Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

...from Pennsylvania, of all places.

Can we just take it as a given that any conservative spending his life harassing gays or "protecting" children from sexual predators is one?

Given. Totally.

We particularly like how, before his IM messages surfaced, Foley refuted the allegations by claiming Democrats were "slurring" him by calling him gay.

Nice mindset. He likes teenage boys, but it's "a slur" to call him gay.

And these people are running the country.

What the conservative underwear-sniffers never understand is that actual straight guys do not spend one minute of their lives worrying about gay men. Not a moment. Whereas the rightwing moral crusaders -- with their blow-dried hair and snazzy clothes -- obsess about them.

Hmm.

When Mrs. 201k first moved to the Commonwealth we watched an old clip of a Bishop who used to be on TV here in the '60's. She'd never seen him before, but after thirty seconds she laughed out loud and said, "This guy looks as queer as a three-dollar bill". And she was right -- he did.

Thank dog for the slow but steady liberalization of society, for that's what broke open the church sex scandals and finally ended generations of abuse that had manoeuvered and survived under the cover provided by a more conservative era.

Because a people lifted up by liberalism refuse to submit to corrupt authority; they stand up and speak out, no longer cowed by the fear and shame that once made them accessories to their own abuse.

It's like finally hitting the bully back; you discover he's just an evil coward. And once the fear of him is gone, his power over you evaporates.

Liberalism brings enlightenment, and when the dark spell that corrupt authority holds over a conservative society is illuminated, it's broken -- and the corrupt authority loses its grip on the people forever. Which is a good thing.

Of course, the forces of corrupt authority don't like this very much. You listening, Rick Santorum?

Hey, on that subject, we have a riddle for you, Poor Readers:

Q: What do Senator Rick Santorum and the Editor of 201k have in common?

A: Pretty soon neither one of us will be Senators.

The following Democratic Senators voted for the disgusting Senate Bill 3930 -- the "detainee" bill:

Carper (D-DE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)

201k will not forget these names.

Dishonorable mention goes to Senator Snowe (R-ME), who abstained, unable to bring herself to vote for the worst law since the Alien and Sedition Acts, but equally unable to vote against it.

Thanks for nothing, Olympia. Maine deserves better.

Honestly, sometimes this stuff just writes itself.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., abruptly resigned from Congress on Friday in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former teenage male page.

Campaign aides had previously acknowledged that the Republican congressman e-mailed the former Capitol page five times, but had said there was nothing inappropriate about the exchange. The page was 16 at the time of the e-mail correspondence.

Foley, who represents an area around Palm Beach County, e-mailed the page in August 2005. Foley asked him how he was doing after Hurricane Katrina and what he wanted for his birthday. The congressman also asked the boy to send a photo of himself, according to excerpts of the e-mails that were originally released by ABC News.

ABC News reported Friday that Foley also engaged in a series of sexually explicit instant messages with current and former teenage male pages.

Foley, as chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, had introduced legislation in July to protect children from exploitation by adults over the Internet.

Anyone else think the world would be a better place if Republicans would just lighten up, and feel free to be GAY?

You know? Just come out and spare us all the "daddy-state" repression that causes so much trouble?

Sen. Kennedy's office has put together a sobering fact sheet on the discord between the White House's rhetoric on American security in the wake of George Bush's war in Iraq, and the reality, as reflected in a National Intelligence Estimate which reports the unanimous opinion of every agency in the U.S. intelligence community:

The war in Iraq is fueling Islamic radicalism and terrorism around the world, and this week we learned that all sixteen agencies in the U.S. intelligence community agree on this critical point.

For three years, the Bush administration has repeatedly told the American people that the war in Iraq makes America safer. In fact, on the recent anniversary of 9/11, the President declared that "the world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."

Now we have clear evidence -- the unanimous opinion of every agency in the U.S. intelligence community -- that this simply isn't true. Earlier this week, we learned that a National Intelligence Estimate in April makes the case, in no uncertain terms, that the war in Iraq has increased the global threat of terror, and that the "Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists."

We can't trust the White House to tell the truth about this report. They've only grudgingly released selected segments. It's up to each of us to sound the alarm about the damage that the President's folly has done to our national security.

The National Intelligence Estimate provides clear evidence to make our case, and we've put together a fact sheet that compares its analysis with the rhetoric of the White House. Use it to make sure everyone you know learns about this breathtaking and sobering report, particularly undecided voters or Republican voters:

Click here.

201k, October 13, 2004:

Mr. Bush never had a viable plan for fighting terrorism. He never had a viable plan for engaging the rest of the world in his war in Iraq. He has no viable plan for getting out of Iraq. He has no viable plan for sustaining the troops levels we now need with a volunteer military.

Simply put, the world is too dangerous a place for us to any longer trust the presidency to the hands of Mr. Bush, who mistakes image control, obfuscations and mule-headed certainty for policy.

The New York Times, September 27, 2006:

...the three declassified pages from what is certainly a voluminous report told us what any American with a newspaper, television or Internet connection should already know. The invasion of Iraq was a cataclysmic disaster. The current situation will get worse if American forces leave. Unfortunately, neither the report nor the president provide even a glimmer of a suggestion about how to avoid that inevitable disaster.

It's obvious why Mr. Bush did not want this report out, and why it is taking so long for the intelligence agencies to complete another report, solely on Iraq, that was requested by Congress in late July. It's not credible that more time is needed to do the job. In 2002, the intelligence agencies completed a report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in less time. Mr. Bush also made selected passages of that report public to buttress his arguments for war with Iraq, most of which proved to be based on fairy tales.

Then, Mr. Bush wanted Americans to focus on how dangerous Saddam Hussein was, and not on the obvious consequences of starting a war in the Middle East. Now, he wants voters to focus on how dangerous the world is, and not on his utter lack of ideas for what to do about it.

President Bush is upset that a modicum of truth about his policies has made it into the press.

September 26, 2006

Bush Disagrees That Iraq War Raises Threat of Terrorism
By BRIAN KNOWLTON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- President Bush said today that he had ordered the declassification of key parts of a major intelligence report that reportedly found that the Iraq war has helped produce a new generation of Islamic radicals and increased the terrorist threat.

The president was clearly unhappy that findings from the document, a National Intelligence Estimate completed in April, had made their way into news reports. The New York Times disclosed some of the findings in its issue on Sunday.

Noting that evidence-gathering for the assessment had concluded in late February, and that the report itself had been finished two months later, he said: "Here we are, coming down the homestretch of an election campaign and it's on front page of your newspapers. Isn't that interesting?"

Interesting? It's a freaking miracle. The ugly truth about the Bush Administration's Iraq adventure appearing in the mainstream press? No wonder he's surprised.

Or maybe he's just perplexed that a government leak was printed in the Times with Judith Miller no longer there.

Surely heads will roll. Maybe the guy who wrote the report will come forward and confess it was all a mistake, in a Soviet-show-trial-like way, as John DiIulio did. Or maybe the Times editor who ran the story will find himself covering cricket in Somalia.

In any event, this President will never stand for the American people knowing the truth. As he's said many times, he swore an oath to protect the safety of his own rear end.

Or something like that.

ESPN, broadcasting "Monday Night Football" from the New Orleans Superbowl -- the first game there since Katrina, and a big media deal -- found time to let a camera linger over a "We Love Bush" sign which just happened to belong to someone with a front-row balcony seat.

We can't help wondering -- as we think back to the Major League All-Star Game at which former President George H. W. Bush and his wife were on camera literally all night, seated behind home plate -- how many residents of New Orleans, as a percentage, "love George Bush"?

And what are the odds that one who does would have such a great seat, and make a sign -- and that ESPN would find it and decided to put it on national TV for a good 15 seconds?

These people are diabolical, we tell you. Diabolical.

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

UPDATE: Thanks to all who emailed to tell us the sign referred to Reggie Bush. We know. This was supposed to be a joke.

Thanks -- we'll be here all week. Try the veal.

It was great to see the last legitimately elected President of the Unites States finally defending his record on terrorism against the lies of the right-wing smear machine.

Of course, most Americans will never know they're lies, given that the right-wing smear machine controls the television. But it was still nice to see.

201k will be publishing on a reduced basis for the next couple of weeks. Yes, we know there's a war on. Yes, we know there's an election, a gubernatorial debate, global warming, and no more Deadwood. Can't be helped.

In the meantime, please consider these essay questions; there will be a test when we return:

1. Why shouldn't people expect that their taxes will be used to improve their quality of life -- no matter how it is achieved -- and not just be limited to programs and services targeted at other citizens?

2. Could Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have played more into the hands of the Bush administration with his speech to the United Nations on September 19? An Iranian leader who plays to the cheap seats as much as Bush plays to his is like a dream come true for the White House; Ahmadinejad might as well have ordered the bombing of Iran himself.

3. Congress supposedly represents "the people". So why did the people decide they wanted harsher bankruptcy laws, and to give enormous tax subsidies to the pharmaceutical industry?

Back soon...

We're still stunned that NECN gave Kerry Healey all that airtime last night.

Having "won" an election over no one, Healey staged a "victory celebration", which NECN was gullible enough to cover, and gave, where a victorious candidate would normally give a victory speech, a long, pre-prepared attack on Deval Patrick.

That Healey would try this trick is understandable; that NECN would go for it is not. It was wildly appropriate on election night -- an actual election night, for some people -- to broadcast 10 minutes of the same old tired GOP litany of talking points. Please.

All the Republicans have at this point is name-calling and revisionist history. Patrick is a guy who talks sense -- passionately -- and wants to put back in local aid the money that the cities and towns desperately need.

Makes sense to us.

The last thing we need is yet another hack gadlfly GOP governor spending millions of corporate dollars burying voters with the same old litany of tired talking points and meaningless pot-shots, biding their time for better jobs, while the Democrats in the legislature do all the Commonwealth's work.

It's time for a change.

As expected, Deval Patrick has won the Massachusetts Gubernatorial Democratic nomination. Congratulations on a well-run race.

And now, a word of caution to all Democrats in the Commonwealth: as of now, with 51% of precincts reporting, Patrick has 48% of the vote. That means that 52% of Democractic primary voters voted for one of the two moderate/conservative Democratic candidates.

It was these voters that elected Murray in the Lt. Governor's race.

It's very possible that if either Gabrielli or Reilly had dropped out, the other would have won.

On the other side, we ask the question: "How Republican Is It?"

How Republican Is It for the Healey campaign to give a "victory celebration" after running unopposed? Answer: Very. A pre-packaged, fake celebration, engineered to give their candidate a chance to make her first attack with free television coverage, and timed perfectly for the ten o'clock news slot.

Shame on the local media for covering this. There was no Republican "election" -- as there was on the Democratic side -- so there's no reason to cover a fake victory celebration that's nothing more than a grab at TV time for the purpose of giving a general campaign speech. If there was no real election there's no reason to hear Healey give a general campaign speech on election night.

Shame on whoever at NECN gave her all this time. And someone at the Patrick campaign should have hustled Deval onstage to upstage her; the media would have been forced to break away from her.

And away we go.

...nothing like it. Lovely late summer day, people holding signs, everyone feeling virtuous. Old people in Crown Victorias voting for Tom Reilly, young people in Toyotas voting for Deval Patrick -- and no one, that we saw, voting for Chris Gabrielli.

In our district, where everyone was in shorts, we felt almost able to count the votes by counting the backpacks and sandals vs the dark socks and brown shoes.

We voted early, and it looked nearly all Reilly. You know: vote, hit McDonald's for the senior coffee discount, then off to Market Basket for the triple coupon rebate.

Presumably the Patrick voters will descend later, after they've picked Jacob and Amelia up from private pre-school.

Yes, Election Day -- where all our treasured stereotypes ring true.

Thank dog.

This morning we got this email from the Gabrielli campaign:

Please vote today!

Today, you have the opportunity to nominate a candidate for governor who is totally committed to getting results - who doesn't care whether an idea is Democratic or Republican as long as it's a good idea.

Chris Gabrieli is that leader - and he's also the leader the polls repeatedly show is the strongest candidate to take on Kerry Healey and end the failed Romney-Healey Administration.

This election is far too important for you to sit out. Please vote today, and vote for Chris Gabrieli to solve problems and get results for Massachusetts.

Can't help but thinking that this email indicates the Gabrielli campaign believes, as we do, that their showing in the polls is not neccessarily backed-up by actual voting bodies. That's the dangers of an all air campaign.

But what really amazes us is his continued reliance on the "Gabrielli doesn't care whether an idea is Democratic or Republican as long as it's a good idea" strategy. We've seen it in his ads, and he obviously believes in it enough to make it the core of this email.

We get that this is an "I'm the most electable candidate" message; what we don't get is why the Gabrielli campaign thought that Massachusetts Democratic primary voters would be attracted to it -- at all, let alone now, when partisanship has reached new highs, and the vast majority of Dems in the Commonwealth would rather drink Drano than entertain "Republican" anything.

Strange strategy. We stick with our prediction that Gabrielli will place a surprise third.

President George W. Bush, May 31, 2003

We believe that the ultimate answer to hatred is hope. The ideology of terrorism takes hold in an atmosphere of resentment and despair. And so we help men and women around the world to build lives of purpose and dignity.

President George W. Bush, March 29, 2003

The fighting is fierce and we do not know its duration, yet we know the outcome of this battle: The Iraqi regime will be disarmed and removed from power. Iraq will be free.

In the last week the world has seen firsthand the cruel nature of a dying regime. In areas still under its control, the regime continues its rule by terror. Prisoners of war have been brutalized and executed.

Given the nature of this regime, we expect such war crimes, but we will not excuse them. War criminals will be hunted relentlessly and judged severely.

...the world has also seen the nature of the young men and women who fight on our behalf. They are showing kindness and respect to the Iraqi people. They are going to extraordinary lengths to spare the lives of the innocent. Our forces are delivering food and water to grateful Iraqi citizens in Safwan and Umm Qasr. The contrast could not be greater between the honorable conduct of our liberating force and the criminal acts of the enemy.

President George W. Bush, September 16, 2006

As we work with the international community to defeat the terrorists and extremists, we must also provide our military and intelligence professionals the tools they need to keep our country safe. Congress is considering two vital pieces of legislation to help us do just that.

This bill will also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists. The information the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has helped disrupt terrorist plots...[t]his CIA program has saved American lives, and the lives of people in other countries.

Unfortunately, the recent Supreme Court decision put the future of this program in question, and we need this legislation to save it.

The principle behind this program is clear: When al Qaeda operatives are calling into or out of our country, we need to know who they are calling, why they are calling, and what they are planning.

President George W. Bush, September 15, 2006

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?

THE PRESIDENT: My job, and the job of people here in Washington, D.C., is to protect this country. We didn't ask for this war. You might remember the 2000 campaign. I don't remember spending much time talking about what it might be like to be a Commander-in-Chief in a different kind of war. But this enemy has struck us and they want to strike us again. And we will give our folks the tools necessary to protect the country; that's our job.

It's a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't that way. I wish I could tell the American people, don't worry about it, they're not coming again. But they are coming again. And that's why I've sent this legislation up to Congress...

Q Can I just follow up?

THE PRESIDENT: No, you can't.

A new Boston Globe/CBS4-TV poll confirms what became inevitable after the Globe's endorsement last Sunday: Patrick is running away with the Democratic nomination for Governor.

Reilly has fallen to third, calling into question our prediction that Gabrielli would be the surprise third-place finisher. It's still possible that Gabrielli's numbers are more virtual than real, but of course now that's also true for Reilly, whose support among unions has been as shallow as it has been wide; they may now decide it's over and either not vote, or vote for Not Tom.

Tom himself may decide that, which presents interesting -- though probably academic -- possibilities for Gabrielli. But it matters not; as we said yesterday, Patrick will win, and what happens after that is a mystery.

On that subject, two tidbits from the poll caught our eye; the first is that Deborah Goldberg has a lead that's outside the margin of error over Tim Murray, suggesting the real possibility of a Patrick/Goldberg ticket. That plays fine chez 201k; we hope it does as well throughout the state.

The second item of note was the response to the question, "Do you prefer an immediate rollback of the state income tax rate, a gradual rollback, or leaving the tax rate the same?" An astounding 30% of "likely Democratic primary voters" defy self-interest (and good for them!) by turning down a tax break. But a disquieting (though unsurprising) 63% favor either an immediate or gradual rollback. That's among likely Democratic primary voters -- most of whom support Patrick.

What, we wonder, are the numbers on that question among all likely voters?

201k, September 12, 2006

"America will stay in the fight. Iraq will be a free nation, and a strong ally in the war on terror."

Just not on our side.

Frank Rich, September 17, 2006:

Ms. Rice sets a high bar, but Mr. Bush, competitive as always, was not to be outdone in his Oval Office address...[m]oldy canards of yore (Saddam "was a clear threat") were interspersed with promising newcomers: Iraq will be "a strong ally in the war on terror." As is often the case, the president was technically truthful. Iraq will be a strong ally in the war on terror -- just not necessarily our ally.

201k.com - "A Commonwealth Perspective" turns three this month. Well, technically we're four, as we existed for two months -- August and September of 2002 -- before disappearing and reemerging on September 11, 2003 in the current format.

So we'll call it three.

A lot has happened in that time. We invite our Poor Readers to take a look back by choosing a random month from the left-hand index, and wandering down memory lane. Who knows what you'll find -- the nutty emails from the professor of neurosurgery at CUNY over Terry Schiavo? Mitt Romney and Tim Russert springing a pre-set trap on Shannon O'Brien? The Red Sox winning the World Series? Theresa Hynes Kerry refusing to stand still and stop talking while her husband spoke in public?

You never know. Go ahead: waste some more time on the Internet. You know you want to.

With only a few days left to go in the Commonwealth's Gubernatorial Democratic Primary -- which Deval Patrick will win -- we're still mulling over the same questions that have dogged us for weeks.

1. What the hell was Chris Gabrielli thinking the last few years? As O'Brien's running mate he was perfectly positioned to set himself up as "The Candidate" of 2006. But apart from a few emails that trickled in from his office after the election, he disappeared from the radar screen only to appear too late in this election to make a difference.

Could someone so rich and smart simply be lazy? Or is he temperamentally above the party he longs to represent? His performance at the debate on Wednesday demonstrated that he's a brilliant man with a firm grasp on the realities of Massachusetts' economic, um, reality. So why didn't he spend the last four years doing the legwork to shore up some kind of ground support for a run at the job?

His campaign has been an air-war from the start, with little to no troop movement -- i.e., the people who will actually show up at the polls to vote in the primary. As such he's the classic candidate who polls better than he'll do on election day -- and that's a shame for the Democratic Party, because he's a guy Kerry Healey flat-out can't beat. He's for the tax cut -- and how -- and can't be tagged by any of the usual GOP smear tactics. But we suspect that on election day he'll place third at best, unless Reilly looks at the numbers and pulls out, and his people go to Gabrielli.

2. What is up with the Deval Patrick religion that has taken over the great bulk of the party? Look -- 201k would like nothing more than for Deval Patrick to win and actually embark upon the mission he apparently holds in his heart. But Patrick is the dream GOP opponent. As the only candidate who opposes the tax cut he is a gift from heaven for a GOP struggling with very little else to work with. If Gabrielli can make him squirm in a debate by asking for economic specifics, just imagine what the GOP will do to him.

We've seen too many progressive candidates march proudly off a cliff at the polls (Scott Harshbarger and Robert Reich, anyone?) because they just don't get the realities of the electorate here. We're doubly concerned when we see scores of recent arrivals to our state go all high-hat on the rank and file, denigrating them as "party lifers", etc. -- which, let's face it, is a class thing -- in total ignorance of history and reality. It's also shamefully disrespectful to the working-class roots of the party.

Memo to the true-believers: Mitt Romney won a lot of blue collar neighborhoods here last time. That's the reality we're dealing with. Yeah, it shocked and bummed us out, too. But that's WHAT HAPPENED. And here we are.

Maybe Patrick will be the exception. Maybe the Globe's endorsement (and the push over the top it gave Patrick) will do the trick. That would be great. But if history repeats itself, and the "ideal progressive candidate" goes down to defeat -- again -- in Massachusetts, we hope the true-believers will have more than just bitter recriminations to offer before they head off to Washington to work for a lobbying group and leave us with yet another gadfly Republican governor -- which would be five in a row.

3. What the hell is Tom Reilly doing? While the left -- especially the Phoenix -- attributes his bizarre decision-making to cynical calculation or secret right-wing sympathies, it just isn't that simple.

This is the guy that had it all. It was right there for him to take, in every city and town across the Commonwealth. He's the other guy Kerry Healey just can't beat. The Herald-endorsed Reilly is tough on crime, in favor of the tax cut, and squarer than Dudley Dooright. His only vulnerability -- beside his campaign's inability to put out grammatically correct literature -- is the Big Dig, which Kerry Healey won't touch with a ten-foot pole.

So why, oh why, is he opposed to repealing the 1913 anti-miscegenation law? Why does he support capital punishment? Why did he go after Billy Bulger? It's not as simple as painting him as a DINO or as a calculating cynic. Those just don't add up.

Moralist? Idiot? WTF, Tom? WTF have you been thinking?

A Gabrielli or Reilly win clinched the race for the Democratic party. Kerry Healey simply could not beat either of them. A Patrick win -- inevitable now -- makes for a race that the Dems can lose despite all indications to the contrary, especially once the national media rolls in shilling for the GOP and gunning for Patrick. We find ourselves hoping for a Murray win in the Lt. race mostly because his western roots -- and name, race, and gender -- will help Patrick.

Again, we'd like nothing more than for Patrick to win and carry-through on his promises to make Massachusetts the progressive beacon it should be. But progressives should not kid themselves: by nominating Deval Patrick they have made the most challenging strategic decision, giving life to the GOP and making the task of electing a Democratic governor much harder than it had to be.

It's a mystery. We shall see.

And now, to the debate. For photos, see below, the post of September 13, 2006.

201k was pleased to have been invited to attend, and before we get started we want to specifically thank Jennifer Bien, Ro Dooley, and Bridget -- whose last name we don't know -- for their kindness and professionalism. We also enjoyed the receptionist at CBS4, who greeted us with a disdain and sarcasm that was impressive for someone of her generation. Perhaps she's younger than she looks.

The debate was reasonably interesting, and we'll get to it shortly, but by far the most fun for us was observing the people who were observing the candidates. 201k has no journalistic training, credentials, or intentions, and last night's experience made us more grateful than ever for that.

The press room itself was very nicely set up, with internet access, a fruit and cheese plate, and plenty of water and soft drinks -- though one member of the fourth estate brought his own 25-gallon drum of Mountain Dew, which he finished before moving on to CBS's Mountain Dew. We were a little afraid to be sitting so close to him.

Filled with occupants, though, the room looked more than anything else like a meeting of "Dorkaholics Anonymous". Imagine the high school audio-visual department having a mixer with the debate team, and you've got the idea. The only difference is that, per capita, this room had more self-importance in it than any other in our collective experience. To get your head around the scope of this, understand that one of us has spent years in the music business and the other is a practicing trial attorney; believe us -- we've seen self-importance. We couldn't have imagined anything like this. Well, maybe backstage at a production of "Rent".

There were exceptions -- David from Blue Mass Group turns out not to be a dink -- but they were like Yankee jerseys in the stands at Fenway Park. The dominating presence in the room was a nationally-known political commentator who grabbed the seat at the head of the table, went out of his way to humiliate -- out loud, for maximum effect in the room -- the young woman the station had put at our disposal, then, throughout the evening muttered what he supposed was "Internet savvy" lingo ("YouTube", "LOL", etc.) under his breath, mocking the bloggers in the room to the very nice reporter who got stuck sitting next to him and who was trying to do her job. Later, at the press questions, he asked each candidate a "funny" question that wasn't "funny" -- when he wasn't trying to scope out Mrs. 201k unseen.

Yes, she saw you. And she thinks you're an idiot. And, frankly, dude, you owe the young woman at CBS4 an apology. You were a jerk.

Other mildly amusing things were the 30-minute effort by two reporters -- who were sitting across the table from each other -- to get their "Instant Messaging" working so they could IM each other before the debate, and the radio reporter who'd obviously stolen her clothes from Tommy Heath

When the candidates arrived -- which we watched on wide-screen TV -- the press reacted differently to each. Gabrielli jumped out of his bus pumping his arms in the air, and the room erupted in laughter. He did look silly.

The camera caught Reilly pausing and looking back while walking towards the studio, and one member of the press said aloud, "This way, Tom", and the room laughed again.

No reaction to Patrick's arrival.

And now,

The Debate

Jon Keller -- very professional, very personable -- began by asking the candidates why they were electable. Gabrielli went first, reciting a long list of specific proposals he'd pursue as governor. At the time we thought this remarkably boring approach was due to a personality disorder, but it was actually the first shot in what, it would become clear, was his strategy of painting Patrick as short on specifics.

Patrick touted his "leadership", which was the first inkling that he would spend the entire night short on specifics.

Reilly promoted his "independence" and his understanding of "working guy" life, then switched to his stance on the tax cut -- which he'd do pretty much the rest of the night.

On the question of the tax cut, Patrick repeated his talking point that the growth in Massachusetts was mostly due to those at the top -- citing himself and Gabrielli as beneficiaries -- and proposed a property tax cut instead of an income tax cut. 201k found this is a little counter-intuitive. Our confusion grew as Patrick added that he wanted to put the money back into local aid -- which we whole-heartedly support -- and repair the state's infrastructure and roads -- which we also support. Exactly how he'd do this was not clear.

It occurred to us that Patrick's pledge to fully fund local aid and repair the roads while cutting property taxes was likely the reason he was short on specifics, and definitely the reason he doesn't support an income tax cut. He did, to his credit, eventually say that the candidates needed to be honest with the voters about the challenges we face. Frankly, 201k supports that. But Patrick's lack of a specific plan -- whether this lack was a matter of political necessity or not -- created an opening for Gabrielli to pound at all night.

Gabrielli, of course, had a specific plan. In fact, it was a "Can-do!" plan. It sounded to us as if the plan involved cutting both income taxes and property taxes. Must be some plan. On the other hand, Patrick, Gabrielli helpfully pointed out, has no plan.

Patrick, who either has no plan or can't say what it is because it doesn't lower taxes, countered that his plan was for the "real world", and not just "theory". This tactic actually worked for a while, throwing Gabrielli off guard. Later, though, Gabrielli would gather himself, circle back, and make the "no plan" charge stick to Patrick. Quite frankly, his skill in doing so was impressive and not lost on the press gang, one of whom emitted a low whistle of approval while another whispered, "Wow -- he's smart." He's also very tall, and it was a drag for Patrick to be stuck standing next to him. When they faced each other directly Patrick looked like Jack staring up the beanstalk.

Reilly had his story on taxes, and he was sticking to it: if the voters want a tax cut the voters get it -- period. As a way for Reilly to answer the tax question all night without actually facing it this response was a godsend -- for him. For every other purpose, however, it was woefully inadequate -- unless Tom Reilly wants the people of the Commonwealth to believe that he will never act to do what's right in the face of popular opposition -- which is somewhat ironic, given that forty seconds earlier he'd touted his "electability" on the basis of his "independence".

Patrick countered that you couldn't cut taxes with local aid short on funds, to which Reilly said the people have spoken, to which Gabrielli said that he had a plan, to which Patrick said the state treasurer thought his approach (which is different from a plan) was best and that Reilly had changed his stance, to which Reilly said the people have spoken.

Then they moved on.

The next question was whether the candidates supported the idea of tax breaks targeted to big-business honchos as a way of sparking job creation. All three were opposed to the idea but whole-heartedly supported "jobs", with Patrick advocating "more robust relations with business" while Reilly opted for "an entirely new relationship between the State and business".

Gabrielli had memorized the best soundbite on this topic, pointing out that such efforts only ever spark a "race to the bottom" -- which is true. He went on, however, to say that he'd spend billions (did he really say billions?) on small business, which will be a good trick after he cuts both income and property taxes.

Reilly, not to be out-spent (while cutting taxes) said he'd spend $500 million on the University of Massachusetts. Sounds like a great idea to us (or, as Reilly says, "idear") though we couldn't help wondering, later, when he bragged about chasing former Senate president William Bulger out of the Umass presidency, if it wouldn't have saved money to have left Bulger -- a monumentally successful fund-raiser -- in the job at the school rather than helping Romney and a bunch of Washington GOP hacks chase him out.

Back on job creation, Gabrielli wanted to encourage Massachusetts' pension funds to invest here, while Patrick wanted the state to be "a global leader in alternative energy". We like both those idears.

The next question was on school tracking. All three candidates oppose tracking. Reilly took the issue personally, acknowledging that he himself rode the short bus to school yet overcame his obstacles to become the candidate for governor that the press corps snickers at most openly. No, no -- in all seriousness, this question was the one on which Reilly was the most genuine all night. He clearly knows what it's like to be the kid who doesn't have the system working for him, and all Democrats should be on board with that.

Of course, we could be personalizing this ourselves, since twice this week we've had to pull our first-grader off crying, scared third graders. If he doesn't make it to Symphony Hall, there's always prize-fighting. Or Attorney General.

Anyway, Patrick agreed, and added his support for "alternative standards", which brought Gabrielli zeroing in, both to oppose the idea of 'alternative standards" and to call Patrick an outsider who "wasn't here" during those battles.

It struck both of us from 201k that all three Democratic candidates support charter schools. How did we get here, folks? This money belongs in the public schools. All three also supported the MCAS tests, which we find a colossal waste of time and money. (See: first grader, crying third graders, pulling off of, above.)

The next question was received by email -- clearly not from a real person, but from an advocate with an agenda -- asking if the candidates would cut state employees' benefits to the same expense level as that of "average workers". Gabrielli said no, but that he'd consider cutting the bennies of municipal workers. There goes those votes.

Patrick said the better path was to lower everyone else's health costs -- ding! -- the obvious right answer which likely had Gabrielli internally slapping his forehead. Patrick also cited the need to cut the paperwork and administrative costs (codeword: profit) from the health-care process.

Reilly also cited the need to cut "administrative costs", but he had a statistic: 33% of health care costs, he said, are "administrative". Clearly, administrators everywhere have good reason to fear Patrick and Reilly, um, administrations.

Gabrielli added that we "ask too little" of businesses. Of course, that could be because he'd promised them "billions" ten minutes earlier.

During a discussion of the CORI system that was evidently being broadcast from Mars on a station that only Tom Reilly was receiving, one of his staff (we presume) entered the press room with a handout on the topic, so we could read along with Reilly's unfathomable contention that Patrick's endorsement of the Public Safety Act of 2006 will "let drug dealers out in the streets".

If the Reilly campaign was hoping the handout would clarify that charge -- well, you can judge for yourself. This is an actual sentence from it:

Deval Patrick wants to prevent employers fom doing basic criminal background checks and letting drug traffickers out of jail early.

Memo to the Reilly campaign: if you can't make a grammatical sentence out of a point, it probably isn't a good point.

And so on. Hell, you could just watch the debate yourself. Maybe we'll cover more of it later. In the meantime, we'll skip to the post-debate questions, for which the entire island of misfit toys marched down to the studio to photograph and ask questions of each candidate.

The Questions

Gabrielli, surrounded by recent graduates of the Ivy league School for the Very Tall in Penny Loafers, went first, with most questions being horse-race ones on his decision to attack Patrick on Patrick's lack of specifics. Gabrielli, who, in all honesty, won this debate hands-down, is very tall. So tall that we couldn't hear his answers.

Ok, ok, that's when we were struggling with our camera flash, and weren't listening. And here, now, we can't read Mrs. 201k's notes. We'll check later.

Patrick came out surrounded by seasoned political people with dark circles under their eyes and knowing he'd been wounded on his inability to detail a specific plan. Here, in front of reporters, he made a mistake in trying to deal with it, saying that he "wasn't running for lead policy wonk" -- he was "running to be a leader." His supporters should be glad he didn't say that during the debate, and hope that no one reports it. It goes to the heart of Patrick's problem here; he did, in fact, spend all night speaking in the most general of terms. Having been called on that, the last thing he should do is answer with yet another glib generality -- especially one that boils down to "I don't see myself as someone who has to understand the details enough to explain them to the voters". When an opponent is directly challenging you on a lack of specifics, that's the wrong answer, plain and simple.

Reilly came out surrounded by recent Criminal Justice grads, and spoke in a barely audible whisper, answering all questions by repeating -- at least four times -- that he was the candidate who was ready to be governor while the other two were "politicians" (which will come as a surprise to Chris Gabrielli). The Nationally-known political reporter who asks "funny" questions that aren't "funny" asked Reilly -- who had said he'd been in the fourth rank of kids in school -- if he knew any kids from the fifth rank who'd done as well as he, and we crossed our fingers hoping Reilly would say, "Yes -- they're all political reporters", but he didn't. And probably never will.

Our conclusion? The debate went to Chris Gabrielli, who overwhelming helped his case here tonight. We say this without having looked at any polls. Or knowing in the least what we're doing.

But you knew that.

Before we get to last night's debate, a little unfinished business from yesterday morning:

09:53 AM 9/13/2006, you wrote:

Re: By KATE ZERNIKE Published: September 13, 2006

Either we're reading it wrong, or Kate Zernike needs to brush up on her U.S. history a bit. She writes:

"In Maryland, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, easily won the Republican nomination in the contest to replace Senator Paul S. Sarbanes, a Democrat who is retiring after 30 years.

Mr. Steele, a rising star in the party who would be the first black Republican in the Senate if elected, will face either Representative Benjamin L. Cardin or Kweisi Mfume, the former head of the N.A.A.C.P., who led 16 other Democratic candidates."

The first black Republican Senator elected by popular vote was Massachusetts' Edward Brooke. He served from January 3, 1967, to January 3, 1979.

Best,

Editor - 201k.com

On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:03 AM, Greg Brock wrote:

Dear "Editor - 201k:"

You are indeed correct. I almost spilled my coffee this morning when I read this. We will publish a correction tomorrow. And the article is being corrected on our Web site.

Thanks for writing and keeping us on our collective toes.

Best regards,

Greg Brock
Senior Editor

At 11:30 AM 9/13/2006, you wrote:

Thanks, Greg Brock. I spilled my coffee too, but that was probably just the shakes.

Is Steele's campaign the source of the error, do you know?

Best

201k

On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Greg Brock wrote:

Oh, no. I think we just goofed. I won't name names. But one person who was associated with that article worked for The Boston Globe for a number of years. Ouch.

At 11:52 AM 9/13/2006, you wrote:

I dunno, I sense a cover-up. I'll just put that you confirm the Times is getting its info from Republican operatives in order to further the Bush agenda and the global fascist conspiracy. Can I get your home phone number for confirmation?

You could always cheat and claim that they meant the first black Republican Senator "from Maryland". I won't tell. I promise.

No response to this so far.

No idea what's in today's print edition of the Times, but on the website they have no correction. The article has been edited to remove the clause "who would be the first black Republican in the Senate if elected..." from the sentence.

Rest assured, we won't give up on this story. Here at 201k we doggedly pursue the media's lies and obfuscations to the bitter end -- and we won't let anything stop us from getting to the bottom of this, even if it means doing hand-to-hand battle with the covert operatives that Greg Brock -- if that is his real name -- has no doubt dispatched to come after us.

Because we care about you, Poor Readers. And we care about America.

Well, Mr & Mrs. 201k attended the Massachusetts Democratic Gubernatorial Primary Debate -- and believe us, guber is the right word -- about which we'll tell you all tomorrow.

In the meantime here's the only photos we got off before our flash went guber on us.

Candidate Chris Gabrielli, after the debate, talking to Rita Moreno:


Photo © 2006 201k.com/Mike Barry

Reilly supporters -- and there were a ton of them. Fully three times as many Reilly supporters holding signs, yelling at passing cars, and drinking beer out of coke cans as for the other two candidates combined.


Photo © 2006 201k.com/Mike Barry

Gabrielli supporters. Sorry for the poor focus. 201k walked out into the street to get these photos, and didn't see the State Trooper come up behind him to tell him to "get the hell off of Soldier's Field Road".

Ok, he didn't really say that. He was nicer. Sort of. Maybe he knew we endorsed Reilly. Sort of.


Photo © 2006 201k.com/Mike Barry

In all seriousness, the absence of Patrick photos is not intentional; our camera flash really did go gubernatorial on us. Patrick had by far the fewest sign-holders -- though there were some across the road from these Gabrielli supports -- but the cop kicked us off the street before we could get a photo.

Once inside we intended to get all three candidates as they answered press questions. Gabrielli went first -- after which our flash wouldn't behave, so we didn't get inside photos of Reilly or Patrick. We do have a handout from the Reilly campaign explaining that Patrick will let drug dealers out of jail to roam the streets, but trust us, it isn't worth photographing.

The full scoop tomorrow. It was hilarious. We've been in the same room with a number of rock stars -- Pete Townsend, Stevie Winwood, Richard Thomspon, David Bowie, Aerosmith -- to name just a few -- and we've never experienced a room as overstuffed with self-importance as we did tonight.

And that was just the press room.

Stay tuned.

Either we're reading it wrong, or Kate Zernike needs to brush up on her U.S. history a bit. She writes:

In Maryland, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, easily won the Republican nomination in the contest to replace Senator Paul S. Sarbanes, a Democrat who is retiring after 30 years.

Mr. Steele, a rising star in the party who would be the first black Republican in the Senate if elected, will face either Representative Benjamin L. Cardin or Kweisi Mfume, the former head of the N.A.A.C.P., who led 16 other Democratic candidates.

The first black Republican Senator elected by popular vote was Massachusetts' Edward Brooke. He served from January 3, 1967, to January 3, 1979.

C'mon, gang.

Our annotated transcript of the President's speech:

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening.

Suckers.

Five years ago, this date -- September the 11th -- was seared into America's memory. Nineteen men attacked us with a barbarity unequaled in our history.

If you don't count the Civil War, and Pearl Harbor and, um, a whole lotta other stuff...

They murdered people of all colors, creeds, and nationalities -- and made war upon the entire free world.

But mostly us.

Since that day, America and her allies have taken the offensive in a war unlike any we have fought before.

Actually most of our allies just took offense while we went to war, but you know what I mean.

Today, we are safer, but we are not yet safe.

Which is damned convenient.

On this solemn night, I've asked for some of your time to discuss the nature of the threat still before us, what we are doing to protect our nation, and the building of a more hopeful Middle East that holds the key to peace for America and the world.

And I desperately hope you think Afghanistan is in the Middle East.

On 9/11, our nation saw the face of evil. Yet on that awful day, we also witnessed something distinctly American: ordinary citizens rising to the occasion, and responding with extraordinary acts of courage. We saw courage in office workers who were trapped on the high floors of burning skyscrapers -- and called home so that their last words to their families would be of comfort and love. We saw courage in passengers aboard Flight 93, who recited the 23rd Psalm -- and then charged the cockpit. And we saw courage in the Pentagon staff who made it out of the flames and smoke -- and ran back in to answer cries for help.

While I, who had been specifically warned of the attack, sat in a classroom and read to children, then flew to Louisiana, then flew to Nebraska, then sat in a nuclear-bomb-proof shelter for hours, finally coming back to Washington only after all danger had passed.

On this day, we remember the innocent who lost their lives -- and we pay tribute to those who gave their lives so that others might live.

The rest of the year I don't give them a thought.

For many of our citizens, the wounds of that morning are still fresh. I've met firefighters and police officers who choke up at the memory of fallen comrades.

Of course, that could also be asbestosis they got from Ground Zero because we had the EPA lie and say the air was safe when we knew it wasn't.

I've stood with families gathered on a grassy field in Pennsylvania, who take bittersweet pride in loved ones who refused to be victims -- and gave America our first victory in the war on terror.

Often I give them signed photos of myself holding a phone and pretending to talk on Air Force One the very day their loved ones died.

I've sat beside young mothers with children who are now five years old -- and still long for the daddies who will never cradle them in their arms.

But the ten-year-olds whose fathers are in Iraq can go screw.

Out of this suffering, we resolve to honor every man and woman lost. And we seek their lasting memorial in a safer and more hopeful world.

A symbolic memorial -- I want to be clear on that. We seek a lasting symbolic memorial -- that lasts until after the November election.

Since the horror of 9/11, we've learned a great deal about the enemy.

Actually, you've learned a great deal about them. We already knew all about them.

We have learned that they are evil and kill without mercy -- but not without purpose.

And not without the FBI and other agencies tracking them and warning my Administration.

We have learned that they form a global network of extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam -- a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent.

Kind of like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

And we have learned that their goal is to build a radical Islamic empire where women are prisoners in their homes, men are beaten for missing prayer meetings,

See?

and terrorists have a safe haven to plan and launch attacks on America and other civilized nations.

Which, thanks to me, they finally have, in Pakistan.

The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict.

Which is why it's so weird that I specifically abandoned all efforts to stop it other than by using the military. Actually, I was kinda hoping you wouldn't notice that.

It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation.

Well, your generation -- and your income bracket. Mine dodged both our calling and yours.

Our nation is being tested in a way that we have not been since the start of the Cold War.

If you don't count the terrorist attack on the very same WTC in 1993. Or on the USS Cole. Or in Lebanon. Or...

We saw what a handful of our enemies can do with box-cutters and plane tickets.

...and armed with the knowledge that I was President.

We hear their threats to launch even more terrible attacks on our people.

Probably in late October.

And we know that if they were able to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, they would use them against us.

But instead of moving to secure those weapons all over the world, I pretended Iraq had them even though I knew it wasn't true. I have no idea why -- Dick told me but I forget. But I know them damn weapons are still all over the place. Russia, Pakistan.. whew doggy! I sure hope they don't hit Houston. Crawford would be ok, once I'm not President anymore -- man, do I hate that dump. Why couldn't Karl get me a "ranch" someplace fun? If I've got to cut brush for the cameras, why couldn't it be in, like, Palm Springs? Ain't they got brush in Palm Springs?

We face an enemy determined to bring death and suffering into our homes.

Well, again -- to your homes. They won't get within 20 miles of mine -- trust me.

America did not ask for this war, and every American wishes it were over.

Hell, Americans have no idea what war I'm even talking about. The "War on Terror"? The "War In Iraq"? They're as confused as I am at this point, heh-heh.

So do I. But the war is not over -- and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious.

Which is why my policies are designed to create more extremists every day.

If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children

By which of course I mean your children

to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons.

Like Iran, whose influence has, um, greatly increased since we took out Hussein...

We are in a war that will set the course for this new century -- and determine the destiny of millions across the world.

And in Florida and Ohio, hopefully.

For America, 9/11 was more than a tragedy -- it changed the way we look at the world.

But not the way you look at me, fortunately. That took five years.

On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense against our enemies, and we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them.

Or between who had attacked us and who had not.

So we helped drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.

For about a year. Now they're running things again, and have established relations with Pakistan, which has given them offical safe haven from, uh, us.

We put al Qaeda on the run

In fact, they're running all over the place.

and killed or captured most of those who planned the 9/11 attacks,

Except the eleven who, you know, actually did it.

including the man believed to be the mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He and other suspected terrorists have been questioned by the Central Intelligence Agency, and they provided valuable information that has helped stop attacks in America and across the world.

"We were stunned to get away with it even after you'd been specifically warned! We'd heard you were an idiot, but who knew?"

Now these men have been transferred to Guantanamo Bay, so they can be held to account for their actions. Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding. Our message to them is clear: No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice.

I know I said I didn't care about him, but that was after an election, when I couldn't find him. Now we're before an election again.

On September the 11th, we learned that America must confront threats before they reach our shores, whether those threats come from terrorist networks or terrorist states.

But not if they're mentioned in a "Presidential Daily Briefing."

I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

And I never actually give an answer that makes any sense -- not even grammatical sense. I just say "9/11" and "Saddam Hussein" in the same sentence over and over again, or talk about one then slide into talking about the other without making any real connection. Can you believe that still works? Wish I'd have learned that trick back when I was in the oil business.

The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat

We even made up some cool pictures of it.

-- and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take.

See? Cool, huh? Just put the two words next to each other, and bingo! Heh-heh-heh. Dick likes to throw the word "nexus" in there, but I don't know what a car has to do with it. Sometimes Dick can be kinda dumb.

The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.

If you count Iran. Iran is much, much safer now that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.

And now the challenge is to help the Iraqi people build a democracy that fulfills the dreams of the nearly 12 million Iraqis who came out to vote in free elections last December.

The ones that are still alive.

Al Qaeda and other extremists from across the world have come to Iraq to stop the rise of a free society in the heart of the Middle East.

They couldn't get in there before, because Saddam would have them drawn and quartered, but now they have the run of the place. Freedom is on the march!

They have joined the remnants of Saddam's regime and other armed groups to foment sectarian violence and drive us out.

How they ever figured out there'd be sectarian violence in Iraq if Saddam was removed I'll never know. Where do these dang terrorists get such good intelligence? Have to remember to ask Dick.

Our enemies in Iraq are tough and they are committed -- but so are Iraqi and coalition forces. We're adapting to stay ahead of the enemy, and we are carrying out a clear plan to ensure that a democratic Iraq succeeds.

Yup, a clear plan. Very clear. I've seen it, and lemme tell you, it's one clear plan. Clear, clear, clear. Very clear plan. No, you can't see it.

We're training Iraqi troops so they can defend their nation.

Which, for most of them, is Iran.

We're helping Iraq's unity government grow in strength and serve its people.

For lunch.

We will not leave until this work is done.

Or until a Republican Congress is reelected so you won't find out that this is all hooey.

Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us.

Not that anyone, anywhere has ever suggested that if we leave Iraq "the terrorists will leave us alone". That's what Karl calls a "strongman", I think. Clever fatboy, aint' he? Heh-heh-heh...

The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.

I know what you're thinking -- you're thinking, "how is that?" Well, I ain't gonna tell ya -- I'm just gonna say "Osama bin Laden" next, so you hear his name right after the word "Baghdad."

Osama bin Laden

See? I could do that all day. Heh-heh-heh...

calls this fight "the Third World War"

Just like Newt Gingrich. Maybe they both read The Weekly Standard.

-- and he says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's "defeat and disgrace forever."

Skinny bastard must be overjoyed we went in Iraq, instead of chasing him down. Man, did I make that rich dink look smart...whose idea was that anyway? I can't remember -- Dick? Rummy? Condi? Dang, it was so long ago I forgot.

If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened;

As opposed to now, when their quaking in their boots -- from laughing at us.

they will gain a new safe haven;

Because I gave it to them. First in Pakistan, and next in Iraq. Not to mention Iran.

they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement.

Which I gave to them.

We will not allow this to happen.

Actually, it already has, but you don't know that, and won't find out til after the election. Note to self: send Wolf Blitzer flowers.

America will stay in the fight. Iraq will be a free nation, and a strong ally in the war on terror.

Just not on our side.

We can be confident that our coalition will succeed because the Iraqi people have been steadfast in the face of unspeakable violence.

Because, let's face it: what choice do they have? Hell, what are they gonna do, leave? Heh-heh-heh...

And we can be confident in victory because of the skill and resolve of America's Armed Forces

Heh-heh-heh-heh...let's see Harry Reid counter that. Heh-heh-heh...

Every one of our troops is a volunteer,

at least the first time we send them over there

and since the attacks of September the 11th, more than 1.6 million Americans have stepped forward to put on our nation's uniform.

None of whom I'd have given the time of day if I'd ran into them in college.

In Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts in the war on terror, the men and women of our military are making great sacrifices to keep us safe. Some have suffered terrible injuries -- and nearly 3,000 have given their lives.

Even the ones in the Texas National Guard -- go figure!

America cherishes their memory. We pray for their families. And we will never back down from the work they have begun.

Heh-heh-heh...love me or hate the troops...good one, Karl...heh-heh-heh-heh....

We also honor those who toil day and night to keep our homeland safe, and we are giving them the tools they need to protect our people.

Mostly in the form of huge no-bid contracts to companies that donate to me and Dick.

We've created the Department of Homeland Security.

HAHAHA...hahaha...sorry...HAHAHAHAHA...sorry, wait...heh-heh...ok, I'm ok now.

We have torn down the wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence from sharing information.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...sorry, that's such a good one....HAHAHAHAHAHA...

...I didn't catch the bad guys I was warned about -- the ones who actually attacked us -- but you let me spy on you without a warrant....HEE-HEE-HEE-HAHAHAHAHA...Oh, man, that's funny...

We've tightened security at our airports and seaports and borders, and we've created new programs to monitor enemy bank records and phone calls.

And every website you go to.

Thanks to the hard work of our law enforcement and intelligence professionals, we have broken up terrorist cells in our midst and saved American lives.

Really. We have. Seriously. Trust me.

Five years after 9/11, our enemies have not succeeded in launching another attack on our soil, but they've not been idle.

I've saved you -- but you're STILL NOT SAFE. Boo!

Al Qaeda and those inspired by its hateful ideology have carried out terrorist attacks in more than two dozen nations.

The few left that still like us.

And just last month, they were foiled in a plot to blow up passenger planes headed for the United States.

As far as you know.

They remain determined to attack America and kill our citizens

More determined every day, thanks to me.

-- and we are determined to stop them. We'll continue to give the men and women who protect us every resource and legal authority they need to do their jobs.

Unless they blow the whistle and tell you suckers the truth. Then they get worked over like you wouldn't believe.

In the first days after the 9/11 attacks I promised to use every element of national power to fight the terrorists, wherever we find them.

But I invaded Iraq instead.

One of the strongest weapons in our arsenal is the power of freedom. The terrorists fear freedom as much as they do our firepower.

Kind of like Republicans.

They are thrown into panic at the sight of an old man pulling the election lever, girls enrolling in schools, or families worshiping God in their own traditions.

Again, kind of like Republicans, if it's an old black man, a girl who's on the Pill, or gay families.

They know that given a choice, people will choose freedom over their extremist ideology.

Except in Kansas.

So their answer is to deny people this choice by raging against the forces of freedom and moderation.

They should just use Diebold voting machines. Heh-heh-heh...

This struggle has been called a clash of civilizations.

By me.

In truth, it is a struggle for civilization.

"Civilization", spelled: "O-I-L".

We are fighting to maintain the way of life enjoyed by free nations.

"Way of life", spelled: "O-I-L".

And we're fighting for the possibility that good and decent people across the Middle East can raise up societies based on freedom and tolerance and personal dignity.

So Richard Perle can get a good clean shot at them.

We are now in the early hours of this struggle between tyranny and freedom

And I've still managed to f*** it up completely.

Amid the violence, some question whether the people of the Middle East want their freedom, and whether the forces of moderation can prevail.

Don't try to find the "some" who supposedly question that -- just accept it. It's kinda important that you do.

For 60 years, these doubts guided our policies in the Middle East.

Stick with me here...

And then, on a bright September morning, it became clear that the calm we saw in the Middle East was only a mirage.

You remember all those people who saw "calm" in the Middle East, don't you? Well, they were wrong. Got it?

Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither.

Though it had created the groundwork for me to be specifically warned of the impending attack.

So we changed our policies, and committed America's influence in the world to advancing freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism.

By invading Iraq, thereby making it a terrorist haven and vastly expanding Iran's influence in the region.

With our help, the people of the Middle East are now stepping forward to claim their freedom.

And their loved one's remains

From Kabul to Baghdad to Beirut, there are brave men and women risking their lives each day for the same freedoms that we enjoy. And they have one question for us:

"Are you people absolutely out of your effing minds, electing this dumb-ass President of the United States?"

Do we have the confidence to do in the Middle East what our fathers and grandfathers accomplished in Europe and Asia?

Which is: move all your jobs there.

By standing with democratic leaders and reformers, by giving voice to the hopes of decent men and women, we're offering a path away from radicalism. And we are enlisting the most powerful force for peace and moderation in the Middle East: the desire of millions to be free.

The ones that survive will love trickle-down economics.

Across the broader Middle East, the extremists are fighting to prevent such a future.

And we've made their job much, much easier.

Yet America has confronted evil before, and we have defeated it

Though the Supreme Court stopped the count, so I won anyway, heh-heh-heh...

-- sometimes at the cost of thousands of good men in a single battle. When Franklin Roosevelt vowed to defeat two enemies across two oceans, he could not have foreseen D-Day and Iwo Jima -- but he would not have been surprised at the outcome. When Harry Truman promised American support for free peoples resisting Soviet aggression, he could not have foreseen the rise of the Berlin Wall -- but he would not have been surprised to see it brought down.

Though both Roosevelt and Truman would wonder why the hell I invaded Iraq.

Throughout our history, America has seen liberty challenged, and every time, we have seen liberty triumph with sacrifice and determination.

Until now. But hell, I ain't Rooselvelt or Truman. Suckers! Heh-heh-heh.....

At the start of this young century, America looks to the day when the people of the Middle East leave the desert of despotism for the fertile gardens of liberty, and resume their rightful place in a world of peace and prosperity.

And work for minimum wage on our oil rigs.

We look to the day when the nations of that region recognize their greatest resource is not the oil in the ground, but the talent and creativity of their people.

....working for minimum wage on our oil rigs.

We look to the day when moms and dads throughout the Middle East see a future of hope and opportunity for their children.

And dream of a day when their children can be the ones answering our phone calls to credit card customer service lines.

And when that good day comes, the clouds of war will part, the appeal of radicalism will decline, and we will leave our children with a better and safer world.

Well, my children, anyway. Yours will be working at the Fallujah Wal-Mart. Heh-heh-heh....

On this solemn anniversary, we rededicate ourselves to this cause. Our nation has endured trials, and we face a difficult road ahead. Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country, and we must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us.

And my people will eviscerate anyone who disagrees with that.

We will defeat our enemies. We will protect our people. And we will lead the 21st century into a shining age of human liberty.

Like that? Karl got it from "Star Trek: The Next Generation".

Earlier this year, I traveled to the United States Military Academy.

For a photo-op.

I was there to deliver the commencement address to the first class to arrive at West Point after the attacks of September the 11th. That day I met a proud mom named RoseEllen Dowdell.

Or maybe it was Ellen Rose McDowell. I have no idea.

She was there to watch her son, Patrick, accept his commission in the finest Army the world has ever known. A few weeks earlier, RoseEllen had watched her other son, James, graduate from the Fire Academy in New York City. On both these days, her thoughts turned to someone who was not there to share the moment: her husband, Kevin Dowdell. Kevin was one of the 343 firefighters who rushed to the burning towers of the World Trade Center on September the 11th -- and never came home. His sons lost their father that day, but not the passion for service he instilled in them. Here is what RoseEllen says about her boys: "As a mother, I cross my fingers and pray all the time for their safety -- but as worried as I am, I'm also proud, and I know their dad would be, too."

So I sent both of them to Iraq.

Our nation is blessed to have young Americans like these

'Cause then my kids won't have to fight.

-- and we will need them. Dangerous enemies have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.

And most of them work for Rupert Murdoch. Heh-heh-heh...

They're not the first to try, and their fate will be the same as those who tried before. Nine-Eleven showed us why. The attacks were meant to bring us to our knees, and they did, but not in the way the terrorists intended. Americans united in prayer, came to the aid of neighbors in need, and resolved that our enemies would not have the last word.

The smart ones fell to their knees in panic that I was President, but thankfully there ain't enough of them living in Ohio. Heh-heh-heh...

The spirit of our people is the source of America's strength. And we go forward with trust in that spirit, confidence in our purpose, and faith in a loving God who made us to be free.

Thank you, and may God bless you.

Hope I said "God" enough times there. Maybe I should have said, "go forward with God, confidence in our God", etc. Karl said not to overdue it, but I like saying "God". "God, God God, God...Me, God, Me and God, God and Me..."

Heh-heh-heh...

Below are two letters sent this morning by 201k.com. The first is to ABC, the second to its Boston affiliate WCVB.

ABC is still planning to air the movie "The Path to 9/11", despite ABC's admission that it contains known misrepresentations.

We encourage our readers to inform ABC that they will be boycotting the network unless and until it corrects or pulls this movie. Commonwealth readers may also want to ask WCVB not to air it. We remind readers that WCVB is not responsible for the content of the movie and has always been a responsible station, so we urge you to be polite and respectful.

To ABC:

Dear Sir or Madam,

We're writing to inform you that we've asked our readers to boycott ABC for two reasons:

1. It's clear from press reports and reviews that "The Path To 9/11" contains misrepresentations, distorts history in a blatantly partisan way, and inaccurately "fictionalizes" blame for certain events on Clinton Administration officials.

2. ABC's response to objections raised about the show indicates that ABC knew the "fictionalizations" were misrepresentations.

Regards,

Editor, 201k

You can contact ABC here.

To WCVB:

Dear Sir or Madam,

We're writing to inform you that we've asked our readers to boycott ABC for two reasons:

1. It's clear from press reports and reviews that "The Path To 9/11" contains misrepresentations, distorts history in a blatantly partisan way, and inaccurately "fictionalizes" blame for certain events on Clinton Administration officials.

2. ABC's response to objections raised about the show indicates that ABC knew the "fictionalizations" were misrepresentations.

We recognize that WCVB is not responsible for the content produced by ABC. We also recognize the integrity with which WCVB has handled its responsibility to New England viewers for many years. WCVB is a consistently excellent, and local viewers are lucky to to have it.

This being the case, we respectfully ask you NOT TO AIR "The Path to 9/11" as scheduled. The gross misrepresentations in this film -- well documented, and overtly acknowledged by ABC -- are more than just dramatic "fictionalizations"; they are material misrepresentations that distort the true history of one of the most significant events in modern U.S. history.

WCVB is too good a station to abet ABC in this revisionism. To do so would be to do a great disservice to your viewers. We've come to expect more from WCVB, and we hope that you will serve your viewers as you always have, and refuse to air this program unless and until ABC removes the misrepresentations.

Regards,

Editor, 201k.com

You can contact WCVB here.

201k is flattered -- really -- when we read or hear ideas that started here in progressive publications or on liberal talk radio. We've never been in this for the money; we're in it to rule - er, save - the world.

But we have one request: if you find an idea here and run with it, would you please have the decency to give us a plug?

Only seems fair.

And you know who you are.

Love,

201k

Two members of 201k will be attending the final pre-primary debate between Massachusetts' Democratic candidates for governor on Wednesday, September 13 at 7:00PM.

CBS4 News Political Analyst Jon Keller will moderate this live debate between Democratic gubernatorial candidates Chris Gabrieli, Deval Patrick, and Tom Reilly.

And we'll be there, taking notes, and preparing to bloviate the night away.

Wasn't that a Van Halen song?

Blame it on temporary insanity.

Yes, wiseguy -- temporary.

201k has volunteered to "help coach" our son's little league fall ball team. Meaning we'll have even less time than ever to post here.

So pony up, Poor Readers. Start thinking and scribbling, and send it in.

Having put forth the defense that Richard Armitage's admission that he leaked Valerie Plame Wilson's name and occupation to Robert Novak renders the "Plamegate" scandal "nothing", the administration's lackeys have now gone on the offense, claiming that Armitage's admission reveals the over-zealousness and partisanship of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

This argument is pure political rhetoric, and its legal impact can be dismissed with a backward wave of the facts. But "news consumers" who get their product from the NY Times wouldn't know that, unless they want to skip down to paragraph 15 and read what "some administration critics assert".

The reality of the Plame leak -- whether or not the NY Times finds it fit to print -- is not hard to follow. Fitzgerald's findi