Ok, someone cheer me up. My natural pessimism and cynicism has been kicking in heavily the last few weeks. I was originally an Edwards supporter, reluctantly switched to Obama, but have become more and more enthusiastic about his campaign as it has progressed.

The thing is, I am no longer very optimistic about Obama's chances in the general. Now, I tend to be pessimistic anyways, so I hope I'm wrong, but here's what I'm thinking:

In the spring months preceding the election, Republicans get hammered in the polls due to corruption scandals and a faltering economy. There is every indication that Democrats are poised to make significant gains in the election. Yet as the fall campaign season begins in earnest, Bush's approval ratings rebound from historic lows, due in part to a relentless focus on terrorism and 9/11. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Democrats are painted as terrorist sympathizers and soft on national security. By the time the elections roll around, Republicans wind up picking up seats, instead of massive losses as was previously predicted by most pollsters.

Sound familiar? It should, because it's happened in the last two election cycles. And I see no reason why it will not occur again in 2006. This time, Iran being used as a bogeyman instead of Iraq. But this time is different...the weak on terrorism charge has lost its punch, and a brand new scandal has caused the latest polls to look even better for Democrats. Bush's ratings are still mired in the 30s. This time, we'll win, right?

NOTE: This diary is also posted at Greenstate, a community blog made up of Kossacks who wish to discuss environmental issues and policy goals. Check us out!

Under the Bush Administration, the U.S. has completely abandoned its leadership role on environmental issues, ranging from international treaties like Kyoto to developing renewable energy sources here at home. That's the bad news. But the good news is that we no longer have to look to the federal government for action on environmental problems, as city governments are increasingly leading the way in advancing a sustainable way of life.

NOTE: This diary is also posted at Greenstate, a community blog made up of Kossacks who wish to discuss environmental issues and policy goals. Check us out! Also, we are looking for more contributors, so if you might be interested in writing a post at least 1-2 times a week, let me know in the comments.

I saw this interesting story in Grist, about a new mall being planned in upstate New York. And not just any mall; at a planned size of 800 acres, with plenty of shops, restaurants, and the occasional golf course, the new project, grandiosely titled DestinyUSA, is appropriately being called a retail city.

So why should anyone care about what Grist refers to as a "a massive temple to American-style hyper-consumerism"? Well, here's the twist: the mall will be powered entirely by renewable energy. That's right, not a drop of fossil fuels will be used in either building or maintaining Destiny USA. Given the sheer size of the new mall, this will require an incredible amount of renewable energy. As the article points out:  

Some of you may have heard about a community blog, Greenstate, made up of Kossacks who like to discuss environmental policies and news. At any rate, we're looking for more contributors! Right now we only have maybe three regular contributors, including myself, and would like to get that up to five or more. Ideally, each contributor would post 1-2 times a week, so we could guarantee regular posts for our readers. We also tend to cross-post new posts at dailykos, to increase traffic to our blog. So if you're interested in environmental politics, and think you may have the time and knowledge necessary, just let me know in the comments. Thanks!

NOTE: This diary is also posted at Greenstate, a community blog made up of Kossacks who wish to discuss environmental issues and policy goals. Check us out! Also, we are looking for more contributors, so if you might be interested in writing a post at least 1-2 times a week, let me know in the comments.

As much as I believe in the future of renewable energy, currently alternative sources of energy only account for maybe 3% of the nation's energy use, with the bulk still coming from fossil fuels. Critics will often say that the technology simply isn't there, but that's what I love about technology: it doesn't stay the same. In the case of renewable energy, not only has improving technology led to lower price and increased effectiveness, it has also led to the development of new ways of tapping renewable energy.

NOTE: This diary is also posted at Greenstate, a community blog made up of Kossacks who wish to discuss environmental issues and policy goals. Check us out!

Well, I just paid my taxes last week, so now seems like a good time to talk about the federal tax code. As I'm stuck in a Denver hotel right now, going into a detailed analysis of the tax code actually sounds like fun to me. I can practically see people's eyes glazing over already, and I haven't even thrown out any numbers yet. But that's the problem on the left; we see taxes as a means to an end, i.e. as a way to fund worthy government programs. Republicans, on the other hand, see the tax code as a way of achieving their view of the optimal society, which leads to a lot more energy and debate on the right about taxes.

NOTE: This diary is also posted at Greenstate, a community blog made up of Kossacks who wish to discuss environmental issues and policy goals. We're also looking for more contributors, so if you're interested, get in touch!

The world is fast approaching a turning point in human history.  The rainforests, the lungs of the world, are being cut down at the rate of 20 to 50 million acres a year, leading to greater desertification and increasing the threat of global warming. The world is also running out of fresh water, with 17% of the population lacking access to clean water. Global oil production could peak as early as 5-10 years from now, with drastic consequences for both our industrial economy and our ability to grow enough food to support us. Exacerbating all of these issues is the ongoing problem of global warming, with mounting costs in lives and money.

NOTE: This diary is also posted at Greenstate, a community blog made up of Kossacks who wish to discuss environmental issues and policy goals. Check us out!

Decisions by the EU are generally ignored in this country, except when they can be portrayed as another sign of European "weakness". Yet a little known regulatory decision by the EU could have a profound global impact on corporate behavior and the use of toxic chemicals, not only in Europe but also in the United States. The new regulation is REACH, or Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals. Basically, REACH would require companies to test their chemicals for safety before release to the public, and to register chemical products with the appropriate EU regulatory body.

NOTE: This diary is also posted at Greenstate Blog, a community blog made up of Kossacks who wish to discuss environmental issues and policy goals. Check us out!

Like most of his speeches, Bush's State of the Union address was full of sweeping generalities and a lack of details. Nothing too special about this one, but I did find this little gem amusing:

Well, I certainly agree with the first part. A serious overhaul of our national energy policy is overdue, and we need to immediately begin investing in the energy technologies of the future. But as for that Republican energy plan, it doesn't quite accomplish the lofty goals Bush laid out in his speech.

NOTE: This diary is also posted at Greenstate Blog, a community blog made up of Kossacks who wish to discuss environmental issues and policy goals. Check us out!

Apparently, the environmental movement is dead. That's news to me, but Michael Shellenbeger and Ted Nordhaus argue in a provocative report to major donors that not only has the environmental movement failed, it is essentially dead, and needs to be replaced. As Salon put it:

Several other people have already commented on this, but let me just add my two cents. We were all fairly confident of a Kerry victory. Why is that? For a number of reasons:

1. Massive registration efforts on the left
   
2. Massive GOTV efforts
   
3. Demographic changes in key states that benefitted Democrats
   
4. Huge surge in early voting, forecasting record high turnout (which again benefits Dems)
   
5. An incumbent whose approval ratings were stuck at 47-48
   
6. A fired up and motivated Democratic base
   
7. A split Republican base, with many traditional conservatives going against Bush
   
8. Clear wins the all three debates
   
9. Polls and other signs that showed Ohio was trending Kerry
   
10. Finally, exit polls on election day that showed Kerry leads in Florida and Ohio (just see main page posts earlier in the day).

It's funny how this campaign has evolved. First, Bush was running as the triumphant commander in chief, with the whole "Mission Accomplished" theme in Iraq. Now that Iraq is going to hell, Bush is falling back on 9/11. Basically, Bush wants to take credit for the lack of terrorist attacks in America since 9/11.

That would be disingenuous enough, but that wasn't doing the trick apparently. So Dick Cheney had to start warning audiences that if Kerry were to be elected, we would all die, apparently. I was angry, though not surprised, at the lack of outrage from the media. I thought this was the absolute low, to imply electing Kerry would result in another terrorist attack.

Just a quick thought on ways Kerry can get under Bush's skin, and bring out Furious George again. As many Kossacks have noted, the quickest way to rattle Bush is simply bringing up his father. Every angry outburst he's had was preceded by a reference to the first Bush president.

But the final debate is all about domestic policies, so it may be more difficult for Kerry to refer to Bush's father. The best line of attack I can come up with is on jobs. Kerry should hammer away that Bush is the first president to lose jobs since Hoover (personally, I think it would help if Kerry specifically said "since the Great Depression).

Kerry should then finish his attack on jobs by saying, "Even your father managed to create jobs, Mr. President." And then just sit back and watch Furious George go. What are some other ideas out there?

Ok, I know none of us here buy the "flip flopper" attack from the Republicans, but I think the line has stuck somewhat to Kerry. What's more, I fully expect Bush to trot it out multiple times in the debates, in lieu of actually defending his record.

So given that, what's the best way for Kerry to respond in the debates? There are a number of ways he can go. Read below for the options!

Reports out today talk of intensified violence in Iraq, as numerous attacks have killed a minimum of 110 people today. So maybe it's time we started paying attention to Iraq again? Not that it ever went away, but you wouldn't know it by listening to the media. The media has created a perception that things have turned around in Iraq since the June 30 handover, which is of course complete nonsense. If anything, the violence has actually increased in recent months, with August being one of the bloodiest months of the entire occupation. But the media's portrayal of an improving situation in Iraq has helped Bush rebound from the low 40s ratings he was getting back in May.

To me, this will be the story of the election. If the media, with pressure from the blogosphere, starts to really pay attention to Iraq again, then Bush is toast. No matter what he or his surrogates say, they won't be able to cover the disaster unfolding in Iraq, our worst foreign policy mistake since Vietnam. But if we bloggers waste time on issues like TANG, then Bush could easily win this election. Let's face it, there's only so much room in the news cycle, and every minute spent on Bush's actions 30 years ago is time not spent on Iraq, or for that matter the economy or the budget deficits.

Look at it this way. Last week reports came out on a new record budget deficit, as well as an official slowdown in the economy (Greenspan's "soft patch"). And of course, the violence in Iraq continues unabated. But none of these topics are seriously addressed by the media; the missing document scandal dominated the news cycle. So just ask yourself, which hurts Bush more? More stories on his lack of service in the national guard, which many Americans are already somewhat aware of, or stories on the worsening situation in Iraq, which most Americans think is actually getting better?

I originally posted this as a comment in another diary, but wanted to go ahead and vent to everyone. So here goes. I don't give a damn about Bush's service in the TANG, or lack of service. Period. And frankly, neither should you, if we're going to win this election.

Enough with the constant talk and focus on those missing documents; we need to get off this issue. Frankly, I don't really care if they were forgeries or not. I already knew that there were questions about Bush's service in the guard. I certainly believe that he failed to show up for duty, amid other allegations.

At least, that was my first instinct after hearing Bush's acceptance speech. The domestic side was filled with what can only be called Clintonian ideas on how the government can help Americans. Sure, he isn't serious about the vast majority of those proposals. But clearly Republicans can no longer campaign on ending big government. It just doesn't work. The part where Bush reassures Americans that Social Security won't go away was priceless; you could tell the delegates didn't know what to do when they heard that.