August 27, 2004

• Pres. Bush's "weaknesses" are seen as strengths by many of the politically-concerned citizens of America. Here's my favorite example: unlike that flip-flopper John Kerry, Pres. Bush can make a decision and stick to it no matter whether facts or situations change. Bush decided early on to attack Iraq, and he bull-headedly followed through with that plan and defends it to this day, whereas Kerry has gone back & forth on Iraq and China and numerous other questions. Because of the language developed by the GOP--that of one candidate "flip-flopping on the issues" and the other "staying the course"--this makes Bush look good and Kerry look bad. Never mind that Sen. Kerry's flip-flops are (or at least were, before his campaign started) considered reappraisals. Smart men and women change their minds when the situation changes. This is a subtlety that is difficult to convey in 30-second ad spots. Apparently.
• good question, considering there are apparently at least 1,000 reasons why he shouldn't be re-elected. now, that said, kerry set the tone for the campaign at the convention when he promised (well, as much as a politician can "promise") to take the proverbial high road, stick to the issues, don't drop to negative campaigning. also, traditionally the democrats just aren't as slick at organizing campaigns. the GOP is great at getting its talking points out there. a reporter colleague of mine surveyed her state's delegates and alternates (more than 90 persons) and asked, among other things, what bothers them the most about kerry-edwards. EVERY SINGLE PERSON said one of three things: * flip-flopper! * trial lawyer! * liberal! whew. that GOP. it's laser-focused on certain specific catch-phrases, and it's drumming and drumming them. sigh.
• Easy. Negative campaigning makes headlines. Issue-based positive campaigning doesn't.
• shawnj, perhaps next election the candidates should both pledge to run TOTALLY NEGATIVE campaigns. NOTHING positive. heh. that would be interesting.
• Well, don't blame the Democrats entirely; even if it were easy to counter a baseless smear campaign, it would at least require the parrot media to be more actively involved in dispersing the lies. On a more general note, the Bush strategy is so effective because they have a simple answer to every complex question, and for some reason the American public loves simple answers. There are rays of hope though. For instance, the Plame investigation should be coming up with indictments RSN. Fitzgerald has shown himself to be quite capable and efficient.
• I would also add that it appears that the current political wisdom is that the challenger is better off not explaining too much about what they would do if they got into government. This definitely appears to be the case in Australia, where the current (Howard) government got into power by running on a platform of not being the other guy, and the current Australian opposition seems to be pulling much the same stunt in the run up to the coming federal election. I can see this dynamic at work in the US. There is also the problem of obtaining airtime. Bush can get airtime whenever he wants, because he is the incumbent president. This advantage exists throughout the world for leaders everywhere, it isn't specific to Kerry, and it is what makes it hard for him to gain traction on issues. Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them, so frustrating as it is, though there are many things that the Kerry campaign could do differently, the final outcome in terms of airplay would probably be about the same. In this situation, the calculations say that you are best off keeping your mouth shut, and let the other guys make the mistakes. Finally, kamus, your perception of how heavily Kerry is attacking Bush is also a function of what state you live in. If your state is not in play (ie, it is reliably going to vote Repub or Dem) then neither candidate is going to bother campaigning/advertising, thus giving the impression of a low key campaign.
• When Bill Clinton was on The Daily Show awhile back, he essentially said that the key was to not let the Republicans get away with any negative assertions, that the Democrats needed to loudly and forcefully defend themselve anytime they were attacked. I think the Kerry campaign has taken some of this advice; the ad they're running now with the film of John McCain railing on Bush about his attacks on veterans could be very effective. As polychrome said, though, if live in a state such as mine that's already presumed to be in the "red" column, such counterattacks are probably not going to be as visible to you as it were if you lived in a battleground state.
• Kerry is obviously relying too heavily on the power of his prehensile hair. Also, he doesn't flash enough bare skin during rallies. And he needs to mention God more often, and give out more candy to the kids. Someone ought to teach that man how to run a campaign on the REAL issues. Meanwhile, Bush's primary appeal is that his good-old-boy ignorance and redneck speaking skills serve to validate the willful stupidity and xenophobia of the average American white males who rule this country. You know, the guys who vote early and often. We shall overcome someday.
• They aren't capitalizing on it because the only difference between Kerry and Bush is that one is president and one isn't. I find the whole way this campain is being run to be offensive. They are both doing exactly the same things. I've said it elsewhere, but i'm almost 31 and all this talk of things that happened before I was born really shows that neither party is interested in doing anything different. If someone who is 30 doesn't give a damn about the number one topic of discussion right now, how is anyone younger supposed to care? Way to go for that youth vote. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Nothing I have seen Kerry say shows me that he is going to be any different than Bush. except I guess that having no bid government contracts with condiment manufacturers is better than having them with military contractors...
• jccalhoun - Naderite perchance? *asks in nicest possible way* Sorry, not buying that there isn't any difference between Kerry and Bush. That was said about Bush and Gore in 2000, and I haven't heard that line for quite a while.
• I think it has less to do with the negative ad campaign against Kerry and more to do with the fact that there are a lot of Americans for whom Bush seems like a good presidents. The same way Clinton supporters (disclaimer: I liked Clinton) gloss over the Whitewater affair and say Monica was irrelevant, Bush supports gloss over Abu Graib (a couple bad apples blowing off some steam), Iraq (well they haven't really proven there _wasn't_ a connection, and Saddam was evil anyway), the economy (but ... 911!). Bush is folksy, sauve, good looking... his verbal gaffes are charming, his supporters don't care too much that he's alienated France and Canada to name just two countries since America is the Land of the Free and GWB is Leader of the Free World that's their loss. And bush supporters passionately hate liberal elites, abortion, gay marriage etc. In some parallel monkey-filter-for-conservatives, someone is asking the same question about why anyone would support Kerry.
• Because the Democrats are outclassed by a mile. The Republicans are relentlessly on the offensive, solidly on message, and have been since day one. Why are we talking about Vietnam, and not Iraq? Why are we worried about terrorists hiding under our beds instead of the very real and immediate threats from the fiscally irresponsible and environmentlally myopic policies of this administration? Because Kerry spends all his time on defense, and a banal and nebulous message of 'hope' that goes over like turd pancakes with a politically jaded public. Hopefully this bloated corpse of a campaign will serve as a wake-up call for the party.
• Wait, are you putting a bad land deal and a dude lying about a blow job on the same level as kids being raped on videotape, a war in which thousands have died, and a sputtering economy or are you saying that other people do? Because in my mind, there are levels of degrees to scandals/criticisms. I was no fan of Clinton, but come on.
• calimehtar: There's one specific claim I'd take issue with there. Nobody glossed over Whitewater. Tens of millions of dollars were spent investigating it (more than were spent on Iran-Contra) only to determine, at every turn, that the Clintons had done nothing wrong.
• Actually, I think this phenomenon comes down to rhetoric. Here's George Lakoff on his view. That article links to this one that basically says that in taking up the Republicans' turns of phrase, the Democrats have done themselves in. An example of the linguistic trickery of Rove and Co. is how they've managed to villify blatent war heroes (Kerry, McCain, and Cleland) while the incumbents have five deferments and a national guard post to their names. Read Paul Krugman for what he terms the "Rambo Coalition." (last is nytimes link)
• Here's an interesting interview that attempts to explain some of what you are talking about. Via The Agonist, Lakoff describes how Republicans are better at framing the debate than Democrats. he even offers a few suggestions.
• middleclasstool: I'm just repeating what I've seen conservatives say. It's a rough approximation of the 9/11 commission - Bush was exonerated officially (wasn't he?) but many liberals (me, for example) will say that GW failed in some way, regardless.
• Damn it!
• Gotcha. I see what you're saying now.
• The polls seem to indicate that almost half of the public has already decided in favor of Bush, and almost half the public has already decided in favor of Kerry. (Yes, a dangerously sweeping generalization. Bear with me.) I think the reason neither campaign seems to meet with the approval of their faithful, is that neither is really directed toward its faithful. Candidate X knows he has my vote; Candidate Y knows he won't get it. Both are doing their best to court the handful of undecideds out there. The campaigns are courting this unique group in a way that neither an avowed liberal nor conservative really finds compelling. One of the outcomes of highly polarized national debate?
• I think that this is something many many people have trouble grasping - in spite of Iraq and the Weapons of Mass Disappearance, even after eviscerating the economy, the environmental destruction, the sitting around waiting for something to happen on 9/11, pandering to the religious right, Kenny Boy etc etc etc at least 40% of the US electorate will vote for Bush. No matter what, Bush will get those votes.
• just to give you an insight into (at least some) of these bush voters, my (rightie) brother has said over and over: "bush is my president because he doesn't take bullshit from anybody. ... kerry's a BUTTHEAD." (his use of capitalization, not mine.) every time i try to talk issues, it's back to the BUTTHEAD in all caps.
• captainsunshine: :) At least we're spreading the good word of Lakoff.
• I'm 28 years old and I don't agree with jccalhoun's position that being young is a legitimate excuse for being ignorant about politics. It's certainly a lot easier to say that Kerry and Bush are "the same" than it is to learn the issues. Or to muster up enough empathy and thoughtfulness to give a fuck about the future. If you wait for a candidate who mirrors your views on everything, you will never vote. Voting is a powerful right -- you are helping to choose a direction for our country -- it's not a high school popularity contest. Kerry and Bush are NOT saying the same things, as you would know if you paid attention. Sure, maybe the candidates should be focusing on Iraq rather than Vietnam, but dismissing the highly formative wartime experiences of millions of veterans just because "it happened before I was born" is a pretty insulting attitude. A good friend of mine served three tours in Vietnam, got a Bronze Star and several Purple Hearts, and came home from that war as a very different person both physically and emotionally. He is planning to move out of the country if Bush wins the election. Our current secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, also served in that position from 1974-77, during the worst years of the Vietnam War. Most of Bush's advisors are chickenhawks who have never served in the military. So I think Kerry's courage while fighting in Vietnam, and while opposing the war, is pretty damn relevant for a lot of people in this country. As should be Bush's lying draft-dodging cowardice. VOTE NOVEMBER 2
• Thanks all for your thoughtful comments- Sidedish, what three catch phrases would a laser-focussed democratic opposition use and why aren't they already doing this? Much as I hate to admit it, the Republicans do know to run an effective campaign. Polychrome: my perception is based on the fact that the polls remain more or less balanced despite the fact that an informed electorate should have run Bush out of office some time ago (my subjective opinion, of course) my own incomplete explanation: Kerry is a really lousy candidate and the Dems rushed to crown him king, despite the fact that many of these weaknesses that are now being exploited by the GOP were well known in advance. I used to think of the the GOP as the "stoopid party" and the Dems as the "silly party" (P.J.O'Rourke's designations) but I think the dems have shown themselves to have been pretty damn stupid as of late. They also seem to possess to leader of any backbone in Congress or otherwise. While much of America protested the ridiculous and costly sideshow that was/is Iraq, not one Democrat of consequence stood up as said "stop the madness!" Worry about polls or being branded as unpatriotic (which I find particularly outrageous!) superseded their duty to represent the people and to give the decision to go to war the gravitas it deserves. I could go on and on but I'd better shut up. On preview- Sidedish yep the BUTTHEAD argument- but why can't the voters effectively be re-educated after all most of them are adversely effected by the policies of the man they support (my opinion, obviously)
• But that glorious rebellious hair! Who can resist it?! They are just jealous.
• SideDish: not meaning to pry, but I hope things have gotten better between you two.
• kamus - check out the Bush approval poll
• sorry
• (yeah, mid, we're back to email debating. and every so often he sends me a silly joke or two, which is a good sign. thanks for asking, you're not prying at all!) >>what three catch phrases would a laser-focussed democratic opposition use and why aren't they already doing this? IMHO, the dems should be saying, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN: kerry volunteered to go to combat in vietnam. he served his country, then returned to speak out against an unjust war. bush dodged the draft. period.
• I'd like to see the Democratic campaign insist that Iraq was an unjust war and poorly managed. That the way to fight terror is _not_ to go around indiscriminately bombing middle-eastern countries, and that the numbers have shown that technique has the opposite of the intended effect. And that dismantling doesn't make America better off - it's an important component of quality of living along with prosperity.
• yeah, i still don't understand why kerry just doesn't say, "we should be concentrating on afghanistan. the taliban is rebuilding there. there are no terror ties to iraq."
• I recall four years ago talking to two people who told me that they were going to vote for Bush. When I asked what their reason was, they responded that "Gore is stupid." There is no adequate response to such a statement. I think that the basic problem is that conservatives (by nature) do not entertain alternative or opposing views. As such, their message is concise and clear. Liberals (by nature) tend to question things and entertain/address alternative or opposing views. It is a disaster. McDonald's is not number 1 because they have the best product. They are number 1 because they market it the most aggressively. I believe that politics on the national level are all about marketing. Nothing else. And Republicans are more effective at marketing. For the Democrats to be more effective at marketing, they would have to do the very thing that is against their nature -- ignore opposing/alternative views and simplify their own message to a distorted, listener-friendly version.
• Typo - "And that *the social infrastructure* dismantling doesn't..."
• wow, sorry typo correction typo "And that *dismantling* the social infrastructure doesn't..."
• "I'd like to see the Democratic campaign insist that Iraq was an unjust war and poorly managed" Wait long enough Bush may say it.
• Also, here's an interesting article at the bbc about how it pretty much doesn't matter what Bush says as long as he opposes gay rights. What has this world come to when the defining political issue of people calling themselves christians is intolerance?
• bernockle, you have to remember that there's a world of difference between Republican partisans and, well, everyone else. There's a lot more to conservatism than Fox News and Glenn Reynolds, just as there's a lot more to liberalism than Michael Moore. And as Moore so brilliantly illustrates, it's not like the Dems are free of reactionaries. It's unfair and intellectually dishonest to dismiss an entire movement based on what gets the most media airtime. Check out The Economist if you want an intelligent, thoughtful conservative publication. But, yeah, I can't wrap my head around that 40% who'll vote for Bush no matter what, either.
• Hold on there, just because I think Bush and Kerry are the same doesn't me I am uninformed. My point about not appealing to younger voters, and it is amazing that 30 is young, is not about ignorance, but that they are talking about something that happened before I was born. My dad was in Vietnam, so I have knowledge of it. However, more importantly, there are a LOT of crappy things that Bush has done in the last few years that I KNOW I don't like and Kerry either isn't talking about them or isn't opposed to them. To begin, as long as the only choices are between two yale educated rich men, I won't be satisfied. As far as the issues go, here are some of the things I care about that I haven't seen Kerry make a priority: Patriot act, enemy combatants, Iraq, he nicely sidestepped the gay marriage issue by not voting, patent reform, reducing the length of copyrights, breaking up media monopolies, international relationships (specifically Cuba, China and North Korea), free speech zones. Those are the things that matter to me, not whether or not Kerry was in Cambodia. You will notice that I didn't mention the economy or health insurance or gun control or the death penalty or abortion or any of the other topics that get talked about all the time. While those are all serious issues, I don't really see either candidate being able to make substantial changes to laws on those issues.
• I just want to add that my comment about Kerry and Bush being the same did not stem from ignorance or apathy. It stems from disappointment. Of all the people running for the Democratic nomination, Kerry was my last pick. I think they are the same not because I am apathetic, but because I STRONGLY want America to change and I very much want the world to be different and I do not see Kerry as being different enough from the current administration to make the changes I think are desperately needed. I would love to be proven wrong.
• I do not see Kerry as being different enough from the current administration to make the changes I think are desperately needed. Have you compared them on the issues at all?
• See, the problem is that they are both talking about the same issues. They aren't talking about the issues that concern me most. They both say they will, improve the economy, make america safer, improve health care... They may have different plans to achieve those goals, but they are both talking about the same things. I recognize that those are important, but they are things that no one can argue about. Who is going to say, "No, I want to make the economy worse!" Of course they are going to have plans for those things. But they things I am most concerned about (as I listed a few in a prior post) are not being discussed in the detail that I would like to see. That being said, I want Bush to lose. In this case it is better to have the devil I DON"T know than the one I do. That being said, I'm done derailing the thread. I'm sure come the fall there will be plenty more occasions to discuss these issues.
• Sure, of course you're not going to get everything you want in any presidential candidate. But expecting the DNC to champion every single one of your personal priorities -- such as patents and copyrights, for example, which are a teeny tiny blip on our country's nonpartisan radar -- is ridiculously naive. If you define "talking about the same issues" as "talking about the issues that are most important to a majority of the American people," well, sure, you're right -- because that's what the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS FUCKING ELECTED TO DO!
• If you don't think that patents and copyrights are serious issues, then it is not I that is naive, nor apathetic, nor uninformed. I am however confused as to why you choose not to make your point without using those unnecessary labels.
• A small, pardon the pun, story that is mostly unrelated to the question. Senior year of school. Many of my friends where going to vote in the election, as was I. Idaho, small town, you'd think many of them were planning to vote for Bush. In actuality, they were Naderites, though if forced to choose between Bush and Gore, they were going to vote for Bush. The reason they supported Nader and then Bush is very simple. They were convinced Nader would decriminalize marijuana. Bush on the other hand, would keep their guns safe from the liberals who wanted to take them away. They understood that on the spectrum of politics going from Nader to Bush required some sort of leap over the middle, but the middle didn't interest them. People can be single issue only. People will vote for candidates who are diametrically opposed to them in every way save one, as long as the people are convinced that one issue trumps the others. That's why Kerry has to play this game. If he doesn't, then it's quite possible that the actions of 30 years ago will decide the election.
• Why haven't the Democrats capitalized on Bush's weaknesses? Because they've been too busy playing defense. Badly. The Republicans know something that Democrats don't: Undecided voters don't vote based on policy or economics. They vote based on feelings, vague impressions, half-remembered bits of advertising that reached them in the car on the way to work, or during their favorite sitcom. They vote based on e-mail forwards. They vote based on what the news is Election Day morning. That's why 75% of Bush's ads are negative. That's why the Republicans funded the Swift Boat ads. Truth doesn't matter here; what matters is pushing voters' emotional buttons, getting them to associate negative feelings with Kerry. If I was a rich Democrat donor, I'd have formed a 527 by now called "Drunk Driving Victims Against Bush." Families who've lost their children due to drunk drivers would come out and say that anyone convicted of drunk driving should not be president. Of course, they'd have their own ads. "George W. Bush was convicted of drunken driving," a mother's voice would say, while spare, tragic piano music played softly in the background. "He crashed into a hedge. It could just as well have been a child." Cut to home video of a cute 8-year-old girl with pigtails opening Christmas presents in slow motion. "My daughter Jenny was killed by a drunk driver. No one who drives drunk deserves the presidency." It would finish with the text: "Jenny can't vote. You can. Don't vote for George Bush this November." Emotionally manipulative? You bet. Distracting from the issues? Yup. But suddenly the landscape of cable news changes as Republicans strain themselves trying to defend drunk driving. Kerry's Swift Boat problem fades into the background as questions about Bush's drunk driving conviction lead inevitably to questions of Bush's quasi-admitted cocaine binges, pushing him to formally confirm or deny his drug use. It's all downhill for him from there. Bush's drunk driving conviction is low-hanging fruit that's begging to be picked. Women voters especially won't want to cast their ballot for a drunk driver. But Democrats will never pluck it. They believe they must win on the issues. Which is another way of saying they don't want to win as much as the Republicans do.
• I suspect it's because the Democrats are typically more relaxed when it comes to sexuality. Here's the chain of logic. Democrats like sex, but more than that, they like sexual freedom. And that includes masturbation. Masturbation kills kittens. And no one wants the party that kills kittens. Which is why whenever Democrats talk, people always have in the back of their minds, "Well, I like what they're saying, but they encourage the killing of kittens!" No wonder the Democrats are having such a tough time of it! Lawrence v. Texas was the beginning of the Democrats downfall...
• Why haven't the Democrats capitalized on Bush's weaknesses? Because they've been too busy playing defense. Badly. The Republicans know something that Democrats don't: Undecided voters don't vote based on policy or economics. They vote based on feelings, vague impressions, half-remembered bits of advertising that reached them in the car on the way to work, or during their favorite sitcom. They vote based on e-mail forwards. They vote based on what the news is Election Day morning. That's why 75% of Bush's ads are negative. That's why the Republicans funded the Swift Boat ads. Truth doesn't matter here; what matters is pushing voters' emotional buttons, getting them to associate negative feelings with Kerry. If I was a rich Democrat donor, I'd have formed a 527 by now called "Drunk Driving Victims Against Bush." Families who've lost their children due to drunk drivers would come out and say that anyone convicted of drunk driving should not be president. Of course, they'd have their own ads. "George W. Bush was convicted of drunken driving," a mother's voice would say, while spare, tragic piano music played softly in the background. "He crashed into a hedge. It could just as well have been a child." Cut to home video of a cute 8-year-old girl with pigtails opening Christmas presents in slow motion. "My daughter Jenny was killed by a drunk driver. No one who drives drunk deserves the presidency." It would finish with the text: "Jenny can't vote. You can. Don't vote for George Bush this November." Emotionally manipulative? You bet. Distracting from the issues? Yup. But suddenly the landscape of cable news changes as Republicans strain themselves trying to defend drunk driving. Kerry's Swift Boat problem fades into the background as questions about Bush's drunk driving conviction lead inevitably to questions of Bush's quasi-admitted cocaine binges, pushing him to formally confirm or deny his drug use. It's all downhill for him from there. Bush's drunk driving conviction is low-hanging fruit that's begging to be picked. Women voters especially won't want to cast their ballot for a drunk driver. But Democrats will never pluck it. They believe they must win on the issues. Which is another way of saying they don't want to win as much as the Republicans do. posted by stimulantcaplets at 03:53AM UTC on August 28 Bullseye, stim-cap! Send your happy ass on up to Kerry's campaign office and get the ball rolling! I knew at the onset of Kerry being nominated that his biggest problem would be his lack of passion and polish. I longed for Edwards to get it. Why? Because of his charisma. Because of the very points being made. Democrats get lucky when they choose someone who is a powerful orater. Clinton was a very persuasive man, truly a fantastic speaker. Whether you agreed or not, you could not help but to listen. I am very much against Bush but I have an intensely difficult time listening to Kerry, and he really is not the man for the job. But as long as he picks the right people (ie: Edwards) he should be alright. I look forward to Edwards stepping up in four years. If you don't have the issues squared away, you'd better know how to play the game really well and be able to talk your way through anything.
• Yep, I think that Stim-Cap has nailed it. Which is depressing if he's right because it may mean four more years of Chimpy McAwol. My family and I are seriously considering leaving the country if that's the case. Since I am a dual US/UK citizen, it wouldn't be that hard to do. Basically it's not four more years of the dangerous moron that would drive us out, but the realization that we presently live in a country where at least half of the citizens are dangerously misguided. Thanks for all your excellent contributions to this thread.
• If Bush said tomorrow that he wanted to pull out of Iraq within a year so troops aren't too thin and to help stop the terrorists from regaining a foothold in Afghanistan his supporters wouldn't question him. Hell, he would win the election in a landslide. Iraq is a loosing situation because the wonderful police and military force we trained are either running at the first sign of trouble or shooting at U.S. soldiers. If Iraqis won't fight for liberty then it's over. Kerry is like a stepchild who's afraid to raise his voice at the dinner table. He has been under attack since 1972. He protested the war, supported balance budgets (when his party didn't) and hammered away at Iran-Contra. He got attacked badly for all these things and now he's scared. He should not be running scared of George W. Bush. John Edwards could beat him in a general election and that man has no subtance. Here's Clinton on The Daily Show (real player) talking about fighting back against attack ads. Clinton in 4 minutes looks more presidential than Kerry has in the last year.
• Stimcap, that's a brilliant idea, not to mention exactly what the right would do if they were in our shoes, I think. * flip-flopper! * trial lawyer! * liberal! whew. that GOP. it's laser-focused on certain specific catch-phrases, and it's drumming and drumming them. SideDish is right. Karl Rove and the right are sticking it to Kerry, and you can't defend against a ten second clip with a ten minute speech. You'd think the left would have learned this after Gore in 2000 - remember "I invented the internet" and "scaring people to the voting booth" and how "robotic" he was? And what did Al do in response? He kissed Tipper. Sure, he said a lot of stuff as well, but I sure don't remember any of it, and I bet the entirety of rural America doesn't either. It really is time for the left to stick it to the right. I wish they could stand up and say * bigot! * cowboy! * warmonger! every single time Bush opens his mouth. Because that's what I see.
• ...oh yeah, and he's a LIAR too. In fact, that's probably better than all of the above. We should make Bush and Liar synonymous, just like Robot/Gore and Flip-flopper/Kerry.
• stimcaps: brilliant.
• Totally agree with stimcaps. That scenario is exactly what voters need to hear. Sullivan, to be fair, if Bush were ever to admit that Iraq has been badly mishandled, that would make me, at least, dislike him a little less. I think you're right, though, that Clinton is what Kerry needs to be to get mass support, to get Clinton's level of support. I know a few die-hard Republicans who were willing to admit that his DNC speech was brilliant. After that speech, I remember thinking that he needs to move to Canada so I could vote for him. Mfpb, not only can you not defend against sound bites with speeches, but you shouldn't even try if you're John Kerry, with his speech writers.
• What's the percentage of you who would, if you could, leave the country should "Chimpy McAwol" get reelected?
• I couldn't disagree with stimcaps more. Any time a campaign decides to play these manifestly dirty tricks, the country as a whole suffers. You cannot escape a cloud of disinformation by increasing the noise. That is why I want the Bush and Kerry campaign heads to have regular and televised debates on current issues, without sycophantic moderators allowing any nonsense about Vietnam/TNG/CommunionGate/etc. Afterwards, I want each side to publish their rebuttals with supporting documentation. As an 80s kid, I'm not old and wizened enough to realize that this will never happen; please don't disillusion me too harshly.
• Another point -- all those who abandons their country just because Bush wins his re-election are shameful cowards. If they feel so strongly about it, they should fulfil their civic duty to request change of government. It is not that long ago that a president was impeached. I hope no country accepts them.
• fuyugare wrote: all those who abandons their country just because Bush wins his re-election are shameful cowards That's pretty harsh dude- I guess I'm one of the "shameful cowards" then. I vote, I try to get others to vote, I contribute to discussions of the issues such as this forum. I have signed a petition to have Bush impeached though nothing will come of it- Why should I live in a country where lying about a blowjob is an impeachable offense but lying about going to war isn't? And why would I want to live in a country overrun by illiterate pinheads like you?
• And why would I want to live in a country overrun by illiterate pinheads like you? Mainly because illiterate pinheads like us are ruining this country. If the sensible people abandon us, we shall have no choice but to drown in our filth, and while doing that drag countless innocents into our suppurate charybdis. Please do not leave us to that fate! We are not capable of saving ourselves, so we need you to save us!
• suppurate → suppurating; damn, I wish I had paid more attention in vocabulary school.
• fuyugare- I believe stimcap's humorous 'analogy' was more of a commentary on the sad state of affairs in contemporary politics, rather than any sort of serious plan to poop all over the current level of discourse. Also, people who say they are leaving the country if Wbush gets "elected" [again] are usually just expressing their frustration at a "democratic" political system in which the "minority" (by that, I actually mean majority) has been / is being consistently subjected to the tyranny of the "majority". In other words, 'give me liberty or a moving van!' Rarely are these people being totally serious.
• A fair comment; if joke it was, then it was a nervous joke met with nervous laughter. Contemporary politics is indeed sad (what politics isn't?), but from sadness and humour come introspection, and it is the introspection more than remorse or mirth that is really the most valuable now. Every thinking American, I would wager, sees the switt-talking verterans for the circus they are, and a circus is often a welcome visitor in times of dreary monotony. But, we seem to live nowadays in a land of circuses, where evil clowns lurk in every corner wanting to take us for a ride. It is time we got off the joy rides and cotton candies, and looked beyond the polished lacquer to the rotting wood that by a miracle alone has not brought the tent crashing down upon us.
• Now that's a metaphor.
• fuyugare, I'm seriously considering opting out of the U.S.A. if Bush gets a second term for one reason: I've come to the conclusion that Bush and his people are so obviously Fascist wannabes that they will never ever give up power voluntarily. In fact, even if Bush loses this election even more obviously than he lost the last one, I'd put the odds at 50/50 he'll call Martial Law and declare the election invalid. (And I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler; Hitler was smarter - Bush is more Mussolini-style) In the inevitable atmosphere of waning freedom of speech (and I'm following the handling of protesters at the RNC to determine how quickly I can expect it to worsen), my own professional aspirations as a Professional Writer will require living someplace freer.
• When Bush calls martial law to nullify the democracy he is sworn to uphold, I shall join the inevitable millions in the march to Washinton to unseat him. He enjoys his position at our pleasure, and he dare not forget that. I hope to find you in the march, wendell, if that happens, because to remain quiet then will be cowardice of the worst sort. Now, while Bush displays dictatorial tendencies, he and the people he surrounds himselv with are far too inept to pull it off, I think. On the other hand, if he does win the election with a clear majority, then for those of us opposed to his policies the road ahead will be twice as thorny. In that situation I shall not have contemot for you for fleeing, wendell, though I shall of course not support your decision.
• Rather than leave, I will raise hell (legally, or at least non-destructively/non-violently, since who knows what can get one arrested today...) as loudly as I can. I will do everything I can to make sure that everyone knows that I think the system is broken and that we can fix it.
• Bush won't nullify the election for two reasons: 1) He believes in democracy. In theory. I think. 2) He would need the support of the military.
• I think I may leave the country if Bush gets elected too. I don't think I could stand the griping...
• Any time a campaign decides to play these manifestly dirty tricks, the country as a whole suffers. Fuyugare, dirty politics is when you lie for political gain. There's nothing dirty about pointing out George Bush's drunk driving conviction, or Cheney's double-shot of DWIs, for that matter. It's a matter of undisputed public record. If you think it's "dirty" because it's not an elevated NPR-like discussion of the issues, well, that was my point: Democrats think that way, and that's why they're probably going to lose. Undecided voters have different criteria for voting than you do. They figure all politicians are alike, and it doesn't really matter who gets elected. They will vote based on factors you find yourself too above-the-fray to mention: military service, drug use, drunk driving, etc. Some -- I'd say most -- of these voters don't know Bush was convicted of drunk driving. Why? Because the Democrats haven't told them he was. We should talk about the issues, because we're stronger on the issues, but we shouldn't abandon those who don't care about the issues and make their choices differently. If the Democrats listen to people like you, they will abandon these voters and lose their votes. It's as simple as that. There's a large chunk of the Democratic party which finds this a perfectly acceptable circumstance. They would rather lose than fight as hard as the Republicans will. On November 2nd, they'll watch the election returns and frown. "Well, I tried to tell people to vote for Kerry," they'll sigh. "But they didn't listen." They listened, all right. To the Republicans. Because the Democrats were too timid to speak up, even when their opponent was a drunk driver.
• kamus -- I was born in the U.S. and I moved away about a year after Bush took office. Frankly, he and his supporters disgusted me to the point that I could no longer accept the life that was available for me in the Bush U.S. And, I'm no stereotypical 'liberal', but a rather conservative retired cop. I don't think of Bush Republicans as conservatives at all: I think they're bigoted, reactionary fundamentalists who worship their gods and their dollars with frightening zeal, and are far more dangerous to the world than any amount of Islamic terrorists. It's funny, but until you move from the U.S. and actually live in a society that values diversity and tries to foster dialogue between groups with mutual dislike, you don't notice that your homeland could be doing so much better. My son is gay, and he is getting married to his partner here soon. In Missouri, where we're from, I doubt we'll see same-sex marriages legalized in my lifetime. My son could not even get domestic partner benefits or acquire the many rights of a husband/boyfriend that heterosexuals can assume so easily. Now Bush and friends are not just pushing for a Constitutional amendment to forever ban same-sex marriage, they're also pushing to ban same-sex union legitimacy, which shows they're not solely appealing to religious objectore, but are really sending notice to all bigots that they, too, are homophobic in the extreme. We tried to fight for good sense for a long time, but we ended up moving to Canada (where my wife is from), finally, after receiving death threats when we tried to start a PFLAG group in our town. Imagine the mentality of a person who sends death threats to a police chief over something like that. Debate just isn't possible, and, when considering quality of life, we decided to emigrate. I wish I'd done it 25 years ago. Add to the homophobia a racist, xenophobic worldview, military arrogance and the christian fundamentalism, and you have most of the reason I left. My kids are all a lot happier, my wife is ecstatic, and my previously dangerous heart condition (related to stress) is no more than a minor blip.
• If Bush wins, and I have a very dark feeling that he is going to, you can damn well bet that there will be some degree of chaos in the streets. And it is a guarantee that there will be many Americans who will not tolerate the bullshit any longer and will go to Canada. fuyugare, Bush does not hold his position at our pleasure. He did not have the majority, yet look where he sits. Nor will he be unseated. Again, he does have supporters and they are a passionate group. Right or wrong, they are LOUD and very strong. While your naivete is reminiscent of ones younger years, age brings wisdom (hopefully) and with that comes the understanding of certain inevitabilities. Change takes time and some people are no longer willing to put any more time into this. Canada starts to look like a viable option. I would say that your sensibilities have not been offended enough for you to make a major change in your life such as moving to another country. But do not judge those who have been offended and outraged to such a degree that they would make the move. You can bet this is a decision that is not lightly made.
• Wow! coppermac. I am so proud to be a part of a community that includes someone like you. (
• Fine, stimulatedcaplets and Darshon, and not entirely undeserved criticism of my positions. Let me attempt a defense. About making drunk driving convictions into a campaign issue -- I think it will backfire on the Democrats. This is too reminiscent of the blowjob scandal still fresh in our memories. I don't think a drunk driving citation necessarily disqualifies one from being president, especially when the candidate has publicly claimed to have given up drinking long ago. Undecided voters (remember, these are people who have so far not discovered a reason to vote against Bush) will think that the dems are sliming Bush because they have nothing else to run on. Furthermore, I don't think you can pander too much to classes of people. If the dems make drunk driving an issue, they will lose former undecideds, now in the Democratic camp, who will see the attack as confirmation of long held suspicions about Demcorats as Bush-haters. A campaign on the issues is not as easily impugned, and promotes honest debate. What is the use campaigning against Bush if you are going to be just as awful on tactics? About cutting losses and running if Bush wins -- as an immigrant fleeing a generally horrid government, I am somewhat familiar with the reasons for leaving (even though I had little control over my situation, since I was an infant). On reflection, perhaps calling such people "cowards" is too strong, as I must then count myself as one. How about I just say that I disapprove greatly, and would prefer they stay and fight. (What is my judgement worth anyway, for people like coppermac? They have lived through and triumphed in situations far worse than I can imagine, and are better people for that if for nothing else. Let them celebrate their choices and ignore what some idiot on a web forum thinks of them.)
• Ah, but that's the beauty of 527s. The Democrats don't have to make drunk driving an issue, just like the Republicans aren't involved with the Swift Boat Vets.
• some idiot on a web forum Well, you might want to hang around for a bit and sniff the wind before you kick the rhetoric engine into hyperdrive. There are all sorts of people hanging around in here.
• Smo -- yes, and no one will believe that the Democrats aren't behind the Drunk Driving Veterans for Truth, just as no one believes that the Republicans aren't behind the SBVFT. Wolof -- hyperdrive? If it wasn't clear, I used "idiot" to refer to myself. Of course it was clear. It was clear, right? I mean, I haven't completely lost the ability to communicate simple ideas, have I? Oh dear!
• Fortunately, fuyugare, most will stay and fight. I will support all of my fellow Americans who make the move, however, and wish them well. And I will hope for their return when the time is right for them. I will keep Canada an option for me and my family just in case.
• I was thinking more along the lines of calling people "shameful cowards". You know, somebody might take offence.
• Yeah, thanks for warning me. I hereby take back "shameful coward" with humble apologies. Unless someone takes offence at this apology, in which case I leave it in place for just them. I hope no one takes offence at this comment. I do hate offending people.
• Thanks, Darshon. What particular community do you and I share? fuyugare -- I did stay and fight, for a while. I only left after it became absolutely obvious that there was really nothing I could do to alter the perceptions of even my small town, and that as a middle-aged man with a heart condition, I couldn't spend all my time fighting or I'd wind up in an early grave. My entire family is much happier now, and when it comes to quality of life issues, we've stepped three rungs up the ladder by emigrating.
• coppermac -- yes, as others have pointed out, my comment was too harsh. In fact, I am in awe of you. I would never step foot in Missouri if I could help it, which is proof enough that I'm all talk. So please ignore or forgive my unthinking comment: I was generalizing too much from my comfortable New England life where I don't lack for support from people I meet daily. I am glad that you found a better situation in Canada, and like Darshon above, I hope you return someday if things improve and your wounds heal. There are better places than Missouri, after all.
• Who else of my NYC monkeys are marching tomorrow? Is there a thread for this already?
• coppermac; the Monkeyfilter community.
• Is there a thread for this already? Don't think so! Why don't you put one up?
• About making drunk driving convictions into a campaign issue -- I think it will backfire on the Democrats. Okay, at least we're getting somewhere now. You think pointing out Bush's DWI isn't inherently bad, it's just a bad tactic that will backfire. I feel that way about attacking Bush's National Guard service. It's impossible to prove a negative, and every time they show a picture of Bush in his National Guard uniform, all undecided voters see is a photo of their president as a young man serving his country. The whole National Guard issue is too murky to lead with. But Bush's DWI is an undisputed moral ugliness that's hard to defend. He didn't just fail a breathalyzer test, he ran off the road into some hedges, according to his arresting officer, Calvin Bridges. After his conviction, his Maine driver's license was revoked for two years -- a punishment not statutorially in line with a first time offense. Bush has a shady history when it comes to booze, drugs, and the law. He's said, "I did some irresponsible things when I was young and irresponsible," but he was 30 years old when he received this DWI. He changed his Driver's License number when he was governor of Texas for reasons that he won't explain. Starting to get curious yet? So will the rest of America, if Democrats actually hold Bush to the same level of scrutiny the Republicans are holding Kerry to right now. If the dems make drunk driving an issue, they will lose former undecideds, now in the Democratic camp, who will see the attack as confirmation of long held suspicions about Demcorats as Bush-haters. Have you seen the poll drop in Kerry's numbers since the Swift Boat ads started running? Negative ads are effective at swaying significant percentages of voters away from your target candidate to you. That's why the Republicans run them. A campaign on the issues is not as easily impugned, and promotes honest debate. Meanwhile, Kerry plummets in the polls. The Democrats need to quit worrying about being impugned and start worrying about getting elected. What is the use campaigning against Bush if you are going to be just as awful on tactics? You're kidding, right? a) Pointing out that Bush has a DWI conviction on his records doesn't begin to approach the awfulness of Team Bush. b) The use is getting Kerry in office, and all that entails for our nation and its citizens. Do I have to make this argument, too? I sort of assumed you knew what we were fighting for here.
• Stim Caps is consistently making sense, and that's worrisome, because he's making a strong case for lowering an ethical standard. But what good are ethical standards if we get four more years of really low ethical standards! fuyugare , I apologise for calling you an illiterate pinhead. Your first posts were filled with spelling and grammatical errors that I took to signify illiteracy when they were most likely a failure to preview, As for the pinhead part, you retracted your "shameless coward" statement and so I retract "pinhead" But I still feel as though I live in a country surrounded and led by them. Though fortunately not here on Monkeyfilter.
• kamus, thanks for your support, but I'm not making the case for lowering our ethical standards. I don't think we should lie, or steal, or blackmail our way into office. I am making the case for campaigning truthfully but aggressively, like winning matters to us. Let's stop leading with our chin and bring the fight to them this time.
• I can't take four more years of bitching. No offense to anyone, I do it too. I just can't.
• Stimcaps -I think I do understand your position but I also feel that in a more perfect world we wouldn't be finding mud to fling at each other. I really don't care what GWB or Kerry used to be, though it is interesting, only if it affects how they lead now. Bringing either issue-Vietnam/DWI does to me show that ethical standards are not as high as they could be. I can forgive Bush for running into a hedge years ago if only he wasn't responsible for a lot of innocent people dying. I wouldn't want anyone to judge me now based on who I was in my twenties. That said, at this point I'm in favour of using it as a campaign issue.
• Ethical standards??? In the U.S.? In our government? Ahh, to dream a little dream.
• stimcaps -- The use is getting Kerry in office, and all that entails for our nation and its citizens. You make good points. You don't need me to tell you that. You should contact the Kerry campaign and the DCCC if you are serious. I think Kerry will win even without this attack. The significant piece of data in opinion polls is the approval rating, and Bush is still in the 40s. No incumbent has ever crawled out of such a low rating. I will continue to object to such ads, both as strategy and tactics, but you are right in reminding us that Bush can win if the Democrats wimp out. They will strain the small loyalty I feel to the Democrats as of now, but as far as 2004 is concerned Kerry has nothing to fear about my vote. kamus -- I retract "pinhead" Hey, I can take what I dish out! I'll wear the pinhead badge with honour.
• Also, I did a bunch of searching, and from what I gather, 1. August is vacation month, and with the RNC soon the Kerry campaign probably didn't want to waste money countering the SBVT attacks. 2. More importantly, the SBVT attacks are nothing new to Kerry. There is a lot of speculation that Kerry wanted to wait and let the swift vets swallow their own words, and so far the vets have not failed to disappoint. 3. I don't think the swift smears are working, or at least they have peaked. Take the LA Times poll which has Bush beating Kerry 47 to 44. On page 6 they state:

  However, whether you saw, heard or read any of the ads, most voters believe that John Kerry fought honourably and does deserve his war medals. Even conservatives and men (not fans of Kerry) believe that Kerry fought honourably. Republicans are divided with 29% unsure.

  You tell me if this bears the hall-mark of a successful ad campaign. The only real dip is that 53% (instead of 58% in June) now agree that "In his combat missions in Vietnam, John Kerry demonstrated qualities America needs in a president." As far as doom and gloom goes, you are right that this hasn't been a good month for Kerry. Luckily Kerry can and should be attacking Bush on all of the following immediately after the convention: ties to Chalabi, WMD intelligence failures, Plame and Khan affairs, 9/11 intelligence failures, the chaos in Iraq, job numbers that are so bad they can't even be called "awful", increased overall taxes for middle class families, Bush's senseless energy policy, Osama bin forgotten, etc, etc. Oh and if there is still time after this barrage, Bush's missing TANG record and DWI convictions.
• Err, not "failed to disappoint". The opposite, in fact. Must preview harder.
• Err. Or something. I am going crazy. You know what I meant.
• All you Democrats need is a catchy song. The rest will surely follow.
• We got a thousand points of light For the homeless man We got a kinder gentler Machine gun hand We got department stores and toilet paper Got styrofoam boxes for the ozone layer Got a man of the people, says keep hope alive Got fuel to burn, got roads to drive Keep on rockin' in the free world.
• fuyugare said: I don't think the swift smears are working, or at least they have peaked. Take the LA Times poll which has Bush beating Kerry 47 to 44. I'd say that LA Times poll proves the Swift smears are working. This is the first time this year the president has polled ahead of Kerry. Take a look at the Iowa Electronic Markets, as well. They've got a history of predicting the popular vote with an average election eve error of 1.37 percent. Kerry's stock has taken a major hit since the Swift boat vet attack ads have aired. I don't think that Kerry's mundane daily condemnations of Bush policy are going to be enough to undo the damage the Swift Boat vets have done and will continue to do until Election Day. The book is selling well, and an anti-Kerry documentary, Stolen Honor, debuts in a couple weeks. He needs to give the scandal hungry media a new focus point, or they'll feed on him until they've stripped his bones clean. There is a lot of speculation that Kerry wanted to wait and let the swift vets swallow their own words I know that similar attacks on Kerry in the past have failed, but this isn't Massachusetts politics anymore. Anyone telling you that Kerry wants these attacks is engaged in spin or wishful thinking. Kerry should've had his political guns aimed at these jokers from the moment he heard about them. The first day they ran their ads, he should've taken them down, discrediting them with strong language and laying bare their motives. As it is, some people still wonder, "Why are these guys against him? They can't all be Republicans." Personally, I think Kerry is reluctant to bring up his Winter Soldier testimony, and is hoping the attacks will die down. Running from your past may have worked for George Bush, but he was never the public figure John Kerry was. If Kerry was smart, he'd embrace his past, and talk about what he's learned from it. I think Kerry's testimony can be tied in to the Abu Ghraib torture photos and make Kerry come off as a stronger leader. But if he lets the Swift boat vets back him into commenting on his testimony, he loses the adavantage. kamus said: I can forgive Bush for running into a hedge years ago if only he wasn't responsible for a lot of innocent people dying. Most liberals would agree with you, but we ought to let the Republicans make that defense. I suspect some of the folks on their side, especially mothers, may not feel as generous. I also think it's relevant to make the analogy that Bush's DWI showed him to be reckless, irresponsible, unconcerned about the damage he could inflict on others -- just like his Iraq war policy and credit card presidency shows him to be today. I sympathize with your wish for a more perfect world, where politics would just be about policy, not people. But we can't cower in the corner. Bullies must be fought. We must hit them as hard as our principles will allow. Nothing good comes easy.
• I'm only hoping that the LA Times poll is at a peak and will drop, assuming that it is indeed representative. California is a Democratic state after all, isn't it? I'm more concerned that if the Bush campaign is pulling something this big as early as August, they may have something even bigger to haul out closer to November. The Swift Boat thing is imploding already and I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans had another plan of attack to give the undecided voters something to ponder in, say, mid-October. I'm tempted to link this particular thread anywhere I can, because the arguments given are so eloquent and (to me) reasonable. I know a few people that have threatened to move to Canada if Bush is re-elected, but they are the same people that said they'd move to Massachusetts to support the civil union advances there, and didn't. So to me the idea of leaving the country is a bit of an empty threat. That's not to say I'm not glad I left the US when I did. It's probably much better for my blood pressure to be a long way from there. :)
• I promise to leave the US after my degree is done. Of course, that might be a bit empty of a promise, since my lack of a visa requires me to :) That said, I also promise to leave the US everytime I can afford to, to visit my mum, and travel to Europe, which is fun.
• This is the first time this year the president has polled ahead of Kerry. Hardly the first time this year, but certainly the first time after Kerry accepted his nomination. Kerry should've had his political guns aimed at these jokers from the moment he heard about them. And give them the only thing they so desperately seek — credibility? I think Kerry handled the swifties fine. If you haven't been impressed by all the Judo moves Kerry has pulled so far, you haven't been paying attention. Also keep in mind that the Republicans control both houses and the media. It isn't exactly easy for Democrats to challenge the Swift Boaties when every talking head and his dog are salivating for a scandal to pin on Kerry. Be happy that this manufactured scandal is at least nothing new to Kerry. ...the damage the Swift Boat vets have done and will continue to do until Election Day. As long as they maintain the 527 charade, they have to stop all ads 60 days before the election by law. Now, whether the law applies to these jokers is another debate. But if he lets the Swift boat vets back him into commenting on his testimony, he loses the adavantage. I really doubt it. Over the last few weeks I've done a lot of reading on exactly what Kerry said then, and his testimony is remarkably consistent and well-argued. If the American people want to slam anyone who speaks against a n unjust war as a traitor, then America deserves Bush. California is a Democratic state after all, isn't it? Yes, but the LA times poll was a national poll, AFAICT. It was also only one of two polls that show Kerry down, a point that seems to be lost here. The other five or six polls released that week show Kerry ahead, though with a tighter lead. Kerry supporters should keep three things in mind: 1) The real attacks on Bush's failed policies haven't begun yet, and Kerry campaign has so far shown itself to be competent. Expect a lot of noise from the Kerry campaign soon. Also expect the Ledeen and Plame stories to explode soon, if not already. 2) Kingmaker Rove has very little to run his campaign on this year, and he isn't all he's cracked up to be. Americans know exactly who Bush is. 3) Opinion polls mean diddly squat. Look at the approval ratings. They are the only useful things in the polls, as someone remarked above.
• Another thing about the polls -- this is the week of the Republican convention. Don't give the SBVets all the credit for the Bush "bounce". Democrats should expect Bush to be consistently ahead in polls coming out of the convention. Right now they are all in the margin of error.
• tensor: Hardly the first time this year, but certainly the first time after Kerry accepted his nomination. "For the first time this year in a Times survey, Bush led Kerry in the presidential race, drawing 49% among registered voters, compared with 46% for the Democrat. In a Times poll just before the Democratic convention last month, Kerry held a 2-percentage-point advantage over Bush." -- LAtimes.com It was also only one of two polls that show Kerry down, a point that seems to be lost here. The other five or six polls released that week show Kerry ahead, though with a tighter lead. Here's the most recent polling data:

  FOX News: Kerry 44, Bush 43, Nader 3 Time: Bush 46, Kerry 44, Nader 5 NBC/WSJ: Bush 47, Kerry 45, Nader 3 Gallup: Bush 48, Kerry 46, Nader 4 LA Times: Bush 47, Kerry 44, Nader 3 Rasmussen: Bush 48, Kerry 45 Zogby: Kerry by 16 electoral votes

  5 out of 7 show Bush ahead, not including the Iowa Electronic Markets which have yet to show Kerry in the lead. These polls were all taken last week, so I think the Republican convention doesn't have much to do with Bush's uptick. The polls are underindicating for Kerry this year. My Democratic caucus turnout was explosive, far beyond expectations. I expect a lot of nonvoters and occasional voters to come out of the woodwork for Kerry this year, and a number of Republicans to stay home. But I could be wrong. And give them the only thing they so desperately seek — credibility? Democrats treat these kind of campaigns as if they are about credibility. They're not. Undecided voters won't go to the effort of determining whose accusations are credible and whose aren't. These are people who believe that Bill Gates really may send them money if they forward an e-mail onto their friends. Over the last few weeks I've done a lot of reading on exactly what Kerry said then, and his testimony is remarkably consistent and well-argued. I agree. Republicans seem to think Kerry's testimony will repel voters, but it's quite eloquent. Which is why I think Kerry should've embraced it early on and short-circuited the Swift Boat Vets drama. The real attacks on Bush's failed policies haven't begun yet This is not a positive. Also expect the Ledeen and Plame stories to explode soon One can only hope.
• So StimCaps- after all your cogent analysis, what's your prediction for the election. I'm gleaning pessimism from your comments. BTW, my comment about leaving the country is no idle boast. I have a British and a US passport so I can live in work in aEurope and I have also made enquiries into New Zealand immigration. I realised that I have been angry nearly every day of the last four years and don't intend allow a 10th of my projected lifespan to be given up to anger at Bush and the GOP
• This has no bearing on recent comments, but:

  TIME: Critics throw out so many charges against the President. Is there any one that you found the most unfair? BUSH: I think they're all very unfair. [Laughter.] I really do. TIME: Do you think these swift-boat ads are unfair to John Kerry? BUSH: Do I think they're unfair? Not really. There have been millions of terrible ads against my husband.

  However, please do continue to call Democrats whiners.
• Most of the time, I'm pretty optimistic, kamus. I still believe it's Kerry's race to lose. I don't think the Democrats have learned how to campaign effectively against the Republicans yet, but Bush may do the work for them. He's just that bad. And if the Plame scandal pops in the next few weeks, Bush is toast. Also, Kerry has the wonderworking power of boredom on his side. The Republicans need to make Kerry a hateable figure in order to succeed, but Kerry is too flavorless and bland a figure to inspire much hate. Kerry has to walk a fine line during the debates, but I believe he can do it. And I think the winner of the debates takes all. So my gut tells me Kerry will win. But like I said, I might be wrong. P.S. There's a good article on the subject by Donna Brazile here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5851875/site/newsweek/
• 1) horse race ~ horse shit 2) a two point lead doesn't mean much... especially considering margins of error, confidence, wackass sampling, sucka MCs, etc. 3) data analysis? those percentages are nearly useless. (remember: electoral college, winner take all, plurality means nothing, blahblahblah) maybe zogby has the right idea. 4) i was going to say something else, but i got sidetracked and now i forget what my main point was. i dunno... kill your television?
• Okay, so I have a question, and this seems to be the best place for it, as it's not FPP worthy: I heard last night on The Majority Report that there is a bill floating around out there that will make/has made taking an unauthorized sign to a political function, such as a Town Hall Presidential speech, a felony. Does anyone know anything at all about this? I've been searching for it, and can't find anything at all.
• No way. even if there was, it would never pass. And even if it did it would be struck down.
• That's what I was thinking, too. My husband has gotten very into this radio station, and it kind of worries me because some of the things they say strike me as being complete b.s., and no matter on which side of the fence you sit, that's just bad.
• agreed. I watched a co-worker go from affable moderate to wingnut right-winger afer about a year of talk-radio. It was really striking. Now when I hear friends or family say they listen to so-and-so everyday I think "hmmmm".
• I have a much-loved relative who's doing the same thing. It's basically the same story - she used to have an open mind, and not hate things like charity, fairness, and oversight and then she started listening to those damn radio programs, and even worse reading and BELIEVING political e-mails. It's totally ruined her. I'd hate to see my husband go the same route, in reverse. It's hard sometimes, though, to know where to stop as a lefty/democrat/liberal/whatever. There's so much going on within our administration that stinks, but very, very little that can be confirmed factually. So, conspiracy theories abound, and people begin to believe all sorts of crazy things. Sigh.
• I'd start by keeping tabs on Congress via their websites. That's "authoritative" in some sense, anyway. At least you can get the official record of what was said on the floor.
• I'll do that. Thank you!