Randy pointed out 
this video, which is evidently little clips from the RNC. So, do you think they all got together ahead of time to decide that they each needed to say those words 30 times?
George Soros has a blog about why we must not re-elect Bush. Ge get 'em, George!
I was recently asked by our local school committee to offer my opinion of this EdWeek article about linux. Although I believe I am an expert with linux and free software, I have relatively little direct experience with the computing infrastructure that the school system uses -- especially with respect to the central administration. Based on what I've seen over the past 6 years (working with our technology coordinator and the teachers and administrators at our neighborhood elementary school) I can say with some confidence that the only things you would have trouble doing with free software (as they correctly identify in the article) are the drill-and-kill programs and the Windows-based games. For any kind of real computing task (e.g. word processing, data analysis, presentation, programming, manipulation of digital imagery, networked communications, etc) free software is as good or better than most of the commercial packages that are in the price-range of the schools anyway.
I believe the school system could save tens-of-thousands of dollars over the short term by universally switching to free software. There would be some dislocations: most individual programs that people are using wouldn't work and they would have to adapt to using alternatives. But my guess, given what I've seen of how the computers are used now, is that there are very few things that people are actually using now, where you couldn't replicate the same functionality with free software.
Part of the savings would come from not having to pay license fees, but you'd also save money because hardware would last longer. Free software doesn't require the newest, fastest computers the way XP does, so hardware lasts longer. Furthermore, free software doesn't break as often, reducing support costs. It's easier to maintain a large number of computers using free software. Finally, you could essentially quit worrying about viruses. (This is an exaggeration, because you still need to worry about the possibility that they could exist -- it just happens that there essentially aren't any).
Finally, by using free software, you could have a more responsive support staff. When something doesn't work with Windows or most commercial software, the only thing the staff can tell you is "It doesn't work". With free software, bugs can be identified and fixed by the entire community. With a couple of good technical support people, you can actually fix the problems that are causing headaches for people. And even if your staff can't fix the problems themselves, if they report the problems back to the development community, the problems usually get fixed within hours or days. (In fact, I often find that the problem has already been fixed and I'm simply using an old version that doesn't have the fix already incorporated).
By coincidence, Slashdot posted a link to "Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS)? Look at the Numbers!" again today.