Last minute thoughts:  *Perhaps the biggest problem is the United States is no longer respected in the world:  a friend who just returned from 3 weeks overseas said they came to hide their American passports until the last minute when going through customs, and that they had been accosted on streets and taxis for being an American.
    *This president Bush may believe the United States has all the answers, unlimited resources, and can win the war on terror by ourselves, but few thinking others do.  Indeed what happened in Afghanistan and Kosovo and Bosnia shows what does work, i.e. the value of having a broad coalition (French troops are still helping in Afghanistan) and that a large number of troops on the ground not only protect the citizens but the troops as well.  And the bottom line is Bush didn’t follow these successes because he simply couldn't convince the world that invading Iraq on his time frame and with his plans was the right thing to do -- and he not only believed Rumsfeld's war-on-the-cheap scenario, he fired Generals for saying otherwise.  The ultimate bottom line is there are always more right things to do than are smart to do, and thus a president must chose the smartest things to do with our limited resources. 
    *The NRA boasted that if this Bush was elected they would "work out of the White House," and unfortunately that boast has proved to be true.  Not only has this administration allowed the assault weapon ban to expire, but it overturned the "collective" interpretation of the Second Amendment held by every other administration for at least the last 50 years, to adopt an "individual" interpretation that holds each individual has the right to bears arms, and the KEY POINT is by ignoring the militia clause -- to individually use those arms against our own government when they alone determine that it has turned tyrannical.  In short this is the "Timothy McVeigh interpretation" of the Second Amendment.   
    *And four points for the many who dislike this Bush but have serious doubts about Kerry:  First, Karl Rove=s smear machine has been as effective against Kerry as it was against John McCain, Max Cleland, and others. As one exasperated commentator noted, if Kerry had suffered a hangnail in Vietnam it would be more than this Bush suffered while serving in the Texas National Guard, at least until he refused to take a medical exam that included a drug test and thus was grounded. The Purple Heart Band-Aids worn by so many at the Republican Convention were also misleading because Kerry=s medical records show he still has bullet and flack fragments close to his femur bone.  And speaking out against the Vietnam war when many others including Walter Cronkite were doing so, and when it was clear the war was both wrong and un-winnable, was an act of courage most of us that lived through that time, to our shame, did not make.  But worse is the premise that anyone with combat experience won=t make a good a president because they won=t be as willing to commit our troops to war -- like Eisenhower and Kennedy -- and thus people without such experience like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and this Bush are better able to make these decisions.  Give me a break!
    Second, as a senator from Massachusetts Kerry represented his constituents and thus has a "liberal" record just as Dick Cheney had a very "conservative" record as a Senator from Wyoming.
    Third, anyone who has cast over 6,000 votes in the Senate is an easy target for mis-characterizations, and again making his experience in the Senate to be a detriment rather than an asset is also Orwellian, especially since for most of that same time Bush was going from one failed business to another, and indeed had but 6 years experience as governor of a state where the legislature only meets every other year, and then for only 140 days!  
    And fourth, and most importantly, the Republicans will retain control of both the House and Senate and history clearly shows that record spending and record deficits result when one party controls both the presidency and the legislature, and no matter which party.

    And finally, many fellow Republicans, including some influential ones and those who have a Bush-Cheney sign in their yard, say that in the privacy of the voting booth they will either not vote for Bush, or will vote for Kerry!  Indeed if this Bush president is re-elected, and he makes any more mistakes like Iraq, the Republican Party as we know it will cease to exist.
    What we all do know is after the election we will still all be friends and neighbors and Americans. But we all should also recognize that our system of government needs some systemic changes including (1) something like a question hour that forces our officials to publicly defend their decisions, (2) undo the gerrymandering that has allowed 98% of the House seats to be totally safe, and which forces Representatives to court the most extreme sides of their respective parties, and (3) force truth in political advertising.  Why do we have laws against false advertising for toothpaste but not for political candidates?  Fooling the public to get their vote goes against the very foundations of our democracy, and indeed is nothing but political terrorism. 

Rush Limbaugh provides one of the best measures of how Son Bush is doing, i.e.  the more he rants, the worse Bush is doing.  For example, after Bush’s stunning loss to McCain in New Hampshire, South Carolina became the do-or-fold state for Bush and Rush rose (or more accurately, sunk) to the challenge with some of the most amazing and vitriolic radio programs ever in the days before the South Carolina primary; and on the day of the 2000 election Rush became increasingly upset as the exit polling showed Son Bush in a dead heat or even losing to Gore; and then today Rush got so wound up in a tirade he called Kerry "a gigolo," claimed Kerry wouldn’t commit troops "unless they were wearing a blue U.N. helmet," and concluded no real American could ever even consider voting for Kerry -- and then after the break, Rush, still a bit out of breath, said he got "a standing O" from his staff. Kerry must be ahead!

The real scandal in the tax area is (1) that payroll taxes are not included in tax burden data, and (2) rather than focusing on the  top 10% of taxpayers, or even the top 0.1% of taxpayers, focus on the top 0.01% of taxpayers who have average income of well over $100 million a year!  Not only is this type of wealth unprecedented, the ability to pay has a whole different meaning as applied to these people, and lowering their rates and eliminating the estate tax will only help create a plutocracy.
“Republicans have conned the nation's heartland into trading its economic interests for the hokum of the cultural wars.  The result has been a kind of mass insanity where working folk bash the government programs that help them while demanding tax cuts for their bosses.” F. Harrop
Bush is protecting his daughters future by increasing their trust funds and eliminating the estate tax while most of the rest of us worried about our children being able to find good jobs and not being saddled by an enormous national debt. 

Tuesday's VP Debate.  Consistency? Find something else to say than “we've always been consistent.” Everyone changes their position including Bush administration; the more important question is why Bush hasn't changed his wrong positions sooner.  El Salvador isn't Iraq in many respects including time, location, history, area and population!  Freedom and democracy are important principles worth fighting to save -- and to give -- but the bottom line question should always be “is this the best use of our limited resources as we face new and potentially catastrophic dangers.”
October Surprise?  Some claim we know where Osama bin Laden is within a zip code, and although he presumably is in a cave, using sophisticated underground oil exploration imaging technologies and sensitive infrared detection devices that can spot living things from afar, we should know where he is within a few thousand feet -- so the chance he will be captured or killed before the election is real... and if we don’t get him we should have months and months ago. However, of course, the wisest thing would be to watch Osama for as long as possible after he is found in order to trace his terrorists network rather than maximize political gain.
    But other October surprises could come from insiders, i.e. just as Paul O’Neill,  Richard Clarke, David Frum, and now even Paul Bremer have come forward with revelations as acts of conscious, if Kerry doesn’t pull ahead soon, so too others in the administration may feel compelled to come forward.  There’s a reason this president Bush wants to know every person who attends a meeting with him, and why they must be there... think about it! 

    Debate One, again!  Well, Kerry “won” -- but then he should have won because Bush had the impossible job of justifying the indefensible: his invasion of Iraq without an imminent threat or adequate plan for the post-war nation building.
    One observer said Bush seemed to go down hill after Kerry raised the fact that his father’s book gave numerous reasons not to invade Iraq... and most of those reasons have proved to be valid. Our recent web pages provide interesting and significant information on the Bush Father-Son relationship, and indeed foreshadow, if not predict, that the reference to his father might upset W since while to some significant extent he invaded Iraq to correct his father’s “cut and run” mistake in 1991, he instead once again proved that "father knew best" and the son was wrong... and so Son Bush grimaced to control his emotions and temper.
    But there is another aspect few have mentioned: Bush has a very short attention span: he doesn’t like, and therefore his schedule doesn’t include, long presentations or long briefing papers... indeed it is reported briefing papers are usually condensed to no more than 3 pages with key passages often highlighted, and that every effort is made to limit “long” 60-90 minute policy briefings to no more than twice a week -- and thus it isn’t surprising that he visibly tired during the course of the 90 minute debate, especially when faced with questions and facts even his advisors rarely raise. This is not to denigrate Bush’s intelligence or intentions, but, simply put, and as Iraq proved, relying on “instinct” rather than a strong background in the facts and/or a full airing of opposing views rarely results in the “best” decisions. 
    And finally the debate also demonstrated Bush’s strength: staying on message no matter what, so even though he seemed to robotically repeat key phrases over and over, everyone now knows that  Iraq is “hard work.”  

   Debate One! Kerry should avoid personalizing the issues, i.e. while it feels good -- and is accurate –  to say this president has made grievous errors of judgment, it sounds far better -- especially to uncommitted voters -- to criticize the positions as wrong rather than to criticize the person as wrong.  Indeed one of the better parts of the debate was when both candidates seemed somewhat surprised to say nice things about each other's families.
    During the debate Kerry had Bush on the ropes when Bush was trying to justify invading Iraq and said we had been attacked, and Kerry pointed out that Saddam had not attacked us, forcing Bush to reply that he knew Osama attacked us -- but then instead of using his follow-up time to drive home the point, Kerry muddled off into a campaign sound-bite.  The second substantive point Kerry made was that being certain isn’t a virtue if the certainty is in a position that is wrong. This is particularly true and important since each death in Iraq makes the stakes higher, i.e. forces us to insist on a better and more “honorable” outcome -- and since many presidents who made a mistake, like Woodrow Wilson with the League of Nations and LBJ in Vietnam, have dug in on their same “right” path rather than find a way to compromise or correct their path.
    Certainly there has to be a better come-back to Bush’s questioning Kerry on how he could gain the support of other countries if he derides the Iraq invasion as the wrong war, at the wrong time.  And perhaps that answer simply is that Bush stands no chance of getting others to join while Kerry with a fresh start might. 
    And finally, another telling point Kerry could have made was when Bush said he knows Iraq is “hard work” because he “sees the same television images”  Kerry could have said he knows it is more than "hard work," it is heartbreaking work and he doesn't need to see television images because he’s been there. 
    And this raises the interesting question if it is better to have a Commander in Chief who has seen combat.  It seems obvious that those who have seen combat are more careful about committing troops than those who haven’t, and that it also affects the way they wage war once they do so.  For example, it can be argued that both Eisenhower during the Suez conflict and Kennedy during the Cuban missile crises, were reluctant to get engaged in situations that could lead to war, and that once a war was inevitable, Father Bush (and Colin Powell) used overwhelming forces to assure the outcome and thus minimize the losses.