Sorry for the low blogging this week. On one hand, I've been busy with a friend visiting town. On the other hand, I've been busy with work. On the third hand, I'm working on a piece which will probably be posted here soon...

I missed seeing the debates, myself. Yeah, I know. Shame on me.

La Shawn listened on the radio, a' la Nixon-vs.-Kennedy. Interesting parallel, considering in that debate the Democrat -- yet another "J.F.K." and Kerry's idol -- also sported a tan. But it's perhaps telling that Kennedy's tan was real, and Kerry's was fake. A "me-too tan", if you will.

(Or perhaps Kerry received some special-interest money from the Florida Orange Growers, heh.)

I don't know why, but radio coverage seems more substantive. I suspect the lack of pictures means you must focus on engaging the viewers mind. Back in Wisconsin, when the Green Bay Packers play (particularly on Monday nights) people often tune their radios in to the state-wide radio coverage and watch the game on TV with the sound off. Perhaps they just don't need Madden telling them obvious stuff like: "You've got to move that thing forward."

Meanwhile, over in Bleatsville, Lileks makes the usual obvious observations -- penned, of cousre, in his typical "screedy" and yet strangely novel and refreshing style (that's why he gets paid to write, and I don't) -- about Kerry's mystical, evidence-transcending faith in the power of more talk with dictators and tyrants.

Me, I view this whole thing as a kind of IQ test for the American public. In one corner, you've got a guy who doesn't deport himself well, but knows the meat on the issues and has a clear, and not completely wrong, idea of where we're going.

In the other, a guy who contradicts his own stances, seems to exhibit no principle at all, and, as careful observations will reveal, seems to have priorities which are out of touch with the concerns of the American public.

(The "World Court"?? Yes, that's surely what Joe Sixpack worries about every night on his way home from the paper mill: "Why isn't that Bush guy putting our leaders under control of the UN's World Court?" And, peering at the furry lump approaching on the road ahead: "Was that a possum or a cat?")

Yet this second guy also promises us lots of stuff. Better-sounding stuff. And he's more intelligent. (How do we know? He tells us so!) He's going to make everyone love us Americans again. (Including, apparently, the all-important Franco/Belgian bureaucrat bloc.) He will make our children smarter, our lawns greener, and put 12% more pep into our every walking step.

Never mind that he can't explain how he'll do these, other than in the vaguest terms possible. He'll convene a summit. He'll get our "allies" -- you know, those fine, loyal "friends" who fabricated memos to mislead us and opposed action on Darfur -- on board. He's do things better. (What things? Not sure yet!)

I fear the public is failing the IQ test, and going for style over substance.

And it's not much of an IQ test, sadly:

* Bush is bad because he didn't get our real 'allies' on board for Iraq. BUT Bush is also bad because he's not currently taking unilateral action -- without waiting for approval from UN nor these same 'allies' -- and putting our troops into Darfur.

* Bush failed to tap, apparently, into some enormous numbers of troops held by some vague allies out there. Yet it is also, apparently, unreasonable to expect those same noble and well-equipped allies to have (a) available military resources to deploy in the Sudan, and (b) the moral concern to do so.

* We should look to "the world" (apparently meaning the UN) as the "test" of the rightness of our actions. Yet this same world is one which put Sudan on the human rights commission of the UN -- even as it commits genocide! (Where is the "World Court" on this pressing issue? Fretting about the Israeli wall while turning a blind eye to the EU's similar one?)

* Kerry's numerous contradictions should provide the viewer with some understanding this man is just saying what people want to hear.

All of these and more should serve as hints to the American public that this candidate (a) has no particular idea what to do about most these issues (or has an idea Americans typically reject) and (b) is willing to say anything necessary -- even if it means blatantly contradicting previous assertions -- in order to gain power.

It is up to the American public to decide whether they like unprincipled armchair quarterbacking and nice, vauge promises, or whether such disingenuous promises and statements are an insult to their intelligence.

Finally, the reason I picked up laptop and wrote this little tome of my own: Sister Toldjah links us to this telling article about Kerry and his merry band of elves:

An angry exchange between representatives of the Kerry campaign and the Commission on Presidential Debates took place just hours before the candidates were to meet at the University of Miami for the first of three debates, according to several officials familiar with the meeting.

Kerry's team threatened to remove the lights when they visit the debate site with the candidate later in the day. "We'll do what we have to," Kerry strategist Tad Devine said after his meeting with the commission. Later, after Kerry had toured the debate stage and departed the building, the lights were still in place.

The commission's executive director, Janet Brown, did not return a call from the AP seeking comment.

It's not unusual for the campaigns to haggle over the smallest debate details, but not so close to the event.

The commission placed the lights on the lecterns in clear view of the television audience and those in the auditorium.

An agreement between the Kerry and Bush campaigns required camera-mounted timing lights for each candidate "positioned in his line of sight." It also specified that timing lights "shall be placed such that they are visible to the debate audiences and television viewers."

Mark Wallace, deputy campaign manager for Bush, said Democrats sought the change "because they don't want the American people to know that Sen. Kerry can't follow the rules."

Kerry's team contended that the agreement doesn't specifically say where the lights should be placed, and it said putting them on the lecterns creates a distraction. Devine said the agreement includes a picture of the lectern that doesn't include the lights.

Doesn't that seem just right? So very Kerry. So very hardcore-Democrat.

"We'll do what we have to," and damn any agreements we might have made or rules we should comply with. And if we must comply, we'll look for the tiniest technicalities to negate the purpose. (Even if said technicalities don't actually exist, and claims of such are factually wrong, if not outright deception.)

Will to power, folks.

And we can't have obvious performance indicators visible to -- you know -- the American public. We wouldn't want them getting the idea our guy can't follow the rules. Just in case, you know, he can't.

And of course, they're so disorganized they didn't decide to tackle this issue until the last minute. Or perhaps they're so unethical that that was part of the plan from the start.

(Not to mention their refusal to respond to the press.)

And we want that running foreign policy?