A College That's Hard to Defend

The LA Times ran a commentary today defending the Electoral College by Benjamin Zycher of the conservative think tank, the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. Zycher offers two arguments in favor of the Electoral College. First, by forcing candidates to focus on battleground states, the Electoral College pushes candidates to broaden their geographic base. Second, the Electoral College fosters the two-party system, which in turn forces candidates toward the center of the political spectrum. Zycher dismisses alternatives one by one as follows: “A direct popular election under a plurality rule would tend to yield candidacies (and parties) with strong regional and ideological loyalties, with a goal of simply piling up more raw votes than anyone else. A runoff system would give disproportionate bargaining power to regional and ideological fringes. A system of allocating electoral college votes in proportion to the popular vote (now proposed for Colorado) would induce candidates to shift their efforts and resources to uncompetitive states, where there are large numbers of electoral college votes to be had.”

Zycher’s arguments are seriously flawed. First, there is no basis for the assertion that the current system of creating battleground states encourages candidates to seek a broader form of geographic support. Rather, it tends to create smaller localized regional bases, just as the primary system creates odd patterns of local power. For example, issues of ethanol production are given disproportionate discussion and support in national politics, not because ethanol is such a good idea. It’s not. We’ve been investing in ethanol for years and it still costs more to produce than the energy it yields. Ethanol gets such support because of the unique power of Iowa, a corn-producing state, over the primary system. Candidates are well-advised to devise highly regionalized policy positions that mean very little to most of the country to appease Iowa – and to better their chances of winning the primaries.

Similarly, the Electoral College process requires candidates to focus on the highly regional issues of battleground states. For example, voters in New York and California are concerned about very important issues of special concern to their high-population densities - chief among them is security. And while the concerns of these behemoth states are local in nature, they have enormous impact on national life. Consider the effects on the national economy after the attacks in New York. But these issues are not fully discussed in the current process because New York and California are not battleground states. There is no need to talk about their issues.

So instead of talking about these vastly important issues, candidates are forced to focus on issues of particular concern to smaller battleground states like New Mexico, Ohio, and yes, Iowa. The presidency could be decided based on a candidate’s stance on ethanol - or any number of highly localized issues. The Electoral College process, by creating the concept of battleground states and red/blue states, forces candidates to be more localized in unimportant ways. Broad geographic support is important, but it is important to get right.

Second, as I’ve discussed before, the two-party system is fine, but it does not push candidates toward the center of the ideological spectrum. Rather, it pushes candidates to the center of their particular party’s ideological spectrum. We get Republicans in the mainstream of Republican values and Democrats in the mainstream of Democratic values. We do not get candidates in the mainstream of American values. No candidate on the extreme edge of either party is likely to get elected because our country is so evenly split right now.

Voters, as rational beings, are more likely to vote for the candidate who is closer to them in terms of ideology. They are also more likely to vote within their party if given a choice. But there are breaking points. If a Democratic candidate falls too far to the right, a fair portion of Democrats on the left either won’t vote (seeing no difference between Democrats and Republicans), or will vote for a third-party candidate with no chance of winning (who is closer ideologically to the voter), thus “giving” their vote to the Republicans. If a Democrat is too far to the left, a fair number of Democrats on the right will either not vote (seeing no point) or will vote for a Republican (who is now closer to the voter ideologically). The same, in reverse, is true of Republicans. Either way, it behooves candidates to fall within the middle spectrum of their own party's ideology. If you want MORE extreme elected officials who are further from the national mainstream, the two-party system is great.

Once you understand the flaws in Zycher’s arguments in favor of the Electoral college, his arguments against alternative methods fall apart. To achive the goals Zycher purports to extol – broad geographic support without too much regionalism and more mainstream candidates - the only method that actually achives both goals is the instant run-off election process.

One last thing about Zycher. He is a senior analyst for an organization committed to coming up with free-market solutions to problems. Nothing wrong with that. But in endorsing the Electoral College, Zycher is supporting a system that is the opposite of free market. Direct democracy is a simple and pure example of free market principles. The Electoral College is more akin to a highly regulated and subsidized market where people in certain battleground states are given a competitive leg-up through governmental interference. By endorsing the Electoral College, Zycher has revealed that supporting George Bush (who is only president because of the Electoral College) is more important to him than the basic principles of his organization. This is the same kind of fuzzy logic and lack of principles our conservative states-rights Supreme Court Justices displayed when they used the power of their federal government positions to interfere with Florida's right to conduct its recount according to its own procedures in 2000. I don't mind partisan opinions. I do mind when partisan opinions are disguised as principles.

How to support Bush

Ever ask yourself how anyone could support Bush? I've been saying all throughout this blog that Bush knows he'll lose if the campaign is based on facts. The majority of Americans simply do not support the positions President Bush supports. If the central debate of this election had been about the facts - an open and honest debate about the state of the world, our place in the world, and the candidates plans for dealing with it - Bush wouldn't stand a chance. So Bush's strategy has been to lie and distort at every turn.

Guess what? It works! The following is lifted and slightly edited from a new report by PIPA ( Program on International Policy Issues.) According to their website, PIPA is a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland. I thought this information was so great, I'm posting most of it here. You can also read it yourself if you want. Here's a link.

Here's what the PIPA surveys found:

72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD or a major program for developing them. (There were none according to the 9/11 Commission report and the Duelfer report.)
56% assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD. (They don't.)
57% assume Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. (He didn't.)
75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. (It wasn't.) 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. (None has.)
60% of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. (The Commission and experts have all concluded there is no evidence of any support.)

In all of the above, Kerry supporters overwhelmingly and correctly believe the exact opposite.

Only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq. Among Kerry supporters, 74% assume that the majority of the world is opposed. What are the facts? Polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries, and more recently by a consortium of leading newspapers in 10 major countries show the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq.

Here are a a few more things Bush supporters believe:

69% believe Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (He doesn't. Kerry voted to adopt the treaty.)
72% think he supports the treaty banning land mines (He doesn't, Kerry does.)
51% incorrectly assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty. (He doesn't, Kerry does.) 53% believe Bush supports the International Criminal Court. Note, this is after he criticized this very treaty and court so vociferously in the debates! (Before the debates, 66% believed he supported it. Kerry supports it, by the way.)
74% assume he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. (He doesn't, Kerry does.)

In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush. To make this perfectly clear, a majority of Bush supporters favor positions Kerry holds and Bush does not.

Here's what the Steven Kull, the director of PIPA had to say in analyzing this data:

"The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters."

Wait, you might cry, it isn't fair to just look at Bush supporters. How do Kerry supporters stack up on their candidate's positions? Fair enough:

Kerry supporters were much more accurate in assessing their candidate’s positions on all these issues. Majorities knew that Kerry favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (90%); the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (77%); the International Criminal Court (59%); the land mines treaty (79%); and the Kyoto Treaty on climate change (74%). They also knew that he favors continuing research on missile defense without deploying a system now (68%), and wants the UN, not the US, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq’s new government (80%). A plurality of 43% was correct that Kerry favors keeping defense spending the same, with 35% assuming he wants to cut it and 18% to expand it.
Fascinating!

Speaking of the Court

In his Sunday article in the New York Times, Pulitzer prize winning reporter and author Ron Suskind, who also wrote for the Wall Street Journal, reported on a rally of sorts Bush had in September. Bush was meeting with the RNC Regents, a group of ardent supporters. At that meeting, in addition to saying he would come out strong to privatize Social Security after the election, Bush talked about the Supreme Court appointments he anticipates. He said he anticipates he'll have the opportunity to make 4 appointments in his second term.

Here's what I find chilling. Bush said he will make one of the 4 Supreme Court appointments shortly after being inaugurated.

How could he know that unless he has spoken with a Supreme Court Justice who told him? One of the Justices had to have told Bush that he will retire shortly after the inauguration if Bush is re-elected. We know Justices are friendly with the President and Vice President. Remember Cheney, Scalia, and the ducks? It bothers me that a Justice would do this. I can understand that a Justice might want to retire. I can understand that a Justice might not want to retire right before a presidential election to help make sure that the election doesn't turn into a debate on nothing but abortion. But I do not condone a Justice making a private announcement to one of the candidates. Justices are supposed to be above politics. By telling Bush, one of the Justices (and my money is on Rehnquist) took sides in a blatantly political way. Why would this conversation happen? Why would the justice tell this to Bush? There is no legitimate reason. Well, there are, but all the legitimate reasons would require the justice to also tell Kerry. That didn't happen.

Nothing's perfect

Instead of talking about politics, I'd like to post a few ideas for improving our government. This list focuses on the federal government, and specifically, on changing the Constitution. I revere the Constitution as one of the most important documents in history. It is inspiring to me. I keep a framed copy in my office, along with the original Bill of Rights.

But that is not to say it is perfect. We as a people continue to change and grow, and our governing documents have to keep pace or become obsolete. Courts must interpret the Constitution in light of the times we live in, but we do not want our courts to be overly involved in creating our laws. That is what our elected representatives are for. So we owe it to the courts to provide them with a constitution that reflects what we want. Let's not ask them to read too much into it.

So here are a few changes I'd like to see.

First, direct election of President and Vice-President by popular vote. The president represents the people as our executive. So let the people elect him or her.

Second, require an instant run-off election process for all Congressional and Presidential elections. We complain that our elected representatives cater too much to their own political parties, but our election process makes this inevitable. Assume that the major parties act rationally and select candidates in the primary process to represent the party on the presidential ballot who fall somewhere near the middle of the spectrum in that party's ideology. Each party makes rational compromises and selects a candidate who is not too far to any extreme within that party's basic platform. If one party is generally to the left and one party is generally to the right, each party will select a candidate who is, at best, on the fringe of the mainstream. One possible solution is open primaries where the top vote-getters, regardless of party, end up on the ballot. The problem with this is it violates the Constitutional freedom of association - Democrats or Republicans should not be forced by the state to let non-members vote in their selection process. It is also problematic because as a practical matter, the major parties will simply institute pre-primary primaries to make sure that there is only one of them in the main primary, and we'll end up where we started. Instead, I favor instant run-offs. This enfranchises third-parties and makes them viable. Now, I'm not a fan of any of the third parties currently out there. But I do believe that if we made third-party votes meaningful as more than mere spoilers, we will see better parties all around.

Third, establish a right of privacy. There isn't one. There ought to be. Some courts have read one into the Constitution. There is currently a little debate among Constitutional scholars about whether under current interpretation the Supreme Court has read a right of privacy into the Constitution. Past cases have held there is a right of privacy implicit in the Constitution - the "penumbra" theory. This theory holds (or held) that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the Civil Rights Amendments all fall within the penumbra cast by an implicit right to privacy. Roe v. Wade expressed this theory and based much of its holding on it. Later courts have backed away from the penumbra theory, and some have held there is no right of privacy. Again, my thinking is, let's not ask the courts to do more than is fair. It is not fair to ask the Court to try to sift the tea leaves of the Constitution to find a right of privacy in there. Most people believe they already have one, and I think most people want one. So let's make it official. Something simple: "The right of the people to privacy in their homes and personal affairs shall not be abridged."

Fourth, repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment. Is there an individual right to keep and bear arms? The Supreme Court has repeatedly said no. The NRA, and a lot of rational people tend to think that's exactly what the 2nd Amendment does. The framers came up with the ridiculous language of the 2nd Amendment as a compromise to avoid confronting the issue. Did they really want to make sure that if the people got fed up with what they perceived to be a tyrannical government, they could legally take up arms against it? Some did. Some didn't. We hope the Constitution itself makes unnecessary such an eventuality by providing plenty of checks and balances and room for change. And modern reality is, even an armed populace could not stand up against a tyrannical government backed by our military. In Revolutionary times, an armed citizen was no different than an armed soldier. The army might have cannons, but that was the extent of their advantage. Today, with tanks and jet fighters and black hawk helicopters and all kinds of incredibly expensive equipment, there is no way an armed populace could face an army. The historical reason for arming ourselves is dead. But most Americans still want to be able to own guns. And most Americans want to see some sort of regulation of gun ownership. We might accept our neighbors owning a pistol or a hunting rifle, but we balk at the thought that our neighbor might be stockpiling AK-47s in this basement. So instead of giving the courts an impossible to interpret sentence and then railing at them for being "activist" when they interpret it, let's give the courts something they can work with. Here's what I propose. "The people have a right to keep and bear arms, and hereby delegate the power to regulate their right to keep and bear arms exclusively to the respective states. Laws of general applicability passed pursuant to an enumerated power of Congress that have an incidental and unintended effect on the people's right to keep and bear arms do not offend this provision."

And fifth, prohibit political redistricting. Natural communities of people who have chosen to live together should select their representatives. Not fake communities created by gerrymandering to keep 97% of Congressional seats safe for incumbents. Some proposed language: "Congressional districts shall be based purely on geographic distribution of the people, without any regard for political, racial, ethnic, religious or any other distinguishing characteristics, and Congressional districts shall as closely as possible conform to local geography or simple geometric shapes."

Missed Opportunity - Part 2

At the second debate on Friday night, Kerry blew a few easy opportunities to clarify his own positions and debunk the president's.

First, he was short on specifics. At this point, I think most undecided voters are screaming for specifics. They are undecided because they have grave doubts about president Bush. They know his plans, and they aren't sure they like them. They are undecided because they aren't sure they can back Kerry. They have heard him say he has a plan hundreds of times, but they haven't heard very much about what those plans are. So my first piece of advice to Kerry would be to start hammering home the talking point summary of his major foreign and domestic policy agendas. Close the sale. You've got the undecideds checking you out, they want to like you. Now seal the deal.

Second, he let Bush slide on his answer to the "name three mistakes" question. Bush couldn't name even one. He admitted there might be some mistakes in strategy that historians might be able to discover in the future. Kind of like his answer to pollution. Pollute all you want and let scientists of the future fix it. Kind of like his answer to spending. Spend all you want and let our children and grandchildren pay it off for generations to come. He also said he might have made some mistakes in his appointments, but he can't name names because he doesn't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Bullshit! Donald Trump on a television game show every week publicly fires someone in front of a national television audience. If a blow-dried blow-hard billionaire can find the guts to fire someone in public, the president of the United States ought to be able to as well. The real problem is, he doesn't blame the people who have truly failed in their jobs. He doesn't blame Rumsfeld for his faulty war plan that has turned Iraq into such a disaster. He doesn't blame Condeleeza Rice for failing to pay attention to the terrorist threat before 9/11. He doesn't blame Ashcroft for his illegal application of the PATRIOT Act. We all know who his "mistakes" would be if he named them. He would only name those who quit in protest. Like Clarke. But he didn't even have the guts to do that, and Kerry let him get away with it. You can't ask a president to improve if the president can't see his mistakes.

But the biggest missed opportunity at the debate was letting Bush get by with this comment about WMDs in Iraq. Here's what Bush said, "We all thought there was weapons there, Robin. My opponent thought there was weapons there. That's why he called him a grave threat.
I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why." Okay, bad grammar aside, I know I'm not the only one troubled by this comment. Saddam Hussein, someone widely considered to be an evil madman, did not have any weapons that he could have used to kill us or have given to his neighbors or to terrorists. We were safe from him. He wasn't a threat. Our troops did not have to face chemical or biological attack. There was no threat of a mushroom cloud. But Bush wasn't happy? Bush would rather Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Bush admitted on public television in a debate that he is more concerned about his own credibility than about the safety and welfare of the entire planet. "I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons." I would have thought you'd have been thrilled! That sentence alone is reason enough to elect anyone else besides Bush to the White House.

No Respect

Yesterday on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Democratic Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois remarked on the newly published report by CIA weapons Inspector Duelfer. The Duelfer report is the one Cheney requested that says there were no WMDs in Iraq, Saddam lacked the capacity to make any, and his nuclear program at the start of the war was less developed than during the 1991 war.

Senator Durbin commented on the obvious - that Bush is in denial about the truth and that he misled us into an unnecessary war that diverted us away from the real threat. Well, Republican Senator Ted Stevens, the senior Republican in the Senate, didn't much cotton to those kinds of remarks. After Durbin gave some of his time on the floor to Stevens so the two could engage in a discussion, Stevens said, "This idea that somehow the president has lied - I'm tired of hearing this disrespect for the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States." You can listen to the exchange at NPR.org. I don't think I'm being unfair by saying Stevens sounded angry in his comments.

I agree with Stevens. I, too, am sick and tired of hearing all this disrespect for the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States. I'm sick and tired and frustrated and it drives me nuts sometimes.

We need to do something to stop all this disrespect for what should be our nation's most respected offices. My suggestion: elect people to those offices who are worthy of our respect and who won't conduct themselves in such a way as to bring disrespect to their offices.

Cheney and Bush are doing serious and lasting harm to their offices through their constant lies and distortions. I think they are also doing real harm to their own credibility and legacies, but that is their own concern. As an American, I object to the harm they are doing to their offices. We deserve the truth. And the next president who follows Bush, whether it is Kerry in a few months, or someone else in a few years, deserves to inherit a White House with some shred of decency and integrity left.

Lying all the time is hard work

The problem with lying all the time, is it's hard. For most of us, we know from personal experience that when you try to sneak by with a little white lie, the danger is in remembering what the lie was. The truth we know. With the lie, well, we tend to forget what we said. Did I say I was late because my car broke down or because I had a doctor's appointment? How am I going to keep my stories straight?

But the Bush administrations problems aren't that simple. They know exactly what their lies are. The big one is the easiest to remember: that there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. We all know there was not. Every piece of evidence says there was not. The 9/11 Commisssion said there was not. There is no link. Never was. Of course, the Bush administration still insists on pushing that lie. Watch the debate between Edwards and Cheney tonight. Cheney is one of the worst of the bunch. Betcha he pushes that doozy again tonight.

No, the Bush administration's problem is not in keeping their lie straight in their heads. Their problem is the much deeper one when it comes to lying. Their problem is that lying is such a soul-crushing thing to keep up. Lying for a long time about important things eats you from the inside. As human beings, we really want to be honest people and tell the truth.

Rumsfeld had that problem this week. On Monday, Rumsfeld said to the Council on Foreign Relations, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two [al Qaeda and Saddam]." That little piece of truth squeaked out. I bet it had been bottled up for so long, it was just about killing him. He had to say it.

But it wasn't the company line. So today, he backed down and went back to the lie. Today he said, " I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq." What is the evidence he cited? He said in a statement on the Defense Department website, "We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad." Okay. We also have even stronger evidence of the presence in the U.S of al Qaeda members. They crashed 4 airplanes a few years ago. Do we really believe the presence of al Qaeda in a country is evidence of a link to that country's government? What else did he say? More of the same. Try this: "We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities." What are contacts in Iraq? I think Mohammed Atta sought and actually made contacts in the U.S. Again, are we supposed to believe this is evidence of a link?

Feel sorry for Rumsfeld. It is hard work keeping this up.

Day After Zingers

Ever had one of those moments where you think of a witty rejoinder to some snappy one-liner, but not until the next day when you are in the shower? Of course you have. We all have. There was a whole Seinfeld episode devoted to the phenomenon. Well, that's exactly what Bush's post-debate campaigning has been like.

At the debate, we stared amazed as time after time Bush demanded time for a rebuttal then stood dumbfounded with nothing to say. "Can I respond to that?"

Well, apparently after some time to reflect, and after having his crack team of speech writers script some remarks, and when he wasn't on stage faced with his opponent who could correct him, and when not faced with a moderator, and when before an audience of applauding sworn-supporters instead of quiet mixed-audience - you get the picture - he came up with something to say.

Bush has spent all week harping on Kerry's "global test" remark. Here's what Bush said in a speech, and in a White House press release:

THE PRESIDENT: In the debate -- in the debate, Senator Kerry also said something revealing when he laid out the Kerry doctrine. He said -- he said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves.
AUDIENCE: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: That's what he said. (Laughter.) Think about this, Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions. I have a different view. (Applause.) "

Is that really what Kerry said? Let's compare. Here's Kerry's quotes. In response to the first question: "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security." Then later: "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."


Crazy, huh? If Kerry said the sky is blue, Bush would accuse him of saying the sky was green.

Once again, Bush lied. Once again, Bush has shown that he doesn't want this election to be a choice. He doesn't want the American people to arm themselves with the facts about the candidate's positions and then make an informed decision based on those facts. Bush knows he'll lose an election based on facts. The facts are all stacked against him. Sure, there are a certain number of votes he can count on no matter what he does. He could eat a live baby kitten on national TV and still get the anti-abortion, gun rights, and hard-core Republican votes. That's a given. And the same is true for Kerry and the pro-choice vote. But in the middle is a huge swath of people who vote for the candidate as a whole - based on all their policies and not just a few bell-weather issues. That is the group Bush is so scared of. That is the group he is trying so desperately to hide the truth from.

Wouldn't you like to see some news stories on the front page of your paper, or on the evening network news, where they call our candidates on their garbage? Instead of all the campaign strategy coverage and who thinks which candidate won the debate, or what the debates did to the poll numbers, wouldn't you rather read some straight-forward fact checking. "President Bush lied to a crowd of supporters in Ohio today." That's an accurate headline. (Or was on October 2nd.) Until we start seeing headlines like that, we are going to continue to get lies from our candidates.

Missed Opportunity

In the first presidential debate last night, Jim Lehrer asked Kerry to give examples of George Bush misleading the American people about Iraq. Kerry then very clearly laid out some of Bush's failures in the decision to go to war - telling us there were nuclear materials when there was no credible evidence there were; telling us he would build a strong coalition and he didn't; telling us he would exhaust diplomancy and go to war as a last resort and then cutting short all diplomatic efforts. (Interestingly, Kerry shied away from the truly egregious examples of Bush's misleading the public about the condition of Iraq after the war.) Bush responded with a rambling answer in which he tried to imply Kerry would allow Bin Laden to dictate American policy and then went into a string of statements Kerry had made in the past that Bush apparently agrees with in order to intimate that by criticizing Bush now, Kerry has changed his positions. Bush said, "I think what is misleading is to say you can lead and succeed in Iraq if you keep changing your positions on this war. And he has. As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not how a commander in chief acts."

Very shortly after this Kerry had an opportunity to respond for 30 seconds. That's not much time, but Bush gave him the perfect opportunity to end once and for all the charges of flip-flopping and at the same time nail down Bush as a liar. I think Kerry missed a great opportunity with his answer. Kerry started his comments by saying he tried not to use the word "liar" when referring to Bush, and here was an opportunity to take the response even further. The question was about Bush misleading America on Iraq, and now, because of Bush's attack on Kerry's consistency, Kerry had an opportunity to broaden the criticism to include Bush misleading America about Kerry's record.

Here's how Kerry responded to Bush's charge that he changes his positions: "I wasn't misleading when I said he [Hussein] was a threat. Nor was I misleading on the day that the president decided to go to war when I said that he had made a mistake in not building strong alliances and that I would have preferred that he did more diplomacy. I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way."

That's a pretty good answer, but he had made those points already, and was able to make those points again. Here's how I think he response should have gone:

"Jim, you asked me to explain how Bush misled the American people, but in his response, he has done it for me. He knows my position on Iraq has been consistent from day one. He knows I have been consistent in saying Hussien was a threat and that the President has made the wrong choice at every turn in the way he has chosen to deal with that threat. He knows I have been consistent in supporting our troops by voting to provide them with all the funding they would need and at the same time voting to make sure we didn't pass the cost of that support on to our children through massive deficits. The president knows I have been consistent, but he still makes these baseless accusations. I want to put a stop to that kind of nonsense right now. My conviction is firm. The president knows it. And it's time he stops misleading the public about it."

I know I harp about how the media should cover the issues and not strategy. But in this instance, strategy and the issues intersect. Kerry has two goals he needs to achieve strategically. He needs to find a way to deal with the flip-flopper accusations simply and quickly, and he needs to inform the American people about Bush's lies. My answer is do both at once. Kerry needs to say that the charge of being a flip-flopper is just another of Bush's lies. Bush is afraid to give the American people a choice. He is afraid that if the American people see the truth about where the candidates stand on the issues, they will choose Kerry. So Bush's only strategy is to hide the truth behind lies. This election campaign has been about a Bush lie - whether Kerry is a flip-flopper. It is time to give light to the lie and call it what it is.