Yesterday, Tom Daschle filed a lawsuit in federal court against John Thune, the South Dakota Republican Party, and several unknown Republican operatives who were intimidating Native Americans in order to keep them from voting.

It turns out (no surprise!) that the allegations were absolutely true.  U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol issued a temporary restraining order against the Republicans, concluding that "there was intimidation particularly targeted at Native American voters in Charles Mix County by persons who were acting on behalf of John Thune."  Here's a link to the ruling:

http://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/casedocs/case1/doc_dir/6.pdf

The bottom line is that the Republicans have already started intimidating minority voters to keep them from the polls, and there should be no moral "equivalence" in the media about what Republicans and Democrats are doing on election day.  We're signing up new voters and trying to help people vote, while Republicans are trying to keep people from voting.  If the election looks tight, we need to get this message out and I think South Dakota is part of the story.

I know that everyone here saw the same debate that I did, and came to the same conclusion:  JOHN KERRY WON DECISIVELY.  Kerry was better than ever, while Bush was loud and repetitive.  KERRY WON.

We're not the only ones who see how well Kerry did.  The panelists on Fox News, of all places, said that Kerry won.  Mort Kondrake said it was a decisive win for Kerry.  Bill Kristol said Kerry won.  Fred Barnes said it was at best a draw for Bush.

The first post-debate poll said that Kerry won by a 44-41 margin.  Keith Olbermann scored the debate and said Kerry won.  Kerry DID WIN.

But the Republicans are doing what they've been doing for the past four years--lying and hoping that no one calls them on it.  On georgewbush.com the headline is "DECISIVE VICTORY" In the debate.  On TV the GOP is saying "decisive victory" over and over, and they're spreading lies about how Kerry looked "haughty" and that Bush's winking to the audience showed that he won.

Right now, they're on the verge of convincing the media--and some of the folks on this site--that Bush actually won.  We know that's not true, and we NEED TO FIGHT BACK.  Here's what we can do:

1. Email the Kerry campaign and post comments on their blog, telling them to get up a headline on their website that says that they decisively won.  Tell them to proclaim, as they did in the first debate, that Kerry won.  They should be trumpeting those Fox News panel quotes and the poll results, and they're not doing it--their debate page is full of fact-checking that buries the news that Kerry won.

2. Email and call the media and tell them that Kerry won this debate.  The MEDIA control the post-debate spin and we can't let the G.O.P. convince them to call this one for Bush to "let him back in the race."

3. On this blog, let's talk victory.  Don't get your head down, don't talk defeat.  Let's be upbeat about our candidate and his performance.  Because if you're like me, you saw a winner tonight.  A lot of Americans saw a winner tonight.

And John Kerry will be a winner on November 2.  KEEP THE FAITH!

UPDATE: The CNN/USA Today poll just said that Kerry won the debate by a 47-45 margin. BOTH POLLS SHOWED THAT KERRY WON! Make sure that the Kerry campaign and the media report the TRUTH!

"The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed."  -- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Chief

Over the past four years, Bush and Cheney have learned that the best way to cover up their record of failure is to lie.  They don't just tell white lies or small lies.  They tell big lies.  They tell lies that matter.  They try to mislead the American people.

When they deverted resources from the hunt for bin Laden to start a war in Iraq, they told us that Saddam Hussein was working together with al-Queda.  When they cut taxes for the rich, they said they were cutting taxes for the middle class.  When they sold out to the HMOs and drug companies, they said they were helping to improve Medicare.  When they led us to war in Iraq, they told us that the Iraqi people would welcome us as liberators.  As the situation in Iraq gets worse and worse, they tell us that it's getting better and better.

They lied to us.  The American people deserve to have a President and Vice President who will tell them the truth.

Dick Cheney lied to us last night.  He told us that he had never met John Edwards before.  Cheney said that he never met Edwards even though he presides over the Senate and meets with Senators every Tuesday.  That was a lie.  He has met Edwards at least three times, and Edwards has presided over the Senate almost as often as Dick Cheney has.  As for those weekly meetings?  They're with the Repubican caucus, not with the entire Senate.

He lied to us.

But that wasn't his biggest lie.  He lied throughout the debate.  He lied when he said that he had never suggested that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.  He lied when he said that the Bush Administration had created jobs.  He lied when he said that America isn't bearing almost all of the burden in Iraq.  He lied when he said that John Kerry voted to raise taxes 92 times.  He lied when he said that small businesses are hurt unless we cut taxes on the millionaires and billionaries.  He lied when he said that the current Iraq War coalition is as strong as the coalition we had in 1991.  He lied when he said that we're on track to have elections in Iraq in January.

He lied to us.  The American people deserve to have a President and Vice President who will tell them the truth, and we need to hold them accountable when they try to mislead us.

The media isn't going to hold them accountable for us.  They might report "inaccuracies," but don't bet on it.  And even if they do, they won't say what we all know--that Bush and Cheney have deliberately hid the truth from us and have repeatedly tried to mislead the American people.

Four years ago, the Republicans tarred Al Gore because he made minor misstatements in the debate.  He was slammed for saying that he had traveled to Texas with FEMA director James Lee Witt and that he was serving in Congress when the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was established. "Liar! Liar!" proclaimed the New York Post's front-page headline the day after Bush and Gore debated for the first time.

But Al Gore didn't really lie--he made, at most, a minor mistatement or two.  Last night, Cheney didn't just misspeak.  He didn't just blunder or forget the facts.  He deliberately and repeatedly lied.  It's time to hold him accountable.  The Republicans had their Swift Boat ads--we have a new mantra, a new slogan.  HE LIED TO US.  The American people deserve to have a President and Vice President who will tell them the truth.

I just reserved the domain name HELIEDTOUS.COM and I think if we work together, we can get the message out that Cheney lied last night and that Bush and Cheney have repeatedly lied to the American people.  I don't think I can do this alone.  But I know that if we work together, we can really make a difference.  This community has proven time and time again that it is capable of amazing things.  I think it's time to move past fundraising into getting out a message that the mainstream media is ignoring.

For this to work, here's what we need:

1. Web Hosting (preferably someone with a lot of bandwidth, in case we start getting a lot of traffic)
   
2. Web Design (does anyone have time to do this today or tomorrow?  We need to get this site up soon.)
   
3. Research/Writing (I'll help with this, but if we work together I bet we can find hundreds of Bush/Cheney lies.  I'd like to give each one a number--for instance, Bush/Cheney Lie #397, etc.)
   
4. Spreading the Word (We need to get blogs and other websites to link to the site once it launches, and we need to email and call the news media and let them know about this site once it's complete)
   
5. Making Video (Video is more effective than text, and if we had a video--even just a web video--associated with the site that would get the word out faster and better than text ever could.)

Let's work together to get this message out.  Does anyone have time to help?  I think that if this community works together, we can get this message out and take the fight to the Republicans.  If you're interested in helping, let's talk about what to do next in the comments.

On MSNBC they're giving you a chance to rate specific lines in the speech ... right now Kerry is in the lead on every line, but I just got the link from Free Republic so the Repugs are going to be freeping this poll now:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6145009/

Let's make sure Kerry keeps his lead in this poll.

I signed up for the Kerry Media Corps team, and I just got an email from the Kerry campaign.  They're asking us to contact news organizations to make sure they report the truth--that Kerry WON the debate.  Here's the email with all the media contact information, so let's all chip in and get to work emailing and calling the media!

On MSNBC, Chris Matthews just showed the results of the Hardball "Who Won the Debate?" poll ... and said that while the results aren't scientific, they're like an election and suggested that it matters.

Right now Kerry is winning 70%-30%, but you know those freepers will try to swing this poll.  So go to this link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

... and vote early and often!!!

Wonkette has just reported that "Democrats on the Illinois state election board have successfully shot down Marylander Alan Keyes' bid to represent their state in the Senate."  Here's the link:

http://www.wonkette.com/archives/breaking-keyes-not-really-resident-of-state-not-really-candidate-02 0432.php

This was just confirmed by Lapis in a comment below (thanks!) via Archpundit.

Here's the latest from Capitol Fax, an Illinois politics website:

A taste of Capitol Fax from August 25, 2004: UPDATE 2: The State Board is still meeting at this moment. Evidently, they can't even muster enough votes to adjourn. The results of all adjournment votes is 4-4, with the Republicans and Democrats split.

UPDATE1: Apparently, the ENTIRE state ballot is not certified for the November election at this moment. The Democrats wanted to have two votes, one to certify Keyes, and another to certify the rest of the ballot. But that didn't happen, and only one vote was taken, with the Dems voting not to certify. The Democrats on the State Board of Elecctions claimed that the state GOP had no legal right to appoint Keyes to the ballot. Still working on this. Stay tuned.

EXTRA! BOARD OF ELECTIONS WON'T CERTIFY KEYES CANDIDACY The Illinois State Board of Elections won't certify US Senate candidate Alan Keyes' candidacy. There's a lot more to this story, so come back later.

Here's the link, from the front page of CNN.com:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/29/poll.veep/index.html

Apparently a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll asked voters for their reactions to several potential VP candidates -- Edwards, Gephardt, Clark, Vilsak, and Bayh.

Edwards got the best response -- 72 percent said that they would be enthusiastic or satisfied with an Edwards pick.  Gephardt was a distant second, and the rest were further behind.  Here's the exact breakdown:

JOHN EDWARDS
Enthusiastic: 24%
Satisfied: 48%
Dissatisfied: 19%
Angry: 3%
No Opinion: 6%

DICK GEPHARDT
Enthusiastic: 15%
Satisfied: 49%
Dissatisfied: 27%
Angry: 4%
No Opinion: 5%

WESLEY CLARK
Enthusiastic: 15%
Satisfied: 44%
Dissatisfied: 32%
Angry: 4%
No Opinion: 5%

EVAN BAYH
Enthusiastic: 9%
Satisfied: 49%
Dissatisfied: 30%
Angry: 2%
No Opinion: 10%

TOM VILSAK
Enthusiastic: 3%
Satisfied: 51%
Dissatisfied: 33%
Angry: 2%
No Opinion: 11%

What does everyone make of this?  Personally, I think that if Kerry doesn't choose Edwards, he'll pick someone who isn't on this list -- a real out-of-left-field choice like Sam Nunn.  (Hopefully not Nunn ... ugh.)  I was surprised by how well Gephardt did, though.  Apparently he has a lot of silent supporters out there.

I have long supported Edwards for VP, so imagine my shock to hear that Nader--who like many of us, I've grown to dislike--has just publicly backed him, urging Kerry to pick Edwards because he's committed to fighting the "corporate supremacists."

Here's the link:

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cg i?a0558_BC_Nader-Kerry&&news&election2004

I'm shocked, really.  I would have figured that Dean, not Edwards, would be Nader's first choice.  Edwards voted for the war resolution, and Nader praised Dean in the primary and made overtures towards him.  In fact I thought an argument for picking Dean (who I know is not really in the running) would be that Nader would drop out or lose much of his support.  It will be interesting to see what Nader does if Edwards is picked, now.  It may dampen some of his "there's little difference between Bush and Kerry" rhetoric.

Overall, I think Nader's announcement hurts Edwards.  It's like having the Republicans pick you as their favorite Kerry VP pick.  No one wants to make Nader happy!  What does everyone else think?

CNN's top story on its "Inside Politics" page today is entitled "McCain rejects Kerry's veep overture":

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/11/kerry.mccain.ap/index.html

I wonder which "Democratic official" leaked this?  I have no problem with Kerry asking McCain, but having his rejection of Kerry's offer made public might give people the impression that Kerry's first choice for VP turned him down, so whoever he ends up with is just his "second choice."

Fortunately, we lucked out because this story broke on a day when the Reagan funeral is sucking up all the media coverage.  If this was a slow week, all the talking heads would puff this story up and use it to make Kerry look bad.

Maybe the "Democratic official" knew this and decided to leak it now, when no one would pay attention, rather than wait and hope it doesn't get leaked at a less opportune time?

I just thought this was interesting.

A lot of folks have been pushing Wes Clark for VP lately, and I can see why.  His resume is impressive.  He's a general, a leader.  He has a lot of foreign policy experience.

But he would be a horrible choice for VP, at least in this election.  Why?  As anyone who paid attention in the primaries will tell you, Clark was not ready for prime time.  He didn't handle questions from reporters well, he was lackluster in debates, and he committed some serious gaffes.

Clark has always seemed great on paper, but as a candidate he needs some work.  Putting Clark on the ticket is a huge risk, because he might say something stupid on TV and divert attention from the important differences between Bush and Kerry.

What gaffes, you say?  Lest we forget, probably the funniest moment in the prmaries was when Clark forgot what his position was on the Iraq war resolution--the one issue you'd think he would know cold--and called in an aide to bail him out.  "Mary, help!"  So she answered for him:

"I want to clarify -- we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."
-- New York Times, 9/19/03

He had a lot of trouble getting his position on Iraq nailed down:

On the first day of his campaign, he said he "probably would have" voted for a congressional resolution authorizing force. Then he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways ..."
-- USA Today, 1/25/04

And who can forget his comment on Iowa fashion:

He exulted over the egg white omelette a waitress put in front of him. "Now this is an Iowa breakfast!" the candidate said.  He also complimented a woman's overalls, saying, "That's a real Iowa outfit!"
-- New York Times, 9/20/03

Or this comment:

"Unlike all the rest of the people in this race, I did grow up poor."
-- New York Times, 1/27/04

And we all remember this remark about Kerry:

"It's one thing to be a hero as a junior officer ... but I've got the military experience at the top as well as at the bottom."
-- USA Today, 1/25/04

It's not like Clark improved much as time went on.  In the debates he appeared the least prepared, and in interviews he often ducked questions or begged off answering questions.

Now obviously this is understandable.  Wes Clark is a life-long soldier, not a career politician!  I bet that if he started his campaign a few years earlier, he would have been fine.  But he didn't.  And he's just not ready to be in the spotlight right now.

As a member of the cabinet?  Sure.  Part of the Kerry inner circle?  Great.  But as VP?  I think he might become a Quayle-like distraction for us.  We need a pro who can handle non-stop, high-pressure campaigning for 4-5 months.  That candidate isn't Wes Clark, at this point.

Drudge just updated his exit polls ... Edwards is still ahead in Oklahoma and is 14 points ahead in South Carolina:

AZ Kerry 46, Clark 24, Dean 13.
MO Kerry 52, Edwards 23, Dean 10
SC Edwards 44, Kerry 30, Sharpton 10
OK Edwards 31, Kerry 29, Clark 28
DE Kerry 47, Dean 14, Lieberman 11, Edwards 11

Huge day for Edwards.  Looks like a two-man race from here on out.  Clark will drop out with a third place showing in Oklahoma, Lieberman is dropping out, and Dean has committed suicide by refusing to compete for any state until Wisconsin comes up on the 17th.