From a reader named Roger:

"Mr. Derbyshire---Actually, Bates Gill has been around quite a while doing
foreign policy analysis. This situation reminds me of the scene in the
movie 'Office Space':

"(perky annoying secretary) Your name is Michael Bolton?

"(grumbling reply) Yes

"(perky annoying secretary) Any relation to the singer?

"(grumbling reply) No, it's just a coincidence.

"(cube mate) I don't know why you get so discouraged. There's nothing wrong
with your name.

"(M. Bolton) There WAS nothing wrong with my name. Until I was about 12
years old, and that no-talent a**-clown came along and started winning all
those Grammies!

"(cube mate) Well, why don't you just go by Mike then?

"(M. Bolton) Why should I change MY name? He's the one that sucks."

Somehow, after Microsoft Windows has crashed for the umpteenth time at CSIS,
I can see Bates Gill having a very, very similar conversation...

One of the most remarkable aspects of the current conflict with militant Islam is the way in which it has revealed the self-loathing that runs through so much of the western intelligentsia.

Here’s Roberto Benigni, the actor/director of Life is Beautiful. Now he’s making a movie about the Iraq war. The BBC has more.

“In a further interview on Italian Rai TV, Benigni criticised the West's role in the Iraq violence. "Westerners are running the show, all of those doing these things have studied in the West, it is not the Easterners. We know how many dreams the East gives, and how grateful we are to the East and love all its beautiful things."

What a statement. Not only is it utterly inaccurate, it also simultaneously manages to denigrate the West and patronize the East. Its real objective? To show Benigni’s moral superiority over the rest of us.

Marta Andreassen was the EU’s chief accountant. In 2002 she went public with a statement of the blindingly obvious : that the EU’s systems were open to corruption.

She’s about to get her reward.

Being fired.

Britain’s Tories, still wrestling with the problem of how, um, to actually win something have just been pushed into fourth place in a by-election (a special election) for a seat in the British parliament behind the anti-EU, but more than a touch odd, UK Independence Party.

Here is the response by the Conservative’s defense spokesman:

“A f***ing awful result.”

Refreshing.

Flawed, fascinating – and, for this, eternal gratitude: the man responsible for dreaming up the greatest film ever made.

“Major Calloway (Trevor Howard): That sounds like a cheap novelette.”

“Holly Martins (Joseph Cotten): Well, I write cheap novelettes.”

Here, on Reason’s website is this from Julian Sanchez:

"I just saw the Dixie Chicks on Bill Maher claiming that "corporate bans" on their music (i.e. stations deciding not to run their music for a while) were "against the Constitution." Can they possibly have been involved in this whole bruhaha for this long and not found one person to explain how the First Amendment works?"

Well, they might have found someone to explain. Whether they could have understood is an entirely different question.

"According to Bates Gill of the Centre for Strategic and International
Studies...."----The Economist 10/2/04, p.44.

Whoa! "Bates Gill"? Is that some kind of bizarro version of the great
software mogul?

Or are the Pod People taking over? Shall I wake up tomorrow and find that
the presidential race is between Jerry Kohn and Gush Beorge? With Rader
Nalph running a third party?

Or do I just need another cup of coffee?

This morning--he sounds much better than he did last night. Excerpts:

"My opponent last night said our troops deserve better. They certainly deserve better than they got from Senator Kerry when he voted to send them to war, and then voted against funding our troops in combat. . . .

"You may remember his famous quote about the supplemental funding that I sent up to Congress. He said: I actually did vote for the $87 billion, right before I voted against it. . . . Last night, he said he made a mistake in how he talked about that vote. But the mistake wasn't what Senator Kerry said. The mistake was what Senator Kerry did. . . .

"He said he was proud of his vote. And, finally, he said the whole thing was a complicated matter. Then he had a new wrinkle, a new explanation. During an interview this week, he described it as a protest vote.

"When we put American troops in harm's way, they certainly deserve better than to have a candidate for President use them as a protest.

"Last night, Senator Kerry only continued his pattern of confusing contradictions. After voting for the war, after saying my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision -- (applause) -- he now says it was all a mistake.

"But asked a logical question, does that mean our troops are dying for a mistake? [AUDIENCE: No!]

"That's what he said, no. You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's a mistake and not a mistake. You can't be for getting rid of Saddam Hussein when things look good, and against it when times are hard. You can't claim terrorists are pouring across the border into Iraq, yet at the same time try to claim that Iraq is somehow a diversion for war against terrorism. The President cannot keep changing his mind. The President must speak clearly. And the President must mean what he says. . . .

"The cornerstone of Senator Kerry's plan for Iraq is that he would convene a summit.

"I've been to a lot of summits. I've never seen a meeting that would depose a tyrant, or bring a terrorist to justice. . . .

"One other point I want to make about the debate last night. Senator Kerry last night said that America has to pass some sort of global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. He wants our national security decisions subject to the approval of a foreign government.

"Listen, I'll continue to work with our allies and the international community -- but I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America."

Justice Scalia gave a speech here on Sept. 20. (That’s the one Stanley Kurtz attended.) In that speech, he made the point that even if one were to adopt arguendo the assumption that orgies are socially beneficial, that assumption wouldn’t entitle judges to strike down laws against orgies. As a former clerk of his, I am certain that he made this same arguendo point at Harvard. Evidently it was a tad too subtle for the Crimson reporter.

Last May, finally, enter the tanned, energetic Jacques Chirac, eager to reassert raison d’etat and make a splash, unfortunately too literally. Chirac, though, was acting totally in national character. Daring to be different is nothing new for France, where galling allies is as enduring a national pastime as boules. Winston Churchill, who was host to Charles de Gaulle after the majority of his guest’s countrymen had capitulated to the Nazis, grumbled famously that of all the wartime crosses he bore, the heaviest was the Free French leader’s Cross of Lorraine. It didn’t help that De Gaulle constantly nattered on about how France was the “light of the world; its destiny is to illuminate the universe.” General Dwight Eisenhower managed to avoid gagging, but did complain that of all the Allies he was supremely commanding, “those damn French” were by far the most nettlesome.

De Gaulle gave clout to the once weak French presidency and stabilized France. But jealous of the Churchill-Roosevelt wartime bond, he remained a passionate anti-Atlanticist with a long memory. In 1963, still irate over Britain’s cave-in to U.S. pressure to pull back from Suez in 1956, he vetoed Britain’s application to join the European Economic Community. (His successors obstructed the entry of Spain and Portugal.) The following year, he withdrew France from the NATO military command and asked President Lyndon Johnson to remove U.S. troops from France. A seething Secretary of State Dean Rusk flew to Paris to seek clarification: “Does your order include the bodies of American soldiers in France’s cemeteries?”

Peter - Alas, the DNC was monitoring the Corner last night and shortly after the debate ended their talking points included comments from several of us. I am sure some folks will say -- a la Derb's correspondents who want us to deny Bush's poor speaking skills -- that this means we shouldn't speak our minds around here. But that's a non-starter.

What really bothers me about Moore's speaking fee is that a couple schools have booked me as a conservative counterweight to Moore. Balance, diversity, etc etc. Now, I don't really care what the motives of these administrators if it gets me booked -- even if I find disgusting the notion that I'm anything like Michael Moore. However, $35 Grand! I get a lot less than that. Talk about buying ideological diversity on the cheap!

Kerry needed to dominate this debate. He is an orator and, more importantly, styles himself as such. The fact that he, like Gore, was unable to humiliate our "simpleton president" means he lost.

Also, the time in our nation is over when style points and debate skills get you into the White House and keep you there. People still saw Kerry as an intelligent, but deeply flawed leader.

Rich - I agree. But I've been thinking about it and I think there's another candidate. One of the amazing things was how when Kerry had to really reach down to his gut to draw out a real example of the sort of superior leadership he would show as President he invariably declared he'd have a summit.

Oh how our troops must be hoping against hope that we get a change in Washington and get that summit! I'm sure today in mess halls and fox holes from Basra to Baghdad the men are a-chatter about how the guy who voted against sending them body armor is -- if elected, fingers crossed -- going to hold a summit.

From last night:

....I know I can do a better job in Iraq. I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies....

....I'm going to hold that summit....

....But this president hasn't even held the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together and get them to invest in those states. In fact, he's done the opposite. He pushed them away. ....

....Now, we have a choice here. I've laid out a plan by which I think we can be successful in Iraq: with a summit, by doing better training, faster, by cutting -- by doing what we need to do with respect to the U.N. and the elections....

From a reader:

Jonah, The terms fop and dandy come to mind as we hear more about Kerry's obsession with his appearance. He flies his hairdresser across the country, he uses spray on tan for that outdoors look, it appears that he has botox treatments and has had his choppers whitened. Finally, while in Florida he seizes the opportunity to pop in to the beauty parlor for a manicure while the Presidents visits the hurricane victims. I believe this is an indicator of the differences between the real deal and a self absorbed narcissist.

The more I think about it. Kerry's biggest wins were all secondary or passive. He didn't lose. He didn't cost himself the election. He scored better points on style. But the next day it's hard to remember much of the style. I think his biggest victory was giving his troops hope. Remember that "enthusiasm gap"? Kerry's supporters were increasingly resigned to the fact that there was no real reason to like their guy -- only to hate his opponent. This through the dogs a bone -- and the media too, which desperately wanted something new and nice to say about Kerry.

But as for Bush, he was right on more of the substance and that comes through in your memory. If you asked me their differences today based on the debate, I'd say "Bush wants to be offense; Kerry wants summits." Kery's answers had no logical consistency, and while logical consistency is overrated in these debates, Kerry needed to show more conviction than he did to change the race. And, I think the sound bites this week will probably reinforce that.

From a reader:

Hey Jonah:

I had a ball tonight reading the Corner and the Kerry Spot. I don't have an
internet connection at home.. my computer at work is only 20 minutes of
leisurely driving here in Kansas City, so i came in to catch the action on
NROnline.

I watched the entire debate at home, then headed out, salivating at the
pleasure i was sure would present itself. It did indeed.

I have only just come across NRO, and feel such a resonance with the
currents of the thoughts presented on it.

Thank you for allying yourself with such a fine group of people. I loved
the running-commentary-feel of the Corner, and the analysis of the overall
debate.

This is the second email i have sent you, and may not be the last.

Have a pleasant night, and God Bless you.

-patrick

Ms. Lopez, I'm a very nervous Bush supporter who thought that Kerry had won the election right after the debate ended. But, I'm watching again on CNN and I feel much better about the President's performance. President Bush definately won the first half hour of the debate. I missed that part live. Had I seen it, I would've come to a different conclusion on the President's performance. The first part of the debate is the part most people will have seen. The press is gushing about Senatoy Kerry's performance, but I think the polls will stay the same because of the first half hour.

Wishful thinking?

Dear Kathryn,

Tonight's debate was a decisive victory for John Kerry because America saw him as our next president. He showed strength, conviction, and a steady command of the facts. He offered clear plans for Iraq and fighting terrorism.

George Bush has a record of failure to defend, and he failed to defend it. The president just gave us more of the same shallow promises.

However, the Republican spin machine is already hard at work. We need your help to beat back their distortions. Right now we need you contact the media and speak your mind.

Contact national media using the link below and remember to emphasize the points above.

http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/speakout/tv

Thank you,

Mary Beth Cahill

LOCKHART: DEBATE CONSENSUS A 'DRAW'

Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “The consensus is it was a draw.”

Plain and simple. The conservative eggheads are overanalyzing and the liberals are praying.

The president knows what he is doing and believes in it. Kerry will say anything he thinks is different than Bush.

Bottom line is that Kerry says: I would have done what the president did but better.

REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT FOLLOWING A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE WATCHING PARTY

Denver Marriott City Center
Denver, Colorado

7:57 P.M. MDT

AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good evening.

AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you, thank you. (Applause.) Well, we're
delighted you were here tonight. I thought the President did a great job.
(Applause.) I was fascinated to watch on the one hand John Kerry saying that
he's committed to winning the war on terror, and to winning in Iraq, and then he
turns around and is unrelentingly negative about the proposition, the decision.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Useless.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Useless was your comment. (Laughter.) But I thought
it's -- the President made several very good points, especially saying how can
you expect to get support from our allies when you consistently trash our
allies' efforts? (Applause.)

And the real bottom-line decision in terms of what this election is all
about is who is going to be Commander-in-Chief, who do we want to have in the
Oval Office making those life decisions -- life-and-death decisions for the
United States, for our people, and the man who makes the decisions about when
we're going to send troops in harm's way. And I don't think you can look at
that debate tonight and conclude anything other than on the one case we've got
in George Bush a man who has done it, who has been there, done it four different
-- for four different years now, and done a superb job, made the right decisions
for America; is absolutely committed to taking offensive action whenever it's
necessary in order to defend the United States of America, and the wanna-be
Senator who says -- (laughter) -- says that in response to the question on
preemptive action, he would support it as long as it passed some kind of global
test.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE VICE PRESIDENT: What George Bush has made clear repeatedly is that
we're perfectly prepared to seek international support for international
efforts. We've got a great alliance -- we've got 30 countries fighting
alongside of us in Iraq. And we're prepared to work to lead a coalition, but we
will never submit to the objections of a few. We will never seek a permission
slip to defend the United States of America. (Applause.)

So I want to thank all of you for being here tonight. I've got to go do
some interviews. And of course, I would invite all of you to watch next Tuesday
when we'll do it all over again from Cleveland. (Applause.) John Edwards and
myself -- I'm very, very proud to have had the privilege of serving alongside
this President. And I'm delighted that the American people are going to give
him four more years to lead this nation. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

Which allies does Kerry want to bring into Iraq? France? Germany? It would be interesting to know how he would propose to do this - and the price he would have to pay.

From a reader: