Wrong, Stupid, and Unnecessary
As soon as the votes were counted (the first time) showing that George Bush had been re-elected, most pundits and politicians immediately began talking and writing about the coming Battle Supreme over judicial nominations.
Majority Leader Bill Frist who wants to run for President in 2008, and has a reputation for smarts and urbanity, jumped into the fray by loudly proclaiming the possibility of invoking the "nuclear option" (NO).
The NO, as most of you likely know involves the United States Senate voting to disallow use of the filibuster during votes on judicial nominations. If used, the NO would lower the bar from 60 votes to 51 votes to confirm the President's choice.
While today's Democratic Party deserves any dirty tricks that are sprung on them, the Republicans need to think long and hard about this "option". It would be a stupid move, so ill-advised that it could send the GOP back to minority status far sooner than expected.
Wrong
First, it is wrong because it arbitrarily reverses over 200 years of tradition. The Filibuster was conceived to protect the minority from the majority. It is just one of MANY such protections that exist in our law and practices.
Freedom of Speech is primarily about minority rights. Saddam Hussein enjoyed free speech in pre-war Iraq, but no one else did. In the United States we put tremendous importance on the right to say what you wish because it allows a person or group of persons who otherwise have little or no power, to make their case and help guide decision making.
The fact that SOME people abuse that freedom, is no good excuse for REMOVING the right to free speech. The same is true of the filibuster. If the 60 vote rule to stop a filibuster was EVER a good thing, it still is, regardless of the Democratic Party's abuse of the system.
Stupid
Second, it would be a monumentally stupid action to reverse Senate tradition and change the 60 vote rule. Stupid because American's would see that action for what it is: A power grab by a majority, a short cut born of impatience, and an arrogant taking of minority rights.
American's love an underdog even if they hated him last week. No matter that the Democrats have become an odious collection of special interest whiners and ambulance chasers, it is they who in this instance are playing by the rules and it would be the Republicans who would be viewed as bullies and cheats.
Unnecessary
Finally if wrong and stupid aren't reasons enough, the NO is in fact completely unnecessary. A "real" filibuster is composed of two ingredients that are wholly missing from the modern low fat FilibusterLite. Up until roughly 30-40 years ago, a filibuster brought ALL Senate business to a halt. Nothing else could be voted on or disposed of. Additionally, in order to continue, the filibusters had to speak constantly, around the clock, 24 hours, 48 hours, 200 hours, whatever it took and however long they could stand it.
In the present time the filibuster is a pathetic shadow of its former self. Other business goes on, only the specific issue that the filibuster is related to stops. And, it is no longer required to go around the clock, in fact I don't think they have to speak at all. In effect the "filibuster" has become just another parliamentary maneuver. If one side wants to derail anything they don't actually have the votes to stop, they simply declare a "filibuster" and Voila! 60 votes are required to pass the motion.
The solution is so obvious and so simple. Go back to the way filibusters were administered 50 years ago and for many decades before that. Force the Democrats to bring Senate action to a crashing halt and thereby effectively paralyzing the federal government.
The Republican Party is the MAJORITY party again for the first time since Calvin Coolidge was President. Let's not throw it all away with a bullheaded decision that actually empowers and breaths life into the sorry heap of debris that the Democratic Party has become.
Monday, November 22, 2004
The Chile Incident
I am deeply troubled by what happened in Chile Saturday. The attempt by local "security forces" to separate President Bush and his Secret Service contingent is a very serious matter.
Clearly the administration is trying to keep the lid on this incident and not allow it to become a major story. Yet the fact is that this was a very dangerous situation, that could have turned out very badly.
Someday there will be a book written about this episode. Bet on it. The President's quick thinking illustrates very well the fact that he:
A) Is no dummy
B) Is very aware of his surroundings and what is going on
C) Is damn good at thinking on his feet
I am deeply troubled by what happened in Chile Saturday. The attempt by local "security forces" to separate President Bush and his Secret Service contingent is a very serious matter.
Clearly the administration is trying to keep the lid on this incident and not allow it to become a major story. Yet the fact is that this was a very dangerous situation, that could have turned out very badly.
Someday there will be a book written about this episode. Bet on it. The President's quick thinking illustrates very well the fact that he:
A) Is no dummy
B) Is very aware of his surroundings and what is going on
C) Is damn good at thinking on his feet
One quails at the thought of how the great debater John Kerry would have handled this snafu.
The President's men must NEVER allow this to happen again.
Friday, November 12, 2004
Let's not be spun by their spin.
One of the more pernicious phenomenon of modern day America is the way in which certain little nuggets of fact or opinion are often magnified far beyond their true worth or significance.
The media loves a catchy label, a quick and lazy way to package news, events and trends. Reaganomics. The Teflon President. The Great Communicator. The Wimp Factor. Bimbo Eruptions. Watergate, Whitewater, KoreaGate, TravelGate, Iran-Contra. Year of the Woman. Soccer Moms. Angry White Males. Security Moms, and on and on.
Another facet of this approach to reality, is the way in which the media leads us and themselves to focus on something that would have gone totally unnoticed 75 or 100 years ago. I am thinking specifically about how the media has taken to boiling down presidential elections to just a hand full of states and then pretending that somehow the CLOSENESS of those states is significant beyond who eeks out a win.
Much is made of the closeness of the President's Ohio win, yet in the larger state of Pennsylvania that Kerry won, the vote was closer, and almost NO ONE is pointing that out! Ohio gets all the attention because THE MEDIA anointed Ohio early on as THE STATE TO WATCH. So we watch and we watch and we watch. Poor Pennsylvania is not sexy enough to merit attention.
American presidential elections are ALWAYS close when measured against those held in places like China and Egypt. In the U.S. , a 60-40 landslide is a MAJOR threshold that only a tiny handful of candidates have ever reached or even threatened. Yet in real world terms 40% of something is very respectable. For instance, I would love to own 40% of General Motors and if you were to eat 40% of a pie it might well make your tummy hurt.
So when Democrats and the Old Media make disparaging remarks about GWB's 51% victory, the last thing we conservatives should do is agree with them and further enable their dishonest spinning. 51-48 is a solid win. When held up to the realities of 2004, 51-48 is a VERY solid win.
The 2000 election left many ordinary voters (as opposed to Democratic Party hacks) with a distinctly bad taste in their mouths. Because of Florida and Al Gore's decision to dishonor himself and the system, and the fact that Gore "won the popular vote" (yes, I still owe you an explanation on why I set that in quote marks!) George W. Bush had a very difficult starting position RELATIVE to the other successful incumbents of the last 50 years, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton.
This preamble brings me to my current peeve which is Ohio and the already seemingly set in stone "fact" that "a switch of just 136,000 votes would have made Kerry president". First off you can't just switch 136,000 votes. It is strictly against the rules and would upset people. Secondly however, if the Kerry camp gets to switch 136,000 votes then I insist that we Bushies also be allowed to switch a like number. Let us see.....hmmmm, OK here is how I would do it:
Take away 137,000 Bush votes in Ohio and let Kerry win those 20 electoral votes (EVs) by 1000. (But wait, isn't 1000 votes a LOT less than 136,000 so wouldn't Kerry's NEW win be even more suspect than Bush's? Oh never mind.) Okay back to vote switching, I want to take 99,000 of those former Ohio Bush votes and move them to Minnesota, thus giving the President those 10 EVs. Then I'll take 10,000 votes and move them to New Hampshire thus giving the Pres those 4 EVs. Next I'll move 13,000 Bush votes to Wisconsin so Dubya can claim those 10 EVs. So let's see where we are now: Bush has 290 EVs and Kerry has 248 EVs and I still have 15,000 votes left over to pad Bush's lead in New Mexico and/or Iowa.
See the stupidity and shallowness of this line of reasoning? Many a World Series game is won by a single slender run. The Super Bowl has been won by a single point, or a last second field goal. The Yankees won a couple of blowouts over the Red Sox in the first three playoff games, but they couldn't move a couple of those "excess" runs to Game 4.
Winning is winning. As a party, the GOP must look very hard at the narrowly won "red states" and devise a plan for making them less close in 2008, but in terms of 2004, Bush WON! Period. Mission accomplished.
One final blow to drive the point home: Kerry won Pennsylvania by just 129,000, Minnesota by just 98,000, New Hampshire by 9,000, Wisconsin by 12,000, Michigan by 165,000 and Oregon by only 67,000. 480,000 votes were all that separated Kerry from losing these states and their 69 EVs. Why isn't someone talking about that?
One of the more pernicious phenomenon of modern day America is the way in which certain little nuggets of fact or opinion are often magnified far beyond their true worth or significance.
The media loves a catchy label, a quick and lazy way to package news, events and trends. Reaganomics. The Teflon President. The Great Communicator. The Wimp Factor. Bimbo Eruptions. Watergate, Whitewater, KoreaGate, TravelGate, Iran-Contra. Year of the Woman. Soccer Moms. Angry White Males. Security Moms, and on and on.
Another facet of this approach to reality, is the way in which the media leads us and themselves to focus on something that would have gone totally unnoticed 75 or 100 years ago. I am thinking specifically about how the media has taken to boiling down presidential elections to just a hand full of states and then pretending that somehow the CLOSENESS of those states is significant beyond who eeks out a win.
Much is made of the closeness of the President's Ohio win, yet in the larger state of Pennsylvania that Kerry won, the vote was closer, and almost NO ONE is pointing that out! Ohio gets all the attention because THE MEDIA anointed Ohio early on as THE STATE TO WATCH. So we watch and we watch and we watch. Poor Pennsylvania is not sexy enough to merit attention.
American presidential elections are ALWAYS close when measured against those held in places like China and Egypt. In the U.S. , a 60-40 landslide is a MAJOR threshold that only a tiny handful of candidates have ever reached or even threatened. Yet in real world terms 40% of something is very respectable. For instance, I would love to own 40% of General Motors and if you were to eat 40% of a pie it might well make your tummy hurt.
So when Democrats and the Old Media make disparaging remarks about GWB's 51% victory, the last thing we conservatives should do is agree with them and further enable their dishonest spinning. 51-48 is a solid win. When held up to the realities of 2004, 51-48 is a VERY solid win.
The 2000 election left many ordinary voters (as opposed to Democratic Party hacks) with a distinctly bad taste in their mouths. Because of Florida and Al Gore's decision to dishonor himself and the system, and the fact that Gore "won the popular vote" (yes, I still owe you an explanation on why I set that in quote marks!) George W. Bush had a very difficult starting position RELATIVE to the other successful incumbents of the last 50 years, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton.
This preamble brings me to my current peeve which is Ohio and the already seemingly set in stone "fact" that "a switch of just 136,000 votes would have made Kerry president". First off you can't just switch 136,000 votes. It is strictly against the rules and would upset people. Secondly however, if the Kerry camp gets to switch 136,000 votes then I insist that we Bushies also be allowed to switch a like number. Let us see.....hmmmm, OK here is how I would do it:
Take away 137,000 Bush votes in Ohio and let Kerry win those 20 electoral votes (EVs) by 1000. (But wait, isn't 1000 votes a LOT less than 136,000 so wouldn't Kerry's NEW win be even more suspect than Bush's? Oh never mind.) Okay back to vote switching, I want to take 99,000 of those former Ohio Bush votes and move them to Minnesota, thus giving the President those 10 EVs. Then I'll take 10,000 votes and move them to New Hampshire thus giving the Pres those 4 EVs. Next I'll move 13,000 Bush votes to Wisconsin so Dubya can claim those 10 EVs. So let's see where we are now: Bush has 290 EVs and Kerry has 248 EVs and I still have 15,000 votes left over to pad Bush's lead in New Mexico and/or Iowa.
See the stupidity and shallowness of this line of reasoning? Many a World Series game is won by a single slender run. The Super Bowl has been won by a single point, or a last second field goal. The Yankees won a couple of blowouts over the Red Sox in the first three playoff games, but they couldn't move a couple of those "excess" runs to Game 4.
Winning is winning. As a party, the GOP must look very hard at the narrowly won "red states" and devise a plan for making them less close in 2008, but in terms of 2004, Bush WON! Period. Mission accomplished.
One final blow to drive the point home: Kerry won Pennsylvania by just 129,000, Minnesota by just 98,000, New Hampshire by 9,000, Wisconsin by 12,000, Michigan by 165,000 and Oregon by only 67,000. 480,000 votes were all that separated Kerry from losing these states and their 69 EVs. Why isn't someone talking about that?
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Some "get it" some don't.
Today I've read two interesting columns by two "conservative" pundits. I put the word in quote marks because I consider one of them to be something other than conservative.
Morton Kondrake is a bit of an oddball on the punditry stage. Long thought of as conservative, he more and more appears to be a moderate with inconsistent urges but a general tendency to condescend toward those who are to his cultural right.
Jonah Goldberg on the other hand has become a very reliable conservative, who writes in a style that cuts through the clutter and makes clear the foolishness of his fellow man.
Since November 2, there has arose an unbelievable clamor on the Left unlike anything I have ever seen. Keep in mind that I lived through the elections of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Both of those events saw liberals come unhinged in ways large and small, but nothing like the swinging from the rafters now happening in latte shops across America.
Joe Scarborough on MSNBC has been leading the charge on confronting this nuttiness. The past couple of nights he has engaged Carl Bernstein on this issue.
What is fascinating is how clear it is that Bernstein does not have a clue. He sits there yammering about the intolerant and dangerous right wingers, when it is himself (Bernstein) who oozes intolerance and ignorance.
That is all for today. I am working on two major posts related to the election and its aftermath and I hope to have them up in the next couple of days.
Today I've read two interesting columns by two "conservative" pundits. I put the word in quote marks because I consider one of them to be something other than conservative.
Morton Kondrake is a bit of an oddball on the punditry stage. Long thought of as conservative, he more and more appears to be a moderate with inconsistent urges but a general tendency to condescend toward those who are to his cultural right.
Jonah Goldberg on the other hand has become a very reliable conservative, who writes in a style that cuts through the clutter and makes clear the foolishness of his fellow man.
Since November 2, there has arose an unbelievable clamor on the Left unlike anything I have ever seen. Keep in mind that I lived through the elections of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Both of those events saw liberals come unhinged in ways large and small, but nothing like the swinging from the rafters now happening in latte shops across America.
Joe Scarborough on MSNBC has been leading the charge on confronting this nuttiness. The past couple of nights he has engaged Carl Bernstein on this issue.
What is fascinating is how clear it is that Bernstein does not have a clue. He sits there yammering about the intolerant and dangerous right wingers, when it is himself (Bernstein) who oozes intolerance and ignorance.
That is all for today. I am working on two major posts related to the election and its aftermath and I hope to have them up in the next couple of days.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Victory is sweet.
This will be short. I will be posting my thoughts on this election over the next few days.
In particular I want to go into the media's incompetence.
I am reasonably pleased with my score on the electoral votes. I missed by 17 votes, and just four states.
One thing I want to note here and now, is how easy it was for me to conduct my own "exit polls".
Simply by firing up my 56K modem, I was able to access the election boards in all the key states and keep track of the actual vote tallies.
By comparing County X 2000 to County X 2004, I knew VERY early that Florida was going for Bush.
That's all for now but I shall return.
This will be short. I will be posting my thoughts on this election over the next few days.
In particular I want to go into the media's incompetence.
I am reasonably pleased with my score on the electoral votes. I missed by 17 votes, and just four states.
One thing I want to note here and now, is how easy it was for me to conduct my own "exit polls".
Simply by firing up my 56K modem, I was able to access the election boards in all the key states and keep track of the actual vote tallies.
By comparing County X 2000 to County X 2004, I knew VERY early that Florida was going for Bush.
That's all for now but I shall return.
Monday, November 01, 2004
State-by-state predictions:
Alabama 9 Bush 9
Alaska 3 Bush 12
Arizona 10 Bush 22
Arkansas 6 Bush 28
California 55 Kerry 55
Colorado 9 Bush 37
Connecticut 7 Kerry 62
Delaware 3 Kerry 65
District of Columbia 3 Kerry 68
Florida 27 Bush 64
Georgia 15 Bush 79
Hawaii 4 Kerry 72
Idaho 4 Bush 83
Illinois 21 Kerry 93
Indiana 11 Bush 94
Iowa 7 Bush 101 SWITCH
Kansas 6 Bush 107
Kentucky 8 Bush 115
Louisiana 9 Bush 124
Maine 4 Kerry 97
Maryland 10 Kerry 107
Massachusetts 12 Kerry 119
Michigan 17 Bush 141 SWITCH
Minnesota 10 Bush 151 SWITCH
Mississippi 6 Bush 157
Missouri 11 Bush 168
Montana 3 Bush 171
Nebraska 5 Bush 176
Nevada 5 Bush 181
New Hampshire 4 Kerry 123 SWITCH
New Jersey 15 Kerry 138
New Mexico 5 Bush 186 SWITCH
New York 31 Kerry 169
North Carolina 15 Bush 201
North Dakota 3 Bush 204
Ohio 20 Kerry 189 SWITCH
Oklahoma 7 Bush 211
Oregon 7 Kerry 196
Pennsylvania 21 Kerry 217
Rhode Island 4 Kerry 221
South Carolina 8 Bush 219
South Dakota 3 Bush 222
Tennessee 11 Bush 233
Texas 34 Bush 267
Utah 5 Bush 272*****WINS!
Vermont 3 Kerry 224
Virginia 13 Bush 285
Washington 11 Kerry 235
West Virginia 5 Bush 290
Wisconsin 10 Bush 300 SWITCH
Wyoming 3 Bush 303
FINAL TALLY:
Bush 303
Kerry 235
Points to ponder:
#1. I have 7 states switching from their 2000 result, which is higher than you will see predicted pretty much anywhere else. Five go for Bush, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and two go for Kerry, New Hampshire and Ohio.
#2. I have based my switches not so much on polls but more on polls + recent trends. I think Ohio is slowly moving out of the GOP's orbit. I hope I am wrong. But there is a creeping effect from the Northeast, as Pennsylvania as slowly morphed into a Democratic state, and even Virginia shows signs of losing its "safe Republican" label at the presidential level.
3. On the other hand, I see the Upper-Midwest leaving the Dems, and in the case of Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota, finally swinging over to the GOP after a slow migration.
4. Michigan I see as a more questionable long term convert and it may well be THE big swing state of 2008.
5. New Mexico and New Hampshire I see simply as falling into their more natural orbits.
Tomorrow will be a very long day, but I am soooooo glad it is finally upon us.
Alabama 9 Bush 9
Alaska 3 Bush 12
Arizona 10 Bush 22
Arkansas 6 Bush 28
California 55 Kerry 55
Colorado 9 Bush 37
Connecticut 7 Kerry 62
Delaware 3 Kerry 65
District of Columbia 3 Kerry 68
Florida 27 Bush 64
Georgia 15 Bush 79
Hawaii 4 Kerry 72
Idaho 4 Bush 83
Illinois 21 Kerry 93
Indiana 11 Bush 94
Iowa 7 Bush 101 SWITCH
Kansas 6 Bush 107
Kentucky 8 Bush 115
Louisiana 9 Bush 124
Maine 4 Kerry 97
Maryland 10 Kerry 107
Massachusetts 12 Kerry 119
Michigan 17 Bush 141 SWITCH
Minnesota 10 Bush 151 SWITCH
Mississippi 6 Bush 157
Missouri 11 Bush 168
Montana 3 Bush 171
Nebraska 5 Bush 176
Nevada 5 Bush 181
New Hampshire 4 Kerry 123 SWITCH
New Jersey 15 Kerry 138
New Mexico 5 Bush 186 SWITCH
New York 31 Kerry 169
North Carolina 15 Bush 201
North Dakota 3 Bush 204
Ohio 20 Kerry 189 SWITCH
Oklahoma 7 Bush 211
Oregon 7 Kerry 196
Pennsylvania 21 Kerry 217
Rhode Island 4 Kerry 221
South Carolina 8 Bush 219
South Dakota 3 Bush 222
Tennessee 11 Bush 233
Texas 34 Bush 267
Utah 5 Bush 272*****WINS!
Vermont 3 Kerry 224
Virginia 13 Bush 285
Washington 11 Kerry 235
West Virginia 5 Bush 290
Wisconsin 10 Bush 300 SWITCH
Wyoming 3 Bush 303
FINAL TALLY:
Bush 303
Kerry 235
Points to ponder:
#1. I have 7 states switching from their 2000 result, which is higher than you will see predicted pretty much anywhere else. Five go for Bush, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and two go for Kerry, New Hampshire and Ohio.
#2. I have based my switches not so much on polls but more on polls + recent trends. I think Ohio is slowly moving out of the GOP's orbit. I hope I am wrong. But there is a creeping effect from the Northeast, as Pennsylvania as slowly morphed into a Democratic state, and even Virginia shows signs of losing its "safe Republican" label at the presidential level.
3. On the other hand, I see the Upper-Midwest leaving the Dems, and in the case of Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota, finally swinging over to the GOP after a slow migration.
4. Michigan I see as a more questionable long term convert and it may well be THE big swing state of 2008.
5. New Mexico and New Hampshire I see simply as falling into their more natural orbits.
Tomorrow will be a very long day, but I am soooooo glad it is finally upon us.
In which I join the chattering throngs.
In larger amounts than ever before, this election has been filled with "expert opinion" .
Whether on the television shout shows night after night, on the internet, or via newspapers, pundits have held forth with various degrees of hyperbole for well over a year.
In another 36 hours we will know who was right and who was blowing smoke. I think a lot of people who get a lot of "face time" in the media, really are clueless about this election, where it is going and what it means.
Not wanting to get left out, here are my FINAL predictions for 2004.
Popular Vote:
Bush 49.50
Kerry 49.00
Electoral vote:
Bush 303
Kerry 235
Senate:
GOP +4
House
Status Quo + - 2
Next post I will show my state by state electoral predictions.
In larger amounts than ever before, this election has been filled with "expert opinion" .
Whether on the television shout shows night after night, on the internet, or via newspapers, pundits have held forth with various degrees of hyperbole for well over a year.
In another 36 hours we will know who was right and who was blowing smoke. I think a lot of people who get a lot of "face time" in the media, really are clueless about this election, where it is going and what it means.
Not wanting to get left out, here are my FINAL predictions for 2004.
Popular Vote:
Bush 49.50
Kerry 49.00
Electoral vote:
Bush 303
Kerry 235
Senate:
GOP +4
House
Status Quo + - 2
Next post I will show my state by state electoral predictions.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Al Gore is no Richard Nixon
As political junkies well know, Richard Nixon had ample justification to challenge the results of the 1960 Presidential Election.
John Kennedy won by an exceedingly slender margin and there were serious allegations of election fraud in LBJ's Texas and Mayor Daley's Chicago. There were "irregularities" in other states including perhaps Hawaii where Nixon at first won and after a recount, lost.
Instead of contesting the election, Nixon swallowed hard and presided over the counting of the electoral votes in his role as Senate President. Why did he choose this path? Afterall Nixon was nothing if not a bulldog who when bitten would bite back harder.
I have long felt that Nixon's reasons were two-fold. In which order or in which amount I'll leave for others to decide .
The first reason is the one Nixon himself always (naturally) cited: He did not want to put the country through a long and bitter fight, it would have been dangerous to subject the nation to possible instability at that point in the Cold War etc etc.
The second reason is a cynical/practical one. Nixon realized it would be a longshot to overturn the results and if he failed he would be finished as a national political force. Americans hate a sore loser, preferring fighters that take their lumps like a man. But we Americans also like an underdog, a guy or a team who makes a stirring comeback. In 1960 Nixon was only 47, plenty young enough to wait a few years for another shot at glory.
I strongly suspect the truth was a mixture of the two. Nixon probably honestly felt a legal challenge would not serve the national interest AND he likely understood that the smart political move was to take his medicine and bide his time for another shot at the golden prize.
Al Gore would have done well to have studied Nixon's behavior and actions. Four years ago when Gore "won the popular vote" (why I set that in quote marks I'll explain later) but lost Florida and the Electoral College, Gore put his selfish interests first, last and always.
I in no way blame Gore for asking for a simple recount of the Florida vote. Recounts are fairly common and don't generally cause an untoward amount of problems. It is highly reasonable for a candidate to ask for a recount when only a few hundred votes out of millions cast, are the difference
But Gore went farther, much, much farther. He and his party started a highly sophisticated campaign to discredit the entire election process in Florida. No one was safe, as even officials who were DEMOCRATS (remember Theresa LaPore?) were routinely accused of high crimes and chad abuse.
Gore chose to drag the country though a month long temper tantrum, as he vainly tried to win through political and legal machination, what he lost fair and square at the ballot box.
And make no mistake, GORE LOST FLORIDA in 2000. EVERY count, every recount, even the major media circus that re-re-counted the ballots, all showed that George W. Bush received more votes than Al Gore. No matter how they twisted and turned logic, no matter how they tortured common sense, the answer kept coming up the same: Bush won.
Gore and his fellow travelers like to slyly comment that Gore "won" the 2000 election. They "base" this on two very weak reeds, one of which is the Florida excuse that has been completely debunked.
The other is the fact that Gore "won the popular vote". It is certainly true that Gore received more votes nationally than George W. Bush. It is also true that the Yankees won more regular season games then the Red Sox did this year. Those two facts are almost perfect bookends.
The Gore Whiners pretend that winning the popular vote is filled with some deep meaning and importance. For starters, since "winning the popular vote" was not and is NOT the object of the game, one can't draw any real conclusions from the fact that Gore got 48.4% and Bush 47.9%.
Had "winning the popular vote" been the object of the game, the game would have changed. The game would have been played differently. To use another analogy, the Gore complaint is identical to a football team that loses 21-20 and then yells "Yeah but we had 23 first downs and you only had 22". The dishonesty of the Gore 2000 Revisionism is breathtaking in its scope and chutzpuh.
Gore lost a heartbreakingly close election, but he DID lose. That he will be tortured by it until the day he departs this vail of tears, I fully understand. If he had borne his pain with strength and dignity he could have been an American hero, a shining example for a nation who needs more statesmen. By his self pitying words and actions, he put this nation at risk and damaged our institutions in ways we won't fully grasp for decades.
If America continues it present downward spiral into ever more bitter public discourse, filled with angry words and gestures of violence, we will have Albert Arnold Gore Jr. to thank most of all.
Post Script: I have been working on this piece for a couple of days, both in my mind and on "paper". Imagine my surprise when I saw this on Powerline today while still working on this post. As soon as I publish this I am going here to read the column by Joseph Perkins of the San Diego Union-Tribune.
As political junkies well know, Richard Nixon had ample justification to challenge the results of the 1960 Presidential Election.
John Kennedy won by an exceedingly slender margin and there were serious allegations of election fraud in LBJ's Texas and Mayor Daley's Chicago. There were "irregularities" in other states including perhaps Hawaii where Nixon at first won and after a recount, lost.
Instead of contesting the election, Nixon swallowed hard and presided over the counting of the electoral votes in his role as Senate President. Why did he choose this path? Afterall Nixon was nothing if not a bulldog who when bitten would bite back harder.
I have long felt that Nixon's reasons were two-fold. In which order or in which amount I'll leave for others to decide .
The first reason is the one Nixon himself always (naturally) cited: He did not want to put the country through a long and bitter fight, it would have been dangerous to subject the nation to possible instability at that point in the Cold War etc etc.
The second reason is a cynical/practical one. Nixon realized it would be a longshot to overturn the results and if he failed he would be finished as a national political force. Americans hate a sore loser, preferring fighters that take their lumps like a man. But we Americans also like an underdog, a guy or a team who makes a stirring comeback. In 1960 Nixon was only 47, plenty young enough to wait a few years for another shot at glory.
I strongly suspect the truth was a mixture of the two. Nixon probably honestly felt a legal challenge would not serve the national interest AND he likely understood that the smart political move was to take his medicine and bide his time for another shot at the golden prize.
Al Gore would have done well to have studied Nixon's behavior and actions. Four years ago when Gore "won the popular vote" (why I set that in quote marks I'll explain later) but lost Florida and the Electoral College, Gore put his selfish interests first, last and always.
I in no way blame Gore for asking for a simple recount of the Florida vote. Recounts are fairly common and don't generally cause an untoward amount of problems. It is highly reasonable for a candidate to ask for a recount when only a few hundred votes out of millions cast, are the difference
But Gore went farther, much, much farther. He and his party started a highly sophisticated campaign to discredit the entire election process in Florida. No one was safe, as even officials who were DEMOCRATS (remember Theresa LaPore?) were routinely accused of high crimes and chad abuse.
Gore chose to drag the country though a month long temper tantrum, as he vainly tried to win through political and legal machination, what he lost fair and square at the ballot box.
And make no mistake, GORE LOST FLORIDA in 2000. EVERY count, every recount, even the major media circus that re-re-counted the ballots, all showed that George W. Bush received more votes than Al Gore. No matter how they twisted and turned logic, no matter how they tortured common sense, the answer kept coming up the same: Bush won.
Gore and his fellow travelers like to slyly comment that Gore "won" the 2000 election. They "base" this on two very weak reeds, one of which is the Florida excuse that has been completely debunked.
The other is the fact that Gore "won the popular vote". It is certainly true that Gore received more votes nationally than George W. Bush. It is also true that the Yankees won more regular season games then the Red Sox did this year. Those two facts are almost perfect bookends.
The Gore Whiners pretend that winning the popular vote is filled with some deep meaning and importance. For starters, since "winning the popular vote" was not and is NOT the object of the game, one can't draw any real conclusions from the fact that Gore got 48.4% and Bush 47.9%.
Had "winning the popular vote" been the object of the game, the game would have changed. The game would have been played differently. To use another analogy, the Gore complaint is identical to a football team that loses 21-20 and then yells "Yeah but we had 23 first downs and you only had 22". The dishonesty of the Gore 2000 Revisionism is breathtaking in its scope and chutzpuh.
Gore lost a heartbreakingly close election, but he DID lose. That he will be tortured by it until the day he departs this vail of tears, I fully understand. If he had borne his pain with strength and dignity he could have been an American hero, a shining example for a nation who needs more statesmen. By his self pitying words and actions, he put this nation at risk and damaged our institutions in ways we won't fully grasp for decades.
If America continues it present downward spiral into ever more bitter public discourse, filled with angry words and gestures of violence, we will have Albert Arnold Gore Jr. to thank most of all.
Post Script: I have been working on this piece for a couple of days, both in my mind and on "paper". Imagine my surprise when I saw this on Powerline today while still working on this post. As soon as I publish this I am going here to read the column by Joseph Perkins of the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Good news on the poll front.
Just as a reputed GOP Insider predicted, President Bush has now nudged out to a 3-5 point lead nationally.
Rasmussen has it 50-48, WaPo 49-48, Gallup 51-46, Fox 50-45, and Battleground 51-46. The Battleground poll is huge given that it too pushes Bush up over 50%, and confirms a definate move in the President's direction AND shows him with a 53% approval rating.
Have a GREAT weekend!
Just as a reputed GOP Insider predicted, President Bush has now nudged out to a 3-5 point lead nationally.
Rasmussen has it 50-48, WaPo 49-48, Gallup 51-46, Fox 50-45, and Battleground 51-46. The Battleground poll is huge given that it too pushes Bush up over 50%, and confirms a definate move in the President's direction AND shows him with a 53% approval rating.
Have a GREAT weekend!
A Note on Zogby
Not wanting to be accused of sour grapes, I am purposely timing this post at a point where John Zogby shows Bush leading in the national vote.
Simply put, I think Zogby is full of it, but what bothers me more is how the media fawns over his PREDICTIONS as though he is an oracle.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, Zogby is at best a very good pollster. Frankly I don't even believe that, but I'm willing to cede it for the sake of argument. However, being a very able pollster does not in any direct way qualify you as a political expert or soothsayer.
As a pollster Zogby can perhaps tell you who is leading RIGHT NOW but this does not enable him to reliably predict who will actually win on November 2. Political prognostication is part information, part art and part knowledge.
By information I mean such things as how many new voters have registered in Locality X, how did locality X vote in 2000 or 2002 or 1998 etc.
By knowledge I am referring to a well rounded understanding of political history, past trends, and how various factors affect voting patterns etc.
The art comes into play in how one combines the information with the knowledge and then leavens the concoction with an accurate sense of the mood and temper of the voters. This last part is VITAL to having a meaningful opinion. Will Republicans vote in higher numbers than 2000? Lower numbers than 2002? Will Bush get 9% of the Black vote or 12%? 18%?
John Zogby has not shown that he has any expertise beyond polling, thus it is a waste of everyone's time for TV talking heads to ask him who he THINKS will win on Election Day.
Zogby has wavered all over the map, saying months ago that Kerry would win, then apparently telling Robert Novak that Bush will win, and now evidently doubling back and saying Kerry will win. None of his predictions matter because he is a pollster not a prophet.
Not wanting to be accused of sour grapes, I am purposely timing this post at a point where John Zogby shows Bush leading in the national vote.
Simply put, I think Zogby is full of it, but what bothers me more is how the media fawns over his PREDICTIONS as though he is an oracle.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, Zogby is at best a very good pollster. Frankly I don't even believe that, but I'm willing to cede it for the sake of argument. However, being a very able pollster does not in any direct way qualify you as a political expert or soothsayer.
As a pollster Zogby can perhaps tell you who is leading RIGHT NOW but this does not enable him to reliably predict who will actually win on November 2. Political prognostication is part information, part art and part knowledge.
By information I mean such things as how many new voters have registered in Locality X, how did locality X vote in 2000 or 2002 or 1998 etc.
By knowledge I am referring to a well rounded understanding of political history, past trends, and how various factors affect voting patterns etc.
The art comes into play in how one combines the information with the knowledge and then leavens the concoction with an accurate sense of the mood and temper of the voters. This last part is VITAL to having a meaningful opinion. Will Republicans vote in higher numbers than 2000? Lower numbers than 2002? Will Bush get 9% of the Black vote or 12%? 18%?
John Zogby has not shown that he has any expertise beyond polling, thus it is a waste of everyone's time for TV talking heads to ask him who he THINKS will win on Election Day.
Zogby has wavered all over the map, saying months ago that Kerry would win, then apparently telling Robert Novak that Bush will win, and now evidently doubling back and saying Kerry will win. None of his predictions matter because he is a pollster not a prophet.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
If it LOOKS like Desperation...
and SMELLS like Desperation, there is a real good chance it's DESPERATION.
I am referring to NYTrogate and the "missing explosives" that John Kerry has made such a huge deal of the past couple of days.
Kerry's harping on this story was raw political opportunism but it was also incredibly stupid. Handed an "issue" like this, the Kerry campaign should have relied on outside operatives to press the "Bush is a futz" line. The candidate should have looked grave and concerned, indicated that he did not feel he should discuss such a vitally important event until all the facts are known, and gone about his business of pressing his CORE issues.
What Kerry did was drop all the talking points he has honed over the past month (that seemed to be working to some degree) and allow himself to crawl WAYOUT on a limb to make a dubious charge out of rumor and hearsay. Dick Morris strongly points this out in today's NY Post.
Now he is starting to pay for this blunder. I suspect the polling numbers will start to move decisively in W's direction the rest of the way. This was one flop by Flipper too many.
and SMELLS like Desperation, there is a real good chance it's DESPERATION.
I am referring to NYTrogate and the "missing explosives" that John Kerry has made such a huge deal of the past couple of days.
Kerry's harping on this story was raw political opportunism but it was also incredibly stupid. Handed an "issue" like this, the Kerry campaign should have relied on outside operatives to press the "Bush is a futz" line. The candidate should have looked grave and concerned, indicated that he did not feel he should discuss such a vitally important event until all the facts are known, and gone about his business of pressing his CORE issues.
What Kerry did was drop all the talking points he has honed over the past month (that seemed to be working to some degree) and allow himself to crawl WAYOUT on a limb to make a dubious charge out of rumor and hearsay. Dick Morris strongly points this out in today's NY Post.
Now he is starting to pay for this blunder. I suspect the polling numbers will start to move decisively in W's direction the rest of the way. This was one flop by Flipper too many.
Rasmussen Update
Yesterday I showed the last several days worth of the Rasmussen tracking poll that appear to show a Bush Trend. Today's numbers don't belie that notion.
Date Bush Kerry Movement Cumulative
Oct 22 49.1 45.9 Baseline
Oct 23 48.0 46.7 Bush -1.9
Oct 24 47.6 47.2 Bush -0.9 -2.8
Oct 25 46.4 48.4 Bush -2.4 -5.2
Oct 26 47.8 47.8 Bush +2.0 -3.2
Oct 27 48.8 47.1 Bush +1.7 -1.5
Oct 28 48.9 46.9 Bush +0.3 -1.2
So the "Bush Trend" continues as the President has regained a 2% lead on Kerry and putting the race back to within 1.2% of where it was last Friday. Compared to Monday's numbers, Bush has gained 4% relative to Kerry. When "leaners" are included Bush goes to 49.7 tantalizingly close to the magic number of 50%.
The reason I key on Rasmussen is simply because he is there. I don't personally put a great amount of faith in this or ANY poll, when the numbers are this close. However a trend is a trend is a trend.
Strengthening Rasmussen's case is the fact that both TIPP (47B-44K) and Zogby/Reuters (48B-46K) are showing almost identical numbers.
I don't have much faith in ANY of these three polls but I'd rather be leading in all three than trailing in all three!
Yesterday I showed the last several days worth of the Rasmussen tracking poll that appear to show a Bush Trend. Today's numbers don't belie that notion.
Date Bush Kerry Movement Cumulative
Oct 22 49.1 45.9 Baseline
Oct 23 48.0 46.7 Bush -1.9
Oct 24 47.6 47.2 Bush -0.9 -2.8
Oct 25 46.4 48.4 Bush -2.4 -5.2
Oct 26 47.8 47.8 Bush +2.0 -3.2
Oct 27 48.8 47.1 Bush +1.7 -1.5
Oct 28 48.9 46.9 Bush +0.3 -1.2
So the "Bush Trend" continues as the President has regained a 2% lead on Kerry and putting the race back to within 1.2% of where it was last Friday. Compared to Monday's numbers, Bush has gained 4% relative to Kerry. When "leaners" are included Bush goes to 49.7 tantalizingly close to the magic number of 50%.
The reason I key on Rasmussen is simply because he is there. I don't personally put a great amount of faith in this or ANY poll, when the numbers are this close. However a trend is a trend is a trend.
Strengthening Rasmussen's case is the fact that both TIPP (47B-44K) and Zogby/Reuters (48B-46K) are showing almost identical numbers.
I don't have much faith in ANY of these three polls but I'd rather be leading in all three than trailing in all three!
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Polls and predictions.
This bit of information comes from over at CrushKerry.com and purportedly are the words of a longtime Republican insider who worked in the Reagan campaigns:
"In the next couple of days you will see a trend that shows Kerry taking a small but consistent lead against President Bush. I'm talking one or two points. And then, almost without warning or explanation, you will see the President open up a four- to six-point lead on or around Thursday. And that trend will carry the President through Election Day."
What is interesting to me is that this was in a post from this past Friday. So far he is hitting it pretty close. Kerry in fact did inch ahead in several polls released Sunday and Monday. Now we are starting to see Bush re-gain some traction.
Take Rasmussen for example. Many people swear by him and just as many swear at him, but as far as I know he uses consistent methods from poll to poll and thus while he may or may not be accurate, you can at least compare his polls to each other and get a sense for how things MAY be moving.
Let's look at his numbers for each day, starting on Friday (the day of the prediction by the GOP insider) and through today October 27.
Date Bush Kerry Movement Cumulative
Oct 22 49.1 45.9 Baseline
Oct 23 48.0 46.7 Bush -1.9
Oct 24 47.6 47.2 Bush -0.9 -2.8
Oct 25 46.4 48.4 Bush -2.4 -5.2
Oct 26 47.8 47.8 Bush +2.0 -3.2
Oct 27 48.8 47.1 Bush +1.7 -1.5
So what you see is a very clear movement toward Kerry and then just as clear a movement back toward Bush, just as predicted by Mr. Insider. Bush relative to Kerry is still 1.5% behind where he started on Friday, so the next two days of polling will be highly interesting to see.
One cautionary note, I have been told that Rasmussen had one day of polling that was clearly an anti-Bush outlier, however over that period from Friday to Monday, there was steady movement that went well beyond a single "bad poll day".
Very striking is the fact that the Rasmussen poll shows a huge 3.7% swing in just two days, from Kerry +2 to Bush +1.7.
When Rasmussen adds in the "leaners" the numbers go to Bush 49.5 and Kerry 48.1 meaning that Kerry is getting roughly 63% of undecideds who admit which way they are leaning.
This bit of information comes from over at CrushKerry.com and purportedly are the words of a longtime Republican insider who worked in the Reagan campaigns:
"In the next couple of days you will see a trend that shows Kerry taking a small but consistent lead against President Bush. I'm talking one or two points. And then, almost without warning or explanation, you will see the President open up a four- to six-point lead on or around Thursday. And that trend will carry the President through Election Day."
What is interesting to me is that this was in a post from this past Friday. So far he is hitting it pretty close. Kerry in fact did inch ahead in several polls released Sunday and Monday. Now we are starting to see Bush re-gain some traction.
Take Rasmussen for example. Many people swear by him and just as many swear at him, but as far as I know he uses consistent methods from poll to poll and thus while he may or may not be accurate, you can at least compare his polls to each other and get a sense for how things MAY be moving.
Let's look at his numbers for each day, starting on Friday (the day of the prediction by the GOP insider) and through today October 27.
Date Bush Kerry Movement Cumulative
Oct 22 49.1 45.9 Baseline
Oct 23 48.0 46.7 Bush -1.9
Oct 24 47.6 47.2 Bush -0.9 -2.8
Oct 25 46.4 48.4 Bush -2.4 -5.2
Oct 26 47.8 47.8 Bush +2.0 -3.2
Oct 27 48.8 47.1 Bush +1.7 -1.5
So what you see is a very clear movement toward Kerry and then just as clear a movement back toward Bush, just as predicted by Mr. Insider. Bush relative to Kerry is still 1.5% behind where he started on Friday, so the next two days of polling will be highly interesting to see.
One cautionary note, I have been told that Rasmussen had one day of polling that was clearly an anti-Bush outlier, however over that period from Friday to Monday, there was steady movement that went well beyond a single "bad poll day".
Very striking is the fact that the Rasmussen poll shows a huge 3.7% swing in just two days, from Kerry +2 to Bush +1.7.
When Rasmussen adds in the "leaners" the numbers go to Bush 49.5 and Kerry 48.1 meaning that Kerry is getting roughly 63% of undecideds who admit which way they are leaning.
Another 1.9% say they are still completely undecided and according to Rasmussen probably 50% of those will not even bother to vote. All of which, if correct, makes for a VERY steep hill for Kerry to climb.
All of that for what it is worth.
Monday, October 25, 2004
New links with more politics!
Just recently I've stumbled across a couple more excellent blogs. The Horse Race Blog is simply incredible. Jay puts a lot of effort into breaking down the various polls and inspecting their methods and numbers. I am very anxious to see how correctly he predicts this election. His statistical analysis is fascinating stuff and strikes me as likely to be closer to the real world numbers than anyone else's. His blog is crammed full of outstanding stuff for the political junkie.
The other new link is to Daly Thoughts, another really interesting site. It is chock full of electoral polls and predictions and Gerry updates each state as new polls roll in. The site layout is a little bit quirky but well worth the time it takes to learn your way around.
Both of these blogs seem to be well grounded and not prone to going overboard with the optimism or pessimism. Two really fine sites that I heartily recommend.
Just recently I've stumbled across a couple more excellent blogs. The Horse Race Blog is simply incredible. Jay puts a lot of effort into breaking down the various polls and inspecting their methods and numbers. I am very anxious to see how correctly he predicts this election. His statistical analysis is fascinating stuff and strikes me as likely to be closer to the real world numbers than anyone else's. His blog is crammed full of outstanding stuff for the political junkie.
The other new link is to Daly Thoughts, another really interesting site. It is chock full of electoral polls and predictions and Gerry updates each state as new polls roll in. The site layout is a little bit quirky but well worth the time it takes to learn your way around.
Both of these blogs seem to be well grounded and not prone to going overboard with the optimism or pessimism. Two really fine sites that I heartily recommend.
A full weekend.
Not many years ago weekends were mainly a down time in the news cycle. Sure there were the Sunday morning network political shows and the Sunday paper, but otherwise Saturday and Sunday were given over to yard work, BBQ's, family outings and watching football or baseball on TV.
In the new age of the Internet(s?) the news ( and most importantly the campaign news) just barrels ahead without the slightest pause. I spent a good part of Sunday sifting through a lot of information and opinion and I am left with a very good feeling for where this presidential race is headed.
To cut to the chase, President Bush is ahead and probably becoming more unbeatable with each passing day. John Kerry is just too much of an opportunistic and plastic man to win the office. The Washington Times this morning broke a story that reveals again that Kerry suffers from a debilitating case of Algores Syndrome. In other words he exaggerates (lies) about what he has done and who he has talked with etc.
Kerry is probably the least accomplished major party candidate since Warren G. Harding in 1920. In fact Harding at least ran the family newspaper fairly well. What has Kerry EVER accomplished aside from winning elective office? Now winning an election IS an accomplishment, but Kerry has NEVER done anything once he got into office. Nothing. Twenty years in the U.S. Senate and NOTHING to show for it. The man is a cipher, a chameleon, the sole actor in a one act play entitled Me Me Me.
I have a lot of respect for David Broder. Broder is a throwback to a time when reporters and pundits behaved in manner Lawrence O'Donnell could never understand. While Broder is unquestionably left of center, he is honest and generally fair. His latest column is damning for John Kerry. At first blush Broder seems to diss both candidates, but it becomes clear when one sums it up, that while Broder considers George W. Bush to be greatly flawed, he finds John Kerry to be COMPLETELY lacking in the essential qualities needed to be President.
The closing paragraph of Broder's column is telling: "Viewed in this light, the choice for the country becomes one of confirming an executive with visible and even fundamental shortcomings or entrusting the presidency to a man whose habits of mind and of action are far removed from the challenges of the White House." That, my friends, is a stake through John Kerry's election hopes.
For a concise reason as to why Broder (and millions more) feel this way about John F. Kerry, ponder the quote in the concluding paragraph in the Times UN story:
"In an interview published in the new issue of Rolling Stone magazine, Mr. Kerry was asked what he would want people to remember about his presidency. He responded, "That it always told the truth to the American people." "
Not many years ago weekends were mainly a down time in the news cycle. Sure there were the Sunday morning network political shows and the Sunday paper, but otherwise Saturday and Sunday were given over to yard work, BBQ's, family outings and watching football or baseball on TV.
In the new age of the Internet(s?) the news ( and most importantly the campaign news) just barrels ahead without the slightest pause. I spent a good part of Sunday sifting through a lot of information and opinion and I am left with a very good feeling for where this presidential race is headed.
To cut to the chase, President Bush is ahead and probably becoming more unbeatable with each passing day. John Kerry is just too much of an opportunistic and plastic man to win the office. The Washington Times this morning broke a story that reveals again that Kerry suffers from a debilitating case of Algores Syndrome. In other words he exaggerates (lies) about what he has done and who he has talked with etc.
Kerry is probably the least accomplished major party candidate since Warren G. Harding in 1920. In fact Harding at least ran the family newspaper fairly well. What has Kerry EVER accomplished aside from winning elective office? Now winning an election IS an accomplishment, but Kerry has NEVER done anything once he got into office. Nothing. Twenty years in the U.S. Senate and NOTHING to show for it. The man is a cipher, a chameleon, the sole actor in a one act play entitled Me Me Me.
I have a lot of respect for David Broder. Broder is a throwback to a time when reporters and pundits behaved in manner Lawrence O'Donnell could never understand. While Broder is unquestionably left of center, he is honest and generally fair. His latest column is damning for John Kerry. At first blush Broder seems to diss both candidates, but it becomes clear when one sums it up, that while Broder considers George W. Bush to be greatly flawed, he finds John Kerry to be COMPLETELY lacking in the essential qualities needed to be President.
The closing paragraph of Broder's column is telling: "Viewed in this light, the choice for the country becomes one of confirming an executive with visible and even fundamental shortcomings or entrusting the presidency to a man whose habits of mind and of action are far removed from the challenges of the White House." That, my friends, is a stake through John Kerry's election hopes.
For a concise reason as to why Broder (and millions more) feel this way about John F. Kerry, ponder the quote in the concluding paragraph in the Times UN story:
"In an interview published in the new issue of Rolling Stone magazine, Mr. Kerry was asked what he would want people to remember about his presidency. He responded, "That it always told the truth to the American people." "
While certainly "truth" is a laudable goal for any politician, I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, or Ronald Reagan would have thought of Mr. Kerry's choice?
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Good news a plenty.
Almost all the polling numbers being released today are good for the President. The fact that he is still campaigning in Pennsylvania is also a good indication that Karl Rove sees strong movement in the GOP's direction.
Naturally Pennsylvania could be a feint intended to force Kerry out of Ohio and Florida to defend a Gore state. However I doubt it. I strongly suspect that Rove senses weakness and is moving aggressively to exploit it.
Remember, in order to win, Kerry MUST capture Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes, Bush doesn't.
The most shocking poll today is the Detroit News showing Bush with a four point lead in Michigan. If Michigan is truly in play, John Kerry is in deep, deep, trouble. A possible explanation for the Bush lead is the fact that "state ballot Proposal 2 defining marriage as strictly between one man and one woman [is] winning easily, with a 67 percent to 24 percent margin."
If 67% of Michigan voters are opposed to same-sex marriage, then it much more likely that this poll is not the outlier it is being treated as.
Almost all the polling numbers being released today are good for the President. The fact that he is still campaigning in Pennsylvania is also a good indication that Karl Rove sees strong movement in the GOP's direction.
Naturally Pennsylvania could be a feint intended to force Kerry out of Ohio and Florida to defend a Gore state. However I doubt it. I strongly suspect that Rove senses weakness and is moving aggressively to exploit it.
Remember, in order to win, Kerry MUST capture Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes, Bush doesn't.
The most shocking poll today is the Detroit News showing Bush with a four point lead in Michigan. If Michigan is truly in play, John Kerry is in deep, deep, trouble. A possible explanation for the Bush lead is the fact that "state ballot Proposal 2 defining marriage as strictly between one man and one woman [is] winning easily, with a 67 percent to 24 percent margin."
If 67% of Michigan voters are opposed to same-sex marriage, then it much more likely that this poll is not the outlier it is being treated as.
Hell hath no hissy like a Sodomite scorned
Andrew Sullivan is widely linked to by conservative blogs because he has obtained a reputation as a not totally anti-GOP homosexual. Some of Sullivan's impulses are in a logical direction, so this earned him quite a bit of attention from some conservatives.
It is time those conservatives drop back and reassess. Sullivan is a typical liberal screw who is simply not quite as mindless as some of his fellow travelers. Sullivan actually indicated early on in the campaign, that he was likely to support Bush. However, once George W Bush came out against same-sex marriage, Sullivan has been throwing a massive temper tantrum and attacking the President at every turn.
Now Sullivan has decided that Pat Robertson (of all people) is telling the absolute truth and is correct to the tiniest detail, on the idiotic notion that Bush thought there would be no casualties in Iraq. If anyone doubted what a disgusting person Sullivan was before, this episode should clear up their confusion nicely.
Like most Republicans I don't care what two consenting adults do in their free time. Whatever my personal opinion of morality, the habits of other adults are for God to sort out not me. But there comes a moment when a great political party MUST take a stand on the major issues of the day. Freedom of speech. Slavery. Abortion. Deviant sexual behavior.
The time is well past that Republicans should waste any time coddling the homosexual lobby. Call sexual deviancy by its correct name and then just get on with life. Presumably the GOP opposes adultery, but that certainly does not preclude adulterers from being Republicans. Any whinny brats like Sullivan who decide to put the issue of acceptance of their bedtime jollies ahead of national security, deserve the Democratic Party and vice versa.
Good riddance girls and boys.
Andrew Sullivan is widely linked to by conservative blogs because he has obtained a reputation as a not totally anti-GOP homosexual. Some of Sullivan's impulses are in a logical direction, so this earned him quite a bit of attention from some conservatives.
It is time those conservatives drop back and reassess. Sullivan is a typical liberal screw who is simply not quite as mindless as some of his fellow travelers. Sullivan actually indicated early on in the campaign, that he was likely to support Bush. However, once George W Bush came out against same-sex marriage, Sullivan has been throwing a massive temper tantrum and attacking the President at every turn.
Now Sullivan has decided that Pat Robertson (of all people) is telling the absolute truth and is correct to the tiniest detail, on the idiotic notion that Bush thought there would be no casualties in Iraq. If anyone doubted what a disgusting person Sullivan was before, this episode should clear up their confusion nicely.
Like most Republicans I don't care what two consenting adults do in their free time. Whatever my personal opinion of morality, the habits of other adults are for God to sort out not me. But there comes a moment when a great political party MUST take a stand on the major issues of the day. Freedom of speech. Slavery. Abortion. Deviant sexual behavior.
The time is well past that Republicans should waste any time coddling the homosexual lobby. Call sexual deviancy by its correct name and then just get on with life. Presumably the GOP opposes adultery, but that certainly does not preclude adulterers from being Republicans. Any whinny brats like Sullivan who decide to put the issue of acceptance of their bedtime jollies ahead of national security, deserve the Democratic Party and vice versa.
Good riddance girls and boys.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Two weeks and a day
Man, this waiting is killing me. I have never been on pins and needles over a presidential election like this one. The polls are gyrating like I have never seen them before. Zogby for instance goes from Kerry ahead by 3, to Bush up by 4, to Even, all in one week!
What does it all mean? For one thing I feel fairly strongly that some funny business is going on with SOME of the polls. One poll that seems much more even is Rasmussen. He has had the race within Bush up 2 - Kerry up 2, for weeks now. That is likely where the race actually is.
The most famous poll, Gallop, seems to be as loony as any, going from Bush way up to Even to Bush way up again. I just find it hard to believe that the electorate is THAT undecided. In fact I think 95% of the voters are "decided" and another 3-4% are virtually "decided". I suspect only 1-2% are still actually unsure of who will get their vote.
MaryGate continues to generate news and comment. While I doubt that many Kerry voters will switch to Bush over this issue, I do think it could cause some of his soft support to stay home or vote for Nader.
I base this observation on what I think is one of Kerry's and the Democratic Party's biggest weaknesses. His support is made up of dozens of splinter groups. What's left of the Unions, what's left of the feminists, radical gays, peaceniks, what's left of the civil rights era black groups, tree huggers, trial lawyers, various socialist nuts organizations, ditto utopian dreamers organizations, and 10 or 15 pre-Carter Democrats who never got around to leaving the Party 25 years ago.
Some of these people are very weird. They move about in a world where up and down are the same thing. Common sense and practicality are constructs with which they are unfamiliar. Little comments like Kerry's Mary Cheney gaffe will cause some of them to throw their hands in the air, stomp off in a dander and vote for Nader or maybe just stay home and be sad on Election Day.
From news reports and from my own experience, the people most offended are women. I spoke with one woman over the weekend who is a life-long Democrat and she was withering in her criticism and denunciation of Kerry.
Ticking off women is the last thing Kerry needs at this point.
Man, this waiting is killing me. I have never been on pins and needles over a presidential election like this one. The polls are gyrating like I have never seen them before. Zogby for instance goes from Kerry ahead by 3, to Bush up by 4, to Even, all in one week!
What does it all mean? For one thing I feel fairly strongly that some funny business is going on with SOME of the polls. One poll that seems much more even is Rasmussen. He has had the race within Bush up 2 - Kerry up 2, for weeks now. That is likely where the race actually is.
The most famous poll, Gallop, seems to be as loony as any, going from Bush way up to Even to Bush way up again. I just find it hard to believe that the electorate is THAT undecided. In fact I think 95% of the voters are "decided" and another 3-4% are virtually "decided". I suspect only 1-2% are still actually unsure of who will get their vote.
MaryGate continues to generate news and comment. While I doubt that many Kerry voters will switch to Bush over this issue, I do think it could cause some of his soft support to stay home or vote for Nader.
I base this observation on what I think is one of Kerry's and the Democratic Party's biggest weaknesses. His support is made up of dozens of splinter groups. What's left of the Unions, what's left of the feminists, radical gays, peaceniks, what's left of the civil rights era black groups, tree huggers, trial lawyers, various socialist nuts organizations, ditto utopian dreamers organizations, and 10 or 15 pre-Carter Democrats who never got around to leaving the Party 25 years ago.
Some of these people are very weird. They move about in a world where up and down are the same thing. Common sense and practicality are constructs with which they are unfamiliar. Little comments like Kerry's Mary Cheney gaffe will cause some of them to throw their hands in the air, stomp off in a dander and vote for Nader or maybe just stay home and be sad on Election Day.
From news reports and from my own experience, the people most offended are women. I spoke with one woman over the weekend who is a life-long Democrat and she was withering in her criticism and denunciation of Kerry.
Ticking off women is the last thing Kerry needs at this point.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)