he's going to win a second term, isn't he?

sorry i just saw this and i imagine even if you have, you should watch it again.

''If this campaign is about Kerry, Bush will win the election. If this campaign is about Bush, he will win my state.''

Get it? Bush can win only if he causes people to dislike, lose faith in or believe lies about John Kerry. Don't play into their hands.

http://www.pigs-in-lipstick.co.uk/images/JohnandJohn.jpeg

xpost: hehe, he looks slightly rabbity, in a very tall way

http://cache.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/images/day3/01.jpg

http://imgs.idnes.cz/zahranicni/A040215_LKR_KERRY_V.JPG

http://www.geocities.com/seavet72/AW/img/whyvote.jpg

Of course, Bush is a dolt with beyond questionable tastes in associates. But unfortunately Kerry can't campaign on who he would appoint in their stead.

Anyway, things seem so close, poll wise, that the only way either will evince a significant victory is by mobilizing the 150 million or so non-voters, and if that's the case than Kerry has the most to gain from his young slacker constituency. He also has the most work to do. Maybe those October Springsteen shows will make all the difference!

Ahistorical - you think this shit just dropped right out of the sky
My analysis: it's time to harvest the crust from your eyes
To surge and refine, to rage and define ourselves against your line
So sorry friend but you must resign
You want to figure it out we'll throw down, we'll throw down
Wou want to figure it out well throw down your bulldog front
Bold bold mouthtalking not so bold now that you've eaten your own
Lips flecked, mouthspecked you strip the skin right off of the bone
And I would never say you act without precision or care,
But it's all attention to armor, to the armor you wear so well
Let's knock and check to see if there's somebody home

http://img.keepmedia.com/Pubs/164/content/178010.jpg

xpost - Not in my red state. I've seen (maybe) three anti-Kerry ads total. And no one seems to have bothered running anti-Bush ads.

http://home.att.net/~lacoatrack/images/kerry.jpg

http://www.learyfirefightersfoundation.org/gallery/2002hattrick/images/kerry_courtnal_robbins0008.jpg
http://kerry.senate.gov/high/i/r0010.jpg
http://sbc.senate.gov/democrat/kerry.jpg
http://kerry.senate.gov/high/i/r0018.jpg

http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/images/012904/DEMOCRATSKERRY.jpg

you have no idea what you're talking about

Kerry saying he will do things differently and better than Bush, to use his preferred phrase, does not make it so. So far I'm at a loss when it comes to Kerry's environmental, health care, and self-defense/war policies. This is not to say he has no position on these subjects. I just think they have yet to trickle down.

I do like his tax compromise. Cancelling the tax cuts to the wealthy makes sense, and only pisses off those disinclined ot vote for Kerry in the first place.

I'd say that whatever Kerry says on the stump is meaningless. He wants to be elected. Looking at his Senate record, and the record of the last DLC President is a much better way to gauge his Presidency.

isn't getting pissy about electioneering pretty much = getting pissy about the weather, or the color of the sky? i mean, to read some of you i wonder why bother having elections at ALL?

No, he said he's at a loss as to what the policies are.

Anyway, fine, I'll do some of the work and use the environment to illustrate. In his first days in office, Kerry will:

- reinstate the Roadless Rule that protects National Forest lands from logging as well as road-building that will destroy the possibility of future wilderness designation. Bush will eviscerate it, and any state with a Republican governor will start up the chainsaws.
- prohibit logging of old-growth trees
- reverse Bush's rollback of the Clean Air Act
- ban snowmobiles and jet skis from national parks
- boost funding for environmental enforcement
- reform the 1872 mining law, ending more than 100 years of corporate welfare on a grand scale
- restore the Superfund-funding corporate tax that Bush refused to reauthorize
- get rid of the Bush-created office in the Interior Department that is basically a concierge service for extractive industries the way the Office of Special Plans stovepiped neo-con intelligence, bypassing the traditional regulatory process
- reopen negotiations on the Kyoto protocol that Bush pulled out of
- update and strengthen CAFE standards
- spend $30 billion over ten years on a mix of tax incentives, federal R&D and public-private partnerships to promote energy independence and clean new technologies, including $10 billion to subsidize the hybrid vehicle industry

It's great that he claims to want to clean up the air and everything, but I'll believe it when I see it.

So we should gauge Dubya's record on, uh, his record? In 2000 we should've gauged what Dubya was going to do in office on what his daddy did? (Hint: he's clearly broken with many of his father's policies, namely in Iraq).

I mean, looking at Kerry's Senate record is fair, and also leads me to believe that 1. he'll be a better president than Bush and 2. he might just be a better president than Clinton.

that might happen if he wins and is lousy, too. I don't think that will happen, but then some people want the impossible sometimes.

I don't disagree that Kerry's record screams "better than Bush." How difficult would it be not to scream that? Better than Clinton, not so much. Where did he ever break with Clinton on furthering progressive measures? (DOMA is the only one that comes to mind, and he's anti-same sex marriage) Clinton probably would have supported the PATRIOT Act and the invasion, as Kerry did and does. He'll probably be the same as Clinton with less charisma and fewer 'oopsies.' Truly a lesser of two evils. I guess excitement for Kerry depends entirely on your view of the Clinton era - I see a lot of stopgaps and bandaids, a lot of bad things and very little in the way of actual progress. I'd like to believe there exists the possibility for things to actually get better, and Evil v. Lesser Evil every four years doesn't seem to point that way. (note the recurring theme in gabbneb's defense of Kerry - rolling back Bush's policies. So that in four or eight years, Jeb Bush can roll back Kerry's rollbacks. And in 2020 Chelsea can...)

I would say that of the left but we're already there, probably.

I guess excitement for Kerry depends entirely on your view of the Clinton era - I see a lot of stopgaps and bandaids, a lot of bad things and very little in the way of actual progress.

yeah that's why congressional elections (every two years for reps, people!) are as important. Kinda hard to make any progress when you've lost the House and Senate.

Kerry does not support the entirety of the current Patriot Act and opposes Bush's effort to expand it. Kerry wants to reduce the civil liberties infringements of the Act by heightening the legal standards that must be satisfied before obtaining roving wiretaps and seizure of business and library records so that the judge can't just rubber-stamp them but instead must be presented with real evidence. Bush wants to expand them by allowing the use of administrative subpoenas to get faster record access and establish a presumptive denial of bail.

So are Bush and Clinton and Dean. Kerry supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which he first co-sponsored 7 years ago, the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in Federal Hate Crimes Law, the extension of the Family and Medical Leave Act to same-sex couples, gay and lesbian adoption rights, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and civil unions. Bush doesn't.

Right. It's better that we just let W go ahead, followed by Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

Here's the citation for one article:

A CHANGING LANDSCAPE; White House Puts the West on Fast Track for Oil, Gas Drilling; [HOME EDITION]
Alan C. Miller, Tom Hamburger and Julie Cart. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 25, 2004. pg. A.14

Here are some key points from the article:

Here's a quote from the article:

Soon after taking office in 2001, the Bush White House set up a little-known task force that acts as a complaint desk for industry, passing energy company concerns directly to federal land management employees in the field. Although the creation of White House task forces is commonplace, experts on the executive branch say it is unusual to have one primarily serving the interests of a single industry.

In addition, the Bureau of Land Management has been pushed to issue drilling permits at a record pace for three of the last four years, an increase of 70% since the Clinton administration.

It would probably save a lot of lives.

If Bush wins, especially if there are shenanigans in Florida again, I predict/encourage blood in the streets.

xpost

Anyway, would a 'homeland' agent be interested in someone not in America? Surely he'd pass us on to the CIA or that secret foreign terrorism agency the US would be stupid not to have.

this is one of the dumbest things i've ever seen posted on ILX. anyone who seriously think the assassination of george w. bush would result in anything other than years more filled with hysteria, paranoia and repression is a fool.

Into Georgia, already happening. Into Russia itself? I don't think so!

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/environment/story/10576582p-11495494c.html

Over the objections of several federal scientists, the Bush administration is preparing to relax national standards for selenium - a toxic metal that caused mass deformities of water fowl in California's Central Valley during the 1980s.

The revised U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards are outlined in an EPA draft notice obtained by The Bee.

Critics say the proposed standards are based on a study that even its author says was interpreted improperly. The standards follow years of lobbying by power companies, Valley farming interests and mining officials, all of whom say the current federal standards are overly restrictive.

EPA officials declined to comment on the dispute Monday, saying they haven't made a final decision on the rule. ... Scientists in other federal agencies, however, say it has been clear for weeks the EPA plans to adopt a selenium standard favored by industry and opposed by government biologists. The rule-making process has been controversial since 2002, when the EPA hired a contractor with long-standing ties to some industries seeking relief.

Under the EPA draft notice, the agency plans to control long-term selenium toxicity by switching from a water-based standard to a fish-based standard. Industries would be allowed to discharge into waters until selenium reached a concentration of 7.91 parts per million in fish. EPA contends those levels will be safe for fish and most wildlife. Several non-industry scientists disagree.

Joseph Skorupa, a researcher with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says studies show birds lose 10 percent of their offspring after eating food containing 4 parts per million selenium.

"At 8 parts per million, we are talking about a situation where more than 50 percent of the eggs would fail to hatch," said Skorupa, who has investigated selenium poisonings for more than two decades. ...

... Hoping to sidestep disputes about its water standard, the EPA announced in 2001 it would start using fish concentrations, instead of water, to regulate selenium. Although scientists on both sides supported this approach, they quickly differed on EPA's choice of a consultant to lead the project - the Great Lakes Environmental Center.

Since 2001, the Michigan-based consulting firm has worked for several power companies and trade associations, including American Electrical Power and the Electric Power Research Institute.

Even more worrisome, say scientists for Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Geological Survey, is that the Great Lakes Environmental Center made significant mistakes in proposing a selenium standard for fish.

In calculating a proposed standard, the Great Lakes center relied on a study by Lemly that examined selenium uptake and survival in blue gill, a common fish. But according to Lemly and Skorupa, the consultant misread the Lemly study and assumed he had studied 210 fish throughout the experiment. Lemly had removed 60 fish during two phases of the tests, meaning the survival rate was much lower than the consultant had assumed.

"The Great Lakes Environmental Center made some fairly egregious errors," said Lemly in a telephone interview.

Had the consultant correctly interpreted his study, he said, the appropriate standard should be closer to 4 parts per million instead of 7.91. ...

Several months ago, Delos received a paper from five scientists criticizing the EPA's methodology, said Skorupa, who authored the paper along with Lemly, Theresa Presser of the U.S. Geological Survey and two others.

According to the EPA draft notice, the agency acknowledges its proposed standard is "not necessarily designed to protect all terrestrial wildlife."

http://www.chez.com/richardion/images/nirvana/krist_novoselic4.jpg

"Kerry was appeared in a series of Doonesbury cartoons back in 1971"

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/kerry_faq.html

"Whenever [our history teachers] thought we were slacking off, they would look at us and say, 'Guys ... don't you realize that you're going to be running this country in 25 years?' " Rand said. "I thought that was absolutely hysterical, because I had no idea of any of us going beyond adolescence; I didn't have that vision. [But] John Kerry was clearly well ahead of us."

"If there is a change -- Sen. Kerry privately is said to be 'bouncing off the walls' in frustration -- it has to be imminent as the eight-week campaign is in full swing by Labor Day. 'We have 48 hours,' acknowledges an insider."

more 'insight' plz mei!
-- cinniblount (littlejohnnyjewe...), August 31st, 2004.

Well, if George Bush believes other people deserve to die for killing people, then it's very defensible to say that he himself deserves to die for killing people.

How can 49/50% of voters still trust Bush ?

..many people in the states are befuddled as well.

Bob? Norm? I'm not going to do work for people who don't care and whose votes don't matter.

yes, I care about economic justice. and yes, I'm more centrist on it than others on the left. I also think that campaigns for it are ill-served by pretending that small to medium improvements and the prevention of drastic losses are de minimis, belittling other issues important to the left coalition, and using class issues as a badge of authenticity.

I never read him, but I know that he and I come from similar backgrounds so maybe. Do you think that the two are separable? I think that people who really care about issues actually know what the positions are.

For what it's worth, those on the left who use class as a badge of authenticity are so marginal as to be negligible, so I think your level of exercise about them far outstrips their visibility -- and their influence.

This is a pretty good precis of the upcoming election inthe US, if you're not prepared to engage, what are you going to do?

what are we talking about here, exactly? poor voters who want more opportunities? dust bowl farmers of the '30s? african-americans who can't escape housing projects?

right. I don't think this is going to happen any time soon. Eventually, perhaps. Without question, not this year.

those on the left who use class as a badge of authenticity

"the real left"? the environment is a girly-issue? not all of these people are middle-to-upper class white kids.

and a coalition of the lower-to-middle and middle-to-upper is unlikely to succeed if the platform serves, in an immediate sense, only the former, and the culture demeans the latter.

("You dope" is the epithet I reserve for shills who aren't trying hard enough.)

Maybe not per se, but they are significant, relevant indicators of the campaign.

the good corporate discipline they're preaching has been unhealthy for the Party

why? and what exactly is a "good centrist on economic justice"?

no one has said "the enviroment is a girly-issue".

milo did

"[G]irly-issue?" "The real left?" C'mon, man. The only person putting environmental concerns in contradistinction to economic issues around here is you. But if you want the rest of us to stand aside while you clobber your straw men, well okay.

uh, no, the first person to do it said it was not an issue that has a "direct and important impact on working Americans"

does it not fit the last 6 elections? i think this year will be different - it's a more sober time and economics is less salient in the electorate - but it's enough a part of our political dna that it's still relevant.

X-post: Jesus, gabnebb. You really DON'T have a clue. Stop making up arguments for people you don't understand or I swear I'll vote for Nader and sign YOUR name to the absentee ballot.

CJ: Everyone's stupid in an election year.
Charlie: No, you treat everyone like they're stupid in an election year.

Last I checked, the title of this thread was "he's going to win a second term, isn't he?"

Seems to me that talking about polling is more relevant than actual issues, given the topic at hand. Will discussing issues and candidates' promises change your mind on whom you're voting for? Or are you going to vote against Bush no matter what is coming out of the Kerry campaign? Democracy is alive and well at ILX.

But I don't see why they should be paramount in this thread.

And polling would seem to be a legitimate way to answer the question that this thread is explicitly asking.

And polling, on a small but relevant level, can be interpreted to explain a candidates communication with voters on issues.

I don't know exactly what Chris Matthew's point means (what does it mean to have your "face in the sun"? I'm guessing it has something to do with optimism). But, I think it's worth recalling that the "Hyaah" episode came *after* Dean's big upset loss in Iowa, at which point the momentum of the race was already shifting. And perhaps it served to reinforce the perception that Dean was too angry to win the general election - being angry may not be boring, but it's not necessarily very sunny and optimistic either. As to why we ended up with such a boring candidate, we would need to ask Iowa, I guess. Due to the front-loaded schedule of the primaries this year, it was very difficult for any other candidate to compete once the first few states started falling into Kerry's column. Perhaps if the primaries had been more drawn out, Edwards or Clark would have had a better chance to make their case.

-- Colin Meeder (amisrau...), September 1st, 2004 10:40 AM. (Mert) (later) - yeah, the Democratic Party didn't 'abandon' Howard Dean. Voters (remember them?) didn't show up for him. The shadowy Party lined up behind Dean, threw bucks and endorsements at him, and put the word out that the other candidates needed to line up behind Dean. Nine months ago Kerry's candidacy was dead in the water, and if the Democratic establishment could rally behind an angry anti-war governor from a tiny state i'm pretty damn sure they could've rallied behind a considerably less-angry anti-war congressman from fucking ohio (only the jewel in the fucking crown), but then people didn't show up for the congressman from ohio (the 'real' left must've overslept that day), and they didn't show up for the governor from vermont, and so the party went with the candidate the people did show up for, becuz, unlike other left of center parties in the united states, the democratic party is actually concerned with who shows up.

impressive focus

ha - that's not what I'd call it. I hope my 'talking down to people' doesn't go beyond arguing zealously, often as a form of devil's advocacy, without presuming an audience, and feeling no need to bookend each time with "I think," and "but maybe I'm wrong," but maybe it does. I also hope it's not merely my belief that "the real left" needs my part of the party more than the other way around. I should take a break here anyway.

Look, I don't want Bush to win either -- but the fact is that moderate Democrats ain't worth a bucket of warm spit, because you can't count on them not to compromise ANYTHING away in a real or imagined pinch. They flip-flop just as badly as the Republicans, only they don't have the balls to lie about it. There, I said it.

taken, but is it permissible to be for left policy and centrist politics?

who was involved in the kucinich campaign: the 'real' left (haha - "involved"), yknow that silent majority that is just waiting there if only a 'real' democrat would come along (yknow, like dennis kucinich).

Anyhow, before this little episode I was fearing a Bush victory. Now I have a little extra hope.

Show me.

"Dean is now the establishment candidate"

"Dean is now the establishment candidate"

"Dean is now the establishment candidate"

"Dean is now the establishment candidate"

Dean's key non-VT campaign personnel were:

Campaign Co-Chairs/Media Advisors Joe Trippi, Steve McMahon and Robert Squier, who individually or collectively worked in the Clinton admin, ran Presidential campaigns for Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Walter Mondale and Dick Gephardt, and did a lot of work for the Democratic Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees as well as individually for Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Lieberman, Akaka, Bumpers, Simon, Wyden and Pryor as well as Governors Richards, Andrus, Kitzhaber, Baldacci and Walters

Campaign Co-Chair Steve Grossman, former head of the DNC

Pollster/Senior Advisor Paul Maslin, who worked for Gray Davis

Senior Advisors Maria Echaveste and Chris Edley, both Clinton aides

Strategic Consultant Rick Ritter, who worked on Pres campaigns for Hart, Gore, Clinton and Bradley

Policy Director Jeremy Ben-Ami, former Clinton aide

Communications Director Tricia Enright, who worked for the Clinton White House, Clinton and Gore/Lieberman campaigns and Tom Harkin

National Spokesman Jay Carson, who worked for Tom Daschle, Bradley 2000 and Chuck Schumer

New Hampshire Director Karen Hicks, Jeanne Shaheen aide and campaign director

You haven't shown me shit.

"But apparently those threats haven't done the trick because he has already taped a lengthy interview slated to appear in the not-too-distant future on a major national news show in which he'll describe the strings he pulled to keep Bush out of Vietnam and apparently more."

no arguments here

LVs w/ Nader: Kerry 48-45
RVs w/ Nader: Kerry 49-42
LVs w/o: Kerry 50-46
RVs w/o: Kerry 51-44

In all cases, K/E have moved up since the last poll, taken a week after the Dem convention.

Does anyone else have stories of "conversions" among their coworkers?

His reasons for voting for Bush in 2000? Because Gore seemed like a dweeb, and Lieberman wanted to censor his media.

He's since realized that as a gay American, he's not going to get much support from a Bush administration. (Not sure why it took him so long to figure that out.)

and he's polling lower than 2000 in every state in the union. if Kerry holds his supporters, he loses. the only way to win is to drive down Kerry's numbers.

The tactics they use before election day - intimidating voters in Florida, someone was caught talking about "suppressing the vote" in Detroit - could have a bigger impact. There was some website organizing a get-out-the-vote drive in swing states, hope it's going well.

Dan I think you might be overstating Bush's power of incumbency as the cabacity to do shit Kerry would be "impotent" to react against. Maybe I'm not exactly sure what kind of October surprises you have in mind. Unfortunately, I think many Americans are dumb enough to think, or perhaps willing to delude themselves into thinking, that the capture of Bin Laden would mean the "war on terrorism" has been won.

https://www.moveonpac.org

I know they've been mentioned before, but I absolutely suggest:

William Harrop "Statesman"
Nathan Ward "Better Way"
Rhonda Nix "Still a Baptist"
Craig Mancuso "Washed Away"

Also, Blount, you genius, Iowa caucases have NOTHING to do with anything resembling democratic voting, and you know this.

Yes, Democrat voters abandoned Dean after Iowa -- but they did so less because they thought he was angry or because they didn't like him and more because Big Important TV People started saying that he couldn't beat Bush. I think that this reaction is taught to Democratic voters by their leadership, who constantly tell them that voting for the candidate of their choice is self-indulgeant and bad strategy, and that Democrats have to choose candidates who appeal to voters we don't even respect, let alone understand. That's no way to generate passionate commitment to a candidate.

I think Dean could have beaten Bush, although I'm not sure, but I AM sure that a Dean candidacy would have inspired more activism from all branches of the Democratic Party.

Also the more you guys keep yelling at me, the less I want to vote for your candidate. You can call that childish as loudly and as often as you want, but that's the way it is, and I strongly suspect that it's the case for a lot of unhappy Democrats.

I never argued that Dean was a lefty outsider -- but I took and continue to take issue with Blount's assertions that 1. the left wing of the Democratic Party don't get involved in political campaigning and getting the vote out, and 2. that the Dean campaign was a total insider job from the beginning, even more so than other campaigns. I said "show me", I was shown a list of Washington insiders, and he said "BOO YA!". Which only shows that the former Governor of Vermont hired professional campaign consultants -- as did every other serious candidate for the two major political parties -- and doesn't show me anything about who ELSE was involved in the campaign. And there were a hell of a lot of far lefties involved in the Dean campaign, which doesn't fit Blount's "Lefties only support fringe candidates, so fuck 'em" theorum.

I have unanswered question lurking upthread. Look at 'em again if you want.

x-post: No, o., not even close. I said what I wanted to say really pretty well a couple of posts ago (where I "quibble" about Iowa); why don't you re-read that? No mysterious cabals, just bad leadership.

I think that this reaction is taught to Democratic voters by their leadership, who constantly tell them that voting for the candidate of their choice is self-indulgeant and bad strategy, and that Democrats have to choose candidates who appeal to voters we don't even respect, let alone understand.

I would like to see some examples of Democratic leaders who said this. Because I'm having a hard time remembering specific examples. I do remember Al Gore, who surely qualifies as a Democratic leader, saying that we should vote for Dean.

Wait, so gabbnebb qualifies as a Democratic leader now? Congratulations, gabbneb! Bet you never thought you'd attain such lofty heights just by posting on ILE.

xpost

Gabbneb: You're not all that important in my view of the universe, dude. Can we take the focus off of me and back on to the following questions, please?

1. On what issues, other than the environment, has John Kerry the candidate indicated substantial difference with the President?
2. Why did voters abandon Dean after the "HYAAH!" incident?
3. Why does the Democratic Party show more interest in "undecided voters", who do not work to get the vote out and are about as ill-defined a demographic as I have ever seen, than in its own left -- and yet continue to furious scold its left for failing to get the vote out?

-- Retail-sales data came in pretty bleak today across the board. The previous bifurcation in sales, where discount retailers and mid-tier stores did poorly and luxury retailers did well has broken down. Wal-Mart and co. are still sub-2% month-over-month growth, but Saks has slowed down considerably. That means that tax and refinancing effects are falling out of the sales data, and that's trouble for Bush.

-- Consumer confidence as measured by the Conference Board was down last month. When people feel good about the economy they spend money (see above) and vote for incumbents.

-- First-time claims for unemployment benefits jumped 19,000 this week because of Hurricane Charley related layoffs. Hurricane Frances is almost certain to produce similar effects, but it's a stronger storm and is aimed at more heavily-populated areas. Joblessness, no matter what creates it, is bad for incumbents.

-- Inflation pressures for manufacturers are building up, but if retail demand continues to drop off companies aren't going to be able to charge higher expenses on to consumers. That dings corporate earnings, which roils stocks, which decreases the net worth of high-income individuals and plays havoc with the retirement of regular workers kicked into 401(k) plans.

-- Tomorrow very important data on job creation and the unemployment rate are due. Most economists expect payroll growth of 150,000 jobs. But that is merely the number of jobs needed to keep pace with population growth. So net/net, that's a real addition of no jobs at all. And if job creation falls short of that forecast, the problem is even bigger. We'll have a job market moving in reverse. Worth watching.

I don't think this argument is really about whether electability matters. I think we both agree that it matters. It's just that you think that the shills or the Democratic leadership or whoever the bad guys are in your current scenario have the wrong idea about electability. They (whoever they are) think that a safe, boring candidate is more electable, whereas you think that an exciting, passionate candidate is more electable. Maybe you're right. I personally don't think that Dean would have been any more electable than Kerry. But of course there's no way to prove this.

Anyway, to answer the questions you raised:

1) In my view, Kerry has indicated substantial differences with Bush on just about every conceivable issue, but maybe I'm too susceptible to nuance. In any case, some concrete examples: taxes. Kerry would roll back the tax cuts on the upper 2%. That in itself is a substantial difference.

2) There were other reasons, including the loss in Iowa. But it wasn't Democratic leaders that blew the story out of proportion - it was the news media.

3) When someone shows that the Democrats can win national elections by pulling to the left instead of to the middle, this will change. Until then, it won't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A10736-2003Jul4¬Found=true

ha

I will get back to you after I talk to him, Rasheed.

Those are personnel. That says nothing about Dean's base, whom BTW you can thank for the Illinois senate candidate.

On what issues is he the same?

those mars settlement flights are coming soon ye?

By Michael Moore / USA Today

NEW YORK — If I've heard it once, I've heard it a hundred times from discouraged Democrats and liberals as the Republican convention here wrapped up this week. Their shoulders hunched, their eyes at a droop, they lower their voice to a whisper hoping that if they don't say it too loud it may not come true: "I...I...I think Bush is going to win."

Clearly, they're watching too much TV. Too much of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Zell Miller, Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani. Too much of swift boat veterans and Fox News commentators.

Action heroes always look good on TV. On Wednesday night, the GOP even made an action-hero video and showed it at the convention. There was White House political czar Karl Rove and other administration officials dressed up for "war" and going through boot camp on the National Mall in Washington.

I could only sit there in the convention hall and wish this were the real thing: Rove, national security adviser Condi Rice and Co. being sent to Iraq, and our boys and girls being brought home. But then the lights came up, and everyone sitting in the Bush family box was having a grand ol' hoot and a holler at the video they just saw.

For some reason, all of this has scared the bejabbers out of the Democrats. I can hear the wailing and moaning from Berkeley, Calif., to Cambridge, Mass. The frightening scenes from the convention have sent John Kerry's supporters looking for the shovels so they can dig their underground bunkers in preparation for another four years of the Dark Force.

I can't believe all of this whimpering and whining. Kerry has been ahead in many polls all summer long, but the Republicans come to New York for one week off-Broadway and suddenly everyone is dressed in mourning black and sitting shivah?

Exactly what moment was it during the convention that convinced them that the Republicans had now "connected" with the majority of Americans and that it was all over? Arnold praising Richard Nixon? Ooooh, that's a real crowd-pleaser. Elizabeth Dole decrying the removal of the Ten Commandments from a courthouse wall in Alabama? Yes, that's a big topic of conversation in the unemployment line in Akron, Ohio. Georgia Sen. Miller, a Democratic turncoat, looking like Freddy Krueger at an all-girls camp? His speech — and the look on what you could see of his strangely lit face — was enough for parents to send small children to their bedrooms.

My friends — and I include all Democrats, independents and recovering Republicans in this salutation — do not be afraid. Yes, the Bush Republicans huff and they puff, but they blow their own house down.

As many polls confirm, a majority of your fellow Americans believe in your agenda. They want stronger environmental laws, are strong supporters of women's rights, favor gun control and want the war in Iraq to end.

Rejoice. You're already more than halfway there when you have the public on board. Just imagine if you had to go out and do the work to convince the majority of Americans that women shouldn't be paid the same as men. All they ask is that you put up a candidate for president who believes in something and fights for those beliefs.

Is that too much to ask?

The Republicans have no idea how much harm they have done to themselves. They used to have a folk-hero mayor of New York named Rudy Giuliani. On 9/11, he went charging right into Ground Zero to see whom he could help save. Everyone loved Rudy because he seemed as though he was there to comfort all Americans, not just members of his own party.

But in his speech to the convention this week, he revised the history of that tragic day for partisan gain:

As chaos ensued, "spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then-police commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, 'Thank God George Bush is our president.' And I say it again tonight, 'Thank God George Bush is our president.' "

Please.

There were the sub-par entertainers nobody knew. There was the show of "Black Republicans," "Arab-American Republicans" and other minorities they trot out to show how much they are loved by groups their policies abuse.

And there were the Band-Aids. The worst display of how out of touch the Republicans are was those Purple Heart Band-Aids the delegates wore to mock Kerry over his war wounds, which, for them, did not spill the required amount of blood.

What they didn't seem to get is that watching at home might have been millions of war veterans feeling that they were being ridiculed by a bunch of rich Republicans who would never send their own offspring to die in Fallujah or Danang.

Kerry supporters and Bush-bashers should not despair. These Republicans have not made a permanent dent in Kerry's armor. The only person who can do that is John Kerry. And by coming out swinging as he did just minutes after Bush finished his speech Thursday night, Kerry proved he knows that the only way to win this fight is to fight — and fight hard.

He must realize that he faces Al Gore's fate only if he fails to stand up like the hero he is, only if he sits on the fence and keeps justifying his vote for the Iraq war instead of just saying, "Look, I was for it just like 70% of America until we learned the truth, and now I'm against it, like the majority of Americans are now."

Kerry needs to trust that his victory is only going to happen by inspiring the natural base of the Democratic Party — blacks, working people, women, the poor and young people. Women and people of color make up 62% of this country. That's a big majority. Give them a reason to come out on Nov. 2.

144,000 new payrol jobs in August.
Unemployment rate down to 5.4% from 5.5%
Avg hourly earnings up 0.3%.

A decent report, but not great. Unemployment rate fell because the labor participation pool was smaller, not because more people found jobs.

First blush I'd say net negative for Bush.

Maybe.

That 150,000 is a loose number and unless payrolls are significantly below it (like last month) it's not worth mentioning in the absence of further context.

At first blush, I was going to take issue with "net negative", but now I agree with you in terms of the Bushco campaign. If payrolll would have been high (say, above 250K), Bushco would have been given a significant football. Instead, combined with yestereday's economic news ("cratering" according to esteemed retard MoDo, and bad reports from Intel/Wallyworld) Bush really can't go out and claim a robust economy. It's still growing, but tentatively.

The Herbert Hoover lines worked in 1992 which is why they've been employed for over a year.

I'm sticking to the line that the unemployment rate fell because more people stopped look for work (there's some seasonal factors there, like kids aren't looking for summer jobs, etc. -- which shrinks the available labor pool). The job-creation numbers don't really suggest the unemployment rate fell because more people are actually working.

The Yankee Group as a corporate entity isn't involved at all; this was a side thing.

I think Moore is right about this. This would be much preferable to Kerry's current incredibly convoluted way of describing his Iraq position.

?

.. Good advice in general. I think Kerry's true supporters care about the nuances and complexities in the votes, and how Washington works.. The remaining undecided voters need catchphrases and soundbites.

Why are the Dem strategists always such pussies?

It was a joke. They're based in Boston (as gabbneb noted).

NYTimes
Heads in the Sand
By BOB HERBERT

Published: September 3, 2004

When asked this week on CNN how long the U.S. military is likely to remain in Iraq, Senator John McCain replied "probably" 10 or 20 years. "That's not so bad," he said, adding, "We've been in Korea for 50 years. We've been in West Germany for 50 years."

Reporters have come to expect candor from Senator McCain, and in this case he didn't disappoint. But there weren't any speakers mounting the podium at the Republican National Convention to hammer home the message that G.I.'s would be in Iraq for a decade or two.

That's not the understanding most Americans had when this wretched war was sold to them, and it's not the view most Americans hold now.

If Senator McCain is correct (and the belief in official Washington is that he is), then boys and girls who are 5 or 10 years old now will get their chance in 2015 or 2020 to strap on the Kevlar and engage the Iraqi "insurgents" who, like the indigenous forces we fought in Vietnam, will never accept the occupation of their country by America.

Marcina Hale, a protester who came to New York this week from suburban Westport, Conn., said she has two teenage boys and that Iraq "is not a war that I'm willing to send my sons to." As the years pass and the casualties mount, that sentiment will only grow.

The truth is always the first casualty of politics. But there was a bigger disconnect than usual between the bizarre, hermetically sealed perspective that was on display in Madison Square Garden this week and the daunting events unfolding without respite in the real world.

Iraq is a mess. While the cartoonish Arnold Schwarzenegger was drawing huge laughs in the Garden and making cracks about economic "girlie men," reports were emerging about the gruesome murder of 12 Nepalese hostages who had traveled to Iraq less than two weeks earlier in search of work.

At the same time, an effort to disarm insurgents in the militant Baghdad slum of Sadr City collapsed, and the death toll among American forces in Iraq continued its relentless climb toward 1,000.

The Los Angeles Times noted yesterday that a report by the respected Royal Institute of International Affairs in London has concluded that Iraq will be lucky if it avoids a breakup and civil war. The often-stated U.S. goal of a full-fledged Iraqi democracy is beyond unlikely.

In Afghanistan, a legitimate front in the so-called war against terror, much of the country remains in the hands of warlords, and the opium trade is flourishing. Experts believe substantial amounts of money from that trade is flowing to terrorist groups.

In Israel, 16 people were killed by suicide bombers who blew themselves up on a pair of crowded buses on Tuesday. In Russia, a series of horrific terror attacks, in the air and on the ground, have cast a pall across the country.

Despite all the macho posturing and self-congratulating at the Republican convention, the wave of terror that's been unleashed on the world is only growing. The American-led war in Iraq is feeding that wave, causing it to swell rather than ebb.

Any serious person who looked around the world this week would have to wonder what the delegates at the G.O.P. convention were so happy about.

The Republican conventioneers spent the entire week reminding America that we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. But interestingly, there was hardly a mention by name of those actually responsible for the attacks - Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Discussions about the nation's real enemies were taboo. We don't know where they are or what they're up to. The over-the-top venom of some of the speakers and delegates was reserved not for Osama, but for a couple of mild-mannered guys named John.

What Americans desperately need is a serious, honest discussion of where we go from here. If we're going to be in Iraq for 10 or 20 more years, the policy makers should say so, and tell us what that will cost in money and human treasure. The violence associated with such a long-term occupation is guaranteed to be appalling.

Vietnam tore this nation apart. As we've seen in this campaign, the wounds have yet to heal. Incredibly, we're now traveling a similarly tragic road in Iraq.

NYTimes
Feel the Hate
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: September 3, 2004

don't know where George Soros gets his money," one man said. "I don't know where - if it comes from overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from." George Soros, another declared, "wants to spend $75 million defeating George W. Bush because Soros wants to legalize heroin." After all, a third said, Mr. Soros "is a self-admitted atheist; he was a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust."

They aren't LaRouchies - they're Republicans.

The suggestion that Mr. Soros, who has spent billions promoting democracy around the world, is in the pay of drug cartels came from Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, whom the Constitution puts two heartbeats from the presidency. After standing by his remarks for several days, Mr. Hastert finally claimed that he was talking about how Mr. Soros spends his money, not where he gets it.

The claim that Mr. Soros's political spending is driven by his desire to legalize heroin came from Newt Gingrich. And the bit about the Holocaust came from Tony Blankley, editorial page editor of The Washington Times, which has become the administration's de facto house organ.

For many months we've been warned by tut-tutting commentators about the evils of irrational "Bush hatred." Pundits eagerly scanned the Democratic convention for the disease; some invented examples when they failed to find it. Then they waited eagerly for outrageous behavior by demonstrators in New York, only to be disappointed again.

There was plenty of hatred in Manhattan, but it was inside, not outside, Madison Square Garden.

Barack Obama, who gave the Democratic keynote address, delivered a message of uplift and hope. Zell Miller, who gave the Republican keynote, declared that political opposition is treason: "Now, 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." And the crowd roared its approval.

Why are the Republicans so angry? One reason is that they have nothing positive to run on (during the first three days, Mr. Bush was mentioned far less often than John Kerry).

The promised economic boom hasn't materialized, Iraq is a bloody quagmire, and Osama bin Laden has gone from "dead or alive" to he-who-must-not-be-named.

Another reason, I'm sure, is a guilty conscience. At some level the people at that convention know that their designated hero is a man who never in his life took a risk or made a sacrifice for his country, and that they are impugning the patriotism of men who have.

That's why Band-Aids with Purple Hearts on them, mocking Mr. Kerry's war wounds and medals, have been such a hit with conventioneers, and why senior politicians are attracted to wild conspiracy theories about Mr. Soros.

It's also why Mr. Hastert, who knows how little the Bush administration has done to protect New York and help it rebuild, has accused the city of an "unseemly scramble" for cash after 9/11. Nothing makes you hate people as much as knowing in your heart that you are in the wrong and they are in the right.

But the vitriol also reflects the fact that many of the people at that convention, for all their flag-waving, hate America. They want a controlled, monolithic society; they fear and loathe our nation's freedom, diversity and complexity.

The convention opened with an invocation by Sheri Dew, a Mormon publisher and activist. Early rumors were that the invocation would be given by Jerry Falwell, who suggested just after 9/11 that the attack was God's punishment for the activities of the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way, among others. But Ms. Dew is no more moderate: earlier this year she likened opposition to gay marriage to opposition to Hitler.

The party made sure to put social moderates like Rudy Giuliani in front of the cameras. But in private events, the story was different. For example, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas told Republicans that we are in a "culture war" and urged a reduction in the separation of church and state.

Mr. Bush, it's now clear, intends to run a campaign based on fear. And for me, at least, it's working: thinking about what these people will do if they solidify their grip on power makes me very, very afraid.

I think Dean's implosion happened primarily because he made at least a gaffe per week, which stressed out his own supporters not to mention undecided voters looking for the best guy to take on Bush, and the other guys (especially Kerry) didn't hesistate to encourage those doubts.. meanwhile his own team sucked at press management, allowing damaging stories put out by oppo researchers to flare up continually and give voters even more reasons to doubt the strength of his candidacy. And the ads sucked, and the message was unclear and drowned out by gaffes etc., and his attacks on the other candidates got stale.

Otherwise I agree with everything Blount says on this thread.

Schwarzenegger criticized for Austrian history gaffes

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Austrian historians are ridiculing California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for telling the Republican National Convention that he saw Soviet tanks in his homeland as a child and left a "Socialist" country when he moved away in 1968.

Recalling that the Soviets once occupied part of Austria in the aftermath of World War II, Schwarzenegger told the convention on Tuesday: "I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes."

No way, historians say, challenging Schwarzenegger's knowledge of postwar history -- if not his enduring popularity among Austrians who admire him for rising from a penniless immigrant to the highest official in America's most populous state.

"It's a fact -- as a child he could not have seen a Soviet tank in Styria," the southeastern province where Schwarzenegger was born and raised, historian Stefan Karner told the Vienna newspaper Kurier.

Schwarzenegger, now a naturalized U.S. citizen, was born on July 30, 1947, when Styria and the neighboring province of Carinthia belonged to the British zone. At the time, postwar Austria was occupied by the four wartime allies, which also included the United States, the Soviet Union and France.

The Soviets already had left Styria in July 1945, less than three months after the end of the war, Karner noted.

"Let me tell you this: As a boy, I lived for many years across the street from where the Russians were based in Vienna -- and honestly, I never saw a Russian tank there," retiree Franz Nitsch said Friday. "He said it all on purpose -- and that's bad."

In his convention address, Schwarzenegger also said: "As a kid, I saw the Socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left" in 1955 and Austria regained its independence.

But Martin Polaschek, a law history scholar and vice rector of Graz University, told Kurier that Austria was governed by coalition governments, including the conservative People's Party and the Social Democratic Party. Between 1945 and 1970, all the nation's chancellors were conservatives -- not Socialists.

What's more, when Schwarzenegger left in 1968, Austria was run by a conservative government headed by People's Party Chancellor Josef Klaus, a staunch Roman Catholic and a sharp critic of both the Socialists as well as the Communists ruling in countries across the Iron Curtain.

Schwarzenegger "confuses a free country with a Socialist one," said Polaschek, referring to East European Communist officials' routine descriptions of their countries as Socialist.

Polaschek saw the moderate Republican governor's recollections at the convention as a tactical move. Schwarzenegger, he said, was "using the old Communist enemy image for Bush's election campaign."

"He did not speak as a historian, after all, but as a politician," Polaschek said.

Norbert Darabos, a ranking official of Austria's opposition Social Democratic Party, sharply criticized Schwarzenegger's "disdain for his former homeland."

"The Terminator is constructing a rather bizarre Austria image," he said.

But many ordinary Austrians seemed to be in a forgiving mood Friday over the gaffes.

"Maybe he has a wrong recollection -- it's so many years since he left," said Wilma Fadrany, 32, a Vienna waitress.

"There must be political reasons for such comments," she said. "You've got to tell the (convention delegates) what they want to hear in order to win them over. Politicians always talk the way it fits into their agenda."

As for the unemployment rate, things like this is an example of exploring other relevant elements, whether it is rising or falling. I would rather thoughtful explanations--the kind that hopefully lead towards solutions--be considered rather than dismissively explain away a drop or rise in rate. (And, FWIW, the number of people not in the labor force actually decreased from June to July, yet the unemployment rate fell during that same period.) I grant you that your explanation is perfectly plausible, if not likely, but it's also the easiest conclusion to draw--it's sort of pack thinking given the demand for immediate assessment. It's the explanation we should start with, but it shouldn't be the end--too bad the political campaigns will never see it that way.

Bush Glosses Over Complex Facts in Speech
Fri Sep 3, 4:22 AM ET

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - President Bush glossed over some complicating realities in Iraq, Afghanistan and the home front in arguing the case Americans are safer and his opponent cannot deliver.

On Iraq, Bush talked of a 30-member alliance standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States, masking the fact that U.S. troops are pulling by far most of the weight. On Afghanistan and its neighbors, he gave an accounting of captured or killed terrorists, but did not address the replenishment of their ranks — or the still-missing Osama bin Laden.

Bush's acceptance speech Thursday night conveyed facts that told only part of the story, hardly unusual for this most political of occasions.

He took some license in telling Americans that Democratic opponent John Kerry "is running on a platform of increasing taxes."

Kerry would, in fact, raise taxes on the richest Americans but as part of a plan to keep the Bush tax cuts for everyone else and even cut some of them more. That's not a tax-increase platform any more than Bush's plan for private retirement accounts is a platform to reduce Social Security benefits.

And on education, Bush voiced an inherent contradiction, dating back to his 2000 campaign, in stating his stout support for local control of education, yet promising to toughen federal standards that override local decision-making.

"We are insisting on accountability, empowering parents and teachers, and making sure that local people are in charge of their schools," he said, on one hand. Yet, "we will require a rigorous exam before graduation."

On Iraq, Bush derided Kerry for devaluing the alliance that drove out Saddam Hussein and is trying to rebuild the country. "Our allies also know the historic importance of our work," Bush said. "About 40 nations stand beside us in Afghanistan, and some 30 in Iraq."

But the United States has more than five times the number of troops in Iraq than all the other countries put together. And, with 976 killed, Americans have suffered nearly eight times more deaths than the other allies combined.

Bush aggressively defended progress in Afghanistan, too. "Today, the government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror, Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders ... and more than three-quarters of al-Qaida's key members and associates have been detained or killed. We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer."

Nowhere did Bush mention bin Laden, nor did he account for the replacement of killed and captured al al-Qaida leaders by others.

He attacked Kerry for voting against an $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan operations that included money for extra sets of body armor and other supplies, mocking his opponent for saying the issue was complicated. "There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat," Bush said.

But the bill in question was not solely about supporting troops and Kerry's campaign said he ultimately voted against it because, among other reasons, it included no-bid contracts for companies.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who tracks the accuracy of campaign rhetoric at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication, said Bush overstepped on a few claims about Kerry.

"The speech distorts Kerry's positions by suggesting that he opposed Medicare reform when he instead favored an alternative, and opposed tax cuts for all when he in fact supported the middle class cuts and opposed cuts for those making more than $200,000," she said.

And on Bush's second-term domestic initiatives, she was not surprised to find missing dollar signs.

"One expects acceptance speeches to make grand promises without specifying the ways that the money will be raised to pay for them," she said. "This speech is no exception."

Custos, could you explain this? I don't know a lot about her as a corporate entity but - sorry everyone, the small world strikes again - LD was my late aunt's best friend and on a personal level is a really cool lady.

I heard this part of the speech while I was driving, and I think I pounded the steering wheel in frustration.

Ok. You're a taxi. Or something like that.

At the moment, Rove's strategy seems to be based entirely on a massive injection of new votes from religious right voters who normally do not vote. This would result in a solid South for Bush and might add the needed margin in hotly contested swing states. Bush is wooing Catholics, too, trying to get an edge in Pennsylvania and Ohio. He appears to have conceded the majority of undecided MOR suburban voters to Kerry.

My advice: watch Florida and Ohio. I expect no decrease of election fraud in Florida compared to 2000. Jeb will be even better prepared this time, after having done it once.

It stands to reason that the unemployment rate would go down if the pool of workers slims while job creation nudges up. That's a pretty vanilla analysis, but alas, sometimes the simplest explanations are the correct ones. But I think you're right that the campaigns need to spend a little more time at the economic workbench, and that senior advisers in both camps should be working a little harder to produce more insightful analyses. (I guess the problem is economists tend to think in terms of incentives, and the political market will only bear so much egg-headedness from guys with slide rules and spreadsheets -- and that is another problem in and of itself).

New TIME Poll gives Bush double-digit lead

Things to consider about this poll...

1) it has Nader, who won't be on the ballot everywhere and is considered by most pollsters to be polling higher than what he'll actually get

2) these are likely, not registered voters, and they generally lean more to Bush than RVs

3) other polls from roughly the same time are more favorable to Kerry. Time was taken 8/31-9/2. The Zogby poll from 8/30-9/2, when you add Nader and use LVs to remain consistent with Time, came up with Bush 46-43. And the ARG poll, with the same parameters (but over 8/30-9/1 only) has a tie at 47.

4) the result here isn't that different from what Kerry got, for at least a day or so, immediately after his convention - Time had Kerry up 51-44 (closer with Nader admittedly), and I remember a single-day sample (Newsweek, I think, which had Kerry up 52-44 over 2 days) at the end of the convention in which Kerry was up 54-41.

5) this looks like Bush did better than Kerry did, but it's biased in that respect because of when it was taken - over the entirety of the convention, perhaps getting the maximum impact for Bush, whereas most of the big polls from the DNC were taken after, not during, it. If you compare the only poll that was taken during both the DNC and the RNC - Zogby - it shows Kerry getting a bigger bounce - 5 - than Bush - 2 or 3, depending on likelihood of voting.

What's really happened, I think (and I'd like to verify by seeing some RV numbers), is that Bush has caused the swing voters leaning towards Kerry to have doubts, so that they come out of his number into undecided, while bringing the parts of his own base who were wavering back into the fold, and maybe getting a few of the Kerry leaners to lean his way. he's now even with Kerry or maybe a point or two ahead. so Kerry has work to do. but the race is still Kerry's, even today, if the conventional wisdom that more undecideds will go for him holds true.

more thoughts earlier here

http://cserver.mii.instacontent.net/fastclick/cid14143/media31770.gif

"Dear Congress, Mr. President the Bush told me I should press a grey rectangle."

does note, though, that Bush for the first time this year leads among independents and has a substantial margin now in the investor class (many of whom had moved to Kerry circa the DNC)

and says it's still Kerry's to lose, based on approval, wrong-track and re-elect

Trippi did say that, though I note he doesn't tell us what justifies his opinion, which was only that more than half of Presidential races don't break for the challenger the way elections in general do, and that this is especially true in wartime. Everyone else says that the CW at all levels of elections is that undecideds break somewhere between 60-90% for the challenger, not only generally, but specifically as to the hard-core undecideds in this race, who are demographically Democrats and overwhelmingly dissatisfied. someone ran a poll analysis and concluded that Kerry would take undecideds this year 55-38.

And my faith does remain with Senator Kerry. He will take that fucker down.

general note: one doesn't have to LIKE john kerry to vote for him. but on the whole, he has pleasantly surprised me wr2 policies, campaign strategy, willingness to kick ass, etc. again, 2 mos. is an eternity in politics so let's see how things go b/w now and then.

p.s.: i'm also cautiously optimistic that ohio WILL go democratic this year. that alone (and NH turning blue [they were red ONLY BECAUSE of nader last time]) will mean that kerry wins.

2. are there any advantages to a bush victory? this time round, the stakes seem so much higher, and its difficult to see anything positive in a bush victory. but, sometimes winning a close and divided election where the fallout from previous errors has to be dealt with, brings it own problems (as with the tories in the UK in 92, a victory, yes, but one with a price, their total marginalization since)

I live in a battleground state. Supposedly anyway. I was taking my walk yesterday through my blue-blooded liberal neighborhood, and a dozen Bush-Cheney yardsigns had bloomed overnight. Maybe by October, the Kerry campaign will take the streets back.

I'm trained to do research, examine statements and marshal evidence in support of arguments. I don't need spin when a Republican poll shows Bush up only 1.2%, but if you want to believe he's up 12, go ahead.

says because of the 5% 'hardcore' undecideds the election is all about getting out the base, and then trying to move the undecideds at the end in the debates

Zogby also says that if the bases get out, then it's worse for Bush.

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com

For the record: I do NOT think he's a douchebag. But that's for anyone who might.

one would think so. but it would also seem to eliminate the Republicans' chief argument in their favor - that you need them to protect you from the terrorists, because Kerry just wants to have a nice French dinner with them at the UN. if OBL is gone, voters might turn to more domestic concerns, on which Kerry is the favorite. of course capturing OBL doesn't mean getting rid of 'the terrorists' but swing voters don't appear to recognize such complexity. the only way this works for Bush is if he captures OBL magically within a few days of the election, provoking a vote for him out of goodwill (and running the risk that there would be a backlash against him - why did he just 'magically' find him now/don't play us for fools).

xpost: Don otm about WMDs. It is more likely that they will be 'found' than bin Laden will.

Good evening. I am trained to do research, examine statements and marshal evidence in support of arguments.

Those are just facts. If you want spin, I'd be saying stuff like telephone polls are no longer reliable in the age of the cellphone and the internet, and that the electorate is better measured by interactive online polls that have been more favorable for Kerry, showing him leading in places like Tennessee and Colorado. Or I'd say that Kerry can come back from 12 behind after Labor Day just like Gore came back from 13 behind in late October 2000.

Unrelated, here are some more facts:
- Democrats have registered more than 100,000 new voters in Colorado in the last year
- More than 100,000 people who voted in the Republican primary in Georgia in 2000 voted in the Democratic primary there this year

Here's some more spin: Karl Rove's recent string of medium-profile media appearances, including on television during news analysis segments, is a tacit admission that Bush is in trouble, because it is essentially a series of auditions to become a commentator in the career-ending event that Bush loses.

All hat.

No cattle.

Besides, should we draw similar conclusions from the frequent television appearances of his opposite number, Mary Beth Cahill? Are both sides hanging up their spurs? This strikes me as an unlikely state of affairs.

Coke. As recently as 1989 or later. Source: Sharon Bush.

When the puritans claim that their candidate is a paragon of moral righteousness that therefore should be (re)elected by default, I for one have no particular problem in seeing that argument undercut.

I hope you realize this is rubbish

any hand-waving about coke use is pathetic next to the (unsubstantiated) charge that Kerry fudged medals; the public will see both thru the same prism - another deft move by Rove i'm afraid

I think the actual *argument* is rubbish, yes. You seem to forget I find the concept of morality as a standard in politics to be amusing to me, in that so many believe in it to one extent or another.

Karl Rove is laughing

I think the actual *argument* is rubbish, yes. You seem to forget I find the concept of morality as a standard in politics to be amusing to me, in that so many believe in it to one extent or another.

-- Ned Raggett (ne...) (webmail), September 6th, 2004 10:18 PM. (Ned) (later) (link)

i think he was saying that the idea that conservatives care about bush's moral character of long ago is rubbish...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0907/dailyUpdate.html?s=ent2

this was exactly the point i was making above, seems to me. the circular firing squad i'm talking about is reflected by ILX but better represented by the Edwards exchange with a K/E supporter recounted here

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over'

(the original is here, but seems to have gone down)

John Kerry has a love child.

I've been meaning to ask you gabbneb if Cahill was enjoying her new teammates.

I named Cahill because when Begala and Carville were officially brought in last week, it reflects on her performance. To our previous discussion in this thread, which I clipped above to refresh you, adding Joe Lockhart isn't nearly as significant as adding Begala and Carville. And to answer your question, I doubt that Mehlman is enjoying having Karen Hughes yell at AP reporters (or whatever her role is) but I doubt it has anything to do with her gender.

And I will also add (once again) that aside from an unexplainable obsession with Kerry's heroic 4 months and 12 days in Vietnam (including the gonzo focus of it at the convention), I think Kerry's campaign has been very good.

It's my understanding that '4 months' refers only to the time Kerry spent on Swift Boat duty in the Mekong delta. Prior to volunteering for that duty, Kerry was assigned to duties in ships stationed offshore of Vietnam.

It's important to remember that Kerry could have spent his whole tour of duty well beyond the reach of bloodshed. He chose the more hazardous duty.

You're smarter than that.

But as for Terry I would say gabbneb OTM.

Dissent at Bush rally handled this way (AKA an O-B-G-Y-N practicing his love with women):
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040909/capt.pajl10109091829.bush_pajl101.jpg

Heckler at Kerry rally handled this way:
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040908/i/r48516689.jpg

"You got cooties!"

Yeah, those smiles give me the creeps.

Reaction (note: taken at same Byer's Choice rally):
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040909/i/ra3896786383.jpg

If you're horny
Let's do it
Ride it
My pony
My saddle's
Waiting
Come and
Jump on it

-- Pleasant Plains (acewhiske...) (webmail), September 9th, 2004 6:30 PM. (Pleasant Plains) (later) (link)

well, kerry has the USA Network vote then

Too bad, I was really looking forward to an SNL skit about doing blow at Camp David.

"I categorically deny that I ever told Kitty Kelley that George W. Bush used cocaine at Camp David or that I ever saw him use cocaine at Camp David.

right, her editor says you provided confirmation. that's different from telling. saw v. heard.

When Kitty Kelley raised drug use at Camp David, I responded by saying something along the lines of, 'Who would say such a thing?'

with a knowing smile? and what did you say next? "something along the lines of"

"Although there have been tensions between me and various members of the Bush family, I cannot allow this falsehood to go unchallenged."

what falsehood, specifically?

You wouldn't have seen it anyway, long as SNL is owned by NBC is owned by GE.

Obviously, if Sharon Bush hadn't made those confirmations we wouldn't have much of a book - it quite simply would never have left the lawyer's office. I see no injunctions or similar LEGAL challenges to veracity being made here so one has to assume it's true. I cannot wait to ask my mom which she thinks is worse: blowjob in Oval Office (y'know, going to SECOND BASE fucksake) or blow at Camp David.

There's a funny quote by Al Gore in his profile in this week's New Yorker magazine, taken from an interview as he was preparing his speech before the Dem convention:

"They look at these speeches pretty closely," he said. "They don’t want any Bush-bashing in there." He smiled at the ludicrous idea of it. "No Bush-bashing at the Democratic Convention! It reminds me of the time Steve Martin was giving a speech in honor of Paul Simon at the Kennedy Center Honors a couple of years ago, and he said, 'It would be easy to stand here and talk about Paul Simon's intelligence and skill, but this is neither the time nor the place.'"

I think that Gore was basically right. I don't think that Kerry gained anything by waiting for Bush to go negative first before hitting back. It just puts him in the reactive mode rather than being able to set the terms of the debate. It was important for Kerry to try and establish himself as being strong on national security, but I think he could have accomplished that while also taking Bush to task for the failures of his first term. Staying positive didn't seem to help Kerry much in the likeability sweepstakes against Bush.

"I wasn't surprised by Bush's economic policies, but I was surprised by the foreign policy, and I think he was, too," Gore told me. "The real distinction of this Presidency is that, at its core, he is a very weak man. He projects himself as incredibly strong, but behind closed doors he is incapable of saying no to his biggest financial supporters and his coalition in the Oval Office. He's been shockingly malleable to Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and the whole New American Century bunch. He was rolled in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He was too weak to resist it.

"I'm not of the school that questions his intelligence," Gore went on. "There are different kinds of intelligence, and it's arrogant for a person with one kind of intelligence to question someone with another kind. He certainly is a master at some things, and he has a following. He seeks strength in simplicity. But, in today's world, that's often a problem. I don't think that he's weak intellectually. I think that he is incurious. It's astonishing to me that he'd spend an hour with his incoming Secretary of the Treasury and not ask him a single question. But I think his weakness is a moral weakness. I think he is a bully, and, like all bullies, he's a coward when confronted with a force that he's fearful of. His reaction to the extravagant and unbelievably selfish wish list of the wealthy interest groups that put him in the White House is obsequious. The degree of obsequiousness that is involved in saying 'yes, yes, yes, yes, yes' to whatever these people want, no matter the damage and harm done to the nation as a whole -- that can come only from genuine moral cowardice. I don't see any other explanation for it, because it's not a question of principle. The only common denominator is each of the groups has a lot of money that they're willing to put in service to his political fortunes and their ferocious and unyielding pursuit of public policies that benefit them at the expense of the nation."

You could go further and trace this thread of Bush's cowardice through other aspects of his Presidency: the lack of will to reign in spending, flip-flopping on the steel tariffs, caving to big pharma on the new prescription drug plan by refusing to allow the government to negotiate better prices, and so on. It's actually a pretty good paradigm for understanding why he's been such a poor President.

I think Kerry would be better off trying to make this case, rather than focussing on what Bush did or didn't do in the Guard 30 years ago. Kerry should say something like this: "Some people are criticizing Bush for things he did 30 years ago. I think it's more important to look at what he's done for the last four years. Maybe it's true that Bush didn't fulfill all his duties with the National Guard. Maybe it's true that he pulled string to stay out of combat. Maybe it's also true that he had a drinking problem, that he has a drunk driving record, etc. I'm willing to accept that he's put all those things behind him. However, I'm not going to allow him to put his record of four years of failure in the White House behind him."

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20040910/mdf691378.jpg

That is, in a non-tangent, non-digression sort of way.

This kind of shit just doesn't help: As if there aren't enough True reasons to hate Bush ....

New FactCheck.org Document: Update: Documents May Be Forgeries
09.10.2004

Serious questions have been raised about the authenticity of four documents that CBS News said it had obtained from the personal files of Bush's former squadron commander in the Texas Air National Guard. We are removing reference to them in our Feb. 8 article on the "Texans for Truth" ad until these questions are settled to our satisfaction.

The four memos were purportedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, dated May 2, 1972, May 19 , 1972, August 1, 1972 and August 18, 1973. Killian died in 1984. CBS News didn't say how it had obtained the documents, but said it had was satisfied they were authentic after consulting experts. The White House did not question the documents when it released copies to reporters after obtaining them from CBS.

Subsequently, members of Killian's family said they suspected the documents weren't authentic, and experts quoted by conservative websites and mainstream news organizations said the documents could not have been produced by the typewriters in common use in the early 1970's. The memos contain proportional spacing, in which the letter "i" occupies less space than the letter "m," for example. And they contain the "superscript" character "th" (in “Report to111th F.I.S. administrative officer” in the May 2 memo, for example.) A feature of modern computer word-processing programs such as Microsoft Word automatically changes “th” to superscript characters when following numerals, but such characters were impossible to produce on ordinary typewriters in use in 1972.

*The Associated Press quoted Killian's son Gary as saying he doubted his father would have written the 1973 memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review. "It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

Meanwhile, Howard Dean has a book coming out which looks like it may be of interest to some of you upthread.

which would seem to make my point exactly

The thought that push polling is exclusive to Republicans doesn't pass the laugh test.

Or is it the counter-intuitive logic that prevaricating about a blowjob is still worse than prevaricating about Iraq's imminent-mushroom-cloud-second-coming-of-Hitler-forces-akin-to-the-Third Reich threat?

I guess when you have a war of choice to wage, you're given more leverage with the truth?

The fuck does that have to do with Nader being on the ballot!?

But, I guess at least we're not in Russia where Putin seems to be acting out the (crappy) plotline of those Star Wars movies ("we've just dissolved the Senate, Lord Putin"):

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/washpost/20040914/ts_washpost/a17838_2004sep13

It indites both parties, but I found this fascinating:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/13/politics/campaign/13vote.html

I can't believe that 25% of the votes will be via absentee.... Seems to me it's just BEGGING for more fraud issues (pretty much the point of the article).

And.... I really hope that Edwards is right:

http://nytimes.com/2004/09/13/politics/campaign/13edwards.html

"I CRUSH YOUR HEAD!"

xpost

This will have fuckall impact on the election of course.

But, Americans are DIFFERENT. We're GOOD!

Is this not the subtext of so much justification? Which is a bitch of position to oppose politically because it becomes..."Why do you hate America, Hunter?" Somehow my "good is as good does" ain't makin' it.

How can Bush reasonably say Putin isn't justified?

"I call on my good friend Pooty-poot to affirm the fundamental requirements of democratic systems, and respect the integrity of the multi-party electoral processes of his nation's Constitution."

Bomb kills 59 recruits; 11 officers shot dead

Poll:
Bush widens lead in Wis.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_12.php#003468

Basically, Marshall makes the point that John Kerry needs to think up a good concise catchphrase that neatly sums up the fact that Bush has made a shambles of Iraq and somehow holds out the promise of change for the better under Kerry. If Kerry could condense this message into one memorable sentence, it would be a big step forward for his campaign.

This sounds reasonable to me, though I wonder if the reason that Kerry hasn't come up with this sentence yet isn't indicative of a larger problem of his campaign - which is that he hasn't yet been able to articulate in a concise, persuasive way why he would be able to improve the situation in Iraq. It's all fine and dandy for Kerry to sit around and point fingers at Bush for screwing up Iraq, but absent any convincing message that he could un-screw it up, I don't think Kerry will get the maximum mileage out of these attacks. Of course, the sad reality is that Iraq is now so thoroughly screwed up that it's unlikely he could do much of anything to turn things around quickly - but I think Kerry needs to quickly find a way to at least rhetorically promise change for the better in Iraq, even if the reality is bound to lag behind for the foreseeable future.

Maybe I've missed it in the past, but I was started to hear a president use rhetoric so "divisive" as to actually smear an entire state like that.

And yeah, its sad to say that Kerry's biggest problem is the absence of a quality soundbite. Apparently thats the only thing people seem to respond to these days.

This is very hard for Kerry to rebut, because it's very hard to lay out a workable solution for the Iraq dilemma in a relatively concise formula that the public can understand.

In 1992, the first Bush called Arkansas "a small state located somewhere between Texas and Oklahoma." The only primary thing between those two states is the Red River. I only wish that Shrubya would say something that stupid. Talk about OBGYN love all you want and no one cares, but as soon as a candidate starts ripping apart swing states, we'll have us a campaign!

Maybe I've missed it in the past, but I was started to hear a president use rhetoric so "divisive" as to actually smear an entire state like that.

-- morris pavilion (yndlqls0...), September 14th, 2004.

This always drives me crazy. If Bush tries this shit in the debates, I really hope Kerry will come back with something like "You see, that's the difference between me and my opponent. He thinks some Americans are more American than others. But I want to be president for the whole country."

yeah, and so do his supporters.

u: [email protected]
p: ilxor666

• In the 1990s, Massachusetts cut taxes 42 times

• In 2001, only six states taxed less than Massachusetts.

• For White House staffers having trouble with this fuzzy math, that means "Taxachusetts" ranked 44th (i.e. six spots from the lowest) in terms of its citizens' tax burden

• The state tax burden in Massachusetts is below the national average

• Corporate taxes have declined by over 75 percent in Massachusetts over the past 3 decades as a portion of state revenues. Corporate income taxes were 16% of all Massachusetts taxes in the late 1960s – one out of every six dollars. They are just 4% today

• The tax burden on the wealthy in Massachusetts is actually less than
that imposed on working- and middle-income people. The richest 1% pay
6.8% of their income in taxes, while the poorest 20% pay 9.3%.

(Boston Globe, 2/2/03)
(Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center (www.massteam.org)

I know I'm splitting hairs here, but...White House staffers, please note, there is a difference between state and federal taxes.

Sometimes I wonder what Kerry's campaign would say about Bush if they employed the same tactics as Bush's campaign... something like, "My opponent has been arrested for drunk driving and he's handled this presidency like a drunk driver: reckless, belligerent, and a threat to innocent people."

John Kerry needs to think up a good concise catchphrase that neatly sums up the fact that Bush has made a shambles of Iraq and somehow holds out the promise of change for the better under Kerry.

How about "They got us into this mess and I'll get us out of it"?

That's not bad. I think it has a nice ring to it actually. It sort of implies some kind of early exit strategy without coming right out and promising one - ie., does getting us out of the mess = getting us out of Iraq? Not necessarily, but the implication could be useful in appealing to undecideds.

The problem facing Kerry is that he doesn't have a plan that he could then turn into a soundbite. The problem behind that being that *no-one* has a solution for Iraq, although pulling out would almost certainly improve things for Iraqis. When US voters say things like 'I want a strong President who will beef up defence', are they saying it for the cameras?

Earlier this week, HBO premiered a new documentary entitled Nine Innings from Ground Zero. The documentary tells the story of the 2001 Yankees and the hope and optimism their run in the World Series brought back to the people of America following September 11th. Through interviews with players, fans, families, and even the President, the film recalls a difficult time that we came through together.

One segment of that documentary shows President George W. Bush throwing out the first pitch in Game Three. We would like to share a clip with you:

www.GeorgeWBush.com/NineInnings

If you would like to see the rest of this powerful film, it will air again on the following dates, times, and channels:

It is important to remember the times we have been through together. This film, in many ways, serves as a reminder of our shared experience. I recommend it highly.

www.GeorgeWBush.com/NineInnings

Sincerely,

Ken Mehlman
Campaign Manager

ARGGGGH

arghh

Dubya-as-penis-in-suit t-shirts were selling all over Bumbershoot a month or so ago.

I believe we have a local ordinance *requiring* things to be stuck up assess. (I live in a highly gay neighborhood)