Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

1. More people will cast their votes for John Kerry on November 2nd, but that may not be enough to unseat George W. Bush.

2. The Red Sox will, in fact, win the World Series this year. Really.

201k is sliding slowly back into the grind. Slowly. Still holding on to summer. Back full time soon. In the meantime we offer this brief thought:

We cannot remember a campaign tactic as dirty and despicable as the "Swift Boat Veterns" one currently being leveled at John Kerry -- and that's saying something. He needs to fight this one back decisively, not only to save his own election chances, but to save our democracy.

If an election can be swung by these blatantly false smears, there's little hope for any of us.

Clue for the media -- the real story here is:

"Swift Boat Smear revealed to be blatantly dishonest work of partisan operatives masquerading as patriotic veterans; thoroughly discredited charges against Democratic candidate nevertheless endlessly repeated by partisan operatives masquerading as journalists."

201k is too busy applying sunscreen (just a bit of #4) to post regularly, but here is an email we sent this morning to the Public Editor's desk of the New York Times:

Hello Mr. Bovino,

Re:Iraqi Government Threatens to Use Force Unless Sadr Settles
By JOHN F. BURNS August 19, 2004

...and other stories on this topic:

Nowhere that we've seen has the Times mentioned the question of "privatization" of Iraqi industry in the conflict with Moktada al-Sadr. Yet elsewhere -- notably in The Nation and now in the latest issue of Harper's Magazine -- this question has been reported as near to the heart of the objections he's raising. In fact, it is suggested that his resistance to privatization is what elevated al-Sadr to prominence after Grand Ayatolla Ali al Sistani backed down on it.

The reporting in these publications is not unsubstantial; will the Times be addressing this issue, either to support or disprove it, or will it continue to omit it entirely from its coverage? Is this a real issue or not? If so, the Times' readers surely would want to know.

Regards, as always,

201k

201k is not in the habit of beating our heads against the wall, and so have not thrown ourselves against the anti-French feeling in this country. Such is the propaganda against France that arguing would be pointless. However, a few thoughts:

France was America's first ally. According to George Washington himself, America would not have won Independence from England without the Marquis de Lafayette.

France gave us the State of Liberty. 201k noticed that this fact was omitted from the recent celebrations over its reopening. That was poor manners, folks -- they gave the thing to us.

France peacefully sold the young United States -- for $15 million -- territory that now comprises a third of our country -- from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian border, and from the Mississippi to the Rockies. It did not have to do so.

Paul Revere's real name was Paul Rivoire. Really.

John Charles Fremont , the Republican Party's first candidate for president of the United States, was born Jean-Charles Fremont.

The word "Dixie", referring to the South (as in "Look, Away...") was derived from the French word "dix", meaning "ten". Really.

It was a Frenchman, Philippe Petit, that in 1974 strung a wire between the World Trade Center towers in New York, and walked between them.

"French Toast" is an American food, invented in Albany, New York by a man named French.

Yes, "french fries" were invented in France. Shouldn't we be happy about that?

What bothers 201k most about the anti-France thing going on is the sneaking suspicion that a great deal of it may stem from the anti-Catholicism that still sometimes lurks just beneath the surface in certain quarters of America. It doesn't come up directly, but given the way the right-wing media ceaselessly pounds on France -- and given the right's steel-cable ties to fundamentalist and evangelical Protestantism -- it isn't a stretch to imagine there's a connection.

Non-evangelical and non-fundamentalist Americans should consider that the next time they hear France or the French being bashed in the media. You never know; you could be next.

-------------------------------------------------

201k will be on vacation from August 13 until August 24. We may check in from the beach -- and we may not.

Sidney Blumenthal, in his usual precise way, encapsulates this week's media non-event from Campaign 2004:

Rather than campaign on his record, [Bush] has challenged Kerry to justify his vote for the Iraq war resolution, and when Kerry explained his reasoning, Bush accused him of "nuance."

Well, it could be worse. He could have accused him of "sovereignty".

While crazed right-wingers continue to get what must be a half-crazed old man to sign whatever they put in front of him--in total disregard of what he'll say to the press--201k has been considering far more weighty matters, i.e.,

Who do the terrorists prefer: John Kerry or George Bush?

This one should generate some email...

Then what are we to make of this?

August 8, 2004
THE INVESTIGATION

U.S. Says Man Had Ties to Plot to Disrupt Vote
By DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, Aug. 7 - A Pakistani man whose arrest provided information about the reconnaissance of financial institutions in New York, Newark and Washington was also communicating with Qaeda operatives who the authorities say are plotting to carry out an attack intended to disrupt the fall elections, a senior intelligence official said Saturday.

The arrest last month of the Pakistani, Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, had already prompted a search in the United States, Britain and other countries to locate the people behind the surveillance, which took place three or four years ago. Now the authorities say Mr. Khan's arrest is also helping them unravel a threat to carry out an attack this year inside the United States

Got it so far? Good. Now we skip down a little...

One senior counterterrorism official said the outpouring of leads had mushroomed into a sprawling investigation in which agencies in the United States and overseas were struggling to coordinate and share the enormous volume of information.

The inquiry has caused strains between the United States and Britain. There were signs that some British authorities might not have agreed with the White House decision to make public information about the surveillance operations. The news agency Reuters quoted the British home secretary, David Blunkett, as saying that there was "a difference between alerting the public to a specific threat and alarming people unnecessarily by passing on information indiscriminately."

Officials at MI5, the British domestic intelligence agency, have warned that the intense news media coverage in the United States of recent arrests in Britain could interfere with legal efforts to extradite suspects to the United States.

Ok? So, Khan was arrested, and "a senior intelligence official" in the Bush administration announced it -- against the wishes of British Intelligence. Now skip down a bit more:

A report by Reuters in Pakistan said Mr. Khan had been secretly funneling information about Al Qaeda to Pakistani authorities and that his arrest and subsequent identification in news accounts may have cost the United States a valuable source.

American officials contacted on Saturday would not confirm whether Mr. Khan was a mole or double agent. They said his arrest had led to intelligence gains of enormous value in uncovering the surveillance operation in the United States.

Did the White House compromise a double agent, cause "strains between the United States and Britain", alarm people "unnecessarily", "interfere with legal efforts to extradite suspects", and "cost the United States a valuable source" -- just so they could get a headline about a potential plot to "disrupt the fall elections"?

What do YOU think?

As of noon today the Times, which yesterday ran this on page one...

Vietnam Veterans Buy Ads to Attack Kerry
By JODI WILGOREN

Published: August 5, 2004

A group of Vietnam veterans has bought television time in three swing states for an advertisement that attacks Senator John Kerry, accusing him of lying about his war record, including the circumstances surrounding his medals, and betraying his comrades by later opposing the war.

...has yet to report to its readers that the author of the most damning smear in the ad has retracted his affadavit, as reported by the Boston Globe (which is owned by the Times):

...yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong...In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

Ok, New York Times, the clock is ticking. Yesterday these allegations were Page One news. Where and when will this retraction run?

As for yesterday's 201k post New York Times Watch - Chapter II: the Times did today run a story, by Jim Rutenberg, on John McCain's criticism of the anti-Kerry ads created by the GOP-backed swift boat group. But, unlike the article on third-party Democratic ads -- which the Times ran on page one -- Rutenberg's story on these "dishonorable" third-party GOP ads ran at the bottom of the "Campaign" section of the "Washington" section, without so much as a link from the front page.

Readers of today's New York Times online will see this story on page 1:

August 5, 2004
THE AD CAMPAIGN

Ads for (and at No Cost to) Kerry Keep Flowing
By JIM RUTENBERG

...August has brought a spate of what seemed to be Kerry advertisements every day. To a voter's eye, the senator's campaign marches on seamlessly - and usually on message. And the campaign is not a penny poorer for it.

The advertisements introduced this week were not paid for by Mr. Kerry's campaign, but from a newly formed arm of the Democratic Party, which is running a $6.5 million advertising campaign in Missouri and 19 others this week, and The Media Fund, which is running a $2.5 million campaign in five swing states, and the New Democratic Network, which is spending $500,000 on Spanish-language commercials in 11 cities. The advertisements from the campaign and the party are in many ways similar, emphasizing words like "win", "strength" and "alliances."

For the second time this campaign season outside groups that are not legally allowed to coordinate with Mr. Kerry's campaign are riding to its rescue at a crucial time in its advertising campaign against President Bush - the most expensive on record. The spots hit just when Mr. Kerry ceased advertising and when Mr. Bush increased his with commercials reminding the nation of what it has been through, the dangers that lie ahead and, in one released Tuesday, declaring it is "rising to the challenge.''

Liberal groups like The Media Fund and Moveon.org, which previously ran the advertisements The Media Fund is using now, ran heavy advertising campaigns after Mr. Kerry effectively clinched the Democratic nomination in March. They spent millions of dollars on spots highly critical of Mr. Bush in key states at a time when Mr. Kerry was too broke to run many of his own advertisements - and facing a barrage of attack advertisements from Mr. Bush.

But they'd have to dig through the wire stories to find this interesting item:

August 5, 2004

McCain Condemns Anti - Kerry Ad
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable'' and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.

"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, referring to his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.

The 60-second ad features Vietnam veterans who accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict.

"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad.

Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."

Later, McCain said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, "I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt."

The White House did not immediately address McCain's call that they repudiate the spot.

"I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire."

The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's.

So, outside Democratic groups running pro-John Kerry ads are page one news, but outside GOP groups running "dishonest and dishonorable" ads that impugn the military service of John Kerry -- the recipient of a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple hearts -- run in the wire service directory.

Somewhere between being tossed from college and landing in a ska band (this was some time ago) 201k picked up the expression "use the right tool for the job". It's been coming back to us recently, as we've watched George W. Bush hamfist his way through the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and just about everything else.

It occurs to us that all the unilateralist chest-beating we hear from the president's supporters boils down to the misconception that the only tool you need in life is the hammer.

Yes, we were warming up to this with our Bruce Springsteen post. But stay with us.

A toolbox is full of tools, each made for a certain job. To do a job right you need to know which tool to use, and how. But that's not always what happens. Sometimes -- and everyone has done it -- you try to unscrew a phillips head screw with the corner of a flat head screwdriver. Or -- and this is purely theoretical, mind you -- you use a pair of needle-nose vice grips to unstick the nuts on the valve cover of your 84 VW.

As a boy 201k had no soldering iron, and would hold a butter knife over a gas burner on the kitchen stove until it glowed red. When Mother 201k wasn't around, of course. Then one day the blade fell into the stove and 201k was left holding the handle.

The reason for using the wrong tool is usually either laziness, stupidity, or simply because you don't own the right tool. But the result is always the same: a total freaking nightmare disaster.

Back to the hammer. When used the right way -- you know, to drive or pull nails -- the hammer works great. But let us tell you something from experience: there is no tool on God's green earth that will cause more damage if used wrong.

Use a needle-nose vice grips on your valve cover and you'll strip the nuts. Use a butter knife for a soldering gun and you'll melt your fingertips along with the solder. But use a hammer on the wrong job and you make one serious mess.

Don't believe us? Try using one to chisel...without the chisel. Yeah, yeah, you could turn it around and use the claw, but you'd f*** it up and you know it. And after you did you'd mutter "right tool for the job" to yourself, and wonder, as you drove to the lumber yard, how many more times in your stupid life you were going make this mistake.

The biggest hammer in the history of mankind is the one the United States can drop on its enemies. It is the king of all hammers. And when needed, it drives bad guys through the floor and straight to hell faster than anything this world has ever seen.

But there are other tools an American president has to master besides the hammer.

Running the world's most powerful country is a complex job. Much more complex than some would lead you to believe. And it takes every tool in the box to do it right.

It takes diplomacy, savvy, negotiating skills, good intelligence, the ability to be firm when needed and understanding when necessary, the knack for getting the best out of your advisors -- and knowing which ones to ignore -- and more than anything, it takes the ability to see through layers of complexity.

This isn't because anyone wants things to be complex. It's because they are. Why do you think presidents always leave office looking 20 years older than when they enter?

Consider, for example, Pakistan. Our "ally" that (probably) harbors and trains terrorists. They have nuclear weapons. Their leader -- a general who took over in a coup -- is known to have sympathy towards the hard-line Islamists who populate his military and government, and whose cooperation he needs to stay in power.

Can't really fix that one with a hammer, can you? Which is why George W. Bush hasn't got the slightest idea what to do with Pakistan.

Get it? Saddam we could beat with a hammer, because he had no WMD -- which, let's be honest, Bush knew -- so that's where we went, hi-ho-hi-ho, swinging away. But now, on top of dealing with the fact that the invasion of Iraq was probably a disaster for the war on terror, we're stuck there with a job that can't be done with a hammer and he doesn't know what to do.

The job of president takes every tool in the box, but for whatever reason George W. Bush only seems to know how to swing a hammer around. And he's starting to make us nervous.

It's time to send him for coffee, and let someone take over who knows a little more what he's doing.

From Salon's War Room:

The Boss will join more than 20 artists in a Battleground concert tour in early October, the Los Angeles Times reports. "Directly entering partisan politics for the first time, rock icon Bruce Springsteen will join a loose coalition of high-profile musicians in an unprecedented early October concert blitz aimed at mobilizing opposition to President Bush. The concert tour ranks among the most ambitious efforts ever by entertainers of any kind to influence the outcome of a presidential race. ..."

"'What we are doing here is the direct outgrowth from the ideas that I've tried to sing about for the past 25 years,' Springsteen said in an interview. 'Hopefully we have built up a lot of credibility with our fans over the years. There comes a moment when you have to spend some of it. This is that moment.'"

201k is thrilled to hear that the Boss is getting involved personally.

Let's not equivocate: Bruce Springsteen puts more hard work and honesty into one concert than George W. Bush has ever put into anything in his entire life. Americans should remember that when the rest of the world thinks fondly of our country, they think of people like Bruce. He can draw thousands of fans at a moment's notice nearly anywhere in the world.

Springsteen has often struck 201k as exactly what's right and strong about America: our talent, our work ethic, our ability to dazzle with honesty, integrity -- and, of course, a telecaster. He's the rock star from the country that invented them.

Bruce is the perfect antidote to those who think America's only strength is its enormous hammer.

After some internal debate, 201k has become quite skeptical about the latest terror alert. Here are our reasons:

After the initial report -- which had half the citizens of the Northeast, and all the the national media types -- jumping, it came out that the information was years old and that there had been no "specific threat". As if to diffuse the dampening, and somewhat damning, effect of this fact, it was then reported that some of the information had been "updated" in January of 2004.

No other evidence was offered to indicate that any actual attack was planned. No other evidence was offered to justify the alert. Just "updated in January".

There followed a debate within 201k as to whether it could possibly be that what was being referred to as "updated in January" was simply the date on a particular computer file. As all computer users know, a file which is opened, looked at, then closed may show a "modification date" of the day of viewing.

We admit that in our cynicism we suspected this was the case. Why? Because no other evidence for the relevance of this old information was given. The only hard nugget of fact at the bottom of all the hype was the phrase "one file was updated in January".

Hardly compelling.

The next day, this updated story appeared in the New York Times:

Though the case reports do appear to have been completed before the Sept. 11 attacks, as Bush administration officials first acknowledged on Monday, some of the computer files appear to have been updated or accessed more recently. One was a file modified in January and including a photograph of a building, a senior White House official said.

The officials also acknowledged that they had not been able to assess the significance of the fact that the computer file had been modified. Such a modification could have meant that the file was updated with newly taken surveillance photographs but might simply have meant that the file had recently been opened and closed.

It is no small matter, internal-debate-wise, to predict such a disclaimer and then see it appear. Suffice it to say that it did nothing in our minds to bolster the already paper-thin credibility of the Bush administration's use of the terror alert system.

Of course, even the fact that a terrorist may have looked at this file as recently as January 2004, if in fact one did, is an uncomfortable thought. But it is hardly enough to build the entire case for the alert on. Particularly -- and here is where it really starts to get troublesome -- it turns out that this information may have already been digested and reported, and can been seen in CNN's archives from April of 2002:

Sources: al Qaeda linked to bank threat

April 20, 2002 Posted: 6:15 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The FBI announced Friday that the government has received a new, unsubstantiated terrorist threat against U.S. financial institutions -- a threat, sources said, that was to be carried out by al Qaeda operatives.

"Unspecified terrorists are considering physical attacks against U.S. financial institutions in the Northeast, particularly banks, as part of their campaign against U.S. financial interests," the FBI said.

Sources said the information indicated a possible mode of attack was suicide bombing.

The information that led to the alert, the sources said, came from a variety of intelligence sources, including al Qaeda detainees captured as part of the ongoing war against terrorism. Law enforcement learned the information in the last couple of days, the sources said.

With no evidence other than the gut feeling in our stomachs, 201k believes this 2002 report -- uncannily similar to the recent one -- references the very same information.

We cannot be the only ones who think so, for today the story changed again:

Senior government officials said Tuesday that new intelligence pointing to a current threat of a terrorist attack on financial targets in New York and possibly in Washington - not just information about surveillance on specific buildings over the years - was a major factor in the decision over the weekend to raise the terrorism alert level.

The officials said the separate stream of intelligence, which they had not previously disclosed, reached the White House only late last week and was part of a flow that the officials said had prompted them to act urgently in the last few days.

A senior White House official who mentioned the new stream of intelligence in an interview refused to say anything more about its source or content.

Call us incapacitated with cynicism, but we're not disposed to trust unnamed White House officials on this matter (or on any other, for that matter). It has indeed come to this.

So our new prediction -- and recall that we have an excellent track record for political prognostication -- is that the "new information" alleged in these reports will turn out, in the due course of time, of course, and reported in one small paragraph on page 14 of section B, to be less than what it has been made out to be.

Fool me once, shame on you...

More brilliant socio-political theory from a letter writer to the New York Times:

To the Editor:

You report (front page, Aug. 2) that the capture of a Qaeda operative led to the new information that Al Qaeda wants to hit New York City, Washington and New Jersey financial centers.

This underscores the validity of the logic that suspected terrorists detained in America or foreign lands, whether they are citizens or not, should be roughly interrogated, because almost all terrorists have information about plots against America and the monsters who want to carry out these murderous attacks.

From the first attack on the World Trade Center to the African embassy bombings to the Cole bombing to 9/11, almost all the terrorists involved were connected in some way, shape or form. If one terrorist is caught and interrogated properly, it could possibly lead to a domino effect of terrorist after terrorist being arrested and terrorist plot after terrorist plot being foiled.

Tim Caravello
New York, Aug. 2, 2004

Well, look, we could discuss the fallacious reasoning behind this, but it 's more fun to do this:

To the Editor:

You report (front page, Aug. 2) that the capture of a mafia operative led to the new information that the mafia wants to control New York City, Washington and New Jersey financial centers.

This underscores the validity of the logic that suspected mafia members detained in America or foreign lands, whether they are citizens or not, should be roughly interrogated, because almost all mafia members have information about plots against America and the monsters who want to carry out these criminal attacks.

From the first attack on Prohibition to the off-track betting industry to the distribution of canolis, almost all the mafia members involved were connected in some way, shape or form. If one mafia members is caught and interrogated properly, it could possibly lead to a domino effect of mafia member after mafia member being arrested and mafia plot after mafia plot being foiled.

Tim Caravello
New York, Aug. 2, 2004

To the Editor:

You report (front page, Aug. 2) that the capture of a prostitute led to the new information that prostitutes want to work New York City, Washington and New Jersey convention centers.

This underscores the validity of the logic that suspected prostitutes detained in America or foreign lands, whether they are citizens or not, should be roughly interrogated, because almost all prostitutes have information about plots against America's men and the monsters who want to carry out these sexual acts.

From the first bachelor party to the escort industry to the annual "Bass Boat Tradeshow", almost all the prostitutes involved were connected in some way, shape or form. If one prostitute is caught and interrogated properly, it could possibly lead to a domino effect of prostitute after prostitute being arrested and prostitute plot after prostitute plot being foiled.

Tim Caravello
New York, Aug. 2, 2004

To the Editor:

You report (front page, Aug. 2) that the capture of a tax delinquent led to the new information that tax delinquents want to avoid paying taxes on profits made in New York City, Washington and New Jersey financial centers.

This underscores the validity of the logic that suspected tax delinquents detained in America or foreign lands, whether they are citizens or not, should be roughly interrogated, because almost all tax delinquents have information about plots against the IRS and the monsters who want to carry out these tax dodges.

From the first corporation that moved its nominal address to Bermuda to loopholes in the taxcode for military contractors to the self-employed who take a home office deduction, almost all the tax delinquents involved were connected in some way, shape or form. If one tax delinquent is caught and interrogated properly, it could possibly lead to a domino effect of tax delinquent after tax delinquent being arrested and tax delinquent plot after tax delinquent plot being foiled.

Tim Caravello
New York, Aug. 2, 2004

To the Editor:

You report (front page, Aug. 2) that the capture of an adulterer led to the new information that adulterers want to hit the bars after work in New York City, Washington and New Jersey financial centers.

This underscores the validity of the logic that suspected adulterers detained in America or foreign lands, whether they are citizens or not, should be roughly interrogated, because almost all adulterers have information about plots against marriage and the monsters who want to carry out these adulterous attacks.

From the first office romance to sixties key parties to the entire nation of France, almost all the adulterers involved were connected in some way, shape or form. If one adulterer is caught and interrogated properly, it could possibly lead to a domino effect of adulterer after adulterer being arrested and adulterous tryst after adulterous tryst being foiled.

Tim Caravello
New York, Aug. 2, 2004

And so forth.

Oh hey, that reminds us: the other day we were talking to a prosecutor, and he told us that if it wasn't for judges and juries he could convict a lot more criminals, and keep the streets a lot safer.

Well, the real campaign season is truly upon us. We know because the New York Times has launched its expected submarine attack on the Democratic candidate, as illustrated, well, just about everywhere in today's paper.

201k is considering a "New York Times" watch, to keep track of bias in their coverage of the presidential campaign. We fully expect the paper to do to Kerry what it did to Gore, but this time we're thinking of keeping score somehow.

Any help in this effort is appreciated. For now here's a sample from today:

Week in Review:

George Bush rides a mountain bike ("... the sport has manifested a certain daredevil quality...") and John Kerry rides a street bike ("Road riders, like Mr. Kerry, are comparative wussies when it comes to sensation seeking.")

Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd:

John Kerry's campaign theme of a trusted captain to steer the ship of state is compared to "Gilligan's Island".

Page one: Adam Nagourney and Robin Toner:

The Bush campaign's intention to attack John Kerry througout August, leading up to a Republican convention that will "feature Mr. Kerry as an object of humor and calculated derision," is premised on the idea that, according to Nagourney and Toner--and this is not a quote, it's coming from the reporters themselves:

Mr. Kerry's voting record - he has cast more than 6,000 votes in all - has long been considered vulnerable by Democrats and Republicans, not just because it can be characterized as liberal, but also because it is so vast and touches on so many complicated and politically fraught issues over so many years. The decision by Mr. Bush to turn on Mr. Kerry's voting record, while hardly a surprise, underlines why members of Congress are sometimes viewed as less than ideal candidates for president.

Page one: Steven Greenhouse.

Sure, "The nation's labor unions have rallied behind John Kerry, " but really, "the nation's unions are in turmoil". The first quote to illustrate the turmoil? From the one labor leader who criticized Kerry, and "gave interviews in which he asserted that the Democrats lacked an economic message and that Mr. Kerry was not pro-worker enough."

Bear in mind the "turmoil" in the labor movement has NOTHING TO DO with the presidential campaign, and that there is unprecedented labor unity in support of Kerry--that's just the quote Greenhouse chose to feature first. This all appears in the Sunday Times after a week which featured the following stories, neither of which can be found through direct links, but only through specific searches:

"White House Projects Highest Deficit Ever". Published yesterday, on July 31, 2004, but no longer linked to.

"I.R.S. Says Americans' Income Shrank for 2 Consecutive Years". Published three days ago, on July 29, 2004, but no longer linked to, even under "All Business Headlines".