17 Days
Just over two weeks away and the election is seemingly tight as a tick on flea bitten hound dog.
Here is a quick synopsis of how I THINK we got here.
1. 2000 election extremely close and controversial, thus 2004 likely to be also.
2. 9-11 refocused Americans' minds and priorities.
3. Bush did very well in the months following 9-11 and gained much respect and support.
4. Americans generally supported both Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
5. When the Iraq war continued after the 4th Quarter ended, inevitably many left of center Americans started getting cold feet and backed off from their "support" for the President.
6. As the Democratic Party went through its nomination process, many more Democrats returned to the fold and made this a close race.
7. The Democratic Convention was in hindsight a mess, but it gave the Kerry campaign a brief appearance of momentum and perhaps a small lead.
8. August was an unmitigated disaster for Kerry, with the Swift Boat Vets dominating the news.
9. The GOP convention was a distinct success and Bush started to build a lead.
10. RatherGate further damaged Kerry and boosted Bush into a considerable margin of from 6-12 points.
11. The first debate badly damaged Bush. Perhaps his greatest strength is his folksiness as contrasted with Kerry's aloofness. In the debate Bush appeared to many as grouchy, rude, and petty, and the polls were suddenly showing a near dead even race.
12. In the last two debates Bush recovered nicely and while perhaps "losing" on style, actually won on substance. Most Americans can tell the difference and Bush opened a 1-3 point lead.
13. MaryGate jumped up out of the bullrushes to bite Kerry's posterior and give Bush a further nudge of perhaps another full point.
That is where we stand today.
I think Bush currently has something between a 2-4 point lead. More importantly he appears to lead in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes.
The next two weeks will be most interesting.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
They have no shame
My wife had ABC's morning show on TV as I gulped my coffee at about 8:15. I was lending only half an ear to the background noise until I heard this:
"Teresa Heinz Kerry is benefiting from the Bush tax cuts" blah blah blah.
So, in a story revealing that zillionaire THK paid a paltry percentage in federal taxes, she is neatly left off the hook because it is all George Bush's fault.
Apparently ABC is hewing closely to Mark Halperin's edict to screw the Bush campaign no matter where the truth lies.
My wife had ABC's morning show on TV as I gulped my coffee at about 8:15. I was lending only half an ear to the background noise until I heard this:
"Teresa Heinz Kerry is benefiting from the Bush tax cuts" blah blah blah.
So, in a story revealing that zillionaire THK paid a paltry percentage in federal taxes, she is neatly left off the hook because it is all George Bush's fault.
Apparently ABC is hewing closely to Mark Halperin's edict to screw the Bush campaign no matter where the truth lies.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Media Bias
If there is a more objectionable person, posing as an unbiased member of the media, than Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC, I'll be a Deaniac if I know who it is.
Last night on "Scarborough Country" with guest host Pat Buchanan, I got my first, and with luck last, look and listen to O'Donnell. Also joining the discussion was Bob Zelnick, former ABC News Pentagon correspondent and presently the chairman of the Journalism Department at Boston University.
I have always liked Zelnick and considered him an honest broker of the truth in his years at ABC. I assumed it would be a fairly straightforward discussion about the final debate.
You can read the transcript by using the link above and scrolling down, so I won't bother with a blow by blow description. Instead here are some of O'Donnell's most absurd words for your perusal. Keep in mind that O'Donnell is billed as "MSNBC SR. POLITICAL ANALYST".
The following comments are regarding John Kerry's "Mary" answer Wednesday night.
Totally Unbiased Major Media Guy Lawrence O'Donnell:
"I don't think he crossed the line.
There's a Gallup poll that indicates that his win in the third debate was just about the same size as his win in the first debate, enormous win, 52-39. Now, that's who is judging the debate. It doesn't matter what we think.
.....that line did not seem to jar the public, who gave a huge win to Kerry in the polling on this debate."
In response to a question about Lynne Cheney's angry-mom comments:
"That's a 100 percent political reaction, 100 percent. She was sent out there to say that, and she did it. "
"Her response has no substance."
And then this incredible exchange:
BUCHANAN: She does not think her daughter's sexuality ought to be brought up by a presidential candidate in a national debate.
O'DONNELL: It wasn't brought up by a presidential candidate.
(CROSSTALK) .
O'DONNELL: It was brought up by Bob Schieffer.
A barefaced lie pure and simple.
And then O'Donnell crawls inside the brain of George W. Bush:
O'DONNELL: "It's pretty clear that this president has never had a conversation with any gay American anywhere on the question of, is this a choice? "
So for the President to have a valid opinion he first must have "a conversation with a gay on the question of is this a choice"? What a clueless twit.
Maureen Dowd of all people, says in today's New York Times:
"Mr. Kerry showed the bite in his overwhitened, overeager "I'm smarter than you but I'm trying not to show it" grin when he strategically dragged Dick Cheney's gay daughter back into the debate, a dead-wrong thing to do."
Irrefutable evidence that someone farther removed from reality than Miss Dowd actually exists.
Other than the absurdity of his words, the most striking thing about O'Donnell was his almost zombie like appearance and delivery. If he had been hypnotized and instructed to defend Kerry no matter the cost, he would not have looked differently. He hardly even reacted to Zelnick's comments (which were pitched almost perfectly in my opinion) but stuck to the line that essentially equaled "Kerry Good, Bush Bad".
And people wonder why Fox clobbers MSNBC every night.
If there is a more objectionable person, posing as an unbiased member of the media, than Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC, I'll be a Deaniac if I know who it is.
Last night on "Scarborough Country" with guest host Pat Buchanan, I got my first, and with luck last, look and listen to O'Donnell. Also joining the discussion was Bob Zelnick, former ABC News Pentagon correspondent and presently the chairman of the Journalism Department at Boston University.
I have always liked Zelnick and considered him an honest broker of the truth in his years at ABC. I assumed it would be a fairly straightforward discussion about the final debate.
You can read the transcript by using the link above and scrolling down, so I won't bother with a blow by blow description. Instead here are some of O'Donnell's most absurd words for your perusal. Keep in mind that O'Donnell is billed as "MSNBC SR. POLITICAL ANALYST".
The following comments are regarding John Kerry's "Mary" answer Wednesday night.
Totally Unbiased Major Media Guy Lawrence O'Donnell:
"I don't think he crossed the line.
There's a Gallup poll that indicates that his win in the third debate was just about the same size as his win in the first debate, enormous win, 52-39. Now, that's who is judging the debate. It doesn't matter what we think.
.....that line did not seem to jar the public, who gave a huge win to Kerry in the polling on this debate."
In response to a question about Lynne Cheney's angry-mom comments:
"That's a 100 percent political reaction, 100 percent. She was sent out there to say that, and she did it. "
"Her response has no substance."
And then this incredible exchange:
BUCHANAN: She does not think her daughter's sexuality ought to be brought up by a presidential candidate in a national debate.
O'DONNELL: It wasn't brought up by a presidential candidate.
(CROSSTALK) .
O'DONNELL: It was brought up by Bob Schieffer.
A barefaced lie pure and simple.
And then O'Donnell crawls inside the brain of George W. Bush:
O'DONNELL: "It's pretty clear that this president has never had a conversation with any gay American anywhere on the question of, is this a choice? "
So for the President to have a valid opinion he first must have "a conversation with a gay on the question of is this a choice"? What a clueless twit.
Maureen Dowd of all people, says in today's New York Times:
"Mr. Kerry showed the bite in his overwhitened, overeager "I'm smarter than you but I'm trying not to show it" grin when he strategically dragged Dick Cheney's gay daughter back into the debate, a dead-wrong thing to do."
Irrefutable evidence that someone farther removed from reality than Miss Dowd actually exists.
Other than the absurdity of his words, the most striking thing about O'Donnell was his almost zombie like appearance and delivery. If he had been hypnotized and instructed to defend Kerry no matter the cost, he would not have looked differently. He hardly even reacted to Zelnick's comments (which were pitched almost perfectly in my opinion) but stuck to the line that essentially equaled "Kerry Good, Bush Bad".
And people wonder why Fox clobbers MSNBC every night.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Unprecedented?
Probably not, but the 2004 presidential elections continues to surprise with it twists and turns. The race now appears to be......well, all over the place. National polls are coming out daily that flatly contradict each other. Today Gallop has Kerry up by 1 while WaPo/ABC has Bush up 6. Yesterday Rasmussen had Bush up 4 and Zogby had Kerry up 3.
These all (except WaPo/ABC) fall within the MOE and the "internals" become all the more vital. There are all kinds of yak-yak going on about which polls are "fair" and the methodology of each poll.
My sense is that Bush is still ahead but that we are at a tilting point. Think of the election as being balanced on a pivot. Currently Bush controls the action, but any miscalculation could see Kerry move out in front, and not just by a little. If Kerry ever starts to actually surge, look out. Thus far Kerry has not polled above 50%.
I still believe that Karl Rove knows what he is doing. The only elected incumbent Republican to lose a re-election effort since 1932 was GHWB, and he lost because he had no Karl Rove. Lee Atwater died between the '88 and '92 campaigns and the contrasting results showed how valuable Atwater was.
In the final "debate" Bush needs to continue the progress he made in second one, and if he does so, he will be well positioned to win on Election Day.
Probably not, but the 2004 presidential elections continues to surprise with it twists and turns. The race now appears to be......well, all over the place. National polls are coming out daily that flatly contradict each other. Today Gallop has Kerry up by 1 while WaPo/ABC has Bush up 6. Yesterday Rasmussen had Bush up 4 and Zogby had Kerry up 3.
These all (except WaPo/ABC) fall within the MOE and the "internals" become all the more vital. There are all kinds of yak-yak going on about which polls are "fair" and the methodology of each poll.
My sense is that Bush is still ahead but that we are at a tilting point. Think of the election as being balanced on a pivot. Currently Bush controls the action, but any miscalculation could see Kerry move out in front, and not just by a little. If Kerry ever starts to actually surge, look out. Thus far Kerry has not polled above 50%.
I still believe that Karl Rove knows what he is doing. The only elected incumbent Republican to lose a re-election effort since 1932 was GHWB, and he lost because he had no Karl Rove. Lee Atwater died between the '88 and '92 campaigns and the contrasting results showed how valuable Atwater was.
In the final "debate" Bush needs to continue the progress he made in second one, and if he does so, he will be well positioned to win on Election Day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)