I'm going to take the next two weeks off to see if I can finally finish the novel I've been working on for, oh, about forever. So, barring any huge news development that demands immediate blogging, look for this site to return on Monday, March 8, 2003.

See you then.

POSTSCRIPT: There's been some talk of starting a group blog over at Win With Edwards, and if the idea comes to fruition between now and March 8, I may post occasionally over there just to help get things started. If so, I'll let you know in this space.

I finally got around to digging Ron Suskind's Price of Loyalty out of the pile beside my desk yesterday, and I have to say, it's pretty convincing so far -- particularly in its picture of a president who just seems constitutionally incapable of facing facts that don't conform to his largely unexamined ideas about the way the world works. More on all this when I've turned the last page, probably sometime later today.

POSTSCRIPT: In the same vein, Kevin Drum examines this administration's unwillingness to face reality on matters scientific here.

UPDATE: In answer to an alert e-mailer: Yes, that was a "mocking reference" to Mr. Wanniski's magnum opus. (Though I'd have probably used the term sly allusion. Mocking sounds so unkind....)

Ed Cone has an in-depth report on John Edwards' increasingly impressive Internet operation here.

"On Tuesday night, when Mr. Kerry took to television to claim victory and bumped Mr. Edwards's own ebullient speech off the air, it was as if a pep rally had morphed into math class." -- Todd Purdum, in this morning's New York Times

POSTSCRIPT: No, this isn't a signal that I'm about to turn negative on Sen. Kerry. But when you go out of your way to knock the other guy off the air and then suffer by comparison, you have to expect a certain amount of, ah, gentle ribbing from the peanut gallery.

Thanks to the hard work of all the folks involved in the Win With Edwards project (over four thousand at last count), there are now fifty state forums to go with the fifty state sites. Stop by and join the discussion today.

Democratic strategist Ruy Teixeira thinks that the emerging Democratic message for the fall campaign is sensible, but "a little challenged in the Big Ideas department." Help Ruy craft a winning rationale for the party's eventual nominee by posting your biggest Big Ideas here.

From today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The two Americas message - and job loss, acute in Wisconsin, is a part of it - resonates with audiences partly because Edwards peppers it with statistical support, partly because the messenger delivers the message so skillfully. That talent is part of his compelling personal story. Edwards was born in a South Carolina mill town to poor parents who worked their way into the middle class. After college and law school in North Carolina, he became an enormously successful trial lawyer winning suits especially on behalf of injured children. That experience before juries helps to explain his extraordinary political skills.

Edwards is smart, engaging and upbeat, comfortable before any audience and often inspiring. Perhaps most intriguing of all, his optimistic campaign, free of attacks on his Democratic rivals, suggests something important about his character: Here is someone who seems to believe that the power of persuasion doesn't have to include excoriation and the politics of personal destruction. [...]

If Democrats are serious about winning in November, they have two choices at this point. John Kerry would make a strong run at President Bush and might defeat him. But we think John Edwards, with his combination of message and method, may have the stronger legs in this long distance race. [Emph. added]

Forgive the cliché, but you can, in fact, read the rest here.

POSTSCRIPT: As part of what can only be seen as a determined effort to drive down this website's traffic by consistently irritating friends as well as opponents, I'd like to take a moment here to second Kaus's complaints (scroll down to What the Republicans really think) about the unfortunate turn Edwards' message seems to have taken in recent days. The senator's Two Americas populism can only work if it's fundamentally honest and relentlessly sunny; otherwise, it's just Southern-fried Shrumism, and Edwards should be -- and is, I think -- better than that.

Sorry about the dearth of new posts of late, but I really wasn't kidding about those computer issues. Today's the day those problems get addressed, so look for a return to blogging normalcy soon.

UPDATE: New computer, new connection, same mushy centrism. Enjoy!

I've got a very early dental appointment today. Assuming all goes well, look for normal blogging to resume this afternoon or evening.

POSTSCRIPT: Almost forgot. Congratulations again (!) to the Kerry campaign and all its supporters.

UPDATE: Major computer issues. With a little luck, things should be back to normal some time tomorrow.

The makers of pMachine have just introduced their next generation blog/web publishing tool, Express Engine, and it looks a lot like a big, brawny content management system. If you're interested in such things, you can arrange a test drive here.

POSTSCRIPT: One thing to be aware of: At $199.00, EE's not cheap. You might want to try out some of these free, open source CMS's as well if you're thinking of moving in that direction.

Forty-three million Americans lack basic health coverage, there aren't enough jobs to go around, our bravest citizens have targets painted on their backs in Iraq, and the federal budget is more unbalanced than a Jackson family reunion. Still, some of Howard Dean's most vocal supporters continue to insist that this election is really all about their well-fed, but oh-so-tender, sensibilities. [Link via Kaus.]

I have no idea what they'll show, but a promise is a promise; it's time to release those records, Mr. President.

Tim Russert's legal training was clearly evident yesterday as he calmly and politely forced President Bush to create a record that the White House is going have a very hard time living with as the election season progresses. Whether Team Bush realizes it yet or not, this president is now just a hairsbreadth away from turning himself into the Churchill of 9/11 -- a widely respected wartime leader whose service to the nation is genuinely appreciated, but no longer seen as necessary or even particularly helpful by the time his fellow countrymen are called on to decide his political fate.

"On the budget, this president is frighteningly unaware of the reality of his own legacy and policies. That's the only conclusion you can draw from his answers on Tim Russert. Either that, or he really is lying." -- Andrew Sullivan, on the president's MTP appearance yesterday

Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?

President Bush: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.

I remember speaking to Mr. al Hakim here, who is a fellow who has lost 63 family members during the Saddam reign. His brother was one of the people that was assassinated early on in this past year. I expected to see a very bitter person. If 63 members of your family had been killed by a group of people, you would be a little bitter. He obviously was concerned, but he I said, you know, I'm a Methodist, what are my chances of success in your country and your vision? And he said, it's going to be a free society where you can worship freely. This is a Shiia fellow.

And my only point to you is these people are committed to a pluralistic society. And it's not going to be easy. The road to democracy is bumpy. It's bumpy particularly because these are folks that have been terrorized, tortured, brutalized by Saddam Hussein.

"'Read my lips: IT'S EDITED!'" -- Campaign Desk's Steve Lovelady, explaining in Slate why the work of most bloggers is inferior to his own

"From the response to our item pointing this out, one might think we here at Campaign Desk had questioned motherhood, God, and apple pie [sic]" -- Mr. Lovelady again, in the same piece

Not long ago, I noticed that one of the higher-profile holdouts, blogger and mystery novelist Roger L. Simon, had finally given in to the temptations of filthy lucre and begun to accept contributions from his readers. While I don't plan to follow in Roger's footsteps any time soon, I would ask that anyone interested in making a small donation to this site consider these alternatives:

1) If you're a fellow Edwards supporter, please throw a few bucks in the till over at johnedwards2004.com. As today's WaPo makes painfully clear, this race is already over if Sen. Kerry is the only candidate in the field who has the resources necessary to run a real campaign.

2) On the other hand, if the whole idea of an Edwards presidency makes you want to tear your hair out, you might consider a small contribution to the American Cancer Society instead. I'd be very grateful, and so would they.

As they used to say in the old Bartles and James commercials, "Thanks for your support."

POSTSCRIPT: The title of this post reminds me of another worthy cause (of sorts) I'd like to recommend to your attention. A few years ago, my old friend (and noted Lowcountry raconteur) David Farrow wrote a terrific little horror/mystery novel set here in Charleston called The Root of All Evil, and it's available even as you read these words at Amazon.com. If Stephen King's your thing, do yourself a favor and check it out.

UPDATE: I like Roger L. Simon, and I actually agree with him more often than a casual reader of this blog might expect, but this post calling John Kerry a "war profiteer" is really quite despicable.

"We will get a boost this weekend in Washington, Michigan and Maine, but our true test will be the Wisconsin primary. A win there will carry us to the big states of March 2 - and narrow the field to two candidates. Anything less will put us out of this race." -- Howard Dean, in a fundraising e-mail today [Emphasis added]

Lessig: "And oh, by the way, is it 'censorship' to say you should not run, Mr. Nader? No, it is not. It is asking you to do what you have asked corporate America to do for your whole life -- take responsibility for the consequences of your actions."

Warning: The numbers below are very rough, primarily due to the fact that a couple of states were still only reporting at 96% when I did my calculations. (Additionally, the Iowa results are rounded figures based on the final percentages reported for each candidate.) Nonetheless, they give us a pretty good idea of how many living, breathing Americans have actually shown up and voted for each of the leading Democratic contenders through the nine primaries and caucuses to date:

[NOTE: In order to be completely fair to General Clark, who chose not to play in the Hawkeye State, I've reported the totals sans Iowa in parenthesis.]

Kerry: 665,297 (619,297)

Edwards: 415,123 (376,123)

Clark: 241,231 (241,231)

Dean: 193,204 (171,204)

POSTSCRIPT: Another point worth noting: Based on these figures, Howard Dean appears to have spent approximately $207 for each vote he's received to date.

From David Broder's piece on John Edwards in this morning's Washington Post:

For John Edwards, Tuesday is the day of reckoning.

If the native son of South Carolina loses the presidential primary here to John F. Kerry -- a possibility that his entourage nervously acknowledges is real -- the decision will be simple. Edwards will congratulate Kerry, quickly endorse the Massachusetts senator as the Democratic nominee and head home.

He will feel no shame, he said in an interview, in losing to a man he regards as an upright politician, worthy of the presidency.

But if he beats Kerry in South Carolina, Edwards said he looks forward to challenging him for the top spot -- no matter what the odds against his success.

A victory here would send the North Carolina senator flying late Tuesday night to Memphis to begin a quest for victories on Feb. 10 in the Tennessee and Virginia primaries -- a prelude to a battle he says he can wage right through the remainder of the race.

In his most explicit comments about his strategy against Kerry, Edwards said that it would not be a personal vendetta. He bestows on Kerry, and on defeated Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), his ultimate accolade, saying he regards them as the other "solid" contenders in the original field. "I think John Kerry and I have run very serious, disciplined campaigns with very substantial policy foundations," Edwards said. "I think he was in it for the long run, and so was I."

Now, obviously, I'm biased, but that strikes me as pretty classy stuff coming from a man who's fighting for his political life; whatever happens, I'm glad I decided to support Edwards, and delighted that I'll get a chance to vote for him in today's SC primary.

NOTE: For the record, I agree with Sen. Edwards' comments wholeheartedly. John Kerry is a solid guy -- and a deeply, heroically, patriotic American. If he sweeps today, I'll be proud to give him my unstinting support.

So I was planning to do a couple more quick posts this morning -- one on the SC "loyalty oath," and another on the dangerous game Republicans are playing by aggressively defending President Bush's National Guard record, rather than simply letting that barely conscious dog get back to sleep. But a quick tour of the Blogosphere indicates that Jeff Quinton has already said everything I wanted to about the former (via Instapundit), while Josh Marshall has beaten me to the punch on the latter.

Once again, shown up by my blogging betters. Not that I haven't grown thoroughly accustomed to the feeling....

UPDATE: John Cole has a completely different take on the National Guard issue; bring it on, he says.

UPDATE 2: And since this post is turning into a real Linkapalooza anyway, I should probably also point you toward this additional Jeff Quinton post touting SC Clips, the best summary of South Carolina news around, and the only one published daily by my friend and fellow Phil Noble and Associates alum, Andy Brack. If you've been looking for an efficient and affordable way to keep up with all the latest Palmetto State news, check out SC Clips today.

Since the early Reagan years, many influential conservatives have argued (usually, though not always, privately) that conservative ends -- tax cuts and increased defense spending, primarily -- more than justified the fundamentally dishonest budgetary means often required to secure their enactment. (Note: It's no accident that outlays and receipts were eventually brought into balance during the Clinton era; with neither side consistently demagoguing the numbers, pols in both parties had the cover they needed to make the handful of moderately difficult policy choices that were required to get the budget process under control.) The interesting question today, in light of what we now know was the Bush administration's deeply cynical decision last year to employ the same tactic against its fellow Republicans by wildly underestimating the true cost of its Medicare drug bill, is whether the GOP will start to rethink its position on all this.

Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I think it's just barely possible that they will. The last thing any sane Republican ever wants to face is an insatiable public desire for services on one side, and a president (of either party) willing to deceive the electorate about the real costs involved on the other. And that's precisely what George W. Bush has given them. So here's hoping the GOP finally comes to its senses and rejects the all-too-seductive politics of budgetary legerdemain before it's too late. If so, the political life they save may well be their own.

Late last week, I pointed out that Andrew Sullivan had made a fairly significant error in his supposedly damning post on Josh Marshall's recent New Yorker essay, "Power Rangers." And now that Sullivan has acknowledged the error while loudly protesting that it didn't really matter, it's awfully tempting to write a follow-up explaining all the reasons why, in fact, it did. Unfortunately, I can't figure out a way do that without sounding every bit as churlish as Mr. Sullivan does in his non-correction correction, so I guess I'll just have to link and move on.

POSTSCRIPT: In case you missed it, check out Ted Barlow's post on this subject; Andrew's e-mail reply, which Ted published in full as an update, is particularly worthy of note. As is Ted's gap-jawed disbelief, which I tend to share.

Then:
"If we had strong leadership in the Democratic Party, they would be calling those other candidates and saying, 'Hey look, somebody's going to have to win here.' If Ron Brown were the chairman, this wouldn't be happening." -- Howard Dean, Dec. 28, 2003, on attacks by his opponents when he was the front-runner for his party's nomination

Now:
"I'm outraged by a candidate who says that he's against the special interests, and then [I] find out he's taking more special interest money than anyone else in 15 years. ... It turns out we got more than one Republican in the Democratic race." -- Howard Dean, Jan. 31, 2004, on current Democratic front-runner, John Kerry

Everybody I saw at John Edwards' Hootie and the Blowfish concert Friday night in Columbia seemed to be having a ball, with the notable exception of National Review's Byron York, who marched purposefully in and out of the event several times without making eye contact with anybody. Why do I see an NRO hit piece, er, profile in the senator's not-too-distant future?

BONUS COLUMBIA NOTE: No fewer than four (!) strangers made a point of stopping me in Columbia to say that I reminded them of John Kerry. Huh? For the record, I'm six-four, 180 pounds, with a full head of (prematurely, dammit) graying hair and a long, craggy face. I swear.... What were those people thinking? Don't they know a Tom Cruise look-alike when they see one?