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!
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.
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.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
The race tightens
Recent polls continue to show the margin narrowing between President Bush and John Kerry. This was expected and predicted by most pundits and experts and thus is slight cause for gnashing of teeth by Republicans.
When the polls are disected and their internals sifted, and then applied to the reality of the individual state polls, it becomes ever more apparent that GWB is headed for a narrow but decisive victory.
Tomorrow night's debate is important. It gives Mr. Bush a chance to beat back the impression that Kerry clobbered him in their first encounter. While I don't believe that the debates will determine who wins or loses, they may well have a considerable impact on the final margin. For instance, I would now say that my prediction of a couple weeks ago of perhaps a 55-45 landslide seems out of reach. 52-48 seems more likely from this post-debate vantage point.
The time grows short, with less than four weeks till Election Day.
Recent polls continue to show the margin narrowing between President Bush and John Kerry. This was expected and predicted by most pundits and experts and thus is slight cause for gnashing of teeth by Republicans.
When the polls are disected and their internals sifted, and then applied to the reality of the individual state polls, it becomes ever more apparent that GWB is headed for a narrow but decisive victory.
Tomorrow night's debate is important. It gives Mr. Bush a chance to beat back the impression that Kerry clobbered him in their first encounter. While I don't believe that the debates will determine who wins or loses, they may well have a considerable impact on the final margin. For instance, I would now say that my prediction of a couple weeks ago of perhaps a 55-45 landslide seems out of reach. 52-48 seems more likely from this post-debate vantage point.
The time grows short, with less than four weeks till Election Day.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Post Debate thoughts
I did not watch the debate. I have read, extensively, the opinions of those who did see it. Putting those comments together with the early post-debate polling data, I've reach a few conclusions.
Kerry stanched the bleeding and probably saved himself from complete embarrassment on Election Day. Bush appears to have been poorly prepared which just flat out amazes and angers me. No excuse for it.
Karl Rove should have grabbed W by the ears and shouted in his face after that performance. Showing "annoyance" by making faces and behaving like a high school freshman is incredibly immature and stupid.
Come on Mr. President, be the man you have been since 9-11, not the irresponsible party boy you were 40 years ago.
I like George W. Bush, but he needs to rise above the limits of his father and become a true man of the people. A man who can take a poke in the rhetorical nose, maintain his calm and use his sense of humor to diffuse the moment.
This is still W's race to lose. I think the polls will loosen back up over the next few days, but the President needs a solid performance in the next debate to regain lost momentum.
I did not watch the debate. I have read, extensively, the opinions of those who did see it. Putting those comments together with the early post-debate polling data, I've reach a few conclusions.
Kerry stanched the bleeding and probably saved himself from complete embarrassment on Election Day. Bush appears to have been poorly prepared which just flat out amazes and angers me. No excuse for it.
Karl Rove should have grabbed W by the ears and shouted in his face after that performance. Showing "annoyance" by making faces and behaving like a high school freshman is incredibly immature and stupid.
Come on Mr. President, be the man you have been since 9-11, not the irresponsible party boy you were 40 years ago.
I like George W. Bush, but he needs to rise above the limits of his father and become a true man of the people. A man who can take a poke in the rhetorical nose, maintain his calm and use his sense of humor to diffuse the moment.
This is still W's race to lose. I think the polls will loosen back up over the next few days, but the President needs a solid performance in the next debate to regain lost momentum.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Is a Landslide possible?
I think the answer is emphatically YES!
Political campaigns are deeply bound by tradition and generally follow along well worn paths. Many folks are reluctant to break out of habits well learned until they actually step into the voting booth. An election that illustrates this very well is 1980.
All through that campaign, the polls showed a relatively tight race. Reagan was considered by the chattering class as too much of a cowboy, dangerous, reckless etc. Many Americans thus kept their intention to vote for him to themselves. I have long felt that this explains why polls generally under count the GOP's support.
On election day Reagan destroyed Jimmy Carter. Reagan got 51% of the vote in a three way race and lead Carter by 10 percentage points. With the exception of Reagan's dismantling of the hapless Walter Mondale four years later, no presidential election since then has seen a margin anywhere near that large.
George W. Bush came into office under less than ideal conditions. He lost the popular vote (for what that is worth, more on that in a future post), and he won the electoral vote by the barest of margins and only after a several weeks long Gortantrum. Many pundits along with the Democratic Party, assumed this would cloud Bush's chances for a second term.
Then September 11, 2001 happened. In a single morning of horror, the earth shifted and politics as we knew it ceased to exist. That single fact, barring a bizarre and unprecedented meltdown by George W. Bush in tonight's debate, will re-elect the President and by a margin outside that which is suggested by current polls.
When voters across the nation enter the voting booth and prepare to pull the lever (or punch the screen, or whatever) the last thought they will have, the last image they will contemplate will decide their vote.
It won't be Social Security, or unemployment, or gay marriage, or tax cuts, or Vietnam. Enron won't matter nor will Halliburton or Damn Rather. Milk price supports, wind surfing, idiots from Hollywood, and gas prices won't matter.
What will rise before the mind's eye and fill Americans with resolve, will be two towers burning and falling, a national symbol with a plane embedded in one of its five sides, an open field in Pennsylvania where good men confronted evil.
I believe that when Americans make this most important of choices, a surprisingly large number of them will vote for George W. Bush. In five weeks we will know for sure, but at this moment I suspect the president will gather something on the order of 55% of the popular vote, well over 300 electoral votes, and John Kerry will join George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis as men who ran for the wrong job against the wrong man at the wrong time.
I think the answer is emphatically YES!
Political campaigns are deeply bound by tradition and generally follow along well worn paths. Many folks are reluctant to break out of habits well learned until they actually step into the voting booth. An election that illustrates this very well is 1980.
All through that campaign, the polls showed a relatively tight race. Reagan was considered by the chattering class as too much of a cowboy, dangerous, reckless etc. Many Americans thus kept their intention to vote for him to themselves. I have long felt that this explains why polls generally under count the GOP's support.
On election day Reagan destroyed Jimmy Carter. Reagan got 51% of the vote in a three way race and lead Carter by 10 percentage points. With the exception of Reagan's dismantling of the hapless Walter Mondale four years later, no presidential election since then has seen a margin anywhere near that large.
George W. Bush came into office under less than ideal conditions. He lost the popular vote (for what that is worth, more on that in a future post), and he won the electoral vote by the barest of margins and only after a several weeks long Gortantrum. Many pundits along with the Democratic Party, assumed this would cloud Bush's chances for a second term.
Then September 11, 2001 happened. In a single morning of horror, the earth shifted and politics as we knew it ceased to exist. That single fact, barring a bizarre and unprecedented meltdown by George W. Bush in tonight's debate, will re-elect the President and by a margin outside that which is suggested by current polls.
When voters across the nation enter the voting booth and prepare to pull the lever (or punch the screen, or whatever) the last thought they will have, the last image they will contemplate will decide their vote.
It won't be Social Security, or unemployment, or gay marriage, or tax cuts, or Vietnam. Enron won't matter nor will Halliburton or Damn Rather. Milk price supports, wind surfing, idiots from Hollywood, and gas prices won't matter.
What will rise before the mind's eye and fill Americans with resolve, will be two towers burning and falling, a national symbol with a plane embedded in one of its five sides, an open field in Pennsylvania where good men confronted evil.
I believe that when Americans make this most important of choices, a surprisingly large number of them will vote for George W. Bush. In five weeks we will know for sure, but at this moment I suspect the president will gather something on the order of 55% of the popular vote, well over 300 electoral votes, and John Kerry will join George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis as men who ran for the wrong job against the wrong man at the wrong time.
Monday, September 27, 2004
The Road to 270
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 (a switch) 101
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 Kerry 136
Minnesota 10 Kerry 146
Mississippi 6 Bush 130
Missouri 11 Bush 141
Montana 3 Bush 144
Nebraska 5 Bush 149
Nevada 5 Bush 154
New Hampshire 4 Bush 158
New Jersey 15 Kerry 161
New Mexico 5 Kerry 166
New York 31 Kerry 197
North Carolina 15 Bush 173
North Dakota 3 Bush 176
Ohio 20 Bush 196
Oklahoma 7 Bush 203
Oregon 7 Kerry 204
Pennsylvania 21 Kerry 225
Rhode Island 4 Kerry 229
South Carolina 8 Bush 211
South Dakota 3 Bush 214
Tennessee 11 Bush 225
Texas 34 Bush 259
Utah 5 Bush 264
Vermont 3 Kerry 232
Virginia 13 Bush 277*****
Washington 11 Kerry 243
West Virginia 5 Bush 282
Wisconsin 10 Bush 292
Wyoming 3 Bush 295
Bush 295
Kerry 243
These are very close to numbers I put out back in January. I have moved New Mexico back into Kerry's court, while switching Nevada back to Bush. Both states have five votes and thus offset each other.
The huge news, and the only changes I have made from the 2000 results, is Iowa and Wisconsin moving strongly into the Red State column.
Several states are really too close to call, including Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. I would not be shocked to see all four go to President Bush on election day.
In my next post I will explain why I believe the President will actually win by an even larger margin.
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 (a switch) 101
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 Kerry 136
Minnesota 10 Kerry 146
Mississippi 6 Bush 130
Missouri 11 Bush 141
Montana 3 Bush 144
Nebraska 5 Bush 149
Nevada 5 Bush 154
New Hampshire 4 Bush 158
New Jersey 15 Kerry 161
New Mexico 5 Kerry 166
New York 31 Kerry 197
North Carolina 15 Bush 173
North Dakota 3 Bush 176
Ohio 20 Bush 196
Oklahoma 7 Bush 203
Oregon 7 Kerry 204
Pennsylvania 21 Kerry 225
Rhode Island 4 Kerry 229
South Carolina 8 Bush 211
South Dakota 3 Bush 214
Tennessee 11 Bush 225
Texas 34 Bush 259
Utah 5 Bush 264
Vermont 3 Kerry 232
Virginia 13 Bush 277*****
Washington 11 Kerry 243
West Virginia 5 Bush 282
Wisconsin 10 Bush 292
Wyoming 3 Bush 295
Bush 295
Kerry 243
These are very close to numbers I put out back in January. I have moved New Mexico back into Kerry's court, while switching Nevada back to Bush. Both states have five votes and thus offset each other.
The huge news, and the only changes I have made from the 2000 results, is Iowa and Wisconsin moving strongly into the Red State column.
Several states are really too close to call, including Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. I would not be shocked to see all four go to President Bush on election day.
In my next post I will explain why I believe the President will actually win by an even larger margin.
Friday, September 24, 2004
Monday, September 20, 2004
Misled?
CBS and Dan Rather have now brought themselves to allow as how maybe they were misled.
What poppycock. "Misled" of course gets them cleanly off the hook. After all, slick salesmen "mislead" people. When your Granny paid $2000 to that fellow to asphalt her driveway and then she never saw him again, she had been misled. Get it? It was NOT her fault!
By merely admitting to being "misled" and expressing "regret" CBS continues to try to ignore, sidestep, and spin this whole imbroglio.
CBS needs to admit they committed a major journalistic mistake and then compounded it by refusing to admit any wrongdoing until today.
Then, they need to open themselves up to an independent investigation to address the appearance of improper practices.
Don't hold your breath. With their behavior over the past two weeks, CBS has shown total disregard for truth, honesty, fairness, and accountability.
Only their name is to be trusted. When you watch Dan Rather and the CBS Evening News, you do indeed see BS.
CBS and Dan Rather have now brought themselves to allow as how maybe they were misled.
What poppycock. "Misled" of course gets them cleanly off the hook. After all, slick salesmen "mislead" people. When your Granny paid $2000 to that fellow to asphalt her driveway and then she never saw him again, she had been misled. Get it? It was NOT her fault!
By merely admitting to being "misled" and expressing "regret" CBS continues to try to ignore, sidestep, and spin this whole imbroglio.
CBS needs to admit they committed a major journalistic mistake and then compounded it by refusing to admit any wrongdoing until today.
Then, they need to open themselves up to an independent investigation to address the appearance of improper practices.
Don't hold your breath. With their behavior over the past two weeks, CBS has shown total disregard for truth, honesty, fairness, and accountability.
Only their name is to be trusted. When you watch Dan Rather and the CBS Evening News, you do indeed see BS.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
A dime's worth of difference.
Someone famously said that "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between America's two major parties.
While perhaps true at one time or another, today there are stark differences between the donkeys and the elephants.
After boiling all the yap-yap blather down to the bare bones, I find two extremely important differences.
The Democratic Party thinks most Americans are victims, of one kind or another, who must be "protected" from everyone (except maybe terrorists). Since the beginning of the Democratic Party in the 1820's, one of the overarching prime principles they have argued for is that "the people" are a weak lot, helpless, hapless, taken advantage of and powerless to fight back.
In contrast, the Republican Party has maintained from its genesis, that America is made up of individuals, and thus INDIVIDUAL liberty and responsibility is the only true hope of this nation.
Democrats used this difference to their advantage for most of the 20th Century. They convinced large segments of voters that THEY were for the little guy, while the GOP was for the rich. The facts are somewhat different.
Both parties actually favor "the rich". Life on this earth itself is geared toward the powerful. Money and power have many more options than poverty and weakness. This outstanding essay from William F. Buckley illustrates this beautifully.
Where the difference resides is in that while the Democrats would eternally enslave poor people and ensnare them in a net of never ending dependence, the GOP insists that EVERYONE be given a chance to stand or fall on their own.
As a core principle, Republicans believe that only through rigor can there be vigor. Patting folks on the head and giving them something today, does not prepare them for tomorrow, and more importantly does not allow them to become valuable and contributing members of society and co-owners of America's wealth and power.
The Democratic Party of 2004 finds itself firmly stuck in the ideas and problems of the 1930's. Because many Americans needed help during the Depression, the Democrats think they always will need that same level of "help". They have never caught on to the fact that the patient is much better and no longer needs the level of services that the New Deal provided.
To his ever lasting credit, Bill Clinton largely ended welfare (as we knew it for roughly 30 years) but his party can't seem to learn the lesson and move on to the new world.
The other clear and huge difference between the two parties is related to foreign policy and the use of America's power. Unlike the first difference, this one is of much more recent vintage.
Partisan squabbles are supposed to end at the water's edge, and generally speaking did for many decades. That is not to say that there weren't violent arguments about war and peace down through the ages, but through it all one principle was agreed to by America's leaders: American power should be used justly, wisely, sparingly, but at all times.....In America's Best Interests.
Today's Democratic Party is dominated by people who believe that American power is bad. Not just bad but evil. (What amazes me is how any GOP criticism of John Kerry's positions, immediately brings counter charges that the Republicans are "questioning my patriotism". Huh? No what Republicans and conservatives are "questioning" are your loony ideas. Ideas that if put in practice would endanger our nation and freedom around the world.)
Kerry Spot at NRO (scroll down to the 9/16 5:37PM entry) has referenced a Pew Research finding that suggests that 51% of Democrats blame the United States for 9-11.
That's what I'm talkin' about. Incredible.
The Democratic Party of FDR, Truman, Scoop Jackson and Joe Lieberman, no longer exists (Joe has not figured that out yet). In its place we have a pasty faced pack of fools who, riddled with guilt and cowardice, tries to appease murdering thugs by scorning the nation of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and you.
George W. Bush's Republican Party is too liberal and too wedded to big government, but on the two items discussed above, the GOP is still the only choice for conservatives.
Someone famously said that "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between America's two major parties.
While perhaps true at one time or another, today there are stark differences between the donkeys and the elephants.
After boiling all the yap-yap blather down to the bare bones, I find two extremely important differences.
The Democratic Party thinks most Americans are victims, of one kind or another, who must be "protected" from everyone (except maybe terrorists). Since the beginning of the Democratic Party in the 1820's, one of the overarching prime principles they have argued for is that "the people" are a weak lot, helpless, hapless, taken advantage of and powerless to fight back.
In contrast, the Republican Party has maintained from its genesis, that America is made up of individuals, and thus INDIVIDUAL liberty and responsibility is the only true hope of this nation.
Democrats used this difference to their advantage for most of the 20th Century. They convinced large segments of voters that THEY were for the little guy, while the GOP was for the rich. The facts are somewhat different.
Both parties actually favor "the rich". Life on this earth itself is geared toward the powerful. Money and power have many more options than poverty and weakness. This outstanding essay from William F. Buckley illustrates this beautifully.
Where the difference resides is in that while the Democrats would eternally enslave poor people and ensnare them in a net of never ending dependence, the GOP insists that EVERYONE be given a chance to stand or fall on their own.
As a core principle, Republicans believe that only through rigor can there be vigor. Patting folks on the head and giving them something today, does not prepare them for tomorrow, and more importantly does not allow them to become valuable and contributing members of society and co-owners of America's wealth and power.
The Democratic Party of 2004 finds itself firmly stuck in the ideas and problems of the 1930's. Because many Americans needed help during the Depression, the Democrats think they always will need that same level of "help". They have never caught on to the fact that the patient is much better and no longer needs the level of services that the New Deal provided.
To his ever lasting credit, Bill Clinton largely ended welfare (as we knew it for roughly 30 years) but his party can't seem to learn the lesson and move on to the new world.
The other clear and huge difference between the two parties is related to foreign policy and the use of America's power. Unlike the first difference, this one is of much more recent vintage.
Partisan squabbles are supposed to end at the water's edge, and generally speaking did for many decades. That is not to say that there weren't violent arguments about war and peace down through the ages, but through it all one principle was agreed to by America's leaders: American power should be used justly, wisely, sparingly, but at all times.....In America's Best Interests.
Today's Democratic Party is dominated by people who believe that American power is bad. Not just bad but evil. (What amazes me is how any GOP criticism of John Kerry's positions, immediately brings counter charges that the Republicans are "questioning my patriotism". Huh? No what Republicans and conservatives are "questioning" are your loony ideas. Ideas that if put in practice would endanger our nation and freedom around the world.)
Kerry Spot at NRO (scroll down to the 9/16 5:37PM entry) has referenced a Pew Research finding that suggests that 51% of Democrats blame the United States for 9-11.
That's what I'm talkin' about. Incredible.
The Democratic Party of FDR, Truman, Scoop Jackson and Joe Lieberman, no longer exists (Joe has not figured that out yet). In its place we have a pasty faced pack of fools who, riddled with guilt and cowardice, tries to appease murdering thugs by scorning the nation of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and you.
George W. Bush's Republican Party is too liberal and too wedded to big government, but on the two items discussed above, the GOP is still the only choice for conservatives.
Goodness!
It has been almost six months since my last post. I promise that won't happen again. I will be posting each Monday and Thursday and otherwise as the spirit moves me.
I have had a very hectic Spring and Summer but now I am ready to get down to it again.
The presidential race is shaping up much as I thought it would. The Kerry campaign however has been much more incompetent than I could have hoped.
I really am beginning to suspect that it is being systematically sabotaged from with-in.
My prediction from back in January still stands. Bush in a narrow but clear victory.
I will be reevaluating my state by state predictions before the end of the month.
It has been almost six months since my last post. I promise that won't happen again. I will be posting each Monday and Thursday and otherwise as the spirit moves me.
I have had a very hectic Spring and Summer but now I am ready to get down to it again.
The presidential race is shaping up much as I thought it would. The Kerry campaign however has been much more incompetent than I could have hoped.
I really am beginning to suspect that it is being systematically sabotaged from with-in.
My prediction from back in January still stands. Bush in a narrow but clear victory.
I will be reevaluating my state by state predictions before the end of the month.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Kerry begins his fall
As I have steadfastly maintained, John Kerry is looking less "presidential" every day.
The fact is that Bill Clinton has more class and grace than this product of Bahstan blue bloods.
John Kerry is a jerk. A self centered, ego maniacal, me first, jerk. Now he has added cussing a Secret Service agent for bumping His Highness, to his resume.
He brings NOTHING to the table beyond his desire to be important. A Kerry presidency would be a disaster that would make conservatives long for the Clinton Administration.
In fact I will go farther: President John Kerry would make Jimmy Carter look good.
Again, barring some horrific event, this election will be won by George W. Bush. What I have seen of the Bush campaign thus far, convinces me that Karl Rove is in full possession of his faculties, and will roast Mr. Kerry as he richly deserves.
As I have steadfastly maintained, John Kerry is looking less "presidential" every day.
The fact is that Bill Clinton has more class and grace than this product of Bahstan blue bloods.
John Kerry is a jerk. A self centered, ego maniacal, me first, jerk. Now he has added cussing a Secret Service agent for bumping His Highness, to his resume.
He brings NOTHING to the table beyond his desire to be important. A Kerry presidency would be a disaster that would make conservatives long for the Clinton Administration.
In fact I will go farther: President John Kerry would make Jimmy Carter look good.
Again, barring some horrific event, this election will be won by George W. Bush. What I have seen of the Bush campaign thus far, convinces me that Karl Rove is in full possession of his faculties, and will roast Mr. Kerry as he richly deserves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)