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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)