Stu's Views

Well now that I explained who I would like to see win, it's time for me to play pundit and make my predictions (which I will later ignore unless they are perfectly correct).

I'm going with convention in saying that the Presidential race will be very close. I think that the two candidates will be within a point of each other in the popular vote with Kerry having a slight edge. Of course, depending on how the popular vote is distributed the electoral college winner could still have as many as 300 electoral votes.

I see the following states as safe for Bush: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky. totalling 168 electoral votes. The following states I would put as at least 80% likely to go for Bush, Virginia, West Virginia, Arizona, Missouri, and Arkansas which brings him to 213. I give him at least a 60% chance of winning Florida (remember who the governor is), Colorado, and Nevada which would push him to 254.

For Kerry the safe states are Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Illinois, California, and Washington. These add up to 160 electoral votes. He has at least an 80% chance of winning, Maine, Oregon, New Jersey, and Hawaii bumping him up to 190. He has at least a 60% chance of winning Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Hampshire which would leave him with 262.

Of course you need 270 to win. I have omitted New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin which strike me as 50-50 propositions. If the states break as I predict above, then Kerry would need to win either Wisconsin or both Iowa and New Mexico to become president. So that I don't get accused of punting I will predict he wins all three and wins the electoral vote 284-254. If it ends up this close, expect Ohio (as well as the three tossup states) to become this year's Florida with provisional ballots becoming this year's hanging chads.

In the Senate I expect order to emerge from chaos. I predict that ten seats will change party hands but that the Democratic-Republican breakdown will remain 48-51 (with one independent). Dems will pick up seats in Colorado, Alaska, Oklahoma, Illinois, and Kentucky and Tom Daschle will hold on in South Dakota. The Republicans will pick up all five southern seats in question, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, Georgia, and South Carolina.

The Democrats will pick up a couple of seats in the House as they hold on to one or two seats contested in Texas and make small gains in Pennsylvania and Connecticut. It won't be enough to elect Nancy Pelosi speaker however.

Get plenty of sleep the next two nights because we are going to be up late on Tuesday night.

As long time readers know, I was not happy when John Kerry became the Democratic nominee. I thought several candidates were better on policy grounds and also thought that several were better on the "electability" grounds on which Kerry was chosen. I worried that his inconsistent record indicated someone who wanted to be President more because of ambition than because of a vision for the country (and although I did not foresee the flip flop message as being central to the Bush campaign, in retrospect it is quite obvious).

That said, I never seriously considered not voting for him. The nomination of Kerry more than anything made this an election about George W. Bush (although Bush has tried somewhat successfully to make it about Kerry). And George W. Bush has been a really bad President. In part I make this statement because of his many failed policies and his agenda for a second term which promises more of the same.

The war in Iraq was a mistake. Yes, it is good to have Saddam out of power but America is no safer as a result and our safety is the President's primary responsibility. Bush's focus on Iraq has cost us in the War on Terror by diverting resources from the hunt for Bin Laden and by giving terrorists a new sanctuary. It has also diverted us from the potentially the cataclysmic issue of nuclear proliferation. Finally it has made it more difficult for us to deal with any future threats because of our lack of allies in the world.

Domestically Bush has been even worse. One cannot blame the President for the overall condition of the economy, but one can blame him for the distribution of the effects of the bad economy. His tax cut has done nothing to help those most in need while plunging the government into deficits as far as the eye can see. His plans for an ownership society are a chimera designed to mask a dissolution of Social Security and Medicare. His regulatory policy is not based on sound science and cost benefit analysis but rather a blind adherence to deregulation.

As much as the substance of his policies however is how he arrived at them. In my last post I discussed the Bush decision making process. His small circle of advisers, his inability to tolerate dissent, and his much vaunted insensitivity to public opinion, all bespeak a decision process more typical of Moscow and Beijing than Washington DC. Unhindered by the prospect of running for reelection, particularly if he has a friendly Congress, it is terrifying to imagine what this Administration will attempt.

It is in his decisionmaking process that I expect Kerry to be so much better than Bush. He will be hamstrung by a Republican House (and probably Senate) so in order to succeed he will have to compromise and hew a course toward the center of American politics. We will not have socialized medicine, a full scale withdrawal from Iraq, and a UN veto over our actions in a Kerry Administration as Bush and Cheney charge. Instead we will have a President who thinks before he acts, listens to those who disagree with him and pursues policies that benefit a far greater number of Americans. It will be a welcome change.

No entertainer and no sports star gets their character analyzed nearly as much as the President of the United States. Because the modern president is so ubiquitous and so thoroughly covered by the media, everyone feels qualified to evaluate him. As the election draws very near, there have been a bevy of articles in the past couple weeks discussing President Bush.

One of the most prominent ones was in the New York Times magazine (fee required) by Ron Suskind focusing on Bush's faith and portraying him as someone on a mission and as such, someone incapable of tolerating dissent. The New Yorker also did an article that focused more on the Bush management style (also touched on in the NYT piece). One can barely help but come away from these pieces with a great deal of fear about a second Bush term.

Should we focus so much on the President's character as opposed to his policies? In general I think the answer (for better or for worse) has to be yes because the vast majority of people do not have the tools to evaluate policy beyond the simple question of whether or not their life has gotten better or worse under an incumbent president. In particular, Bush's character is fair game because throughout the campaign, he has emphasized character differences with Kerry far more than policy differences. His "resolute but regular guy" has been contrasted with the flip flopper and elitist Senator from Massachusetts. If Bush wants to fight this battle then he has to be prepared for articles like the two cited above.

In a sense the articles tell us little that we don't already know. It is their magnitude of examples that is frightening. Decisionmaking in the White House is conducted by a very small number of people who Bush trusts, and once he makes a decision (never seeking counsel outside his trusted group), anyone who disagrees with him is treated as a traitor. This has led to an Administration that has made some huge mistakes and even worse is incapable of admitting error.

Does this approach come from Bush's religious faith as Suskind argues? I'm not sure it matters but I think the religion is more of a justification or rationalization than the origin of the Bush approach. I think September 11 profoundly changed Bush. If one looks at the period between his spiritual rebirth in 1986 and 2001, one sees an ambitious competitive individual who at least appeared interested in listening to others as he climbed to the Presidency. Its clear that he was never a great thinker or intellectually curious but it seems as if he at least believed in his compassionate conservatism.

Some time on 9-11, perhaps in the elementary school, perhaps as he was jetted helplessly around the country, the job of President became too complicated. He needed to simplify it. Whether it was religion that helped him simplify it (Suskind refers to his repeated characterization of the war on terror as a crusade) or the simple prescriptions offered by Cheney and Rumsfeld, he embarked on a course that led us to disaster in Iraq. In fact, he told us all right away about this new approach, "You are either with us or you with the terrorists." This approach governed all of his decisions from this point forward, regardless if they had to do with the War on Terror.

We all knew it wasn't that simple but in September and October of 2001 it was reassuring to think that it was. Over the past several years many officials, commentators, and analysts have returned to a more complicated view of the world. President Bush has not. One of the important questions next Tuesday is whether more Americans are still sufficiently afraid to need Bush's simple but clear view of policymaking or whether more Americans are ready to reassume a more complex approach to dealing with the very difficult problems that the next President will face. That gut feeling as much as any issue will decide next Tuesday's election.

The Democratic party was dominant in American politics for the better part of forty years because of the coalition put together by Franklin Roosevelt and carefully maintained by Truman and JFK. It began to come apart over civil rights in the sixties and when conservatives offered an attractive alternative to the "silent majority" American politics was realigned.

But like FDR's Democratic coalition, the Reagan Republican coalition embraced a series of movements with different priorities. And much as the Democratic coalition came apart in the 1960s and 1970s, the Republican coalition is showing signs of fraying. A number of conservatives have announced their intention to vote against George W. Bush including Andrew Sullivan, Daniel Drezner, and Marshall Wittman.

These individuals make the conservative case against Bush far better than I could as do a few liberal analysts of the split, Mark Schmitt and Eric Martin. From a historical perspective, the way I see it is that the conservative coalition is made up of social or religous conservatives, libertarians who distrust the state, isolationists, neoconservatives, and fiscal conservatives. These groups found common ground in the war against communism and in criticizing and rolling back the excesses of the Great Society.

However the excesses have been rolled back and communism has been relegated to the proverbial ashbin of history. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has really only served the neoconservatives and the religous conservatives. Other members of the coalition have been ignored or paid lip service and the result is a fraying alliance. It may hold together for one more election but when scandals engulf a possible second Bush Administration, the Bushies will not find as many conservatives springing to its defense and by 2008 there may be an all out battle for the soul of the Republican Party.

Libertarians like Bob Barr are terrified by the Patriot Act. Isolationists like Pat Buchanan opposed the Iraq war and dislike the Bush support of free trade. Fiscal conservatives like John McCain are appalled by the ballooning deficits and the Bush tax cuts. Some of these people will support Bush because they think Kerry is a less palatable alternative. But others are crossing party lines and endorsing the Democratic ticket. If Kerry wins, these groups may regroup (depending on Kerry's approach toward them). Nothing like being in the opposition can focus your mind. If Bush wins however, an all out war may occur.

The past several days (or more appropriately nights) have been excruciating. When the Yankees went up on Boston 3-0, I allowed myself some degree of confidence. The next night, when Boston came back against Mariano in the ninth, my brain said it didn't matter but my gut reacted quite differently. I had this awful feeling that something very bad was going to happen.

This is the worst loss I have ever had as a sports fan. Charles Smith and the 1993 Knicks can now take a back seat to the 2004 Yankees as the origin of my most painful sports memories. By last night I was relying on the curse of the Babe more than the Yankees talent to pull us through. Always a bad sign. For a moment when Francona made the dumbest move in baseball history by bringing in Pedro I had hope that the Babe was in the house. Unfortunately by that point we were too far behind for even the Babe to help us.

There were many moments over the past four days when the Yankees could have ended the series. Sometimes we failed because Torre made the wrong move (starting Sierra against Schilling instead of Lofton, not bunting on Schilling, never pinch hitting for Clark or Cairo). Sometimes we failed because our big hitters, especially A-Rod and Sheffield were pressing too hard. Last night we failed because Brown and Vazquez sucked.

Mostly we failed though because the Red Sox played great. For four nights, despite being hobbled by a bad manager, the players did nearly everything right. Ortiz, Schilling, and Foulke will rightly be honored as heroes by Red Sox Nation. They had a fantastic season and are a very talented team. That said, I hope they lose in the most miserable fashion possible in the World Series.

My only consolation in this "day after" is that my hope that my current feeling of "how could we possibly lose" will be shared by George W. Bush on November 3.

(prediction for the WS Cardinals in seven over Boston or Boston in 5 over Houston)

I find it very difficult to think about anything besides the excruciating Yankees Red Sox series but don't really want to post on it until it is over (please God, let that be tonight). So I will update my views on the horse race for President (and the Senate).

A series of national polls show the race as virtually dead even, which with the exception of September before the debates, it has been since March. The time has now come to start ignoring national polls and focus on the state polls. Like four years ago, we face the possibility that one candidate will win the popular vote but lose in the electoral college. Ironically I think that it is more likely that Bush will be this candidate than Kerry.

The State polls are starting to break Kerry's way. Former tossups, Michigan and my home state of New Jersey are now safely in the Kerry fold. Meanwhile states that should be safe for Bush such as Colorado, Virginia, and North Carolina remain disturbingly close.

If I were designing an electoral strategy for each candidate it would be as follows. Bush: shore up the states mentioned above and take advantage of Kerry weakness in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. Bush could offset an Ohio loss with wins in two of those three states as long as he holds on to Florida. Kerry: Spend your time in the midwest. If you hold onto the Wisc-Iowa-Minn corridor and take Ohio you don't need Florida. Send Edwards to North Carolina and Virginia to keep Bush on the defensive.

At the moment Kerry's job is slightly easier. There are two long weeks left before the election however and an October surprise is not out of the question. Either the capture of Bin Laden or an attack in the US would help Bush.

As for the Senate, Democratic chances seem a bit weaker. They face uphill battles in Louisiana, Florida, and North Carolina, which are currently all Democratic seats. While I expect them to makes some of these up with wins in Colorado and Alaska, they need a net gain of seats so they have to hold on to some of the southern seats. One positive development is that Jim Bunning's erratic behavior has put Kentucky in play as another potential Democratic pickup. If the Dems manage to take Kentucky, their chances of overall Senate control move from fair/poor to good.

A couple of weeks ago during the vice-presidential debate, John Edwards commented on the fact that Dick Cheney's daughter was homosexual. My wife and I turned to each other as we each suspected Edwards of ulterior motives. Liking Edwards a lot and Cheney's calm response to Edwards defused the issue in my mind.

Until Wednesday's presidential debate when John Kerry did the exact same thing. This time the Cheneys (particularly Lynne) did not react calmly. Charges have flown from the right accusing Kerry of dirty tricks. Defenses have flown from the left saying that Kerry was doing nothing harmful by mentioning Mary Cheney who is already out of the closet and furthermore a worker on her father's campaign.

I find myself much closer to the conservatives on this question. Actually I find myself remarkably close to William Rubenstein (whose political affiliation I do not know) who wrote an op-ed in the Times today. Rubenstein points out, among other things, that if the situation were reversed and Cheney and Bush had mentioned say Gephardt's gay daughter, the left would be up in arms accusing them of gay-baiting and pandering to their base.

I see three possible motivations for Kerry mentioning Mary Cheney. The first is the one he gave, a genuine admiration for Dick Cheney as a father and highlighting the fact that a child's homosexuality is an issue that many families grapple with. If this were the case, I find it extremely odd that both Edwards and Kerry used the exact same language in their debates and (as Rubenstein notes) why choose Cheney's daughter? No, rather the highlighting of Mary Cheney seems like a predesigned talking point.

The second motivation, and the one most often cited by Kerry's defenders, is that Kerry was highlighting the hypocrisy of the Bush Cheney support for a constitutional amendment on gay marriage. But what is the point of this? First of all, they don't need to point this hypocriscy to proponents of gay marriage. This group will vote overwhelmingly for them anyway. Second, the stated position of Kerry and Edwards on gay marriage is not much better than that of Bush and Cheney. Their hypocrisy is pretty impressive as well and on the issue supporters of gay marriage (including me) will vote for Kerry and Edwards despite their position not because of it.

So that leaves the motivation most successfully described by conservative Christian activist Gary Bauer. Kerry (and Edwards) want to make sure that the most conservative voters know that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Maybe a few of them will stay home on Election Day as a result. This is pretty insidious and unethical. Does it compare to telling voters that if Kerry is elected a terrorist attack is more likely? No, the Bush Cheney folks still have an extremely large majority in the tally of lies and dirty tricks in this campaign. They just don't have a monopoly anymore.

Not too surprisingly, nothing surprising occurred at last night's debate. I once again would score the debate a draw. Bush controlled his reactions which made the first debate such a disaster for him while Kerry continued to solidly demonstrate expertise on the issues and a calm resolve.

Each candidate had a few questions they nailed (Bush on abortion, Kerry on the assault weapon ban) and both failed to explain their health care positions in a way the American public could understand (which works to Bush's advantage in my view). Kerry missed a few opportunities to point out both how Bush is promising the same things he did four years ago and never followed through on and how Bush answered any question he didn't have a good answer for by citing No Child Left Behind.

Both candidates also distorted the truth somewhat. This brings me to another issue that has been on my mind and has been floating through the blogosphere. In reporting on the debates, particularly on television, the fact checkers are always careful to cite things that each candidate has gotten wrong. There is nothing done to place a context around the "mistake" or to compare the number of deceptions. These two absences work toward the advantage of Bush.

For example last night, Kerry said that Bush had never met the Congressional Black Caucus. This is wrong. Bush distorted Kerry's voting record, the cost of Kerry's health care plan, and the distributional impact of his tax cuts. (My particular favorite, "After my tax cuts the richest 20% pay 80% of the taxes." He didn't note that it was higher than 80% before his tax cuts. This is like saying there are over 100,000 troops in Iraq that haven't gotten killed). Bush's deceptions are more numerous and far more serious.

The media however has defined being "objective" as hammering Kerry's errors and Bush's errors equally. I don't think this is malicious in most cases. Fox News may do this strategically to advance a conservative agenda but not the mainstream media. Instead, the mainstream media knows it may have and certainly has been accused of having a liberal bias. It therefore bends over backwards to demonstrate that this is not true. Treating errors on both sides equally is an attempted demonstration of objectivity.

Fortunately there are signs this is changing. The blogosphere has picked up on this as best evidenced in this post by Publius. More importantly Mark Halperin of ABC news has spotted this trend and warned his staff against in a memo described here by Drudge who is predictably upset.

Objectivity is a noble if impossible to reach goal. It has to be defined as reporting facts however and not as balancing biases. The latter approach creates an incentive to deceive that has been acted upon by Bush and Cheney.

Update (10-15): More on this subject from Kevin Drum.

American League (a.k.a. the war)

For the second year in a row my beloved Yankees meet my behated (there should be a word like that even if there isn't) Red Sox. Fox, New Yorkers, and Bostonians are happy and the rest of the country groans in misery. There are myriad storylines and the New York and Boston newspapers will beat all of them to a pulp. We'll revisit the brawl between Pedro and Zimmer, the brawl between Varitek and A-Rod, the offseason courtship of A-Rod, the Jeter dive into the stands, the Babe, Bucky, and Boone. And somewhere in there, we will see six or seven games between highly talented teams that could add more chapters to an unending story.

Indeed these teams, like last year, are very evenly matched. The Red Sox have an edge in starting pitching unlike last year due to the recently dominant Schilling. The Yankees unlike last year have a better bullpen due mostly to Tom Gordon. Both teams have patient powerful lineups that punish mediocre pitchers.

Therefore the likelihood of another dramatic series is relatively high. It is very hard to see either of these teams dominating the other. Despite the recent strength of Mike Mussina it is hard to see the Yankees beating Schilling in games 1 or 5. However the Yankees have owned Pedro recently and will have a good shot in his two starts. The projected starters for a game seven are Bronson Arroyo and Kevin Brown. That should worry Sox fans. I predict that Brown has a big series, wins two games including game seven. The Yanks in seven again.

What's Your Name?
Who's Your Daddy?
Is he rich like me?

National League (a.k.a. the undercard)

Last year at least the National League had the compelling Cubbies to command attention. This year we have the Cardinals and Astros. These are probably the two best teams in the NL and the Cards may be the best team in baseball (they will be the favorite in the World Series if they get there) but few will notice blinded by the glare of Yankees Red Sox. This would be a very competitive series if the Astros weren't just coming off an exhausting series against the Braves. The Astros biggest advantage is its top two starters, Clemens and Oswalt. Because they pitched on Sunday and Monday respectively, they will either have to go on three days rest or be unavailable until game 3. By then the Cardinals will be up two games to none and on their way to a series win in five games.

I watched the debate this morning (after taping it while watching the Yankees pound the Twins) and by the time I watched and absorbed it, much of what I had to say about it was already on the blogosphere. Publius and Total Information Awareness capture what I thought of the debate.

In a nutshell, Bush did better than last time but Kerry successfully continued a frontal assault that began in Miami. Bush continues to appear peeved (but got rid of the smirk) whenever someone asks him a question that he doesn't like and I think the voters will pick up on that. Many pundits and wannabe pundits have criticized Bush for appearing angry and shouting his answers but that didn't bother me and I suspect it won't bother many swing voters.

Kerry missed a few crucial opportunities with the biggest oversight at the end of the debate. A questioner asked Bush to name three mistakes and he said that the war in Iraq was not a mistake. I wanted to see Kerry say "I hope you notice that the President was 0 for 3 in naming mistakes. Let me tell you about the biggest mistake I've made. I trusted George W. Bush to use war as a last resort in Iraq. I hope the American public will forgive me for that error and help me make sure that no one else makes it ever again."

Bush's improvement and Kerry's missed chances aside, the debate was at worst a draw for Kerry and as I said the other day, we head into the home stretch very close. Some polls are even starting to show Kerry winning. It is going to get nasty over the next few weeks. Kerry is finally showing signs of being ready for it.

A few random observations on Tuesday's boxing match between Edwards and Vader (I mean Cheney) and tomorrow's town hall between the tops of the tickets.

-- On style points, I scored the debate a draw. Both candidates clearly knew their stuff and both landed several effective punches on the other. I can't recall a debate where both candidates were on the attack so relentlessly. We knew Cheney would be like that so kudos to Edwards for standing toe to toe with him.

-- On substance, it is not unusual for candidates in debates to exaggerate or misapply facts. Cheney however may have set a record for out and out lies. His "tonight is the first time I've met Edwards" has been exposed throughout the media as a lie with photographic evidence. Kos has the rest of his lies exposed in a series of entries over the past few days.

-- I have never bought into the "Bush as Puppet" idea but I'm damned close after the past two debates. Cheney's thorough understanding of the issues and Bush's clear confusion and simple messages certainly lend weight to the argument that it's Cheney in charge. The most interesting thing about tomorrow night's debate will be how Bush comes out. If he looks like he did last week he is in trouble.

-- I tend to think that he will come out strong tomorrow. That said, I think the next two debates are less crucial than the first one. The narrative of the race appears to be written at this point barring a terrorist attack or the capture of Bin Laden or a major gaffe. Bush had a chance to put Kerry away in the first debate and instead let him back in the race (credit to Kerry for taking full advantage of the opportunity). Now it will be neck and neck until election day and the party that gets its voters to the polls more effectively will win.

Predictions for the first round:

American League

It is impossible in my eyes to look at these two series separately. From the beginning of this season the Yankees and Red Sox have played as if a rematch of last year's epic battle was inevitable. Now they are both in position to make it happen. However standing in their way are two teams who jousted for the American League championship two years ago. While the Yankees and Red Sox enter their series as favorites, their experienced opponents will not lie down easily.

Meanwhile there is another similarity between the two series. The Twins and Red Sox are powered by a single starter who right now looks nearly unbeatable. Johann Santanna for the Twins and Curt Schilling for the Bosox closed the season in spectacular fashion and will finish 1-2 in the Cy Young Award race.

The Yankees and Angels will either have to beat one of these aces or be flawless in the other three games. I think the Yankees will either beat Santanna on three days rest in game 4 or will take the other three games but it won't be easy, particularly after they lose game 1 today. I think the Angels will lose twice to Schilling and the Red Sox bats will win them at least one more game. Yankees and Red Sox fulfill their destiny in five games each.

National League

St. Louis vs. Los Angeles. For most of the season St. Louis has been a dominant team. Then over the past few weeks the combination of injuries and having clinched a playoff spot appeared to have taken their edge away. Don't bet on it. The Dodgers are (unfortunately for LA) the perfect first round opponent for the Cardinals. St. Louis will feast on the weak starting pitching of LA putting them in a hole that will be difficult to climb out of. St. Louis' starters are their weak point but the Dodgers will be too far behind to take advantage. St. Louis in 3 (sorry jordan).

Atlanta vs. Houston. If anyone were paying attention, this might be the most intriguing first round series. Houston blitzed into the playoffs having a great August and September after everyone, including me, had written them off. They have Clemens and Oswalt to start 4 of the 5 games and they have the fact that Atlanta never seems to make the World Series anymore working for them. Still, the Braves are not used to being overlooked and they had a remarkably solid season. While no aspect of Atlanta's team jumps out at you, nor do any weaknesses. Their starting pitchers all seem to have won 15 games and their hitters all seem capable of doing damage. Atlanta has eliminated Houston three times in the first round in the past decade (1997, 1999, and 2001). It happens again. Atlanta in 5.

Here is how I'd like to see tomorrow night's debate go down:

Tom Cruise (I mean John Edwards): Sir, I'd like to ask the vice president a few questions myself. I know it's not in the rules but I'm sure the vice President wouldn't mind.

Jack Nicholson (I mean Dick Cheney): I'll take his questions.

Edwards: Did you convince President Bush that there was a relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq?

Cheney: The President and I discussed the matter.

Edwards: Why?

Cheney: I felt that this country was in danger.

Edwards: Grave danger?

Cheney: Is there any other kind? (sneers at Edwards)

Edwards (smiles): We have here the 9-11 Commission Report which indicates no relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq. How could a report based on hundreds of hours of testimony and investigation come to a different conclusion than you?

Cheney laughs.

Edwards: Do you think is funny Mr Vice President?

Cheney: No, its not, its tragic.

Edwards: Do you have an answer?

Cheney: My answer is I don't have a clue. Maybe the 9-11 Commission are idiots. Maybe they don't understand what I understand. I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently about the findings of ten people who never left Washington DC and their staff filled with people who don't care about our security.

Cheney: Do you have any other questions for me?

Edwards pauses.

Cheney gets up to leave.

Edwards: I haven't dismissed you yet.

Edwards: I have here CIA reports stating that there was no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Are these reports wrong, Mr. Vice President?

Cheney: No.

Edwards: Did you lie about the Al Qaeda-Iraq ties to get us into a war with Iraq?

Cheney: We wanted to spread democracy to the Middle East.

Edwards: That's not what you said. You said there were weapons of mass destruction and ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Cheney: I know what I said!

Edwards: Then why did you say there were such ties?

Moderator: Mr. Vice President, we need an answer.

Cheney: You want answers?

Edwards: I want the truth!!

Cheney: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Senator Edwards? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the soldiers and you curse our war in Iraq. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That the invasion of Iraq, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me there. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.

Edwards (quietly): Did you lie about Al Qaeda and Iraq?

Cheney: You're damn right I did.

The hall grows silent. The moderator has two guards escort the puzzled Cheney off to stage to prepare for his impeachment trial.

Or something like that.

UPDATE (10-8): Thanks to Jordan for pointing out that I'm not the only one with this brilliant vision of Edwards and Cheney. Maybe there is room from me sitting across from Regis.

Continuing the baseball analogy, I was about as stressed for last night's debate as I was for an important Yankee or Knick playoff game. Particularly after watching a clip of Kerry butchering a question on a morning talk show I feared that last night could be a big victory for the President.

My fears were not realized. On style, Kerry was the best he has ever been. He appeared strong and resolute, stayed on message, and finished every response within the time limits. Someone seeing him for the first time yesterday would wonder what all the rhetoric about him as indecisive and effete was about (assuming that anyone seeing him for the first time has heard about rhetoric). Bush wavered quite a bit, particularly at the beginning of the debate.

On substance he was also strong. He articulated a clear consistent rationale for his position on Iraq. He jumped on Bush miscues scoring a particularly strong point when Bush claimed to have changed the FBI culture. He argued strongly that the war in Iraq has been a bad thing for the War on Terror, which is the strongest rhetorical argument he can make.

It was not a home run however. Bush was able to consistently make two points that Kerry could have but did not successfully rebut. Bush consistently raised Kerry's "wrong war at the wrong time." remarks and Kerry should have taken him head on and said, "yes it is the wrong war at the wrong time. Make no mistake the world is better off without Saddam Hussein but America would be better off without Osama Bin Laden still free and that is what the Iraq war has led to."

More importantly, Bush insidiously throughout the debate implied that Kerry's criticism was somehow impermissible because we are in war. When given the opportunity by Jim Lehrer, Bush refused to repudiate those in his party who said electing Kerry would put us at risk of an attack. Kerry needs to hit back hard on this and reveal it for the cowardly undemocratic tactic that it is. We are trying to spread democracy to Iraq. Part of democracy is dissent. We cannot spread democracy elsewhere while quelling it here.

Hopefully Kerry will deal with these next Friday. By then the polls will hopefully show a Kerry bounce from last night and an race that is at least even.