The Texecutioner's Song: Part I

By Nicholas Wilbur

I called the 2004 election for George W. Bush on October 8, the night of his second debate with John Kerry.

Political analysts and media critics said the town-hall debate ranked as a tie (the previous and following meetings were solid Kerry victories), but by the end of the night it didn't matter if they ever met on stage again.

"Need some wood?"

The moment I knew Bush would coast into another four-year term occurred during an exchange about tax rates on small businesses. Kerry said Bush's policy made "small businesses" out of everything and everyone. He cited a report about Bush's tax filings showing the president had an $84-dollar income from a timber company, a meager amount that nonetheless qualified Bush as a small business owner.

Bush's response sealed any lingering hope I had that he would lose.

"I own a timber company?" he asked the crowd. "That's news to me." And with a pause that should be studied by every politician wanting to master the art of public speaking, Bush added, "Need some wood?"

These exchanges went on all night and throughout the remainder of the campaign. When Kerry outlined his support for tort reform, he talked about numbers and policies: the 500,000 kids cut from after-school programs, the 365,000 kids cut from health care, the future tax bracket for those making under $200,000 a year, the $3,500 or 64 percent increase in premiums for Missourians, the percentage of medical costs associated with tort reform.

Bush was much simpler.

He pulled out one detail of Kerry's monologue and quipped, "You're now for capping punitive damages? That's odd. You should have shown up on the floor in the Senate and voted for it then."

The end.

The debate wasn't a tie. Bush secured his second term, and in the process he reminded Democrats that, in politics, facts don’t matter. Kerry's points on both tort reform and taxes were accurate and valid in the context of the issues, but nobody watching the debate could say one way or another whether health insurance premiums in Missouri rose 64 percent or 46 percent. Not only would Americans not remember such a statistic, they wouldn't care. And in all honesty, why should they?

It's for the same reason that I believe Rick Perry has the GOP nomination in the bag.

I make the prediction not merely because he surpassed all expectations by completing his sentences during his first live debate performance. It's not because he so flippantly dismissed the debate moderator's "gotcha" questions and stuck to his talking points. And it's not because he got a raucous round of applause from a crowd that apparently thought putting 234 Texans to death was commendable.

It's because he's a cowboy who embodies all the positive qualities the American people found in George W. Bush. He's passionate but not pinched. He's quick and harsh when on the attack, but he's more entertained than vengeful when launching them. He talks in the stilted, stuttering drawl of a clichéd Texan – a comfort to those who aren't Ivy League elocutionists. Mainly, he appeals to the heart.

Tom Pennington, Getty Images

Similar to how most Republicans react to politics, my prediction about Perry's primary success is based on a gut reaction.

As Roger Simon of Politico put it, those who watched Rick Perry in the primary debate "saw a guy with square shoulders and a gunslinger squint, a man who likes to drop his g's when speakin' his mind... What his answers sometimes lacked in logic was made up for in enthusiasm, and after some initial nervousness – he gripped the sides of his podium as if he were hanging onto a life raft – Perry settled down to his talking points."

Indeed he did.

When asked about climate change – specifically, if Perry could name "specific scientists or specific theories" that he found "especially compelling" – the Texas governor focused on one detail of the question, in this case a word, and crafted an answer that was palatable to essentially every American watching on TV.

"Let me tell you what I find compelling, is what we've done in the state of Texas, using our ability to regulate our clean air. We cleaned up our air in the state of Texas, more than any other state in the nation during the decade. Nitrous oxide levels, down by 57 percent. Ozone levels down by 27 percent. That's the way you need to do it, not by some scientist somewhere saying, 'Here is what we think is happening out there.' The fact of the matter is, the science is not settled on whether or not the climate change is being impacted by man to the point where we're going to put America‘s economics in jeopardy."

Is any of it true?

Well, no. Texas ranks 13th on the "Toxic 20" list of most polluted states, and Houston ranks as the fifth most polluted city in the U.S. (Dallas also was in the top 10). Furthermore, climate change is only a "questionable theory" to cranks, and PolitiFact.com confirms that Perry's statement is utterly false.

But again, the facts are irrelevant.

In between his regular criticisms of "Romneycare," Perry finally fielded a question about his own "health care mandate" – a mandatory vaccination against cervical cancer for 12-year-olds.

Rather than stumbling over a defensive apology for his record, he put the question to rest by saying, "I hate cancer."

Who in America disagreed?

In mocking the intellectual over-analysis of left-wing pundits, Comedy Central's Jon Stewart explained Perry's magnetic effect with Republican voters this way: "In the presence of Republican voters, Rick Perry actuates an neuro-endocrine reaction that reroutes any analytic frontal cortex activity as a hotwave of electro-chemical impulses, stimulating their proto-reptilian limbic system."

As George Lakoff noted in The Political Mind, 98 percent of all political beliefs are unconscious. While Romney will win the battle for intellectuals who agree with his economic plan, Perry will win the war by appealing to the heart, the gut and, as Stewart's crotch grab implied, the balls.

"You don't get Rick Perry here," he said, pointing to his head. "You get him here!" 

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

Democrats who suck: Looking back at '04

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Jon Chait looks back at the 2004 Democratic presidential field and, well, finds it wanting:

Just how awful was the 2004 Democratic primary field? Go through the list, and try to imagine any of these men as a presidential nominee, let alone (shudder) a president:

Howard Dean, who's been spending the last year on and off trying to kill health care reform.

Dick Gephardt, who's now a corporate whore.

John Edwards, who's, well, John Edwards.

Wes Clark, last seen insisting that "New York money people" were pushing for war with Iran.

Dennis Kucinich, also trying to kill health care reform.

Joe Lieberman: [photo of Lieberman at McCain rally -- enough said]

and, of course, Al Sharpton.

At the time, I was disappointed that Kerry prevailed. And it's certainly true that Kerry lacked the communications skills to be a presidential nominee. But compared to that field, he was a giant. He's the only candidate you can imagine actually serving as president without bringing about some enormous disaster. And he's handled himself pretty well since losing the race. Indeed, the only other 2004 candidate who's actually raised his stature among Democrats is Sharpton.

Dean was the exciting candidate, and many in the base supported him, but I hesitantly backed Kerry and was anything but disappointed when he won. I came to admire him a great deal during the campaign, and I admire him still. (I later came to support Edwards, before turning to Obama early in the '08 primaries.) And certainly, when you think back to that bunch, he seems all the more impressive.

Let's not be too revisionist, though. At the time, Gephardt and Lieberman were respected figures in the party, Clark (a distinguished military man) and Edwards (a Southerner with a vote-winning populist pedigree) were rising stars, Dean was, in a way, Obama before Obama, and Kucinich, who never had a chance, was widely regarded, as he is still, as the leftist conscience of the party. Only Sharpton was a joke, or worse.

It's an embarrassing roster of candidates when you look back on it now, but was it so bad back then? Sure, you think the Democrats could have fielded stronger candidates (Kerry aside) given Bush's vulnerability, but the strength of the '08 field more than makes up for the weakness of the '04 one. The fact is, the Democrats were in rudderless disarray back then with the Clinton-Gore years behind them and with Bush skating along with 9/11 still fresh in everyone's mind and the Iraq War not yet the utter disaster it would soon become.

There is still some disarray, of course, but, at the presidential level, with candidates who could compete one day for the White House, they're in a much better position now than they were then. Or so I think. It's rather hard to tell, with a Democrat in the White House and with no one in the party seriously challenging him, but I just don't see the same vacuum of leadership, and forward-looking leadership potential, that I saw in '04 and that is so much starker now in retrospect.

Besides, take a look at the possible GOP field in 2012 if you want to see mediocrity, and worse: Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Paul, Pawlenty, Jindal, Santorum, Pence, Thune...

Now there's "some enormous disaster" waiting to happen.

Does the Left understand the faithful?

Guest post by Peter Henne

Peter S. Henne is a Security Fellow with the Truman National Security Project and a doctoral candidate at Georgetown University. This is his third guest post at The Reaction. In April, he posted on "the lessons of Sri Lanka." In August, he posted on "avoiding defeat in Afghanistan."

**********

As the Supreme Court took up Salazar v. Buono last week, deciding the fate of a cross on public land, I was put in an awkward position. Once again, I squirm at the unrestrained histrionics of both sides, sinking into my chair as I did during heated debates in my religion classes in college. The reason for my discomfort? I am that rare creature, distrusted yet patronized by both sides of the culture wars: a Christian with leanings towards Biblical inerrancy who is also an unabashed progressive.

The case is the banal, tedious type that excites law students and bores the rest of us. It involves a religious symbol placed on public land, with complex reasoning and politics behind it. What upsets me is not the case itself, but the predictable nature of it all. The Left attacks a public display of religion and the Right defends America's Christian origins. Meanwhile, a great number of Christians dedicated to their beliefs but progressive in their political views -- including myself -- squirm uncomfortably, unhappy with the hijacking of their faith by the Right and having to defend their religion from apparent assaults by the Left.

Progressive Christians will never whole-heartedly embrace Democrats as long we feel the need to justify our faith during waves of Left-Right tensions over religious symbols. While a vocal minority of evangelical Christians are "values-voters" -- basing their political decisions primarily on single value-driven issues -- most Christians are faithful voters. We vote based on our entire set of beliefs, supporting the candidate who appears to share and understand our faith. Even though certain values held by Christians are incommensurate with the GOP agenda, the GOP will continue to gain votes as long as they seem the more "faithful" of the two parties.

Democrats have long had a problem appealing to the faithful. Despite John Kerry's Catholicism and some attempts to gain Christian, Bush handily beat Kerry among almost all Christians in 2004. This is because Democrats believed they could rely on appeals to certain issues expected to resonate with Christian voters. Meanwhile, voices on the Left critical of a public role for Christianity caused Christians to perceive a general progressive hostility towards their faith. This limited the effectiveness of Democratic outreach to Christians. In contrast, Bush presented himself as the candidate of faith in general, gaining the votes of this important electoral group.

Obama, though, has appeared much more at ease with religion. Faith has long been a central element of Obama's message; since his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he has called on the faithful to reject the use of religion as a political tool by the right. In the 2008 election, Obama made significant gains among Christian voters; even his ¼ share of the evangelical vote was an improvement. These voters are very committed to their religious beliefs, and believed Obama the more faithful of the presidential candidates.

If progressives are able to maintain this image -- as the party that truly understands the faithful -- their share of the Christian vote will likely grow. If, in contrast, they believe that a general alignment between progressive and Christian values is sufficient to gain Christian support -- despite broader hostility towards religion among some on the Left -- the trend Obama began will be short-lived.

The Supreme Court case illustrates this issue perfectly. Right-wing Christians see an indelible connection between their faith and government acceptance of public Christian displays. Progressive Christians often disagree. We place a value on the separation of Church and State, but are still uneasy with criticism of the public display of Christian symbols. Right or wrong, faith involves gut reactions, and the reaction to statements by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union is to perceive an attack on the faith.

One can object that the cross in question is just a symbol: if progressive Christians truly value Church-State separation, they should support its removal. But that is the point: it is a symbol, representing a set of beliefs that guides and enriches the lives of Christians. And Christians like myself are ultimately faithful, not values-voters. While I personally will never switch allegiances to the GOP because of cases such as this, it may well sway other progressive Christians and cost Democrats future political support.

So the Democratic Party must tread lightly on issues of faith, achieving the difficult balance between appealing to the base and reaching out to the faithful. If progressives want to maintain and increase the Democratic share of Christian voters in this country, they must understand our faith and sympathize -- even if they do not agree -- with the value we believe it holds for this country. Merely appealing to what seem to be Christian "values" every four years will not be enough. Ultimately, the Left may have to abandon the religious symbols it fights over in favor of the broader goal of steering the country in a progressive direction, because the faithful will not.

Why John Kerry's loss in 2004 was "the luckiest thing to happen to Democrats in 40 years"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Duke political scientist David Rohde has an interesting piece at The New Republic today on why the Democrats are much better off today because of Kerry's loss to Bush in '04.

Basically, Rohde's argument goes, "had Bush lost in 2004, the Democrats simply wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful as they are now." Kerry and Edwards would have faced "a hostile GOP Congress" unwilling to support their legislative agenda and, at best, they would have been "narrowly reelected" this year. And while it is true that "a second Bush term is a very steep price to pay for today's success," there is no denying just how successful the Democrats have become. "[T]he Bush administration survived, and the public grew increasingly disenchanted with its performance and the Republican brand." The Democrats won back Congress in '06, adding to their majorities this year. And, of course, there was "Obama's crushing White House victory." In addition, the Democrats have a "new, mammoth fundraising advantage" over the Republicans:

It will take time to discover whether the developments in 2006 and 2008 constitute an enduring pro-Democratic shift in the electorate, rather than just a transitory negative reaction to Bush and the GOP. But the benefits the Democrats have realized from 2006 and 2008 -- the ample mandate and the majorities the Democrats now possess -- have put the party on the path toward substantial progress in its policy goals. And if John Kerry and John Edwards had found their way into office four years ago, they would have found a much more difficult, possibly impossible, road ahead of them.

In other words, Kerry simply might not have been able to get much done (though he likely would have provided much better leadership on Iraq and Katrina). Now, though, Obama comes into office with an impressive victory behind him, a clear mandate for change (in a liberal direction), significant Democratic majorities in Congress, and a rejuvenated and re-empowered Democratic Party. There was hope in '04, if not as much this year, but there is now the opportunity, as there wasn't back then, to move forward not just on Iraq but on health care, education, energy, global warming, and tax policy, and well as to address the current financial crisis in a meaningful way.

I hesitate to say this, given how much I supported Kerry in '04 and continue to admire him, but I suspect that Professor Rohde is right: For the Democrats, and for those of us who support them, things have turned out for the best.

Where McCain did well: Poverty, race, and the vote against Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via Yglesias, check out this interesting map showing where McCain did well in '08 in relation to Bush in '04.

It makes sense that he would do better in Arizona and Alaska, as well as in the Florida panhandle and parts of Georgia (given his military record), but his strength was clearly in that dark-red swathe that, from west to east, begins in Oklahoma, sweeps across Arkansas, Tennessee, and northern Alabama, dipping down into northern and eastern Texas, as well as most of Louisiana, and then moves to the northeast into eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, the western tip of Virginia, and, ultimately, southwestern Pennsylvania.

What to make of this? Well, it's not entirely clear. Why northern Alabama but not, so much, northern Mississippi? In fact, why Mississippi hardly at all? (Without looking into it closely, I suspect that high black turnout had a lot to do with it.) Similarly, why not South Carolina? (Perhaps because Obama did well there in the primaries and there was lingering anti-McCain sentiment from 2000.)

Well, I would suggest that it has more to do with Obama than with McCain. In a word: race.

The dark-red swathe doesn't correspond to Appalachia strictly speaking, and of course there is racism all over America (in Idaho, for example, where there is no red at all), but these are states with substantial working-class white populations, and where Obama had problems during the primaries -- Hillary won Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and, of course, Pennsylvania (although there were other factors at work there, such as the fact that she had the Democratic establishment behind her). The only exception is Louisiana, which Obama won, and where there is a large black population, even post-Katrina, in New Orleans. In fact, other than Louisiana, these states don't have any major urban areas with large black populations -- other than Memphis, Tennessee, perhaps. There is no Atlanta in Arkansas or West Virginia, for example.

North Carolina, which isn't red, is an interesting exception. Obama seems to have won it narrowly, significantly outperforming Kerry. Along with Virginia, it seems to be trending blue.

One other thing: The dark-red swathe isn't just predominantly white, it's also exceedingly poor. So it seems that McCain did well -- actually, did his best -- in a part of the country that is poor and white. Again, though, that no doubt had much more to do with the colour of his opponent's skin than with anything about McCain himself.

Obama trouncing McCain among early voters

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As Nate Silver noted this morning, "these are not hard-and-fast numbers." Still, polling by SurveyUSA of early voters in five states shows Obama well ahead of McCain:

-- Georgia: Obama +6 (18% early voting)
-- Iowa: Obama +34 (14% early voting)
-- New Mexico: Obama +23 (10% early voting)
-- North Carolina: Obama +34 (5% early voting)
-- Ohio: Obama +18 (12% early voting)

Note that these are all, more or less, battleground states, though McCain will likely win Georgia and Obama will likely win Iowa.

Obama's huge advantage in North Carolina may not make much of a difference, given that only 5 percent of the electorate is voting early. But look at New Mexico and especially Ohio, where a close race could very well end up being decided by these early voters.

Overall, "Obama is leading by an average of 23 points among early voters in these five states, states which went to George W. Bush by an average of 6.5 points in 2004." And, as Nate points out, early voting leaned heavily to Bush in both 2000 and 2004.

Given that early voters tend to be highly partisan, "[w]hat these results would seem to suggest... is that there are fairly massive advantages for the Democrats in enthusiasm and/or turnout operations. They imply that Obama is quite likely to turn out his base in large numbers; the question is whether the Republicans will be able to do the same."

In the past -- in 2004, for example -- I would have said, and did say, yes, that the Republicans would turn out their base not just in large numbers but in significantly larger numbers than the Democrats theirs.

But 2008 isn't 2000 or 2004. This may be the year that the old rules no longer apply.

Obama's fight: Taking on the lies and smears of McCain, Palin, and the GOP machine

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Ever think you're living in some Matrix-like bizarro world -- you know, sort of like Jerry, George, Kramer, and Elaine? Ever think up is down, left is right, and so on and so forth?

Well, that's how it feels with McCain-Palin surging out of the RNC, drawing even with Obama-Biden in the polls, and basically dominating the political landscape of late. Some things just don't make any sense. How is it possible, in 2008, with all that has happened over the past seven-plus years, for this to be happening? To the say the least, it's rather worrying -- but I'll leave futher reflection for another time.

On a related note, that's how it feels doing something I rarely if ever do here in the blogosphere (or in real life, for that matter), namely, praising Joe Klein and Richard Cohen, two of the more pernicious GOP-enabling members of the middle-of-the-road commentariat. And yet, regarding the latter, that is just what I am about to do...

In his latest WaPo column, Cohen begins with this gem:

Thank God for Sarah Palin. Without her jibes, her sarcasm, her exaggerations, her smug provincialism, her hypocrisy about family and government, her exploitation of mommyhood, and her personal attacks on Barack Obama, the Democratic base might never be consolidated. This much is certain: Obama could never do it.

Okay... Cohen's right, to a point. He's right about Palin. He's sort of right about how the Democratic base is consolidating. And he's sort of right, but less so, about Obama.

Let me address the last point here.

Cohen's concern is that Obama is, to quote the title of his column, "too cool to fight," that is, that Obama "seems to lack fight." Cohen's one piece of evidence is an interview Obama gave to George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. (Though HuffPo's Bob Ostertag makes basically a similar point in response to an interview Obama gave to Keith Olbermann yesterday: Obama "[came] off as the most scripted, cautious politician ever.") "What Obama does not understand is that he is being Swift-boated," Cohen contends, and, like Kerry in '04, he isn't fighting back.

To a point, Cohen is right. I do think Obama needs to fight back, and hard. A positive message isn't enough. He must augment his calls for change and his serious, complex, and detailed policy positions with a concerted effort not just to repel the GOP attacks, not just to defend himself, but to define McCain-Palin and thereby to control the narrative that, through the media, dominates the campaign and shifts public opinion. This is what Kerry didn't do in '04. It was tough enough running against an incumbent in a time of war and fearmongering. What made it so much tougher was that Kerry let the Republicans, from Bush on down, get away with it. In the end, Kerry's war record -- the truth -- didn't matter. What mattered was that he was what the Republicans said he was, namely, a flip-flopper

The Republicans are doing this to Obama now -- not so much McCain as Palin, the party, GOP operatives, the pro-Republican right-wing media machine (Rush et al.), and McCain's various surrogates, like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

But it isn't enough to be right and it isn't enough to be above it all and it isn't enough to be the leader of a new and reformist democratic movement that will change the course of American history for the better. And it isn't enough because being those things doesn't get you elected, not against the Republicans, not even in a year when all signs are pointing in your favour, when the country is ready for change, when Democrats are poised to take advantage of a weakened Republican brand. And it isn't just because McCain remains popular despite his opportunism and hyper-Bush credentials and pathetic performance on the campaign trail, and because Palin has energized the base and, seemingly, McCain himself. No, McCain's popularity and Palin's celebrity are significant obstacles, but what should also be of great concern is Obama's own performance thus far, including his seeming unwillingness to fight.

And yet, Cohen overstates the case. Obama did extremely well on his trip to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Europe, and he certainly consolidated the Democratic base with an exceptionally good acceptance speech in Denver. Anything pre-Palin seems like a long time ago, but Obama-Biden and the Democrats looked extremely strong coming out of the DNC. And Obama does fight. He's a tough and seasoned political veteran. But he has to be careful. There is the racial component to consider, as Cohen admits. After all, he needs to avoid feeding into racist stereotypes of angry black men -- sad to say, but those stereotypes are out there, as is racism generally, and they could sink him. But it also wouldn't have looked good for Obama to come out swinging against Palin right away. He let the media take care of vetting her, of investigating her, and look what the media, finally doing their job, have turned up. Now he can begin to go after McCain-Palin without seeming excessively negative and vindictive -- now that the RNC is over, now that more and more of the truth about Palin is out there, now that the campaign has started in earnest.

I take Cohen's point, and I do think Obama is at times too cool for his own good, but there is the longer term to consider, and, in the long term, Obama's reluctance to jump down into the Republican gutter may prove to have been a sound political tactic.

Yes, Obama has to fight back -- to defend himself, to define McCain-Palin, to control the narrative -- and to do so with intensity and passion, much like he did with his acceptance speech, but there is more to him, and more to his campaign, than Cohen suggests.

Unless this whole bizarro matrix is messing me up. In which case, if Obama really does lack fight, that worrying over the latest poll numbers ought to shift into panic anytime now.

Calling an extremist an extremist

By Creature

Democrats must listen to George Lakoff:

What is at stake in this election are our ideals and our view of the future, as well as current realities. The Palin choice brings both front and center. Democrats, being Democrats, will mostly talk about the realities nonstop without paying attention to the dimensions of values and symbolism. Democrats, in addition, need to call an extremist an extremist: to shine a light on the shared anti-democratic ideology of McCain and Palin, the same ideology shared by Bush and Cheney. They share values antithetical to our democracy. That needs to be said loud and clear, if not by the Obama campaign itself, then by the rest of us who share democratic American values.

Our job is to bring external realities together with the reality of the political mind. Don't ignore the cognitive dimension. It is through cultural narratives, metaphors, and frames that we understand and express our ideals.

Please read more.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

A big advantage

By Creature

You know what would be a "big advantage" for John McCain's candidacy? No, not a terrorist strike on U.S. soil. A big advantage for the campaign would be if the Democrats pulled out and conceded victory to our lord and terror-savior, John McCain, today. It's the only way he could win and no one would have to die (and no one would be cheering the dead) in the process. I think for the good of the country, the presidential election should be handed to John McCain. It's the only sane thing to do.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Lindsey Graham: Obama concern troll

By Creature

Lindsey Graham, McCain wing-man, was on Meet the Press this morning and he was oh so sad for Barack Obama. Poor Barack, Graham lamented, he's fallen so far because he's broken his so-called promise on public financing. Poor Barack, Graham said while fighting back tears, someone with so much talent, has flipped and flopped on NAFTA. I wanted to cry with him, but then I remembered how sad his boss, John McCain, actually is. How far his boss, John McCain, has fallen from his maverick image and Barack Obama suddenly didn't seem like the tragic figure Lindsey Graham made him out to be. Go figure.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

T. Boone Chickens

By Carl


You might have been following the (possibly drunken) mouthings of T. Boone Pickens from the American Spectator dinner the other night:

Sen. John Kerry, whose 2004 presidential campaign was torpedoed by critics of his Vietnam War record, said Friday he has personally accepted a Texas oilman's offer to pay $1 million to anyone who can disprove even a single charge of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In a letter to T. Boone Pickens, the Massachusetts Democrat wrote: "While I am prepared to show they lied on allegation after allegation, you have generously offered to pay one million dollars for just one thing that can be proven false. I am prepared to prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt."

Pickens' original boast (again, I'm not discounting the possibility the man was shit-faced and egged on), for incontrovertible proof of one lie, just one, that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth told during the 2004 Presidential campaign.

Hell, I don't have access to any of the factual material and I'd take that challenge on in a heartbeat!

Kerry took Pickens' challenge head on, and good for him, because as with bullies of all stripes... Pickens' chickens out!:

Dear Senator Kerry:
So glad to hear from you regarding the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth political ad campaign, and an offer I made public at an American Spectator dinner in Washington, D.C. last week. I am intrigued by your letter, and am certainly open to your challenge.

My concern at the Spectator Dinner was, and continues to be, that you and other political figures were and are maligning the Swift Boat Veterans, and I want to prevent this important part of American history from being unfairly portrayed.

In order to disprove the accuracy of the Swift Boat ads, I will ultimately need you to provide the following:

1) The journal you maintained during your service in Vietnam.
2) Your military record, specifically your service records for the years
1971-1978, and copies of all movies and tapes made during your
service.

When you have done so, if you can then prove anything in the ads was materially untrue, I will gladly award $1 million. As you know, I have been a long and proud supporter of the American military and veterans' causes. I now challenge you to make this commitment: If you cannot prove anything in the Swift Boat ads to be untrue, that you will make a $1 million gift to the charity I am choosing -- the Medal of Honor Foundation.

Gee... T. Boone... you never put conditions in your original challenge as the nature of the proof or anything beyond disproving one claim.

Did you wake up the next morning, take a couple of Excedrin, and as you were reviewing your performance the night before while shaving, nick yourself when you came to the sudden realization that, yes, indeedy, the one man who could factually, definitively and factually refute not just one, but any number of claims, would drop that bomb on you?

"Maligning the Swift Boat Veterans" is undoubtedly the funniest turn of phrase I've heard since Bruce Cutler said this in defense of John Gotti: "He has threatened to kill hundreds of people, and all the people that have been threatened on tape by John are alive and well, or, if not, they died of natural causes."

So who is T. Boone Pickens? Well, you could describe him in several ways: failed venture capitalist, failed political king maker, failed philanthropist, failed father... are ya seeing a pattern here?

Oh... and he's an executive director of the Rudy Giuliani campaign.

Nuff said.

Oh... except that he's a chicken.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)