RATHER FLAT. Dan Rather gets a B-minus for his defense of the Killian documents tonight. Parts of his report were fairly compelling. Since the superscripted "th" has become such an issue, it was pretty interesting to see that some of Bush's official National Guard records, released by the White House, have the same typographical feature.

Rather also reported that Times New Roman, the typeface used in the documents, has been available since 1931. In fact, we already knew that some of the earliest claims made by the conservative bloggers who kicked this story off yesterday were just plain wrong. (Liberal bloggers can play this game, too.) Examples: that Times New Roman wasn't available in 1972 (oh, yes it was), and that there was no such thing as a typewriter that did proportional spacing (ditto).

But I agree with Josh Marshall: it still seems more likely that someone simply banged this out in Microsoft Word than it does that Killian had exactly the right typewriter, with exactly the right font (granted, it's the most common font), and happened to format it exactly the way a Word document would be formatted by default.

My first criticism of Rather was that he didn't go deep enough really to convince me or anyone else that the documents weren't fakes. Yes, the evening newscast is over in the blink of an eye, but the hurricane coverage lasted longer than a real hurricane. My second complaint is that he dwelled too much on other aspects of the story, and tried to argue that a few li'l ol' documents don't really undermine what we know about Bush and the National Guard.

Well, they don't in a perfect world, but this is all about atmospherics. The truth is that the narrative of the campaign has changed overnight, and Rather said nothing to change that. Bush supporters will now boldly reject every single contention about Bush's National Guard service (or non-service), and huge segments of the media will be too cowed to point out the reality.

Plus, there remains the central question: where did these documents come from? Bushies are already openly describing this as a dirty-tricks op by the Kerry campaign, even though the only "evidence" we've seen is that anonymously sourced report from the American Spectator, home of the Arkansas Project.

But that's obviously where this is heading. Rather than asking legitimate questions about Bush's Guard service (or, gee, I don't know, about the war in Iraq, or health care; just a thought), the next media obsession will be: what did Bob Shrum know, and when did he know it?

I'll also be very interested to see tomorrow's Washington Post. Today the paper all but pronounced the documents to be forgeries. Will it back down?

BECALMED. We're all 10 miles out to sea and the wind has stopped. It seems that we're not going to learn anything new for a while. The next move, I think, is up to CBS.

Within a few days, we're going to know whether this was:

- The story of some intrepid bloggers who figured out what CBS should have but didn't. Guaranteed this will have huge implications for CBS - and for the Kerry campaign as well. Even if the fake documents can't be linked to the campaign, the candidate has been thrown seriously off-stride at a moment when he had to regain the momentum. Another lucky break for Bush. Let's not forget: there is overwhelming evidence that the story of his shirking his National Guard duty is essentially true. But we'll never heard about it again.

- The story of how these same bloggers, armed with tons of information about typewriters and fonts and Microsoft Word but having no idea what led CBS to declare that the documents were genuine, managed to throw the entire political conversation off-track. But even then, we should cut them some slack, given that forgery experts consulted by our top two newspapers seem to agree with them.

THE MEDIA LOG TEST. If someone else has already said this, my apology in advance. But here's what someone needs to do. Get hold of the Killian memos that CBS apparently has in its possession. (A copy will do, but the best-quality reproduction available should be used.) Stick a few of the letters under a magnifying glass, or a microscope if necessary. And see whether the edges of the characters have the slightly jagged dot-matrix pattern that would be evidence of even a very good laser or ink-jet printer. If so, that's pretty convincing evidence that the memos were produced many years after 1973 - say, the late '80s at the earliest. But if not, then they very well could have been written on an IBM Executive in 1972 and '73. And a side note: I would imagine the sphincters are tightening not just at CBS, but at the Post and, to a lesser extent, at the Times as well. CBS and the Post have both gone very far out on a limb.

NEWBERRY FOR THE DEFENSE. Stirling Newberry is a very smart guy, and this is a fascinating post. But if he's got to torture the evidence this much to get CBS off the hook, then it's more likely than not that he's wrong. And if he's right - that CBS can't present its real proof because of promises of confidentiality - then it's got a problem almost as big as it does if the documents turn out to have been forged.

ON THE OTHER HAND ... Here's a post to the Daily Kos suggesting that the Killian memos could easily have been produced with an IBM Executive electric typewriter. Salon's got a good round-up on the story.

We know this for sure. Either CBS News, one of the largest and most prestigious news organizations in the world, couldn't find a competent forgery expert when it needed one. Or the Washington Post and the New York Times, two of the largest and most prestigious news organizations in the world, couldn't find a competent forgery expert.

What is wrong with these people?

THE KILLIAN FILE. When I first heard last night about the blogland chatter that CBS News had relied on forged documents in its 60 Minutes report on George W. Bush's National Guard service, my instinct was dismiss it. Not that the media aren't capable of monumental screw-ups. But when CBS said it had consulted experts, I assumed that meant it had showed the documents to people who make their living knowing about the history of typewriters, fonts, and the like.

Now it looks as bad as it can get for CBS. The Washington Post and the New York Times are both reporting that experts they approached believe the documents bear numerous hallmarks of having been produced many years after 1972 and '73, when they were supposedly typed by the late lieutenant colonel Jerry Killian.

No, it hasn't been definitively proved that the documents were forged. But it appears far more likely that they were banged out on a computer using Microsoft Word than on a typewriter at a military basis more than 30 years ago.

For CBS, we're talking humiliation, resignations, plague, locusts, and seven years of bad luck. For the Kerry campaign, we're talking about an absolute nightmare.

The Times report seems to offer at least some possibility that the documents are authentic. But it strikes me that this is one of those things where the only possible exculpatory explanation would be a rather simple one, the sort of thing that CBS could put out today - indeed, should have put out already. Instead, network execs appear to have gone into the bunker, insisting that the documents are genuine without offering any real proof.

Drudge claims a source told him that "CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather [was] privately 'shell-shocked' by the increasing likelihood that the documents in question were fraudulent." Well, I don't have much doubt about that.

For the Kerry campaign, it gets worse - much worse. Glenn Reynolds reproduces this from "The Prowler," on the American Spectator's website, which I can't access right now because of the heavy traffic:

More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian....

A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.

"The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush's file that had Killian calling Bush 'an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.' And someone who Killian said 'performed in an outstanding manner.' Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different."

The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. "This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn't show it," says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program.

Reynolds notes that there's also some buzz that it's all a Karl Rove set-up. But that seems too clever by many halves.

None of this refutes the basic accusations against Bush - that he got into the National Guard through family connections in order to avoid combat duty in Vietnam, and that no one can recall his ever having popped up in Alabama. The Boston Globe's report earlier this week - that Bush failed to sign up with a Boston-area Guard unit, as he was obligated to do, while he was attending Harvard Business School - seems solid. But none of that's going to matter if CBS can't authenticate the documents in a way that we'll all find believable.

Josh Marshall is in wait-and-see mode, which seems smart. So am I - although, frankly, it's difficult to picture this having a happy ending for either CBS News or Kerry. Especially if it turns out that the documents came from someone aligned with his campaign.

THE GIPPER REACHES THE FAUX MOUNTAINTOP. The Boston Globe's Alex Beam has a funny column today on the New Hampshire legislature's less-than-successful quest to rename Mount Clay after Ronald Reagan. But Beam leaves out the best part: Mount Reagan - er, Mount Clay - isn't actually a mountain.

At 5533 feet, Clay should rank as one of New Hampshire's highest peaks. But as you can see from this list, it doesn't make the grade as one of the state's 48 four-thousand-footers. That's because Clay is actually a spur - a bump - between Mounts Washington and Jefferson.

When I hiked the Northern Presidentials two years ago with my son and a friend of his, we didn't even bother with Clay, taking a side trail around the summit.

Beam notes that several other mountains in the Presidential Range aren't actually named for presidents. He cites Mounts Sam Adams and Mount Webster; there is also Mount Franklin. But Webster is a mere hill at 3910 feet, and Sam Adams and Franklin are, like Clay, spurs of nearby "real" mountains (Adams and Eisenhower, respectively).

Thus Reagan would be the only president honored with a faux mountain. For a president whose eight years in office were built far more on image than substance, it would be a fitting tribute.

FEEL THE LOVE! The e-mails started trickling in last night, ripping a just-posted piece I'd written on what John Kerry should do to revive his stalled campaign. As soon as I saw the subject line on the first message - "Memo to Johm [sic] Kerrrie [sic]" - I knew what had happened: someone had posted my article on Lucianne.com, the online home of Linda Tripp's literary adviser.

Sadly, the thread has already expired. But my "Johm Kerrrie" correspondent was kind enough to compile a "best of" list:

Do you know a lie from the truth?? Apparently not judging by your article.

Your untruth #1: weird inability to swat away the discredited swift-boat attack ads. Ya think the "weird inability" has anything to do with the fact that the SBVs have not actually been discredited?

Your untruth #2: Legitimate new source??? or a Kerry shill?? You have a new legitimate source why don't you mention it??

A very good description of you from a reader of your article: Just another piece of crap with a keyboard. Dunce, fool, idiot, moron comes to mind.

Baby boomers, the worst generation.

Keep those cards and letters coming.

BUSH, NOT AT WAR. Today's must-read is Eric Boehlert's Salon piece, which brings everything completely up to date on the National Guard story. The most fascinating detail is that George W. Bush may very well have had his honorable discharge revoked because of his chronic absenteeism, only to have it restored through political connections.

Josh Marshall says:

This isn't about what President Bush did 30+ years ago. Or at least it's not primarily about that. The issue here is that for a decade President Bush has been denying all of these things. He did so last January. He did so again as recently as last month. He's continued to cover this stuff up right from the Oval Office.

I'll take it one step further. I don't even particularly care that Bush is lying and covering up about what he did all those years ago. But given that he refused to denounce the swift-boat ads against Kerry, and that Poppy and Laura practically endorsed them, he deserves whatever he gets over this issue.

LIGHTING UP BUSH. George W. Bush is starting to get another workover regarding his non-service in the National Guard. Today's essential reading: this Boston Globe Spotlight report, which shows that Bush should have signed up for Guard duty - but didn't - when he was attending Harvard Business School in 1973; and a Nicholas Kristof column in today's New York Times that contains pretty convincing evidence that Bush never showed up for duty in Alabama in 1972, as he has claimed.

Tonight at 8, former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes goes on 60 Minutes to tell Dan Rather why he now regrets having helped Bush get into the National Guard - and out of harm's way. If you haven't seen it yet, the Barnes video that's been the talk of the Web for the last few weeks is here.

More bad news for Bush: the Log Cabin Republicans have decided not to endorse Bush, after having endorsed him in 2000 and Bob Dole in 1996. Log Cabin executive director Patrick Guerriero:

Certain moments in history require that a belief in fairness and equality not be sacrificed in the name of partisan politics; this is one of those moments. The national board's vote empowers Log Cabin to maintain its integrity while furthering our goal of building a more inclusive Republican Party. Log Cabin is more committed than ever to its core mission to build a stronger and more inclusive Republican Party. There is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, and that fight is bigger than one platform, one convention, or even one President.

One might imagine that Bush wasn't going to get much of the gay and lesbian vote anyway. But there is a fairly strong contingent of gay and lesbian political activists who are conservative on economic issues and/or foreign policy, or who hold a libertarian outlook. In a close election, every vote counts, and Log Cabin's statement gives gay Republicans permission to vote for John Kerry, or stay home.

Finally, today's outrage comes from none other than Dick Cheney, who said in Des Moines, "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right choice,because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

This comes pretty close to claiming that Osama bin Laden has endorsed Kerry, don't you think? Except that the Bushies must never, ever speak the Evil One's name.

POLLING 101. A course I obviously need to take! Republican political consultant Charley Manning explains to Media Log that "likely voters" comprise a subset of "registered voters." I had it the other way around.

So yes, according to the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, Bush leads Kerry among registered voters by just one point, 49 percent to 48 percent. But among the smaller group of registered voters deemed "likely" to vote, Bush leads by seven points, 52 percent to 45 percent.

Someone posted a comment making the same point.

Manning: "Although the reporter in USA Today didn't make it clear, all of the 'likely voters' are, of course, registered voters. 'Likely voters' is always the number I look at first when I read a poll."

File under: D'oh!

DEAD-CAT BOUNCE? I know, I know. If I obsess over the daily polls, I'm going to go nuts, and you're going to stop reading. Still, some results from Gallup bear scrutiny.

Yesterday's USA Today reported that George W. Bush had "widened his lead" over John Kerry to seven points. Susan Page wrote:

As the campaign enters its last eight weeks, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday shows Bush at 52%, Kerry at 45% and independent candidate Ralph Nader at 1% among likely voters. Before the convention, Bush led Kerry by 2 percentage points.

As Page noted, that's among "likely voters." But in her next paragraph, she reported that among "registered voters," Bush led Kerry by just two points, 48 percent to 46 percent, with Nader at four percent. Hmmm. Who are these creatures that USA Today considers likely unregistered voters? Don't you have to be registered to vote? Yes, there are some unregistered voters who will register before November 2. But obviously these are the least motivated of potential voters, and neither candidate should count on many of them stumbling to the polls on Election Day.

For Kerry, it gets better. Late yesterday afternoon Bloomberg moved a story reporting that Gallup now shows the gap between Bush and Kerry among registered voters to be just one point - 49 percent to 48 percent. After five weeks of Kerry-bashing, culminating with Bush's widely praised convention week, the race is still essentially where it's been since March: in a dead heat. At least among those who care enough to be already registered to vote.

Thanks to Bloomberg Radio's Michael Goldman for passing this along.

(STILL) HATING CLINTON. Okay, so they didn't really boo Bill Clinton's name when George W. Bush announced the former president was having heart-bypass surgery. Josh Marshall appears to have gotten to the bottom of that.

But some on the right are booing hard anyway, according to Andrew Sullivan. Very nice! I've run afoul of Lucianne's readers myself a few times, although I don't recall anyone openly wishing for my demise.

ON WHOSE HONOR?

PENDLETON, Ore., Sept. 3 - In his first public appearance after the Republican convention, Vice President Dick Cheney stood by every one of the administration's foreign and economic policies in a speech here on Friday that drew unflattering comparisons with the positions of Senator John Kerry.

...

Arrayed on the stage were veterans in American Legion caps, Boy Scouts whose sashes were thick with merit badges, three young women in fancy cowgirl costumes with fringed vests and, beside them, two people dressed as American Indians, complete with beaded accessories and single-feathered headbands.

- New York Times, 9/4/04

Chartered organizations agree to use the Scouting program in accordance with their own policies as well as those of the BSA. The program is flexible, but major departures from BSA methods and policies are not permitted. As a parent, you should be aware that: ...

• Citizenship activities are encouraged, but partisan political activities are prohibited.

- Boy Scouts of America (PDF file)

Do not wear the uniform in situations that might mistakenly imply an endorsement by the BSA of a product, service, political candidate, or philosophy. Scouts and Scouters [adult leaders] are encouraged to take part in political matters as private individuals but not while wearing the uniform.

- Greater Salt Lake Council, Boy Scouts of America

The Greater Salt Lake Council policy is a restatement of national policy, and is not restricted to Salt Lake. I include it because I think it's clearer and more explicit than the national statement I found.

Two other relevant points. The Boy Scouts of America is chartered by Congress. And Eagle scouts receive an official, wallet-size card that includes the signature of the president of the United States.

Can the line between partisan and nonpartisan activities be hazy? Well, sure. Recently I covered an appearance by George W. Bush in Stratham, New Hampshire. Uniformed Boy Scouts (and Girl Scouts) were all over the place. But they had set up booths to sell food to the picnic-goers, raising money for their troops. None of them appeared on stage with the president.

But it sounds like uniformed scouts in Pendleton actually took part in lending an undeserved touch of class to Cheney's attacks on Kerry.

In the photo above, from the East Oregonian website, you can just make out a few uniformed scouts behind Cheney.

FEAR FACTOR. It was visible while it was unfolding, but now that the Republican National Convention is over, it's even more obvious: this was a convention built on fear of the most visceral sort - fear of terrorism, transmogrified into fear of John Kerry, the indecisive flip-flopper who lacks the resolve to deal with terrorists.

After all the build-up, all the tension, it finally exploded last night in an orgasm of release when the Great Protector, George W. Bush, took the stage. You can analyze the president's actual speech all you want. I thought it was an extremely effective address that laid out a strong case for the sort of moderate conservatism (with a few feints to the hard right) that would probably command a majority of the electorate.

Of course, he hasn't governed that way up until now, and there's no reason to think he would govern that way in the future. But, like all convention speeches, this was a political tool, not an effort to win some sort of debate. What's important is that Bush came across as in command and at ease, sincere, with just the right mix of humility and arrogance. When he welled up toward the end, talking about the sacrifices of the soldiers who've died or been injured on his watch, it was a genuine, heartfelt moment. Regardless of what you think of Bush's war policies, it's clear that the human consequences of his actions weigh on his mind. That's good.

Much has been made of Bush's negative attacks on John Kerry. I think that's overblown. Bush's rather mild remarks were well within the bounds of political decency. What was indecent, of course, was that the president let his fellow Republicans (and one nominal Democrat) soften Kerry up before he ever took the podium. Never mind the past week - the past month has been marked by some of the most mind-boggling attacks in modern political history, thanks to the lying Swifties and their enablers in such media quarters as Fox News and talk radio. And if the Swifties aren't formally tied to the Bush-Cheney campaign, they certainly enjoy many informal ties in terms of money and Texas political connections.

That's why analyzing Bush's speech is essentially beside the point. It was the last move in a game that began shortly after the Democratic National Convention ended: impugn Kerry's patriotism; scare the hell out of the public by talking ceaselessly about the terrorist threat; lie about and distort Kerry's record; build up Bush as the Good Daddy who will deliver us from evil; and then trot Bush out on stage for some hands-on reassurance. Not to play down the skillfulness in how Bush performed; Kerry supporters can only dream of their man's coming across and connecting as naturally and easily as Bush does. But Bush really had the easy part.

Although the convention may be largely remembered for the unhinged Zell Miller's accusing Kerry for near-treason because he chose to run for president in a time of war, one of the most loathsome performances of the week was delivered just before Bush's appearance, by New York governor George Pataki. I recommend Chris Suellentrop's piece on 9/11 porn (he calls it "nostalgia") here. What Pataki did was make absolutely explicit the overall theme of the last week, and the last month: that not only will Bush protect you from the terrorists, the Democrats won't. Kerry can only hope that any voter who believes he wouldn't have retaliated against Al Qaeda is a voter who was already lost to him.

Overall, I think the Republicans got what they needed out of their convention, unless Miller's crazed rant comes back to haunt them (it should). It was ugly. But it worked.

KERRY ON THE OFFENSIVE. Is this smart? No doubt it comes after much debate among his campaign staff. But I'm not sure it's a good idea for Kerry to be the messenger for this harsh a message:

For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and even my fitness to serve as commander-in-chief. Well, here is my answer to them: I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and who misled the nation into Iraq.

If nothing else, it will make it difficult for the Democrats to argue that the Republicans were too negative at their convention. It's also intellectually dishonest, since Kerry seems to be suggesting that you can't criticize his proposals to deal with terrorism unless you served in the military.

On the other hand, since the media haven't been paying much attention to Kerry's surrogates - including his running mate, John Edwards - I guess they figured the time had come for the candidate to do it himself. It's a gamble.

FIRST IMPRESSIONS. It was a very good speech, well-delivered, eloquent and even soaring at times. He got choked up near the end, and got through the gay-bashing bit as quickly and cryptically as possible. I didn't agree with much of it, but I didn't expect to. But never underestimate Bush's ability to connect with an audience. He's no Reagan or Clinton, but it doesn't matter. What does matter is that he's no Kerry, who unfortunately remains a stiff and aloof figure.

The cynicism of ending on an upbeat, postive note after the sleazy attacks of the last month is revolting.

Anyway ... that's it for tonight. More tomorrow.

WHOOPS! He's back to being a right-wing nutjob.

FOOL ME ONCE ... In 2000, Bush ran as a moderate, then governed as a right-wing nutjob. Now he's outlining the themes of his re-election campaign, and guess what? For two months, anyway, he's going to be a moderate again. He even dusted off "the soft bigotry of low expectations" and called himself a "compassionate conservative." But Mr. President - I don't want to manage my own health-care plan.

EARLY INTRO? If I'm not mistaken, New York governor George Pataki wrapped up his paean to George W. Bush a few minutes early. He closed with an emotional "George ... W ... Bush!" Trouble was, it wasn't quite 10 p.m., and network coverage hadn't kicked in. So nothing happened. Then he walked off and, after an awkward pause of a few moments, the band started playing "Jump Jive."

Now it's 10, and former senator Fred Thompson is introducing the Bush video.

And by the way, did Pataki do enough fear-mongering for you? If you don't want your family to die, you've got to vote for Bush. That's the ticket.

THE FINAL COUNTDOWN. I'm back in Media Log Central, ready for the final night of the RNC. Retired General Tommy Franks was on a little while ago. Very impressive. Why didn't the Republicans put him on instead of loopy Zell Miller?

Miller's on Hannity & Colmes right now, and Sean's trying to rehabilitate him. Too late! Now Alan's having at him. But you see, here's how it works. On CNN last night, at least, Miller was specifically hit with questions about how he could claim that Kerry had voted to cut defense spending when Dick Cheney, as secretary of defense, supported many of those same cuts. Miller didn't have an answer.

Colmes, by contrast, is merely asking Miller how he could trash Kerry last night while praising him just a few years ago. That's easy - all Miller has to say is that he was wrong before, but now he understands the truth about Kerry. This is what I and other critics of Fox mean when we say that Hannity & Colmes is basically like a pre-scripted wrestling match, with Colmes taking the dive every time.

I would like to see Miller and Chris Matthews have that duel. Pistols at 40 paces. Can this be arranged?

George H.W. Bush is on Larry King Live on CNN, sneering at the "elitists" who criticized Miller for being "over the top." According to Poppy, all Miller did was tell the "truth."

MORE BAD REVIEWS FOR HEALEY. Slate's Will Saletan calls Kerry Healey "a new contender for Most Revolting Politician in America." She's not, not even close. Based on what I've seen - at least until last night's third-Bush-twin performance - I've kind of liked her.

But she's certainly got some work to do on her public speaking. Like, If you let them talk you into lying, act as though you mean it, damn it! (Scroll down to "7:10 p.m. PT.")

The Phoenix's Adam Reilly tweaks Healey and her boss here.

IT'S NOT MILLER TIME ANYMORE. I had intended to take a closer look at the Dark Lord's address today, and perhaps I will later on. But on reflection, it seems that the most significant moment of last night - indeed, of the entire convention - was the ranting, hate-filled keynote speech delivered by Democratic senator Zell Miller, of Georgia.

Miller had been prancing and preening around the RNC all week, practically becoming a co-host on the Fox News Channel, where his disgruntled-Democrat act was an irresistable story line. But make no mistake: Miller is a phony, puffed-up fool who up until a couple of years ago had nothing but nice things to say about John Kerry. Check out "Zig Zag Zell," on the American Progress website.

Still, nothing prepared me for what I saw last night. His face twisted in rage, bellowing like a crazed hyena, Miller essentially accused Kerry of disloyalty - treason, practically - for having the temerity to run against an incumbent president during a time of war.

This excerpt is rather mild compared to some of the other passages, but important nevertheless:

In 1940, Wendell Willkie was the Republican nominee....

He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today? Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander-in-chief.

Excuse me? Is it even necessary to point out that Bush's dubious prosecution of the struggle against terrorism, his grotesque misjudgment in going to war against Iraq, and his shocking incompetence in managing the aftermath of that war are the most critical issues facing the country? Doesn't Bush have to defend himself? Wouldn't even his most ardent supporter concede that these are issues worthy of debate? As William Saletan points out in Slate today, this is why we have elections.

Miller visited CNN late last night, and the gang was uncharacteristically well-prepared, ripping apart his lies as he sputtered and fulminated. In particular, they went after Miller's contention that Kerry is soft on defense, and that he has so frequently voted against weapons systems that he would leave the US military with little more than "spitballs." Let's roll the tape. Pardon the length of this excerpt, but it's worth it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator Miller, the Democrats are pointing out that John Kerry voted for 16 of 19 defense budgets that came through Congress while he was in the Senate, and many of these votes that you cited, Dick Cheney also voted against, that they were specific weapons systems.

MILLER: What I was talking about was a period of 19 years in the Senate. I've been in the Senate for four years. There's quite a few years' difference there. I have gotten documentation on every single one of those votes that I talked about here today. I've got more documentation here than the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library put together on that.

JEFF GREENFIELD: You also were, I would say, almost indignant that anyone would possibly call America military occupiers, not liberators, on at least four occasions. President Bush has referred to the presence of American forces in Iraq as an occupation, and the question is: Are you not selectively choosing words to describe the same situation the president of the United States is describing?

MILLER: I don't know if the president of the United States uses those words, but I know Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry have used them on several occasions.

GREENFIELD: Yes. So has President Bush.

MILLER: Well, I don't know about that.

GREENFIELD: Well, we'll-

WOLF BLITZER: You know that when the secretary - when the vice-president was the secretary of defense he proposed cutting back on the B-2 Bomber, the F-14 Tomcat as well. I covered him at the Pentagon during those years when he was raising serious concerns about those two weapons systems.

MILLER: Look, the record is, as I stated, he [Kerry] voted against, he opposed all of those weapons systems. That, to me, I think shows the kind of priority he has as far as national defense.

Look, John Kerry came back from Vietnam as a young man unsure of whether America was a force for good or evil in the world. He still has that uncertainty about him.

WOODRUFF: You praised him-

GREENFIELD: Then why did you say in 2001 that he strengthened the military? You said that three years ago.

MILLER: Because that was the biographical sketch that they gave me. This young senator - not young senator, but new senator had come up there, and all I knew was that this man had won the Purple Heart three times and won the Silver Star and-

Look, I went back and researched the records, and I looked at these, and I - when I was putting that speech together, I wanted to make sure, whenever I sat down with people like you who would take these talking points from the Democrats and who also have covered politics for years, that I would know exactly what I was talking about, and we don't have time to go through it on the air, but I can go through every one of those things that were mentioned about where he voted.

He voted against the B-1 Bomber-

BLITZER: A lot of-

MILLER: -on October the 15th, '90, and on and on.

WOODRUFF: But do you simply reject the idea that Vice-President Cheney, as Wolf said and as we know from the record, also voted against some of these systems?

MILLER: I don't think Cheney voted against these.

BLITZER: No, but he opposed some of them when he was the defense secretary, and sometimes he was overruled by the Congress because he was concerned, he was worried that the defense of the United States could be better served by some other weapons systems, not specifically those. I'm specifically referring to the B-2 and the F-14 Tomcat.

MILLER: I'm talking about John Kerry's record. I'll let Dick Cheney, the vice-president, answer those charges. He knows what happened in the Department of Defense years ago. I don't know that.

Do you think Miller realized he had just destroyed his credibility?

Last night I wrote on the fly that Miller might have delivered the most hateful major address since Pat Buchanan's "culture war" speech in 1992. Somewhat to my surprise, that immediately became a talking point in CNN's coverage.

Greenfield referenced Buchanan and told Aaron Brown: "I mean, when you say basically that the effort against terrorism is being weakened because of the Democrats' obsession with bringing down a commander-in-chief, you are basically saying that the other party is not part of an effort to defeat the enemies of the United States."

Bill Schneider said he thought Miller's speech was even angrier than Buchanan's: "In a way, yes, I do. I do because it was basically accusing the Democrats - there were some breathtaking accusations."

Joe Klein: "The difference between this speech and Pat Buchanan's speech in '92 is that Pat Buchanan was making a diffuse attack on - you know, on cultural liberals. Zell Miller was making a very particular and very personal attack on a nominee for president of the United States."

Okay, this is a lot of CNN, and it is experiencing some serious ratings problems this week: on Tuesday, at least, it even did worse than MSNBC. I don't know how long Miller's outburst will be remembered. The papers today rely mainly on Miller's advance text, and of course tomorrow it will be all Bush.

On the other hand, we still remember Buchanan's hateful invective of 14 years ago, and of how it helped do in Bush's father. This could be one of those things that takes a little while to register. But if and when it does, Karl Rove may be sorry he'd ever allowed this vicious, fake little man to command center stage.

NEW IN THIS WEEK'S PHOENIX. Last night I was free - at last! - to watch the proceedings on CNN. Earlier, I holed up with the Fox News Channel, watching the GOP on GOP-TV.