It looks like the Time poll wasn't a fluke; Newsweek's new presidential poll has Bush 11 points over Kerry as well, 54%-43%. To my knowledge, Kerry has yet to ever hit the 50% mark in polls, and seems to max out -- even after his own convention -- at 48%-49%. There seems to be a cap at the number of people in this country who will consider voting for Kerry, but a higher "cap" of people who would consider voting for Bush. If this holds, Kerry's only chance at victory is by a very slim margin, or maybe just in electoral college mathematics. Indeed, there are some scenarios that show Kerry winning the electoral college but Bush winning the popular vote, the reverse of what happened in 2000. Think all the people who have been shouting that Bush isn't a valid president because he lost the popular vote will say the same about Kerry if he wins the same way?

I'm in Traverse City this weekend but will be back on Tuesday or Wednesday. Have a good Labor Day everyone!

Ya know, I was pretty impressed with Bush's speech last night. It seemed far, far more presidential than Kerry's address, and was based in the future, not the past. No, it wasn't as eloquent as some of the President's post-9/11 addresses, nor did he really say much that he hasn't said before. But he found the right balance of positive outlook and optimism and critique over his opponent, something Kerry has been unwilling on unable to accomplish.

Although only a small portion of the speech was "anti-Kerry", this was one of my favorite passages:

Our allies also know the historic importance of our work. About 40 nations stand beside us in Afghanistan, and some 30 in Iraq. I deeply appreciate the courage and wise counsel of leaders like Prime Minister Howard, President Kwasniewski, Prime Minister Berlusconi and, of course, Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Again, my opponent takes a different approach. In the midst of war, he has called American allies, quote, a 'coalition of the coerced and the bribed.'

That would be nations like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador, Australia, and other allies that deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician.

The new polling data is promising for Bush. Time magazine reports Bush now has an 11 point lead over John Kerry (52%-41%-3% Bush-Kerry-Nader) -- and that poll was taken before the President even gave his address. The American people are realizing that you can't just elect a guy who "isn't Bush" and served in Vietnam. Kerry could have used his convention to lay out a competing, specific plan and vision for the nation. He did not. The American people now see a choice between an imperfect man with ideas already in office, and an unknown man without ideas saying anything it takes to get him the job. Unless Kerry can really define himself as a genuine alternative, I think Bush will be getting his second term after all.

I'm going to have to go against the conventional wisdom that Zell Miller really helped Bush last night. The Democratic convention in Boston was filled with hate, not ideas -- Bush was called a killer, a thug, a liar, etc. The Democrats put forth virtually no ideas (certainly no new ones), Kerry being just an empty vessel with which the anti-Bush crowd could fill with detest of the Commander in Chief. The only thing any of the speakers brought up concerning Kerry's qualifications, including Kerry himself, was that he served in Vietnam. Other than that, it was "Bush is the worst President ever, so vote for me."

The Republican convention, on the other hand, has been dramatically more positive, pointing out successes and optimism and idealism and ideas. Rather than listing reasons not to vote for Kerry, they went into detail about why you should support their candidate. If this had kept up, Bush could have rightly claimed theirs was the party of ideas, the party of optimism, the party of looking forward. Even Cheney's critique of Kerry was on his record, not him as a person (and in fact even praised his war service.)

But Zell Miller... wow. Yes, I know he's angry, he's frustrated, he feels abandoned by his own party (who now calls him a "Zell-out" because he switched sides), and he seems to genuinely have passion concerning his opposition to this year's Democratic nominee. Yet by being so over-the-top and vehemently negative, he cost the Republicans their rare shot at taking the high road. Sure, the crowd loved it, and all the right-wingers watching loved it, but they were going to vote for Bush anyway. The reason Kerry didn't get a bounce out of his convention is because there were no reasons offered to vote for him -- it was a total anti-Bush hate-fest aimed at rallying the base. Which, of course, didn't do much, because the base was already rallied, and you don't win over independents with negative politics. It's pointless to give speech after speech after speech which only preach to the converted, especially in such a tight race which the moderates and independents will ultimately be deciding.

It's weird to see not just one, but two high-profile Millers become essentially Republicans in the past couple of years, comedian Dennis Miller of course being the other. But when listening to Dennis, you get the feeling that he switched sides because of a positive belief in the Republican platform, a belief that they had better ideas for running the country and keeping us safe. Listening to Zell, you get the feeling that he switched sides because he feels irrelevant and tossed aside by his lifelong party who no longer allows conservative dissent within its ranks. That's a valid emotion, too, and I have no doubt of Zell's conviction. But wouldn't it have been far more convincing and persuasive, to the undecided voter, had he detailed a little more of why he liked and admired Bush and a little less of why Kerry was a scumbag?

"The one thing we'll leave you with tonight, was what Giuliani said last night. He, being a great New York Yankees fan, said the Republican party's future was like the Yankees. Maybe a little glib to conclude with, but tonight the Yankees got beaten by Cleveland, 22... to 0. I'm Peter Jennings."

Those were the final words of ABC's convention coverage last night, delivered with a slick smile that left no room for interpretation. This is why I usually watch C-SPAN for such matters -- the ridiculous partisan cheap shots of people on both sides do a disservice to the millions of Americans trying to make up their minds this year. Comments like that (and others) should stay in the domain of The Daily Show, not network news coverage by an anchor.

What makes Jennings' snide little remark even more bothersome is that it's completely untrue -- Giuliani did not make a comparison to the Yankees during his address. The only time Giulani made a reference to the Yankees was, when the crowd was cheering "New York! New York!", he ad-libbed "this is getting to be like a Yankee game!" Great journalistic integrity there, Jennings.

Many, many Americans don't have access to C-SPAN or the cable news channels at all, so they're completely dependent on the networks which show less and less of the events every year. Yes, they're essentially huge four-day commercials for the respective parties, but so what? By law, the airwaves are owned by the citizens, and are licensed to the networks on signed agreements that they operate in the public interest.

No, I don't think the little Jennings comment is a huge deal, but I feel strongly that network anchors have more of a responsibility to appear impartial than, say, Bill O'Reilly or Aaron Brown.

"Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our president and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will." -- John McCain, August 30, 2004

McCain's passionate, forceful, and above all intellectually honest defense of President Bush was the best I've ever seen from him. You can read the transcript here but if at all possible, find a way to see the video, with the passion and integrity intact. Anyone who doubts McCain would have been an excellent President need only to view a speech or two like that to change their minds.

Of course, the vast majority of America didn't get to see this speech. Nor could they see Rudy Giuliani's equally empassioned defense of the President, nor mayor Bloomberg's, nor any of the other speeches this evening, because every single major network refused to air it. They'll air Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday's coverage, surely -- but not tonight's. Tonight was the night of the Republican moderates (that everyone likes). And we can't have that.

During the Democratic convention, the day the networks refused to air was Tuesday, showing only Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday instead. Who was on Tuesday during the DNC? Why, all the liberal Democrats, of course -- from Ted Kennedy to Howard Dean to Barack Obama.

Hmm. The networks refuse to show the liberal side of Democrats, and also refuse to show the moderate side of Republicans. Gee, I wonder why. (Hint: if you continue to honestly believe that there's no "liberal bias" in the media, go back to your sippy-cup.)

Democratic FCC commissioner Michael Copps recently added his voice to the chorus of outrage concerning the ever-decreasing network coverage of the party conventions (and the election in general). "Coverage of the 2000 presidential election on the network evening news dropped by a third compared to reporting on the 1996 election," complains Copps. "During the last election cycle we heard directly from presidential candidates for an average of 9 seconds a night on the news." And this year, the networks pick and choose which nights they'd like to show of the conventions which define and determine the most powerful person on the planet -- and even then, showing no more than an hour per night. Since only a handful of people actually watch CNN or Fox News, and an almost meaningless percentage watch the actual unbiased, unfiltered, commentary-free coverage on C-SPAN, we are effectively dealing with a lower-single-digit percentage of Americans who have a prayer at understanding what the candidates actually stand for, and what they plan for our country.

My friend Rachel and I watched the 1984 Hurt/Burton version of "1984" tonight, so forgive me if this sounds a little reactionary... but we cannot allow our nation to only see news through the snippets and filters and soundbytes and quasi-informed commentary which has replaced intelligent discourse in this country. And if we elect Kerry, quite possibly the biggest enemy of free speech since Nixon, we'll lose even more of our ability to have reasonable dissection and discourse of life and death issues that affect us all (not just the "likely voter".) If you're only getting your news from one source, especially if it's a slanted, biased source like the New York Times on the left or Fox News on the right, you're not only cheating yourself, but the rest of us who have to suffer for your ill-informed decisions. I have nothing but respect for someone who researches both sides, watches both conventions, reads both platforms, and decides Kerry or Bush (or Nader) is the better choice. But if you refuse to read or watch anything that disagrees with your preconceived opinions, if you obstinately insist that Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh have an absolute monopoly on "the truth" and it's pointless to consider anything else, you don't deserve the right to vote.