“BRUCE COME UP FOR A BEER.” So read a sign some UW students hung out on their balcony during the big Kerry/Springsteen rally here in Madison today. And he did drop in, the L.A. Times reports. Punchline: “When asked to name their favorite Springsteen song, the young women looked at each other blankly and dissolved into embarrassed laughter.”

OCTOBER SURPRISE IN BERLIN: Germany got an October Surprise of its own when the largest German newspaper (which also happens to be the largest in Europe) endorsed the re-election George W. Bush.

Yesterday, I wrote about a plan, reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, for using schoolchildren in a get-out-the-vote effort. Today, the MJS reports that the Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent William Andrekopoulos has suspended the program after the many critical phone calls that came in after the MJS printed its story yesterday.

The program was a project of the Wisconsin Citizen Action Fund, whose parent organization has endorsed Kerry. The group’s co-executive director Larry Marx has this to say:

The students are bearing the brunt of a decision based on political pressure that is being brought on the district … This is a project that the district should be proud of. It is outrageous that partisan pressure is brought to bear that is making kids suffer.

Glad to see Marx is such a staunch opponent of political pressure! And that he’s so concerned about the suffering of children who might have experienced the joys of going door-to-door and now will be imprisoned in those dreary classrooms with their books and teachers. At least in Racine and Madison the program continues apace.

ABOUT THAT TAPE. I’ve got to disagree with my co-guestbloggers. Megan and Michael have both said ABC ought to run the tape it has of a hooded man mouthing al Qaeda commonplaces like “it’s your turn to die” and “the streets will run with blood.” That tape is a big nothing. Why should the newsmedia run al Qaeda’s lame advertisements?

UPDATE: I should note that Megan is saying that “if ABC is planning to air this tape at all, it should air it now; there’s no excuse for waiting.” I think there is some excuse for delaying it. The idea would be that it is newsworthy, but that it should not be sprung at the last minute where it can’t be examined and responded to and where it will get way more attention than it deserves.

ANOTHER UPDATE: I saw the portions of the tape that were shown tonight on “Special Report With Brit Hume,” and I got a good laugh at this dumb American jawing his headwrap up and down and flailing his fingers at the camera. I’m willing to believe this clown is dangerous, but he’s nothing special. Anyone can swaddle his cranium in a checkered scarf and make general threats that sound like things we’ve heard before. What difference does it make? We already know there are people who want to kill us. There’s nothing about what I’m seeing here that has anything to do with the difference between idle threats and imminent threats. You’d have to be a fool to change your vote one way or the other based on this!

GLENN REYNOLDS explains the Anglosphere in his new column in The Guardian.

Drudge reports that the Al Qaeda videotape obtained by ABC News was sent to the FBI and the CIA and has since been authenticated. But ABC cut the last fifteen minutes of the tape, the portion where Americans are threatened with greater attacks if Bush and Cheney are re-elected, according to Drudge’s unnamed top government source.

ABC thinks it knows what the CIA ought to see, but they’re reportedly still scratching their heads about what they should say to us proles.

One ABC source, who demanded anonymity, said Thursday morning, the network was struggling to find a correct journalistic “balance” before airing any story on the video.

Here’s some advice for you guys. Just air the damn tape without any edits or comments. You report. We’ll decide.

A MADISON SIDEWALK STENCIL. Found on Bascom Hill, near the Law School:

UPDATE: This emailer has definitely thought more deeply about the meaning of the stencil than I did:

Okay, maybe it’s me: I’m middle-aged and doubtless ossified (or “dirigiste” if I grok Glenn’s delightful turn of phrase in his latest Guardian column), after all. But I really don’t get it. Or I get it, but in more than one way. Or that I don’t get why someone would go to the trouble to produce sucky minimalist agitprop which provides no blindingly obvious and instant recognition, and thus defeats the whole raison of StencilPolitik (at least for the dirigiste among us).

So, is capitalism the gun-guy, and “we” are the victim? Or is it that there is no you-we, and the idea is capitalism means the robbery of nameless, faceless innocents by nameless, faceless guilties? Or that “we”, as the proletarian-intellectual solidarity movement of the PR of Madison, have the Gun Of The Dialectic pointed at the blank, bourgeois head of capitalism? Or that, a la “Fight Club”, fringe Young Republicans are carrying out a secret recruiting drive under the very noses of Badger mainstream by posting cryptic, mocking communiqués known but to those whom they seek? ( “First rule of Madison Capitalist Pig Club; nobody talks about Madison Capitalist Pig Club .”) Please, reveal all.

Man, I so can’t reveal all I didn’t even realize when I posted this how less-than-all I understood about this inscrutable stencil. I think I’m just charmed by inscrutability (like that “Plants Can’t Vote” sign, which an emailer is bringing me down by saying it’s crushingly obviously about medical marijuana). But I can reveal this: I absolutely love the movie “Fight Club.” And wasn’t 1999 a great movie year? I had so much hope then about how cool movies were, and what happened?

A LIBERTARIAN GUIDE: Are you a libertarian? Unimpressed with Michael Badnarik? Torn between Bush and Kerry? David Hogberg is here to help.

THE THIRD WAVE OF DECLINISM: Carrol Andrew Morse argues with Kerry-supporting hawks, and singles out Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens in particular, in his new Tech Central Station column.

Mr. Morse sees two options ahead of us: confrontation or, as he puts it, declinism. Put another way, he sees the election as a choice between two very different men: one who seeks victory over terrorism, and another who hopes to effectively manage the problem.

Sullivan and Hitchens think the election of John Kerry would force the Democrats to “get real” about Iraq. I agree with both of them. This would be a likely result. But toward what end? Victory? Or something less ambitious?

PICTURE THAT MOST EXEMPLIFIES THE MOOD OF THE CROWD at the Kerry rally in Madison today:

A Madison point of view:

A glimpse of the candidate:

UPDATE: Lots more pictures at my regular blog.

ANOTHER UPDATE: That “Plants Can’t Vote” sign is drawing a lot of email. One reader wrote:

I dunno…  At my place, Rose, Iris, Basil, Ivy, Petunia, Rosemary and Leland are all wanting to register.  As much as their votes for a beautiful Bush would please me, I’m going to lock the garden gate on Tuesday.  Cheating’s not right, and they’ll just have to wait for plants rights to catch on in our animal based society.  I just wish that certain unscrupulous voter registration activists/profiteers felt the same way.

Another wrote:

I don’t get it. Did Kerry come our for legalizing pot or something? Or is it that she was trying to make a point about the environment, but a marijuana leaf was the only handy example of a plant when poster-making time arrived? I mean, you’d think an environmentalist might have a fern, or an aloe plant, or something like that in her dorm room, or might at least be able to recall the appearance of the leaf of one plant besides marijuana.

That’s what I love about it.

ANOTHER “PLANTS CAN’T VOTE” UPDATE: I like this email:

Have you read “The Botany of Desire” by Michael Pollan? To compress an excellent book into one sentence, his theme is that those plants we have domesticated beyond all recognition have actually, in a sense, used us — our peculiar human desires and biological compulsions — to advance their own species far beyond what could be achieved in nature. One of the four plants on which Pollan focuses is — you guessed it — marijuana.

From this perspective, the idea that humans might be compelled by their marijuana plants to vote a certain way is slightly chilling.

I haven’t read the book (yet), but I used Amazon’s “Look Inside The Book” and found these results for “marijuana.” Fascinating! I guess I’m completely ready to read a book that contains the question “How do you tell when a jaguar is hallucinating?” — which was the first thing I read when I clicked on a “results” page.

BACK FROM THE BIG KERRY/SPRINGSTEEN RALLY IN MADISON. If you’re wondering where I’ve been all day, well, I had to teach at 11, and then “I busted out of class” and made my way over to the Capitol Square to see if I could catch some of the big Kerry rally. How close could I get? The gates opened at 10. I arrived close to 12:30 and there was a huge crowd, so I couldn’t tell how much had already gone on. I talked to a young guy who said all that’s happened so far is that Dave Grohl came out at 12:05 and sang a couple songs, accompanying himself on guitar. I’m told he was “pretty good.” At that point, the loudspeakers were playing Starship-type 80s rock, and it was none too entertaining. I took some pictures and started to walk away, but after a few blocks, I saw a path down a side street to walk in much closer, so I went back and got some more pictures. I turned to walk away again, but then I heard the announcement that Governor Doyle and Bruce Springsteen were about to come on stage. So I put up with Doyle’s groan-inducing speech based on on Springsteen song titles (“John Kerry was born in the USA …”). Then Bruce came out with his accoustic guitar and sang two songs, one of which was “No Surrender.” He proceeded to give a little speech that went like this:

mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble health care mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble folks mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble people mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble John Kerry mumble mumble mumble

All right, enough of that. I walked away again, heading back toward the Law School, and, I saw another nice opening, down a pretty, leafy street, that would take me right up to the back of the stage, so I walked back just as John Kerry was coming out and beginning his speech. Despite the crowd of 80,000 (to take Governor Doyle’s number as the fact), which packed the streets for blocks, I got within 40 feet of John Kerry and was able to photograph him. There was really no visible security presence — aside from a perimeter of loosely hinged-together metal gates and a handful of Madison police lolling about at the road blocks. But the crowd was exceedingly mellow. The people didn’t cheer or chant much. There was no heckling of any kind. No one bothered the few people who held up Bush/Cheney signs. There were tons of students, assorted other folks, and a few Madison characters — and many of them had been standing around for four hours. The speech itself you already know, so there’s nothing to report there. The most notable thing to me about the live experience was how entirely pacific that huge sea of people was.

I’ll have some photos soon.

UPDATE: Bruce seems to share my distaste for the Gov. Doyle’s speech: “I think this will be the governor’s last experience as my opening act.”

Jim Treacher offers me more reasons not to vote for Bush.

HEH.

INDEED.

THE WORLD’S YOUNGEST BLOGGER (or so she says, she’s 13) hosts the Halloween edition of the Carnival of the Vanities.

A PALESTINIAN IN PARIS: Yasser Arafat is being flown to Paris for medical treatment. Israel has lifted its one-man travel ban, not wanting to be blamed if he dies outside a hospital. There is no word on whether or not they will give him the right of return.

REACH OUT AND TOUCH SOMEONE: If you want to get in touch with one of us guest bloggers — or just see our normal blogs — here’s our info:

Michael Totten
Blog: michaeltotten.com
Email: michaeltotten001 -at – yahoo -dot – com

Ann Althouse
Blog: Althouse
Email: her last name, followed by @wisc.edu

Megan McArdle
Blog: Asymmetrical Information
Email: janegalt -at- janegalt -dot- net

IT’S REAL, SO RUN IT: The CIA has apparently authenticated the tape of a terrorist threatening new attacks, but ABC is holding off because of the political implications.

It’s no better to hold a story until after the election because of its political impact, than to hold one until right before the election because it will make a bigger bang. Nor would it be right to hold a tape telling Americans to elect Kerry, or else he’d kill them.

There are legitimate questions about whether news organisations should air tapes made by terrorists, because it raises questions of whether we are in some way becoming instruments of terror. But if ABC is planning to air this tape at all, it should air it now; there’s no excuse for waiting. ABC is a news organisation; the tape is news; and it’s been authenticated. ABC should run it tonight. The story’s going to get out anyway.

UPDATE: Howard Kurtz reports that ABC may not run it at all, saying they aren’t convinced it represents a real threat. Fair enough, but if it’s distributed by Al-Qaeda’s house cinemetography shop, as I’m reading it is, that would seem a good indicator.

FURTHER UPDATE: A source at a news organisation emails the following:

A CIA spokesperson whom I spoke to mere moments ago was very adamant in saying the ABC terror tape has “not, not, not, not, not, not, not, not yet been authenticated.” Thought you might like to know because, thanks to Drudge, a lot of people are getting this wrong.

POLL-WATCHING: The Washington Post says there are major problems with the polls

Costs are soaring as cooperation rates remain at or near record lows. In some surveys, less than one in five calls produces a completed interview — raising doubts whether such polls accurately reflect the views of the public or merely report the opinions of stay-at-home Americans who are too bored, too infirm or too lonely to hang up.

I THINK IT’S SAFE TO SAY That Bush’s lead in Missouri is now locked up. Of course, his campaign might try to start a whispering campaign pointing out that a man who thinks that Eddie Yost and “Manny Ortez” play for the Sox can’t be that much of a fan. But how to keep the Red Sox fans from hearing about it? And wouldn’t this just bring up the painful subject of “Lambert Field” in a state that Kerry really needs to win?

ON THE OTHER HAND: Gerard Baker says I should vote for Bush because he’s pissing off the right people.

ROCK THE VOTE Electoral-Vote.Com, one of the political-junkie polling sites I linke a few days ago, has excellent advice for everyone planning to vote in this election:

Several lawyers have contacted me about the issue of what to do if you show up to vote and the election officials say you are not registered. Here is the procedure. First, be absolutely sure you are in the correct precinct. If you are in the wrong precinct, in most states, your vote won’t be counted. If you are not 100% certain of your polling place, go to www.mypollingplace.com and check. Alternatively, call the toll-free number 1-866-OUR-VOTE or your county clerk. If you are sure you are in the correct polling place and the officials claim you are not registered, ask for a provisional ballot and fill it out correctly. You are entitled to one by law. Politely, but firmly, insist on being given a provisional ballot.

ARE EXPATS REALLY GOING KERRY? In response to my earlier post, a reader writes from Bulgaria:

I’m an ex-pat in Sofia, Bulgaria and have been watching CNN World do pieces called “A View From Europe,” which shows a series of snippets from expats living throughout (old) Europe. Every one I’ve seen has been anti-Bush (eg. pro-Kerry by default). Most are a bit stylized, well-edited jobs with excellent voice overs while the expat walks down streets, or buys groceries, or does other normal things (working in this field myself, I always laugh at what I know is contrived, albeit well-contrived).

Most of the fellow ex-pats I meet around here are split 70/30 Bush. And most of those Bush supporters dread—as I do—a Kerry presidency based on their understanding of the ‘rest of the world’ (that sounds arrogant, but it’s exactly the ‘ex-pat’ knowledge of the ‘rest of the world’ that makes their expertise seem to matter more, yes?).

Kerry is seen as weak. And frankly, many people, even here, work in risky jobs and don’t want another “Tomahawk thrower.” With Bush, at least, an overseas bombing or kidnapping will be reported in the news (repeatedly, with accompanying editorial), prompting the current administration to act if it hasn’t already. In short, most are looking out for #1, and know who is the Reagan and who is the Carter in our current election.

The 30% or so going for Kerry still have nothing good to say about Kerry, but stick to the Bush Dumb=I’m Embarrassed and Alienated From Important Foreign People meme. It tends to be a reflection of what CNN World is televising, and apparently what is being reported over in the States.

THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN? The prestigious endorsement of The Economist has gone to . . . [insert drumroll here] . . . . John Kerry. But it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Like those two previous challengers, Mr Kerry has shaped many of his positions to contrast himself with the incumbent. That is par for the course. What is more disconcerting, however, is the way those positions have oscillated, even as the facts behind them have stayed the same. In the American system, given Congress’s substantial role, presidents should primarily be chosen for their character, their qualities of leadership, for how they might be expected to deal with the crises that may confront them, abroad or at home. Oscillation, even during an election campaign, is a worrying sign.

If the test is a domestic one, especially an economic crisis, Mr Kerry looks acceptable, however. His record and instincts are as a fiscal conservative, suggesting that he would rightly see future federal budget deficits as a threat. His circle of advisers includes the admirable Robert Rubin, formerly Mr Clinton’s treasury secretary. His only big spending plan, on health care, would probably be killed by a Republican Congress. On trade, his position is more debatable: while an avowed free trader with a voting record in the Senate to confirm it, he has flirted with attacks on outsourcing this year and chosen a rank protectionist as his running-mate. He has not yet shown Mr Clinton’s talent for advocacy on this issue, or any willingness to confront his rather protectionist party. Still, on social policy, Mr Kerry has a clear advantage: unlike Mr Bush he is not in hock to the Christian right. That will make him a more tolerant, less divisive figure on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research.

The biggest questions, though, must be about foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. That is where his oscillations are most unsettling. A war that he voted to authorise, and earlier this year claimed to support, he now describes as “a mistake”. On some occasions he claims to have been profoundly changed by September 11th and to be determined to seek out and destroy terrorists wherever they are hiding, and on others he has seemed to hark back to the old Clintonian view of terrorism as chiefly a question of law and order. He has failed to offer any set of overall objectives for American foreign policy, though perhaps he could hardly oppose Mr Bush’s targets of democracy, human rights and liberty. But instead he has merely offered a different process: deeper thought, more consultation with allies.

They go for Kerry for precisely the reason I’m thinking of doing so:

Many readers, feeling that Mr Bush has the right vision in foreign policy even if he has made many mistakes, will conclude that the safest option is to leave him in office to finish the job he has started. If Mr Bush is re-elected, and uses a new team and a new approach to achieve that goal, and shakes off his fealty to an extreme minority, the religious right, then The Economist will wish him well. But our confidence in him has been shattered. We agree that his broad vision is the right one but we doubt whether Mr Bush is able to change or has sufficient credibility to succeed, especially in the Islamic world. Iraq’s fledgling democracy, if it gets the chance to be born at all, will need support from its neighbours – or at least non-interference – if it is to survive. So will other efforts in the Middle East, particularly concerning Israel and Iran.

John Kerry says the war was a mistake, which is unfortunate if he is to be commander-in-chief of the soldiers charged with fighting it. But his plan for the next phase in Iraq is identical to Mr Bush’s, which speaks well of his judgment. He has been forthright about the need to win in Iraq, rather than simply to get out, and will stand a chance of making a fresh start in the Israel-Palestine conflict and (though with even greater difficulty) with Iran. After three necessarily tumultuous and transformative years, this is a time for consolidation, for discipline and for repairing America’s moral and practical authority. Furthermore, as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America’s great tasks.

HEY, DID YOU JUST COME OVER HERE FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES to check out the “hearty praise of the Administration” dished out — with “vitriol”! –for a “fervent readership”? Thanks for linking, New York Times, and I know I’m just a humble guestblogger — my real home is over here — but that doesn’t sound like a very apt description of Glenn’s writings. Anyway, the linked article is about the tradition of Friday catblogging, so if you didn’t just come here from there, you might want to go over there and read about the warm, fuzzy alternative to blogging about politics. But, really, when is MSM going to notice how sound and rational much of the political blogging is?