and a week of catching up on work, so its time for some serious "blogging" or writing in my pajamas as is it now known.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Kerry and guns...
According to multiple sources, the Kerry camp issued a press release response to this in which his campaign actually said that Kerry is the first democratic nominee to support the second amendment. That is based upon recollection, because I cannot find the quote now that I am looking for it. Never mind that it is demonstrably false--even Bill Clinton has a higher regard for gun rights than Kerry-- Did I read that correctly, or was it a joke?
To say you support the second amendment is like saying you support the first amendment. So what! What is important is what you think the second amendment means. Good luck trying to pin him down. One question I would love to hear in the debates: "Senator Kerry, do you think the phrase "of the people" in the second amendment means the same thing that it does in the fourth amendment (you know, Patriot Act, and all that)".
I have only ever seen Kerry in pictures with a shotgun of some sort, the only type of gun he apparently believes is protected by the second amendment. I will take John Kerry's "support" of the second amendment seriously when I see him shooting at silhouette targets with a Glock and hear him talking about his support of right to carry laws.
To say you support the second amendment is like saying you support the first amendment. So what! What is important is what you think the second amendment means. Good luck trying to pin him down. One question I would love to hear in the debates: "Senator Kerry, do you think the phrase "of the people" in the second amendment means the same thing that it does in the fourth amendment (you know, Patriot Act, and all that)".
I have only ever seen Kerry in pictures with a shotgun of some sort, the only type of gun he apparently believes is protected by the second amendment. I will take John Kerry's "support" of the second amendment seriously when I see him shooting at silhouette targets with a Glock and hear him talking about his support of right to carry laws.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Susan Estrich's Friends?
More evidence that the left has come unglued. Are these the friends that Susan Estrich was referring to?
Interesting parallel....
Check out the progression of the campaign---it is so reminiscent of today, its spooky.
http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/programs/history/faculty/TROYWEB/ReaganSources/1988.htm
http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/programs/history/faculty/TROYWEB/ReaganSources/1988.htm
Interesting that Stan Greenberg
is going over to the Kerry campaign. Does this mean that Bush can now point to direct links between Kerry and the 527s?
Sunday, September 05, 2004
"They're back"....
according to Drudge. Carville, Begala and Greenberg...the war room returns. This will be an interesting September.
Dirt Politics and Susan Estrich
Ok, someone has to talk about it. Susan Estrich has threatened (or promised) that some forces will engage in efforts to dredge-up negative personal attacks on the President. As is typical with democrats lately, Estrich is still fighting the campaigns that she lost and trying to find someone to blame today for what happened then.
Let's take a critical look at the premise behind her argument. For starters, has anyone tried to verify her claim that Lee Atwater apologized to her on his deathbed for supposedly planting untrue stories about Dukakis? Something about that claim strikes me as implausible, but who knows. (UPDATE--I ran a Google search for "Lee Atwater" and found a number of interesting stories, some regarding the late-in-life apologies that Atwater provided to political opponents. These apologies appeared to be about stores that he "planted" in the media. None of those stories, however, appears to be domonstrably false. Instead, they appear to be true, but hard-ball political tactics. Estrich implies in her story that Atwater planted FALSE stories. That does not seem to correspond to what happened.)
Estrich's basic premise is that Michael Dukakis lost the 1988 Presidential election because of Republican dirty tricks engineered by Lee Atwater and a cadre of Haldeman-esque "plumber" operatives and other accomplices. The charge is nothing new. Every time a democrat (or a Republican that democrats like) loses an election, the democrats blame it on Republican dirty-tricks, rather than an objective look at the issues. This phenomenon has manifested itself recently in democrats lamenting the loss of Max Cleland in the Georgia Senate race in 2002 and by the media's anger over John McCain's defeat to George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries. National Review has written about this, calling it the "McCain-Cleland martyr Myth."
The premise is questionable. Susan Estrich is hardly an objective source. She has been roundly criticized for many years for the way that she ran the Dukakis campaign.
Lets take a look at her claim that Dukakis lost the election because of two false stories that she claimed were planted by Republican operatives. The first, she claims, was a story that Michael Dukakis was mentally imbalanced. It would have been impossible for that story to gain any traction in the press if it originated simply with one Republican operative. The same can be said of the Kitty Dukakis flag burning story. If it were that easy to plant a bogus story, every campaign would do it.
George W. Bush apparently worked closely with Lee Atwater during his father's election campaign in 1988. Susan Estrich has apparently never forgotten this. Now is her chance for revenge and she's taking a serious shot across the bow. I hope that some in the mainstream media take a close and objective look at her claims.
Let's take a critical look at the premise behind her argument. For starters, has anyone tried to verify her claim that Lee Atwater apologized to her on his deathbed for supposedly planting untrue stories about Dukakis? Something about that claim strikes me as implausible, but who knows. (UPDATE--I ran a Google search for "Lee Atwater" and found a number of interesting stories, some regarding the late-in-life apologies that Atwater provided to political opponents. These apologies appeared to be about stores that he "planted" in the media. None of those stories, however, appears to be domonstrably false. Instead, they appear to be true, but hard-ball political tactics. Estrich implies in her story that Atwater planted FALSE stories. That does not seem to correspond to what happened.)
Estrich's basic premise is that Michael Dukakis lost the 1988 Presidential election because of Republican dirty tricks engineered by Lee Atwater and a cadre of Haldeman-esque "plumber" operatives and other accomplices. The charge is nothing new. Every time a democrat (or a Republican that democrats like) loses an election, the democrats blame it on Republican dirty-tricks, rather than an objective look at the issues. This phenomenon has manifested itself recently in democrats lamenting the loss of Max Cleland in the Georgia Senate race in 2002 and by the media's anger over John McCain's defeat to George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries. National Review has written about this, calling it the "McCain-Cleland martyr Myth."
The premise is questionable. Susan Estrich is hardly an objective source. She has been roundly criticized for many years for the way that she ran the Dukakis campaign.
Lets take a look at her claim that Dukakis lost the election because of two false stories that she claimed were planted by Republican operatives. The first, she claims, was a story that Michael Dukakis was mentally imbalanced. It would have been impossible for that story to gain any traction in the press if it originated simply with one Republican operative. The same can be said of the Kitty Dukakis flag burning story. If it were that easy to plant a bogus story, every campaign would do it.
George W. Bush apparently worked closely with Lee Atwater during his father's election campaign in 1988. Susan Estrich has apparently never forgotten this. Now is her chance for revenge and she's taking a serious shot across the bow. I hope that some in the mainstream media take a close and objective look at her claims.
"Comeback Kerry"
The line on Kerry in some circles is that he is a "great closer," who never really gets into it until his back is against the wall. This is, it is said, how he won the Senate race against Bill Weld in 1996 and how he came from behind to win the Iowa caucuses and, ultimately, the Democratic primaries. I assume for the sake of this discussion that the line is true. A couple of points.
First, if that is Kerry's modus operandi, what an extraordinarily risky strategy! It is one thing to do it in a senate race in a democratically-dominated, mostly liberal, state; or, to do it in a democratic primary that is dominated by party activists. To come from this far behind in a presidential election will require a major mistake by the opponent (or perhaps a slime-fest, for more on that read on), and that is not very likely. I doubt that this is a deliberate strategy on the part of the Kerry campaign. They expected Kerry to be in the lead at this point, even if by a small margin. As I have written about before, Kerry greatest weakness is his arrogance, which seethes throughout his campaign.
Second, Bush is also a great closer. He came from behind in his 1994 Governor's race, he has come from behind this year and he led a come-from-behind victory by congressional Republicans in the 2002 mid-term elections. The arrogance of the Kerry camp (indeed of the entire democratic and leftist establishment) is most obvious in how they continually underestimate Bush. This belief that Bush is an idiot is so ingrained that it will be difficult to re-tool the campaign around the idea that Bush is a tough and formidable opponent. That is clear in the reaction to the convention--i.e. blame it on mean Republican tricks.
First, if that is Kerry's modus operandi, what an extraordinarily risky strategy! It is one thing to do it in a senate race in a democratically-dominated, mostly liberal, state; or, to do it in a democratic primary that is dominated by party activists. To come from this far behind in a presidential election will require a major mistake by the opponent (or perhaps a slime-fest, for more on that read on), and that is not very likely. I doubt that this is a deliberate strategy on the part of the Kerry campaign. They expected Kerry to be in the lead at this point, even if by a small margin. As I have written about before, Kerry greatest weakness is his arrogance, which seethes throughout his campaign.
Second, Bush is also a great closer. He came from behind in his 1994 Governor's race, he has come from behind this year and he led a come-from-behind victory by congressional Republicans in the 2002 mid-term elections. The arrogance of the Kerry camp (indeed of the entire democratic and leftist establishment) is most obvious in how they continually underestimate Bush. This belief that Bush is an idiot is so ingrained that it will be difficult to re-tool the campaign around the idea that Bush is a tough and formidable opponent. That is clear in the reaction to the convention--i.e. blame it on mean Republican tricks.
My, My, My what a week it has been...
Everyone has already read commentary on Zell's masterpiece and the reaction to it. As expected, Bush is up in the polls and cruising into September. The Kerry crack-up appears to have begun and all is right with world! I wish it were that simple. Please read on in comments above for my take on the state of the campaign. I will be around with constant updates on the campaign as the campaign now kicks into high-gear (as if it hasn't been going full blast since last year).
Sunday, August 22, 2004
I feel a little sorry for Kerry...
because the swift-vote thing is just the tip of the ice-burg. I assume that the swift-vet stuff was not coordinated, for the sake of this argument. The Bush campaign has much worse in store. And the sad thing for Kerry is that Bush will still manage to remain positive.
Coordination is very difficult to prove. It is kind of like proving collusion and price-fixing between gas stations on opposite corners of the same street. Remember when Kerry announced that he was "going dark" in August and admitted that it was a tacit message to others, i.e. DNC and 527s, to pick up the slack.
I think the Kerry campaign folks are really out of their league. They had to know this was coming. They know the hits on his past record are coming. If they continue to respond by acting like cry-babies, Kerry will look weak and ineffectual--not a place for a challenger to be. But hey, he served in Vietnam!
The grand strategy is unfolding. The rope-a-dope has begun. If Bush comes out of his convention with any kind of serious lead (i.e. five or more points), it will be lights out.
This is exactly where the Bushies want this race--Kerry defending Kerry.
Coordination is very difficult to prove. It is kind of like proving collusion and price-fixing between gas stations on opposite corners of the same street. Remember when Kerry announced that he was "going dark" in August and admitted that it was a tacit message to others, i.e. DNC and 527s, to pick up the slack.
I think the Kerry campaign folks are really out of their league. They had to know this was coming. They know the hits on his past record are coming. If they continue to respond by acting like cry-babies, Kerry will look weak and ineffectual--not a place for a challenger to be. But hey, he served in Vietnam!
The grand strategy is unfolding. The rope-a-dope has begun. If Bush comes out of his convention with any kind of serious lead (i.e. five or more points), it will be lights out.
This is exactly where the Bushies want this race--Kerry defending Kerry.
The Kerry Campaign's
reaction to the swift-vote vets "controversy" is a serious mistake. It illustrates either a) the Kerry campaign is out of its league, b) the Kerry camp, probably from on high, is arrogant and out of touch, or possibly both a) and b).
By drawing all of this attention to the ads, Kerry dignifies them. Significant portions of the American public do not trust the media, so the big media reaction to the problem is likely to make many voters feel that there "must be something to it all." The "liar, liar pants on fire" thing just doesn't wash.
Kerry's attack on the ads as a violation of the campaign rules is a serious mistake that is probably the turning point in this campaign. Kerry invites scrutiny of his campaign's ties to the anti-Bush groups and 527's, particularly to Michael Moore and George Soros. Kerry also doesn't address the substance of the ads directly. He tries to deflect attention away. This "problem" has thrown his campaign seriously off message and forced him to spend valuable time and resources dealing with it. Kerry should have ignored it and stayed on message. Bad move. Very bad move. Remember how the National Guard thing threw Bush off message...same thing here.
I didn't think the implosion would begin this early, but it has. Kerry has been flanked like Pope at second Manasses and Hooker at Chancellorsville. The results will probably be as devastating. Sun tsu is looking down with awe.
By drawing all of this attention to the ads, Kerry dignifies them. Significant portions of the American public do not trust the media, so the big media reaction to the problem is likely to make many voters feel that there "must be something to it all." The "liar, liar pants on fire" thing just doesn't wash.
Kerry's attack on the ads as a violation of the campaign rules is a serious mistake that is probably the turning point in this campaign. Kerry invites scrutiny of his campaign's ties to the anti-Bush groups and 527's, particularly to Michael Moore and George Soros. Kerry also doesn't address the substance of the ads directly. He tries to deflect attention away. This "problem" has thrown his campaign seriously off message and forced him to spend valuable time and resources dealing with it. Kerry should have ignored it and stayed on message. Bad move. Very bad move. Remember how the National Guard thing threw Bush off message...same thing here.
I didn't think the implosion would begin this early, but it has. Kerry has been flanked like Pope at second Manasses and Hooker at Chancellorsville. The results will probably be as devastating. Sun tsu is looking down with awe.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
I feel the same way about this speech that I did
about Gore in 2000...partisanship aside.
Can you imagine listening to this self-righteous ... for the next four years?
Can you imagine listening to this self-righteous ... for the next four years?
Mary Beth Cahill just told
Fox News that: "George W. Bush has had three years to make America safer and he hasn't." Excuse me!
Glad you cleared this up....Kerry's Economic Plan
"First, new incentives to revitalize manufacturing. Second, investment in technology and innovation that will create the good-paying jobs of the future. Third, close the tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping our jobs overseas. Instead, we will reward companies that create and keep good paying jobs where they belong - in the good old U.S.A. "
This line is a non sequiter....
"You don't value families by kicking kids out of after school programs and taking cops off our streets, so that Enron can get another tax break."
How is Kerry going to...
ensure that 100% of the container ships coming into our ports are searched....shut down commerce?
What does this line mean:
"I will never fight a war without a plan to win the peace"....I'm a little scared by that.
Democrats New Found Love of the Military
Many of the democrats whom I know seem to think that Kerry's war service is the reason he will be elected over Bush. This is funny coming from folks who for decades attacked and gutted the U.S. Military. That being as it may, let me name a few war heroes who were not elected: George McGovern, Bob Dole, Curtis LeMay.
This is all so phony.
Was John Edwards in the military? I thought not. Why not?
When military service is a liability, i.e. Clinton, Democrats poo-poo it as not important. When it is a strength, they make up phony reasons to criticize a Republican president who actually did serve.
For all that one can say about the Republican and Democratic parties, one thing is clear. No party has done more to support the U.S. military than the Republican party. No party has done more damage to our security and to our military than the Democratic party. Facts. Plain and simple. The sooner the American people are reminded of that, the quicker Bush can out this thing away and get on with governing.
This is all so phony.
Was John Edwards in the military? I thought not. Why not?
When military service is a liability, i.e. Clinton, Democrats poo-poo it as not important. When it is a strength, they make up phony reasons to criticize a Republican president who actually did serve.
For all that one can say about the Republican and Democratic parties, one thing is clear. No party has done more to support the U.S. military than the Republican party. No party has done more damage to our security and to our military than the Democratic party. Facts. Plain and simple. The sooner the American people are reminded of that, the quicker Bush can out this thing away and get on with governing.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
It's All Spin
All of it. The Democrats think they will win because of their reading of the polls. The Republicans think they will win because of their spin on the polls. But in the end, that is all it is--SPIN. The election is still three and half months away. Anything can happen between now and then. Look how quickly former front-runner Howard Dean went down the tubes. If that is not enough to give anyone pause, I don't know what is.
That said. some additional thoughts:
I have maintained for some time that overconfidence will ultimately be the Democrats and Kerry's undoing. We are starting to see it come to roost during this convention. Does anyone seriously believe that Kerry has a chance to win in Virginia and South Carolina? If Kerry wins Virginia, you can go to bed at 9:00 on election night. That's the ballgame. I'd say there is very little chance of that happening, but who knows. I mean, hey, maybe Bush will win California. He's been there enough. Or how about New Jersey--the polls are close.
On a different note, can somebody please explain to me when Ron Reagan, Jr. was ever a Republican? The media is calling him a Republican. Apparently Republicans for Kerry has at least two members now--him and Theresa Kerry.
Finally, and the most promising piece of information for Bush--I heard this evening that Ed Koch has announced that he will support Bush in the election. Democrats for Bush is growing.
That said. some additional thoughts:
I have maintained for some time that overconfidence will ultimately be the Democrats and Kerry's undoing. We are starting to see it come to roost during this convention. Does anyone seriously believe that Kerry has a chance to win in Virginia and South Carolina? If Kerry wins Virginia, you can go to bed at 9:00 on election night. That's the ballgame. I'd say there is very little chance of that happening, but who knows. I mean, hey, maybe Bush will win California. He's been there enough. Or how about New Jersey--the polls are close.
On a different note, can somebody please explain to me when Ron Reagan, Jr. was ever a Republican? The media is calling him a Republican. Apparently Republicans for Kerry has at least two members now--him and Theresa Kerry.
Finally, and the most promising piece of information for Bush--I heard this evening that Ed Koch has announced that he will support Bush in the election. Democrats for Bush is growing.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Why do so many Americans think ...
that the economy is doing poorly? (Or so says the LA Times Poll) This bothers me. It is a sign that democrats and Kerry have managed to "talk down" the economy. Not a good thing for Bush...
About Polls and how Bush will win
When I was in law school, I wrote an opinion piece for the school paper on how polls are used to manipulate public opinion. The basic premise is this: there are truly undecided voters and then there are about 10% of voters who are squishy-types in our society. These individuals are the ones who really want to be liked. They will wait until the very last minute to make up their minds and will probably vote based upon a mystical amalgamation of a) who they think will win and b) who they think there friends are voting for. This leads to the types of strange momentum swings we see in the last few days before elections.
If I am right that Bush has a solid base of between 45-47%, he needs to hammer away at Kerry's soft voters. Bush will build a 4-6 point lead on Kerry by hammering him enough to peer back some of that soft support. IIn October, I would expect to see numbers like Bush 46 - Kerry 42, etc. The dems will spin that as Bush still being in trouble because he is below 50% and hasn't broken out of his base.
The squishy voters will see that Bush is ahead in the polls and decide that he will probably win, and therefore jump on the bandwagon. This movement will be helped by talk throughout the country of a positive economy and backlash against vitriol and hatred from the left.
In the end, Kerry will get most of the truly undecided voters, but Bush will get most of the "squishy" voters--the ones who want to vote for winner. These are the same folks who seem to have a baseball cap for every.
If I am right that Bush has a solid base of between 45-47%, he needs to hammer away at Kerry's soft voters. Bush will build a 4-6 point lead on Kerry by hammering him enough to peer back some of that soft support. IIn October, I would expect to see numbers like Bush 46 - Kerry 42, etc. The dems will spin that as Bush still being in trouble because he is below 50% and hasn't broken out of his base.
The squishy voters will see that Bush is ahead in the polls and decide that he will probably win, and therefore jump on the bandwagon. This movement will be helped by talk throughout the country of a positive economy and backlash against vitriol and hatred from the left.
In the end, Kerry will get most of the truly undecided voters, but Bush will get most of the "squishy" voters--the ones who want to vote for winner. These are the same folks who seem to have a baseball cap for every.
For Kerry to be such a good "closer"...
doesn't he need to be behind or locked in a tight race? Adding to my comments below, I would note that if the folks behind the scenes at Kerry-Edwards 2004, at DNC, etc., etc. are predicting a big Kerry win, Kerry may get overconfident. Mark Mehlman needs to figure out a creative way to spin the "closer" phenomenon.
When Bush is up by six in mid-October, expect to hear 24-7 news analysis about Kerry the strong "closer."
When Bush is up by six in mid-October, expect to hear 24-7 news analysis about Kerry the strong "closer."
Updates
I have not updated in a while. I've been too busy with work, but my goodness have I missed a bunch of news.
I agree completely with the analysis on the state of the race by the folks at RealClearPolitics, which you can read here. NRO online, as always has excellent insight, from the Conservative perspective.
I happen to think that the Kerry campaign is headed for an implosion. No candidate since Richard Nixon has taken the kind of non-stop pounding that Bush has over the last six months. That he is not down by twenty points is, to me, difficult to comprehend. I add a few thoughts not converted by RCP or NRO.
First, Charlie Cook's analysis fails to take into account Bush's floor. If Bush were weak, I would expect to see his numbers dip periodically into the 30s. They have not. Bush appears to have a floor of around 45%. I think that number is low. Bush's floor is probably his approval rating. Anyone who right now approves of the job that the President is doing is almost certain to be a likely Bush voter. That puts his floor at closer to 47%. Even if the 10% of the voters who are undecided break 2/3 for Kerry, Bush will probably have just enough to win.
Second, I continue to contend that this election is not going to be as close as some of the commentators seem to suggest. That is just media spin in search of a horserace. This race is probably going to break in early October and it will likely break decisively in one direction or the other. I expect the winning margin to be closer to five or six points.
Third, and Rich Lowery captured some of this in his piece on NRO online earlier this week--the democrats are so arrogant that they will destroy themselves and Kerry in the process. They are so convinced that Bush is an idiot, that they are ripe for the "rope a dope" that I believe is in process. Karl Rove--the democrat's "mad genius"--is simply too smart and too disciplined not to have an end game, even if I can't see what it is right now.
I agree completely with the analysis on the state of the race by the folks at RealClearPolitics, which you can read here. NRO online, as always has excellent insight, from the Conservative perspective.
I happen to think that the Kerry campaign is headed for an implosion. No candidate since Richard Nixon has taken the kind of non-stop pounding that Bush has over the last six months. That he is not down by twenty points is, to me, difficult to comprehend. I add a few thoughts not converted by RCP or NRO.
First, Charlie Cook's analysis fails to take into account Bush's floor. If Bush were weak, I would expect to see his numbers dip periodically into the 30s. They have not. Bush appears to have a floor of around 45%. I think that number is low. Bush's floor is probably his approval rating. Anyone who right now approves of the job that the President is doing is almost certain to be a likely Bush voter. That puts his floor at closer to 47%. Even if the 10% of the voters who are undecided break 2/3 for Kerry, Bush will probably have just enough to win.
Second, I continue to contend that this election is not going to be as close as some of the commentators seem to suggest. That is just media spin in search of a horserace. This race is probably going to break in early October and it will likely break decisively in one direction or the other. I expect the winning margin to be closer to five or six points.
Third, and Rich Lowery captured some of this in his piece on NRO online earlier this week--the democrats are so arrogant that they will destroy themselves and Kerry in the process. They are so convinced that Bush is an idiot, that they are ripe for the "rope a dope" that I believe is in process. Karl Rove--the democrat's "mad genius"--is simply too smart and too disciplined not to have an end game, even if I can't see what it is right now.
Monday, May 17, 2004
Senate & House Predictions
In a piece of overlooked news, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Vieth v. Jubelirer that political gerrymandering claims are not cognizable under the U.S. Constitution, effectively overruling Davis v. Bandemer. This means that the GOP will control the House of Representatives at least until the next census. With success in Georgia combating the Democrats gerrymandering and with politically motivated plans in Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania, it will be very difficult for the Democrats to make up ground in the House.
As for the Senate, here is how I see the race today. The GOP stands to lose two seats in Illinois and Alaska, while defending two tight races in Colorado and Oklahoma, with Pennsylvania a possible democratic upset. On the other side, the democrats will almost certainly lose Georgia and South Carolina, offsetting GOP loses in IL and OK. Republicans have a real shot of taking the seat in Florida, as well as the seats in North Carolina and Louisiana. Add to this the competitive race in South Dakota, and possibly competitive races in NV and California, and it looks like the GOP has a slight, but discernible early advantage in the Senate. Current prediction GOP +1 .
I've been away for a while, so I will devote a couple of posts to the state of the Presidential Race.
As for the Senate, here is how I see the race today. The GOP stands to lose two seats in Illinois and Alaska, while defending two tight races in Colorado and Oklahoma, with Pennsylvania a possible democratic upset. On the other side, the democrats will almost certainly lose Georgia and South Carolina, offsetting GOP loses in IL and OK. Republicans have a real shot of taking the seat in Florida, as well as the seats in North Carolina and Louisiana. Add to this the competitive race in South Dakota, and possibly competitive races in NV and California, and it looks like the GOP has a slight, but discernible early advantage in the Senate. Current prediction GOP +1 .
I've been away for a while, so I will devote a couple of posts to the state of the Presidential Race.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
Questions That I Want Someone to Ask Senator Kerry
These are not all original, but I admit that I cannot refer to the specific origin of those which are derived from someone else's work:
1) Senator Kerry, you support the current Democratic filibuster in the U.S. Senate against a number of President Bush's judicial nominees. If you are elected President, Republicans in the Senate will almost certainly return the favor. What, if anything, are you prepared to do to break the log-jam in judicial nominees and, are you willing to give Republicans the same say in choosing Federal judges that you and your party have demanded from President Bush? By the same token, if Republicans filibuster your nominees because they consider them "out of the mainstream," "too liberal," or whatever, how are you going to justify your approach when you have already defended the Senate's right to filibuster judicial nominees.
2) Senator Kerry, Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., recently indicated that you had assured him that if you are elected President you will immediately begin drilling in ANWAR in Alaska and throughout the United States. This, despite repeated promises to filibuster any legislation that would authorize such drilling in the U.S. Senate. Is Hoffa lying? If so, what did you really promise the Teamsters? If Hoffa is telling the truth, how do intend to begin drilling in ANWAR without the consent of Congress and how do you reconcile that drilling with your long-term stated opposition to it?
3) Senator Kerry, you recently suggested that Americans should be cautious about Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion," in order to avoid anti-semitism. Do you think that any American who believes in the gospel account of the crucifixion of Jesus is an anti-semite?
4) Senator Kerry, you have indicated that you "support the second amendment" and that you are a gun owner and a hunter. What does the second amendment mean? What, if any, laws does it prohibit? What, if any, laws does it allow? Will you insist that your judicial nominees also support the second amendment?
5) By the same token, Senator Kerry, do you support the right of law-abiding gun owners to CARRY concealed firearms for self-defense if they pass a criminal background check and undergo some training in the proper use and carry of firearms? Same question, but suppose that citizens went through the same training and qualifications as required of the police.
6) Senator Kerry, do you still believe that certain U.S. military personnel who served in Vietnam should be tried as war criminals?
7) Senator Kerry, you have been critical of President Bush for causing the Haiti crisis. What, if anything, would you have done different?
8) And finally (for today), Senator Kerry, what, if anything would you do differently to catch Osama Bin Laden?
1) Senator Kerry, you support the current Democratic filibuster in the U.S. Senate against a number of President Bush's judicial nominees. If you are elected President, Republicans in the Senate will almost certainly return the favor. What, if anything, are you prepared to do to break the log-jam in judicial nominees and, are you willing to give Republicans the same say in choosing Federal judges that you and your party have demanded from President Bush? By the same token, if Republicans filibuster your nominees because they consider them "out of the mainstream," "too liberal," or whatever, how are you going to justify your approach when you have already defended the Senate's right to filibuster judicial nominees.
2) Senator Kerry, Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., recently indicated that you had assured him that if you are elected President you will immediately begin drilling in ANWAR in Alaska and throughout the United States. This, despite repeated promises to filibuster any legislation that would authorize such drilling in the U.S. Senate. Is Hoffa lying? If so, what did you really promise the Teamsters? If Hoffa is telling the truth, how do intend to begin drilling in ANWAR without the consent of Congress and how do you reconcile that drilling with your long-term stated opposition to it?
3) Senator Kerry, you recently suggested that Americans should be cautious about Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion," in order to avoid anti-semitism. Do you think that any American who believes in the gospel account of the crucifixion of Jesus is an anti-semite?
4) Senator Kerry, you have indicated that you "support the second amendment" and that you are a gun owner and a hunter. What does the second amendment mean? What, if any, laws does it prohibit? What, if any, laws does it allow? Will you insist that your judicial nominees also support the second amendment?
5) By the same token, Senator Kerry, do you support the right of law-abiding gun owners to CARRY concealed firearms for self-defense if they pass a criminal background check and undergo some training in the proper use and carry of firearms? Same question, but suppose that citizens went through the same training and qualifications as required of the police.
6) Senator Kerry, do you still believe that certain U.S. military personnel who served in Vietnam should be tried as war criminals?
7) Senator Kerry, you have been critical of President Bush for causing the Haiti crisis. What, if anything, would you have done different?
8) And finally (for today), Senator Kerry, what, if anything would you do differently to catch Osama Bin Laden?
Has Kerry Peaked?
Kerry appears to be unable to really break the low 50%, while Bush appears to have hit his floor--44%. If that is true, than the President now has nowhere to go but up. Polls are, however, highly suspicious. The key polls are the Gallup Polls immediately after the major party conventions and the debates in the Fall. In my opinion, they show a decent (however imperfect) view of public movement to and away-from candidates.
Why Senators Are seldom Elected President
In considering a Kerry-Bush run, the media is comparing Kerry to John Fitzgerald Kennedy. They were both Senators from Massachusetts. They were both war heroes. They were both rich.
There are a lot of reasons that Senators or Congressman are rarely elected President. The voting record is the biggest thing. Years and years of contradictory positions and speeches just make these folks fodder for any opponent. Governors generally don't have the same kind of paper trail. The time that they spent in Washington is also sure to have made a Senator or Congressman many enemies, from both sides of the aisle and from all regions of the country. Not so with Governors.
Kerry is different from John Fitzgerald Kennedy for a variety of reasons. First, Kerry has been in the Senate for a long time. Kennedy (J) was in the Senate for less than ten years before he was elected President. Kennedy played both sides of the fence from the very beginning. He was friendly with Joe McCarthy, even voting against his censure. Not so with Kerry. He has been a far-left liberal since the beginning of his Senate career. Only in the last few years has he even suggested that he is trying to move to the middle, and that went out the window when he had to move to the left to win the Democratic primary.
Kerry has a LONG record, and a record that is in many ways inconsistent with the positions that he is taking now. Is he entitled to change his mind? Yes. But he is not entitled to change his position in the middle of a presidential campaign without being made to explain WHY he has changed his mind. His many years in the senate will require quite a bit of explaining. That explaining will be a continuing distraction to his campaign.
There are a lot of reasons that Senators or Congressman are rarely elected President. The voting record is the biggest thing. Years and years of contradictory positions and speeches just make these folks fodder for any opponent. Governors generally don't have the same kind of paper trail. The time that they spent in Washington is also sure to have made a Senator or Congressman many enemies, from both sides of the aisle and from all regions of the country. Not so with Governors.
Kerry is different from John Fitzgerald Kennedy for a variety of reasons. First, Kerry has been in the Senate for a long time. Kennedy (J) was in the Senate for less than ten years before he was elected President. Kennedy played both sides of the fence from the very beginning. He was friendly with Joe McCarthy, even voting against his censure. Not so with Kerry. He has been a far-left liberal since the beginning of his Senate career. Only in the last few years has he even suggested that he is trying to move to the middle, and that went out the window when he had to move to the left to win the Democratic primary.
Kerry has a LONG record, and a record that is in many ways inconsistent with the positions that he is taking now. Is he entitled to change his mind? Yes. But he is not entitled to change his position in the middle of a presidential campaign without being made to explain WHY he has changed his mind. His many years in the senate will require quite a bit of explaining. That explaining will be a continuing distraction to his campaign.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
"MIRACLE" is an excellent movie
I am old enough to remember seeing that game on TV. In those days, the media embargoed the result so that we could all actually be surprised. That would never happen today.
Reliving that moment when Al Michaels makes the call "He shoots, he scores" when Mike Eruzione scored the go ahead goal at the half-way mark still sends chills down my spine. THAT moment is even more chilling than the now famous "Do you believe in miracles, YES!" which made Al Michaels into a sports superstar.
Although the "us versus them" and "commie bastards versus USA" themes were undercurrents in the movie, it was mostly about Herb Brooks and the kids who made up that remarkable team--Schneider, McLanahan, Craig, Eruzione, Johnson, O'Callahan, Silk, Ramsey, and all the others. The movie shows how Herb Brooks trained his team to skate with the Soviets and how that conditioning paid off.
I can't help but think, though, that there was one significant footnote to that game--Vadislav Tretiak. The legendary Soviet goal-tender was probably the greatest to ever play the game. Apparently he still insists that had he stayed in the game, his team would have won. Whether that is true or not is a matter for sheer speculation. However, taking him out of the game after the first period is comparable--in my mind--to taking Jordan or Montana out of a game after a bad half.
Reliving that moment when Al Michaels makes the call "He shoots, he scores" when Mike Eruzione scored the go ahead goal at the half-way mark still sends chills down my spine. THAT moment is even more chilling than the now famous "Do you believe in miracles, YES!" which made Al Michaels into a sports superstar.
Although the "us versus them" and "commie bastards versus USA" themes were undercurrents in the movie, it was mostly about Herb Brooks and the kids who made up that remarkable team--Schneider, McLanahan, Craig, Eruzione, Johnson, O'Callahan, Silk, Ramsey, and all the others. The movie shows how Herb Brooks trained his team to skate with the Soviets and how that conditioning paid off.
I can't help but think, though, that there was one significant footnote to that game--Vadislav Tretiak. The legendary Soviet goal-tender was probably the greatest to ever play the game. Apparently he still insists that had he stayed in the game, his team would have won. Whether that is true or not is a matter for sheer speculation. However, taking him out of the game after the first period is comparable--in my mind--to taking Jordan or Montana out of a game after a bad half.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Kerry Wins Wisconsin....Edwards Second
So what! Is anything that happened yesterday a surprise? The fact that Edwards made such a strong second place is the story of the day. Edwards will not be the nominee. It makes for good theater and adds to the horserace, so look for the media to keep talking about that aspect of the story.
Friday, February 13, 2004
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Wow...It's Been a long Nine Days
I've been busy with my work, so I haven't had time to do anything here. However, I have been in communication with a few of my fellow political observers and been able to formulate some thoughts on where we are.
First, a couple notes on where we have come. I do not think that Bush's performance on "Meet the Press" was very effective. But I don't think it was all that bad either. I haven't heard all that much long term-discussion about it. That shows me that it lasted one or two news cycles and that most of us moved on to something else.
Second, the national guard un-story. Give me break. Unless someone is sitting on the smoking gun document (and I doubt that), this story will be old news by March. Old news is fair game in politics, though, and the e-mails that I am getting from democrats suggest that we are in for a long summer and fall of re-hashing old stories, no matter how little (if any) evidence exists to support them.
Third, Kerry's "wins" in Virginia and Tennessee. It is a stretch to translate that into proof that Kerry can win those states in November. George McGovern also won Virginia during the democratic nomination fight in 1972. A primary victory is only that, a primary victory. If it meant more, Bush would have carried New York and California in 2000.
That brings us to the state of the race today.
We've all heard the big Kerry story. Let me just say this: I do not think that who Kerry sleeps with has any relevance to his capacity to be president. His left-wing voting record does. I'm going to save my thoughts on who is behind this story for another time after I've had a chance to reflect upon it some more.
The big questions is whether this will derail Kerry's candidacy. I don't think that it will. Apparently he is preparing a response. Kerry should say something like: " The story is true. The relationship is over, and the rest is nobody's business." If he does, story is over. I predict that he will blame Republicans and some-kind of right-wing conspiracy. This will fire up his base, but will escalate what is already becoming a very ugly and personal political season. I hope I'm wrong.
First, a couple notes on where we have come. I do not think that Bush's performance on "Meet the Press" was very effective. But I don't think it was all that bad either. I haven't heard all that much long term-discussion about it. That shows me that it lasted one or two news cycles and that most of us moved on to something else.
Second, the national guard un-story. Give me break. Unless someone is sitting on the smoking gun document (and I doubt that), this story will be old news by March. Old news is fair game in politics, though, and the e-mails that I am getting from democrats suggest that we are in for a long summer and fall of re-hashing old stories, no matter how little (if any) evidence exists to support them.
Third, Kerry's "wins" in Virginia and Tennessee. It is a stretch to translate that into proof that Kerry can win those states in November. George McGovern also won Virginia during the democratic nomination fight in 1972. A primary victory is only that, a primary victory. If it meant more, Bush would have carried New York and California in 2000.
That brings us to the state of the race today.
We've all heard the big Kerry story. Let me just say this: I do not think that who Kerry sleeps with has any relevance to his capacity to be president. His left-wing voting record does. I'm going to save my thoughts on who is behind this story for another time after I've had a chance to reflect upon it some more.
The big questions is whether this will derail Kerry's candidacy. I don't think that it will. Apparently he is preparing a response. Kerry should say something like: " The story is true. The relationship is over, and the rest is nobody's business." If he does, story is over. I predict that he will blame Republicans and some-kind of right-wing conspiracy. This will fire up his base, but will escalate what is already becoming a very ugly and personal political season. I hope I'm wrong.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
It's the Economy Stupid
The only thing that I read into recent poll numbers is that the economy is the dominant issue. The public appears to still support the war in Iraq. Bush needs to do a better job of getting his message across about improvements in the economy. So far, the media is giving play to the democrats continuing (and completely false) charges that the economy is bad. Perception means a great deal. Bush has a whole bunch of money to spend, what is he waiting for?
Where do we go from here?
Edwards appears poised to win Oklahoma and South Carolina and make decent showings in other states. I still don't think that he has enough to win it all, but he's sure to get some momentum out of this. My best guess is that tonight's results will ensure that the race drags on a little longer than it might otherwise have. That is both good and bad for Bush. Good in that Kerry will probably go negative, and might display a little of that famous temper. Bad in that the media will still give airtime to things like that stupid Alabama national guard service story.
Enough of the National Guard "AWOL" stuff...
If this is the best that the Dems can do, they are in for a real rude awakening come fall. And I mean a real rude awakening. This is a very dangerous game that the dems are playing. It didn't work for the Republicans and Bob Dole back in 1996, so I'm certain that it won't work for Kerry or the Democrats this year. The American people didn't seem to care much about Clinton's war record, so I doubt that they will care much about Bush's. I've been wrong before, but I just don't see this issue going anywhere, and it opens the door for some things that some in the democratic party might just assume weren't discussed.
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
My numbers might be close...
How big will the victory be? How much money is Kerry going to have to spend to keep this thing? Interesting analogy on Fox News: comparing Dean's strategy going forward to Ronald Reagan's 1976 campaign.
Monday, January 26, 2004
According to the Library & Archives of New Hampshire's Political Tradition
"No incumbent president running for re-election and who had no significant opposition on the party's New Hampshire primary ballot has ever been defeated for a second term as president: Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964, Richard M. Nixon in 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1984, Bill Clinton in 1996."....George W. Bush in 2004?
NH Primary Eve Prediction
I stick with my prediction from this morning. I've seen nothing to change that. The fact that Dean has a steller organization in place might make a difference if it snows, but his strength and organization did nothing to help him in Iowa.
Well put...
and I agree, nobody cares much what Hollywood has to say about anything. Or do they? Actors and Actresses do have a certain popular appeal, although I will note that the ones who have achieved the most political success in my lifetime have been Republicans--Reagan, Bono, Schwartzanegger, Eastwood, Grandy. Thankfully for America, however, those award shows only happen a couple of times a year. Welcome to the "word war" Dave!
Zogby Reports movement toward Dean...
but I doubt it will be enough. Morning prediction, Kerry 33, Dean 25, Edwards 19, Clark 10, others 13
Sunday, January 25, 2004
Initial New Hampshire Prediction
It appears that Kerry has a significant lead in the polls. Unless there is some indication of movement tonight or tomorrow night, I think that it is very likely that Kerry will win. Historically, that means that Kerry will likely get the nomination. In 1972, Muskie won Iowa and New Hampshire only to self-destruct, but the nomination process is different now. The primaries are so front-loaded that the powerful momentum of dual wins in Iowa and NH is going to be difficult to break.
That DOES NOT mean that it is over. This year has already seen surprises, so we may yet be in for a few. Additionally, several of the candidates have an awful lot of money, and will certainly not go away without putting up some kind of fight post-New Hampshire.
Everyone knows the story of how Bill Clinton somehow converted a second-place showing in NH to a victory. In 1992, however, different individuals won in Iowa and NH. In 1984, Mondale won in Iowa, while Gary "Monkey Business" Hart took the NH primary. Similarly, in 1988, Gephardt won in Iowa, but Michael "tank" Dukakis won NH. All eyes, therefore, appear to be on second place. While a strong second for Dean might give him a new boost, it probably won't be enough for him to get the nomination. If Edwards pulls off a last-minute surge and gets second, he could be well positioned to take some Southern and Western primaries in the coming weeks, although it will also probably not be enough for him to win the whole thing. The wildcard down the stretch is "Superdelegates," who are likely to back an establishment candidate, giving an edge to Kerry.
I predict that the Dems will have a nominee-in-waiting after March 2. It is impossible to understate the impact of the "band-wagon" and "electability" factors. Individuals, naturally, want to vote for a winner. At the same time, it is clear--as of today--that the dems want to nominate the candidate with the best chance to beat Bush. The new polls that show Kerry with a commanding lead in NH AND beating Bush are probably too much psychological momentum to overcome.
That DOES NOT mean that it is over. This year has already seen surprises, so we may yet be in for a few. Additionally, several of the candidates have an awful lot of money, and will certainly not go away without putting up some kind of fight post-New Hampshire.
Everyone knows the story of how Bill Clinton somehow converted a second-place showing in NH to a victory. In 1992, however, different individuals won in Iowa and NH. In 1984, Mondale won in Iowa, while Gary "Monkey Business" Hart took the NH primary. Similarly, in 1988, Gephardt won in Iowa, but Michael "tank" Dukakis won NH. All eyes, therefore, appear to be on second place. While a strong second for Dean might give him a new boost, it probably won't be enough for him to get the nomination. If Edwards pulls off a last-minute surge and gets second, he could be well positioned to take some Southern and Western primaries in the coming weeks, although it will also probably not be enough for him to win the whole thing. The wildcard down the stretch is "Superdelegates," who are likely to back an establishment candidate, giving an edge to Kerry.
I predict that the Dems will have a nominee-in-waiting after March 2. It is impossible to understate the impact of the "band-wagon" and "electability" factors. Individuals, naturally, want to vote for a winner. At the same time, it is clear--as of today--that the dems want to nominate the candidate with the best chance to beat Bush. The new polls that show Kerry with a commanding lead in NH AND beating Bush are probably too much psychological momentum to overcome.
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Last on New Hampshire Debate-- It is a shame that
Joe Lieberman's a Democrat. I think he would do well as a New England Republican. Alas, he's forever identified with Al Gore's failure in 2000 and probably permanent damaged goods as a result. Has anyone ever LOST as a major party nominee for Vice President (without ever having won at some point) and later been elected president?
New Hampshire Debate Observation #3 -- John Edwards Doesn't Know
Very much about the law. The Brady Bill has already sunsetted. I assume that he meant that he would renew the Assault Weapons Ban. Similarly, he clearly (or through willful blindness) does not understand the purpose behind the proposals to prohibit states from recognizing (or being required to recognize) gay marriage. Arguably, the "full faith and credit" provision in the US Constitution requires states to recognize "marriages" from other states. With the current trend on the US Supreme Court, something clearly needs to be done to allow states the freedom to define marriage as they wish, without running afoul of the U.S. Constitution.
New Hampshire Debate Observation #2 -- At Least Al Sharpton is Honest
"Would I replace Alan Greenspan, probably. Do I have a name, no?"
NH Debate observation #1 -- Clark Is A Lightweight
He looked like a deer caught in the headlight when confronted with one of his statements. How can he possibly say with a straight face that Bush is not doing all that he needs to do to protect America, and at the same time say that some of the solutions (i.e. Patriot Act), go to far. That's just plain goofy. At the same time, Clark sounds totally conspiratorial when he suggests that Bush didn't protect the United States before 9/11/01. None of these guys has any idea how to answer the question: "What would you do differently?"
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Dean's Meltdown
We've all heard this over and over again. The question is what impact it will have. If Dean has a moment like Reagan's "I am paying for this microphone" line in 1980, Dean may be able to recover and win in NH. THe long term damage, however, is yet to be seen. IF Dean is the nominee, that clip will be fodder through November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)