by Ana Marie Cox

Perhaps you've heard about John Kerry telling young people to get an education lest they "get stuck in Iraq." Classic elitist liberal stereotyping. (Public relations officials will assure you that the new "Army Strong" slogan is ironically ungrammatical. Like, uhm, the Star Trek intro.) Today, that comment was met today with an indignant response from the White House, saying, "Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who've given their lives in this." Kerry responded with this:

"This is the classic GOP playbook. I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did. I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium."

Well, that's both articulate and legitimate. A strong defense that turns the tables on the White House and redirects attention to their weaknesses.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL JOHN KERRY?

John McCain, whose Marine son is likely to serve in Iraq, called for Kerry to apologize and explained that the

suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq, is an insult to every soldier serving in combat, and should deeply offend any American with an ounce of appreciation for what they suffer and risk so that the rest of us can sleep more comfortably at night.

Without them, we wouldn't live in a country where people securely possess all their God-given rights, including the right to express insensitive, ill-considered and uninformed remarks.

Thoughtful, measured, dispassionate... WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL JOHN MCCAIN?

Next you'll be telling us that McCain plays drinking games with Hillary Clinton or John Kerry thinks he can run for President again!

UPDATE: Well, this is less of a surprise and more like a genuine 2004 flashback: The President himself will be addressing the issue. Imagine how thrilled the White House is to be talking about John Kerry again! At this point, the administration is so desperate to talk about ANYTHING but Iraq proper, they're probably hoping someone gives Mark Foley a laptop.

A couple of more unusual things about this move. First, the White House sent out Bush's statement on Kerry prior to his giving, "as prepared for delivery," which is usually the kind of thing they do for MAJOR EVENT, not a campaign stop in Georgia. Second, they go through the trouble name John Kerry, which must be nice for him.

As for the Democrats, well, it's not like Kerry will lose any more supporters...

The remarks themselves:

I cannot tell you how proud I am to be the Commander-in-Chief of such incredibly brave men and women who have volunteered to wear the uniform of the United States. And even in the midst of a heated campaign season, there are still some things we should all be able to agree on -- and one of the most important is that every one of our troops deserves our gratitude -- and respect. Yesterday Democrat Senator John Kerry was speaking to a group of young people in California, and gave them this advice, quote: "You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't you get stuck in Iraq."

The Senator's suggestion that the men and women of our military are somehow uneducated is insulting and shameful. Our troops did not enlist because they did not study hard in school or do their homework. The men and women who serve in our all-volunteer Armed Forces are plenty smart and are serving because they are patriots – and Senator Kerry owes them an apology.

Whatever party you belong to, whatever you think about the war in Iraq, we should all agree that our troops deserve our unwavering support. And when it comes to supporting our men and women in uniform, I don't have any doubt where Mac Collins is going to land. He is a strong supporter of the military. And he knows what I know: Any time you have American troops in harm's way, they have the right to expect the full support of the American government.

by Ana Marie Cox

How long is "an eternity in politics"? According to news coverage of these midterms, it's anywhere from "five weeks" to "overnight" with stops along the way at "thirty days," "thirteen days" and "a week." Most of these confident mismeasurements of time came from Republicans, eager to remind critics and reporters that however bleak their future looks now, they have some negative ads still left run and, to rack up another hoary cliche, "the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day." (I think Gallup does it.)

There's one slice of that eternity that has a very specific length: "The 72 Hour Project." Perhaps you've heard of it. The GOP's finely-honed strategy for turning out its core constituency has become the favored talking point for party hacks and journalists alike, to the extent there is a difference. The Republicans talk it up in order to give some semblance of justification for the confidence displayed by party leaders. For the Democrats, it's a mantra to prevent excessively early drape purchases. The press, on the other hand, invokes it like a sports announcer begging an audience not to change the channel during a blow-out game.

The ostensible point of debate is whether the 72-hour strategy will work (fueled by rumors of low enthusiasm among conservatives) but the debate might turn into how much GOTV (as "get out the vote" is know in acronym-happy punditopolis) will really matter. This cycle has seen an unprecedented number of absentee ballots requested and cast, mostly due to states eliminating the requirement that voters have a reason to vote absentee. In Montana, where Democrat John Tester has been trying to eke out a Senate victory against incumbent Republican Conrad Burns, nearly one out of six voters have requested absentee ballots. Polls have shown Burns pulling closer to Tester, a phenomenon some explain by saying Burns has been performing better lately (or at least not screwing up as much), but half of those absentee ballots have been cast, presumably back when Burns was still talking about his "little Guatamalan man" and taxi-driving terrorists. The same trend holds true in other states: In Maryland, voter concerns about new polling procedures (procedures that wrecked havoc during the primary elections) have spurred a push for absentee ballots as well. More than 152,000 have been ordered, about ten thousand more than were cast in the 2004 presidential election. How much will Republican Senate candidate's Michael Steele's appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday matter to the voters who just remember him as a Bush shill? Similar trends across the country (in Iowa, Democrat absentee ballots have come in at a rate of two-to-one) suggest that Republican fears about voters not going to the polls are accurate but misdirected: Clearly, a significant proportion of the base will not be showing up Nov. 8, but it's the Democratic base and it's only because they already voted.

Conservative pundits have not quite appropriated absentee ballots as a talking point, though John Fund may have given a preview of post-election spin with his Wall Street Journal column today. Without going into specifics about how absentee ballots tend to favor Democrats, he warns darkly about their dangers. "It's so easy to cheat you'd be surprised who's been caught at it," he says, and absentee voting "corrupts the secret ballot." As if that weren't bad enough, they fail to "[f]oster the communal aspect of citizens voting together." (Is that what's supposed to make up for the way that campaigning tears us apart?) Anyway, if it's true that in this election cycle, Republicans have been acting like Democrats, absentee ballots are the new Diebold.

And, obviously, they completely mess with how long an eternity is. But Republicans have been having some trouble with temporal relations for quite some time -- just look at how long we've been in Iraq, where, I'm sure, a week really does feel like an eternity.

A conservative blog is claiming that "Democrats" planted a "forged" RNC anti-Harold Ford ad specifically to gin up allegations of racism. What's the phrase again? "Interesting, if true"? (Not entirely SFW, btw...)

You have to hear the boom-changa-changa porn soundtrack to really appreciate it, but here's the transcript:

(begins 'Paid for by the Republican National Committee')

(interspersed with photos of white women with black men)

Senate candidate Harold Ford Junior
thinks he's suitable to represent the values of Tennessee.

But while he may act pure as driven snow
this boyish young hustler has dark passions
even attending a hard-core pornography party

where girls stripped practically naked
to be leered at by Harold Ford Junior
and his virile posse of bachelor thugs.

Is this an example for Tennessee's children?

UPDATE: I "guess" I did not "use" enough "scare" "quotes" to indicate that this ad is, indeed, the work of Democrats... Though it's not "exactly" "subterfuge."