What do you do when you have no record on which to run, and no serious plans for the future? Run the most negative campaign in history, of course:
The charges [against Kerry by the Bush campaign] were all tough, serious — and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.
Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented — both in speeches and in advertising.
Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush’s campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads — or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.
It’s a bit desperate and pathetic, don’t you think?
Even Republican professionals agree that the administration doesn’t have a record to run on:
Incumbent presidents often prefer to run on their records in office, juxtaposing upbeat messages with negative shots at their opponents, as Bill Clinton did in 1996.
Scott Reed, who ran Robert J. Dole’s presidential campaign that year, said the Bush campaign has little choice but to deliver a constant stream of such negative charges. With low poll numbers and a volatile situation in Iraq, Bush has more hope of tarnishing Kerry’s image than promoting his own.
“The Bush campaign is faced with the hard, true fact that they have to keep their boot on his neck and define him on their terms,” Reed said. That might risk alienating some moderate voters or depressing turnout, “but they don’t have a choice,” he said.
What’s funny about this is that a lot of the Democrats in the primary race often campaigned against Bush, and it struck me that they really needed to be campaigning for themselves first and foremost. Yet here we see the Bush campaign running against Kerry–a sign of both weakness and fear. Still, attacks need to be addressed, and so we should all keep an eye out on our local media outlets and take whatever opportunities we can to blunt the Bush campaign’s negative tactics.
Wired columnist Bruce Sterling usually doesn’t write about politics, but when politics starts fucking around with science in a big way, I guess he gets mad:
Suicide by Pseudoscience
When politicians dictate science, government becomes entangled in its own deceptions, and eventually the social order decays in a compost of lies. Society, having abandoned the scientific method, loses its empirical referent, and truth becomes relative. This is a serious affliction known as Lysenkoism.
Trofim Lysenko was Joseph Stalin’s top stooge in Soviet agricultural science, a field that was mercilessly politicized by fanatics. His specialty was inventing nutty schemes – things like stimulating the evolution of trees by overcrowding them to get them to cooperate, as though they were communist minions. This totalitarian huckster spent his whole career promising exciting results and bringing about only disaster. But the party never judged itself on results, so he always got a free pass.
Politics without objective, honest measurement of results is a deadly short circuit. It means living a life of sterile claptrap, lacquering over failure after intellectual failure with thickening layers of partisan abuse. Charlatans like Lysenko can’t clarify serious, grown-up problems that they themselves don’t understand.
And here’s a bit from the Union of Concerned Scientists’ page on Restoring Scientific Integrity:
Across a broad range of issues—from childhood lead poisoning and mercury emissions to climate change, reproductive health, and nuclear weapons—the administration is distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies; manipulating the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions; and undermining the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise; nominating non-experts or underqualified individuals from outside the scientific mainstream or with industry ties; as well as disbanding science advisory committees altogether.
Once again, this administration has to go.
You can count on Kos and the Kossacks to shovel through the shit and find the truth:
Daily Kos || Quick Quiz
Which of the following three claims are true?
- John Kerry is one of the if not the most consistently liberal Senators, even more consistently liberal than (nasty music here) Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy.
- John Kerry is a major flip-flopper who changes his positions 180 degrees faster than the Car Talk hosts can change a flat tire.
- I dunno about Nos. 1 or 2, but I do know that they both can’t be true.
Answer, of course: #3.
Good point.
How far could hybrid technology take us? 435 miles on 13.7 gallons. 0-60 in 4 seconds. The concept Toyota Alessandro Volta puts out 408 hp using Toyota’s 3.3L V6 and two electric motors. Designed by Italdesign:

Not the most beautiful supercar in the world, but it’s about time that something this fast and this good-looking came out using hybrid technology.

Reviews and more photos:
Auto123: Geneva Show-Goers Get Charge out of Toyota’s Volta
Automobile: Geneva 2004 – Toyota Volta by Italdesign-Guigiaro
AutoWeek: Toyota Volta concept
Ultimatecarpage: Toyota Volta (includes some interior and detail shots–watch out for the popups and interstitial ads, though)
Damn it. We got the prime minister of Denmark or Finland (I forget which), William and Mary got Jon Stewart. Oh well.