I’ve argued for a while on the blog and to my friends that the election wasn’t likely to be as close as the CW has showed it to be. I’ve been hard-pressed to explain exactly why, except for my total acceptance of Mickey Kaus’ “Cocoon” theory, and my own subjective impression that the media in 2004 is treating Kerry like they did Gray Davis in 2003.
That’s not a service to Kerry, as it wasn’t to Davis.
So Instapundit and Kevin Drum, link, with varying emotional responses, to the latest Time Magazine poll, showing an 11 percent lead for President Bush.
I have the feeling that it’s probably too late – the tires have lost traction and now we are just waiting for physics and gravity to do their job.
But it’d be nice to see Kerry go down fighting.And I don’t mean the kind of silly flailing he did last night.
Here are three clues I’ll offer the Senator and his staff for free; if they want more, they will have to rent them somewhere, since they seem clue-deficient themselves.
* No one who matters cares about Bush of Cheney’s Vietnam service or lack thereof. Dedicated Kerry supporters are waxing wroth about it, but they’ll vote for you anyway.
* We know you went to Vietnam, and we’re pretty darn sure you acted bravely while you were there. But we also know that you opposed the war before you went over, left early after being slightly injured, met with the North Vietnamese while a member of the Naval Reserve, and were a leader in an antiwar organization that can charitably be called ‘colorful.’ Every time you bring up your service in Vietnam without framing your complex history (and here’s the text of a free speech that might do it for you), you make people trust you less, not more.
* You’ve said a number of things that you need to explain. So has Bush, but unlike Bush, who is running on his character and personality (you wish!!), you’re running on your ideas. So every time you try and zing Bush for something he said, he just gives that Gary Cooper look to the audience and their hearts melt. (Remember the scene in ‘Blazing Saddles’ where Cleavon Little says “You’d do it for Randolph Scott…“??) Sadly, you come across – no matter how much you try and loosen up on your Serotta or snowboard – as the stiff rich guy who is the stock villain in most modern comedies. Trust me, you’re going to have to win with ideas.
So it would be nice if you had some. I’ve explicitly criticized a lot of what you’ve said about foreign policy, for example, as a combination of empty rhetoric (more internationalism!) and impractical ideas (send the Saudi money back!). Get smart and get specific. Tell us what you’d do in Iraq in the next 90 days, exactly, that’s different than what Bush has done. Tell us what international forces will come in and augment ours, and what you’ll give up to get them there.
What would be nice would be a different candidate, sadly. Is it too soon to talk about rebuilding the Democratic Party into an effective force for some progressive values that might actually make a difference?
Didn’t he say what he would do in Iraq? Leave. The wierd part is not when he says he’ll leave, it’s when he says he’ll get the UN in. Now I would like him to explain exactly how that is going to work.
It’s too late for Kerry to present his plan because people won’t believe he has a plan that he’ll stick to.
As a Democract voting for Bush, all I can say is that I wish we had nominated someone even half-way decent.
Rasmussen
Polling Report
AL: But now we may have a different problem– I don’t think Al Qaeda has ever believed a second attack on US soil would do anything but solidify the country under the sitting president. That’s _a priori_ data. But if Bush pulls far enough ahead of Kerry in the polls, they may just decide to toss something into the mix for the hell of it.
Well put. Kerry keeps saying he has plans — so what the hell are they?
Granted, it can be hard to campaign on policy ideas. (Did anyone pay attention to his health care plan? Apparently it’s a fairly smart and nothing radical.) So he’s got to try harder and campaign smarter.
It’s two months until election day.
Actually, I think Kerry’s just getting warmed up. Nine weeks before the Iowa Primary, he was in single digits. Gore wasn’t doing well at many points in the campaign either. But we need a few things in play here:
1. The media haven’t been nice to Kerry at all, especially the free ride to the Swift Boat fabricators. (Is there anyone who doesn’t see the preponderance of the evidence on, say, the Silver Star is with Kerry?) However, the media seemed very underwhelmed with Zell Miller. The new meme may be “Republicans and Turncoat Democrats Froth at the Mouth”.
2. The economic numbers are coming in even worse than expected. We’re over a million jobs behind where Bush predicted in February much less the deluded promises that accompanied his risky (yes, Gore pegged it) tax cuts. Remember the 2002 SotU, where Bush promised that the deficit would be small and temporary? (Note: that’s after 9/11 and the recession.) And amazingly, most the people reading this blog believe there is some possibility that Bush will halve the deficits in his second term.
3. Kerry’s TV ads, which I don’t see, may be better than Bush’s.
4. I’m not sure if worldwide terrorism scares people into voting for Bush (crossing Churchill and FDR: “I have nothing to offer but fear itself.”) or away, on his incompetence.
There isn’t any chance Bush is really 11 ahead now; maybe five, more likely three. (Look at the polls in toto.)
Incidentally, A.L., your speech for Kerry on an honest assessment of the repercussions of VN probably is better than restating the record of medals for most purposes. But a lot of this election is about keeping the base energized, willing to contribute time and money, and that crack about Cheney’s five deferments is aimed at us. That’s a test Dukakis, for example, flunked badly.
2 weeks is a long time in politics, let alone a copuple months. Kerry may have all the comeback oomph of the Toronto Blue Jays (don’t go there, it’s a painful subject), but it’s early to write him off. That said…
“Is it too soon to talk about rebuilding the Democratic Party into an effective force for some progressive values that might actually make a difference?”
No. All you have to do is do a deal with the Republicans to pass an “Arnold amendment”… and then nominate Tony Blair.
My only question: after Blair wins, will the British press still be able to refer to him as an ‘American poodle’? And just imagine the fun of having Britain’s nutso tabloids covering American politics!
>I’ve argued for a while on the blog and to my
>friends that the election wasn’t likely to be
>as close as the CW has showed it to be.
A.L.
Please define what you mean by “a while.”
From my point of view, you seem to be involved in another round of inconsistent position change “Liberal Logic” on me here since you said this to me:
_#3074 Posted by Armed Liberal on May 30, 2003 07:03 AM_
_Trent, want to make this a bit interesting?? I think the Dems will lose the White House in ’04 – *but it is going to be fairly close.* The DLC controls the levers of cash, and McKinney and Sharpton will provide the Sistah Soljah’s needed for the eventual candidates to push to the center._
_The war in the M.E. is going to be in that difficult long-term phase, requiring patience and sacrifice – something I haven;t seen in long supply from the GOP leadership._
_Dinner at Arthur Bryant’s on the loser??_
_A.L._
…in my post:
_*Dead and Damned — Democrats after 9/11*_
_by Trent Telenko at May 30, 2003 02:15 PM_
“at this link”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/003510.php/
Dean proved that the DLC lacked the cash and a candidate to push a strong national security platform while Sharpton had a speaking role at the convention due to Kerry lacking the political gravitas to do a ‘Sistah Soljah moment.’
This is what I said about your party then which has been proven right by events:
_Democrats as a party are dominated by a hard left faction that has about 15% of the primary vote and over 50% of the money in the party. This ruling faction is nothing so much as a cross between 1940’s Trotskites and “Jeffersonians” as described by Walter Russel Mead. They are the mind children of the people President Truman ran out of the Democratic Party in 1948. They came back to power in 1972-74 with the McGovern primary victory and the aftermath of Watergate. They make up the vast majority of Democratic political activists today._
_This dominant Democratic faction is opposed to nationalism, any nationalism, most especially American nationalism and the ordered liberty that arises from it. The Democratic Party’s devotion to senseless forms of both domestic multi-culturalism and foreign policy multilateralism can be seen as a political allergic reaction to American nationalism. There can be no “American Exceptionalism” in any sense of the word for them. This worldview cannot acknowledge either federalism or anything political outside the USA, as Michael Totten recently noted about his fellow liberals._
_Today’s “Democratic liberals” are big central government statists who are functional isolationists. As such, a political party run by them can provide neither national security nor long term economic prosperity, with that faction’s devotion to a multi-cultural/anti-nationalist/anti-American, isolationist, and centralized regulatory state._
_The Democratic Party will only cure this problem when they have a 1948 Truman style presidential candidate purge of the Democratic leftists. To give it credit, the Democratic Leadership Council is trying to pick this fight. The problem is that it isn’t the DLC’s place to do that. That fight must be done by the Democratic nominee after he has secured his position and before the Democratic National Convention._
The Democratic Convention has come and gone with no national security fight and the Democrats look to be as Dead and Damned now as I named them then.
Hmmmmm. It’s hard to believe I have run across a leftie who seems in touch with the real world. Let’s hope you don’t spread. It’s so much fun beating the snot out of liberals who THINK they know what they are doing. It’s the right’s secret weapon — living in the real world, even if we don’t like it.
Trent, you’re predicting something like a 60 – 40 blowout. (Let’s not do the elctoral thing, it makes my head hurt) The CW is something like 50.2 – 49.8 either way.
With all politeness, I think it’ll be worse percentage-wise, for the Dems than that, but not nearly 60 – 40. As I recall, we have a wager on it; I’ll suggest that the breakpoint of the wager ought to be 55.0% – 45.0% of the popular vote for BC04 vs KE04 (we’ll just subtract Nader votes from those counted). Better than that and you win and I fly to you and buy you dinner, worse than that, I win and you fly to LA and buy me dinner. (Refresh my memory if I’m wrong).
Now I happen to agree with you that the Dems have three critical problems: 1) They don’t like force, and when they do, they don’t know how to use it effectively; 2) They have no core ideology, and so are engaged in a constant tug-of-war between competing interest groups; 3) Their core donors are concentrated in a bunch of mad, rich ideologs – as opposed to the GOP donors, who are more diffuse.
‘Nuff Said?
A.L.
A.L.
Since we are now on this subject of the Democrats “Perfect Storm,” I will bring up another post of mine from June 2003 titled:
_*U.S. Democrats: Going Palestinian?!?*_
_by Trent Telenko at June 20, 2003 02:00 AM_
“at this link”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/003660.php/
In that post I quoted David Brooks and Patrick Raffini on the derangement of the Democratic Party and how it was going to lead to electoral disaster:
(Joe — if you could indent the passage below between the equal marks I would appreciate it.)
========
_And the problem for Democrats, more than for Republicans, is that they come from insular parts of the country. In university towns, in New York, in San Francisco and Los Angeles, and even in some Democratic precincts in Washington, D.C., there is little daily contact with conservatives or even with detached moderates. (In the Republican suburban strongholds, by contrast, there is daily contact with moderate voters, who almost never think about politics except just before Election Day.) So the liberal tales of Republican malevolence circulate and grow, are seized upon and believed. Contrary evidence is ignored. And the tone grows more and more fevered.”_
Now put that together with what Patrick said in the last three paragraphs of his post:
_”In a sense, two primary campaigns are being waged. One is for the hearts and minds of hardcore Democrats, one in which the party’s most prominent national leaders are being ignored, and where the Dean Fedayeen are sucking up 50% to 70% of the energy. The second is for all intents a shadow of the first; the scramble for name recognition, where Dean can’t break 5%. Emblematic of this contest is the fact that 66% of Americans can’t name a single Democrat running for the White House, and Lieberman, Kerry, and Gephardt are the most vaguely recognizable. In this primary, even Democrats who are likely to vote at the end of the day are picking their candidate out of thin air, and the number who have actually heard of the top 5 or 6 contenders – much less evaluated them side-by-side – numbers no more than a few million._
_At some point, these two dynamics are going to have to be reconciled. *Will Lieberman’s grassroots eventually catch up to his high name recognition, or will Dean leverage his near-monopoly over the grassroots Left as the number of interested Democratic primary voters grows by leaps and bounds?* The advantage Dean has is that a growing Meetup constituency actually gives him a grassroots base in cities like Phoenix and Oklahoma City where early primary voting will actually take place – something no other candidate will have until very late in the game. *The main question then becomes whether this Web-based mobilization will radicalize the shrinking Democratic primary base in the Red States and make it as liberal as it is in the Blue States, and hence fertile Dean territory?*_
_*Can Dean Berkeleyize the Heartland? In today’s Democratic Party, it’s certainly possible.”*_
Both observations seem to be closing in on my own post _Dead and Damned — Democrats after 9/11._
I can’t say I like this. America needs are real opposition party to keep the Majority Party honest, most especially during a war.
At the current rate of radicalization, the Democrats are choosing to be on the national level what the California Republican Party is today…Losers, dead and damned. I think Armed Liberal may wind up owing me a dinner.
=============
The only thing that changed from that observation/prediction to today was that the Democratic activists were over ruled by the wider Democratic primary voting public. Instead the primary voters chose as a standard bearer a boring but seeming electable Northeastern Liberal Senator over Dean’s exciting but seemingly unelectable North Eastern Liberal Governor. Now the Democrats have the worse of both worlds. Kerry kept the Dean’s “Bush Derangement Syndrome” activist baggage for the sake of party unity, which excites the Republican base without Dean’s ability to fire up the Democratic base.
The down ballot affects on Democratic candidates of this state of affairs will be profound and sweeping.
The Zell Miller speech was a segmented marketing ploy aimed at ‘running up the score’ with Soutern voters such that Rove-Bush can sweep the Southern Senate seats for the Republican Party.
The Republican legislative replacement of a Democratic Gerrymander by court fiat with one of their own design in Texas will get then net plus five them House seats and also plays into the “Give ’em Hell, Zell” marketing strategy.
If Pennsylvania goes Bush early in the evening, the Democrats could lose both Daschle and Reed’s seats in the Senate, wiping out thier current leadership, because of disappointed Bush hating Democrats not voting after work.
Democratic Senate Seats in Washington and Oregon are also vulnerable to an early in the evening Bush sweep.
In 1996 Dole saw a similar danger shaping up for the Republican Party during his Presidential run about two-to-three weeks prior to election day. He and his staff looked at the options and decided if they went for broke in the swing states Clinton’s coat tails would sweep Republlicans out of both the House and Senate majorities. So instead he chose to “take one for the team” and act to shore up and reelect Republican down ballot races outside the swing states. It worked. Dole lost the Presidency but saved the Republican majorities in Congress.
Kerry has neither that incentive nor does he have the minimally competent campaign staff to pull off what Dole did.
So the Democrats will be both Dead and Damned after all with the Republicans ending this election cycle with in site of 60 votes in the Senate for 2006.
I would add, Trent, the Democrats will also have 4 years to blame eachother for the loss of control of the judiciary in preparation for a primary fight between Hillary and …John Edwards? Then a census in 2010 that will shift more votes to red states. It’s beginning to look a lot like 1936.
>Trent, you’re predicting something like a 60 –
>40 blowout. (Let’s not do the elctoral thing,
>it makes my head hurt) The CW is something like
>50.2 – 49.8 either way.
I see that the Liberal ‘Mr. Hyde’ part of your Armed Liberal name has shown up to play. You are not even adressing my question of when you changed your mind on ‘conventional wisdom.’
I didn’t say what I just repeated from your post above. * You did. * You are putting words into my mouth. That is the mark of someone losing an arguement and inventing straw men to knock down instead. Please go back to my comments above your post and see where I even *once* mentioned a “60-40 blow out.”
Kerry seems hell bent on running a ‘failed incumbant campaign’ as a challenger looking like Tory Prime Minister John Major compared to Bush in the role of Labor’s Tony Blair. A weeks long “he is a dead man walking” count down to election day will just kill Democratic election day turn out no matter how much Democratic 527’s pore into get out the vote and first time voter registration efforts.
A return to the Mondale/Dukakis pattern of Presidential losses would be sufficient, given the Gerrymandering in the House, to keep Democrats away from federal power for the duration of the war and perhaps up to a generation.
Remember Dukakis lost to Bush 41 in the popular vote something like 53% to 46% and that was a 40+ state electoral blow out. The 1994 Republican revolution was something like a 53%/54% to 47%/46% popular vote in favor of the Republicans.
The Repulicans don’t need 60%/40% for super majority government. A 55% to 45% popular vote majority will due. A real Republican sweep of that magnitude via a Kerry collapse in 2004 leaves Democrats highly vulnerable in the Senate because of the ‘1994 echo.’
The Republicans had a lot of first term senators who were knocked off in 2000 by Democrats because of Clinton’s re-election coat tails. These 1st term Democratic Senators are coming up for reelection in 2006 in the middle of a war where Democrats are discredited on National Security.
What Bush-Rove did in 2002 to Democratic Senators they can do again in 2006. That could get Republicans 60 votes in the Senate and a fillibuster proof filling of the Federal judiciary appointments for the last two years of Bush’s second term.
Armed Liberal
Here’s a more accurate restatement of your sweeping and wildy innaccurate generalizations from above.
“1) They don’t like force, and when they do, they don’t know how to use it effectively.”
Republican version:
1) They love force and the use therof since they view it as a panacea, but they don’t know how to use it effectively (e.g., the Iraq fiasco).
“2) They have no core ideology, and so are engaged in a constant tug-of-war between competing interest groups.”
Republican version:
2) Their core “idealogy” is anything that they think will sell to the public and allow them to have political success, and so are engaged in a constant effort to appear more moderate and cover-up their out-of-the-mainstream radical positions that derive from fringe interest groups.
“3) Their core donors are concentrated in a bunch of mad, rich ideologs – as opposed to the GOP donors, who are more diffuse.”
Republican version:
3) Their core donors are concentrated in a bunch of power mad, rich idealogs (e.g., Scaife)-as opposed to Dem donors, who are more diffuse.
You are becoming increasingly one-sided in your views.
Richard,
Hillary has to worry about Gulianni for Senate in 2006 before she can worry about Edwards for President in 2008.
WRT Red state versus Blue state political demographics, immigration and middle class assimilation rates make any prediction there to bloody chancy to call.
After all California was at one time a Republican leaning state. Until the Cold War demobilization, California State Republican Party suicide by abortion, and Mexican immigration turned it into a one-Party Democratic state…admittedly with a populist revolt elected, non-partisan with an “R” after his name, governor.
Let me deal with VT first –
VT, the facts are that the GOP raises their funds from more smaller donors than the Democrats do.
. Sorry, that’s just the truth.
As is the gap between the role of force and core ideology between the GOP and the D’s.
Trent:
You suggested a collapse and historic blowout back in ’03. I disagreed then, and disagree now. You can reframe the argument as “55 – 45” as a historic blowout, but I’d assume we were talking Reagan/Mondale territory (59.1% – 40.9%) or Nixon – McGovern (61.7 – 38.3). But I guess it depends on the meaning of blowout?
Reframe all you want; step up and take the bet or back down.
A.L.
I read an article that was published on Tuesday, July 25, 2000 by “Bob Just”:http://www.bobjust.com. After I finished reading it, I realized that what he wrote about in 2000 is even more relevant today.
The story is kind of long, but I can tell you that I read every word because what Bob Just wrote is the truth about his Democratic Party.
I was going to post some of the story, but the censor police gave me some message.
Which drove me crazy. Is this something new?
Here’s the link:
“http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16391”:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16391
You can also read a few others at “Bob Just’s website.”:http://www.bobjust.com
SBD
BTW, I could not post the error message because it was considered offensive as well.
SBD
A.L,
When you made that bet with me in 2003 my post did not state any numbers. It named Democrats dead and damned losers for 2004. At this point, they are. Election day is 60 days away so we shall see. However, you are still the one adding the 60/40 condition thirteen months later.
What made Reagan’s win in 1980 so shocking to Democrats wasn’t the popular vote, which was less than his 1984 blow out, it was that he swept in a Republican Senate and enough House members that he could cut budget deals with conservative Democrats in the House to have a functional majority in both Houses.
But have faith, Kerry is one Howard Dean-YEEEAAARRGGHHH! moment away from that kind of shocking to Democrats loss in the Senate.
It may even happen in the Debates.
Everytime Democrats have gone in debate attack mode on Bush – Ann Richards and Al Gore are both examples — Bush has handed then their heads. He is one of the strongest debate counter-punchers in modern politics. Hell’s bells, Bush devastated Al Gore in 2000 with a *single look* up and down when Gore pulled is ‘in your face alpha male dominance’ gambit.
SBD,
This section from that WND article:
_My awakening_
_When I read about people spitting on the Honor Guard at the New York State Democratic Convention May 16, I started to understand what has happened to my party over the last few years. I still can’t get over the fact that Democrats attending a formal convention would so insult the American flag, but it happened. As an Honor Guard of Albany police officers entered the convention hall – with band playing and lights shining – they were spit on and called “Nazis” by a number of people on the delegate floor. On top of that, no Democrat nearby stopped the “spitters,” or even reported them. And the Democratic leadership expressed no public outrage._
_I was so outraged at my party’s lack of outrage that I started a reward fund to find the “spitters.”_
Seems to confirm a theory of mine presented in my _*The Public Display of Patriotism Test*_ post at this “link”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/003842.php/
Fortunately my prediction of leftist street theater turned to violence on TV was stopped dead by a very efficient NYPD. That and the lack of cheap places for a large numbers of the usual suspects to crash between demonstrations.
C.U.N.Y. just does not have a large number of cheap dorm rooms for out of state activists to sleep on the floors with local activists. New York City is so expensive to live in that you have to be highly productive (AKA have a good job) in order to live there. The usual graduate student hangers on and the rest of that activist leftie subculture just are not there.
Joe,
The site burped and I got a double post again. Would you or A.L. do the honors of pulling the second tap?
A.L.
You may find the following data to be of interest. It is a press release on a sentiment tracking poll that asks people _who they think will win the Presidential election_ rather than who they are voting for. There will be major repercussions for down ballot Democrats, particularly in the Senate, if these numbers hold. Democrats primarily motivated by Bush hate will stay home if they think it is futile to vote.
This is the “link”:http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040903005355&newsLang=en/
And this is the majority of the text:
_September 03, 2004 09:30 PM US Eastern Timezone_
_SurveyUSA: Momentum Shifts to Bush; Big GOP Bounce After RNC Convention_
_VERONA, N.J.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Sept. 3, 2004–The number of Americans who think George W. Bush will be re-elected in November has suddenly jumped 10 to 20 points in dozens of cities around the country, according to SurveyUSA tracking polls conducted before, during and after the Democratic and Republican National Conventions._
_SurveyUSA has been asking respondents not who they will vote for, but rather: who they think will win the presidential election in November. This question is more sensitive to changes in sentiment, and is designed to capture “momentum” swings more precisely than preference questions asked of likely voters. Tracking polls released today, 9/3/04, the day after the Republican National Convention ended, show sizeable swings in the public consciousness._
_Examples:_
_– In New York City, the number of adults who say Bush will win jumped from 39% on 7/22 (the week before the DNC) to 58% today: 19 points up for Bush, 17 points down for Kerry._
_– In Los Angeles, the number who say Bush will win jumped from 38% on 7/22 to 59% today: 21 points up for Bush, 18 points down for Kerry._
_– In Pittsburgh, Bush went from 44% to 64%: 20 points up for Bush, 19 points down for Kerry._
_Each poll was conducted of an entire metropolitan area, known as a TV market, and defined by Nielsen Media Research as the “Designated Market Area” (DMA). In no metropolitan area, in any part of the country, did Kerry’s numbers go up. Four separate polls of 500 adults each were conducted in 30 TV markets and in 2 states. (128 discrete pieces of opinion research; 64,000 separate telephone interviews.) Each survey has a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5%._
_The polls were conducted:_
_– 7/22/04: The week before the DNC_
_– 7/30/04: The day after Kerry’s acceptance speech_
_– 8/26/04: The week before the RNC_
_– 9/3/04: The day after Bush’s acceptance speech._
_*”The Democrats are eviscerated,*” says Jay H. Leve, Editor of SurveyUSA. “*Even in the most solidly Democratic corners of this country, a majority of adults suddenly believe that George W. Bush will win in November.*”_
(Much tracking data omitted due to formatting problems, go to the link for the raw data.)
ROTF –
Trent, I’m in absolute agreement that our bet in 2003 didn’t have numbers on it. Since I honor my bets, and hope that you do too, I’d assume you want to put some numbers out as a target so we know who won and who didn’t.
A tie is 50/50. The two recent elections that can be caled ‘blowouts were both ~62/38 (averaging). I’m willing ot make the mat easy, and say that a ‘blowout’ is 60/40. That gives us a 10% swing, which – if we split it to arrive at a midpoint – makes 55/45 the tipping point.
So Trent, back to you – do we have a bet or not? If these numbers don’t make you happy, what numbers would??
A.L.
60 – 40 ? 52 – 48? Ask Ann Richards. What passed for the mainstream media in Texas kept telling us Ma Richards was the most popular governor in the history of the state. I remember her line, Bush was “born with a silver foot in his mouth.”
Too clever by half. And then he put a boot on that silver foot, and planted it in her backside as he threw her out the door.
I believe the final tally was 57 – 43, Bush.
And John Kerry is no Ma Richards.
I believe the new Texas lexicon will include the phrase, “All hat, no cambodia!”
[Trent Telenko]
Fortunately my prediction of leftist street theater turned to violence on TV was stopped dead by a very efficient NYPD. That and the lack of cheap places for a large numbers of the usual suspects to crash between demonstrations.[/quote]
Have you ever seen “Protest Warrior”:http://www.protestwarrior.com
Their website will have plenty of video coverage from New York soon. They crash the protest gatherings and march with signs that read “Communism has only killed 100 million people. Let’s give it another chance!”
They have a lot of guts and they definately expose the hypocrit protestors’ agenda.
SBD
I keep hearing Progressive this and progressive that.
What exactly does that mean?
So far whenever I scratch the skin of a “progressive” I find a socialist or communist inside.
What is with that?
My prediction:
Kerry below McGovern.
He lacks McGovern’s charm and Charisma! :-))))
Since we are doing dueling posts may I refer you to 16 May 03? The Death of Socialism.
[SBD]
“They have a lot of guts and they definately expose the hypocrit protestors’ agenda.”
Define “hypocrite protester agenda” please? I think thats a little broad for fairness’ sake. I don’t mean to deny your legitimacy, I just think that you’d need to clarify which protesters you personally see as hypocritical.
Any comments on the latest Newsweek poll, very similar to Time’s?
here
Once you lose the Leno poll Time and Newsweek can only be confirmation.
Last night of the convention on Leno:
Kerry took so many shots tonight he is elligible for two more Purple Hearts – Leno
Bush won 53.5% against Richards.
My comments on the Newsweek poll are that while I had thought Bush was ahead 3-5, now I think it’s 5-8. Kerry’s approach to the Swift Boat Liar campaign was inadequate. Now he’s turning into the ambush.
However, news of the world (economy, Iraq, etc.) hasn’t been getting any better, and I expect the Bush numbers to deflate, as the did after the 9/11 spike, the death of Saddam’s sons spike, and the capture of Saddam spike.
On re-reading the original post, I think I’m going to have to mention one disagreement. I don’t think it’s easy to defeat Bush if people don’t realize how weak his performance has been.
[nephe1e] _Define “hypocrite protester agenda” please? I think thats a little broad for fairness’ sake. I don’t mean to deny your legitimacy, I just think that you’d need to clarify which protesters you personally see as hypocritical.
In the regards to this discussion, I was referencing the protestors in New York for the GOP Convention.
*hypocritical (professing feelings or virtues one does not have; “hypocritical praise”)*
I would say that *hypocritical* pretty much somes up the Democatic Party let alone the majority radical left I.E. “the protestors”.
*A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition*
*Act Now to Stop War & End Racism*
*Free Palestine Alliance, Haiti Support Network, Al-Awda: The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, The Palestine Right of Return Congress, NYCLAW (New York City Labor Against the War), Muslim Students Association – National, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, Global Women’s Strike, African Services Committee, James Earl Chaney Foundation, Alliance for a Just and Lasting Peace in the Philippines, Nicaragua Network, Mexico Solidarity Network and others. It was also endorsed by the National Council of Arab Americans (NCA).*
*A Call to Join a New Anti-War Coalition:*
Now is the time for all *people of conscience*, all people who *oppose racism and war* to come together. If you believe in *civil liberties* and oppose racism and war, demonstrate around the world. The coalition is planning future actions. We urge all organizations internationally to join together at this critical time and take action.
*The Reality*
_The prominently displayed sign read, “Where is John Hinckley when we really need him?” It featured a bullet hole with dripping red blood._
_Police and some eyewitness accounts say the officer, identified as detective William Sample, was kicked and punched in the head by at least one protestor as he lay on the ground. Sample was knocked unconscious and taken to a Manhattan hospital where he was listed in serious condition, although the injuries are not believed to be life-threatening._
_A white male protester verbally trashed a female African American police officer by telling her repeatedly that she had “sold out [her] own people” by becoming a policewoman._
*”You people sold all that out, you sold out your own class to join the f***ing pigs. You sold out your own people. Someday you will stand before some kind of judgment,” said the man, who would identify himself only as Zack from California.*
_A featured performer at a National Organization for Women rally accused President Bush of having “savagely raped ” women “over and over” by allegedly stealing the 2000 presidential election._
And the winner of the most Hypocritical Democrat in New York goes to….a Democratic Congressman!!
*U.S. Rep. Major Owens, a New York Democrat*, warned a crowd of feminist protesters that *the Bush administration is taking America “into a snake pit of fascism.”*
Owens also said *the Bush administration “spits on democracy” and is leading the country down a path reminiscent of “Nazi Germany.”*
Wait, I thought the Democrats were the “spitters”.
*When I read about people spitting on the Honor Guard at the New York State Democratic Convention May 16, I started to understand what has happened to my party over the last few years. I still can’t get over the fact that Democrats attending a formal convention would so insult the American flag, but it happened. As an Honor Guard of Albany police officers entered the convention hall – with band playing and lights shining – they were spit on and called “Nazis” by a number of people on the delegate floor. On top of that, no Democrat nearby stopped the “spitters,” or even reported them. And the Democratic leadership expressed no public outrage.*
Oh I know, it’s the “Right Wing Conspiracy” that did all of these things to make the Democrats look bad.
I keep forgetting.
SBD
Predicting who will win an election such as this and shifts in party dominance, etc., is all so much navel gazing.
I will make a prediction however; I won’t be voting for either Kerry or Bush. Sorry, statists just aren’t my cup of tea.
[SBD]: When looking at fringe elements of any political movement, it is clear that there are some who may choose to cross the line between fervent belief and outright irrationality.
However, you ought to seriously check your statements, and when you quote things, provide the source. Some of those who protest, some of those who would claim the Democratic party are completely rational Americans who would like nothing other than to see that institutions like Planned Parenthood that protect thousands of women across the country stay in effect. Some of us would like nothing more than to gain marriage rights for our brothers and sisters who love someone of the same sex.
Is that too much to ask in this “land of the free”, SBD? Or is it okay to demonize one half of the two party system that has advanced this nation so far?
Please, don’t put your stereotype on me.