Make sure you really go read it, too. But here's a taste:

Let me be the first to say this about KerryÂ’s speech: I liked it better in the original French. This of course is a predictable twist on the remark about BuchananÂ’s stemwinder in Â’92, famously described by some wag as sounding better in the original German. Hugh has been talking a lot this week about the Michael Moore factor at the convention, and whether his . . . peculiar remarks taint the party. Probably not. It wonÂ’t get reported in the dino media. If Pat Buchanan had said the Democrats woke up at 11 AM every day and tried to figure out how to screw white people today, I think that would get press. Moore says the Republicans wake at six and figure out how to screw minorities, and itÂ’s ha ha colorful commentary from the merry prankster, and besides, Ann Coulter said some awful things, and besides, Pat Buchanan was a politician who actually got votes in the GOP primaries.

The last point is true, and relevant; it was made by a Democrat guest on Hewitt’s show. But it shows how things have changed. What makes a greater impact – getting some old flinty cranks in Vermont to pull the lever for you, or putting out a movie in every multiplex that practically accuses Bush of supplying box cutters to the 9/11 hijackers? Moore is a new-media politician, and just because he doesn’t stand for office doesn’t mean he’s not as much of a political operative as the people who prowl the hustings and grimace their way through a New England flap-jack photo-op. And spare me the Ann Coulter parallels. The day Ann Coulter shows up in the presidential box with a former POTUS, like Moore showed up with Jimmy Carter, we can talk.

I was at both conventions in 1992, and the GOP version was a dispirited affair. Clinton had sparkle, the big mo, and a foundering economy to hammer; Bush was your father’s Oldsmobile. “Change” was the mantra. After 12 years we needed “Change,” whatever that might be, and the sax-blowin’ shades-wearin’ hubba-double-Bubba ticket had a fresh cachet the Bush team could not match. The Buchanan speech was a disaster – and not just for its effect on the swingers. I remember sitting in a bar the night of the speech with a portly squat guy covered in GOP buttons, listening to his lament. “This isn’t my party,” he said. “Okay maybe he has a point here, or another point there, but that speech – that’s not my party.”

If Moore introduced Kerry and gave a typical speech – “The Republicans have hate for breakfast!” – how many delegates would later lament that their party had become something they no longer recognized? Don’t know. Just asking. But I do know that the 96 convention had a different attitude towards the nominees than I sense from the 04 DNC convention. Bush 41 never really fired up the troops. But in 96 people liked Dole. They knew in their bones he was going to crater, and they knew that the Dole on the stump was a dull version of the real thing. Bob Dole was smart, peppery, funny as hell (really) and lacking in that ponderous self-importance that settles into a Senator’s heart. He was really a good guy. And he was going to lose. Ah well.

I don’t sense the same affection for Kerry. I also don’t think it matters. Right now I have a browser window open to Fark, and a T-shirt ad shows Bush’s face with the logo “American Psycho.” What else do you need to know? As Teddy Kennedy said in his convention speech: “The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush.” It’s really quite simple, isn’t it? We live in a manufactured climate of fear ginned up by war-crazed neocon overlords. There is no threat. The only thing we have to fear is Bush, who sits as we speak in the Oval Office sucking the marrow from Whoopi’s shin-bones.

If so, I wonder why anyone agreed to the stringent security policies that characterize this yearÂ’s conventions. Why the bomb-sniffing dogs? Why the snipers? Why the metal detectors, the invasive inspection of bags? Is it all an elaborate defense against Bush crashing the party and setting off a bomb belt, shouting God is Great, yÂ’all!

No, theyÂ’re fearful of something else.

Damned if I know what, though. Damned if I know.

I really must make that man's blog a daily stop. He's such a damned good writer. Also, if I suck up to him enough he might get me onto the Hugh Hewitt show and I'll get famous; then this might turn into a steady job.

Posted by: Attila at 01:44 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 805 words, total size 5 kb.

BoifromTroy, guest-blogging over at Wonkette's digs, reports breathlessly (in that timeless Wonkette style) that Ted Kennedy isn't too drunk just yet:

Blogger Off the Fence reported that at one point last night at the MA delegation party, Kennedy did not have a drink in his hand!

We thought about trying to reach the senior Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but he couldn't be reached for comment because he was refilling his boot flask.

Posted by: Attila at 01:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

This is really cute: an organization that calls itself "FTV," or Fuck the Vote, has decided the way to convert Bush voters is to bed them. Since they are "better looking" than us, and "hotter," they are going to use "the only means" at their disposal to dissuade us from voting for Bush. (They said it; I didn't.)

Visit the site, but here's a taste:

SEXY LIBERALS OF THE U.S. UNITE in taking back the government from the sexually repressed, right-wing, zealots in control! Everyone knows liberals are hotter than conservatives - we look hotter, we dress hotter, our ideas are hotter, and we are infinitely hotter in the sack. We must use this to our advantage - as one more weapon in a diverse arsenal to strip the conservatives of their power (by stripping them of their clothes first).

Believe it or not, even the most seemingly deeply rooted right-wing ideologue can be manipulated by sex. As we all know, the sex drive is a powerful beast that has the potential to change people. People lie for sex, they cheat for sex, they even kill for sex - and you can be sure that they will change the way they think (and therefore vote) for sex. All you need to be armed with are your sexy progressive values, a razor-sharp wit, your genitalia, and a mindset that doesn't mind taking one for the team.

At Fuck The Vote we provide a Pledge Sheet that can be used conveniently before becoming physically intimate with a conservative, The Pledge Sheet asks the signee to make a promise to vote for anyone but George Bush in the November election. FTV has not endorsed a single candidate but recommends strategic voting. We also encourage FTV fans to take road trips this summer to swing(er) states to collect pledges. If you collect a pledge let us know about it on the Swinger States page! Have safe fun fucking over Bush while fucking for votes.

I'd encourage anyone to go ahead and sign the pledge offered them by an FTV "model," take the Halloween candy, and then vote their conscience anyway. All's fair.

Hat tip: Mikal.

UPDATE: Right on the Left Beach reminds me to tell you that this site is as UN-WORKSAFE AS IT GETS. It's not so much the images it employs, which are rather tame, but the narrative audio that plays during your visit, informing you—and anyone within earshot—just how slutty liberals are and how homely conservatives are, and exactly how badly we all need to be f'd. (The actual word "fuck" is used repeatedly, and not as an expletive in the least.) Be careful out there.

Posted by: Attila at 03:48 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

The egregious constitutional amendment defining marriage for the whole country just went down in flames today. Nice big legislative fireballs.

I would have been pretty exercised about this issue if I'd ever really believed that either 1) it had a prayer of passing, or 2) Bush was sincere about this hoo-ha, and wasn't just being told, "you've got to do it, Mr. President. The base won't show up if it doesn't look like you're making an effort." (And that's fair enough: it isn't as if he gets any credit at all for being more liberal than, say, Ronald Reagan. He's far more centrist than the Great Communicator was, but the liberal masses don't see that [any more than Ron Reagan, Jr., does].)

And my passion on this isn't even due to my being more "tolerant" on gay issues than many: I truly think this was an attempt to violate states' rights. I realize there are some folks I can have a civil discussion with who believe hetero marriage is a societal foundation, and that's cool. They must do as they see right. But a true political conservative must exercise reason and not attempt to use the Constitution to settle every argument that might cause social adjustment.

To put it another way: Roe v. Wade put an end to our national debate on abortion, and we no longer have this decided on a state-by-state basis. If a constitutional amendment were successful in doing this, wouldn't it only be a few degrees less grotesque than to solve the issue by judicial fiat? It's a "one size fits all" approach.

Here's Senator John McCain, whom I usually disagree with, passionately:

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them.

Says James of Outside the Beltway:

BoiFromTroi has a roundup of blogger and other reactions, including from the apparently semi-unretired Discount Blogger, Michael Demmons. He also links a statement by the Log Cabin Republicans. No word yet from the Mrs. Butterworth Libertarians.

From now on, my political affiliation is Mrs. Butterworth Libertarian. I expect to be so addressed in all debates. ("What you MBL nutjobs don't understand . . ." "You pro-war idiots betray everything Mrs. Butterworth was supposed to stand for." "Fuck you and your whole Butterworth Wacko crowd." "The thoughtful Butterworthians at least do their homework. You trounce on that tradition.")

Thank you.

UPDATE: The technical problems that kept BoiFromTroy from loading on my creaky old Macintosh computer have melted away into thin air, and now I can proudly link him—so you can see for yourself how he excerpted the Log Cabin Republican statement. Oh, happy day!

Posted by: Attila at 01:55 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.

Oh, man. Now we have haiku in honor of Kerry's pick of Edwards as running mate:

For John Edwards

"I think your hair is
perfect! We are so going
to nail the chick vote."

I don't think it gets better than this.

Posted by: Attila at 09:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

I still think Biden or Gephardt would have been a better choice, but this does make sense. Certainly it could help a little in the South. The two big, obvious downsides: 1) Edwards' background as a trial lawyer, and 2) his inexperience, alongside the fact that his experience is also as a Senator. We now have two senators going up against a successful Commander in Chief whose VP is actually a participant in the government (rather than the classic type who sits around waiting for the President to die). They will have an uphill slog.

And when all's said and done, this election is still about Bush: pick him, or pick someone else.

Posted by: Attila at 04:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

Kerry went to the Midwest, posing as a Heartland Kind of Guy. Hilarity ensued.

Here's a picture of Kerry looking away from his target, but keeping his finger on the trigger of the scattergun someone loaned him:

This second image is featured in the current Outside the Beltway caption contest; be sure to go over and spell out some of the 1,000 words that picture conveys to you.

Posted by: Attila at 01:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.