Repeat after me - no meaningful connection

Earlier, I linked to this survey showing that 75% of Bush supporters felt there was at least a substantial relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq (with 20% inexplicably believing that Saddam was directly involved with 9/11). Not that we have a lot of neo-cons trolling Blood and Thunder, but this report is a clear, comprehensive indictment of the Bush administration's most compelling reason to go to war (now that the whole WMD argument has, you know, been completely disproven). I recommend reading it in its entirety, but here's an excerpt:

"These conclusions of bi-partisan panels, chaired by Republicans, echoed the judgment of virtually every outside authority. Rohan Gunaratna’s encyclopedic study of al Qaeda characterized its links by tabulating calls from Bin Laden’s satellite phone. 1/5 of the total went to Britain, the next highest to Yemen, then Iran, Azerbaijan, the Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Iraq did not even make the list. As Sebastian Rotella reported in the Los Angeles Times, Tony Blair’s foreign secretary Jack Straw, Baltasar Garzon, the magistrate investigating the Madrid bombings and Jean Louis Bruguiere, the renowned French counterterrorism investigator all flatly denied “links” between Iraq and al Qaeda. "

Halloween Humor

These pics are great.
(From Wonkette)

Give Bush a Brain

Fun

Brand America

I don't know what to make of this story showing American brands losing popularity and market share in Europe during the third quarter. It's a shoddy source and I'm not sure I trust all of the information included in it. But it's worth considering and makes intuitive sense. Sadly, I would probably strongly dislike the United States if I were a citizen of another country and boycotting brands doesn't seem so far-fetched. Isn't globalization supposed to stop war?

Strong like bull

Arafat ain't dead, jigga. He's rolling around in his jammies.

Hold, please, while I slip on the rose-colored glasses...

Obviously, my objectivity is very questionable at this point. I'm clearly seeking information that will provide a reason to believe Kerry will be elected on November 2nd. That being said, I've done an admirable job of convincing myself. Despite the national polls showing Bush with a slight lead, I believe Kerry will win convincingly, both in the popular vote (+3-4%) and in the electoral college (+20-30). The main reasons will be undecideds moving towards Kerry and turnout, particularly among the youth and minority voters:

• This Pew study lends credence to the "incumbent rule," as undecided voters are starting to break more towards Kerry (27% to 22%).
• This analysis shows a 3.5% Kerry advantage in the battleground states when the data is weighted to 2000 minority voting results and a 5.2% Kerry lead when weighted to reflect the most recent Census information.
• This Seattle Post national survey of college students indicates that 87% are registered (with 84% "definitely voting"), 87% believe politics are relevant to them (up 20% since 2000), and a 52% to 39% preference for Kerry.
• Despite what our friends at the National Review may think, this article outlines the "intensity gap"among Bush and Kerry supporters, and shows Kerry supporters are 15% more likely to believe this election is either the most important of their lifetime or more important than most.

Add it all up and I wouldn't be surprised if turnout reaches 60% on Tuesday. If that happens, it'll be a Kerry cakewalk.

**Breaking News**

This just in. Gary Gregg of the Regional, err, National Review has been awarded the prestigious Blood and Thunder "Douchebag of the Week" Award for this confused drivel. I guess if you live in an urban area and hold progressive views, your status as 'real American' gets stripped?

Shit like this needs to stop. To echo Jon Stewart's Crossfire rant, stop pitting Americans against each other and let's have a civil discussion of the issues. We're all 'real Americans,' not just the God-fearing, married, gun-owning, home owners in the 'heartland.' Even if we disagree with your political views.

Nervous Karl

Anyone notice that Karl Rove, usually as incognito as Dick Cheney in non-campaign mode, is making public comments lately to disparage Kerry? Not only is he going on the record, but his comments seem, well, shaky. For instance, these two:

About Bill Clinton stumping for Kerry: "They had to roll Clinton out of the operating room and onto the campaign trail in order to basically help Kerry with the weaknesses he has among core Democratic constituencies,"
or
About the Al-Qaaqaa situation: "Kerry, by so rapidly embracing the story, is going to end up being tarnished by it. What would he do as president? Get up every morning and say, 'I'm going to govern based on what I find in the newspapers?'"

It shouldn't be surprising. Other than Bush, he has the most to lose if the re-election campaign fails. All those reverential takes on him being "Bush's brain" or "Boy Genius" all would need to be revised if Kerry, a clearly mediocre candidate, winds up beating his "dream candidate," GWB.

'Bipartisanship is dead'

OK, OK, we've lambasted the Right quite enough for one day. Here's proof of some idiocy on the Left, by way of Oliver Willis (one of the more popular liberal bloggers). I typically enjoy his commentary, but I'd fear for the state of our democracy if Kerry actually took any of his advice to heart:

"Bipartisanship is dead. The much beloved John McCain sat silent as Rove & Bush orchestrated the Swift Boat smear, and gave a speech for them right after it. These guys want nothing to do with us, and we should have nothing to do with them. If we win, we make them play by our rules. And if they win, we make 'em hurt. I didn't used to think this way, but then, I was naive before."

Sullivan's Endorsement

If you've been reading Andrew Sullivan at all in the past month, this endorsement for Kerry shouldn't be a surprise. Obviously, it's good news, not only because of his influence but because it's yet another Bush supporter from 2000 lending his support to Kerry.

On the other hand, his insight into the 2000 candidates wasn't very prescient:

"But one reason I have become so disenchanted with the Left is their politics of personal emotional blackmail. .. One reason I have come to respect Bush is that he has not indulged in the same tactics. I hold some slim hope that if he wins Tuesday, our politics might even become more civil, open and, yes, tolerant. I see few signs at present that Al Gore, after the vicious, divisive negativism of his campaign, could achieve the same result."

Really Clearly Off the Mark

Just to put these polls in perspective, check out the Real Clear Politics' "analysis" of the 2000 election. They predicted a Bush EV win, 446 to 92 and a 7-10% popular vote landslide:

"The real debate is not who is going to win the election, but whether Bush will win 308 electoral votes or 474 electoral votes. The media's fantasy of Bush winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college is not going happen. The worst case scenario for a Bush victory will be a 2-3 point win in the popular vote and 10-20% more than the necessary 270 EC votes."

More Ugly RNC Advertising

I didn't think it was possible, but this RNC mailing in Pennsylvania may have topped the "Bible banned" one. One would assume that associating your opponent with the Hezbollah would be out of bounds, but the RNC spokesman apparently 'stands by its message.'

Is it me or does the copy appear vaguely Nazi-ish with red and black color scheme?

Banana

We at Blood and Thunder have a documented, collective crush on San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom's wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom. So, at the very least, it should interest us to know that she absolutely, positively DID NOT simulate oral sex to a banana at a speech last week.

More on Gavin Newsom here. Newsom/Obama in 2016.

The Education Gap

I, for one, am getting pretty damn tired of the punditry slicing, dicing, and inventing (NASCAR Dads, security Moms, etc) every possible demographic this time of year. After all, with the Electoral College system, it doesn't mean a damn thing what surveys polling the national population reflect. But, being an intellectual elitist, I found this "strategy memo" by Carville's Democracy Corps interesting.

An excerpt:

"In 2000, there was only a 2-point education gap, with Gore and Bush running dead even among college graduates and Bush winning by just 2 points among the non-college educated voters. The result was a 2-point education gap. But not so in 2004. Today, there is now a 12-point education gap. Kerry is winning college educated voters by 10 points but losing the non-college graduates by 2 points."

...of course, there's a lot more people who haven't attended college (58%) versus those who have (42%).

Cato Kaelin

I stumbled upon this while trying to settle a discussion Los Pants and I had this weekend about how think tanks are funded. (If interested in that boring subject, click here).

When Kerry was quoted (out of context) as saying that terrorism is a nuisance on par with drug cartels and prostitution, he was destroyed by the Bush administration, whose best hope in this election is to prey on the fears of the electorate. But the research, however counter-intuitive, suggests we may be blowing the terrorism threat far out of proportion to its actual threat to our security.

For instance:

Since the late 1960s, which of the following has killed the most Americans?
a) international terrorism
b) lightning
c) accident-causing deer
d) severe allergic reaction to peanuts
e) all are roughly equal