselves by assassinating everyone else's character.

Love,

Albert [Name and address withheld]

Infuriated, doubtless, by the failure of its campaign to ensure that only the media has the right to comment on politics, the New York Times has an angry editorial today attacking the 527s (strangely, the only 527 the newspaper singles out are those notorious Swifties and their ‘clear ties’ to the Republican party : no mention is made of MoveOn or the pro-Kerry efforts being funded by various billionaires). The paper is, as usual, peddling self-interested nonsense.

The only thing wrong with the 527s is the privileged position that they have been given by last year’s corrupt and abusive campaign finance ‘reform’, legislation backed, needless to say, by the New York Times.

How to solve that problem?

Repeal McCain-Feingold-Bush, not the 527s.

Here's the passage from the Today Show. I agree with Ramesh that it's not as bad as some are making it sound. But it's still a gaffe:

LAUER: You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war of ter--on terror? For example, in the next four years?

Pres. BUSH: I have never said we can win it in four years?

LAUER: No, I'm just saying, can we win it? Do you say that?

Pres. BUSH: I don't--I don't think we can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the--those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in part of the world, let's put it that way. I have a two-pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us. And that's necessary. I'm telling you it's necessary.

The country must never yield, must never show weakness. Must continue to lead, to find the al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda affiliates, who are hiding around the world and who want to harm us and bring them to justice. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally, and my dad--and I don't know about your relatives--but fought against the Japanese. And here Koizumi, Prime Minister Koizumi, is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.

The International Olympics Committee has awarded the Olympiart prize to Mikis Theodorakis. This Prize was "established in 1992 to recognise artists who contribute through their work to the promotion of sport, young people and peace." It was presented at the close of the 116th IOC Session in Athens.

Here’s part of a recent interview with Theodorakis from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

”Question: Mr. Theodorakis, on November 4, 2003 you said in this house the words that shocked Jews and non-Jews across the world. You said that the Jewish people are at the root of evil. What did you mean?

”Answer: "For me the root of evil today is the policy of President Bush. It is a fascist policy. I cannot understand how is it that the Jewish people, who have been the victims of Nazism, can support such a fascist policy. No other people in the world support those policies but Israel! This situation saddens me. I am a friend of Israel. I am a friend of the Jewish people. But the policy of Sharon and the support for the policy of Bush darkens the image of Israel. I am afraid that Sharon is going to lead the Jews - just as Hitler led the Germans - to the root of evil."

”Even today, 10 months later, you don't think you made a mistake when you uttered those words?”

"No, but it's important for me to emphasize that I never said that the Jews are the root of evil. I said they are at the root of evil."

Can someone remind me why exactly we want to bring the Olympics to NYC.

John, just to second what you had to say about last night’s bash. Thanks too to all those – you know you are – who were so generous with the drinks.

Of course, you never know who or what you will run into at these sort of events. Truly remarkable, however, was to meet someone who knew, and could commiserate, about the adventures of these sporting greats.

A reader writes asking if there is any organization dedicated to opposing the location of the Olympics in New York City in 2012. I’ve no idea, but would be interested to hear if a collection of such wise people does indeed exist.

In the meantime, here is some food for thought:

The bill that Greek taxpayers will have to stump up for the Athens Olympics now stands at $9billion. That’s $9billion more than New Yorkers should have to pay.

Paris 2012!

As France wakes up to the threat represented by extreme Islam, Iraqi PM Allawi has a few words of wisdom:

"Neutrality doesn't exist, as the kidnapping of the French journalists has shown…The French are deluding themselves if they think they can remain outside of this. Today the extremists are targeting them, too.''

That’s true, but it needs to be remembered that, in reality, the extremists have always had France – and the rest of the West – in their sights. Our mere existence – anywhere – is an affront to them and their god, and there is nothing, other than our submission to their peculiarly primitive and perverse collection of superstitions, that will change that.

MCCAIN-HILLARY 2008? HILLARY-MCCAIN 2008? [KJL]